45 Message 45: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Tue Aug 3 17:28:30 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA01020; Tue, 3 Aug 93 17:28:24 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 AA10884; Tue, 3 Aug 93 17:28:13 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA28028 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Tue, 3 Aug 1993 20:24:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 20:24:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199308040024.AA28028@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 4, 373 P.N.O. [00:23:57 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Wed, 4 Aug 93 Volume 93 : Issue 215 Today's Topics: [1 msgs] (Meta)Physics of the Searle Argument [1 msgs] ::help [1 msgs] DIET: ubiquinone, coenzyme Q [1 msgs] HEALTH: Hydergine? [1 msgs] HUMOR:Dynamic optimism...run amuck [1 msgs] How much does Alcor cost? [1 msgs] Natural law and natural rights [3 msgs] One more on CO Q-10 [1 msgs] P. Beckman(physicist) [1 msgs] Perseid meteor shower [3 msgs] investing [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51345 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 3 August 1993 06:45:51 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: investing In <1622.dsg@staff.tc.umn.edu_POPMail/PC_3.2.2>, dsg@staff.tc.umn.edu ("") wrote: > >Well, most books I've read on the topic of _stockbrokers_ show that > >they are no better than dartboards. > > Most of what I've read says that stockbrokers usually do _worse_ than > dartboards. According to Barrons, and according to successful investors, stockbrokers do substantially worse than the dartboard because they are apt to act like a herd of frightened cattle, all stampeding in the same direction at the same time, especially when using other peoples money. When they all stampede into a stock they buy it at sky high prices, when they all stampede out of a stock they dump it at giveaway prices. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves and our James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we | are. True law derives from this right, not from jamesdon@infoserv.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 3 August 1993 07:12:19 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: Natural law and natural rights In <199308021645.AA23186@jido.b30.ingr.com>, extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) wrote: > Your statement, that we can judge other humans by our own values, That is plainly not what I said. > is > open to criticism both in rhetorical and practical terms. > Rhetorically, it seems to me to be an unnecessary axiom. You are attacking a straw man here. > Or, you can look at Japan vs. the US. The Japanese live a much more > "communal" life than we do, and do not expect or tolerate a high > degree of individual rights, or non-conformance. This is both true and false. The Japanese retain a tightly guarded sphere of individuality, with decorum and inscrutability acting as a wall and shield, not as an open door. American culture is certain important respects far more severely conformist than Japanese culture. (For example sexuality.) Furthermore non conformity is America is subject to more severe, though less reliable, punishment than in japan. > You can call Japanese > culture "pathological" if you want, but it would take a lot of > definition-craft to do this without sounding jingoist. > Japanese who spend any substantial amount of time in Australia unhesitatingly and uniformly state that Australian culture is far more in accordance with the nature of man, with their own nature, than is Japanese culture, that the big cultural shock is not entering Australia, but re-entering Japan. Japanese are concerned that Japanese visiting Australia, and to a lesser extent Japanese visiting America, are likely to permanently de japanized by a single exposure at a late age to a foreign culture This fear appears well founded. (Although the Australian government is not at all in accordance with the nature of man, Australian culture is considerably more in accordance with the nature of man that is American culture, and American culture is in many important ways more so than Japanese culture.) > |> As I argued in the essay, an absolute centralized monopoly > |> of force makes it possible and profitable to suppress > |> natural law. > > Right. That's what happened to the Anglo-Saxons between 450 and 1066, > and the United States between 1932 and the present. Your history is wrong. Where do you think those traditional rights of Englishmen that the colonial revolutionaries claimed to be defending came from? Why is that the most free parts of Europe are those places like Andorra and Lichstenstein where feudalism survived into the twentieth century? Natural law started being applicable to nobles with the Magna Carta, and gradually worked its way down. In the early sixteenth century serfs were able to assert the right to keep and bear armor piercing weapons, and the taxes and levies placed on serfs went way down. Now that right has been taken away from us serfs, and taxes are predictably going right up again. > > |> Social disintegration is quite visibly under way, and will > |> eventually undermine this monopoly of force. > |> > |> The important thing then is to deal with social decay not > |> by attempting to sustain the monopoly of force, but by > |> returning to natural law. > > I was trying to say that this requires a great deal of public > education. NL has a bad reputation among Libburuls because of abuse of > the term to support abortion prohibition, Never was widely used to support prohibition. Except for a smal handfull of Roman Catholic scholars, those anti abortion folk who claim that abortion is contrary to natural law plainly have not the faintest idea what they are talking about. Those scholars who do know what they are talking about are silent, perhaps because they are embarassed to explain. > laws against contraception, > etc. The claim that natural law prohibits contraception is clearly false, and is severly discredited even within the Catholic Church. It is based on incorrect biology. We are primates, not wolves. Furthermore it is a novel (twentieth century) claim, recently made, soon to be forgotten. > -- in other words, the resurrection of the Ecclesiastic > formulation of NL, which is abhorrent to religious freedom. Your history is utterly wrong here. Every great opponent of religious persecution, for example St Thomas Aquinas, (thirteenth century) and John Locke, (seventeenth century), has been an advocate of natural law. Every advocate of natural law, has been an opponent of religious persecution, some more than others, but all have recognized it as unsupported by natural law, both the Muslims and the Christians. > Remember > the Thomas hearings, where Biden beat Thomas up for supporting NL, and > waved a copy of _Takings_ over his head like Joe McCarthy, accusing CT > of the heinous crime of reviewing the book without roundly condemning > it? Well indeed do I remember it. But is seems to me that this is evidence that endorsing natural law is wise. For a starter we can easily debunk the absurd myths about natural law that you have been taught. Natural law, Greek version, Christian version, or Muslim version, has always and invariably been clearly recognizable as the same, and has always been for liberty. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves and our James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we | are. True law derives from this right, not from jamesdon@infoserv.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 9:47:12 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: investing > According to Barrons, and according to successful > investors, stockbrokers do substantially worse than the > dartboard because they are apt to act like a herd of > frightened cattle, all stampeding in the same direction at > the same time, especially when using other peoples money. > When they all stampede into a stock they buy it at sky high > prices, when they all stampede out of a stock they dump it > at giveaway prices. With stockbrokers, they often lure their customers by offering to get them into a single deal at no buy-in comission, which apparently has no chance of doing anything but increasing in value. Interestingly, I find that this lure is often valid. However, any dealings with the broker beyond that are worthless. The point is, they put all their efforts into this first deal, in order to make it look like you can't lose with them. I've invested in some of these deals, made money, and then simply walked away. Friends of mine who were caught up in the moment, however, were not so lucky. It's not just stockbrokers, though. Whether you're a strict chartist, fundamentalist, contrarian, or whatever, you're still apt to be no better than the good old dartboard. THese "systems", by themselves, are no good. Now, there are some supposedly more stable investment strategies. If you have the money, investing in nothing but DJIA stocks is generally a winner over the long haul, or so the numbers have indicated over history anyway. And, most funds based on a diversified investment strategy using the S&P 500 stocks seem to do very well also. But both of these require lots of cash, or a fund which has that strategy. What's the best strategy? Why, inside trading of course. The only way to really know what's going on with a company is to be one of its officers, or get your information directly or indirectly from such a person. It may be illegal, but only if you get caught, and if you ask me, those laws are completely wrong. Now, I've toyed with some other "systems" for investing, on paper anyway, but I'll never know if they work until I have the money to invest, which is a lot more than I have right now, given the nature of these systems. I'm more interested in the short term in devising a good simulation of the markets in order to test my theories. Does anyone know if such a program exists? It would have to handle large numbers of issues, on the order of a thousand or so, and the price movements would have to emulate real ones. Alternatively, a direct electronic feed from a real market would work, but I haven't looked into that yet (it would need to be something which can dump out the data in raw format, not an interactive system like I'm guessing services like PRodigy offer). Anyway, such a simulation would then allow the testing of all kinds of theories about investing. Interestingly enough, I find that some of the best systems which fail are those that don't take into account the commissions coming and going, which add up to quite a bit if you don't have 100's of thousands ... :-) Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 11:47:59 MDT From: morgan@arc.ab.ca (Sean Morgan) Subject: ::help -----------------+---------------+---------------------------------- Sean Morgan | Integrated | ALBERTA 3rd Flr, 6815 - 8 St NE 403/297-2628 | Manufacturing | RESEARCH Calgary, AB, Canada morgan@arc.ab.ca | Program | COUNCIL T2E 7H7 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1993 13:55:13 -0400 From: "W. Scott Meeks" Subject: HUMOR:Dynamic optimism...run amuck ------- Forwarded Message >From rgcote@osf.org Tue Aug 3 13:36:20 1993 To: motif-dev Subject: geek humor Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1993 13:36:13 -0400 From: Robert Cote I just got this from a friend at DEC and I second his comment "I just laughed out loud for the first time in a good while." My favorite part is the "old piece of cheese." -Rob - ------- Forwarded Message From: "Roger Zee : LKG2-2/Z7, DTN 226-5288 03-Aug-1993 1319" Apparently-To: rgcote@osf.org, ehao@ichips.intel.com Subject: geek humor I just laughed out loud for the first time in a good while. The following was the cause, extracted from a newsgroup the name of which I forget. Each para- graph is apparently from a person who wrote only one of the paragraphs in the excerpt... - - - ----------------- Right! I run System V on my VIC-20! Hmmmm...well, I am getting SVR4 for my HP 48SX..... HA! _I'm_ just finishing up a port of VMS for my Timex Sinclair! Top THAT! I'm running NextStep on Atari 2600 Video Game System. Just last night I was able to get Windows to boot on my Sears PONG game. I am replying to this message with my built-in VAX Mailer on my Game-Boy. I just installed a 10 Gigabyte Drive to handle all the replies! However, it only runs at 230,000 Baud due to the large drive slowing it down. I fear I will not be getting news any longer... The batteries on my calculator-watch are running out. My calculator-watch is solar... And if I turned off the lights, NO ONE would be getting news... Feh. I'm so slick NASA just awarded ME the TERADATA contract to run on my TV remote! They liked my proposal mainly because I'm ALSO able to shoehorn in the TEXAS SUPERCOLLIDER computations between commercials! Beat THAT! Well, well, well. SSC calculations, huh. I built a system out of 2 inches of wire, 3 pennies and a AA battery that does realtime calculations of particle vectors during the Big Bang. A complete simulation of the first 2 years of the life of the universe, accurate to the theoretical limit, takes about 5 seconds. And you guys think you are so great. I just spent the last half hour getting X11 to run on my slide rule. I am still having problems connecting it to the net around here, but I would welcome any suggestions. So what!!! I'm running Xinitrc, TWMRC, Internet, and 27 muds off of a paperclip. Not to mention the fact that I am designing a new form of television with 7000 pixels based off a piece of tissue paper. Next!!! Man, that's baby stuff. I'm running a particle accelerator utilizing matter-antimatter reactions in my doorknob, and calculating everything in the fourth dimension using a single dip switch and a large glass of water. Child's play, I have an old piece of cheese that is, at this very moment, raytracing an actual model of the universe five hours from now, while at the same time calculating the heat produced from the new intel Pentium. And you people think that you are hackers! I'm currently engaged in a project which involves simultaneous simulation of multiple universes (To see what would happen if various constants change. Pi=8.4 is an interesting one.) My hardware consists of a single wooden pencil (no paper). With it, I can do real-time simulations of 2^32 universes in parallel. You guys are wimps!! I've just finished converting a microwave oven into a paradimensional teleportation device. The only problem I'm having so far is that my breakfast bagel keeps disappearing!! May have to eat it raw . . . Sorry, that's my fault. I'm afraid that the high-energy laser-pumped negentropic vortex generator I made from my own nostril hair, which is currently cranking out entire new universes at the rate of 7.6 per picosecond, was breaking the FCC emissions limits and gronking your microwave's control panel. It should work properly now. Also, my cat Arthur was FTPing hundreds of terabytes of PD software from Epsilon Eridani in the year 4741 A.D. over the faster-than-light Ethernet interface I built for him, and this may have been loading the Net a little yesterday. My sincere apologies to everyone who noticed any performance degradation. - - - - - ----------------------------- - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 14:05:14 -0400 From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) Subject: P. Beckman(physicist) This guy does post to sci.physics every so often. It usually results in a flame-jihad lasting around two weeks. His theories are of questionable nature to say the least. While I don't personally feel he is a "nut" he is considered a "crackpot" or at the very least a "hack". He started his own journal to publish anti-relativity stuff. I believe that is called; Galilean_Relativity. At the present moment even an open minded person would have to say that Beckman has not proven his own theory to be superior to special or general relativity. -sjm -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean J. Merritt | Dept of Physics Boston University| "You leave me dry." merritt@macro.bu.edu | P.J. Harvey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 13:13:09 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Natural law and natural rights In <2c5e8ded.jamesdon@jamesdon.infoserv.com>, "James A. Donald" writes: |> In <199308021645.AA23186@jido.b30.ingr.com>, extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) wrote: |> |> > Your statement, that we can judge other humans by our own values, |> |> That is plainly not what I said. [...] |> You are attacking a straw man here. You said: "We intuitively know the difference between coercion and consent because we know that other humans resemble ourselves." I had trouble getting a handle on what that could possibly _mean_; so I shorthanded it. It _looks_ more logical in E-prime, but it doesn't smoke any smoother. _I_ don't know "that other humans resemble" me in the ways that matter here. I know that some tolerate coercion more or less than I; that some want to be told what to do; and that some grow up in cultures where they can hardly even formulate the question. Fobbing this off as a strawman will not do, especially if I have understood the extent of your claims for NL. You seem convinced that there is a NL, roughly like what Locke formulated in his _Treatise_s, that follows from our human nature and that of the world we live in. If this were so, then I'd expect that the NL-based arguments of Jefferson et. al. would still have more force in public discourse than they do. |> > Or, you can look at Japan vs. the US. The Japanese live a much more |> > "communal" life than we do, and do not expect or tolerate a high |> > degree of individual rights, or non-conformance. |> [blurbage about Japan] The fact remains that each individual Japanese is trained from infancy to recognize several levels of loyalty and obligation above his own interests, and to bow to authority regardless of his own informed opinion. It's precisely opposite to a free society -- but it's not "unnatural", either. |> > |> As I argued in the essay, an absolute centralized monopoly |> > |> of force makes it possible and profitable to suppress |> > |> natural law. |> > |> > Right. That's what happened to the Anglo-Saxons between 450 and 1066, |> > and the United States between 1932 and the present. |> |> Your history is wrong. [Magna Carta, etc.] Your history is irrelevant to the period of time I mentioned. My example is in Benson if you want to check it, and it's documented there. The Magna Carta was a (very partial) remedy for the earlier consolidation of power. [stuff about the history of NL] |> > -- in other words, the resurrection of the Ecclesiastic |> > formulation of NL, which is abhorrent to religious freedom. |> |> Your history is utterly wrong here. History? I'm talking about current events. Now, the identification of "Ecclesiastical NL" with various attempts to make government conform to religious dogma may be outside what you see as the NL tradition, but that doesn't sell newspapers or sway voters. Arguing on this level will not change society one whit. It will get you about two papers published in scholarly journals that no one reads. |> Every great opponent of religious persecution, for example |> St Thomas Aquinas, (thirteenth century) and John Locke, |> (seventeenth century), has been an advocate of natural law. I'm sure that's true. I'm also sure that religious persecution is a dead issue in today's world (unless the Fundies win their current battles, then they'll conduct their own Inquisition). Besides, this reformulates easily into, "back when religious persecution was widespread, the best intellectual weapon its opponents had was the NL philosophy". I'll take your word for the converse. |> > Remember |> > the Thomas hearings, where Biden beat Thomas up for supporting NL, and |> > waved a copy of _Takings_ over his head like Joe McCarthy, accusing CT |> > of the heinous crime of reviewing the book without roundly condemning |> > it? |> |> Well indeed do I remember it. But is seems to me that this |> is evidence that endorsing natural law is wise. For a |> starter we can easily debunk the absurd myths about natural |> law that you have been taught. Natural law, Greek |> version, Christian version, or Muslim version, has always |> and invariably been clearly recognizable as the same, and |> has always been for liberty. It's evidence that it angers modern liberals, including the media, which means that you won't be able to get air time to debunk the myths about natural law. Natural law is dead, James. Customary and common law are under attack (see e.g., _The Death of Contract_). NL is like the occult -- it can't work if people don't believe in it. Today, lawyers, judges, and Congresscritters do not believe in NL. ^ / ------/---- 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, 3 Aug 93 19:22:12 BST From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: Natural law and natural rights Perhaps I missed it -- feel free to flame me for not paying attention if so -- but where does James Donald derive natural laws from? Not by seeing what customs are common to all societies, since he considers some societies to be contrary to NL. From where, then? From our "nature", it appears. How does he determine this nature? So far, I have only seen abstract assertions such as: >Our nature and the nature of the world, not the fiat of the >state, defines the category of robbery and assault. >We have the right to defend ourselves and our >property, because of the kind of animals that we >are. >The claim that natural law prohibits contraception is >clearly false, and is severly discredited even within the >Catholic Church. It is based on incorrect biology. We >are primates, not wolves. To bring the discussion down to earth, could he give a list of concrete examples of natural laws, together with the evidence that they are natural laws? -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 13:51:42 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: DIET: ubiquinone, coenzyme Q In <2c4f7dec.jamesdon@jamesdon.infoserv.com>, "James A. Donald" writes: |> An extropian, cannot remember who, recommended ubiquinone |> as an antioxidant, hence life extender. and also commented |> that it helps with gingivitis and gum disease. It was Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) BTW. I was just cleaning out my INBOX file and filing away related items. Just took my second 30mg for the day, too. ^ / ------/---- 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, 3 Aug 1993 13:59:30 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: One more on CO Q-10 I missed: "esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: DIET: CoQ Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1993 23:59:07 -0400 (EDT) At the first meeting of the Malvern Extropian Nexus, Doug Platt held forth on the virtues of a food supplement called Coenzyme Q-10." I have taken it less than a week now. I have a dental appointment on Friday the 13th (dum de dum dum), so I will report any progress then. ^ / ------/---- 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, 3 Aug 93 14:19:18 CDT From: capntaz@dudemar.b24a.ingr.com (Heath G. Goebel) Subject: How much does Alcor cost? I recently received the Alcor brochure. In order to provide the definitive details to the How much does Alcor cost? thread, let me relay some information directly from the brochure... o The bad news is that the cost of cryonic suspension ranges from $41,000 to $120,000. The good news is that this can be paid by taking out a life-insurance policy that names Alcor as the beneficiary... ...in our experience, a healthy person aged around thiry may obtain a $50,000 whole-life policy for under $500 per year. o We charge a one-time fee of $100 for signing up with Alcor, and there is an annual Emergency Response Fee of $288, which enables us to fly our transport technicians and special equipment anywhere in the country if a member suffers a fatal accident or a terminal illness. o Special reduced rates: Full-time students pay only $144 per year. Alcor Life Extension Foundation 1-800-367-2228 -- Heath G. Goebel, ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 15:31:40 EDT From: eisrael@suneast.east.sun.com (Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: HEALTH: Hydergine? As a service to my HEx investors (:-), I've been doing some reading lately about Hydergine and wondering whether I ought to consider asking a doctor to prescribe some for me. Before I do, though, I'd like to learn a little more about it so I don't end up poisoning myself in the name of "smart pills." (Wouldn't be very smart, now would it?) Naturally, I've read what Durk and Sandy have to say about it, and I also have another book that I found that mentions it which basically repeats the same information that D&S provide and cites the same studies, pretty much. This second book (I have the book at home, I can provide the title for anyone interested) is somewhat more recent that Life Extension, but it dates back to 1989; not exactly yesterday. What I'd like to know: Does anyone here know of more recent information, studies in peer-reviewed journals, anything of note? Who on the list is currently taking this drug and would be willing to share some anecdotes, information, impressions, etc? Has anyone been taking it for an extended period, say, more than 3 years? Any side effects to report? TIA Elias Israel eisrael@east.sun.com HEx: E ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 15:35:44 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: (Meta)Physics of the Searle Argument starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu () writes: > > I said that I didn't see why axioms ought to be excluded from truthfulness > because they're unfalsifiable, and Ray replied: > > >From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) > >Subject: The Searle Argument > > > > Physical axioms aren't excluded from truthfulness as long as they are > >testable. > > If testability be the criterion, then this includes metaphysical axioms, too. Ok, propose a test. > >In the physical sciences, axioms are called postulates. Einstein's > >speed of light postulate is accepted as 'truth' only because we can find > >no counterexamples. For 70+ years, people have been trying to find a single > >instance where relativity's postulates fail, and they haven't. > > Petyr Beckmann says he has succeeded in finding a falsification of the > claim that the speed of light is absolute - that's about all I know about it, > from a story for laymen in the latest "American Spectator" magazine. Peter Beckmann has been making this claim for ages. His theory is that the speed of light will change in gravitational gradients within the solar system. It's totally unsupported by data collected by space probe operation. (see his book, Einstein +2). If Beckman actually found a falsification of relativity it would be world news. (summary: Beckmann is a crackpot, but not so much as Sarfatti, Larson, and Josephson are.) > >> You seem to imply that all physical laws must be stated in the form: If X, > >> then Y. Have I got this right? If so, then what is the status of laws which > >> can't be stated in this form, such as metaphysical axioms? > > > > A physical law is well-stated because it is compactly represented by > >the mathematics behind it. > > Then what does "compactly represented" mean? Within the bounds where the law applies, the mathematical equation behind the law completely exhausts all possible configurations of the system. Thus, the mathematical form of the law is sort of like a "compression" If science succeeds in finding a theory of everything, the entire description of nature could be reduced to a single equation. > > The idea that "living matter" can not merely be a machine is called > >"vitalism". > > You're getting a bit too pedantic, Ray. Starting to seem condescending. Sorry, but it seems you were being purposely misleading sometimes. Bringing Beckmann into the picture is even worse. Stick with Searle. > > Give me an example of a physical system that is "super-mechanical" > > No. Answer the question: why must nature be mechanical? Because you can't > imagine otherwise? It is not incumbent upon me to prove anything, any more > than the burden of proof rests upon the atheist to disprove the existence of > God. My question is, how could nature NOT be mechanical? The only way it couldn't is if it operated by non-causual laws. If effects preceed their causes, it is possible to predict effects by knowing causes through simulation. It doesn't take a Phd in computer science to realize this. Humans can do amazing things in the world because we can simulate reality in our heads before acting on thoughts. On a side note, most of the crackpots in physics are looking for violations of the speed of light postulate because they know that faster than light signaling means time-travel. Why is this significant? In their quest to prove that the mind can't be computed they are now arguing that the brain can send signals back in time to itself, thus reviving the concept of absolute free will. In order to have true free will, you must be able to take a choice that you wouldn't have taken. This can only happen if you can forsee actions that have already been taken. It's all in sci.physics folks. They have some rather amusing 'evidence' for this stuff too. For instance claiming, that because of the finite speed of the nervous system, humans react to things before sensory impulses can reach the brain! The conclusion is that the future brain sends a signal back in time to the present brain. (oh, they also claim that faster-than-light travel explains telepathy, ha ha!) > >An answer of "the mind" would be unsatisfactory because you have already > >defined it to be so. > > No, I haven't defined the mind at all. Well, you've at least claimed that the mind is non-mechanical. That seems to be a working definition. > > I'm not familar with this metaphysical principle of extension but perhaps > >I could give you an example from physics. Photons and electrons do not > >have extension. Photons and electrons do not have a volume (or radius). > > Electrons do have weight, though, don't they? How can anything that has > weight not have volume? Electrons have mass; weight is an acceleration. The atoms that make up your body are mostly empty. You have the appearence of having volume only because matter doesn't like being pushed together. In reality however, atoms are mostly empty. When you study physics you find out that your nice little macroscopic world view is shattered. (how do we know that atoms are mostly empty? We fire some neutrally charged particles at them and they go right through them! A neutrino can go through a lightyear of lead without hitting anything!) > >Children are taught to envision them as little red and green spheres, but > >in reality we treat them as point-like singularities. > > I wasn't asking what we treat them as, I was asking what they are. I > realize that this form of statement is unpopular with many on this list, but > that's what I want to know. > > How do we know these particles have no volume? Because they act like they have no volume. In fact, sometimes they don't act like particles at all! Physics can't answer the question of what an electron _IS_, but it can tell you how an electron _ACTS_ Somebody will more knowledge feel free to correct what I'm about to say. (it has been a while since I've read this stuff) I believe that the electron having a radius was ruled out in both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. I can't remember the whole modern derivation, but it used relativity and QFT. 1) Classical I think what was done here was to assume that the electron is a uniform spherical shell of charge (Gaussian surface) and then compute the electric field as a function of the radius. The field energy was then equated with the mass energy (E=mc^2) and the radius was solved for. I believe this yielded a number which is not supported by experiment (it made the electron radius larger than a proton) 2) Modern Here, I think it was assumed that the magnetic moment of the electron is generated by a spinning (moving charge) electron. To make the electron spin fast enough to generate the right moment required a rotational velocity that exceded the speed of light? 3) There also an issue of the electric field becoming infinite at the "surface" of the electron and the electron inferring with itself. I believe this was what finally condemned the classical view of the electron and fields. Mike, Robin, care to correct any of this? > BTW, aesthetics is one of those other branches of philosophy. Since you > called it an "aesthetic" issue whether to view life as organism or machine, > Ray, care to explain the theory of aesthetics underlying this claim? Occam's razor. There's no real point in making the distinction except on emotional grouds. Organism might be a nice category to put certain machines in just like artificial life is a nice category for certain progams, but that's about it. > >Philosophical questions may be interesting like "pure math" is to some > >people but they don't really impact reality because they have no > >applications. > > Logic has no applications? Most of logic and epistimology are now known as the scientific method. > > Existence exists might be viewed as a foundation axiom that generates > >everything else, but I view it as zero-information. > > Zero-information? Even though it has implications? Assume the opposite. Existence doesn't exist. Science, and life goes on. In terms of information theory, the phrase "existence exists" contains very little information. > >Existence is a definition. > > No, it isn't. A definition consists of a genus and a differentia. "Existence" > has neither. If existence didn't exist, you wouldn't be standing here. The answer is defined by the fact that you're debating it. It's a data point, not a question. > >To say existence _exists_ is to invoke recursion. > > So what? It invokes itself. Suppose you ask me a question about explosions and I say, "explosions explode" Here is my last attempt to convey my point: Definition 1: if you measure a physical quantity X, another measurable quantity Y can be related to X by the application of a PHYSICAL LAW. Definition 2: DISCOVER. To discover a physical law means to find the relation between X and Y in definition 1. Definition 3: NON-MECHANICAL LAW. A process which can't be computed by the mere application of rules. Conjecture: There exists a physical law that is discoverable but non-mechanical. Disproof: To discover a physical law means to find a relationship between two physical quantities as stated in definition 1. Once such a law is discovered, the system can be computed mechanically by the application of rules. Computer Pseudo Program: If measured quantity X is X1, then the measured quantity Y is Y1 If measured quantity X is X2, then the measured quantity Y is Y2 ... Conjecture: There exists a physical interaction which is non-mechanical and not supernatural. Disproof: To be non-mechanical, a physical law would have to be both undiscoverable and unrelated to any other quantity in natural. If it could be related to another quantity in nature, it would become a mechanical physical law (because a computer could compute the relation). Therefore, the non-mechanical _IS_ the supernatural. QED It's just that simple. If I could discover a physical law by which your mind works, I could simulate it simply because a law is a relation and computers can process relations. The conclusion is that the law must be undiscoverable. To be impossible to discover, such a law wouldn't be a law at all. It would be a physical phenomena which is completely random and has absolutely no structure at all. Analogous to a world where the value of the univeral constants (speed of light, gravititational strength, etc) would be completely random anytime you measured them. If this isn't supernatural, I don't know what is. -- 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, 3 Aug 1993 12:39:06 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Perseid meteor shower Folx -- On August 11, the Earth passes through the tail of comet Hamner-Brown -- whoops, wrong story... through the tail of some other comet whose hyphenated name I can't recall, resulting in what is known as the Perseid meteor shower. Because this is the comet's closest pass to Earth within the next several hundred years, Jack Horkheimer (TV's "Star Hustler") predicts that the Perseid shower will be the most spectacular "in our lifetimes". Unfortunately, we don't know which parts of the earth will be experiencing nighttime as we pass through the tail, so Europe might get a great show, and the U.S. bitter dregs, or vice versa. (Anyone receiving the list in Asia?) Anyway, this is just to alert Extropians to the opportunity to watch the celestial display. For Bay Area extropoids -- Who is up for a drive down to Highway 152 east of Gilroy, where there ain't no streetlights and you can actually see the night sky? Late, late at night (after the traffic dies down) there should be some truly great seeing... and Horkheimer says that, if we get the show, it will go all night. Any takers? Anybody got lots of lawn chairs? Any drivers? (I have a pickup truck, not too comfy for multiple passengers.) Replies on a Bay Area excursion to "exi-bay", por favor. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 13:00:03 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: Perseid meteor shower It is interesting to note that meteor showers are often more spectacular in the last half of the night than in the first; this has to do with the fact that the sunrise terminator of the Earth is on the same side of the planet as the head of the velocity vector of the Earth in its orbit -- that is, if you look straight up at dawn, from tropical latitudes, you are looking generally in the direction toward which the Earth is moving in its orbit around the sun. Thus the difference between morning meteors and evening meteors is the same kind of difference you would find between the rainfall intensity on the front windshield of a speeding car, and that on the rear windshield. Unfortunately, August 10 is last-quarter moon. On the eleventh, moonrise will be some time roughly in the middle of the night -- I'd have to go home to look up the exact time. Moon in the sky tends to wash out all normal celestial phenomena except the sun, so conditions for morning viewing may not be optimal. I hope it is clear that by "morning", I mean "small hours of the ...". -- Jay Freeman, Amateur astronomer and telescope nut ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 16:02:06 EDT From: Brian.Hawthorne@east.sun.com (Brian Holt Hawthorne - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: Perseid meteor shower > through the tail of some other comet whose > hyphenated name I can't recall, resulting in what is known as the Perseid > meteor shower. Because this is the comet's closest pass to Earth within > the next several hundred years, Hmm. I believe that the Perseids are caused by a patch of space debris that was *left behind* from some passing comet (whose hame I can't recall). The comet either is no more, or won't return for quite a while (not sure which). However, every year at the same point in Earth's orbit, we run into the remnants. This year we are headed pretty much for the middle, whereas we usually skim the edges. Look for the display starting shortly after sunset, appearing to emanate from the constellation of Perseus. I can get the RA/Declination if anyone needs them. ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #215 ********************************* &