From extropians-request@extropy.org Tue Aug 16 03:01:18 1994 Return-Path: extropians-request@extropy.org Received: from usc.edu (usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by chaph.usc.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.4) with SMTP id DAA10235 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 1994 03:01:13 -0700 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA18337; Tue, 16 Aug 94 03:01:10 PDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA08189 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Tue, 16 Aug 1994 06:00:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 06:00:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199408161000.AA08189@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-8-166 - #94-8-176 X-Extropian-Date: August 16, 374 P.N.O. [06:00:40 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Tue, 16 Aug 94 Volume 94 : Issue 227 Today's Topics: ECON: inflation question [2 msgs] EPIST: Meanings & PCR Question [1 msgs] Errors [1 msgs] EXTRO-1: WIRED 2.09 Sept. 94 [1 msgs] Individualism vs. Groupism [1 msgs] INQUIRY: Information Organization [2 msgs] Nerds of Future Past [1 msgs] SOC/PSYCH: External Causes [1 msgs] SOC/PSYCH: External Causes [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: 28007 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 13:50:33 EDT Subject: [#94-8-166] Nerds of Future Past Hi, folks. I hope to be posting a lot less as "fnerd@smds.com" from now on. I got a PPP account at The Internet Access Company (near Boston, where I live). I am getting my extropians mail sent there. THE NEW ADDRESS FOR ME: sw@tiac.net (Steve Witham, former fnerd) The fnerd@smds.com address will still work, but I'm hoping to spend fewer hours at work reading mail! Let me tell you, for someone who's never had direct internet access before, having it at home with a Macintosh interface is fun. (Bostonians: 40 hours/month is $30, $25 to Boston Computer Society members.) I particularly like sending reminders to myself between work and home. I guess I can lower the FutureNerd flag now that the issue of emotionblocked-techies-taking-over has been touched on in _Extropy_ itself (#13). Whew-blblblblbl-smeck. Onward. Someone at TAZONO said that they didn't post any more because of the realization that anything you post on the net is recorded for eternity now. But I find that that sense of committment acts like a ratchet to help keep me moving forward. Also, making mistakes on the net makes lessons in both humility and self-acceptance, both caution and gumption. - -Steve - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits. --Anon. ------------------------------ From: Bo Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 10:57:06 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [#94-8-167] Errors I, for one would like to mention that although I have been guilty of two errors recently... one not paying attention to the subject header one :: that slipped by somehow.... ...I have done an awful lot of error free work. No-one sees the Extropian requests (10-30 a week) that get done right... No-one sees the number of E-mail's(3-7 a day) that go out correctly... Personally, I think it is comment enough to see your error, and know that everyone else sees it, too. :-( ~~~~~~~~ Need we waste band width of recriminations and/or apologies...? I hereby apologise in advance for any errors that might cause anyone undue angst....;-) When you try to cram 30 working hours into 24/day.....you're bound to screw up a little... Sorry about that.....;-) Bo the Bohemian..... *****************************[ ****************%%%%Bo@bohemia.metronet.org%%%%********************** ------------------------------ From: mindseye@ix.netcom.com (Joe Moorman) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 12:03:40 -0700 Subject: [#94-8-168] INQUIRY: Information Organization I'm looking for ideas about organizing the files in my computer in a more coherent and semantically-well- structured manner. Does anybody know of any books or essays dealing with this subject? ------------------------------ From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 15:47:57 EDT Subject: [#94-8-169] Individualism vs. Groupism I said- > Steve again: self-identity" that's the problem as the compulsion to anchor that drives people > to identify with groups, places, or ideas (Extropianism or individualism, even). > Why we are so keen to have an identity I'm not sure I've ever seen a good > explanation of.> and Reilly Jones replied- > There are different kinds of Taoism. The good kind is an active Taoism that > views the Tao as consistently pointing the "Way" towards the chinks in the armor > of Fate that will allow the individual (me, for example), to live and grow > forever. Questioning the critical importance of identity, which is the essence > of individuality, seems closer to the bad kind of Taoism. ... > [Quotes Iris Murdoch in "Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals":] > > "...A kind of instinctual debased Taoism,... a relaxed acceptance...which > overcomes the awkward dichotomies between good and evil and one individual > and another... What is, and not implausibly, envisaged here is an apocalyptic (The "not implausibly" makes me wonder just where Murdoch is coming from.) > change ... disappearance of old local ideas of individuals and virtues... Reilly continues- > I stand unalterably opposed to a loss of individual sovereignty. The idea is > morally repugnant because it is death-worship, self-immolation. I support individual sovereignty in the conventional sense. Finding "chinks in the armor of Fate" doesn't quite match any flavor of Taoism I've encountered before. As a sort of Gestaltist, I would say that in healthy systems boundaries (like self/other) and distinctions (like good/evil) arise out of the needs of the moment. Sometimes boundaries and their guards become self-justifying, though. But the map is not the terrain, and the self-image is not the self. The obsolescence of a given self-image isn't "death" if the valuable stuff that is the actual self continues. But I do want to revise what I said about "groupism." Compulsive group- joiners do lack some sort of self-definition. But they also compensate by trying to fill in their self-images by identifying with groups. I don't think categories and definitions provide the right kind of strength. Not all ways of anchoring the identity are good. Nice (!) Ayn Rand quote on rationalizations. - -Steve - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits. --Anon. ------------------------------ From: Reilly Jones <70544.1227@compuserve.com> Date: 15 Aug 94 18:58:36 EDT Subject: [#94-8-170] EXTRO-1: WIRED 2.09 Sept. 94 Where is the Extro-1 article? Reilly ------------------------------ From: Reilly Jones <70544.1227@compuserve.com> Date: 15 Aug 94 19:12:26 EDT Subject: [#94-8-171] EPIST: Meanings & PCR Question I want to point out that to "try to emulate the cognitive style of professional philosophers" could very well lead to the sterile results that such a style of cognition has led to in the past. Ed Regis alludes to these worthless results: "...the so-called 'philosophers of science' are still sitting on the sidelines helpfully informing us about how absolutely impossible it is for anyone to know the least little thing. And they do this in the name of enlightened thinking! It was partly because of my own contempt for this charming attribute of some philosophers that I left the discipline..." Let's find a better style that will lead to better results. Robin Hanson wrote 8/14/94: Hmmm... I think that words like "rational" and "moral" have commonly accepted meanings that are sufficient for most discussion, philosophical or otherwise. However, I am the first to develop more explicative definitions of words such as these, in the face of a "professional" philosopher's attempt to redefine the meanings to fit some political agenda they are pushing. I am thinking of my posts awhile back on Robert Nozick's attempt to redefine "rationality" away from holding reasons tied to evidence and cause-and-effect, towards relativist gobbledy-gook symbols. I am not against the evolution of language, since new discoveries in science and philosophy are frequently best served by new words (such as the Futique Neologisms). I am dead set against perverting the meaning of some very key concepts that hold their meaning through eternity because of their close corresponding tie to the underlying truth they express. An example is "certainty" which means "free from doubt." If you want to say something is "50% certain" or "relatively certain" then say it is uncertain but has various degrees of belief or confidence. If Robin thinks that some of these common words are under attack by semantic perverts, then I welcome his own explicative definitions of them. I don't mean to discourage discussion either. Eric Watt Forste wrote 8/15/94 about PCR: I wish to repost an exchange between Max More and me from 3/30/94 to reclarify this idea that PCR is hanging out there in Never-Never Land unanchored to anything real: "Max: PCR *is* grounded in subjective purposes in the sense that, if my one of my goals was not to be as rational as possible, I would not be interested in PCR. Even if PCR can be successfully defended against all criticisms, it will never appeal to persons who care nothing for consistency, truth, or reason. In this sense, PCR is grounded in one's values and so is not "smug nihilism". Note that this is not to say that PCR is *justified* in terms of one's values; it means only that one's acceptance of PCR is explained by one's valuing rationality in combination with believing that PCR, so far, provides the best, most consistent, characterization of what it means to be a rationalist. Reilly: I support this unreservedly. I am glad to see it made explicit because only by making it explicit does PCR avoid being merely smug nihilism." (A side note on my aesthetic preferences. Eric wrote: "In this light, PCR looks like an epistemic bootstrapping scheme." This is a very pleasing turn of a phrase to my ears, but then, my favorite book title is "Supervenience and Nomological Incommensurables". I would encourage such phrasing and discourage Eric's later turn of phrase: "[Profane filth deleted]. Sometimes I get *so* [profane filth deleted] abstruse that it annoys even me." Aesthetic cleanliness is a desirable character trait, I don't have a filth filter purifying incoming posts yet.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology: 70544.1227@compuserve.com | The rational, moral and political relations | between 'How we create' and 'Why we create' ------------------------------ From: machado@newton.apple.com (Romana Machado) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 17:49:36 PDT Subject: [#94-8-172] SOC/PSYCH: External Causes Freeman Presson exults: >Extropy #13 kicks ass. I agree! I got a kick out of J. Storrs Hall's _Utility Fog_ and of course, the not-an-advertisement for the Galactomatic-1000. Some of the claims made in Max More's review of Julian Simon's _Good Mood_ puzzled me, though. (Readers at home can turn to p. 45.) I am essentially in agreement with Max up to this point: " If we spend most of our time focusing on ourselves, we will sharply narrow our opportunities for self-improvement." What? How? (I see more people limited by a lack of sufficient self-interest.) "An outward-looking attention to the well-being and growth of others and a deeply involved contribution to causes that go beyond our immediate self-interest are necessary for us to fully develop and exercise our talents and virtues." Why, and why _necessary_? This is what I learned from devoting time to causes: Unless I seek within, for the most powerful high good in myself, external causes merely drain me and lead me astray. After finding this good, then I look for the external cause that supports it, and then contribute, while keeping an eye out that my chosen external cause does in fact continue to support it. A Sufi saying: "If you seek a brother to share your burden, brothers are, in truth, hard to find; but if you seek a brother whose burden you yourself share, you will find no lack of such brothers." "Benevolence, generosity, and _lack of excessive preoccupation with self_ are certainly healthy and good for us." (italics mine) This is a fascinating conglomeration. Benevolence is generally a profitable, self-interested tactic, until others threaten me and my own; it is "healthy and good" only where it is useful. Generosity is certainly a vice to some people, as it has been for me, especially those ridden by the (often religious or political) self-sacrifice memes prevalent in society, often to the point where their own substance is harmed by giving to others. Besides, there is hardly anything worse than someone who expects generosity from me and calls me "unhealthy" or "sick" when they do not receive it. Regarding "lack of excessive preoccupation with self", I agree with Harry Browne: "To find constant, profound happiness requires that you be free to seek the gratification of your own desires. It means making positive choices... If someone finds happiness by doing 'good works' for others, let him. That doesn't mean that's the best way for you to find happiness. And when someone accuses you of being selfish, just remember that he's only upset because you aren't doing what _he_ selfishly wants you to do." .... "_You_ are the most important issue in the world. What happens in the social issues is only incidental; to concentrate on them is to approach the matter much too indirectly. What you do directly for yourself will have a far greater impact on your life than what you do in response to the burning issues of society. Make _your life_ the issue." (Harry Browne, _How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World_, p. 67, p. 135.) Max continues with a statement that is more in agreement with my position: "However, putting self-transcendence ahead of self-actualization, in the senses given them by Frankl and endorsed by Simon, subjects us to the danger of self-sacrifice and manipulation by others who want to use us as tools to promote _their_ ends." But I don't understand how Max can reconcile this with his later statement, "Perhaps we can understand part of our task as Extropians to be taking the initiative in acting as cultural psychotherapists, preparing the world for the tremendous changes ahead." Honestly, my knee-jerk response to this is "aw, let 'em rot!" Is this a creeping socialist meme, or what? Is it our task to cure "the world" of its psychosis? Sanity begins at home. Romana Machado romana@apple.com WWW: page under construction I have no joke. I just like to say "plunge-and-squish method." ------------------------------ From: pcm@world.std.com (Peter C. McCluskey) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 22:17:54 -0400 Subject: [#94-8-173] ECON: inflation question pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes in X-Message-Number: #94-8-154: >I need a label or word for a phenomenon that I can best describe now >as non-fiat-currency inflation. I don't think you will find a single word that describes your idea, because I don't think you have found anything more unique than an increase in the price of X relative to Y. Until you clarify what Y is (capital? raw materials? skilled labor?), you don't even have a coherent idea (we can get away with letting Y default to a standard currency if we are dealing with short enough time periods, which leads to a dangerous habit of trying to use it for everything). > I think the price of labor >goes up when the number of commodities or consumer goods, or >categories of commodities or consumer goods, increaces. It seems to me >that labor would be much cheaper in a (assumed to be technologically >stagnant) society where there were no consumer goods besides the one >fiber everyone wears, the one staple food everyone eats, the minimal >cave shelter, et cetera. I see no reason to expect any such correlation. Even if there is some obstacle to buying luxury commodities, there is always room for buying entertainment, and probably a use for labor in improving housing. I suspect that unskilled labor was cheap relative to skilled labor due to slavery (wages set to almost zero and hours prolonged by coercion). ----------------------------------------------------------- Peter McCluskey | pcm@world.std.com | Repeal Gresham's Law! ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: tburns@mason1.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:21:49 -1000 Subject: [#94-8-174] INQUIRY: Information Organization At 12:03 PM 8/15/94 -0700, Joe Moorman wrote: > >I'm looking for ideas about organizing the files in >my computer in a more coherent and semantically-well- >structured manner. Does anybody know of any books or >essays dealing with this subject? What do they teach in library sciences? I don't know, it might be worth a try. -- Dave tburns@mason1.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) ------------------------------ From: tburns@mason1.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:48:12 -1000 Subject: [#94-8-175] ECON: inflation question At 10:17 PM 8/15/94 -0400, Peter C. McCluskey wrote: > I >suspect that unskilled labor was cheap relative to skilled labor due >to slavery (wages set to almost zero and hours prolonged by coercion). Slavery changes labor into capital. But the rent on 'it' (labor or capital) should be the same. Capital markets are more complicated than spot commodity markets (deciding whether it's worth paying a kid $10 to mow your lawn is easier than deciding whether a slave who will mow your lawn is worth whatever) and those were quite primitive markets, but I doubt slavery had much to do with it. To put it another way, the slave gets the same wages as anyone else, but his/her master gets the wages instead of the slave. (Insert non-PC joke about marriage here.) -- Dave tburns@mason1.gmu.edu (T. David Burns, M.A.) ------------------------------ From: Eric Watt Forste Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 21:13:26 -0700 Subject: [#94-8-176] SOC/PSYCH: External Causes >But I don't understand how Max can reconcile this with his later >statement, "Perhaps we can understand part of our task as Extropians >to be taking the initiative in acting as cultural psychotherapists, >preparing the world for the tremendous changes ahead." > >Honestly, my knee-jerk response to this is "aw, let 'em rot!" Is this >a creeping socialist meme, or what? Is it our task to cure "the >world" of its psychosis? Sanity begins at home. More extropians in the world means a bigger market for the sorts of things that only extropians are interested in, and the sorts of things that extropians are more interested in than most other people. That means more of those sorts of things (goods and services) get produced, and it also means those sorts of things will be cheaper. More of the stuff we like, and cheaper too. Not to mention the issue of using memetic warfare to dissolve, or at least weaken, our hardcore opposition (theocrats, just for instance) and their control over state apparata. These people probably can't stop us, but they can certainly inconvenience us. These are just two of the numerous reasons why it might be helpful to me (for instance) to act as a "cultural psychotherapist" in my leisure time. Division of labor, and social living, in a BIG complex market are much more fun than being a member of isolated refugee colony of 500 odd. "Let 'em rot" points to the latter, and I'd rather do what I can to make sure my future looks like the former. It's going to be a long while before 500 transhumans can equal the productive power of five billion "normal humans" pursuing their own interests as well as they can. Remember what the title of Julian Simon's THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE *refers* to. I've read Harry Browne too, and his book is certainly on my *personal* top ten list. But I think sometimes his *optimism* about the market providing the stuff we want, and about our own ability to look after our own needs, is not quite *dynamic* enough. Of course, each of us has to look out for number one first. But it's not as if there is no self-interest at all in disseminating extropian memes. An uplifted Joan Q. Random is worth more to me (as an entity providing stuff to the market) than a "merely-human" Joan Q. Random, and a "merely-human" John Doe, who is knowledgeable about and tolerant of extropians, will do me more good (or at least, less harm) than a John Doe who becomes a fervent Maoist or a fundamentalist Christ-cultist. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother working on the FAQ. I'm *not* suggesting we start raising money to establish Extropian Missionaries, or start designing uniforms for the Transhumanization Army. But engaging in critical discourse with entropic thinkers is not without some merit, for some of us. This post was entirely too long, but I hope it's been clear what I'm trying to say. Eric Watt Forste || finger arkuat@c2.org || http://www.c2.org/~arkuat ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #227 *********************************