From extropians-request@extropy.org Tue Sep 28 12:24:50 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA04041; Tue, 28 Sep 93 12:24:47 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.ed (ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu) by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA16007; Tue, 28 Sep 93 12:24:39 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA15842; Tue, 28 Sep 93 15:17:34 EDT Received: from news.panix.com by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu via TCP with SMTP id AA15837; Tue, 28 Sep 93 15:17:17 EDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA02347 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-maillist@ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Tue, 28 Sep 1993 15:17:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 15:17:24 -0400 Message-Id: <199309281917.AA02347@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: September 28, 373 P.N.O. [19:17:14 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Tue, 28 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 270 Today's Topics: [3 msgs] AGITPROP: Robin Hood (was: Lloyd's) [1 msgs] BASICS: Death [2 msgs] DisappointNet and the PostModern world order [1 msgs] FRIV: cat food [1 msgs] META: List archives. [1 msgs] Meaninglessness [1 msgs] Nightly Market Report [1 msgs] Recovery [3 msgs] extropian vices [2 msgs] inventions and concepts [1 msgs] operation [1 msgs] philosophitis [2 msgs] railgun [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51447 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 18:54:38 PDT From: sameer@netcom.com (Sameer Parekh) Subject: AGITPROP: Robin Hood (was: Lloyd's) Phil G. Fraering said: > > Isn't it about time we reclaimed this proto-anarchist as one of our > own? > *Excellent* point. I don't know the "official" Robin Hood story, but the recent mass-media feature film version is *definitely* of the anti-tax anti-government variety. "Steal from the rich, give to the poor" seems to be just a statement that in statist societies the richest are those in control of the government. -- Sameer sameer@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 19:32:25 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: extropian vices [ Eli Brandt comments about diamond, pressure and Jupiter-sized brains ] I strongly suspect that the state of matter at the center of this beastie would be unfamiliar to most of us -- seems to me I recall that one candidate for part of the real Jupiter is metallic hydrogen. Hmn. There's a size not too much bigger than Jupiter at which what you thought was a planet suddenly decides to turn on and becomes a star -- as encountered in the first sequel to _Space_Odyssey_ and also in Hal Clement's _Star_Light_ (was the world in question a planet heavy or a ...). I don't think that a Jovian-sized mass of carbon would create internal temperatures and pressures great enough to start the carbon-burning part of stellar evolution, but if it did -- or if somebody bought lots more memory -- then it might be that "Fiat Lux" was not a creative act by a cosmic mind, but rather its epitaph ... -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 22:43:40 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: DisappointNet and the PostModern world order Charlie Stross says: > > Why should I use a 2400 baud modem when I can now get my hands on > > ISDN? Soon, ISDN will be obsolete, since some carriers are now talking > > about offering 10Mbit service to ordinary subscribers over a > > metropolitan network set up over their existing fiber systems. > > Well yeah, but I think you're missing a critical point. I'm talking > about the internet's impact on the general public, and Joe Schmoe <> > Perry Metzger. It is estimated that something like 70% of the > _installed_ base of UNIX boxes are still communicating by UUCP at > 1200 baud. Estimated by whom? As of when? I'm quite skeptical of the figure. Upgrading to 2400 baud, which would halve the phone bills of such users, would cost them only about $60. The cost of a V.32bis modem is sufficently low that I have difficulty believing people who own $2000 unix boxes won't buy them, and thats the low end of Unix boxes. In any case, when 10MBPS via cable access costs only $50 a month, its going to be very hard for people to justify using 2400 baud modems. Skinflints might still get V.Fast modems, but thats about it. > The online services -- like > Compu$erve -- are still pretty much limited to V32 or V32 bis. Of course they are -- thats the limit of whats available in modems right now (excepting experimental V.Fast designs.) > I know there're these real neat protocols for pumping 1.2 Mbits/sec > over twisted pair from the telephone exchange, and when the fibre > optic cable TV companies are allowed to convey phone services the > bandwidth will go through the roof -- but do you really believe that > in the short term (3-5 years, which was what my initial post was > talking about!) J. Random Consumer is going to shell out for a 10 > mbit/sec _data_ service, as opposed to fifty more channels of cable > TV? In five years, they are likely to be identical, so I doubt its going to be a question of "shelling out". Things are happening faster and faster -- its becoming hard even for people like us to keep track of the increasing pace. > By the way, here's another proposition. Take the current state of the art > in realtime photorealistic rendering and animation. Extrapolate the curve > of decreasing prices. How long will it be before you and I can go forth and > spend $5000 for a system capable of scripting, rendering, and cutting on > videotape a TV-quality animation equivalent to the dino-sequences from > "Jurassic Park", but including human animation? > > I did this calculation three years ago and came out with a target in the > range 1998-2003. But looking at the ads for the SG Indy, I'm beginning to > think I was pessimistic. The problem at this point is the software, not the compute power. Doing realistic humans is HARD. Now, on the other hand, note the fact that all the special effects for Spielberg's new TV series (the underwater one -- I forget the name) are being done on a Video Toaster. The future is here, sort of... > Extrapolating from current developments (MIME, HyTime) we may be a matter of > months away from seeing newsgroups devoted to multimedia postings, There already is some multimedia on usenet, but the problem is that until most people are on ISDN or better the bandwidth simply isn't there. However, in a few years I can easily see entire porno films being bootlegged and posted to the net. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 19:44:30 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: railgun Dani Eder says: > Consider a railroad track. You have two steel rails, wooden ties, and > gravel ballast, all cheap materials. With a railgun, you need the same > rails (now to conduct a high current), but you need a big coil or rotating > energy s~ore, or a lot of batteries. . . . Won't the rails need to be stiffened laterally? I heard that experimental railguns tend to ruin themselves because the rails repel each other (of course) and bend out of shape. *\\* Anton Ubi scriptum? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 21:11:59 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: FRIV: cat food Jay Freeman advises: > Cats provide wonderful education for anarcho-capitalists. Take two! Before or after meals? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 00:10:03 EDT From: The Hawthorne Exchange Subject: Nightly Market Report The Hawthorne Exchange - HEx Nightly Market Report For more information on HEx, send email to HEx@sea.east.sun.com with the Subject info. News Summary as of: Tue Sep 28 00:10:02 EDT 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: PENNY A penny, 1/100 of a U.S. Dollar GUNS right to keep and bear arms ANARCHY Smash the State! HART Jim Hart New Share Issues: Symbol Shares Issued PENNY 10000 GUNS 10000 ANARCHY 10000 HART 10000 Share Splits: Symbol n-for-1 Total Issued KLAUS 2 20000 KLAUS 5 100000 Market Summary as of: Tue Sep 28 00:00:02 EDT 1993 Reputations of members of the Extropians mailing list: [ Note: Contact hex-request to have a reputation placed on this list. ] Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Market Value ANTON .60 .61 .60 10000 1819 1091.40 ARKU .27 .29 .28 10000 5101 1428.28 BLAIR 1.25 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 DEREK - .19 .19 100000 18220 3461.80 DRS - .15 .15 10000 2600 390.00 DVDT 1.55 1.70 1.70 10000 10000 17000.00 E .75 1.00 .90 10000 8011 7209.90 ESR - - - - - - FCP .06 1.30 1.50 80000 15345 23017.50 GHG .20 .60 .60 10000 7180 4308.00 GOBEL .01 1.50 1.00 10000 767 767.00 H .30 .76 .75 30000 16290 12217.50 HAM .60 1.00 .01 20000 15826 158.26 HANNO .15 7.00 - 10000 - - HFINN 1.50 6.00 6.00 10000 1005 6030.00 IMMFR .25 .70 .80 10000 1838 1470.40 JFREE .20 1.25 1.00 10000 3200 3200.00 JOHN .30 .50 - 10000 - - JPP .40 .57 .30 10000 3500 1050.00 KARL .50 1.00 1.00 10000 1000 1000.00 LEFTY .30 .42 .40 10000 3751 1500.40 MARCR - - - - - - MLINK - .01 .01 1000000 102602 1026.02 MWM .01 1.50 1.50 10000 1260 1890.00 N 15.00 20.00 .01 10000 1177 11.77 P 22.50 25.00 25.00 1000000 94 2350.00 PETER - .01 1.00 10000000 600 600.00 PRICE - .01 4.00 10000000 1410 5640.00 R .40 .70 .60 10000 6000 3600.00 RJC 1.00 2.00 1.50 10000 5200 7800.00 ROMA - - - - - - RWHIT - - - - - - SAMEER .30 .75 .61 10000 9810 5984.10 SHAWN .55 .55 .01 10000 25 .25 TCMAY 1.50 4.50 .01 10000 7001 70.01 TIM 1.00 2.00 .01 10000 1702 17.02 WILKEN 1.00 10.00 10.00 10000 101 1010.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 116549.61 Other reputations: Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Market Value 1000 .05 .40 .20 10000 5000 1000.00 110 .01 .10 .10 10000 1750 175.00 150 .01 .10 .10 10000 1750 175.00 1E6 .05 .10 .05 10000 1025 51.25 1E9 .05 .09 .05 10000 1000 50.00 200 .02 .20 .10 10000 5075 507.50 80 .01 - - 10000 - - 90 .01 - .10 10000 2000 200.00 ACS - .10 .05 10000 2724 136.20 AI .10 .50 .30 10000 1000 300.00 ALCOR - 2.25 1.50 10000 3176.00 4764.00 ALTINST - .25 .05 10000 4000 200.00 ANARCHY 1.00 2.15 - 10000 - - BIOPR .01 .09 .05 10000 3000 150.00 CYPHP - .15 .08 10000 3100 248.00 DC1000 - .10 - 10000 - - DC200 - .15 .10 10000 1500 150.00 DC7000 - .10 - 10000 - - DCFLOP - .10 - 10000 - - DRXLR .85 1.00 1.00 10000 4346 4346.00 EXI 1.54 3.20 3.00 10000 3025 9075.00 FAB - - - - - - GOD - .10 .10 10000 3000 300.00 GOD_2 - - - - - - GUNS 1.00 1.70 - 10000 - - HART - 2.00 2.00 10000 9000 18000.00 HEINLN .01 .25 .05 10000 3100 155.00 HEX 100.00 101.00 100.00 10000 3642 364200.00 KLAUS .40 .45 .01 100000 30003 300.03 LEARY .01 .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 LEF .50 .70 .50 10000 4025 2012.50 LIST .40 10.00 .75 10000 5000 3750.00 LP - .30 .15 10000 4625 693.75 LSOFT 1.00 1.50 1.00 10000 9550 9550.00 LURKR - .01 - 100000 - - MED21 .01 .19 .02 10000 3400 68.00 MMORE - 1.25 .10 10000 3000 300.00 MORE .75 1.25 1.25 10000 3160 3950.00 NEWTON - .20 - 10000 - - NLAW - .50 - 10000 - - NNLAW - .50 - 10000 - - NSS - .03 .01 10000 25 .25 OCEAN - .15 .12 10000 3100 372.00 PENNY 1.50 5.12 1.50 10000 1000 1500.00 PLANET .01 .02 .05 10000 1500 75.00 PPL .15 .45 .30 10000 4600 1380.00 RAND .05 .06 .05 10000 1500 75.00 SGP - - - 10000 - - SSI .22 .29 .22 10000 4700 1034.00 TRANS .01 .60 .02 10000 3011 60.22 VINGE .75 1.00 .49 10000 3400 1666.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 431169.70 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 00:16:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Elizabeth Schwartz Subject: BASICS: Death When we talked about this before, what struck me was the distinction someone made between ourselves as a *process* and our selves as a *program*, to use the computer science metaphor. If a person's consciousness is gradually uploaded, via a cell-by-cell replacement or other means, to different hardware, the person's "uptime" has been continuous. A copy, no matter how accurately made, that is re-started from storage, is another instantiation of the program, and not *me* Of course, this has a couple of gaping holes. One, as Sasha keeps reminding me, is that our current consciousness is interrupted by sleep and even loss of train of thought, but the hardware gives us the illusion of continuity. The other is that much stickier question of what our identity is and why do we care? I, for one, would not consent to voluntary de-animation no matter what sort of copy was going to be animated! I can't really answer the question on sleep....my only current option is to do regular hardware maintenance and trust the system not to crash! ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 27 September 1993 20:43:23 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: I still don't know what "exist" means James > > I presume that you are arguing that there is no objective > > way of determining rights, hence rights are merely > > arbitrary subjective preferences, not objective things. > In <9309262125.AA20808@netcom3.netcom.com>, dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) wrote: > I'm asking whether rights exist in a sense other than the > mathematical (i.e. as identifiable points in > solution-space). Say what? ? ? ? If you ask analogous questions about almost any matter, such as the existence of the pear on the table near me, you will find yourself in deep philosophical shit, with meaningless questions piling up real fast, If rights are identifiable points in solution place, and reasonable people are capable, in most cases, of finding those points, and people have objective reasons for forcibly defending these points (for example even a burglar wishes that property rights should be respected by other people, otherwise the stuff he burgled will do him no good), and people generally do defend these points unless violently restrained by the state, then rights do exist. If you ask "Do rights exist" then that is a meaningful question. If you ask "What does it mean to say that rights exist, then you are asking: what does it mean to say that anything exists, and then you ask does existence exist, and then you wander off into meaningless philosophical pea soup. Rand was wrong about lots of stuff, but existence does exist. Next question please. When you asked "I still don't know what "exist" means" I did not take you seriously. I know what exist means, and you know too. Many words, indeed most words, cannot be defined by explicit definition. Instead you point to examples. I exist. You exist. The internet exists. The tooth fairy does not exist. OK, we have no problem with particular objects. Now we go to categories. The English common law used to exist, still does but it is gravely ill. "Common law" as an abstraction independent of the particular nation and era, does not exist. The constitution of the United States continues to exist as a piece of paper, but has ceased to exist as a constitution. On the other hand *a* constitution still exists - politics has not yet degenerated into straightforward violence, but it is not *the* constitution. The category "man" exists, the category "tiger" exists. These categories exist in the world, not by arbitrary definition. If tigers became extinct, then they would no longer exist, but they would not become matters of arbitrary definition. OK, so we have no problem with universals. And now you know what "exist" means, just as you always did. > > [Randy Weaver acquitted of self-defense; NY racist acquitted of murder] > > If, as you claim, rights have no objective existence, then > > there is no objective difference between these trials, both > > are equally violations of government legislation, both are > > equally exercises of arbitrary subjective preference by > > the jury. > > > > Clearly an absurd conclusion. Obviously your premises are wrong. > I wish you wouldn't beg the question like that. > It damages your argument by making you sound crazy. Reductio ad absurdum is not begging the question. The premises that you appeared to be asserting lead to conclusions that we both agree are obviously false. Therefore those premises must be wrong, or else the argument leading from the premises to the absurd conclusion is wrong. You agree that the conclusion is false, that the Randy Weaver case was not just an arbitrary subjective preference by the jury. Do you disown the premises that I have attributed to you? Or are you claiming these premises do not lead to the false conclusion? --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Monday, 27 September 1993 20:44:03 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: philosophitis In <17651@price.demon.co.uk>, price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) wrote: > Wading through the verbage of Donald's hysterical claims we > find this: > > To define the spin of an electron operationally is rather > > strained. > > Oh? Pray do elucidate. Give us another laugh. Clearly the operations required to measure the angular momentum of an electron are qualitatively different to the operations required to measure the angular momentum of a merry go round. Thus angular momentum is *not* operationally defined for microscopic objects, as the operations are qualitatively different, yet it is still angular momentum. On the other hand the operations required to measure the momentum of an electron *are* operationally similar to measuring the momentum of a tennis ball - but an electron does not have a well defined momentum, and it *does* have a well defined angular momentum. Operationalism leads into a maze of meaningless and trivial technicalities of this type. It is wise to define things operationally where possible and appropriate, but to claim that all definitions are either operational or meaningless, is itself meaningless nonsense. If scientific concepts are defined by operations, instead of the other way around, we could not know that the angular momentum of an electron is angular momentum - and we *do* know that it is angular momentum. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Mon, 27 Sep 93 22:04:50 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: FRIV: cat food > > Cats provide wonderful education for anarcho-capitalists. Take two! > Before or after meals? Depends whether you want anything left for you to eat ... -- Jay Freeman, who cohabits with six cats ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 22:48:01 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: operation Mike Price wrote: > The position, as I see it, is that > operationalism is the standard scientific method. James Donald (without whom, let's face it, I'd be citing someone else) answered: > Not so. > Science assumes that the entities it deals with are real, > not merely an arbitrary method of predicting experiments. Well, sure, if you want to look at it that way. ;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 22:49:26 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: DisappointNet and the PostModern world order >Charlie Stross says: >> It is estimated that something like 70% of the >> _installed_ base of UNIX boxes are still communicating by UUCP at >> 1200 baud. > >Estimated by whom? As of when? I'm quite skeptical of the figure. >Upgrading to 2400 baud, which would halve the phone bills of such >users, would cost them only about $60. Maximum. When Fry's Electronics opened up a new store near here recently, they were selling Hayes 2400 modems for $15.95. -- Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 02:56:25 GMT From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Subject: Meaninglessness James Donald: > Planet IS NOT an operationally defined category. Dog is > not an operationally defined category. Unfortunately, James does not go on to say why, although he does later say: >... "planet" and "dog" is [sic] well defined ... Clearly, James has some non-operational "well defined" definition he isn't sharing with us. Webster's: a planet is a body that revolves around a star, that is not a comet, asteroid or satellite [of another body] So, if we have empirical data about a suspected planet (like whether it orbits a star, how big it is etc) then we can say whether it's a planet or not. > In an earlier posting Price said that "sure a planet is > operationally defined, you look through a telescope and you > can see that it is a planet", implying that anything we can > perceive is operationally defined. (I quote from memory, > the wording may not be exact, but the flavor and meaning is > reasonably accurate.) It is not accurate. I did not say this, or anything like it. I agree with the "flavour and meaning", though. > [Price] also claimed that Heisenberg was an operationalist, This was also Heisenberg's claim, since he claimed, to Einstein, to be inspired by Einstein's work with the exclusion of concepts that could not be defined operationally. (Einstein, to be fair, had some differences with Heisenberg on this score, when they met. My interpretation of their respective positions are that Einstein wanted observables to emerge from a theory, but not necessarily to play a central part in it, whereas Heisenberg wanted observables defining the structure of a theory. I have more sympathy with Einstein's view than Heisenberg's.) > [Price believes] the Jehovah's witnesses are operationalists. Of course they are not. They believe in absolute rights, for example. > "Existence exists" is well defined. Just look, and you > can see that existence does exist. Could you look and see that "existence doesn't exist"? No, therefore you don't have to look. "Existence exists" is a tautology, well defined or not. > The proposition that "Existence exists" implies (among > other things) that if we know a subject under discussion, > and are competent and rational, we can determine what is > real and unreal How, mystic insight? I'd wish you offer some logic for your statements instead of trotting out non-sequitur after non-sequitur. Since EE is a tautology then your statement can be further reductio ad absurdum to > if we "know" a subject under discussion, and are competent > and rational, we can determine what is real and unreal Wow! Sorry for the flippancy, but this is an astounding claim (or completely banal, depending on what _you_ mean by "real"). > James A. Donald Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 23:55:53 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: inventions and concepts Tim Starr: > I would probably say that "something higher to > stand on" would be a perceptual abstraction possessed by the monkey in > question, if not a concept. Please clarify the difference. *\\* Anton Ubi scriptum? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 10:28:35 GMT From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Subject: philosophitis James Donald astounds us with his "insight": > Clearly the operations required to measure the angular > momentum of an electron are qualitatively different to the > operations required to measure the angular momentum of a > merry go round. Not "clearly" at all. Place a charge on the merry-go round and fire through an inhomogeneous magnetic field and it would be deflected like the electrons in the stern-gerlach experiment. > Thus angular momentum is *not* operationally defined for > microscopic objects, as the operations are qualitatively > different, yet it is still angular momentum. Because the operations are "qualitatively different" (wrong) they're not "operationally defined". Eh? A falsehood _and_ a non-sequitur in the same sentence. > On the other hand the operations required to measure the > momentum of an electron *are* operationally similar to > measuring the momentum of a tennis ball - but an electron > does not have a well defined momentum Now we have the flip-side. James Donald follows a truth (momentum is defined operationally) by a non-sequitur (momentum is not well-defined). Sorry, but the momentum of an electron may be well-defined or it may not. Depends on the circumstances (the experimental setup). >, and it *does* have a well defined angular momentum. Same comment here. The angular momentum of an electron may be well- defined or not, according to the setup. I could go on here, but it is pointless. James Donald does not understand quantum mechanics and wave- particle duality. > > Operationalism leads into a maze of meaningless and trivial > technicalities of this type. On the contrary, if you were enrol on a standard course of quantum mechanics you would find that these concepts are all well defined. > If scientific concepts are defined by operations, instead > of the other way around, we could not know that the > angular momentum of an electron is angular momentum - and > we *do* know that it is angular momentum. A truly astounding sentence. Any E' experts care to analyse? I have previously expressed my scepticism of the necessity of using E', but some people are clearly badly in need of it. Nick, my apologies :-) > James A Donald --------------------------------------------------------------------- | I have the right to make a complete ass of Donald Duck | myself, because of the kind of animal I am. | True knowledge derives from ignorance, not from | the exercise of common sense and empiricism PS There is a difference between conventional orbital angular momentum and spin or 'intrinsic' angular momentum. It lies not in their measurement or operational definition, as we've seen, but in its visualisability. Orbital angular momentum can be interpreted as rotation of an extended system - eg the rotation of the merry-go round. Spin or intrinsic angular momentum is a property of a non-extended object that does not correspond to rotation. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 11:11:38 GMT From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) Subject: extropian vices >> Density of diamond (specific gravity = 3.5) = 3500 kg / m^3 >Ah, anybody know the bulk modulus of diamond? (Would you believe >my CRC doesn't?) Actually, diamond may not be the stable phase >at the center of this thing. I don't have a phase diagram for >carbon that goes to very high pressures, but extrapolation suggests >liquid carbon at moderate temperatures once we reach the megabar >range. What's the pressure in the center of Jupiter anyway? >> Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk > Eli I've got some figures for interior conditions of Jupiter from my copy of *The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy* (c) 1977. Radius (km) Pressure (Mbars) Density (kg m^-3) 69000 0.004 30 60000 1.1 700 50000 4.5 1600 30000 20 3000 10000 35 4100 0 37 4200 The mean density is only 1.3 times that of water, or 2.7 times less than diamond. At about 40-50,000 km from the core the liquid H2 molecules start to become separated into individual H atoms of liquid metallic hydrogen. The core is about 20-30,000 K. As soon as anything like Alzheimer's symptoms start to show up, it's time to rapidly do a dram downgrade. Is this what is meant by a "brain turned to mush"? "Confusion will be my epitaph" King Crimson (c) 1969 Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 06:45:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: META: List archives. a conscious being, Elizabeth Schwartz wrote: > > I have a good internet connection and can make Exabyte and SUn > cartridge tapes but we don't have incoming anonymous ftp here and > there isn't a lot of space. I could set up a named account... but how > big would this be and how long would it have to stay here for? > > (I'm working fulltime and taking a massive graduate load so I can't > do anything elaborate. ) This might be helpful, but if I am going to do anything with it, it would have to be in Mac format, (like a DAT). Is there anyone who has a Mac on the net with a DAT? /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 04:23:50 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: Recovery I think I've found one of the keys, in the form of a sentence from "The Passion of Ayn Rand", a biography by Barbara Branden: "The concept of unconditional love was totally foreign to Ayn's thinking." This seems to be a major departure between Rand's thinking and Extropianism. My intuition is that an Extropian, in addition to being at least mostly in alignment with the Five Principles, loves himself or herself unconditionally at least, also extending that gift to more or fewer others as his or her temperament and values dictate. It is fairly clear to me that this is something that is generally (and best) taught early, and that, like a language, it can be learned in adulthood, but with greater effort. Perhaps even greater because I am convinced that to judge myself less harshly than others judge me would be a sign of moral cowardice on my part (and that to reject their judgements as "merely subjective" would be to insult them unjustly). At this point, my task is to avoid bogging myself down with ponderings about what love is, and what unconditional self-love would look like. There may be a course, like the language tapes -- "Self-love in 20 Minutes a Day" -- but it's probably a hokey, non-lasting, quick-fix kind of thing. Besides, words are what keep me where I am; my intuition is that words will probably not get me out. So here, having read enough of Rand's biography to realize that she was a human after all, seems to be where I meet my first major philosophical/psychological/emotional challenge on my current journey. I'd be interested to hear the insights of others on the place of love, of self and of others, in the Extropian mindset and value system. Among other things, it will give my conscious mind something to do while my subconscious hacks away at undergrowth. Maybe now I can get to sleep. Thanks for listening, Kennita ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 09:07:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Recovery a conscious being, Kennita Watson wrote: > I'd be interested to hear the insights of others on the place of love, > of self and of others, in the Extropian mindset and value system. > Among other things, it will give my conscious mind something to do > while my subconscious hacks away at undergrowth. Kennita, I agree with your statement's about Extropians and self love, and the love of others. I think love and other things emotive, have a place in the Extropian world view. When we talk about being "trans-human" and "post-human," some think this means becoming more "Mr. Spock" like - (e.g., transcending all feelings.). While that might be the true desires of some Extropians, this Extropian intends to be in many ways more emotive, more in touch with feelings, feel stronger love and enjoy stronger longer lasting "highs" and more quickly come into touch with pain (and mourn loss stronger too, and then move on - mourning meaning healing (for me)). /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 10:01:09 EDT From: eli@suneast.east.sun.com (Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: BASICS: Death Mike Linksvayer writes: > Oh come on. Am I 'the same' Mike Linksvayer I was twenty years ago, > even though all of the atoms are different? Depends on what one means > by 'the same.' No, I'm not the same Mike Linksvayer. I'm a very > different Mike Linksvayer. However, I'm still Mike Linksvayer. Well, I admitted as much. My reductionist style of identification might be thought of as quaint and hopelessly out of date in the future. Hell, without a real reductionist explanation of consciousness, the claim for a reductionist form of identify is really little more than sophistry; I know that. But I can't shake the belief yet, however primitive it may seem, that without my brain, it isn't me. Elias Israel eli@east.sun.com HEx: E ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 7:11:22 PDT From: mlinksva@netcom.com (Michael R Linksvayer) Subject: Recovery Harry S. Hawk writes: > some Extropians, this Extropian intends to be in many ways more > emotive, more in touch with feelings, feel stronger love and enjoy > stronger longer lasting "highs" and more quickly come into touch with Yeah. A former list member, D. Owen Rowley, has a brief definition of euphoria in his signature. There's nothing like it. When someone asks me why I want to live indefinitely, I say "Just being able to listen to and enjoy all the music that I'd never have a chance to in a normal lifespan is more than reason enough." That's not even counting all of the other arts, most of which either I am totally ignorant of or have not been invented yet. For me, Jovian brains and the like are pure gravy. (Not to say I don't want a Jupiter-sized brain and everything else conceivable and inconceivable as well!) -- Mike Linksvayer mlinksva@netcom.com MLINK on HEx ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #270 *********************************