From extropians-request@extropy.org Tue Sep 20 16:09:59 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 QAA00284 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 1994 16:09:18 -0700 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA08518; Tue, 20 Sep 94 15:01:51 PDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA03428 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Tue, 20 Sep 1994 18:01:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 18:01:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199409202201.AA03428@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-9-304 - #94-9-317 X-Extropian-Date: September 20, 374 P.N.O. [18:01:26 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Tue, 20 Sep 94 Volume 94 : Issue 262 Today's Topics: article in SF examiner [1 msgs] comprehension gap? [2 msgs] french plastic transistors [1 msgs] FWD: Howard Rheingold's column inSF Examiner [1 msgs] Plonk! [1 msgs] Send replies to the Examiner! [1 msgs] Terra-oops [1 msgs] Theoretical Applied Science [1 msgs] URL: Romana Machado's "Self Transformation..." [1 msgs] Weaseling [1 msgs] what's next? [3 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: 25834 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 23:21:00 GMT Subject: [#94-9-304] FWD: Howard Rheingold's column inSF Examiner Dan Davis: > Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he hates our guts. Maybe thats what he > meant in the article. Thats not the meaning I read in it, however. Me neither. I thought it an excellent review. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 11:21:09 GMT Subject: [#94-9-305] what's next? Nick Szabo writes: > With respect to theoretical applied science, it is relatively > easy to, for example, work out the basic physics of > a piece of nanotechnology Hmm. I think it is *very* difficult to work out the basic physics (which means quantum physics), except by trial and error, of any molecule beyond the hydrogen (or helium) atom. A lot of analyses of nanomachines tends to be done by making classical approximations (eg the nanomechanical rod-computers, as opposed to (quantum) nanoelectronics) that I find wholely unconvincing. I agree with everything Nick said about the business perspective. Basic economics seems neglected in much futuristic projections, esp nanotech. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: doug@OpenMind.com (Doug Cutrell) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 07:40:33 -0700 Subject: [#94-9-306] what's next? Mike Price writes: >Hmm. I think it is *very* difficult to work out the basic physics >(which means quantum physics), except by trial and error, of any >molecule beyond the hydrogen (or helium) atom. A lot of analyses of >nanomachines tends to be done by making classical approximations (eg the >nanomechanical rod-computers, as opposed to (quantum) nanoelectronics) >that I find wholely unconvincing. Ah, yes, but it is "very difficult" relative to our current information processing/modeling capabilities... and this is the one segment of our technology that seems guarranteed to continue rising exponentially with a doubling time of perhaps two years or less (given algorithmic advances as well as hardware ones). This is why I have always felt that cracking the protein folding problem (or nucleic acid folding) may provide the true takeoff point into nanotechnology (as well as super-biotech, with life extension, brain augmentation, etc.). It may only be a matter of enough tetraflops (or of the advent of QM computers, which may have a particular leg up on the task of simulating QM, according to Shor). Doug ___________________________________________________________________ Doug Cutrell General Partner doug@OpenMind.com Open Mind, Santa Cruz =================================================================== ------------------------------ From: Charles000@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Sep 94 10:44:02 EDT Subject: [#94-9-307] article in SF examiner >Romana Machado writes: >> Howard Rheingold wrote in the SF Examiner (::resend #94-9-242): >> >"hubrists" to describe people such as the Extropians, who believe >> >there ought to be no limits to the application of human creativity >> >to technology. Technological hubris was the cause of Chernobyl. >> >> Shoddy engineering and technical incompetence was the cause of Chernobyl. >> (I can make unsubstained claims, too.) Why did you wave this particular >> icon? Why didn't you mention Love Canal, Nagasaki, DDT, or the Union >> Carbide disaster? Surely all of these were caused by a recklessness born of >> excessive Dynamic Optismism. > I'm surprised he didn't tie in immortality with population growth >(the standard fallacy), or artificial intelligence with terminator 2 >style SkyNet. Isn't this the same guy who wrote a book on the >dangers/evils of virtual reality? Perhaps he's trying to take over >Michael Crichton's position as number one literary technophobe. Perhaps the term here should not be "technophobe", but rather, "technophony", since stupidity and ignorance are always a guaranteed marketplace for selling panic and ultra-hyped exaggeration, and blatant misrepresentations of technology, to an audience intellectually incapable of interpreting scientific fact from random fiction. After all, if millions of dollars are raked in monthly by the 900 number callin "Psychic Friend's Network" infommercial, there are countless million's more to be made hawking bogus techopanic. Actually, maybe I'm missing a career option here . . . let's see, a 900 callin show for the latest technotripe-hype of the week . . . yeah, this is sounding lucrative the more I think of it . . . for a mere $4.99 per minute, now you too can dial in to 1 900 TEKPHOBIA . . . and then, of course, after I've made my millions on this scam, I can immediately start another one of those late night "money making opportunity" infommercials where I market my "secrets" for starting new lucrative 900 number business opportunities . . . this is almost like a financial fractal . . a sort of self replicating, continuously iterative process. Yeah, this is sounding good . . . forget making a living with legitimate, real world science . . . nobody's interested in that (heaven forbid, actual thinking might be required!!!) . . . yeah, I can see it now, my future is definitely in technopanic infommercials!!!!!! Is America great or what? Sincerely Charles ------------------------------ From: fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 17:26:33 -0500 Subject: [#94-9-308] Weaseling On 9/19/374 PNO, machado@newton.apple.com (Romana Machado) wrote: >Dan Davis said: >>When I read the article, I had the opposite impression; I thought he >>weasalled just enough to avoid looking like he agreed with us. Someone >>in the mainstream press can hardly come out and openly endorse >>extropianism. By the standards of the herd, we are the extreme loony >>fringe. >> [...] > The article showed us in a mostly positive light, but I was >irritable yesterday. Journalists who strive for "balance" often flog dead >horsemeat. I can still manage to read it both ways. This should teach us to be careful when using rhetorical questions in cold print. >Steve Witham, you believe spirituality can inform debate? Beware arguments >from nothingness, from subjectivity, from superstition, from emotionality, >from symbolism, from fantasy, from tradition... ... which is all different from using a contemplative attitude as a source of insight; one can have non-mystical, or at least non- supernatural, "spirituality" except that I would rather avoid the loaded term. But I just realized the above argument is vacuous, because I would not accept any "argument from insight" without an explanation of how it fits into the logical scheme of the debate, in which case it's not privileged above any other source of ideas. I'm going to leave the above half-baked, because it's interesting to see how I think in the morning, and because my spirit guides told me to :-) \\ fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) CPresson@aol.com\ -- WWW: http://www.nuance.com/~fcp/ -----------------\ -- President & Principal, T4 Computer Security ------> -- P.O. Box 18271, Huntsville, AL 35804 -------------/ // (205) 880-7692 Voice, -7691 FAX -----------------/ ------------------------------ From: Charles000@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Sep 94 10:54:31 EDT Subject: [#94-9-309] french plastic transistors >a conscious being, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >> [From EduPage, 09/19/94] >> SCROLLING ALONG >> French scientists have produced an all-plastic transistor from layers of >> polymers and insulating film, using graphite ink as electrodes. The >> paper-thin transistors could one day be used in car windshields that >> display information, or flat television or computer screens that could be >> rolled up like a scroll or window shade when not in use. (St. Petersburg >> Times 9/18/94 A5) >> -- >> Stanton McCandlish >>
mech@eff.org >>

Electronic Frontier Fndtn. >>

Online Activist Thank you for having posted this very interesting bit of techno-trivia. Actually, I have had a persistant interest in unusual or hybrid semiconductive materials, (particularly organic and quasi-organic substrates and films), "peculiar" transistor types, and so on, for some time. If you, or anyone out there in the realm of the Extropians, could post addtional info on this particular development (such as name of academic or research facilities, snail or email addresses for contacts about this, whatever) I would be most appreciative. Sincerely Charles ------------------------------ From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 94 11:07:52 -0400 Subject: [#94-9-310] Theoretical Applied Science Thanks. I'm sure that's where I saw it. In the story by Fred Pohl. > >BTW, what is the problem with the TR editorial staff re economics? Almost >everything they do is really retro statist/redistributionist crap... > I dunno what's wrong with Anti-Technology Review in general. Like any magazine trying to be popular, it tries to run controversial articles. My theory is that it is so hard to find good controversies inside technologies that they have to look into social directions -- and the only way they can see to go is toward the Luddite or anti-science directions. They have MIT in the title but they're now an independent company. Marvin Minsky ------------------------------ From: doug@OpenMind.com (Doug Cutrell) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 08:16:25 -0700 Subject: [#94-9-311] Terra-oops Tetraflops vs. terraflops... I knew that didn't sound right... quick way to sound like a poseur! I should have just said Tflops... Doug ___________________________________________________________________ Doug Cutrell General Partner doug@OpenMind.com Open Mind, Santa Cruz =================================================================== ------------------------------ From: aberenzw@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Adam) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 11:34:53 +0500 Subject: [#94-9-312] comprehension gap? once again, please forgive a newbie if i'm covering old ground. just tell me what to read, if this doesn't merit discussion. how do extropians feel about the effects of technology outrunning the capability of human comprehension? suppose computers, algorithmically and structurally, evolve quicker than human brain enhancement technologies. Will we be able to handle, understand, or manage, the data that these machines can produce? Especially when we start regularly using self-replicating, evolving , and learning algorithms. When we stick with algorithms that we design oursleves, there is no danger of losing touch with what we create. However, with artificial life-like algorithms, how can we be sure that we'll be able to follow the processes of evolved structures? If the gap becomes too large between what our computers can process and what we can process, obvious difficulties arise: who will maintain the programs? regulate them? are they completely autonomous, and do we trust the data they give back to us? AB aberenzw@minerva.cis.yale.edu "Come to the edge," he said. They said, "We are afraid." "Come to the edge," he said. They came. He pushed them... and they flew. -Apollinaire ------------------------------ From: dkrieger@netcom.com (Dave Krieger) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 09:57:30 -0700 Subject: [#94-9-313] Send replies to the Examiner! I have seen a number of good comments on Rheingold's SF Examiner column. I urge those who wrote those comments to send their words to the Examiner's "Letters to the Editor" column. If they print it, extropianism gets mentioned again in print, reaching more potential customers. dV/dt "Enough is never enough, and even more is usually inadequate." -- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Extropy is $18/four issues, USA; $32, Canada and Mexico; $44 (air) elsewhere. Checks payable to Extropy Institute, 13428 Maxella Ave., No. 273, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292. e-mail more@extropy.org. ------------------------------ From: hanson@hss.caltech.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 10:07:13 -0700 Subject: [#94-9-314] comprehension gap? Adam writes: >how do extropians feel about the effects of technology outrunning the >capability of human comprehension? suppose computers, algorithmically and >structurally, evolve quicker than human brain enhancement technologies. >Will we be able to handle, understand, or manage, the data that these >machines can produce? This ties in with the "What's Next?" thread. Technology and humans are not in a race -- they are now part of the same process. Human comprehension is usually the limiting factor in technology change. Change will continue to just have to wait for humans to comprehend it until machines are capable of taking over whole big areas by themselves. And when machines take over, there's no particular reason why meatheads should or will understand most of what's going on. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ From: hanson@hss.caltech.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 10:13:56 -0700 Subject: [#94-9-315] what's next? Marvin Minsky writes: >One question that bothers me is why psychology took so long to >develop. In particular, those experiments of Piaget with children and >water jars. ... But isn't it strange that this phenomenon (of children >not having the adult idea about conservation of substances) wasn't >discovered until the 1930s. Why not in the 1830s -- the 1430, or a >couple of thousand years ago? The needed equipment--jars of water, or >just a few pebbles--was always available. Much, perhaps most, of scientific progress is just not technology-limited. Instead it's labor-limited -- there are too many possible ideas and not enough people to work on them. And perhaps also institution-limitied, in that there may be biases against jumping too far from the familiar. I'm sure that fifty years from now I will kick myself when I see that I could have done many of the great advances between now and then, if only I had bothered to think about the right ideas. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ From: whitaker@extropia.corp.sgi.com (Russell Whitaker) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 10:57:43 -0700 Subject: [#94-9-316] URL: Romana Machado's "Self Transformation..." I have just now released Romana Machado's "Self Transformation and Extreme Longevity", the text of a talk given at a recent meeting of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation's northern California chapter: http://www.c2.org/~whitaker/romana/self-transformation.html Pointers and new links are always appreciated. Email to me or Romana (romana@apple.com). -- Russell Earl Whitaker whitaker@sgi.com I.S. Assistance Center 415-390-3826 Silicon Graphics, Inc. Mountain View, CA =============================================================== 1.] If you are behind SGI's firewall, here's my WWW home page: http://extropia.corp.sgi.com:8001/people/whitaker.html 2.] Outside the SGI firewall, try this: http://www.c2.org/~whitaker/whitaker.html ------------------------------ From: machado@newton.apple.com (Romana Machado) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 94 11:54:33 PDT Subject: [#94-9-317] Plonk! >Re: The Bee Metaphor >Hi! It's me...Jessie5115...I live in a suburb of Austin, TX, and the killer >bees are already here!! I'm not sure what that means, but it sounded good >and I'm really tired. Plonk! (Sound of address hitting bottom of ::exclude pit.) ............................................................................ Romana Machado romana@apple.com http://www.mps.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/hpp?romanaHQ.html ............................................................................ Decrease debts, then increase assets. ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #262 *********************************