From extropians-request@extropy.org Sun Nov 7 04:18:57 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA09965; Sun, 7 Nov 93 04:18:56 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA25662; Sun, 7 Nov 93 04:18:54 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Sun, 7 Nov 93 07:11:57 -0500 Received: from news.panix.com by apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Sun, 7 Nov 93 07:11:42 -0500 Received: by news.panix.com id AA05047 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-remail@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Sun, 7 Nov 1993 07:11:33 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 07:11:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199311071211.AA05047@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: November 7, 373 P.N.O. [12:11:15 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Sun, 7 Nov 93 Volume 93 : Issue 310 Today's Topics: [1 msgs] BASICS: capitalism and cooperation [1 msgs] Bottom-up AI (was "Mathematica is fairly stupid") [3 msgs] Bottom-up AI (was "Mathematica is fairly stupid") [1 msgs] Charges Against Donald - #1 (fwd) [2 msgs] FreeNet [1 msgs] Future Science [1 msgs] Future Science (Biology Uber Physics) [1 msgs] HUMOR: The EC goes after English (fwd) [1 msgs] META: List fees to come [3 msgs] Meta: Number of user [1 msgs] Nightly Market Report [1 msgs] POLI: Transnational Radical Party [1 msgs] QUANTUM: Many Minds Interpretation [2 msgs] QUANTUM: Many Minds interpretation [1 msgs] QUANTUM: Personal Tests for Many Minds [1 msgs] Stone Age [1 msgs] TRIV: who? [1 msgs] The EC goes after English [1 msgs] Which English are we talking here? [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 56028 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 93 13:50:46 PDT From: "Randall M. Clague" Subject: META: List fees to come Gosh, $0.50/month for access to the Extropians List - let me check with my accountant! :-) Seriously, anyone who has a problem with even the highest proposed fee needs to read the material on the Reading List, and look at value received for such a trivial sum. Randall -- Randall M. Clague | "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great Coast Micro Inc. | peace of mind." rclague@netcom.com | -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 14:14:39 -0800 From: onomoto@netcom.com (Young and Loud) Subject: Bottom-up AI (was "Mathematica is fairly stupid") Jay speaketh: > One possibly interesting reason to study biological brains is to see >if one can understand how they do what they do in sufficient detail to >extract some of the evolved design principles, which might then be applied >to other problems. I suspect that few AI workers have so much hubris that >they would refuse to welcome biologically-evolved algorithms and hardware >designs to their tool kit. I'm not really sure under what category this falls -- "Goals of AI" perhaps, but I think it's worth pointing out that there are costs to the evolutionary process which made our own brains so marvelously adaptable -- the "code" or design or whatever is a mish-mash of "whatever works", we get remnants of "processes" which were useful tens of generations ago, and as someone in a CogSci class reported seeing in a .sig block once "Remember -- we're only simulating logic." Ironically, these seem to be some of the machine qualities which made computers so attractive -- fast, logical, clean and predictable in operation. Assuming that we'd know it when we saw it, do we really want machines that are as smart as humans just for that quality? Or because we assume we'll have something like "people who don't act so stupid?" -o ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 93 17:52:13 EST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: QUANTUM: Many Minds Interpretation Why does the subject always have to be killed in these Many Worlds tests? Why not set up an experiment where instead of a bomb going off you are injected with a drug that will put you into a deep sleep (for a long period of time if necessary)? Attach the device to a random quantum source. If you notice that you haven't been injected after a large number of events, then Many Worlds is true. If sleep isn't good enough, then cryogenic sleep. Do Many Worlds tests require an irreversible step to be taken? So if you make a backup of yourself before each trial run it won't work? BTW, why does no one take superluminal pilot wave theories seriously? As long as the pilot wave can't be manipulated to send information FTL, then there's no conflict with relativity. (at least as far as observers go) -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | politics is the implementation of faith. -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 93 17:56:11 EST From: Brian.Hawthorne@east.sun.com (Brian Hawthorne - SunSelect Strategic Marketing) Subject: META: List fees to come > Seriously, anyone who has a problem with even the highest proposed fee needs > to read the material on the Reading List, and look at value received for > such a trivial sum. Agreed. So far I haven't heard ANYONE complaining about the fees. My comment was that I found the fee structure amusingly socialist for a list like this, not that I had any problem paying any of them. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1993 18:00:46 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Bottom-up AI (was "Mathematica is fairly stupid") Young and Loud says: > Assuming that we'd know it when we saw it, do we really want > machines that are as smart as humans just for that quality? Or because we > assume we'll have something like "people who don't act so stupid?" We want AI because the universe is cold and we are lonely. We want AI because then breakfasts will not seem so complicated. Perry "What did Tristan Tzara have that I don't" Metzger ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 17:29:16 -0600 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: META: List fees to come >Seriously, anyone who has aproblem with even the highest proposed fee >needs to read the material on the Reading List... The fee is certianly cheaper than some of the books on the reading list. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 93 15:42:26 -0800 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: Bottom-up AI (was "Mathematica is fairly stupid") > We want AI because the universe is cold and we are lonely. > We want AI because then breakfasts will not seem so complicated. I want AI to make up for nature's lack of generosity to me... -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Nov 93 00:38:41 GMT From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) Subject: QUANTUM: Many Minds interpretation Ray Cromwell writes: > Why does the subject always have to be killed in these Many Worlds tests? I don't see any other way apart from painless immediate death for the subject. If you have some possibilities involving a long period of sleep, perhaps cryonic, then the subject would either wake up from the longterm sleep or from the temporary unconsciousness induced just before each quantum choice was made. From the subject's point of view, he'd be more likely to wake up from longterm slumber as there is a massive surplus of these worlds compared to those where the drug was never injected. And a period of unconsciousness is zero time as far as the subject is concerned. --------------------------------------------------------------> } awoke ------------------------------------------------------------> } from long -------------------------------------------------------------> } slumber --> woke up after a long series, no drug injected ---------------------------------------------------------> } awoke -----------------------------------------------------------> } from long ----------------------------------------------------------> } slumber | | | | A B C D Minds are a superposition at A, divergence between longterm sleepers and shorterm sleepers at B, divergence of cryonicists during the period CD And the probabilities from the viewpoint of those operating the experiment are just as they would be anyway. With death the only other option, a very low probability suddenly becomes a certainty for the subject (unless we include the possibility of "life after death", or being resurrected in a random recreation!). Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 93 20:08:00 +1900 From: USR1593A@cbos.uc.edu Subject: FreeNet If you're looking for another place to post on philosophical issues, the FreeNet at cbos.uc.edu has a philosophy sig that I have run since 1990. login as a visitor and to get to the sig. There are sections for Metaphysics, Logic, Ethics, Future Technology, and Epistemology. Telnet there and see. Bruce Zimov usr1593a@cbos.uc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 14:46:33 -0500 (EST) From: david@bitdance.MV.COM (R. David Murray) Subject: BASICS: capitalism and cooperation Michael Clive Price writes: > Whoever said people are banned from cooperating in a market? It seems > some Brits have a different understanding of what "capitalist" means as > well as "socialist". No one's stopping anyone, in Libertopia, from co- > operating with their neighbours. In fact, capitalism's fundamental characteristic is cooperation. Competition is an incidental that keeps the cooperation working smoothly and efficiently. -- david (BitDance Enterprises) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Nov 93 00:10:03 EST 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: Sat Nov 6 00:10:02 EST 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: (None) New Share Issues: (None) Share Splits: (None) Market Summary as of: Sat Nov 6 00:00:03 EST 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 Traded AMARA .10 .50 .50 10000 2000 1000 ANTON .61 .63 .63 10000 1943 0 ARKU .18 .31 .30 10000 5301 0 BLAIR .01 1.20 .01 10000 26 0 BROOX .01 1.00 - 10000 - 0 DEREK .06 .19 .19 100000 18930 500 DROSE - .15 .10 10000 3000 0 DRS - .15 .15 10000 2600 0 DVDT .75 1.75 1.70 10000 10000 0 E .80 1.00 .90 10000 8011 0 ESR - - - - - 0 FCP .06 1.30 1.50 80000 15345 0 GHG .02 .30 .20 10000 8180 0 GODII .01 1.00 - 10000 - 0 GOEBEL .01 .25 .25 10000 767 0 H .40 .76 .76 30000 10290 0 HAM .60 .90 .90 20000 15918 0 HANNO .15 .24 - 10000 500 0 HFINN 1.50 6.00 .01 10000 1005 0 IMMFR .25 .70 .80 10000 1838 0 JFREE .02 .50 .50 10000 3200 0 JOHN .30 .40 .35 10000 600 0 JPP .26 .29 .26 10000 3500 0 KARL 1.00 1.50 1.50 10000 1001 0 KLAUS .01 .45 .45 100000 37004 1000 KNNTA .12 .23 .22 100000 12000 1900 LEFTY .31 .40 .40 10000 4751 0 MARCR - - - - - 0 MEEKS - - - - - 0 MLINK - .01 .01 1000000 112602 10000 MWM - 1.50 .01 10000 1260 0 N 1.50 9.00 5.00 10000 4749 1 P 24.00 25.00 1.50 1000000 94 0 PETER - .01 .01 10000000 601 0 PRICE - .01 .01 10000000 1410 0 R .40 .80 .70 10000 6100 0 RJC .65 2.00 1.00 10000 5200 0 ROMA - - - - - 0 RWHIT - - - - - 0 SAMEER .30 .75 .61 10000 9810 0 SHAWN .55 .55 .01 10000 25 0 SWANK - 1.00 - 10000 - 0 TIM .10 .60 .50 10000 2104 0 WILKEN 1.00 10.00 1.00 10000 102 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 14401 Other reputations: Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Traded 1000 .05 .40 .20 10000 5000 0 110 .01 .10 .10 10000 1750 0 150 .01 .10 .10 10000 1750 0 1E6 .20 - .20 10000 8825 0 1E9 .01 .09 .20 10000 7000 0 200 .02 .20 .10 10000 5075 0 80 .01 - - 10000 - 0 90 .01 - .10 10000 2000 0 ACS .10 .15 .12 10000 3223 0 AI .01 .09 .10 10000 2400 0 ALCOR .25 .85 .60 10000 3675.00 0 ALTINST - .25 .05 10000 4000 0 ANARCHY .20 .90 1.00 10000 1100 0 BIOPR .01 .09 .05 10000 3000 0 BITD .01 1.00 - 10000 - 0 BLACK - .10 .10 100000 6000 0 CHUCK - - - - - 0 CYPHP .20 .40 .30 10000 10000 0 D&M - - - 10000 - 0 DC1000 - .10 - 10000 - 0 DC200 - .15 .10 10000 1500 0 DC7000 - .10 - 10000 - 0 DCFLOP .15 - .15 10000 6000 0 DRXLR .75 .90 .80 10000 4545 0 EXI .10 .55 .25 10000 3025 50 FAB - - - - - 0 GOD - .10 .10 10000 3000 0 GUNS - .90 1.00 10000 3900 0 HART - 1.99 2.00 10000 9000 0 HEINLN .28 .30 .30 10000 6600 0 HEX 100.00 101.00 100.00 10000 4088 0 KPJ - - - - - 0 LEARY .01 .50 .20 10000 1000 0 LEF .10 .35 .10 10000 5214 0 LIST .40 10.00 10.00 10000 5010 10 LP .25 .30 .50 10000 5625 0 LSOFT .50 1.00 .50 10000 9550 0 LURKR - .01 - 100000 - 0 MED21 .01 .30 .30 10000 5399 0 MMORE - 1.25 .10 10000 3000 0 MNSKY - 1.80 - 10000 - 0 MORE .38 1.25 .75 10000 2660 0 NEWTON - .50 .20 10000 1000 0 NLAW - .50 - 10000 - 0 NNLAW - .50 - 10000 - 0 NSS .02 .03 .01 10000 25 0 OCEAN .15 .18 .20 10000 6600 0 OOMPH - 15.53 22.00 20000 - 0 PENNY - .08 1.50 10000 2500 0 PGP - 1.00 1.00 100000 2100 0 PLANET .01 .02 .02 10000 4000 0 PPL .30 .45 .30 10000 4600 0 RAND .18 .20 .20 10000 3900 0 RAW - .05 - 10000 - 0 SHECKY - - - - - 0 SSI .15 .20 .20 10000 5200 0 TCMAY .20 .38 .38 10000 4900 2300 TRANS .01 .90 .60 10000 3211 0 VINGE .01 1.00 .75 10000 3449 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 2360 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1993 02:58:56 -0500 (EST) From: Cdt Pvt Dan Doughty Subject: Stone Age I attempted to normal unsub, but it didn't work. So will someone please take me off. Thank you and I'm sorry this had to go out. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Nov 93 10:16:57 GMT From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Subject: TRIV: who? Perry enigmatically signs himself: > Perry "What did Tristan Tzara have that I don't" Metzger Who? Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Nov 93 11:38:26 GMT From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Subject: QUANTUM: Many Minds Interpretation Ray Cromwell asks: > BTW, why does no one take superluminal pilot wave theories > seriously? Bohm did. His hidden variables scheme often has a complex "quantum potential" plus the usual wavefunction jiggling ("piloting") about a classical point particle. Bohm did construct a such non-relativistic pilot-wave scheme that reproduces the observable effects of the schrodinger equation. The drawback is that he introduces a lot of hidden complexity to reproduce observations, rather like the ptolemaic epicyclic system with its multiplicity of celestial spheres with wheels within wheels reproduces the observed motion of the planets, predicts eclipses, conjunctions etc. The conventional schrodinger equation is a bit like the Copernican system - much simpler, though we still argue over what the wavefunction is and the interpretation of the role of observers. Just like how in the Copernican scheme we can argue over the role of the Earth. The other planets go round the sun, no problem, but does the Earth go round the sun or vice versa? Copernicus (and Kepler) can't decide, they can only suggest. > As long as the pilot wave can't be manipulated to send > information FTL, then there's no conflict with relativity. Bohm and successors never got a relativistic version to work (so far, anyway), though. Relativistic theories tend to demand requirements like locality much more strongly than non-relativistic schemes. To push the analogy with astronomy further we could say that our relativistic quantum field theories are bit like Newton's theories of gravity. Now people could see _why_ the sun had to be in the centre of the renamed solar system, with Kepler's laws emerging as consequences of the inverse square law. Same with quantum field theories. It becomes much harder to imagine going back to some hidden variable or pilot wave scheme, with underlying superluminal communications ensuring that things come out "just right". QFTs impose concepts like locality so strongly (enshrined as gauge theories) and are so explanative of diverse phenomena that it is very difficult to imagine going back to some theory with hidden FTL effects. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Nov 93 12:32:43 GMT From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) Subject: QUANTUM: Personal Tests for Many Minds Thinking about the cryonics version of personal test for Many Minds, there are sets of conditions that it tests for: Many Minds/Worlds is True AND cryonics doesn't work. against Cryonics works but the question of Many Minds is still unresolved. In the original version without backup the subject would be temporarily rendered unconscious (after having placed bets on his own survival); if the series of quantum events that resulted in no bomb ever going off had a probability of 10 ^ -10 the subject could obtain odds of nearly 10 billion to 1 against after deducting the house's percentage. If we assign a probability of 0.95 for Many Minds' Truth, it's almost a rational gamble. The aim is to accumulate a large sum and prove to oneself that Many Minds / Worlds is true. But being exposed to an unnecessary 5% risk of total oblivion precludes a satisfactory reward/ risk ratio for anyone who aims to live forever. People who don't wish to live beyond a "natural" lifespan might consider it worthwhile. In the cryonics version, you either have to prove cryonics as false, or end up having wasted 100 years or so. Well you could look at it more optimistically and say it either validates Many Minds OR cryonics. If it doesn't, you don't get to know about it. It's slightly more like a hedging rather than maximum-leveraged gambling, but there's still the unnecessary risk of oblivion if cryonics doesn't work AND Many Minds / Worlds is false. So this is also an irrational gamble. There is another possibility (this is especially speculative but we should be able to do this sort of thing sometime), that as changes are gradually induced into the physical structure where identity resides, the probability of the subject's consciousness stream taking that path tends towards zero (from the subject's view). Say you have 1,000,000 duplicates made. The original is destroyed and one duplicate tortured with the rest being rewarded. You have a very low chance of being tortured and it looks a rather good bet. But if errors are gradually induced into the rewarded near-duplicates the chance of "ending up" in such a state gradually reduces with a corresponding rise in the chance of ending up as a tortured duplicate. Eventually when a large enough distortion in the rewarded copies exists, there is zero chance of becoming such a copy and a certainty of becoming one of the duplicate minority. So if you did the cryonics version of the test, and found that you'd ended up in the extremely unlikely case of no lethal injections, it could be that the above paragraph is true and the cryonicist versions were not total failures but had sufficient distortion of identity to change the relative probability of each outcome, tipping them towards equalisation. Taking cryonics as an option in place of burial or cremation, it becomes even more of a rational gamble when taking into account Many Minds. If the probability of Many Minds' truth is 0.95, the probability of cryonics working could be very low and yet the risk of failure would still be only 5% from the subject's point of view. I may be away from my computer for a while starting on Monday; if I'm suddenly absent after writing about these experiments it doesn't mean that I've decided to carry them out! Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 09:08:58 -0600 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Future Science Michael Clive Price writes: >Darwin arrived at his theory over a number of years, after >extensive reading of economists, as well as naturalists. Early >liberal economics provided the inspiration for biology. I think you're making a slight mistake here. Darwin arrived at his theory after the above reading _and_ one hell of a lot of field work. Biology owes as much, and probably a lot more, to the mountains of data collected by Darwin and many others, than to classical liberalism. Carpe data! (Data is the plural of datum, right?) PHil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 11:51:53 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: Number of user As of today, we have the following number of users: Number of users: 344 -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Nov 93 16:58:05 GMT From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) Subject: HUMOR: The EC goes after English (fwd) Was forwarded by Tim May in X-Message-Number: #93-11-109 > Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the > European Parliament has commissioned a feasability study in ways > of improving efficiency in communications between Government > departments. I didn't read this first time round; in the meantime the article has been propagating rather well. I was a little concerned until I got to the fird paragraf. After al, Mastrikt's ben law 4 ubot 4 days now; I falt ze Guvermnt vas alrede tryin 2 mak its drems kum tru. Disgrasful! 1s u uneducat ze mases its eseur 2 cuntrol zem & manipulat zem in2 def-seekin slavs ho haf a helfy desier 2 kreat welf 4 ze sol behaf ov zer leders. Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 12:54:20 -0600 From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Bottom-up AI (was "Mathematica is fairly stupid") I want AI because I already have lots of natural stupidity. pgf ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 11:37:58 -0800 From: nws@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nan Wolfslayer) Subject: :help index bonobos ::help index digest ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 6 November 1993 08:20:43 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: Charges Against Donald - #1 (fwd) In <199311060040.AA09278@panix.com>, habs@panix.com (Harry Shapiro) wrote: > > You have been charged as follows. More to come... > The material quoted by Price makes it appear that I have been flaming back at him, in violation of list rules which state that if one objects to being flamed one should ignore, exclude, or bring charges, rather than responding in kind. This appearance is misleading. In context this unpleasant material was regrettably necessary and relevant. Some time ago certain extropians with a close association to the Exi board, notably Perry and Price, would, from time to time, propose bets on various issues for humungous sums of money. When challenged on these bets they would propose that the Exi board should arbitrate these bets. Price proposed a 5000 UK pound bet (US$7500) concerning a matter in quantum mechanics. I claimed that under certain circumstances a certain kind of many variable quantum system would behave in a certain way, and he claimed otherwise. He proposed a bet of 5000 UK pounds, roughly 7500 US dollars. I accepted his bet, and, before he got a chance to propose the Exi board as arbitrator, I proposed that the issue be resolved by me writing up a numerical simulation of the quantum system, the write up and the simulation to be judged by somebody who has published in the refereed literature on quantum mechanics, *with the judge holding the pot*. (The "Bet 5000" thread.) Repeating for emphasis: *with the judge holding the pot*. Price made a variety of counter proposals, starting with the proposal that the Exi board should hold the pot, and the Exi board should judge the issue. Note that the Exi board has no competence to judge questions of quantum mechanics, and no appearance of impartiality. I made various offers, trying to accommodate his objections, for example I suggested that the purse could be kept in an account from which it could be withdrawn by any two of three signatures, one of the signatures being the judge. The long and the short of this debate was that Price was willing to have any arrangement with the bet where he did not have to put his stake into the pot in advance, or he had physical control of the pot, or the Exi board had physical control of the pot, but he was unwilling to be in any arrangement where the pot went out his control or the Exi boards control. He was quite agreeable on who should judge the simulation, but intransigent who should hold the pot. Price's final proposal was that the bet should be enforced by honor only - that neither of us would put the stake up in advance. Not a very appealing proposal when made by someone who in almost every post in the thread made several outrageous lies, usually of the form "James Donald assumes XXXX", where XXXX is some outstandingly stupid idea. (Perry frequently employs a similar method of argument.) It was regrettably necessary for me to speak plainly concerning his counter proposals for judging the bet. I did not do this merely to lash back at him for his lies concerning me. If I had attacked irrelevantly, merely to make an ad hominem attack, that would indeed have been flaming. On the contrary I spoke of his conduct because it was necessary and relevant to speak of his conduct, not because I was making an ad hominem attack. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Sat, 6 Nov 93 12:16:53 PST From: hfinney@shell.portal.com (Hal Finney) Subject: Charges Against Donald - #1 (fwd) As an interested spectator in this betting matter, I would like to see the participants consider the bet still in negotiation. James has offerred his example, Mike has offered a counter-argument, but neither one has granted that the other is correct. There is still the prospect of finding a neutral third party to arbitrate the bet and determine who is right. >From Mike's perspective, it would seem that a qualified physicist, even one without experience with MathCad or numerical simulations, would weigh the evidence of Mike's argument against James' numerical results. If Mike's argument is convincing then even if James' numbers appear to support his contention, the physicist would presumably use his judgement in considering the possibility that James has made a mistake. He could then decide in Mike's favor even without detailed understanding of James' implementation. Hal ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 93 15:36:13 -0500 From: Philip Greenspun Subject: Future Science (Biology Uber Physics) Very interesting piece, Paul. Gian-Carlo Rota says that biologists are too reductionist and ignorant of phenomenology. Until they change their tune, "their methods will differ little from those of the stamp collector." Philip ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 15:56:48 -0500 (EST) From: Matthew J Ghio Subject: The EC goes after English More realistic phoenic spellings would be to replace "th" with "dth" in words like "then" and leave the "th" for the soft "th" in "thin", since that's more or less how the words are actually pronounced (dthen and thin). Also, "ch" (as in chat) should be written the way it's pronounced: "tsh"... and of course make the distinction between G and J clear... But on a serious note, realize how many words have come to have simpler accepted spellings (to varying degrees of usage): nite (night) tho (though) hiccup (hiccough) jail (gaol) not (naught) ot (ought) draft (draught) baloney (bologna) enuf (enough) color (colour) ... I'm sure you can think of others... Er...and Perry is correct about the Mark Twain essay... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 20:22:01 -0500 From: Alexander Reynolds Subject: Which English are we talking here? > Subject: The EC goes after English > > nite (night) > tho (though) > hiccup (hiccough) > jail (gaol) > not (naught) > ot (ought) > draft (draught) > baloney (bologna) > enuf (enough) I've only seen this in "slang" letters and in comic book editorials (also "'nuf said.") by Stan Lee. Where has this been seen in common usage in proper literature, etc.? > color (colour) I got blasted by an "English" teacher for using "colour" instead of "color"... I wonder how the Princeton Board (SAT, TSWE, ToEFL) and other standardized test companies deal with this? More to the point, what form of English is acceptable in international usage? ... center (centre) truck (lorry) ... Perhaps a distinction between slang, American, and British/Canadian forms of Standard Written English (SWE) ought to be made if a serious discussion about the anglicization of the EC is started... Just a thought... Alex Reynolds (yes, Perry and Ray, your number one fan is back) -chrome@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu ---------------------------- "A scientist is a priest with cooler-looking potions, but the difference is s/he knows how they work." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1993 13:05:13 -0500 (EST) From: PATRICK WILKEN Subject: POLI: Transnational Radical Party I came across this on the Fringeware list. If anyone is interested I would be intested in discussing some of the implications of this type of venture for international politics. --Patrick Wilken x91007@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au ----------------------------------------------------------- Sent from the cyberdeck of: mpesce@netcom.com (Mark D. Pesce) Fringers - >From the 2 November 1993 issue of the SF _Chronicle_ - FRONT PAGE GLOBAL, ONLINE POLITICAL PARTY TAKES MISSION TO U.N. LEADERS Computers users of the world unite - online. Karl Marx's vision of an international political party traversing national boundaries to pressure the ruling class never came true, but then he did not know how to use the Internet. Initially financed by the U.S. government, the electronic superhighway is in the vanguard of organizing the Transnational Radical Party, whose leaders are scheduled to meet with U.N. Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali today in New York. This year, more than 40,000 people of 75 nationalities have joined the party, which calls for members to lobby their legislators to adopt laws that would help expand U.N. peacekeeping operations, abolish the death penalty, protect the enviornment and decriminalize drug use. Most people hear about the party through traditional means such as word of mouth, handbills or newspaper articles. But when the party took out its first U.S. newspaper advertisement, it invited people who wanted more details to send a message on the Internet, which is used by about 20 million people. "We received through Internet 150 requests for information and only 100 requests by letter," said Emma Bonino, political secretary of the Transnational Radical Party, and deputy speaker of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. "This shows me we are only beginning to find ways of using Internet." Through the network, people with a computer and a modem attached to a telephone line can obtain the party's political initiatives in six languages. Visitors also can chat, exchange opinions or plot strategy on the party's bulletin board known as "agora," or "the square," located at its headquarters in Rome. Internet may be of little use, however, in less developed nations where few people have access to computers. "To get connected in Georgia, Moldavia or Macedonia is, frankly speaking, quite difficult," Bonino said. "But in the United States it is surely more effective and will be far cheaper to organize this way than through a full-page ad in your New York Times." Her delegation, mostly members of national parliments in Croatia, Serbia, Egypt and Canada, met yesterday with the presidents of the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly. Today, they will present Boutrous-Ghali with a petition signed by 30,000 people calling for the immediate establishment of an international court to judge war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia. Although approved in may by the United Nations, the judicial body has not received money to operate. The Transnational Radical Party also wants the United Nations to lead an international campaign to abolish the death penalty by the year 2000; to renounce the 1988 Prague Convention, which called for criminalization of drug use; and to send more peacekeeping forces to countries where human rights are under attack. The party consisted mostly of Italians until recently. But this year, it has expanded into Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa and the United States. Annual dues are 1% of the per capita gross national product of the member's country. The 1993 membership fee for residents of the United States is $225, which Marx might have thought a bit steep for the computer proletariat. "It's quite expensive, but politics are expensive," Bonino said. "As we found in Italy, either you get your money through corruption, or you ask the people for the money to make changes." For further information, send electronic mail to e.bonino@agora.stm.it. ___________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #310 *********************************