19 Message 19: From exi@panix.com Thu Jul 29 23:07:55 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA10841; Thu, 29 Jul 93 23:07:52 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA05435; Thu, 29 Jul 93 23:07:42 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA04685 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Fri, 30 Jul 1993 02:03:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 02:03:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199307300603.AA04685@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: July 30, 373 P.N.O. [06:03:49 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Fri, 30 Jul 93 Volume 93 : Issue 210 Today's Topics: [1 msgs] AI: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber [2 msgs] AI: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber Revisited [1 msgs] Address change [1 msgs] Confidence measures for Hawthorne Exchange [2 msgs] Cryonics & Pascal's Wager [1 msgs] Egad! [3 msgs] FSF: InfoProp [1 msgs] FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics [2 msgs] Intellectual Property and the personal computer industry [2 msgs] Nootropics [1 msgs] SOC/HUMOR: New Extropian Ritual Developed. [1 msgs] Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber Revisited [1 msgs] TECH: encrypted computer? [2 msgs] Who is signed up for cryonics? [2 msgs] Whoa!! [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 55715 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jul 93 10:36:12 U From: "Kent Hastings" Subject: FSF: InfoProp FSF: InfoProp#000# > This destruction of copyright is bound to have deleterious > effects on the software market, on competition ... The important point is that informational "property" rights are nonsense, and enforcing non-existent "rights" is coercion. When the value, boundary, and control requirements for property exist, free market exchange is consistent with reason and the principles of justice. A radio broadcast frequency has value, in the VHF/UHF bands a TAS (time-area-spectrum) boundary can be defined, and the broadcaster controls the signal and can be held accountable for interference and other damage. "Your 10-million watt microwave signal melted my family!" I control my car, and would be held accountable if a pedestrian was crushed into highway pizza. Do "intellectual property" owners control their "property?" If not, is it relevant? In any case, if persecuting "pirates" for "infringement" is coercive, then the "deleterious effects on the market" don't matter. Consider this "free market murder credits" proposal: We want to reduce the overall murder rate here in L.A., so the L.A.P.D. will issue a license to kill for responsible gang and mafia hit persons. The overall total of murders licensed would be a certain percentage less than the previous year, so the overall murder rate would decline. Some extremists, like their tree-hugging, whale-saving cousins who want "zero emissions", will demand "zero murders." This would completely destroy the market. Why, it would have deleterious effects... the threat of overpopulation will require an irreducible number of murders after the gradual reductions are complete. If you MUST have someone murdered, you would pay the fee to one of the licensees, just like you can get permission from the government issued copyright or patent holder. Overpopulation is prevented, revenues are enhanced, and you can conveniently get rid of people who annoy you. The free market wins again! #000# ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 13:37:00 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Cryonics & Pascal's Wager Nick Szabo says: > Perry Metzger: > > The flaw in Pascal's Wager is this: > > ...there are very high costs associated with > > actually going through with it, and very low odds of there being a > > benefit. > > Know thine enemy. Pascal's assumption is that the payoff of Heaven > is infinite (compared to Hell or oblivion), so that even if the odds > are extremely small, and the costs of being a believer extremely large, > it pays to believe in God. He ignores the fact that there are not just two possibilities in the payoff matrix. What if I believe in the WRONG god? What if Mumbo Jumbo of the Congo was the One True God? > The fact that Christianity isn't the only religion promising eternal > life isn't a major flaw. There are a finite number of religions > giving such a promise. If one is going to go on belief without evidence, and there is no real evidence for any religion, one can note that there are an infinite number of possible gods or pantheons with an infinite number of possible rules that they follow. I suspect that if you could actually derive some reasonable mathematical metrics for possible religious systems and then perform an integration you would come up with the conclusion that it was equally probable that belief in god would help you or harm you. > The flaw is there is another part of the payoff matrix being ignored -- > what happens if being an atheist is what is required to get into Heaven? > Perhaps God is reserving the Reward for those who eschew faith. > The theologist can't demonstrate that the odds of this are any lower > than the odds of the believer-saved scenario, therefore Pascal's > Wager is a wash. Exactly. > Furthermore, in the Fundamentalist belief system, the costs of believing > are extremely small, much smaller than for example the c. $600+ per > year for cryonics. Merely believe and you will be saved -- > period. The costs are far higher than that. If you go Pascal's way and become a celebate priest, it severly impacts your whole lifestyle. Indeed, I'd say that as life extension technologies go, my vegan diet is much more expensive in personal terms than my Cryonics membership. (By the way, a cryonics membership for a student getting a minimal term insurance plan and going for neurosuspension would be a lot less than $600/yr. Likely a half to a third of that. I'm paying full fare AND I'm overfunded to the tune of $100k in insurance money more than I need and *I* am short of $600). Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 13:17:01 EDT From: baumbach@atmel.com (Peter Baumbach) Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? Here's something I've been thinking about: Is it possible to create a computer system based on encryption? Could you have a computer that does not just increase the program counter for each instruction, but instead jumps around forward and back based on a combination of an encrypted program and a public key? Without the public key, the computer would never know what the next instruction was. If you try to watch the execution, to figure out the order, you can't tell if the next address was chosen because it's just next or if it was chosen as the result of a comparison. A new encryption/decryption algorithm would need to be invented so as to securely hide how the next address was chosen. Decryption hardware would have to be created so things run fast enough. There is lots of other things to be worked out, but is it possible? If it is possible, software piracy is given a major blow with such a system. Have any particular program encrypted with a different private key for each customer. Compile the name of the purchaser into the program code, and then tracing illegal copies to the leak is trivial. In case it's not clear above, the whole system is based on encryption. It is not just a matter of the executable being encrypted. I don't want the owner to be able to decrypt the executable and run that, he has to run it encrypted. Peter Baumbach baumbach@atmel.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 13:18:35 EDT From: baumbach@atmel.com (Peter Baumbach) Subject: Intellectual Property and the personal computer industry Ray Cromwell says: > I'll give you anedotal evidence supporting my point right now. > Almost every single piece of cracked software nowadays comes with the > manual. If challenged, I will give you BBS numbers and FSP sites on the > net where you can verify this. Moreover, if you have problems > with the pirated software you can call your local bbs and get adequate > _free_ support. >[...] > Also, pirate groups usually spread updates massively the first > day they are released (along with an attached README file bragging that > they were the first to do it) Pirates pride themselves getting > and distributing "zer0 dayz 0ld warez" If this is true now, then why wouldn't it happen more when everyone has network access, when digital cash is created, when everyone uses encryption, when secure anonymous remailers exist, when net bandwith increases, and when a gig of storage fits on a floppy? >[...] > The one thing that puzzles me greatly is why? For what utilitarian/extropian > reason do you support free software? Instead of me defending the benefits > of intellectual property rights why don't you list all of the glorious > benefits of giving away software for free and how they fit in with the > general principle of this list? Some ideas like the Libertech project > had stated goals, your advocacy just sounds like irrational Gibson-eqse > rambling, "information yearns to be free." > > -Ray Speaking for myself, I don't defend the concept of free software, I just oppose the use of the state to enforce the idea of intellectual property. I list tresspass as something I consider a crime. Hide your secrets. There is nothing wrong with a tit-for-tat approach. I don't want to see an FBI warning everytime I boot my PC, that is all. What would happen without intellectual property laws? Maybe things would look like the food service industry. Software would be like recipes. I don't see a lot of people making money selling one recipe. Sell the product of a recipe however, and you have Coke. If it's obvious how to duplicate the product, then maybe the recipe is not that valuable. If you can't figure out the recipe, then maybe something truly valuable is there. The expert chef still does well, the local deli still makes a living, the cook at McDonalds is lucky to make minnimum wage. Peter Baumbach baumbach@atmel.com HEx: PETER ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 11:03:09 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics > If you want a long answer, read a book on private legal systems, like > Bruce Benson's. > > Perry I don't have time. I'm only able to read this list because I work at a computer all day long, and keep my mail window open. Once I leave work, I have zero time for pleasure reading (although I keep busy with schoolwork). I won't ask you to offer a dissertation, but for those of us who don't have the time, it would be nice to have some reference documents on-line which at least attempt to address the major points of topics like this. Has anyone on the list written an essay on private legal systems? I'm already aware of many of the issues, and my base instinct is that there are many flaws in proposed systems, but I'd like to know more. Alternatively, if there is a specific article in Extropy, I could order a back-issue some day, but that may take me a while. I still haven't gotten around to joining ExI, which I intend to do. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 11:12:26 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber It looks to me as if we can confidently say that _most_ of the list-members would reject Searle's proposals on AI, with respect to the essay in question. So, is there anything left to say on this? Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx (btw: this topic has been a good indicator of the lack of activity or interest in HEx. An AI reputation has been sitting out there with no activity. Given that the list has been talking about Searle, robots, and software, all with respect to AI at least in part, you'd think the reputation would have had some activity. Nope.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 13:26:47 CDT From: UC482529@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Subject: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 12:21:17 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Egad! Just took a look at "alt.soc.anarchy"... I take back any complaints I might ever have had about the level of discussion on this mailing list! dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 13:17:29 MDT From: Greg_Hundley@Novell.COM (Hundley, Greg) Subject: Whoa!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 15:33:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Breton Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? > > If it is possible, software piracy is given a major blow with such a system. > Have any particular program encrypted with a different private key for > each customer. Compile the name of the purchaser into the program code, > and then tracing illegal copies to the leak is trivial. > There seem to be some problems with the above scheme: 1) Suppose I buy a legal copy of some software and give it to a friend, along with the information he needs to run it. To prove piracy, someone would have to check the files on his/her hard disk. Surely this is an invasion of privacy no cypherpunk would tolerate. 2) Suppose that somehow a pirated copy of the software was discovered, and traced back to me. This still does not provide any kind of case against me, since it is not clear whether or not I gave the information away (it could have been stolen off my hard drive while at a repair shop, or by a house guest, or...). To argue otherwise implies making the software owners liable if the software sold to them is pirated. Of course, these are legal, not technical objections to your scheme. Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Breton pbreton@cs.umb.edu PGP key by finger ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 14:44:56 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber Revisited In <9307290942.aa28720@genie.genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes: |> >From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) |> >Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber [...] |> False. Go read "Minds, Brains, and Science," and then get back to me. He |> argues that consciousness is an emergent property, a process, of the brain. Fine. We agree, then. What's the problem? Does he argue that brains are somehow "special" and that a simulation of a brain, or an artificial system of comparable complexity, can't be conscious? I don't think so. I think the gedanken experiment only criticizes "purely symbolic" AI systems, which is fine, but does not exhaust AI, as I said. [...] |> > |> >I have read a lot of Searle critics who understand him perfectly. I |> >read the whole Chinese room thread on comp.ai a few years back |> >(agony!). |> |> I've yet to read any on this list that seem to understand him very well at |> all, much less "perfectly." I said on comp.ai, Tim. Did you think this was comp.ai? Where does the requirement to understand and refute Searle on Extropians come from? In fact, topics like this caused the comp.ai split, and are still raving on on comp.ai.philosophy. |> >There, he said it. There are two perfectly good refutations of the |> >Chinese Room gedankenexperiment -- 1, it isn't good enought to pass a |> >Turing Test _anyway_, and 2, it doesn't exhaust the possibilities of |> >_systems_ which include symbolic language processing. |> |> These refutations are no good at all. The first one begs the question of |> how passing a Turing test can make something a mind, and the second one begs |> the question of how a symbolic language processing system can be a mind. So you claim that there could be conscious AIs that could not pass the TT? I didn't say (equiv (passes-tt AI-system) (has-mind AI-system)) but I do conjecture that (implies (has-mind AI-system) (passes-tt AI-system)), if "has-mind" has any meaning at all (I'll get to that). Your second statement doesn't pass my parser. No one claimed that "a symbolic language processing system can be a mind" (or its negation) that I'm aware of. I don't know whether symbolic methods (e.g., LISP or Prolog programs) can implement a mind at this point. It's unproven, and the only evidence I will accept is a working example. Since I don't believe there is any mystical thing called a "mind" that is separate from a human being, and since I believe that all processes can in principle be simulated (possibly requiring a system or program of greater complexity than the original), I suspect that a hybrid system using parallel components of nervous-system-like complexity for sensors, controlled by a hierarchy of planning and symbolizing agents, can demonstrate a human level of competence at any reasonable human task you care to name. I hope it happens soon so that Searle and Dreyfus and their ilk can have some intelligent help with their writing. It won't, of course, because the problem is _hard_. However, people who divert attention from science by dithering about whether AIs can "have minds" or "be conscious" are not, to my way of thinking, doing real work. To quote the comp.ai FAQ: Every so often, somebody posts an inflammatory message, such as Will computers every really think? AI hasn't done anything worthwhile. These "religious" issues serve no real purpose other than to waste bandwidth. If you feel the urge to respond to such a post, please do so through a private e-mail message, or post redirecting follow-ups to comp.ai.philosophy. |> >There are similar problems with Dreyfus's and Penrose's arguments |> |> Haven't read them. Then don't tell us to re-read Searle. I don't think he argues any better than these others, and reading them wastes time. |> Please, don't anyone get me wrong. I'm not arguing against either the |> possibility or desirability of machines that can process symbolic language |> well enough to pass Turing tests. I'm questioning the underlying philosophy |> (mechanistic) of mind. I have no doubt that such machines are possible and |> desirable. I have doubts than they will have minds. You said before that Searle accepts a mechanistic view of mind as a process carried on by brains (I prefer to say nervous systems to keep from forgetting the hard problems of perception and actuation, i.e., robotics). You have not given any proof that this is not the case. In what sense are you criticizing the philosophy of mind? What does "having a mind" _mean_ to you, anyway? If you can't give a testable definition, we can't very well reach any conclusions about what kinds of artificial systems may or may not "have minds". My favorite answer to this is, we build one and ask him. "Excuse me, do you have a mind?" ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here Here's two quotes from the current thread on comp.ai.philosophy: Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) Subject: Re: _Minds,Brain&Computers_ Organization: MIT Media Laboratory Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:31:26 GMT In article <38874@castle.ed.ac.uk> jeff@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: >In article <1993Jul19.141405.20600@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes: >--Am I missing something? Is Searle making a stronger point than I >-imagine? >- >-No. So far as I know he is assuming that "understanding" is a >-property that is (i) all-or-none and (ii) is (implicitly) defined to >-be primitive -- that is, to not be composed of other parts. >-Therefore, no System can have such a property unless one of its parts >-has it. > >Searle thinks brains can do the trick, but not because neurons can. >So he doesn't always assume understanding is primitive, and whether >he's assuming it in this case is at least questionable. Does he give a reason? After months of observing this discussion, it sure sounds like he has no "reducible" argument; consequently, I must assume that he has a primitive reason. In other words, that he assumes that brains have some sort of 'vital spirit". ----------- and, "My position isn't really accurately described by "machines can have minds". My position (held tenatively as a working hypothesis only) is that minds are a particular kind of computational process. (I just thought of a lovely way of expressing just exactly what characterizes this kind of computational process, but the margin of this posting is too small to include it here... :-)" -- Wayne Throop throop@aur.alcatel.com And, finally, from elsewhere: "The question of whether computers can think is no more interesting than the question of whether submarines can swim." -- E. Dijkstra ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 15:11:34 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics In <9307291803.AA33492@frc060>, Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~ writes: |> > If you want a long answer, read a book on private legal systems, like |> > Bruce Benson's. |> > |> > Perry |> |> I don't have time. Warning: "There's a lot of homework in this college". We recommend you sleep less and read more ;-) I'm only able to read this list because I work at a |> computer all day long, and keep my mail window open. Once I leave work, I |> have zero time for pleasure reading (although I keep busy with schoolwork). |> I won't ask you to offer a dissertation, but for those of us who don't have |> the time, it would be nice to have some reference documents on-line which |> at least attempt to address the major points of topics like this. Has anyone |> on the list written an essay on private legal systems? I'm already aware |> of many of the issues, and my base instinct is that there are many flaws |> in proposed systems, but I'd like to know more. Alternatively, if there is |> a specific article in Extropy, I could order a back-issue some day, but |> that may take me a while. I still haven't gotten around to joining ExI, |> which I intend to do. It's a big subject, and Benson's book is dense, although wonderfully lucid. There were some essays on the subject over a year ago on the list, and at least one Extropy article. If no one else cites chapter and verse, I'll try to do it next time I'm writing from home where my back issues live. I might be willing to write an extended precis/appreciation of EoL when I start reading it again. It would be suitable for exi-essay. ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 15:16:16 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Nootropics There were mentions recently of Co-Q10 being useful against gingivitis, along with its other benefits. Would those who mentioned this please tell me what dosages you are using? I picked up Co-Q10 and DMAE yesterday. I am ramping up to 90mg/day (or more) of Q10 in divided doses before I introduce the DMAE. -- Bleeds with Floss ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 12:03:50 PDT From: lovejoy@alc.com Subject: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber Revisited re: Tim Starr's comments on my essay: > >From: lovejoy@alc.com > >Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber > > > >This has already been considered and answered: this argument confuses > >the little man behind the curtain (a cog in the machine, or the machine > >itself) with the effects produced by the operation of the machine. > > This answer confuses mind with machine. How so? The answer was intended to differentiate mind (an effect of system operation) from machine. It in no way suggested these were the same. > >The humain brain--as a collection of neurons--is not conscious any more > >than a human hand is. > > Granted. Brains aren't conscious, minds are. Exactly my point! The man in the Chinese Room is not analogous to a mind, so of course he does not experience whatever mind may be produced by the operation of the Chinese Room. > >Not a single neuron in a human brain understands a single word any > >human ever speaks or hears. > > Granted once again. Neurons aren't conscious either, minds are. See above. > >It is the effect of > >the-execution-of-the-Tim-Star-program-by-a-brainlike-neural-network-computer > >that has the property of being conscious. The brain itself is just > >unconscious hardware. > >Easier claimed than shown. > >Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! But you yourself argue that it is the mind that is conscious, not the brain! Have you changed your mind (no pun intended!), or do you expect me to prove that which you yourself assert? Searle's argument is basically that the Chinese Room is a machine, not a mind. But the humain brain is also just a machine, and not a mind. Searle has not shown any fundamental **DIFFERENCE** between the two cases! --alan (lovejoy@alc.com) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 16:33:15 -0400 From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) Subject: Egad! From: dkrieger@synopsys.com (Dave Krieger) > Just took a look at "alt.soc.anarchy"... I take back any complaints I might > ever have had about the level of discussion on this mailing list! > dV/dt Most posts there are x-posts that are not even relevant. Try "alt.politics.libertarian" or "alt.philosophy.objectivism". -sjm --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean J. Merritt | Dept of Physics Boston University| "You leave me dry." merritt@macro.bu.edu | P.J. Harvey ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 15:43:07 CDT From: UC482529@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Subject: SOC/HUMOR: New Extropian Ritual Developed. In a stunning example of spontaneous order, a new Extropian ritual emerged yesterday evening. An informal "Midwest Extropian Dinner", attended by local Extropians and fellow travellers (myself, Laura Coker-Garcia, Chris Weeks, Paul Hammann, John Kelsey, and Robbin Stewart) was held at a local Chinese restaurant, followed by a visit to TCBY where I was moved to purchase a box of self-relighting birthday cake candles. Components: A starry evening. A box of self-relighting cake candles. To Perform: Place 5 self-relighting candles in a pentagram on the ground. Light them. Identify each candle as representing one of the five Extropian Principles. Extinguish them, and then watch as they spring back to life, symbolic of the revival of cryonicists. Stand in the middle of them. Crouch down on haunches, reminiscent of our primate ancestors. Jump upwards, throwing the arms wide and the head back, looking upwards at the stars, whilst shouting "Upwards!", etc. Repeat until frenzied/ecstatic/sufficiently amused. Follow up with the burning of FRNs and marking of dollar signs on foreheads. -Anthony Comment heard at restaurant after discussion of cryptograpy: "Alright, who's paying for dinner?" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 14:17:35 -0700 From: gdale@apple.com (Geoff Dale) Subject: Address change My e-mail address is changing to: plaz@netcom.com Could you move my Exi-Bay subscription over to that address? I would also like to change over to the main list (new software) from summary. Thanx _________________________________________________________________________ Geoff Dale -- insert standard disclaimers here -- gdale@apple.com -- How am I posting? -- To comment on this Apple Employee's posting etiquette call 1-800-767-4323 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 14:35:06 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Confidence measures for Hawthorne Exchange This is a request for information from those more knowledgeable about stock-market-type processes than I: I have recently adopted a metric for comparing HEx stocks, defined by multiplying the current quote by the fraction of shares outstanding: (outstanding shares of X) W(X) = (price per share of X) * ------------------------- (total shares of X) Since (price per share) * (outstanding shares) = market value, this becomes (total market value of X) W(X) = ------------------------- (total shares of X) I'm using the fraction outstanding as a sort of confidence measure/correction factor for the per-share price for stocks with small fractions of their issues outstanding. I jumped to this conclusion after noting that the stocks with very small fractions ( < .0001) of their shares in circulation tended to be priced far higher than the rest of the market -- their respective issuers were asking prices which the market wasn't paying. I assume this is the rationale behind the new exchange rules which Rowan has announced. My questions are two: 1) Have I reinvented the wheel? Is this some standard rule of thumb which I just haven't previously heard of before? 2) Is there any reason why this rule of thumb should be considered bogus? Is there some reductio ad absurdum you can think of that shows it to be completely off-base or irrelevant? dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 22:16:57 GMT From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) Subject: Who is signed up for cryonics? From: "Perry E. Metzger" >X91007@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au says: >> Perry sez: >> >> >You aren't in the wrong country. You can sign up with Alcor in any >> >country -- all it does is add some expenses that you can pay for with >> >> I live in Melbourne, Australia. While I am quite happy to accept that I >> can join Alcor I am not convinced that they will be able to get to my body >> before a significant amount of degredation has occured. >That is entirely possible. Folks in the U.K. have it better because >there Alcor has actual facilities and trained volunteers. If you die >in a non-sudden manner, however, you should be fine -- Alcor will fly >people out to do your suspension who will be on site when you die. >Most people die with substantial warning in hospital beds, you know. I thought I'd point out that there are trained Alcor volunteers over in Australia. Robert Cardwell recently posted on the Australian Status (on CryoNet): --------------------------excerpted article follows--------------------------- From: Robert Cardwell [...previous enquirer's name etc elided...] {...} The Cryonics Association of Australia, of which I recently became president, has an Alcor transport kit and its members hold regular training sessions. At present we are prepared to do cardiopulmonary support, medication and external (ice bath) cool-down. I am visiting Alcor central right now and when I get back to Australia we will be equipped and able to perform the additional step of an open circuit blood washout. That step would buy time (24-48 hours) to get a patient to Alcor central for cryo- protective perfusion and cooldown to solid state. Further improvements in capability are "in the pipeline". [...] After June 9, I can be contacted at my usual e-mail address in Australia at rc@pos.apana.org.au. ----------------------end of excerpted article-------------------------------- Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 14:34:58 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: Egad! >Try "alt.politics.libertarian" or "alt.philosophy.objectivism". alt.philosophy,objectivism--isn't that where they've been arguing that either quantum mechanics or non-Euclidean geometry is some sort of plot? I don't think that Dave is liable to find it much of an improvement. The discussions don't seem to be of a vastly higher order, and people demonstrably have worse (read "no") senses of humor. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 15:32:07 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: Intellectual Property and the personal computer industry > I'll give you anedotal evidence supporting my point right now. >Almost every single piece of cracked software nowadays comes with the >manual. If challenged, I will give you BBS numbers and FSP sites on the >net where you can verify this. Moreover, if you have problems >with the pirated software you can call your local bbs and get adequate >_free_ support. Go ahead. Make my day. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 19:10:06 -0400 From: pavel@PARK.BU.EDU (Paul Cisek) Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber Oh Jay, what have you done?!? Don't you know that mentioning Searle among AI buffs is an invitation to hell? Having been 'forced' to read everyone's opinion on Searle's Chinese Room (or rather, having been unable to ignore them ;) let me put in my two cents: Searle is trying to say something about consciousness. To do this he uses a simple thought experiment, some definitions, and reason. He then constructs his argument based upon these. Some agree, some disagree, and the point is argued through the years. But what are we really arguing about - "Consciousness", or our definition of it? In the quest for understanding, people find it necessary to devise a taxonomy of objects and concepts. Giving something a name creates the comforting illusion of understanding it. Then we use these definitions to construct logical arguments and try to apply their conclusions back to the phenomena that we started with. Often this leads to a fiasco - such is the case with consciousness. This issue did not start with Searle, it's Descartes' mind-body duality, and Plato's worlds of phenomena and noumena over and over again. This dilemma has plagued science for thousands of years, it arises from a very old worldview that was largely shaped by superstition and lack of knowledge. Modern science is finally learning about systems and processes that resynthesize what pure reason has split apart... Most theories of consciousness are as irrelevant as Searle's, they are based solely upon premises derived from introspective data and pure logic, a recipe for absurdity. These discussions consist of endless redefinitions of catchy terms, cleverly arranged to show the other person wrong, but they are no more than intellectual muscle-flexing. I don't care if Searle's system of semantics is self-consistent or not - it doesn't apply to anything but itself. If we could only admit to ourselves, just for a moment, that we know nothing about "consciousness", we could discard our misleading taxonomy and go on. We could devote our energies to studying the systems where it emerges, instead of analysing endless "what if" scenarios... Paul ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 23:39:10 GMT From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Subject: Who is signed up for cryonics? special Extropian invitation to the MID-SUMMER UK CRYO-FEAST !!!! Everyone's invited to the Alcor UK mid-summer barbecue at the residence of Andrew Clifford (the Alcor UK president) and Patricia Cross at 11:00am BST 1-August-1993. Come along and meet a cross-section of the UK's most gifted and modest individuals :-). Discussion, as always, will range over the full ambit of extropian topics (and far beyond, to judge by past experience). Directions: Directions to ARCADIA, 5 Church Road South Ascot, Berkshire, England, UK Rail: (Reading) Train from Waterloo to Ascot. Go down through the tunnel sign-posted "South Ascot", follow road (past Citroen dealer) take 3rd right-hand turning which is Church Road. Road: From M25 take A30 (heading south-west). Just past the Sunningdale railway crossing take the A330 (signposted on the right) to South Ascot. After the "South Ascot" village sign take first left (Victoria Road) and then first right is Church Road (no 5 is on the right). Phone (for those who get hopelessly lost!): 0344-27736 Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk Alcor UK treasurer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 16:32:43 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Confidence measures for Hawthorne Exchange Dave, I am no market expert - I've read plenty of books and such, but mostly of a tutorial type, not really academic or hard-core theory. Anyway, there is much value in your formula in a real market, because there are balance sheets and so forth by which you can deduce exactly how much profit per share is made and so forth, by using total profit and outstanding shares and all. You can then play with PE ratios and such to judge whether a stock is under or overvalued. There are some different philosophies on how to interpret all this (I believe a PE of 10:1 is often considered average?) Anyway, I don't think any of this has as much value with HEx, because the reputations don't come with an accompanying balance sheet. There is no way to judge the total value of a reputation. Really, I think that the number of total shares vs. the number of outstanding shares has little significance on HEx because of this. Thus, the already-provided total value of a given reputation, based on last price and shares outstanding, is about the best way you can possibly compare reputations. Actually, I'm not at all sure you can _compare_ reputation values at all! I've been thinking about this, and I don't really think it matters whether a given reputation is selling at 10p or .10p. What seems to matter more is the movement of each reputation's price. This is actually very much true in the real markets, as well. Two companies can be of similar size and revenues, and yet one might be sold at $10 a share, and the other at $100. It seems to me that only the initial offering price of a given reputation matters. I recently offered mine up at .10p, which someone then bought 3000 shares of. Now, does that mean that my reputation is only 1/100th that of someone who sells their reputations at $10? I guess it could be argued that this is exactly what that means, but that means I'd have to work a hundred times harder to get the "same" reputation, and I don't know if that is humanly possible :-) Instead, I expect my .10 reputation would remain a "penny stock", and hopefully get a bit higher, but always remain fairly low. Splits, in my opinion, don't have that much of an effect unless all or most of your shares are outstanding. Look at it this way. You have 1000 Thornes to spend. If I issue a reputation with 100,000 shares selling or 10,000, and ask $1, you might buy 1000 shares, and you probably won't care if there's 10K or 100K total outstanding shares. If other people are also willing to buy at $1, that is all that matters. MAJOR FLAW IN HEx: I haven't studied the new rules (official yet?), but this thing just doesn't work unless people start buying shares! Most of my holdings are with reputations in which I am the _only_ investor, and my own reputation only has one investor. Now, for the "legacy" members of the list, there are some exceptions, but for the most part, this number is very small. Hey, if the price is low enough, investors should want to buy into almost anything with any kind of good outlook. Instead, it looks like only 10% of the cash out there is invested, if even that. It seems that the problem is that there is little to no "normal" investing going on. I can only guess that most all the transactions must be part of negotiated deals, which has nothing to do with reputations at all. Do you think we could convince Brian to put together some statistics for us? Hell, if he wants to send me the transaction logs, I'd be happy to write an awk or perl script or two to give some sort of statistics. Then we'd at least know for sure more about how the exchange is being used (without disclosing specifics, of course)... -- Tony Hamilton | -Intel Corporation | voice: 916-356-3070 --Folsom Engineering Services | mailstop: FM2-55 ---Engineering Resource Group | email: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com ----Software Technician | ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #210 ********************************* &