From extropians-request@extropy.org Wed Sep 29 01:22:39 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA12736; Wed, 29 Sep 93 01:22:38 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 AA16355; Wed, 29 Sep 93 01:22:29 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA16506; Wed, 29 Sep 93 04:18:36 EDT Received: from news.panix.com by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu via TCP with SMTP id AA16501; Wed, 29 Sep 93 04:18:19 EDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA17272 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-maillist@ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Wed, 29 Sep 1993 04:18:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 04:18:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199309290818.AA17272@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: September 29, 373 P.N.O. [08:17:58 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Wed, 29 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 271 Today's Topics: Anton attempts synthesis (long) [1 msgs] BASICS: Death [1 msgs] CONFERENCE: European Computers, Freedom & Privacy [1 msgs] DisappointNet and the PostModern world order [1 msgs] Experimental FTP Server [1 msgs] META: List archives. [1 msgs] Nightly Market Report [1 msgs] Operationalism (was Meaninglessness) [1 msgs] SOCIETY OF THE MINDS SYMPOSIUM [DO NOT FORWARD] [2 msgs] Symposium [1 msgs] paradox [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 52235 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 22:01:22 EDT From: david@WAL6000A.UDC.UPENN.EDU (R. David Murray) Subject: DisappointNet and the PostModern world order Perry E. Metzger writes: > there. However, in a few years I can easily see entire porno films > being bootlegged and posted to the net. Business opportunity alert : remember that guy who had a show on NY cable where he would wander around with a video camera (dressed in a space-zoot-suit, I think) and get women to strip for him? I'll bet with the right promoter (promoter in the broad sense) he could do real well in this emerging market . . . -- david david@udcemail.udc.upenn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 22:28:22 EST From: wit@MIT.EDU (paul whitmore) Subject: SOCIETY OF THE MINDS SYMPOSIUM [DO NOT FORWARD] My favorite martian is having a very big celebration, and i am forwarding the announcement. Perhaps enough Extropians will register to make it an extro-fun celebration. I do request, however, that no one forward this to another list. As for calling to register, i wondered if i wd have to claim some high affiliation (or lie, as they say). but it is not required. just a call, and your name and address will be placed in the book of the (artificially) living. i went to the media lab's fifth birthday party, and to a conference on agents last year, and the way these guys throw parties, one must wonder whether they have not signed some evil compact. The festivities are usu. quite grand. SOCIETY OF THE MINDS SYMPOSIUM AND MISAWA LECTURE WHEN: Monday, October 18, 1993, 8:30am WHERE: Kresge Auditorium Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts I. SYMPOSIUM WHAT: SOCIETY OF THE MINDS SYMPOSIUM AND MISAWA LECTURE The Media Lab will sponsor a `Society of Minds' symposium in honor of the past and continuing contributions of Professor Marvin Minsky. The symposium will consist of the *MISAWA LECTURE* by Professor Minsky together with presentations and responses from Professor's Minsky's former students and current colleagues. It's topics will range over the breadth of concerns to which Professor Minsky and his students have turned their talents. This is the second MISAWA LECTURE, the first being presented by Alan Kay in October, 1990. WHEN: Monday, October 18, 1993, 8:30am WHERE: Kresge Auditorium Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts WHAT: Symposium Agenda Morning Session Host and Emcee Hugh Downs, ABC News 20/20 Presentations by Arthur C. Clarke, author of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and numerous other novels, and inventor of the synchronous communications satellite; (speaking via satellite) Oliver Selfridge, an AI pioneer whose early work inspired the first autonomous interface agent, the "Oliver" John McCarthy, co-founder of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, organizer of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Professor of Computer Science at Stanford, and proponent of the "logical" approach to AI Seymour Papert, LEGO Professor of Learning Research at the Media Laboratory, co-author (with Minsky) of Perceptrons, and author of numerous other books on technology and education Danny Bobrow, Research Fellow, Xerox Corporation Gerald Jay Sussman, builder of languages and machines, simulator of solar systems and circuits, and an MIT Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Luncheon (by special invitation) Presentation by Jerome Ysrael Lettvin, neurophysiologist, psychiatrist, electrical engineer, and MIT Professor Emeritus of MIT Professor Emeritus of Biology and of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Afternoon Session Presentations by Michael Hawley, recently appointed Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and of Media Arts and Sciences David Waltz, Vice President, Computer Science Research, NEC Research Institute Danny Hillis, Founding Scientist, Thinking Machines Corporation Kenneth B. Haase, festschrift organizer and Assistant Professor of Media Arts and Sciences Marvin Minsky, Second Misawa Lecturer and Toshiba Professor of Media Arts and Sciences Evening Reception at MIT Media Lab (by special invitation) THIS SYMPOSIUM IS FREE OF CHARGE. DIRECTIONS TO MIT'S KRESGE AUDITORIUM: HOW: REGISTRATION FOR MIT MEDIA LAB SPONSORS AND FORMALLY INVITED GUESTS; Please contact the MIT Media Lab Office of Communications and Sponsor Relations at (617)253-0338 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 02:47:30 GMT From: russell@eternity.demon.co.uk (Russell Earl Whitaker) Subject: CONFERENCE: European Computers, Freedom & Privacy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ECFP '93: The First European Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy The New Cavendish Club London, England 20th November 1993 Organised by ECFP Ventures Limited Co-operating organisations : The Libertarian Alliance Privacy International, UK UK Cryptoprivacy Association SCOPE - ---------------------------------- The widespread use of computers and communication systems has brought considerable benefits to our business and personal lives and will continue to change and shape the way in which we live. However, with those benefits come unprecedented threats to our personal privacy and potential for abuse. A variety of different models for protection of individual privacy in the electronic age have been suggested, ranging from state regulation to individual action through the use of strong cryptography. However, these solutions bring with them their own class of problems, including excessive state involvement in private matters and the frustration of law enforcement and national security objectives. The First European Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy will both provide an introduction to these issues and the technological developments that drive them, and examine different ways in which individual rights can be guaranteed. These questions are central to the preservation of a free society in the Information Age. John M. Brimacombe Conference Chair KEYNOTE SPEAKER - ---------------------------------- John Gilmore Email: gnu@cygnus.com JOHN GILMORE is Chairman of the Board of Cygnus Support, who provide commercial support for free software. As founder and board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Cypherpunks, he has campaigned extensively for electronic privacy. John will speak on building a society in which personal privacy is guaranteed through the use of strong cryptography. OTHER SPEAKERS - ---------------------------------- John Brimacombe (Chairman) Email: john@mantis.co.uk JOHN BRIMACOMBE is the Managing Director of Jobstream Group plc, developers of business software. A graduate in both law and computer science, he was an advisor to CFP '93 in San Francisco. John will serve as conference moderator. Simon Davies Email: davies@privint.demon.co.uk SIMON DAVIES is Director General of Privacy International and a member of the School of Law at the University of New South Wales. He will be looking at new developments in surveillance and ways of combating them. Tom Burroughes Email: tom@reptile.demon.co.uk (after 10 October 1993) TOM BURROUGHES is Deputy Chief Reporter with the East Anglian Daily Times in Ipswich, England. He will be giving a journalist's point of view on privacy issues, including recent incidents involving eavesdropping on cellular telephones, and the roles of various corporate and government bodies in the recent adoption of cellphone signal encryption standards in the UK. David Chaum Email: chaum@digicash.nl DAVID CHAUM is head of the Cryptography Group at the Center for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI) in Amsterdam, and founder of DigiCash, which develops electronic payments systems. Dr. Chaum received his Ph.D. in computer science from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1982, and joined CWI in 1984. He helped to found the International Association for Cryptologic Research and remains active on its board. David also consults internationally on cryptology. Duncan Frissell Email: frissell@panix.com DUNCAN FRISSELL is an attorney, technical author and consultant on matters of personal and financial privacy. Duncan will speak on "Traditional Privacy in the Electronic Age". Elaine Fletcher ELAINE FLETCHER is Assistant Solicitor for Eric James Howe, Data Protection Registrar (UK). Elaine will speak on issues arising from the Data Protection regime established under the 1984 Data Protection Act. Chris Tame CHRIS TAME is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance and Director of the smokers rights group FOREST, as well as UK representative of the Libertarian International. He has written extensively for such academic journals as /Science and Public Policy/, /Economic Affairs/, and /The Jewish Journal of Sociology/, and such books as *The Case For Private Enterprise* and *The Politics of Crime Control*. He appears regularly on radio and television in the UK. Chris will speak on the libertarian views of data protection and privacy. Russell Whitaker Email: whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk RUSSELL WHITAKER, conference co-organiser, is a consultant on electronic communications, a director of ECFP Ventures Ltd and communications editor of Extropy magazine. Russell will speak on the composition of, and influences upon, the electronic community in Britain today, and how public policy affects those on computer bulletin boards and online services. PROGRAMME - --------------------------------- Registration 9.30 - 10.00 am First session 10.00 - 11.30 am BREAK 11.30 - 11.50 am Second session 11.50 am - 1.20 pm BREAK 1.20 - 2.20 pm Third session 2.20 - 3.50 pm BREAK 3.50 - 4.10 pm Fourth session 4.10 - 5.40 pm PANEL SESSION 5.40 - 6.20 pm Closing remarks 6.20 - 6.30 pm Lunchtime is the break after the second session, and lunch itself is not included in the price of the conference. There are pubs and restaurants in the immediate vicinity. Coffee, tea and biscuits will be on sale through the day, however. Registration form: - --------------------------------- NAME _____________________________________ JOB TITLE _____________________________________ ORGANISATION/AFFILIATION _________________________ ___________________________________________ MAILING ADDRESS _____________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ TELEPHONE ___________________________________________ FAX ___________________________________________ E-MAIL ___________________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTE: only *fully* completed forms with full telephonic details will be accepted, to be used in the event of any emergency changes, such as change of venue. This is not optional. CLASS OF REGISTRATION : [Prices are Pounds Sterling] Student 10.00 ($16.00 U.S.) Normal 17.50 ($28.00 U.S.) Normal before 1 Nov 93: 15.00 ($24.00 U.S.) Press (Contact for arrangements) MEANS OF PAYMENT: - U.S. cheques/cash - U.K. cheques/cash - EuroCheques (tm) Unfortunately, due to bank conversion charges, we are unable to accept cheques drawn on other overseas accounts, for payment of this year's attendance fees. PROCEEDINGS AND AUDIO/VIDEOGRAPHY - ------------------------------------------- You may pre-order copies of transcripts of the proceedings, which will be shipped within 90 days after the conference: "Please send me ____ copies of the conference proceedings at 20 pounds each." Video and audio recordings will be made of the conference, in its entirety. No pre-sales will be made; tapes go on sale in December 93/January 94. Cheques, made payable to "ECFP Ventures Limited", should be sent with this form to : 16 Circus Road MM Box 8593 London NW8 6PG England Please direct any further enquiries to the above address, or: ecfp-1st@eternity.demon.co.uk (Email) +44 81-812-2661 (Manned message service; quick response) HOW TO FIND THE NEW CAVENDISH CLUB : - ---------------------------------------------- The New Cavendish Club is 2 minutes walk from Marble Arch Underground station. Immediately turn right as you exit from the station onto Oxford Street. Then take the first turning on the right, i.e. Great Cumberland Street. The New Cavendish Club is 3 blocks north on the northeast corner of the intersection of Great Cumberland Street with Upper Berkeley Street. Address: New Cavendish Club 44 Great Cumberland Place London W1H 8BS - ----- Text ends --------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLKjhjYTj7/vxxWtPAQGjQAP+NW1LOc806i0c3MmA2RiluzWmDKvFEPPm ibtU3tbqqF93fb0lqJ/z1q8DEtWeiG6LnLQ41IasIHDL6o7EmZEWXN6G17CDFLSk cQHCGaIpC9BkBI8VwnsPZIlItL5T+TkcOwLjdqp7x24tQ9uAm3BhpFLGMfLJAnwB xI/ZG0zMEIs= =QElR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Russell Earl Whitaker whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk Communications Editor AMiX: RWhitaker EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought Board member, Extropy Institute (ExI) Co-organizer, 1st European Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy, London, 20 November 1993 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 23:02:23 -0400 From: Alexander Chislenko Subject: Symposium I am *really* excited!!! Can anybody go there, or one needs a special invitation? I would also like to use this occasion to promote Extropianism; any advice (except making ExI flyers and other materials available)? sasha@cs.umb.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 1993 23:05:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Derek Rose Subject: Experimental FTP Server It turns out that Vassar's network won't support stable IP Addresses. Soooo I have worked out a less-than-satisfactory solution, at least for now: you'll have to finger me, "derose@vaxsar.vassar.edu" and I'll list the current IP Address of OOOMPH (my experimental ftp server with libertarian and objectivist text file). Currently it is "143.229.160.16" and I hope to keep it there for as long as possible, but I can't promise anything. I also can't support e-mail transfer, sorry (I'm using FTP'd). Ah, well, it was a neat idea. Also, if anyone lives in the Poughkeepsie, New York area, David Kelley is giving a free introductory lecture "The Novels of Ayn Rand" tomorrow and thursday. Contact me for details. -Derek. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 20:26:27 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: paradox Tim May writes: > (If I ::exclude myself, what happens? Technology introduces amazing > new metaphysical questions.) Haven't you been paying attention? The other Tim keeps telling us that self-exclusion is a fallacy. *\\* Anton Ubi scriptum? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 00:10:04 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: Wed Sep 29 00:10:03 EDT 1993 Splits will now clear out the 'LAST' price as well as Bid and Ask. Newly Registered Reputations: KNNTA Kennita Lane Watson BITD BitDance Enterprises New Share Issues: Symbol Shares Issued BITD 10000 Share Splits: (None) Market Summary as of: Wed Sep 29 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 .61 .62 .61 10000 1880 1146.80 ARKU .27 .29 .28 10000 5101 1428.28 BLAIR 1.25 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 DEREK - .01 .19 100000 18220 3461.80 DRS - .15 .15 10000 2600 390.00 DVDT 1.55 1.70 1.55 10000 10000 15500.00 E .75 1.00 .90 10000 8011 7209.90 ESR - - - - - - FCP .06 1.30 1.50 80000 15345 23017.50 GHG .02 .60 .20 10000 8180 1636.00 GOBEL .01 1.50 1.00 10000 767 767.00 H .78 .76 .75 30000 16290 12217.50 HAM .60 .90 10.00 20000 15818 158180.00 HANNO .15 7.00 - 10000 - - HFINN 1.50 6.00 1.50 10000 1005 1507.50 IMMFR .25 .70 .80 10000 1838 1470.40 JFREE .02 1.25 .20 10000 3200 640.00 JOHN .30 .50 - 10000 - - JPP .26 .57 .26 10000 3500 910.00 KARL 2.00 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 - 1.50 .01 10000 1260 12.60 N 12.74 14.99 13.74 10000 1166 16020.84 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 .40 10000 6000 2400.00 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 TIM 1.00 2.00 5.00 10000 1703 8515.00 WILKEN 1.00 10.00 10.00 10000 101 1010.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 284591.89 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 .05 10000 2025 101.25 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 .30 1.00 1.00 10000 100 100.00 BIOPR .01 .09 .05 10000 3000 150.00 BITD - 1.00 - 10000 - - CYPHP - .15 .08 10000 3100 248.00 DC1000 - .10 - 10000 - - DC200 - .15 .10 10000 1500 150.00 DC7000 - .10 - 10000 - - DCFLOP - .10 - 10000 - - DRXLR .75 1.00 .85 10000 4346 3694.10 EXI .11 3.20 1.54 10000 3025 4658.50 FAB - - - - - - GOD - .10 .10 10000 3000 300.00 GOD_2 - - - - - - GUNS .30 1.00 1.00 10000 200 200.00 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 3842 384200.00 KLAUS .40 .45 .01 100000 33004 330.04 KNNTA - - - - - - LEARY .01 .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 LEF .01 1.29 1.00 10000 4965 4965.00 LIST .40 10.00 .75 10000 5000 3750.00 LP - .30 .50 10000 5625 2812.50 LSOFT 1.00 1.50 1.00 10000 9550 9550.00 LURKR - .01 - 100000 - - MED21 .01 .30 .30 10000 5400 1620.00 MMORE - 1.25 .10 10000 3000 300.00 MORE .75 1.25 1.25 10000 3160 3950.00 NEWTON - .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 NLAW - .50 - 10000 - - NNLAW - .50 - 10000 - - NSS - .03 .01 10000 25 .25 OCEAN - .15 .15 10000 3600 540.00 PENNY - 2.00 1.50 10000 2500 3750.00 PLANET .01 .02 .06 10000 3500 210.00 PPL .15 .45 .30 10000 4600 1380.00 RAND .05 .20 .20 10000 3500 700.00 SGP - - - 10000 - - SSI .22 .29 .22 10000 4700 1034.00 TCMAY .75 4.50 .01 10000 6900 69.00 TRANS .60 .90 .60 10000 3211 1926.60 VINGE .75 1.00 .49 10000 3400 1666.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 458417.94 ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 28 September 1993 18:59:35 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: Operationalism (was Meaninglessness) In <17739@price.demon.co.uk>, price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) wrote: > James Donald: > > > Planet IS NOT an operationally defined category. Dog is > > not an operationally defined category. > > 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] > That is not operational definition of a planet. Price should check his Webster's again for the definition of operationalism. Webster's defines a planet in terms of the real world, not in terms of the operations required to determine that a planet is a planet. It is a realist definition. An operational definition would tell you *how* to tell that a planet is a planet in the same specific and concrete detail that it tells you how to measure speed with a stopwatch and ruler. It would tell you the specific *operations* required to determine that a planet is a planet and a dog is a dog, without assuming that the being carrying out those instructions has and needs knowledge of the world and how the world works. You can build a simple machine to measure speed from the operational definition of speed. You cannot build a simple machine to say that a planet is a planet or a dog is a dog, because this is not an operational determination - it requires knowledge of the world. Inertial mass is operationally defined. Planet is not. A realist *discovers* that something is so. An operationalist deludes himself that he *demonstrates* that something is so. To a realist, the properties of a body make it behave in a certain way in experiments, thus we can discover the properties of that body. To an operationalist, the properties of a body *are* its behavior in experiments, and hence can in principle be measured directly, like inertial mass, rather than merely inferred from observation. I wonder how Price's operational definition of "dog" is coming along. I have a mass measuring machine on my bathroom floor, that gives an operational definition of mass. Building a dog detection machine might be a wee bit trickier. If Price can define the category "dog" in terms of operations, then no doubt he can build a dog detection machine to execute those operations with equal ease. :-) By the way there *is* an operational definition of angular momentum that covers both micro world and macro world (orbital) angular momentum, but it is nasty, convoluted, and obscure, and it is definitely not an aid to clear thinking. Furthermore it is painfully clear that Price does not know that definition, and is having great difficulty working it out. Price has issued two posts on the topic, and has shot wild both times, showing how wonderfully operationalism aids clear thinking. :-) Keep your dimensions straight Price! Correct units protect against errors a lot more effectively than E Prime or Operationalism. If you went to the university that I went to you would have heard that a lot more often than crap about operationalism. Keep trying Price, you can do it (but I doubt if you can do it for "dog"). James Donald said: > > 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.) Price said: > I agree with the "flavour > and meaning", though. If Price agrees with the flavor and meaning then he is not an operationalist - which is to be expected. An operationalist would be unlikely to be an extropian. He is a realist, and realism is incompatible with operationalism, because realism assumes things that operationalism decrees to be meaningless. > > [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.) Heisenberg was not an operationalist - though he was close to being an operationalist. He was not an operationalist according to the dictionary definition of operationalist, and he differed from those who call themselves operationalists in that he used the word "observable" with a very different meaning. A quantum mechanical operator does not do operations in the sense of operationalism. The words sound the same, but have drastically different meanings. For example consider the most used operator of all, the creation operator. Heisenberg liked what was later to become the operationalist program. And if he had suffered from the delusion that Price suffers from, the delusion that he had actually carried that program out, then he would indeed have been an operationalist. He did not suffer from this delusion, though he rightly believed that he had come as close as was reasonably practical. The operationalist program avoids certain deep philosophical problems implicit in realism. Unfortunately it simply does not work. Operationalism works tolerably well in physics, but sooner or later you just have to assume that some things exist that you cannot directly observe, because if they did not exist the world would not make sense, and you would not be able to directly observe the things that *are* operationally defined. Operationalism works badly in astronomy (cannot do those operations, due the fact you are stuck here on Earth, cannot directly observe most things of interest), and badly in geology. It works even worse in biology. It works even worse in that part of biology that we are most concerned about - ethology, the study of mind and behavior. It works even worse in that part of ethology most important to us - the study of human conduct. Things that we cannot directly observe dominate our study of human conduct, and dominate our methods for predicting the conduct of others, and dominate our methods for predicting the use of force by others. Someone who pretends such things do not exist deludes himself about his own knowledge of human conduct. It works worst of all in one particular part of study of human conduct - the study of the scientific method. Operationalism fails completely and dismally to describe how we discover the truth, how we construct theories, and how we judge theories. The reason you cannot give an operational definition of a dog, the reason you cannot build a simple dog detection machine, is that a dog detection machine would need to know of the world, knowledge that operationalism excludes as meaningless or trivial. Operationalism assumes you can get answers by doing stuff mechanically without a theory of the world, an assumption that is plainly false in general, though it may be true in particular cases. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Wed, 29 Sep 93 00:27:26 -0400 From: Jeff Fabijanic Subject: META: List archives. a conscious being, Phil G. Fraering wrote: > > Hold on a second. You mean there isn't a universal > DAT format? What about using tar as an interface... and Harry S. Hawk replies: >not sure. I have several archive DAT's at Warwick. If I could >get the list on one of those... It is my understanding that all DAT drives use the same mechanism for recording bits to the tape. So on the face of it, any DAT data drive can read the bits from any DAT data tape. However (and there's almost always a however), some drives use hardware compression to increase the amount of data they can put on a tape. And each DAT drive manufacturer no doubt has their own hardware compression scheme. So Any drive with hardware compression should be able to have it turned off (either through controlling software or more likely through physical dip switches). So if you've made sure hardware compression is turned off, then your DAT data tape can be read by any other DAT drive. Now depending on which software you're using, those bits you're recording might be *software* encoded as a .tar file (on a Unix box, for instance), a Mac-based StuffIt file, a binhex'ed file, etc. So to read them again you'll need software capable of understanding the encoding scheme you've chosen. Our household internet site, @asylum.sf.ca.us (located in the PRC, MA), uses DAT to do daily backups. Works well, according to John Romkey, housemate and sysop. Tschus, Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 21:53:01 -0700 From: davisd@nimitz.ee.washington.edu Subject: BASICS: Death I believe that a lot of the smoke may clear in a "Is it really me?" argument if the participants will restate the problem in E-Prime. Buy Buy -- Dan Davis (I've posted my opinion on this question before, but found that telling people only worked on those who already got it - in my not so humble opinion, of course. I think rephrasing in E-Prime will probably lead others my way. Wouldn't it be nice to finally kill off one of these phoenix threads? ) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 00:58:39 EST From: wit@MIT.EDU (paul whitmore) Subject: SOCIETY OF THE MINDS SYMPOSIUM [DO NOT FORWARD] > From: Alexander Chislenko > I am *really* excited!!! > Can anybody go there, or one needs a special invitation? this is the invitation. call the media lab, tell them you want to attend, and it shd be that simple. it was for me, and although kresge auditorium is smaller than the internet's audience, sincerely interested shd be able to get in. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 22:34:34 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: Anton attempts synthesis (long) I guess this is about as ready as it's gonna get. Various observations on the last few weeks' traffic, of which I hope some have theoretical significance. Quotations are from Tim Starr unless otherwise identified. I chuckle to remember that Tim recruited me to the List, and I recruited James Donald. ........PERCEPTION > I object to being classified with Dennet, because I would argue that even > VR that perfectly simulated the perceptual field does nothing to prove > misperception. The VR would have to be real, a part of existence. All > this does is contrast one part of existence and the perception of it with > another part of it and the perception of that. That's a relief. Unless I've misunderstood something, Tim's claim about perception itself (as distinct from perceptual judgement) is very weak: that sensory data are not without cause. What are we quarreling about? (I was particularly amused to see perception rescued by operationalism.) > the failure to identify an assassin camouflaged in bushes you walk past > who then jumps and kills you is not a perceptual failure, but a failure > of perceptul judgement. You perceived the assassin; you just didn't > judge his identity correctly. That rather trivializes the evidence of the senses, doesn't it? Perry wrote: > Sorry, Mark, but "buses you do not see do not exist" follows directly > from "sensory evidence is valid". Sell my shares if I'm belaboring the obvious, but my sensory evidence about busses in Chicago is valid -- it's just that I haven't got any. I can't see a bus from the vat where I'm sitting to write this, but I can't see no-bus either. Dave wrote: > . . . You say "our nervous system ... groups [sensations] into > perceptions" and claim that this happens before "consciousness processes > them". However, the entire action of the nervous system is influenced by > consciousness. . . . Perceptual agencies of the nervous system (to use > Minsky's terminology) shape their interpretation based on consciousness. > . . . The nervous system is one big neural net; there isn't a boundary > to be drawn saying "this part is mechanical; this part is conscious." > It's _all_ mechanical, and it's _all_ (to varying degrees) conscious. Not bad, but I think I see a similar error -- I believe there isn't a boundary between perception and consciousness, either, but a shading of one into the other. ........BRAIN IN VAT I was entertained by the number of ways of rescuing VR from Dennett's complexity-based attack. To summarize, in rough order of difficulty: 1 Simulate only within the field of attention (Perry). 2 Simulate only to the limited resolution of human senses (Ray). 3 Throw nano-computers at the problem (Perry). 4 Take advantage of the necessary reduction performed by cognition, by simulating at the next level of abstraction up from raw senses (Derek). 5 Slow down the captive brain (Mike Price). 6 Diddle the mind itself to believe that what it sees is natural (Ray). (I think #5, at least, can get around Ratha's "levels" constraint.) Here is another: Take advantage of the subject's limited knowledge of nature. Some of the laws of virtual nature can be chosen for computational convenience, rather than accuracy. I imagine consternation among the gods: "Death and taxes, the subjects have found the slop in conservation of momentum -- now we've got to retrofit a patch to explain the kludge." Derek Zahn wrote > The point he's trying to make ... is that, first -- if we weren't > brains in vats yesterday, we're not today either (because it's > unlikely that a powerful enough computer exists or will exist for > a "long time" [a relative term!]); and Mike Price asked for rephrasing. I'll have a go. At no point in my life up to now has technology existed in the world I know to put me into a vat. Therefore I cannot (yet) have been put *from the world I know* into a vat, therefore I cannot now be in a vat -- unless I always was in a vat. ........REASON > . . . The very phrase "pure reason" ought to be banished from > conversation until it can take its place as the historical curiosity of > an example of a philosophical failure that it is. I'm no Kantian . . . Is Tim's objection to that phrase only because of its tainting by Kant? Is it inapplicable for some other reason -- er, on some other grounds -- to the language of apodictic axioms? ........CONCEPTS AND INVENTION There seems to be some confusion between concepts as abstract pieces of information and the mental structures that embody them. The Starr/Donald insistence on concepts as "found, not made" contradicts the definition given by Tim, "an integration of particulars based upon their similarities." That definition describes the inductive process of making such a mental structure. Can there be a concept of something unique? (Tim also used the word "concept-formation".) I thank Ratha for stating this distinction: > Discovery implies objectivity, that the > thing being discovered exists whether we take notice of it or not, and > that the thing discovered is not affected by the action. Invention > implies conscious effort to create something that did not exist before, > and the invention, while being internally consistent and consistent with > discoveries, is arbitrary (i.e., there are other, equally valid ways of > causing the inventions's effect.) . . . but, as Ratha goes on to say, not everything fits the dichotomy. Was the concept of phlogiston invented or discovered? Or does being false exclude it from the status of "concept"? No one had ever seen a herd of quaternions, before W. R. Hamilton jotted on Brougham Bridge: ii = jj = kk = -1 jk = -kj = i ki = -ik = j ij = -ij = k so how could Hamilton's description be an "integration of particulars"? Tim (with his distrust of abstract mathematics) might deny that quaternions are a concept, in the sense of a discovery about reality; but quaternions also fail to meet Ratha's definition of an invention, because they are unique (no other definiton of multiplication on four-vectors can preserve associativity over addition, or so I was told). Consider the multi-dimensional space of all possible systems of law. Some points in this space have good properties, and some have bad properties. I think James Donald's contention ("Natural rights exist") can be translated to "Law-space has a well-defined optimum." I further think that most of Donald's opponents here will agree with "The development of common law (or customary law) is a search for local optima in law-space." These two statements are not equivalent, nor is one obviously dependent on the other, but they are consistent. Late-breaking news: though I haven't read the relevant post in detail yet, it seems I was right about Donald. Maybe I should be asking Starr what "exist" means, because he agrees with Donald, but has denied to me that points on the Argand plane (complex numbers) exist, and the Argand plane seems to me no less real (pardon the pun) than law-space. > You [Perry] abuse the term "invention," which entails intentional > causation of necessity. Things can be formed without concepts, but not > literally made. This is a case of confusing the metaphorical and literal > uses of words. Please unpack that phrase "entails intentional causation of necessity" -- is "of necessity" an adverb on "entails", or a genitive on "causation"? If the latter, how is necessity caused? What a thing is does not depend, imho, on how it came to be. ........TRADE AND LANGUAGE > Not all agreements need language to be > made, but can be made with gestures and facial expressions alone. It's > highly likely that money originally arose out of such pre-linguistic > agreements in at least some societies, if not all. My guess is that the first barter took place between two people who shared a language, that one had to explain the concept to the other. It's likely that the idea wasn't hard to grasp, and so trade was invented independently in almost every tribe -- so every adult member of almost every tribe was able to understand the first time a foreigner offered with gestures to swap. The question may be related to that of the origin of language, i.e. did human language arise once or many times? > Primarily, rights are not the result of human design, just like money, > language, and many other social formations. They result from human > action, but not from human design. There are known elements of design in many human languages. For an extreme example, there are Australian languages in which a word resembling the name of a recently deceased member of the tribe is taboo and replaced with a word (usually borrowed from a neighbor tribe) decreed by the elders. The first English printers had to choose between dialect forms for a standard, and so helped shape our present vocabulary. I have heard that `can' and `may' were originally masculine and feminine dialect respectively, and that the distinction between them in today's usage arose in the 19th century as a compromise between schoolmarms and boys. [My male boss overuses `may', imho, and his wife doesn't.] The possibility that the primordial human language(s) was (were) mostly of conscious creation is not excluded by anything known to me. On the other hand, if that is so there must have been a period of rapid natural selection: not all conceivable standards are equally easy to use, in human language as in any other type of encoding. Anton Sherwood DASher@netcom.com +1 415 267 0685 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco, California 94102 ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #271 *********************************