From extropians-request@extropy.org Fri Feb 25 03:18:12 1994 Return-Path: extropians-request@extropy.org Received: from usc.edu (usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by chaph.usc.edu (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id DAA01951 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 1994 03:18:07 -0800 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA14899; Fri, 25 Feb 94 03:17:56 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by news.panix.com id AA22596 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Fri, 25 Feb 1994 06:01:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 06:01:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199402251101.AA22596@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-2-247 - #94-2-264 X-Extropian-Date: February 25, 374 P.N.O. [06:00:24 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: O Extropians Digest Fri, 25 Feb 94 Volume 94 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Animal Rights [2 msgs] ANTHRO: Multi-species origin of modern humans? [1 msgs] Bio: Chuck Olson [1 msgs] Blue Goo Background [2 msgs] DWELLING: Requesting ideas on building a Nexus hot tub [1 msgs] Economic value of children -- revisited [1 msgs] ENVIROBIZ: Transport cost and some flamage [2 msgs] GOO: Lean, Green, Killing Machines [1 msgs] History Lesson [1 msgs] PCR: Recycled Greek Skepticism? [6 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: 52218 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: russw@netcom.com (Russell Earl Whitaker) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 20:39:38 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-247] DWELLING: Requesting ideas on building a Nexus hot tub 23 February 374/1994 ------------------------------------------------ META: My return to the list Hello all. I'm back on the list. For those who who are interested, my new email address is russw@netcom.com. ------------------------------------------------ DWELLING: Request ideas on building a Nexus hot tub Now a Bay Area dweller, I'm taking on a carpentry project for Nexus Lite ("half as serious as a Nexus"): an 8-person (Human Mark I) hot tub. As some of you here may be the eventual beneficiaries of a good, hot soak in the tub during parties, I thought you might enjoy giving a little input into its specification. The entire structure will be outdoors. I'm considering doing it in redwood, as a classic circular tank with a raised deck around its perimeter. I may build telescoping, stowable drinks trays, and *possibly* add a terminal to our local net... IF AND ONLY IF I can do this in an electrically safe manner (an interesting problem). This will be a big tank. I'm not yet sure how I will design the heating, recirculation, filtration, and sterilization systems. I might use standard, small marine bilge pumps for recirc, and an ozone infusor for zapping microbes. A trellis will cover the top, and one or more of the sides. On this, I plan to grow roses and grapes... a good hot tub should encourage a sybaritic disposition. One interesting design constraint: the hot tub/deck subassembly should have at its base insertion slots and load-bearing surfaces: redwood is not cheap, and I'd like the option to forklift it away someday. Ideas? Thanks in advance. Excelsior, Russell Russell Earl Whitaker russw@netcom.com Director, Extropy Institute 408-366-5435 ================================================================ ------------------------------ From: grigsby@agames.com (JUMP IN THE FIRE) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 21:22:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [#94-2-248] ENVIROBIZ: Transport cost and some flamage More random nonsense ensues, in response to Ray: > > Possibly, but probably not. Think of the recycled paper raw material > > loop versus the new paper loop. Trees must come all the way from a > > place where there are harvestable trees to the paper mill to the end > > Transportation costs are probably irrelevant to the equation. No, they are a major part of the equation. For instance, the average food item in the US travels more than 1000 miles from its source to its destination in your stomach. I'd imagine paper to be slightly less, but even assuming a distance of half that and a free-market trucking cost of $.50 a pound (probably less in bulk), transport is a large part of the cost, and the environmental impact (it takes fossil fuels to move that truck). > How do you > propose we scrub CO2 from the atmosphere? Cut down trees and just > bury them? Um, excuse me? By leaving the trees standing? You are making no sense at all. > > If it were more expensive to be green, these funds would perform worse in > > the open market than other companies. They do not. I forget the date of > > And if IBM was less efficient than 3DO, their stock would be lower? All other factors being equal (which they are not), yes. You are not debating; you are engaging in reductio ad absurdum. As a rule, if a group of companies that all have a certain characteristic perform as well or better than the market at large, that characteristic is likely to be neutral or beneficial. Do you take issue with this? > I guess I'm anal retentive then. I foolishly bought a recycled > spiral notebook for classes once. The paper was a little greyish, > had lots of little specks of dirt/particles in it, smeared pencil > graphite like it was oil, and if you ever erased something, *dear god*, > the pencil marks would just get blended into the paper while further > erasing merely tore up the paper. I will _never_ buy recycled paper > again. (the paper was, to give it a word, "furry". And that > wasn't the only experience I had with recycled paper. The quality > of fine paper and writing tools bought from a stationary store are just > so much better than Kmart recycled paper plus cheapo pencils) How long ago was this? I have never noticed the problems you describe in any of my recycled paper usage, including 100% post-consumer unbleached, which had none of the specks and smears you describe. It feels just like regular paper that happens to be manila-colored. I am sure there are bad and good paper recyclers, and you had a bad one. Once I had some vegetable fried rice that gave me the trots, but I don't draw the conclusion that all Chinese food causes diarrhea. I could as easily conclude from your example that all Extropians are obnoxious propagandists for nonexistent technology they're not even helping to create, but I don't. > > Environmental responsibility is profitable in the long-term for all of us. > > Environmental irresponsibility is unprofitable because it takes out a long- > > Two terms which aren't objectively definable. Nothing is objectively definable. I have given my subjective definition in my earlier screeds, which you may refer to if you are confused. Say something, please. > out" The best solution to prevent a nanotech disaster is to spread ourselves > out as fast as possible. [snip] > We will if people of your political persuasion let us have *our* > money, and use *our* land to get into space. I have already stated too many times that I do not advocate force or fraud by government or anyone else, including taking your damn money. You have not listened to a word I said in any of my articles, ever. As of now I will ignore everything you say hence, since you have proven that you are more interested in green-bashing than rational debate, and are no better than the Cornell scientist you excoriate. I refuse to engage with any more of your insult and bad propaganda dressed as logic. > After we're gone, you can > rot on the earth until you die like the dinosaurs for all the > spacers care. Maybe going into space will open your mind and make you less insufferable. At least it's easier for me to avoid you in three dimensions than on a bounded sphere. // g -- -- -- grigsby@agames.com -- -- -- -- The views expressed above are to be taken as literal truth and are -- -- official policy statements of Volkswagenwerk AG, the Trilateral -- -- Commission, Hyundai Heavy Industries, and the Church of the Sub-Genius. -- -- -- ------------------------------ From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 1:16:32 WET Subject: [#94-2-249] ENVIROBIZ: Transport cost and some flamage JUMP IN THE FIRE writes: [since I'm in the kill file, I assume I am getting this free shot at you] > > How do you > > propose we scrub CO2 from the atmosphere? Cut down trees and just > > bury them? > > Um, excuse me? By leaving the trees standing? You are making no sense > at all. Sorry, I actually thought you wanted to _reduce_ the current absolute level of CO2. If our carbon cycle is in equilibrium, how do you propose to get the CO2 back into the ground locked into a stable form? > > > If it were more expensive to be green, these funds would perform worse in > > > the open market than other companies. They do not. I forget the date of > > > > And if IBM was less efficient than 3DO, their stock would be lower? > > All other factors being equal (which they are not), yes. You are not > debating; you are engaging in reductio ad absurdum. No, I was merely illustrating your fallacy. You can not make such a simple analysis without considering all the facts. All other things aren't equal. It's certainly possible that being green is more expensive, but the companies perform well in the market for other reasons. > How long ago was this? I have never noticed the problems you describe > in any of my recycled paper usage, including 100% post-consumer unbleached, > which had none of the specks and smears you describe. It feels just > like regular paper that happens to be manila-colored. I am sure there > are bad and good paper recyclers, and you had a bad one. I am very picky. I like my paper to be white, particle free, and to have a good texture. I am accutely aware of the differences between even non-recycled paper. One of my biggest gripes is the level of smearing or ablation during erasure. I have tried about 3 different brands of recycled paper and all of them exibited discoloration and smearing. I will keep spending money trying out recycled paper until it becomes more accepted in the market and its quality improves. > > > Environmental responsibility is profitable in the long-term for all of us. > > > Environmental irresponsibility is unprofitable because it takes out a long- > > > > Two terms which aren't objectively definable. > > Nothing is objectively definable. I have given my subjective definition > in my earlier screeds, which you may refer to if you are confused. Say > something, please. Just tell me how to be environmentally responsible? Is an electric car environmentally responsible? Al Gore wouldn't believe so. An electric vehicle transportation society would merely increase demand for energy production and overall energy consumption. Some environmentalists would say that the only responsible thing would be to cut down on travel and consumption. They would not be satisified with a "green" technology because they are more interested in social engineering. Would a "green" industry be responsible? Some might say that industrial production itself is irresponsible regardless of how "clean" it is. That industrial production is unsustainable, our GDP is unsustainable, and therefore no level of industry is responsible (the only definition of a sustainable society you ever gave me was a preindustrial aboriginal one) Let's say I could wave a major wand over all of our industries and make them "green" I also waved a wand and made all our energy production wind/solar. Would you be completely satisfied or would you demand even harsher restrictions? Such as reductions on what people consume, how much, and how often? Would you demand a global reduction is production even if all our energy was clean? Now you see my problem. What may seem responsible now, becomes irresponsible one it becomes ubiquitous. -Ray -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | politics is the implementation of faith. -- ------------------------------ From: Reilly Jones <70544.1227@CompuServe.COM> Date: 24 Feb 94 03:15:58 EST Subject: [#94-2-250] GOO: Lean, Green, Killing Machines Ray Cromwell wrote: The problem is the near term as I see it also. It could be the very near term, far nearer than we suppose. The field of Applied Molecular Evolution that Kauffman and others are developing patents in, points towards a day quite soon where almost any protein needed to fulfill any specific catalytic function desirable will be manufacturable on short notice. Delivery systems through genetic engineering techniques are becoming highly sophisticated and widespread in labs throughout the developed world. Retroviruses are nasty green goo and our knowledge of them may be growing to the point where we can figure out how to aim them as weapons targeted at behaviors, atmospheric conditions, foods, etc. even though we aren't making much headway on antidotes. The power of mitochondrial DNA analysis and the Genome Project is sufficient that synthetic proteins designed to catalyze specific cellular functions could be inserted into viruses targeted at specific DNA combinations. On the bright side, our defenses against these will become more robust against any specific green goo, but attacks would likely be multivariate, diversionary, temporally and geographically spaced. Only one or two effective agents need to get through the defensive screen. Our side needs to be on the inside in this arena, needs to be setting the priorities for which catalytic functions are being searched for prior to protein synthesis. How to get in when it's mostly state-science? Clearly, in the near term, we have a political problem. There will be no respect for individual freedom of technological creation from the leftist entropic death-worshippers. They've got the government, the media, the educational system and the entertainment industry. Large hunks of grant-driven state-science have been corrupted. In short, we need a project, near-term, on the scale of what the Enlightenment attempted. It's tradeoff was a rational political system designed to protect rational scientists as long as the fruit of the scientist's labors directly benefited the rational political elite. Now the political elite are no longer rational, entropic death-worshippers are the enemies of rationality. They no longer see the benefit of science, only the evils (except for their pet projects like forcing pro-life taxpayers to pay for abortions to harvest fetal tissue used to develop new wrinkle cream for Helen Gurley Brown). Now we need a technological political system designed to protect technological innovators as long as the fruit of the innovator's labors directly benefit the technological political elite. At least until blue goo appears. Frankly, blue goo gives me the willies. As a political solution, it's great for my enemies to be pumped full of it, but for me and my friends... I don't know, I would like to be able to conquer the universe (hypothetically, if I weren't as nice as I am), and somehow not being able to before I even get started makes me non-human, in fact, makes me an animal, less than a slave. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology: 70544.1227@CompuServe.COM | The rational and moral foundations | of our creative drive ------------------------------ From: Reilly Jones <70544.1227@CompuServe.COM> Date: 24 Feb 94 03:16:23 EST Subject: [#94-2-251] PCR: Recycled Greek Skepticism? I have been a bit confused about what exactly PCR is after looking back at recent posts. It seemed to be coherency epistemology (shedding beliefs that had diminished credibility), but then it wasn't epistemology, just a prescription for rationality (being open to criticism, the Socratic model) justified on the basis of utility (with truth as one purpose having utility). Something in the back of my mind said I have seen this before. The combination of the Socratic model, Steve Witham's comment that "PanCritRat is supposed to hold itself open to criticism" and Max More's comment that "Belief A may, in fact, be true. It's just that we can never know for certain whether A is true..." made me think of Greek Skepticism. So I dug out Will Durant's "The Life of Greece" and found some interesting passages that prompted further thoughts about what PCR might be. Passages directly from the book are in quotes. Here is a real gem: "Nothing is certain, not even that." - Arcesilaus (head of the Middle Academy in 269 BC) "When [Arcesilaus] was told that such a doctrine made life impossible he answered that life had long since learned to manage with probabilities. A century later a still more vigorous skeptic took charge of the 'New Academy,' and pressed the doctrine of universal doubt to the point of intellectual and moral nihilism. Carneades of Cyrene, coming to Athens... about 193, made life bitter for Chrysippus and his other teachers by arguing with galling subtlety against every doctrine that they taught. When he set up shop for himself he lectured one morning for an opinion, the next morning against it, proving each so well as to destroy both; while his pupils, and even his biographer, sought in vain to discover his real views. He undertook to refute the materialistic realism of the Stoics by a Platonic-Kantian critique of sensation and reason. He attacked all conclusions as intellectually indefensible, and bade his students be satisfied with probability and the customs of their time." Rationality taken to its logical conclusions led Chrysippus to propose "to limit the care of dead relatives to the simplest and quietest burial; it would be still better, he thought, to use their flesh as food. Wars, said Chrysippus, are a useful corrective of overpopulation, and bedbugs do us the service of preventing us from oversleeping." Pyrrho of Elis around 320 BC - "These opinions were basically three: that certainty is unattainable, the wise man will suspend judgment and will seek tranquillity rather than truth, and that, since all theories are probably false, one might as well accept the myths and conventions of his time and place. Neither the senses nor reason can give us sure knowledge: the senses distort the object in perceiving it, and reason is merely the sophist servant of desire. It is foolish, then, to take sides in disputes, or to seek some other place or mode of living, or to envy the future or the past; all desire is delusion. Best of all is a calm acceptance: not to reform the world, but to bear it patiently; not to fever ourselves with progress, but to content ourselves with peace." Here we have the ultimate result of rationality if left to feed on itself, as witnessed in modern-day leftist nihilism: avoid conflict, seek peace, purposes are not worth fighting over. Here we see Nietzsche adding his contribution: if one is to be creative by not merely 'accepting the myths and conventions of his time and place,' then one must make up new purposes beyond our genetic default purposes of self-preservation and reproduction, beyond the next level of purpose of searching for the good life, down to the open-system nothingness of 'beyond good and evil.' Purpose is chosen, values constructed around them, values are applied to experience to produce rationality. The test for rationality is the utility of decisions taken leading to fulfilment of purpose. Purpose itself, is not arrived at rationally, it is simply chosen. If seeking truth is the highest purpose chosen, history has rewarded rationality directed towards this, perhaps even improved evolutionary fitness, although this race doesn't have a finish line. Rationality is utterly social (consensual reality), dependent on language (incl. logic) and polycentric authority. A couple more points. Tim Starr wrote: If Tim's "realist" epistemology is similar to what Edelman calls "biological" epistemology, I lean towards agreeing with his statement. Also, Tim wrote: I never saw an answer to this and in light of Carneades' proven prowess in doing just this, I think it is an excellent question. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology: 70544.1227@CompuServe.COM | The rational and moral foundations | of our creative drive ------------------------------ From: timstarr@netcom.com (Tim Starr) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 01:54:31 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-252] Animal Rights >From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) > >>>But there are no "natural" rights beyond our social constructs. >> >>James Donald would debate that point vociferously. I do miss his >>presence. :) It all depends on what you mean by natural. > >I take it to mean: "of, according to, occurring in, provided by, nature". >Rights aren't provided by nature, they have to be either fought for, >awarded for the mutual benefit of all parties, or handed out voluntarily. Do you mean to imply that fighting for rights, awarding them, or voluntarily not violating them are unnatural? I'd say they're all quite natural. Nature's agents for enforcing - not "providing" - rights are humans, and homo sapiens is a natural animal. An animal whose natural habitat is a social one, who's adapted for about a million years to defending itself against threats to its survival, including human threats such as murderers, robbers, etc. Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Think Universally, Act Selfishly - timstarr@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: timstarr@netcom.com (Tim Starr) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 02:04:00 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-253] Blue Goo Background >From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) >Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 14:00:50 EST >Subject: [#94-2-237] Blue Goo Background > >Reading the Extropy reprint of the debate on blue goo, >I noticed two things worth pointing out about where Drexler >and Miller (and Dean Tribble) are coming from. >... >One idea is the idea of rule of law. Hayek, (or was it Mises?) >whom DM&T and many of us admire, was aparently big on this. Hayek, in the classical liberal tradition. >In >a "true" economy, however, protection of lives and property >is taken care of by a specialized agency, Why? I've heard this assumption many times, but I've always thought it preferable to have this as decentralized as possible, down to the level of everyone being armed, rather than having it specialized. The argument for this is that the more widely arms are distributed in society, the harder it is for anyone to conquer it and set up a State. There'll still be a place for security guards, lawyers, and judges, but I think the militia will need restoration. As for the "nanarchy" idea, I think it's predicated on two improbabili- ties: 1) that it's possible for machines to replace people. I'm still more of an AI skeptic than ever, sorry, and if you don't like it then read Searle's latest book, take two aspirin, and argue with me in the morning; 2) That even if it were possible, that anyone would set up such a system in such a way that it would be immune to takeover by hostile programs which would be tempted to seize the power it would hold. Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Think Universally, Act Selfishly - timstarr@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:16:36 GMT Subject: [#94-2-254] PCR: Recycled Greek Skepticism? If Carneades believed in traquility and accepting the customs of one's time, why would he argue with people? I realize that there may be no answer available, but it sounds like a parallel with the leftish belief that western technological culture is the only one that should be changed. Nancy Lebovitz ------------------------------ From: Reilly Jones <70544.1227@CompuServe.COM> Date: 24 Feb 94 13:04:47 EST Subject: [#94-2-255] PCR: Recycled Greek Skepticism? Nancy Lebovitz wrote: No one ever could figure out what he believed, he just advised people to "be satisfied with probability and the customs of their time." Philosophers do tend to engage in rational inquiry, though. He was intellectually and morally nihilistic which is the logical conclusion of criticism and rationality taken too far, the curse of abstraction. The latest crop of leftist nihilists are simply walking down his same path again. You know who they are: the Heidegger/Adorno/Camus/Sartre/Marcuse/DeLeuze/Gauttari/Freud/Lyotard/Derrida/Fouc ault/DeLanda/Lacan/Lucaks/Saussure/Keynes/Russell/Galbraith/Rawls/West/Kinsley/Ro dham/MONDO 2000 crowd of fellow-travelers. None of these people ever believed in anything either, meaning had no meaning for them, they just wallowed in filth and degradation waiting to die. Nancy again: I would characterize it as more than a belief. It is a holy war against rationality and technological progress. They want us all to crawl in the "feminine mud of the valleys" as Wellesley Dir. of Womens Studies (center of feminist entropic death-worshipping) Peggy McIntosh puts it. They will "care" for us out their boundless condescending compassion. We will celebrate "diversity" and be "inclusive" focusing on "process" and "consensus" as soon as all the Branch Davidians, the Randy Weavers and all other non-bootlickers are reduced to heaps of ashes. It comes directly from the hypercriticism and hyperrationality (mostly German thought) since Rousseau's critique of Locke. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology: 70544.1227@CompuServe.COM | The rational and moral foundations | of our creative drive ------------------------------ From: "Harry S. Hawk" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 13:24:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-2-256] Bio: Chuck Olson a conscious being, Chuck Olson wrote: > Please add me to your e-mail mailing lists. > > Allow me to introduce myself: I work as a computer consultant > (programming), but my training is in biology [I have published papers on > the subjects of the biological mechanisms of aging, and chemical brain > preservation as a means of "preventing death"]. I am a cryonicist, but I > am not yet signed up. I am particularly interested in evolutionary > computation (using Darwinian selection to evolve computer software). > > I will be attending Extro I in Sunnyvale this coming April. I look > forward to real-time interfacing. > > Chuck Olson > -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ From: Bill Garland Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 16:48:30 -0230 Subject: [#94-2-257] History Lesson Now that volume is way down, for the benefit of we extropians who are fairly new to the list, perhaps some veteran extropian could answer the question : who was Pandit Singh and what did he do to get kicked off the list? His name seems to have been mentioned dozens of times over the past year... Bill Garland, whose .sig wants to know ------------------------------ From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:46:03 -0800 Subject: [#94-2-258] Economic value of children -- revisited Last fall there was a thread here on the general subject of "why have children", which included some discussion about their economic value, or lack of it, to their parents. I did not pay it close attention, having neither children nor relevant information. This semester I am taking an evening course at San Jose State University on cultural anthropology, and I was interested to note discussion in our textbook to the effect that in many societies the number, temporal spacing and gender of children raised is quite well optimized for economic utility to their parents. In particular, in some societies where labor-intensive agriculture is widely practiced, it is said that a child can begin to be a net economic producer (in this case, of food) by approximately six years of age. Note in passing that even in very low-tech societies, there are many effective means of regulating fertility and of systematically culling unwanted children. Not all of these means are ones which would find wide public approval in the United States. In "culling" I include everything from what our culture would call "premeditated murder" to what our culture would call "systematic neglect". I have no opinion I wish to express here about the desirability or undesirability of these various means, and I do not know enough about anthropology to elaborate at any length. I am just trying to provide a little data that might be of interest. -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:32:11 EST Subject: [#94-2-259] Blue Goo Background i wrote- > >In > >a "true" economy, however, protection of lives and property > >is taken care of by a specialized agency, Tim Starr replied- > Why? I've heard this assumption many times, but I've always thought > it preferable to have this as decentralized as possible... Hey, I'm an anarchist, too. That's why I put quotes around "true." > As for the "nanarchy" idea, I think it's predicated on two improbabili- > ties: 1) that it's possible for machines to replace people. I'm still > more of an AI skeptic than ever, sorry, and if you don't like it then > read Searle's latest book, take two aspirin, and argue with me in the > morning; 2) That even if it were possible, that anyone would set up > such a system in such a way that it would be immune to takeover by > hostile programs which would be tempted to seize the power it would > hold. The idea is that the system enforces very simple rules. For instance, it won't let someone's person or property (as it has it listed) be touched by anyone else unless the owner engages in some protocol with it. Likewise to transfer ownership. Also, it detects any attempts at doing anything nearly powerful enough to overthrow it and destroys them. Once it's set up, there is no more programming going on, so I don't see how you get "hostile programs" into it. -fnerd quote me - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - We shall have to evolve Problem solvers galore As each problem they solve Creates ten problems more. --Piet Hein -----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, 24 Feb 94 18:40:16 EST Subject: [#94-2-260] PCR: Recycled Greek Skepticism? Reilly Jones writes- > I have been a bit confused about what exactly PCR is after looking back > at recent posts. It seemed to be coherency epistemology (shedding beliefs that > had diminished credibility), but then it wasn't epistemology, just a > prescription for rationality (being open to criticism, the Socratic model) > justified on the basis of utility (with truth as one purpose having utility). It's Tim Starr who suggests that PCR justifies itself this way. I'm not sure. I used to think of myself as a pragmatist (in the philosophical sense), so my presentation or understanding may have been slanted. Reilly gives examples of ancient nihilisms. Remember, PCR isn't about knocking down the whole pursuit or idea of knowledge. It's about perfecting knowlege with criticism. In your example of Carneades of Cyrene mocking ideas left and right--one thing you don't say is whether he refrained from calling any "unfounded." This is an attack that PCR doesn't use. Also, PCR isn't about giving up or being "above it all"--Bartley spends a chapter on the difference ... > Pyrrho of Elis around 320 BC - "These opinions were basically three: > that certainty is unattainable, the wise man will suspend judgment and will seek > tranquillity rather than truth, And most of his book (and PCR itself) is purposely meant to combat a relative of this notion: > and that, since all theories are probably false, > one might as well accept the myths and conventions of his time and place. Another example of nihilism or defeatism, not related to PCR: > Here we have the ultimate result of rationality if left to feed on > itself, as witnessed in modern-day leftist nihilism: avoid conflict, seek > peace, purposes are not worth fighting over. ... > A couple more points. Tim Starr wrote: realist epistemology escape [Hume's] critique.> Yes, he *asserted* that... > If Tim's "realist" epistemology is similar to what Edelman calls "biological" > epistemology, I lean towards agreeing with his statement. Hmm. PCR is modeled on Popper's stuff which is modeled on Darwin. Sounds more "biological" than what Tim has been, er, talking about but not explaining recently (no criticism, I just can't comment on what I don't know about). > Also, Tim wrote: to, but defeated by criticism?> > > I never saw an answer to this and in light of Carneades' proven prowess in doing > just this, I think it is an excellent question. I don't understand the question. PCR is about keeping the things that survive criticism. That wouldn't make sense if everything were already defeated... The Greeks sometimes seemed to confuse philosophy with playing around with each other's minds. (This is something Robert Pirsig said.) Of course, modern academics do showy wordplay, too. Anyway, we don't take such behavior seriously, right? I hope it's not the impression I've given of Bartley. -fnerd quote me - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - We shall have to evolve Problem solvers galore As each problem they solve Creates ten problems more. --Piet Hein -----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, 24 Feb 94 19:13:17 EST Subject: [#94-2-261] PCR: Recycled Greek Skepticism? > ...The latest crop of leftist nihilists are > simply walking down his same path again. You know who they are: the > Heidegger/Adorno/Camus/Sartre/Marcuse/DeLeuze/Gauttari/Freud/Lyotard/Derrida/Fouc > ault/DeLanda/Lacan/Lucaks/Saussure/Keynes/Russell/Galbraith/Rawls/West/Kinsley/Ro > dham/MONDO 2000 crowd of fellow-travelers. Oh, THAT bunch, feh! Word to the wise and so forth; say no more, say no more. -fnerd quote me - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - We shall have to evolve Problem solvers galore As each problem they solve Creates ten problems more. --Piet Hein -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 00:06:14 GMT Subject: [#94-2-262] Animal Rights Tim Starr responds: >>From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) >> >>>>But there are no "natural" rights beyond our social constructs. >>> >>>James Donald would debate that point vociferously. I do miss his >>>presence. :) It all depends on what you mean by natural. >> >>I take it to mean: "of, according to, occurring in, provided by, nature". >>Rights aren't provided by nature, they have to be either fought for, >>awarded for the mutual benefit of all parties, or handed out voluntarily. > >Do you mean to imply that fighting for rights, awarding them, or >voluntarily not violating them are unnatural? > >I'd say they're all quite natural. Nature's agents for enforcing - not >"providing" - rights are humans, and homo sapiens is a natural animal. But the theories as to what is and is not a right still have to be constructed by homo sapiens. According to your system, theories of epistemology, works of art and music, preferences for one baseball team over another, and price controls, are not artifacts but natural. Fighting for or awarding rights is perfectly natural behaviour for rational beings, but the rights themselves cannot be natural as their range of application is arbitrarily decided and varies according to era and culture. There is no natural law of the universe which determines whether we should have the right to free healthcare, the right to a job, or the right not to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. Rights are abstract notions that cannot exist unless rational beings create them. Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: pgf@srl05.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 19:09:52 -0600 Subject: [#94-2-263] PCR: Recycled Greek Skepticism? >The Greeks sometimes seemed to confuse philosophy with >playing around with each other's minds. >(This is something Robert Pirsig said.) >-fnerd >quote me I just did; anyway, I don't understand; you're implying there _is_ a difference between philosophy and plaing oops, playing around with each other's minds. What is it? hp ------------------------------ From: LEVY%BESSIE@venus.cis.yale.edu Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 00:20:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-2-264] ANTHRO: Multi-species origin of modern humans? The cover of today's New York _Times_ had a story entitled "Asian Fossil Prompts New Ideas on Evolution." According to the story, a Dr. Carl C. Swisher 3d of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, CA has reported human skull fragments found on Java that are 1.8 million years old, as old as the oldest homo erectus remains discovered in Africa. This suggests that the theory of a single-species genesis of modern humans may be incorrect; i.e., although the single pre-human species came from Africa, more than one separate human species evolved independently in Africa, Asian (and perhaps Europe). Somewhere in hell, Hitler is smiling. -- Simon! ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #55 ********************************