48 Message 48: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Wed Aug 4 13:06:07 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA07966; Wed, 4 Aug 93 13:06:05 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 AA22571; Wed, 4 Aug 93 13:04:55 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA05309 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Wed, 4 Aug 1993 15:52:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 15:52:13 -0400 Message-Id: <199308041952.AA05309@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 4, 373 P.N.O. [19:52:05 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: Aquinas Opposed Religious Persecution? [1 msgs] DIET: _Nutrients Catalog_ How to Use [1 msgs] DIET: _Nutrients Catalog_ Order Form [1 msgs] DIET: _Nutrients Catalog_ Preface [1 msgs] DIET: Nutrients catalog bibliography (was ubiquinone, coenzyme Q)[2 msgs] DIET: ubiquinone, coenzyme Q [1 msgs] HEX: more concerns [1 msgs] How much does Alcor cost? [1 msgs] How much does Alcor cost? (Oops!) [1 msgs] Important! Alcor does not recommend insurance agents [1 msgs] Intelligence == wisdom == enlightenment? [1 msgs] Natural law and natural rights [1 msgs] On Searle and Craig [1 msgs] Perseid meteor shower [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51891 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 09:57:04 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: DIET: _Nutrients Catalog_ Preface Due to my name being posted to this list, and some private inquiries, I am unabashedly posting information about my new reference book. It is called _Nutrients Catalog_ by Harvey Newstrom, and is published by McFarland & Company, Inc. It's number is 0-89950-784-0. This is an exhaustive reference book (over 500 pages) for looking up information only. It is not a pep-talk, nor is it a how-to book. The Table of Contents from the book follows: _NUTRIENTS CATALOG_ Preface This book started in 1983 as my private notes. I had become interested in nutrition and was reading every book I could find on the subject. I started making notes of nutritional data that I could reference. It soon became clear that most of the books were mere pep-talks. While these books convinced the reader of the need for adequate nutrition, they gave little data that could be used. Most books gave only a few symptoms of deficiency for each nutrient, and often these symptoms were so vague that they provided little evidence of actual need. More startling, was the fact that most books failed to describe the toxicity symptoms. After convincing the reader that more of certain nutrients were required, the books gave no hint about how to detect an excessive intake of these nutrients. Also lacking were adequate warnings about nutrients that can be harmful under certain conditions, the combinational ratios required by certain sets of nutrients, and alternate names by which nutrients may be known. I found most books to be incomplete. Some would refer only to nutrients regulated by the FDA. Others would refer only to nutrients that could be purchased in most health food stores. Some would ignore controversial nutrients as if they did not exist, while others imply universal acceptance without mention of the controversy. As I set out to find a complete reference book that would provide the information that I needed, I found few nutrition books that were actual references. Most were either textbooks, with very introductory material, or case histories with very little data attached. Such books were not set up for reference. It became tedious to search through various volumes to find a reference hidden in the text. I finally decided to expand my notes into a full reference handbook of nutrients, a volume in which one might easily look up specific facts. It is not the kind of book that one would read cover to cover, nor is it an introductory text to the subject of nutrition. Instead, it is intended to be a book to be kept on the desk of anyone actively working with nutrition. It is not intended to be used by those without proper nutritional training. It is dangerous to diagnose disease or to prescribe specific nutrients without proper understanding of how nutrition works. This handbook does not impart that knowledge. For the knowledgeable practitioner, this handbook is intended to be a single point of reference. It is to be used to survey information about a particular nutrient, to verify symptoms of deficiency or toxicity, and to find food sources containing a desired nutrient. The practitioner will find quick and easy access to facts and information without having to search through explanatory text. __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 10:10:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Bob Kuhfahl Subject: Natural law and natural rights extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) writes: > 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. > I hope that is not true. I've only been exposed to this topic for a few weeks now - I just got an internet account a few months ago and my eyes are being opened to many things I did not get in college. The concept of NL seems very "natural" to me, pardon the pun, maybe fundamental would be a better term. My comp sci courses reiterated "keep it simple" and I have learned to abide by that wisdom in very many of the things I do. I have a utopian hope that man-kind could have a simple set of rules to live by. I am not well read on this subject and hope not to offend, but IMHO it is essential that NL be a fundamental concept in the development and maintenance of the "laws" the worlds peoples judge each other by. It is simple to observe the various cultures in this world and see that part of what makes up a culture are the different interpretations as to what is "natural". This is a complication factor not easily overcome, but my dream is that through education common ground can be found to make "getting along" just a little bit easier. I guess life is complicated and looking for ways to make it simpler are counterproductive, but if all this technology can provide a vehicle for more peace just think what the human race might be capable of. I hope I have not rambled off the point, long live NL! -- Bob Kuhfahl *** Learning more each day! Thanks to you all. bekcda@digex.net *** Working hard so I can play hard - wish all I had *** to do was bang on the drum all day! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 10:16:19 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: DIET: _Nutrients Catalog_ How to Use Due to my name being posted to this list, and some private inquiries, I am unabashedly posting information about my new reference book. It is called _Nutrients Catalog_ by Harvey Newstrom, and is published by McFarland & Company, Inc. It's number is 0-89950-784-0. This is an exhaustive reference book (over 500 pages) for looking up information only. It is not a pep-talk, nor is it a how-to book. The "How to Use This Book" section from the book follows: The parts of this book describe the vitamins, minerals, amino acids and macronutrients which are essential nutrients. A nutrient is a chemical component of food which must be present in the diet for proper functioning of the body. There are over two dozen vitamins, three dozen minerals, one dozen amino acids and a half dozen macronutrients that are essential in the diet. If any of these individual nutrients is missing in the diet, its lack will disrupt a specific set of chemical reactions within the body. Most of these entries are complete descriptions, but some entries merely direct the reader to another entry. This cross-referencing occurs where different terms may be used for the same nutrient. The most common or widely accepted term will be the one under which a nutrient is listed. Sometimes various terms have been used incorrectly in the literature. A warning to this effect will be placed in parenthesis at the beginning of the entry. *Names* lists the various names by which a nutrient is known. Some of these are common terms, while others may be chemical identifications. Those which are capitalized are brand names under which the nutrient has been sold. *Classification* identifies the common group or groups with which the nutrient is usually categorized. For vitamins, these groups are usually "lipid-soluble vitamin" or "water-soluble vitamin," although a few are classified as "amino acids" or "hormone precursor" as well. Those in the vitamin B complex are also categorized as "vitamin B complex" or "sub-vitamin B complex." Also, any vitamin precursor to one of the above will be labeled as a "precursor." For minerals, these groups are usually just "mineral" or "trace mineral" for the required nutrients and "contaminant" for the undesirable ones. The amino acids are classified as being an "essential amino acid" or a "nonessential amino acid," with a couple that are considered to be "semi-essential." Those containing sulfur are also classified as "sulfur-containing amino acids." In addition to the above classifications, any nutrient can be classified as an "antioxidant" if it has such properties. *Forms* identifies the various chemical forms of a nutrient. This helps the reader find the various chemical identifications for a nutrient. Some forms are listed under separate entries that give more information about the particular form, which may not apply to all forms of the nutrient. Usually, the separate entry merely references the primary entry for the nutrient. *Deficiency* describes the symptoms associated with a diet that is lacking the particular nutrient. This section should be checked to verify a suspected deficiency. If the person does not have many of the symptoms associated with a deficiency, a deficiency of the nutrient in question is unlikely. Remember that there are many causes for each symptom. The ability of a deficiency of a particular nutrient to cause a symptom does not mean that every occurrence of the symptom indicates deficiency. *Side-effects* describes the symptoms associated with a diet that contains a large amount of a particular nutrient. Usually the side-effects come about only after an excessive amount of a nutrient is taken, but sometimes they can occur at normal intake levels. Although side-effects are generally considered temporary, as opposed to toxicity symptoms, some side-effects can be dangerous and result in permanent injury. *Toxicity* describes the symptoms of poisoning associated with an excessive intake of a particular nutrient. These symptoms are usually extremely dangerous and can result in permanent damage. Anyone taking nutritional supplements should consult this section for symptoms to monitor. If such symptoms do occur, the nutrient intake should be lowered. Some nutrients can help detoxify other nutrients. Such detoxifiers are noted in parenthesis. Remember that a lack of toxicity symptoms does not indicate that a nutrient is harmless. *Inhibitors* lists the antagonists for a particular nutrient. These are the substances or conditions that counter the effect of a nutrient, either by reducing its absorption, or neutralizing it within the body. The presence of inhibitors usually increases the need for a nutrient. Inhibitors also can be used to help detoxify a nutrient, although they are not as effective as the nutrients specifically mentioned for detoxifying. *Helpers* lists the nutrient co-factors for a particular nutrient. These substances, usually other nutrients, help a nutrient function. They can aid in absorption or work synergistically with the nutrient. The presence of these helpers will usually decrease the need for a nutrient. A lack of these helpers can induce deficiency symptoms of a nutrient, even when adequate levels of the nutrient are present. *Sources* indexes the food sources for a nutrient. The food sources are usually expressed as a number of grams (g), milligrams (mg), or micrograms (5g) per every 100 grams (g) of food. Each amount will have a suffix showing the sampling error as specified in the most recent documents available. This is expressed as a "1" followed by a number. A measurment of "10010.5" indicates that the actual value may range from 99.5 to 100.5 due to slight imprecision in the sampling methods. No sources that failed to specify an error rate were used. Remember that many foods are eaten in amounts differing from 100 grams, foods eaten in large amounts may be better sources than they appear. Conversely, foods eaten in low amounts may not be as good. Be sure to calculate the total amount of the food eaten. Restaurant versions are sometimes listed as separate foods. For some foods, the restaurant recipies are so radically different that they do not contain the same ingredients. For example, a strawberry milkshake contains milk, ice cream, vanilla and strawberries, whereas a restaurant strawberry milkshake contains soy protein, water, locust bean extract, polysorbate-60, and artificial flavor. Their nutritional values are radically different! *Applications* describes the possible uses for a nutrient. These are the ailments for which a nutrient can be applied. Remember that application merely means that the nutrient can be used to counteract deficiency, or may induce a helpful effect. Applications are not cures. Nutrients can only cure the specific symptoms that are directly caused by a deficiency. Nutrients applied to other conditions may effect change, but they cannot fight the root cause. Also remember that the application possibilities are not caused by a lack of the nutrient. *Daily Dosage* documents the various recommendations that are made for a particular nutrient. The recommendations come from a variety of sources, and many of them are contradictory. The amount of each nutrient that should be ingested each day is a very controversial topic. If conversion between different units is common, the conversion ratios are listed in parenthesis. Listed next are the United States governmental recommendations. These vary as governmental recognition of nutrients changes over the years. Remember that the United States recommendations do not match the recommendations of other countries, so be sure to check the recommendations of each specific country. Also remember that the RDA recommendations have been revised many times. Be sure to check the date of any references to the RDA to determine which version is being referenced. "Pre-1958 MDR" refers to the pre-1958 Minimum Daily Requirements, the original governmental recommendation for the minimum dosage required to prevent deficiency. "1958 RDA" indicates the 1958 Recommended Dietary Allowances, which were the original governmental recommendations for the adequate daily dosage. They superseded the MDR. "1974 PCS" refers to the 1974 Permissive Composition of Supplements, the governmental recommendations for the allowable dosage of nutrient supplements. "1974 RDA" dosages are the 1974 Recommended Dietary Allowances, an intermediate change between the original governmental recommendations and the current recommendations for adequate daily dosage. "1974 USRDA" figures are the 1974 United States Recommended Daily Allowances, the specific dosages that the government required to be used to calculate the percent of U.S.RDA. on food nutrient labels. "1980 RDA" refers to the 1980 Recommended Dietary Allowances, the former governmental recommendations for the adequate daily dosage. "1980 USRDA" indicates the 1980 United States Recommended Daily Allowances, the specific dosages that the government required to be used to calculate the percent of U.S.RDA. on food nutrient labels. "1980 SADDI" dosages are those designated in the 1980 Safe and Adequate Daily Dietary Intakes in an appendix to the 1980 RDA. These were not as officially endorsed as are the primary recommendations of the RDA. "1989 RDA" refers to the 1989 Recommended Dietary Allowances, the governmental recommendations for adequate daily dosage that were in effect at the time of this writing. "1989 USRDA" indicates the 1989 United States Recommended Daily Allowances, the current specific dosages that the government requires to be used to calculate the percent of U.S.RDA. on food nutrient labels, as of this date. "1989 SADDI" dosages are those listed as Safe and Adequate Daily Dietary Intakes in an appendix to the 1989 RDA. These are not as officially endorsed as are the primary recommendations of the RDA. "Nutritional" dosages are those used for general nutrition, and the most common dosages found in over-the-counter vitamin supplements. "Therapeutic" dosages are those most often recommended to combat specific deficiencies or used for specific applications. "Experimental" are the highest dosages known to be used for any purpose, and the dosages suggested by those trying to maximize their possible intake. Experimental dosages are extremely dangerous and should only be attempted by knowledgeable professionals. Constant medical testing is required to monitor internal levels. "Toxic" is the lowest level commonly expected to induce toxicity. Lower levels can cause toxicity in children or those not at optimum health. Dosages under the toxic level are not guaranteed to be safe. For those nutrients for which no toxic dosage is known up to some level, remember that this merely means the toxic level has not been discovered or recognized. It does not mean that the toxic level is above the referenced amount, nor does it mean that the nutrient is safe at all levels. *Warnings* describe specific problems and special considerations with a particular nutrient. Also listed are any special conditions that might make taking a nutrient dangerous. Anyone taking nutrients should read these warnings. Remember that this list of warnings is not complete. There are many complicated dangers that are too involved to list here. Do not assume that the absence of a specific warning means that a nutrient is safe for a specific condition. Appendix A lists the symptoms that will direct the reader to specific nutrients. These can be deficiency symptoms, toxicity symptoms, side-effects, warnings for particular nutrients, or special conditions that may influence nutrition. When any of these symptoms occur, the reader should look up the referenced nutrient for more information. Appendix B compares various terminology systems for the vitamin B complex nutrients. This allows the reader to cross reference this book with other works that use different terminology. Appendix C deliniates the proper dietary ratios that should be maintained among various nutrients for optimum utilization. Appendix D catalogs all of the doseage recommendations from various sources. The combination of this information will allow the reader to survey the varying nutritional opinions at a glance. Appendix E contains the formulas for converting one form of unit measurements to another. The bibliography lists the sources that were used in compiling this reference. Not all the sources are equal in accuracy, however. Do not assume that all sections of a book are valid just because it is referenced here. Many books were slanted toward one viewpoint, so that the information in them must be considered biased. Although such books were excellent reference points from which to find other sources, they often failed to separate fact from political or religious beliefs. Above all, this book is intended to be informative. It will not modify the readerUs beliefs or level of expertise. This book cannot replace a proper practitioner, nor does it intend to alleviate the responsibility of any person to provide themselves with proper care. [The book also has an extensive 150-page index.-HSN] __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 10:26:29 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: DIET: _Nutrients Catalog_ Order Form Due to my name being posted to this list, and some private inquiries, I am unabashedly posting information about my new reference book. It is called _Nutrients Catalog_ by Harvey Newstrom, and is published by McFarland & Company, Inc. It's number is 0-89950-784-0. This is an exhaustive reference book (over 500 pages) for looking up information only. It is not a pep-talk, nor is it a how-to book. (Do not try to order from me! Order directly from the publisher please!) The Order Form from the publisher looks like this: _________________________________________________________________________ Nutrients Catalog $45 _____ Shipping/Handling _____ ($2 first book, 75cents each additional book) Canadian and foreign [out-of-USA] shipping/handling _____ ($4 first book, $1.50 each additional book) North Carolina residents add 6% sales tax _____ TOTAL _____ (Canadians add 25% and pay in Canadian funds Foreign orders: Please pay in U.S funds drawn on a New York bank) Name _____________________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ VISA __________ Mastercard __________ Phone # __________ Acct. # ____________________________ Exp. date __________ McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers Box 611, Jefferson NC 28640 (919-246-4460) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 10:55:30 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: DIET: ubiquinone, coenzyme Q About coenzyme Q-10, here is an excerpt from my _Nutrients Catalog_: VITAMIN Q10 Names: vitamin Q10, coenzyme Q10, CoQ10, CoQ, ubiquinone(50), ubichromenol(50), mitoquinone, SA, Q-275, 272-substance, coenzyme Q199, ubidecarenone, NSC I40865, Adelir, Heartcin, Inokiton, Neuquinone, Taidecanone, Udekinon Classification: lipid-soluble vitamin, coenzyme, antioxidant Forms: ubiquinone(50), ubichromenol(50) Deficiency: (No nutritional requirement in rats, mice, or walleyed pike, yeasts or microorganisms.) deterioration of heart function, cardiac deterioration, heart disease, angina pectoris, decreased cell energy from mitochondria, fatigue, decreased serum levels of coenzyme Q10, high blood pressure, gum disease, gingivitus, bleeding gums, decreased immunity, decreased levels of immunoglobulin/antibody G, nervousness, digestion deterioration, stomach ulcers, bruises Side-effects: none known Toxicity: none known up to 1000mg Inhibitors: laxatives, mineral oil Helpers: vitamin A, vitamin E, vitamin K, selenium Sources (mg per 100 grams of food): soybean oil(9.2+/-0.05), rapeseed oil(7.3+/-0.05), butter(7.1+/-0.05), sardine(6.4+/-0.05), mackerel(4.3+/-0.05), egg(3.7+/-0.05), sesame oil(3.2+/-0.05), beef(3.1+/-0.05), peanuts(2.7+/-0.05), pork(2.4+/-0.05), sesame seeds(2.3+/-0.05), cattlefish(2.3+/-0.05), chicken(2.1+/-0.05), cheese(2.1+/-0.05), horse mackerel(2.0+/-0.05), yellowtail(2.0+/-0.05), pistachios(2.0+/-0.05), walnuts(1.9+/-0.05), hazelnuts(1.7+/-0.05), cottonseed oil(1.7+/-0.05), chestnuts(1.4+/-0.05), almonds(1.4+/-0.05), corn oil(1.3+/-0.05), eel(1.1+/-0.05), spinach(1.0+/-0.05), perilla leaf(1.0+/-0.05), broccoli(0.86+/-0.005), rapeflower(0.74+/-0.005), green raw soybeans(0.58+/-0.005), flatfish(0.55+/-0.005), rice bran(0.54+/-0.005), sunflower oil(0.42+/-0.005), olive oil(0.41+/-0.005), safflower oil(0.40+/-0.005), sweet potato(0.36+/-0.005), wheat germ(0.35+/-0.005), sweet pepper(0.33+/-0.005), kinako(0.31+/-0.005), boiled soybeans(0.29+/-0.005), azuki beans(0.22+/-0.005), carrot(0.22+/-0.005), dry soybeans(0.21+/-0.005), natto(0.21+/-0.005), eggplant(0.21+/-0.005), cabbage(0.16+/-0.005), millet(0.15+/-0.005), cauliflower(0.14+/-0.005), buckwheat(0.13+/-0.005), chinese cabbage(0.10+/-0.005), potatoe(0.10+/-0.005), lard(0.10+/-0.005), Job's tears(0.07+/-0.005), milk(0.04+/-0.005), lard, internal conversion of vitamins/coenzymes Q7, Q8, Q9, and possibly others), internal synthesis from vitamin E Applications: heart disease, heart attack, angina pectoris, increased blood pressure, decreased oxygen, blood clotting, stroke, antioxidant therapy, free radical oxidation, life span extension, radiation, decreased radiation resistance, aging, leukemia, some forms of cancer, chemotherapy, Adriamycin treatments for cancer, gum diseases, bleeding gums, gingivitus, weight increased, immune system deficiencies, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, skin lesions, stomach ulcers, allergies, asthma Daily Dosage: 1989 SADDI: none 1989 RDA: none 1989 USRDA: none Nutritional: 10-50mg Therapeutic: 100-200mg Experimental: 500-1000mg Toxic: none known up to 1000mg __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 11:00:34 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: How much does Alcor cost? > ...in our experience, a healthy person aged > around thiry may obtain a $50,000 whole-life policy for under > $500 per year. Is this a reasonable price? The insurance agents that *Alcor* recommended to me is charging me $1500 a year. I am 30, non-smoker, vegetarian, etc. __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 93 11:52:12 -0400 From: Tim Freeman Subject: DIET: Nutrients catalog bibliography (was ubiquinone, coenzyme Q) >About coenzyme Q-10, here is an excerpt from my _Nutrients Catalog_: > >VITAMIN Q10 >... >Applications: ...schizophrenia... If I wanted to find the paper where somebody tried using CoQ10 for schizophrenia, would I have to search sequentially through the bibliography of the catalog, or is there some pointer from the mention of schizophrenia to the bibliography that you edited out of the post above? (This is just a test case; I'm not interested in schizophrenia specifically.) Lack of connection between the bibliography and the text is one of the glaring deficiencies in Pearson & Shaw's Life Extension. The way that book is written, if you want to prove that P&S made something up, you have to look up *all* of the references in the section of the bibliography for that chapter and verify that none of them support the claim in question. Usually some of the references are hopelessly obscure, so this is impossible. Tim F. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 11:12:03 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) Subject: On Searle and Craig In <9308040934.aa16713@genie.genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes: |> I'm tired of the call-and-response style of this debate, so I'm going |> to minimize my replies to Craig and preface them with a few general |> conclusions. I confess myself pooped also, I'll close with clarifications where called for below. BTW, your clock/computer observation is interesting (reminds me of one or two PBS specials, most notably "Connections"). By the same token, many primitives thought of their crafts and tools in religious ways. And many simulacra of real-world processes were undertaken using clockwork -- and some, like Babbage, even dreamed of clockwork AI of a sort. Where you see a reason to doubt the feasibility of the project, I see the progress of it. [interesting stuff deleted] |> My opponents seem to have great difficulty telling the difference between |> an argument and a question. Hence, they have tended to be argumentative |> and uninformative. It's silly of them to do this, to position themselves |> in opposition to me on this issue, since I have no position of my own to |> oppose. I'm trying to figure out which one to take. |> |> This failure to distinguish between inquiry and argument is intolerant in |> its effect, even though this may be unintended. Tolerance is a virtue; |> intolerance a vice. I don't think that argument is intolerant per se unless it lapses into verbal assault. I don't advocate burning you at the cathode for heresy, for example. As for answering a question with an argument, _questions have premises_, and are so freqently used as an argumentative device that there are several names in classical rhetoric for the proper and improper argumentative use of questions. As for whether you have a position on reductionism or not, you have made a lot of statements worthy of being opposed in the process of trying to find one. And remember how steel is tempered. |> I must conclude that Craig has failed to read where I have made clear |> some of the things he asks me for, such as an example of a metaphysical |> axiom which is testable: existence exists. This statement is not testable, as Ray has already pointed out. If I diabolically advocate a radical idealism, that No Thing Exists (uh-oh, this is the question that got Descartes in the headlines), I can quite happily claim that any proof you have of existence is just a tribute to the completeness of the illusion. This is a silly exercise, as was the Cartesian Cop-out.. If you deny "Existence exists", there are no consequences except that you have trouble explaining why you would bother to argue about it; if you accept it, there are no consequences, either, because it has only one term, so nothing for Modus Ponens to take hold of. The validity of the objection that it's a tautology, OTOH, depends on context: all of the axioms of FPC, for instance, are tautologies, and in fact without specifically identifying a rule of inference, you can't get anywhere in logic, either. However, the data of the real world (of which "Existence exists" redundantly justifies our examination) are not really "axiomatic"; they are a complex tangle of processes, relationships, and attributes, requiring more elaborate intellectual tools for their study. References to various modern philosophers of science would fit here if I had any non-obvious ones at hand. Maybe we want to bring up Popper or someone to dissect for contrast. |> As for Petyr Beckmann's [...] Craig attempted a speculative circumstantial |> ad hominem based upon the fact of an article having appeared in the American |> Spectator.[...] Not exactly ad hominem, more like anti-ad verecundiam. I don't get my physics from political magazines, (and I don't like it when I get politics in the science publications, either!). The creationist/fundie tie-in is simply that they are always looking for ways to discredit science in general. "It's only a theory", they harp. If that's true, then their "theory" is just as good as anyone's and should be taught in schools, etc. The tie-in with this (epic) argument is analogical at best, which is why it was a footnote. |> >|> 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. |> > |> >It's not merely "unpopular", it's also nonsensical. You're still looking for |> >Platonic essences; so, you're in the wrong cave. |> |> Here Craig steps on my turf: concept theory. Craig, since you admit to |> "unreconstructed positivism," I suspect I can run circles around you in |> concept theory like you can around me in physics. Suffice to say that |> not all essences are Platonic, that Platonic conceptual theory is a form |> of "realism," spefically "radical realism," and that I can tell you the |> difference between this, moderate realism, and both radical and moderate |> nominalism, as well as the theory I find best. Fair enough. Don't show me the macro[1]. [...] |> >Occam already did this. The theory with the fewest assumptions wins. |> |> I have zero assumptions. I win. Damn, caught abbreviating again. "The theory with the fewest assumptions that still explains all the observations, wins". [...] |> Actually, existence is defined ostensively, not circularly. Yeah, it's all that stuff out there (waves hands at surrounding objects). Having a term of art for something doesn't necessarily validate it. Foo. I'm getting argumentative again, and on a point where we actually agree. The universe is a given, we can learn how it works by science and exploit it by engineering, and it's fun to do (That's all the philosophy I need in a typical week). Some people have more tolerance for the existence of unanswerable questions than others, or different estimates of where the boundaries of answerability lie (epistemology), and sometimes these people are fun to argue with. ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here [1] A common phrase from when I made my living writing tons of assembler code. A common irritant around the lab would be some programming weenie [2] who just had to show you his great new macro in excruciating detail. [2] OK, we were all weenies, so you really had to work to stand out in that respect. But I preferred to let the next guy discover my buried gems, opcode puns, surreal 2 am comments, etc., on his own. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 12:25:07 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: DIET: Nutrients catalog bibliography (was ubiquinone, coenzyme Q) >If I wanted to find the paper where somebody tried using CoQ10 for >schizophrenia, would I have to search sequentially through the >bibliography of the catalog, or is there some pointer from the mention >of schizophrenia to the bibliography that you edited out of the post >above? (This is just a test case; I'm not interested in schizophrenia >specifically.) >Lack of connection between the bibliography and the text is one of the >glaring deficiencies in Pearson & Shaw's Life Extension. The way that >book is written, if you want to prove that P&S made something up, you >have to look up *all* of the references in the section of the >bibliography for that chapter and verify that none of them support the >claim in question. Usually some of the references are hopelessly >obscure, so this is impossible. Sorry, there is no link between the text and the bibliography. As you can see by my condensed format, there would have been a footnote on almost every word. This would have tripled the size of the book, pushing it into multi-volumes and probably out of the price-range of many. Because of size limitations, I have removed a large section on food analysis (which may be published as a separate book) and the section on experimental evidence. The latter may also be published, but provides no additional nutritional data, and is not as authoratative as the original source papers themselves. Therefore its usefulness to researchers is extremely limited. Any serious researcher should have access to standard medical, biological and chemical abstracts and indexes, and hopefully an on-line service. A simple keyword search for AND should provide any references needed to support or refute any purported claim. __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 09:26:22 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Aquinas Opposed Religious Persecution? At 8:58 AM 8/4/93 +0000, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu wrote: >Since George Smith mentions that Aquinas advocated the death penalty for >heretics, I'd like to know how James Donald can support his claim that\ >Aquinas was a great opponent of religious persecution. Did he oppose >in on grounds of natural law, but support it on grounds of divine law? He >did believe in such a dichotomy, and this represented a step forward in >the acceptance of natural law in that divine law had stood alone for quite >a while, so he may still qualify, but... >Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! >(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Wasn't it Aquinas who, when asked how it was possible to reconcile "God is love" with the existence of pain, suffering, and eternal damnation, replied "God must often do things in His official capacity which are abhorrent to Him in His personal capacity"? dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 09:36:54 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Important! Alcor does not recommend insurance agents At 11:00 AM 8/4/93 -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >> ...in our experience, a healthy person aged >> around thiry may obtain a $50,000 whole-life policy for under >> $500 per year. > >Is this a reasonable price? The insurance agents that *Alcor* recommended to >me is charging me $1500 a year. I am 30, non-smoker, vegetarian, etc. >Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Alcor does not recommend any insurance agent, agency, underwriter, or insurer. Alcor does refer prospective members to insurance agents that are known to have issued policies to other Alcor members in the past. This is an important distinction for legal reasons. All: Please forward this message to any list members that are known to have me ::excluded. My own life-insurance policy ($50K, for neurosuspension) is through New York Life, and my premiums are $42 per month ($504/year). I'm 28, non-smoker, carnivore. Do you have a family history of some particular disease perhaps? Are you a professional skydiver? (On my first attempt to type that word, I wrote "skydier"... Freudian slip?) dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 09:57:03 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Intelligence == wisdom == enlightenment? Someone (sorry, trashed the message, think it was Richard Kennaway) said something approximately like "I want intelligence, wisdom, and enlightenment, which to me all mean the same thing." I was somewhat taken aback like this; I have always made a distinction along the lines of: intelligence == raw processing power (cognitive ability) wisdom == understanding of how things work and how they relate to one another enlightenment == understanding of what's important and what isn't Am I in the minority in making this distinction? The reason I make it is that there are procedural dependencies among them: you've got to exercise your intelligence to acquire wisdom (except for "received wisdom" aka dogma), and you have to have accumulated a certain amount of wisdom to become enlightened. I can't tell whether this is going to provoke a flamefest or not. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1993 13:01:31 -0400 From: "W. Scott Meeks" Subject: Perseid meteor shower >Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 16:02:06 EDT >From: Brian.Hawthorne@east.sun.com (Brian Holt Hawthorne - SunSelect Engineering) >> 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, The comet's name is Swift-Tuttle. It just passed by a few months ago. >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). This part is basically correct. There is debris spread out around the comet's orbital path. It's thicker closer to the sun because of outgassing, etc. >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. I'm not sure about the last sentence, but it's not the main reason this year will be so spectacular. The real explanation, as mentioned above, is that the comet passed by just a few months ago, so the space debris hasn't had as much time to thin out. I've heard that it might even reach "meteor storm" levels (>100 meteors per hour) at it's peak. The next approach (or maybe it's the next closest approach) of Swift-Tuttle will be in 2176 where it will miss the earth by a mere ten days. Note that this is based only on gravitational calculations. Non-gravitational accelerations may change this number. "I'm not an astronomer, but I have a friend who is," Scott (meeks@osf.org) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1993 13:05:43 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: HEX: more concerns Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~ says: > I know that HEx is still relatively young, but even so, it just isn't > mirroring real-world market principles. I've voiced many concerns about this > (usually as an afterthought to some other related post). Here are some other > thoughts: > > No reputation's value is worth anything unless there is _activity_. Taking > a look at some of the higher-priced, null-volume reputations, you find > something like sell orders around 10p, and buy orders around .50p! THis is > a bit ridiculous. You've obviously never tried to trade in very thin markets before, have you. This stuff looks very much like equities on the pink sheets. You very often find that the market is grossly inefficient with insane spreads. It happens. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 13:08:07 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: How much does Alcor cost? (Oops!) Please ignore my previous post on how much my insurance for Alcor costs. My brain was multiprocessing too many things and overloaded a neuron. My cost for insurance is proportionately higher because I have requested a larger policy to cover whole-body suspension and other possible extras. My price per unit corresponds with what was quoted. Also, please excuse my poor chose of legaleze. Alcor would never recommend insurance or any particular agent. I am fully responsible for my own choices. __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #215 ********************************* &