22 Message 22: From exi@panix.com Fri Jul 30 11:49:02 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA03695; Fri, 30 Jul 93 11:49:00 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 AA29741; Fri, 30 Jul 93 11:48:39 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA28370 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Fri, 30 Jul 1993 14:42:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 14:42:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199307301842.AA28370@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: July 30, 373 P.N.O. [18:42:09 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: CHAT: Egad! [1 msgs] Egad! [10 msgs] Egad! [1 msgs] Info: Baclace, Paul (Looking for) [2 msgs] Meta: New Software - Who Is on it. [1 msgs] My last word on Searle [1 msgs] Oh, BTW, folks... [1 msgs] Replies to Searle's Extropian Critics [3 msgs] Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber Revisited [1 msgs] TECH: encrypted computer? [3 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51500 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 09:53:11 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Egad! In <9307301331.AA17031@macro.bu.edu>, Sean Merritt writes: |> From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) |> |> > alt.philosophy,objectivism--isn't that where they've been arguing that |> > either quantum mechanics or non-Euclidean geometry is some sort of plot? |> |> Exactly. BTW objectivist(some at least) don't seem to accept QM. I "couldn't imagine how this could be so", so I did a quick dip: From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Meaning of math in physics Date: 25 Jul 1993 17:12:11 GMT Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept. In article tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) writes: >In article <22rq78INNo3p@snoopy.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes: >|> In article tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) writes: [ So long as people like Binswanger and Peikoff are running around saying things like "non-Euclidian geometry is one of the greatest disasters of modern mathematics" and "energy ] >|> >is the capacity to do work, matter is the quantity of stuff, >|> >therefore E = mc^2 is wrong," no one is going to take objectivism, in any >|> >|> Did they really *say* this!!!!!!????? >Peikoff made the comment about E = mc^2 at the 1987 Jefferson School. Either >he or Binswanger also said something to the effect of: "Matter >is that which exists, therefore anti-matter is an invalid >concept, as it would be the positive existence of non-existence." [incredulity expressed about the magnitude of misunderstanding ...] >In the case of the remark about E = mc^2, Peikoff did >say something to the effect that the equation may be "numerically >true" but was "philosophically false." Would someone please point out to me just what in the living hell THAT is supposed to mean??? ----------end usenet quote--------------- Well, there you have it, folks. If QM, modern particle theory, or the photoelectric effect offend thee, pluck it out. Obviously, this doesn't imply that all objectivists have their heads up their butts ... but it does discredit Peikoff and Binswanger. ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 8:09:06 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Egad! Craig Sez: > Well, there you have it, folks. If QM, modern particle theory, or > the photoelectric effect offend thee, pluck it out. > > Obviously, this doesn't imply that all objectivists have their heads > up their butts ... but it does discredit Peikoff and Binswanger. Indeed, I consider myself an objectivist, and I don't believe half of the hogwash I see on those lists and newsgroups. Its why I don't look at them any more. The "philosophy" many of them are following seems to be something of a superset of basic objectivist principles (which, much like extropian principles, aren't necessarily mutually inclusive. Depends on what you take from it). Some are Randroids, others call themselves "mainstream" objectivists - whatever. The only problem is that some of the fanatics give the rest of us a bad reputation. But that can be true of any philosophy. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 10:10:23 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber Revisited [Tim's long multi-message response deleted] I should point out that Tim concatenated my comments to Perry's, thus putting my words in Perry's mouth (PM would say they tasted OK in this case [<-- self-referential joke]). I decided not to respond in detail, since Tim* admits that he doesn't need: -- falsifiability as a criterion of truth -- a definition of "mind" that makes sense and because arguments with open premises like this are endless. In fact, they are still re-hashing the Chinese Room and the Humongous Look-Up Table (CR and HLT) on comp.ai.philosophy. Don't leave c.ai.phil subscribed in your .newsrc when you go off for suspension, you'll have a nasty shock upon revival (actually, the argument will be carried on mostly by AIs by then). It's too bad Searle isn't there to defend himself, maybe the argument wouldn't repeat quite so much. ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 11:23:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Info: Baclace, Paul (Looking for) I am looking for a e-mail address or voice (day|evening) phone number for Paul Baclace. I am looking to speak to him in regards to his paper, Competivtive agents for information filter, published in the Dec 1992 Comm of ACM. (Vol35, No.12 Pg 50) Thanks, /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 EXTROPY -- A measure of intelligence, information, energy, vitality, experience, diversity, opportunity, and growth. EXTROPIANISM -- The philosophy that seeks to increase extropy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 11:30:04 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Replies to Searle's Extropian Critics starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu () writes: > >All physical laws are causal and well-stated. > > Meaning? Meaning a computer can simulate them. [see below] > >Any mathematical > >statement can be transformed into a computer program and simulated. > > I take it, then, that you treat "mathematical statements" as synonyms for > physical laws? Physical laws are mathematical statements. > > The only ways to avoid my argument are to claim that there are some > >physical laws that we will never discover or that the brain is the most > >compact (non-compressible) form of intelligence (anything that can > >simulate the brain would be just as slow/complex), or that the mind > >is not governed by physical laws at all (ghost in the machine). > > Another way out is to simply not accept the assumption that mechanics > exhaust the category of physical laws. Thus, the mind could be consistent > with physical laws without being mechanical. I don't see how this would > entail the impossibility of discovering these laws. First, let's get some definitions straight so we can communicate on the same level. A scientific law, according to Webster is "a rule, principle, or formula stating something always works the same way under the same conditions" and "the observed regularity of nature." Mechanical means "relating to a process that involves a purely physical change" and "the branch of science dealing with forces and energies applied to bodies." Now that we've gotten that straight, let's move on. > Since I've been accused of employing a bad argument along the lines of > "I can't imagine it, therefore it's impossible," you ought to realize that > this excludes anyone who denies the possibility of non-mechanical physical > laws that are discoverable. I, for one, can imagine at least three > kinds of physical laws: mechanical, biological, and mental. I don't see > why there must be only one kind. They are all one and the same. To see why, let's consider just what it means to "discover" a physical law in science. When a scientist discovers a new physical law he generally defines an equation which quantitatively relates one group of physical variables to another, such as pV=nRT. (pressure times volume = number of moles times universal gas constant times temperature [otherwise known as the 'ideal gas law']). Once a physical law has been "discovered" it is thus simulable. If I wanted to find out what pressure a container of a certain volume and temperature had I could figure it out by computing ("simulating") a formula and the result would match experiment. Some people might be tempted to say, "but what about quantum mechanics? It's non-deterministic!" It doesn't matter. Quantum scientists routinely "compute" experimental setups and the empirical data matches to an astounding degree of accuracy (it puts the ideal gas law to shame) While the governing laws only deal with probabilistic quantities, the mechanical computations so closely match experiment that for all intents and purposes the experiment need not be performed. (it is worth noting the title of the fields. Quantum *mechanics*, Classical *mechanics*, etc) Biology is grounded firmly in chemistry, and chemistry can be completely derived from quantum mechanics, thus biology is mechanical. A cell is a machine, a virus is a machine, and a neuron is a machine. (you may argue that biology is not derived from chemistry, but I'd challenge you to provide a shred of evidence that it is not.) So all that we have left is 'mental laws'. Either the "mental process" (and by calling it a "process" we subject it to computational simulation) is governed by brain chemistry/physical law or it is not. If it is not, we are left with a ghost in the machine, the super natural. If it is, we may one day discover this physical law, and once that happens we can simulate it simply by computing equations on a computer. I suppose one could argue that there is a difference between two atoms reacting in the brain _in reality_, and a computer simulating two atoms reacting together. The paper I archived dealt with this in depth but I can summarize my thoughts here: Let us say that when two atoms react there is a result. When a scientist measures this result he only sees part of it, the symbolical "measurement" but he misses a more subtle result, a fundamental conciousness is propagated (the Carol Moore hypothesis, please Carol, do not enter this thread) Thus, by perfectly simulating the physics of brain chemistry, the scientist achieves the numerical (i.e. he correctly predicts the movement and placement of each atom in the brain) but he does not achieve the "conciousness" that is present because computation is abstract but MATTER is SPECIAL in some way. So the scientist tries the Turing Test on his computer intelligence which models the placement of atoms even down to virtual vocal cords excited by simulated brain chemistry. This experiment fails because the scientist is unaware of that special "conciousness" component to real matter. But there is a contradiction here. If the scientist correctly computes the results of chemical reactions all the way down to the molecular level, and those match up with reality (because quantum chemistry is always right) how could the hidden "conciousness" component exert any action on a physical human body that is different from the virtual one? For instance, if the simulation correctly predicts that a neurotransmitter will travel to the virtual human's leg muscle and contract, how could the "real, non-simulated" human do any different? To claim that it could deviate would be the same as claiming that human bodies aren't made out of real matter that behaves the known physical laws! (for the quantum knowledgable, allow me some slack for suggesting that a computer could ever in practice model a zillion n-body interactions at the quantum level. Also allow me the liberty of looking at a statistically large sample of human/virtual experimental setups. Searle took vastly more liberty in his "table lookup" though experiment. Consider my proposal to mean "theoretically, in practice, if we had the ultimate computer, and googles of time") Finally, to add two more data points. 1) quantum mechanics says, and hundreds of thousands of experiments confirm, that one electron/photon/proton is as good as any other. Particles do not have identities and do not differ in any way from others that have the exact same quantum variables. 2) biological chemistry, as far as we can tell, depends solely on the laws of thermodynamics, and molecular mechanics. Quantum effects proposed by Penrose, Sarfatti, and others, are insignificant compared to thermal noise. ("lost in the noise") This means that the movements of atoms in the brain are government by simple laws that are simulable. Since the movement of atoms in the brain also control the movements of muscles in your body, a "ghost in the machine" couldn't do anything that is contrary to brain chemistry. Summing it all up: if a physical law is discoverable, it is simulable. If it is simulable, it is as good as "the real thing" -Ray -- 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: Fri, 30 Jul 93 10:34:31 CDT From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? Here's another scheme to reduce software piracy, that could be implemented today: The company develops variant versions of the code in a number of different places in the software. Which version is compiled into a copy depends on the customer's credit card number. When you go into a store to buy the software, the dealer enters your credit card number by dial-up to the software house, who assembles a custom version of the code and return that via modem, and also uses the credit card to pay for the software. Hackers will eventually be able to deduce credit card numbers from looking at the code. You tell your customers this, and then they will guard their software like they guard their credit card. Traceability of pirated copies is easier, since each original is unique. Determined pirates will still be able to assemble 'untraceable' versions by splicing together parts of different copies, but that would be beyond the casual copier's means. Dani Eder ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 08:43:19 -0700 From: tribble@netcom.com (E. Dean Tribble) Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? credit card number. When you go into a store to buy the software, the dealer enters your credit card number by dial-up to the software house, who assembles a custom version of the code and return that via modem, and also uses the credit card to pay for the software. This increases the cost of sales incredibly. Software that doesn't have this can be much cheaper, and much easier on the oftware house to sell. Therefore, just about everyone has the incentive to stay away from this system. looking at the code. You tell your customers this, and then they will guard their software like they guard their credit card. Traceability of pirated copies is easier, since each original is unique. Even assuming there isn't a simpler way to defeat all this (which there probably is), you've now added extra risk to software product. I certainly wouldn't buy software with this scheme in it, and there will definitely be other software that fills my needs that doesn't have this. Copy protection is all about economics, and this isn't an economical solution. Good try though. :-) dean ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 08:54:16 -0700 (PDT) From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: Meta: New Software - Who Is on it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 12:20:34 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Egad! Craig Presson () writes: > >Peikoff made the comment about E = mc^2 at the 1987 Jefferson School. Either > >he or Binswanger also said something to the effect of: "Matter > >is that which exists, therefore anti-matter is an invalid > >concept, as it would be the positive existence of non-existence." > [incredulity expressed about the magnitude of misunderstanding ...] > >In the case of the remark about E = mc^2, Peikoff did > >say something to the effect that the equation may be "numerically > >true" but was "philosophically false." Now I see why so many people make fun of Big-O objectivists. I've never encountered an objectivist before who displayed this behavior (I've yet to meet a smoking cape wearing Randroid). However, since so many people have the above image of objectivists I think I am going to stop referring to myself as one. (just as I stopped referring to myself as an environmentalist so as not to be confused with the peta/tree hugging/ecofascists-communists) In any case, the above quote demonstrates that Peikoff doesn't have any idea what anti-matter really is. Maybe scientists should have called it "mirror matter". Perhaps what this really demonstrates is that philosophy and ``humanities'' majors should be required to take more science classes. The state colleges around here have a core requirement of 33 credits worth of humanities courses and only 12 credits of science/math. This is highly irritating to the engineering majors who could do without a whole 2+ semesters of non-major related coursework. 33 credits seems too high? My college now requires multicultural courses as core. (with fascinating titles like "gender discrimination in America", "European destruction of native-american culture", "Slave culture and the Making of Black America") I could read usenet for _free_, if I wanted to be barraged with this stuff. Hey, that's an idea! Maybe I can get credit by exam/project if I promise to read talk.politics.misc, sci.environment, alt.discrimination, and alt.politics.radical-left. -Ray -- 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: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 11:21:40 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Replies to Searle's Extropian Critics Ray, thank you for explaining Science, The Universe, and Everything to Tim so patiently. The spectrum of patience in this thread has you on one end and Perry on the other (surprise). I don't believe that Tim can come back at this latest reply with any more "you don't get it -- *that's* not a mind either" replies ("I can't imagine it, therefore it can't exist"). Since I'm not on the Noo Software yet, would you mind mailing me those papers that you mentioned ::resend commands for? ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 09:27:38 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: Egad! Tony Hamilton says: >The only problem is that some of the fanatics give the rest of us a bad >reputation. But that can be true of any philosophy. Almost any philosophy, anyway. Buddhism doesn't seem to be especially conducive to fanaticism. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 9:43:02 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? > credit card number. When you go into a store to buy the > software, the dealer enters your credit card number by dial-up > to the software house, who assembles a custom version of the > code and return that via modem, and also uses the credit card to > pay for the software. > > This increases the cost of sales incredibly. Software that doesn't > have this can be much cheaper, and much easier on the oftware house to > sell. Therefore, just about everyone has the incentive to stay away > from this system. Not true. The whole thing could be automated easily enough, with little or no extra expense. Besides, the ultimate incentive here is to sell more software instead of being run out of business by bootleggers. Other companies which didn't do it might be able to sell cheaper, but their total profits would be less in the long run, due to the effects of piracy. > looking at the code. You tell your customers this, and then they > will guard their software like they guard their credit card. Traceability > of pirated copies is easier, since each original is unique. > > Even assuming there isn't a simpler way to defeat all this (which > there probably is), you've now added extra risk to software product. > I certainly wouldn't buy software with this scheme in it, and there > will definitely be other software that fills my needs that doesn't > have this. But that is you. First, I don't think all software is that competitive. I would instead say that most software is unique. Purchases are generally made on the basis of utility, not politics or philosophy. Second, most people just don't care. As a business man, I wouldn't exactly concern myself with the small market sector which actually concerns themselves with these moral issues - I just want to sell more software. > Copy protection is all about economics, and this isn't an economical > solution. Good try though. :-) I think it is a good try, too. A couple of problems, even with my own arguments above. First, what about cash? This system only works if everyone pays by credit card, which may not be that bad in the future when cash is gone anyway (Japan is already nearing that point). The bigger problem, however, deals with piracy itself. Would people who pirate software and use pirated software actually pay if they couldn't get it for free, or would they instead abstain from the product altogether? It might be argued that piracy is responsible for a great deal of market growth, in that it gets software into many more hands than would otherwise be possible. In the case of high-priced PC software, this is probably definitely the case, since most everything runs from $200-$500. Games might be a different matter, however. I prefer shareware titles myself, but I'm also willing to put out $40 once in a while for a good title. So, would there really be an increase in sales, and enough to make up for the people who will boycott such software (which I still think is a small number)? Are there any examples in the industry of truly devious copy protection schemes which have survived? If so, we could look at how well they have done in their market. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 9:55:36 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Egad! > Tony Hamilton says: > >The only problem is that some of the fanatics give the rest of us a bad > >reputation. But that can be true of any philosophy. > > Almost any philosophy, anyway. Buddhism doesn't seem to be especially > conducive to fanaticism. > > -- > Lefty (lefty@apple.com) > C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. But there are plenty of "annoying" so-called Buddhists out there. Perhaps fanatic was the wrong word. And certainly there are likely plenty of people circulating outside of the nets, telling their friends they are Extropians, and giving off all the wrong impressions. I admit that I call myself an Objectivist and an Extropian (among other things), but when I mention this to others, I always qualify it by pointing out that I don't entirely prescribe to any one philosophy, nor does my own philosophy necessarily _represent_ those other philosophies. I feel it is important to do so with philosophies like these, because something like Extropianism is relatively confined to a small number of people at this time. When you discuss it with others, its likely you're their first exposure to it. So, instead of pretending I'm some kind of expert, I just tell them what I know/think, and refer them to more authoritative sources. In the case of Ex, that would be this list or ExI. I rarely see others do the same - Christians are an excellent example. I've been lectured by so many people about Christianity, and most have no clue what their religion is all about. I say most, because some can actually discuss it objectively. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 11:58:17 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Replies to Searle's Extropian Critics In <199307301621.AA19901@jido.b30.ingr.com>, Craig Presson writes: |> Ray, ... I just noticed I did it again -- sent a private reply to the list. Well, at least I refrained from profanity. Another reason to "upload" to the new software! My apologies to Tim* & PM for talking about them in front of their backs, anyway. Ah din't meen no hahm. -- Craig ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 12:00:24 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Info: Baclace, Paul (Looking for) In <199307301523.AA07240@panix.com>, Harry Shapiro writes: |> I am looking for a e-mail address or voice (day|evening) phone number |> for Paul Baclace. From: mail-server@CHARON.MIT.EDU To: extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) Subject: mail-server: "send usenet-addresses/Baclace" Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 12:22:31 -0400 -----cut here----- peb@autodesk.com (Paul Baclace { Scheming Xanalogical Molecules Animate Cyberspace }) (Aug 11 92) autodesk!peb@uunet.uu.net (Paul Baclace { Scheming Xanalogical Molecules Animate Cyberspace }) (Jul banff!peb@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Baclace) (Jul 9 93) peb@banff.UUCP (Paul Baclace) (Jun 10 93) peb@well.sf.ca.us (Paul E Baclace) (Nov 12 92) -----cut here----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 13:05:21 -0400 From: "W. Scott Meeks" Subject: Egad! >X-Original-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu >From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) >Tony Hamilton says: >>The only problem is that some of the fanatics give the rest of us a bad >>reputation. But that can be true of any philosophy. > >Almost any philosophy, anyway. Buddhism doesn't seem to be especially >conducive to fanaticism. I'm not so sure of this. I seem to remember from my time in Japan that at one point in history there were a couple of sects of Buddhism there that had such a serious falling out that one group burned at least one of the other group's temples. That sounds pretty fanatical to me. I can try to find more details if anyone is really interested. Scott (meeks@osf.org) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 10:16:46 -0800 From: Romana Machado Subject: CHAT: Egad! >> Tony Hamilton says: >> >The only problem is that some of the fanatics give the rest of us a bad >> >reputation. But that can be true of any philosophy. >> >> Almost any philosophy, anyway. Buddhism doesn't seem to be especially >> conducive to fanaticism. >> >> -- >> Lefty (lefty@apple.com) >> C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. > >But there are plenty of "annoying" so-called Buddhists out there.. Not nearly as "annoying" as disgruntled postal workers. Romana Machado(romana@apple.com) Official Poll Taker of the Extropians List --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Privacy is worth protecting. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 10:25:04 -0700 From: cappello@cs.ucsb.edu (Peter Cappello) Subject: Egad! >Obviously, this doesn't imply that all objectivists have their heads >up their butts ... but it does discredit Peikoff and Binswanger. To add more wood to this roast, I saw a video of Peikoff wherein he _condemned_ Kurt Godel for his incompleteness theorem! The man is a brainless, religious fanatic. And those are his gifts! -Pete ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 13:29:54 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Egad! Lefty () writes: > > Tony Hamilton says: > >The only problem is that some of the fanatics give the rest of us a bad > >reputation. But that can be true of any philosophy. > > Almost any philosophy, anyway. Buddhism doesn't seem to be especially > conducive to fanaticism. Try checking out comp.ai.fuzzy. Plenty of fanatical Buddists there. Many pop-science Buddists exhibit what I call the, "I told you so" phenomena. They try to match extremely vague Buddist concepts up with modern western science like quantum mechanics (Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li Masters) claiming that ancient Buddist wisdom was right all along. Now Buddists have moved on to "Fuzzy Logic", an extremely western mathematical generalization of Boolean logic. They claim that western "Aristotlean" logic has failed in AI and eastern 'fuzzy logic' has been vindicated. (buddists also make the same claim for "quantum logic") About 3 or 4 buddists in comp.ai.fuzzy frequently go off on long tirades about how western logic has failed in AI and eastern logic has succeeded. They are very reactionary and flame almost any westerner who asks a question or posts on a topic. I would say it borders on racism. (asian superior) Just to show I am not ganging up on Buddists, there is a Christian who frequently posts to comp.ai.philosophy claiming that Xtianity has many important concepts to contribute to AI. I am an equal opportunity religious basher. -Ray p.s. I've heard rumors of "temple crashing" among some ancient buddists but I don't know enough about Buddist history to verify it. Nevertheless, I've been proselytized by enough Buddists on the list, the net, and in RL to consider them to have their fair share of fanatics. -- 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: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 10:34:58 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: Egad! >>X-Original-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu >>From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) >>Tony Hamilton says: >>>The only problem is that some of the fanatics give the rest of us a bad >>>reputation. But that can be true of any philosophy. >> >>Almost any philosophy, anyway. Buddhism doesn't seem to be especially >>conducive to fanaticism. > >I'm not so sure of this. I seem to remember from my time in Japan that at >one point in history there were a couple of sects of Buddhism there that >had such a serious falling out that one group burned at least one of the >other group's temples. That sounds pretty fanatical to me. I can try to >find more details if anyone is really interested. True enough. The Shin sects and what eventually became Nichiren Shoshu had what amounted to minor wars going on amongst themselves for quite a while. Nichiren, however, was a fairly unique character in the history of Buddhism, and can't really be considered to be representative. At any rate, I may have overstated my case somewhat. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 10:39:54 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: My last word on Searle This is my last contribution to this discussion; Tim has convinced me that he's being obtuse and deceptive on purpose. He claims to love truth, but is employing shoddy rhetorical devices and willful distortion in an effort not to have to think about what others are actually saying. I see no profit to continuing to expend list bandwidth on this topic; I think there's been enough discussion for disinterested parties to make up their own minds. >>From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) >>Subject: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber >> >>>I don't understand >>>why anything beyond the agent should be considered to be the one being >>>communicated with. >> >>Because the agent (CPU, Searle's Demon) doesn't know what "he" (the system) >>is saying. > >The agent is not the system. The agent knows that he's saying X or Y, >that he's expressing a variable symbol. The agent doesn't know what >they mean, that's all. Symbols are not their content. I can say the Spanish word "vosotros" without knowning it's meaning. I am not communicating; I do not know what I have just said, in the sense of what _concept_ I have just expressed to speakers of that language. >>If the agent doesn't know what the conversation is even about, >>then he is obviously not the one doing the communicating! Come on, you're >>sharper than this, Tim. > >You're better than this, too, Dave. The agent does indeed know that the >conversation is about the expressed symbols. All he doesn't know is what >they mean. Thus, he is doing at least part of the communicating. He is a communication channel. He is not participating in the conversation any more than a parrot or a printing press. It is possible to communicate _over_ him or _via_ him in this system, but not _with_ him. If the Demon's name is Joe, there is no way the Chinese Lady can ask the room, "Joe, are you hungry?" and get a response from Joe. >>>Mental agents get input on their >>>own. They also program themselves. Computers do neither. >> >>It seems unlikely that mental agents program themselves. > >Why not? Because you can't imagine such a thing? This is the reason I'm getting out of this debate, Tim; you are deliberately and dishonestly quoting me out of context. I explained my rationale for that statement in the rest of that paragraph: >>It seems unlikely that mental agents program themselves. They program each >>other, and they are programmed by outside stimuli, but (as Minsky points >>out in Society of Mind) agents that programmed themselves would be too >>prone to positive feedback to be evolutionarily stable. Tim, you have crossed the line dishonest and deceptive. I'm not going to stoop to debate you on this topic any more. I think it was Mark Twain who said, "Never wrestle with a pig. It gets you dirty, and the pig enjoys it." dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 12:52:14 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Egad! In <9307301729.AA03168@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Ray writes: [...] |> Many pop-science Buddists exhibit what I call the, "I told you so" phenomena. |> They try to match extremely vague Buddist concepts up with modern western |> science like quantum mechanics (Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li Masters) That's two of my pet peeves, those books. They don't explain either Physics or Taoism very well and their attempts to relate them seem merely funny. |> claiming that ancient Buddist wisdom was right all along.[...] ^ Is that the worship of unopened flowers? ;-) |> p.s. I've heard rumors of "temple crashing" among some ancient buddists |> but I don't know enough about Buddist history to verify it. Nevertheless, |> I've been proselytized by enough Buddists on the list, the net, and in RL |> to consider them to have their fair share of fanatics. The Nichirien sect is pretty bad in this regard. Fortunately, they spend a lot of energy trying to convert other Buddhists, which is another funny thing. -- cP ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 10:55:24 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Egad! At 9:27 AM 7/30/93 -0800, Lefty wrote: >Tony Hamilton says: >>The only problem is that some of the fanatics give the rest of us a bad >>reputation. But that can be true of any philosophy. > >Almost any philosophy, anyway. Buddhism doesn't seem to be especially >conducive to fanaticism. >Lefty (lefty@apple.com) >C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. Unless you consider public self-immolation fanatical. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 10:57:26 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Oh, BTW, folks... Tim Starr's HEx market symbol is TIM, Ray's is RJC, and mine is DVDT. I don't think any of the other participants in the Searle discussion are on HEx. Vote with your Thornes, kids! dV/dt ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #210 ********************************* & h > 22 Exi@panix.com Fri Jul 30 11:49 928/38009 Extropians Digest U 23 Exi@panix.com Fri Jul 30 11:49 1138/44511 Extropians Digest U 24 fnerd@smds.com Fri Jul 30 15:03 29/1203 Info: Baclace, Paul (Look U 25 kqb@whscad1.att.com Fri Jul 30 17:41 461/20168 cryonics: #2365-#2368 U 26 71034.2711@CompuServe.COM Fri Jul 30 19:13 22/767 Got Julian Simon's Addres U 27 rhiggins@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu Fri Jul 30 19:33 26/1035 Extropy U 28 jpbonsen@Athena.MIT.EDU Fri Jul 30 19:50 31/1076 v2.5 U 29 habs@panix.com Sat Jul 31 05:13 98/3873 Re: WAN Information Retri U 30 Exi@panix.com Sat Jul 31 08:10 949/46385 Extropians Digest U 31 hhuang@Athena.MIT.EDU Sat Jul 31 12:09 19/769 Extropian principles 2.5 U 32 kqb@whscad1.att.com Sat Jul 31 17:11 66/2227 cryonics: #2369 U 33 Exi@panix.com Sun Aug 1 00:06 1018/45060 Extropians Digest U 34 starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Sun Aug 1 03:35 351/21248 Public School Failures, M U 35 Exi@panix.com Mon Aug 2 00:03 900/44852 Extropians Digest U 36 Exi@panix.com Mon Aug 2 06:13 955/51154 Extropians Digest U 37 Exi@panix.com Mon Aug 2 15:41 976/46863 Extropians Digest U 38 kqb@whscad1.att.com Mon Aug 2 17:31 246/11871 cryonics: #2370-#2371 U 39 Exi@panix.com Tue Aug 3 05:22 913/45405 Extropians Digest U 40 Exi@panix.com Tue Aug 3 11:29 1037/46407 Extropians Digest U 41 dkrieger@Synopsys.COM Tue Aug 3 12:45 53/2338 Perseid meteor shower & d22 &