From extropians-request@extropy.org Thu Feb 3 12:44:18 1994 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA24409; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:44:14 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA28389; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:43:40 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by news.panix.com id AA04158 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Thu, 3 Feb 1994 15:09:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 15:09:07 -0500 Message-Id: <199402032009.AA04158@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-2-19 - #94-2-36 X-Extropian-Date: February 3, 374 P.N.O. [15:08:35 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Thu, 3 Feb 94 Volume 94 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: [#94-1-732] PCR: Pancritical Rationalism [2 msgs] [#94-1-749] PHIL/POL/TECH: nanarchy [2 msgs] ECON: Solar Panels [4 msgs] ECON: Wild Solar Power Idea [3 msgs] LOGIC: Axioms (was PCR) [1 msgs] PCR [2 msgs] SEMANTICS: Faith [1 msgs] SEMANTICS: Faith [1 msgs] The Complexity of Physical Self-Reproduction [1 msgs] Administrivia: Note: I have increased the frequency of the digests to four times a day. The digests used to be processed at 5am and 5pm, but this was too infrequent for the current bandwidth. Now digests are sent every six hours: Midnight, 6am, 12pm, and 6pm. If you experience delays in getting digests, try setting your digest size smaller such as 20k. You can do this by addressing a message to extropians@extropy.org with the body of the message as ::digest size 20 -Ray Approximate Size: 53239 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hinssenp@sh.alcbel.be (Peter Hinssen SH261 8462) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:19:34 +0100 Subject: [#94-2-19] ECON: Wild Solar Power Idea > Marc Ringuette writes: > > Build a large fat cylinder with an open top - sort of like a > > nuclear power plant cooling tower, only 1/4 of a mile on a side. > > Locate it in a hot desert. Rig sprinklers across the top of it, > > to spray a mist of water and cool the air. The air falls. Duct > > the air out the bottom of the cylinder, and when the wind has built > > to 50mph or so, use turbines to generate power. Voila - gigawatts > > of power generated by your own miniature weather system. > > > >Apparently, you have to build this thing big or not at all, in order to > >get the wind moving and overcome the energy cost of pumping the water > >to the top of the tower. I haven't seen or worked through the numbers, > >but it has one important quality of a Right Idea for solar power > >generation: the collector area is made up of a lightweight and cheap > >material (namely, a light mist of water and a large body of air). > > > What would the ducting at the bottom look like? It seems that with that > information, one could probably do a proof of concept by taking a suitably > doctored 2-liter soda bottle (or large mailing tube), a spray bottle of > water (hand pump), and some Kleenex (to measure air flow) into a sauna. It > might even be possible to simulate the xylem (?) in a tree trunk and see > how much of it you can capture to drop back down the cylinder. Actually, I saw this exact same idea in a READER'S DIGEST booklet more than ten years ago. I was only 13 at the time, but was fascinated with the concept and especially the great looking drawing some artists had made of it. I remember nagging about the subject to my dad, who works for Exxon Chemicals, that his job was useless because *very* soon these things would become a familiar landsight, and that we all would be powered with these things. Isn't anybody on the list crafty enough with thermodynamics to make a rough calculation of the energy balance ? Or do the nice experiment that kennita proposes. __ \/ Peter HINSSEN /\ L C /\ T E L hinssenp@sh.alcbel.be "It seems like a wonderful invention, but who will ever be crazy enough to use it ?" -- The president of the United States, Rutherford B. Hayes after having watched the demonstration of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876. ------------------------------ From: Oliver Seiler Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 00:36:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [#94-2-20] SEMANTICS: Faith On Tue, 1 Feb 1994, Tim Goodwin wrote: > Robert Anton Wilson gives various visualisation exercises in his many > books. One of my favourite is: imagine that you are having sex with the > pagan god/goddess of your choice. He encourages you to visualise the > results in the most graphic manner possible. > > He then states that interesting things will happen. He doesn't say > what. Try it. Interesting things happen. I think I was trying one of the first exercises RAW suggests in _Prometheus Rising_, on visualizing finding a quarter (or other coin), imagining it lying somewhere, and keeping this image in mind as vividly as possible, *knowing* that you will find it. I found a quarter, in a very odd spot mind you, while riding my bike, within the week. Not to be put off, I tried again, visualizing a $10 bill. Within about 3 days I decidid I wasn't visualizing hard enough, since I only found a $5 bill... Makes one wonder how much loose money you just don't see... > Tim Goodwin :PGP key available on request > goodwin@snug.demon.co.uk: Life without dead time! -Oliver | Oliver Seiler + Erisian Development Group + Amiga Developer + | oseiler@unixg.ubc.ca +-------------Reality by the Slice--------------+ | oseiler@nyx.cs.du.edu | Phone: (604) 683-5364 Fax: (604) 683-6142 | | ollie@BIX.com | POB 3547, MPO, Vancouver, BC, CANADA V6B 3Y6 | ------------------------------ From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:01:50 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-21] SEMANTICS: Faith > ... with the pagan god/goddess of your choice ... Reports are solicited from those who have selected Chthulu. ------------------------------ From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 14:48:02 GMT Subject: [#94-2-22] ECON: Wild Solar Power Idea Marc Ringuette writes: > Build a large fat cylinder with an open top - sort of like a > nuclear power plant cooling tower, only 1/4 of a mile on a side. > Locate it in a hot desert. Rig sprinklers across the top of it, > to spray a mist of water and cool the air. The air falls. Why would the water cool the air? I thought evaporation warmed surrounding air. Wouldn't you have to cool the water first? That's going to be energetically expensive in a hot desert. > Duct > the air out the bottom of the cylinder, and when the wind has built > to 50mph or so, use turbines to generate power. Pumping the water to the top is going to cost a lot. Are we sure that this is a system that produces net energy? Perhaps the air + mist is sinking due to the increased density from mist, rather than being cooled, which case you gain nothing. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk AnarchyPPL client ------------------------------ From: hanson@hss.caltech.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:35:35 PST Subject: [#94-2-23] [#94-1-749] PHIL/POL/TECH: nanarchy Mike Price said: > We had quite a discussion on nanarchy a while back. Folks were pretty > dismissive of it, by and large, for both moral and practical reasons. > ... :-) [not sure of the scope of this smiley -fnerd] Fnerd responded: >Although blue goo gives me the creeps, I find it hard to dismiss the >argument that it's the only alternative (anyone has thought of) to >something much worse--some one person or small group taking over >everything. > >I remember arguments (not just dismissals)...care to summarize them, Perhaps Fnerd should first summarize the argument(s) why one person or a small group would take over without blue goo. Robin Hanson P.S. The Extropy issue currently in your mailbox gives selections from our last big discussion. ------------------------------ From: hanson@hss.caltech.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:55:34 PST Subject: [#94-2-24] The Complexity of Physical Self-Reproduction I enjoyed Nick's essay with the above title, just posted to ExI-Essay. I'd like to encourage more essays posted there - where are all those Extropy conference papers? My one criticism of Nick's paper would be his focus on "genetic algorithm" solutions to the replicator design problem. While certainly a possible approach, such technologies are far having proved their wide application in the design world - what was the last car designed by genetic algorithms? The very fact that folks tend to reach for such solutions indicates just how damn hard the problem is, and thus how rather long the problem may take to solve. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ From: mnr@cs.cmu.edu Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 16:24-EST Subject: [#94-2-26] ECON: Wild Solar Power Idea > Why would the water cool the air? I thought evaporation warmed > surrounding air. No, in the process of evaporating, the water absorbs energy as it changes from a lower-energy to a higher-energy state. This energy comes from the surroundings, which are cooled. This is why your skin is cooled when sweat evaporates. > Pumping the water to the top is going to cost a lot. Are we sure that > this is a system that produces net energy? The claim is that it does produce net energy, but I haven't seen the calculations and there is indeed a concern about whether you can overcome the cost of pumping the water. But from what I hear, in the right circumstances such a system can theoretically overcome the costs and produce a LOT of net energy. I haven't given you any solid reasons to think this is a viable proposal, and I have none at this point other than the assurances I've been given that the calculations work out. To me, it's just a very interesting point in idea-space. -- Marc Ringuette (mnr@cs.cmu.edu) ------------------------------ From: hanson@hss.caltech.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:20:47 PST Subject: [#94-2-27] [#94-1-732] PCR: Pancritical Rationalism Max More offers a more careful exposition of PCR: Being absolutely sure of something does _not_ exempt a belief, practice, or procedure from PCR's strictures. _All_ beliefs are to be left open to criticism, although Bartley holds that the law of noncontradiction has to be retained if any coherent argument is to take place (otherwise no argument could ever constitute a criticism of any proposition). ... Previous rationalist views fused criticism and justification in that criticism of a position proceeded by showing (immediately or ultimately) that the position could not be justified in terms of the rationalist's favorite criterion of justification. For Descartes, this criterion was "clear and distinct ideas" ... for Hume every idea had to be traceable back to sense impressions, and for logical positivists they had to be traceable to sense-data. ... PCR was the first to state that no belief needs to be justified in this way. Instead, rationality consists in being open to criticism. ... PCR says "you can never be absolutely certain that a belief is true (since we cannot be certain about our means of knowledge)" ... I'd add that rationalists can be motivated to adopt PCR in place of Panrationalism or Critical Rationalism by coming to understand how PCR, unlike other rationalist views, can avoid making special exceptions. Other forms of rationalism merely replace one authority (the Bible, mystical insight, the Pope, the Blood, the Fuehrer) with others (sense experience, induction, scientific method). ... PCR does away with _all_ epistemological authorities, holding _every_ belief -- including those about the means of acquiring knowledge -- open to genuine challenge and revision. ... Rand as revised by Kelley ... holds some concepts to be axiomatic, i.e, undeniable, unrevisable and irrefutable. Supposed examples are "identity", "existence", and "consciousness" ... the validity of the senses Let`s see. The clearest claim I can find is: "You can never be absolutely certain a belief is true". Of course many people *are* in fact abolutely certain about many things - just ask them. So the claim must be that this behavior is not "rational". Is "rationality consists in being open to criticism" true by definition of "rational"? If not, we need to know what "rational" means before evaluating such a claim. It can certainly be functional and useful in practice to act as if you are absolutely certain of some beliefs (Especially when religious folks come to the door :-). It seems odd to insist that absolute certain beliefs, which are claimed to be impossible, must still "be left open to criticism". What could this mean in practice? What point would there be in spending time and effort to listen to criticism of a belief you are absolutely sure of? And what can it mean to insist that "the law of noncontradiction has to be retained if any coherent argument is to take place", yet it must be open to criticism? Open to criticism by incoherent argument perhaps? I guess this highlights the question: What does it means to hold an idea open to criticism? Must one spend effort to criticize it? Listen to any criticism offered? Be capable of listening to criticism should someone force you to? Have a non-zero probability of changing your mind? Non-PCR folk are described as criticizing beliefs not "traceable" to beliefs they are absolutely sure of. Are these not valid criticism? Is the main complaint that they are sure of their "foundations", or that they are unwilling to accept beliefs not so traceable? PCR sounds alot like the standard "coherence" theories of truth, discussed in standard epistemology courses. What exactly is the difference? Perhaps these questions make it clear what I want of a precise 500 word summary of a philosophy -- namely, lose the phil-speak words, just describe your view in ordinary concrete language. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ From: Christopher Weeks Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:53:08 -0600 Subject: [#94-2-28] ECON: Solar Panels Ray says: > Still, given Dani's $380 12 year panels, they still aren't competitive >with grid power. 70m^2/0.44m^2/panel*$380/panel=~$60,000 to outfit the >roof of your house. Now the expected lifetime is 12 years. I use >more power than the average, but my typical bill is $100/month. In >12 years, this is only ~$14,000, so PV must come down by a factor of 4 >just to break even with grid power. This doesn't take into account >the maintainence required for PV. They must be cleaned, especially on >the north east coast during winter and spring. If I had PV installed, right >now it would be frozen over with about 3 layers of ice, and my roof >is fairly inaccessible. Many people can't justify such a huge initial >investment to switch over their power source, although I could see >PV being incorporated into new houses. OK, so a factor of four+ decrease in the price needs to happen for PV to be a reasonable source of power. This seems like something that could easily happen given a bit more research and mass-production efficiency. Most of my information on PV's is from Popular Science type sources, but they seem to conclude that scale of production is the major stumbling block. Is there a commonly used, historicaly accurate, difference in manufacturing costs from small scale to mass-production of electronics? I would expect it to be considerably more than fourfold. Christopher L. Weeks c576653@monad.missouri.edu ------------------------------ From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:40:00 EST Subject: [#94-2-29] PCR Tim star (>, >>>) and me, fnerd (>>)- > >Not horror but demonstrated problem. [Not technological razzle-dazzle, but a marketing breakthrough!] > > Tomayto, Tomahto. Okay, you namecalled and I sidestepped. So. One problem with justification"ism" is all the different belief systems where people have decided on the one true source of all truth... and then had to move it with great upheaval...then again... General paradigm stickiness. > Easy. Its foundational axioms aren't closed to challenge. Just immune to it. Potato, potatoe! Nyah! Challenge *me* to a philosophical meta-meta debate, will ya!? Lemme at 'im! > I have gone into more detail on this in the past. Did I fail to get your > attention, or did you find some flaw in my efforts that you didn't tell me > about? Probably the former. What subject lines and keywords would it have been under? > >> Yes, but what if you aren't holding on to any at the moment, > > > >This sounds pretty hypothetical to me. A person with no effective beliefs? > > Within a given context. For example, I have no beliefs about how many Jews > were killed in the Holocaust. But you have ideas that relate to it, ideas about how to find out, about what sorts of evidence is credible, etc. So you have a starting point. But if absolutely nothing occurs to you about it...I guess PCR is no help. On the other hand, what's so bad about not having an idea about something? > Or children who are in the process of developing beliefs, or people who are > trying to learn something new. Hmm. Children often don't have much of a problem coming up with ideas. Still, as I keep saying, I'm not against, PCR isn't against, Bartly isn't against ideas about how to come up with ideas! It's just not what PCR is about. I love ideas about how to come up with ideas! > Discovery is not included within the scope > of PCR, including how to discover itself. Right. But once someone discovers it, other people discover it by just hearing about it. > >...when > >one is concentrating on the *validity* of ideas, I think testing counts > >more than history. > > Testing IS history. Testing is one of the things that happens, yes. But the testing parts of history are separate from other idea-generating parts, like, "I thought of it in the shower," or "It's obvious when you look at this picture," or "It follows from what our leader has said." Also, if someone else tested his idea by his criteria, that's not necessarily helpful to my testing, although it might be. > >...I don't think Bartley says much about how ideas come about. The > >point is that in a sense it doesn't matter as long as you have them. > > Yes, but what if you don't have them? Like what I said above: you always have starting points. > How do you get 'em? That's one of > my criticisms of PCR, and you seem to keep trying to evade it by simply > agreeing and saying it's not a problem. Right. I don't think sheer lack of raw ideas is a problem in the world. > If this is something to be left > to some subordinate theory, then what one is that? If you *want* to have a theory about it, go ahead. In fact I'm interested. I don't see it as subordinate to PCR, or vice-versa, just different. > I strongly suspect that there can be no such subordinate theories > consistent with PCR, which is why I bring it up. Now THAT'S CRITICISM! Please expand. -fnerd quote me - - cryptocosmology- sufficiently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise - god is in the least significant bits -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 23:31:02 GMT Subject: [#94-2-30] LOGIC: Axioms (was PCR) Tim Starr: > As used by ... Aristotle, etc., an axiom is a proposition > that can't be denied without being presupposed ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sounds more like Rand than Aristotle to me. Where does Aristotle so define an axiom? Since Tim's use of the term "axiom" is so non-standard (and the source of so much confusion) I would like to see Aristotle quoted, book, chapter and verse. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk AnarchyPPL client ------------------------------ From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:33:17 EST Subject: [#94-2-31] PCR Tim Starr says- > I found my reply to Max! > > >PCR tells us... > >...that we can never know for certain whether A is true > > Bingo! Self-referential refutation, self-exclusion, whatever you want > to call it. Quibbles about acting as if this were true by using it to > guide one's actions but not taking it to be "certain" are contradictory. > If you take this to be a reliable guide to action, you implicitly take > it to be true. If you take it to be true, then you contradict it, > because it says that you can't take anything to be true. What's "it" and "this" here? I assume that you skipped Max's point about an arbitrary "A" and went straight to applying PCR to itself...which is fine if you make it clear. So, do you mean that there is no difference between a provisional belief and a certain belief? > A possible source of confusion here may be the equation of "absolute > certainty" with what Rand called "intrinsicist" and Popper called "manifest" > theories of truth. If it might reduce confusion, please explain the distinction. > ... PCR takes the subjectivist position, mostly out of opposition > to the intrinsicist one... Hmm. I think Bartley makes a point of saying he believes in objective truth, that there is a world and statements about it are true or false. Please expand on this subjectivist/intrinsicist false dichotomy. > ...The fact that it provides no reason > for it to be found credible constitutes a criticism of it. How can it > survive this criticism? Someone else has mentioned privately that this criticism/justification terminology should be explained and used more carefully, so I'll try. It's true that pointing out lack of justification is a kind of criticism. It's just not the only kind. Other kinds include pointing out contradiction with other beliefs, and pointing out uselessness. PCR says the latter kinds are more important than the former. But to address Tim's question, I can think of two kinds of answers. One is, if PCR people don't find lack of justification important, and keep believing PCR, then that's how PCR survives criticism. The other answer is, if something's true, but no one knows why, or no one says why, then it's still true. I think some of us could come up with reasons why we find PCR useful/ plausible (it's not exactly a matter of truth since it's prescriptive). But those wouldn't be PCR's own reasons--it doesn't have any, and that's probably good! > In so doing away with any and all epistemological authority, on the basis > of past bad authorities, it also does away with all knowledge. How can you > have knowledge without knowers? I think the PCR authority is what-you-happen-to-believe-now. Or what-you- still-believe-*now*. But not necessarily what you believed in the past. > >[Bartley picking authorities vs. knowing how to get rid of bad ones > >analogy, PCR/Polycentric law analogy] > This is a nice example, but it's disanalogous. PCR says there are no > authorities, apparently. It says any beliefs you have are provisional authorities, but concentrate on weeding out bad ones rather than trying to pick and then hallow a set of perfect ones as a base. > The equivalent would be to lawlessness, not > polycentric law. In order to be analogous, PCR would have to solve the > problem of the fallibility or corruptibility of epistemological auth- > orities not by delcaring that there can be none (and thus contradicting > itself by setting itself up as one on that subject), I'm not sure your giving enough attention to the difference between an authority that demands justification ("only these ideas are good") and one that criticizes in other ways ("these ideas, at least, bad"). Maybe you're saying that PCR sets itself up as an authority on *criticism*? But PCR doesn't propose a fixed set of criteria for criticism. It only says that criticizing on the basis of lack of justification is not so great. So it doesn't logically claim to be the be-all-end-all of criticism. > but by minimizing > their fallibility or corruptibility by saying that epistemological > authority is also polycentric - and on that count, I think it succeeds. > I have no objection to it on those terms. I merely object to it being > taken for more than this. I think PCR does say a little more than that authority is polycentric. It says that a whole *class* of authorities are bad, but then there are whole other classes that are, well, probably many of them are okay but keep an eye out. > >PCR doesn't purport to be a theory of everything relevant to knowledge. > > My mistake. I thought it was a theory of knowledge, not just rationality. > Sorry. Mea culpa, maxima culpa. Joke? Why is the distinction important [I mean, I believe it is, but why]? -fnerd quote me - - cryptocosmology- sufficiently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise - god is in the least significant bits -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 03:48:52 GMT Subject: [#94-2-32] ECON: Solar Panels Christopher L. Weeks: > OK, so a factor of four+ decrease in the price needs to happen for > PV to be a reasonable source of power. This seems like something > that could easily happen given a bit more research and > mass-production efficiency. Sci American had an article a few years ago on PV. In it was an historical plot of PV prices, which showed a steadly drop with time. They were predicting that PV would become competitive with conentional power by the mid-to-late 1990s. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk AnarchyPPL client ------------------------------ From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:08:09 EST Subject: [#94-2-33] [#94-1-749] PHIL/POL/TECH: nanarchy > Perhaps Fnerd should first summarize the argument(s) why one person or > a small group would take over without blue goo. > > Robin Hanson The way I remember my model of the situation when last I lost interest is, you have an approx. expanding sphere. Different territories are expanding outward "along" this 2D boundary. They expand at slightly different rates. Factor out the overall expansion and the borders are shifting along the surface of the sphere. The closer the rate of expansion to the speed of light, the less oportunity to come up with new methods, but if someone starts out with a slightly better method and tradeoff of expansion/defense/research/ exploiting-territory, then their patch on the sphere surface just slowly expands till it's the whole surface, at which point everyone else is enclosed. So I'm focusing on the pure physical idea of grey-goo wars, here, not getting into why somebody might want to start (their side of) one. I don't necessarily think it will happen or that blue goo is a defense. > P.S. The Extropy issue currently in your mailbox gives selections from > our last big discussion. I think Somerville is in the Slow Zone. -fnerd quote me oh no others are getting things faster than meeeeeee - - cryptocosmology- sufficiently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise - god is in the least significant bits -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:49:03 EST Subject: [#94-2-34] [#94-1-732] PCR: Pancritical Rationalism Robin Hanson writes- > Max More offers a more careful exposition of PCR: > ... > > Let`s see. The clearest claim I can find is: "You can never be absolutely > certain a belief is true". Of course many people *are* in fact abolutely > certain about many things - just ask them. So the claim must be that this > behavior is not "rational". I think Max said it's okay to be "absolutely certain" as long as you're still "open to criticism." I'm not sure what that means, but I think the important issue to PCR is "openness to criticism..." whatever that is. > Is "rationality consists in being open to > criticism" true by definition of "rational"? Sort of. Bartley treats it as *a* definition of rational, that he calls better. He talks about idea(l)s of what it means to be rational. > ...It can certainly be > functional and useful in practice to act as if you are absolutely certain of > some beliefs (Especially when religious folks come to the door :-). But that situation (hopefully) doesn't last forever. It's not functional, PCR says, to close any beliefs to challenge forever. I think part of being "open" is in just not making any special exceptions to what can be criticized, nor requirements for justifications of beliefs. > It seems odd to insist that absolute certain beliefs, which are claimed to > be impossible, I think it's claimed to be *wrong* to hold things absolutely certain. Or else it's irrelevant. > must still "be left open to criticism". What could this mean > in practice? What point would there be in spending time and effort to > listen to criticism of a belief you are absolutely sure of? Yes, how much effort should one spend? I don't think Bartley prescribes an amount. Anyway, how many digits of precision are there in your "certainty?" > I guess this highlights the question: What does it means to hold an idea > open to criticism?... Yes. > Non-PCR folk are described as criticizing beliefs not "traceable" to beliefs > they are absolutely sure of. Are these not valid criticism? It's a kind of criticism, PCR says a not good, troublesome kind. > Is the main > complaint that they are sure of their "foundations", or that they are > unwilling to accept beliefs not so traceable? More the latter. Actually, Bartley's mostly worried about ideas of the form, "All valid truth comes from X." Where X is the senses, or cogito-ergo-sum, or divine inspiration, the pope, whatever. So it's not just having basic beliefs but having made a point of deciding on a root of all belief. > PCR sounds alot like the standard "coherence" theories of truth, discussed > in standard epistemology courses. What exactly is the difference? I dunno, sounds like phil-speak to me!-) Guessing, I would say that PCR says that things that don't clash but don't especially fit with anything else, are okay. Different stress on negative vs. positive coherence? > Perhaps these questions make it clear what I want of a precise 500 word > summary of a philosophy -- namely, lose the phil-speak words, just describe > your view in ordinary concrete language. I think it's most helpful when you point out where things seem to be phil- speak. Most of this seems like plain talk about tough concepts to me. I guess we're beyond 500 words by now, but we could iterate. -fnerd quote me - - cryptocosmology- sufficiently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise - god is in the least significant bits -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ From: Andy Lowton Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:24:45 -0100 Subject: [#94-2-35] ECON: solar panels Found this in my mailbox this morning. I havn't been following this particular thread very closely, but I recall someone stating that solar panels need to be more efficient. Cheers Andy ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Sent from the cyberdeck of: fholson@maroon.tc.umn.edu ("Fred H. Olson WB0YQM") [from PeaceNet] /* ---------- "SOLAR ENERGY BREAKTHROUGH" ---------- */ ENERGY DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCES BREAKTHROUGH IN SOLAR TECHNOLOGY WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 /E-Wire/ -- The Department of Energy says that a three-year government/industry partnership has produced new thin-film solar technology that can supply all the daytime electric power needed for a home at almost half the present cost. Deputy Secretary of Energy Bill White said, "The successful implementation of this cost-shared $6.26 million project with United Solar Systems Corporation is proof-positive that, working together, government and industry can deliver the whole package -- innovative technology and its delivery to the marketplace." The new photovoltaic solar panels will be manufactured at a new plant site in Newport News, Va. DOE's Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Christine Ervin, said the practical application of these new solar panels will also help meet administration goals of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. "This project is an early example -- a foundation stone, if you will -- of what the Climate Change Action Plan can do. At the same time, we will help create high-skill, high-wage jobs and increase America's share of the growing world market for environmental technologies." The applications of this thin-film technology include the replacement of glass panels used in constructing walls of commercial buildings as well as other products. Ervin said, using the new technology, thin-film solar panels can be made, for example, into roofing shingles that could supply all the daytime electric power needs of a south-facing residential home. Currently, costs for electricity from photovoltaics run from 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh). The new technology is expected to bring down the cost to 16 cents/kwh, and eventually down to 12 cents kwh. Ervin also noted that the shingles are similar in appearance from those we use today, eliminating aesthetic objections. CONTACT: Larry Hart of DOE, 202-586-5806; or Bob Noun of NREL, 202-586-7541. ************************************************************************ This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking service. For more information, send a message to peacenet-info@igc.apc.org ************************************************************************ ------- End of forwarded message ------- ------------------------------ From: Bill Garland Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 09:45:41 -0230 Subject: [#94-2-36] ECON: Solar Panels >Christopher L. Weeks: > >> OK, so a factor of four+ decrease in the price needs to happen for >> PV to be a reasonable source of power. This seems like something >> that could easily happen given a bit more research and >> mass-production efficiency. > >Sci American had an article a few years ago on PV. In it was an >historical plot of PV prices, which showed a steadly drop with time. >They were predicting that PV would become competitive with conentional >power by the mid-to-late 1990s. > >Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk > AnarchyPPL client I don't know this for sure, but I thought I heard on the radio the other day (this year 94) that there was a major breatkthrough in producing PV's - a substance that produced twice the current at half the price, or something like that. An order of magnitude improvement. One or two of these is all that it takes. I'd buy shares in a company that could produce sheets and sheets of new material that can outperform the until-now-current technology at lower cost. Now, what was the name of that company... On the other hand, since I wasn't paying attention, maybe I misheard or dreamed it up. Maybe I need some of those brain-enhancing drugs... Bill Garland, whose .sig has its own power supply ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #33 ********************************