From extropians-request@extropy.org Wed Sep 21 21:02:09 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 VAA02436 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 1994 21:02:05 -0700 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA11742; Wed, 21 Sep 94 21:01:47 PDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA15570 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Thu, 22 Sep 1994 00:01:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 00:01:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199409220401.AA15570@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-9-341 - #94-9-350 X-Extropian-Date: September 22, 374 P.N.O. [00:01:11 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Thu, 22 Sep 94 Volume 94 : Issue 264 Today's Topics: Extropians Digest #94-9-333 - #94-9-338 [1 msgs] Forward/PATNEWS: Another bad software patent, OO browser from ...[1 msgs] FWD: Howard Rheingold's column inSF Examiner [1 msgs] Quantum Erasers (fwd) [1 msgs] SCI: role for Q.M in neurobiology [2 msgs] SILLY: Let's see, how many hands is that? [1 msgs] Subjectivity informs debate? [1 msgs] TERM: "acracy", "acrat", "acratic" [1 msgs] TERM: acracy / anarchy [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: 26351 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Harry S. Hawk" Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 11:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [#94-9-341] Forward/PATNEWS: Another bad software patent, OO browser from Borland a conscious being, Gregory Aharonian wrote: > From srctran@world.std.com Wed Sep 21 09:33:54 1994 > Message-Id: <199409211330.AA24056@world.std.com> > Subject: PATNEWS: Another bad software patent, OO browser from Borland Here's another obviously non-novel software patent. Any CASE tool written about in the mid- to late-1980's completely anticipates at least the first claim of this patent. Once again the cited literature references are completely unrepresentative of what had been done to date (for example, any number of articles from IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Sofware Practice & Experience, IEEE Computer, and any OOPSLA conference proceeding before 1992). If your company is sued by Borland, please give me a call, as I can prepare a great prior art invalidation package for you :-) Maybe Borland plans to use it to harass Microsoft :-) Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service (for subscription info, send 'help' to patents@world.std.com) (for prior art search services info, send 'prior' to patents@world.std.com) ==================== US PAT NO: 5,339,433 DATE ISSUED: Aug. 16, 1994 TITLE: Symbol browsing in an object-oriented development system ASSIGNEE: Borland International What is claimed is: 1. In a development system in object-oriented programming environment a method for compiling source listings into application and system programs, each of the source listings comprising a plurality of symbols for instructing operation of a program, a method for browsing symbols comprising: (a) compiling a source listing containing the symbols into an object file, said object file storing a reference for each symbol in said source listing; (b) selecting a symbol of interest with an input device coupled to a device displaying said source listing; (c) receiving a request from a user for browsing a symbol of interest; (d) retrieving said reference stored in said object file and using said reference to determine program information specific for the symbol of interest; and (e) displaying said information to the user. ABSTRACT: A system of the present invention includes a development system having a language compiler for generating application and system software from source listings. The system includes an Integrated Development Environment having a browser. Methods of the present invention include inspecting symbols (e.g., classes, objects, methods, variables, and the like) dynamically, i.e., while retaining active scope of the symbol. More particularly, the browser of the present invention directly references symbol information stored in object code or executable modules, which are generated during compilation of the source listings. In this manner, the system provides symbol information directly relevant to the context (location in source listing) the user/programmer is currently working. APPL-NO: 07/979,575 DATE FILED: Nov. 19, 1992 ART-UNIT: 236 PRIM-EXMR: Gareth D. Shaw ASST-EXMR: A. Katbab LEGAL-REP: John A. Smart INT-CL: [5] G06F 9/46 US-CL-ISSUED: 395/700; 364/DIG.1, 280.4, 286, 286.3 US-CL-CURRENT: 395/700; 364/280.4, 286, 286.3, DIG.1 SEARCH-FLD: 395/700; 364/DIG.1, 280.4, 286.0, 286.3 REF-CITED: U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 5,095,423 3/1992 Gramlich et al. 395/600 5,117,349 5/1992 Tirfing et al. 395/600 5,129,082 7/1992 Tirfing et al. 395/600 OTHER PUBLICATIONS Schmidt, D. et al, "Borland Int. Inc., Turbo Pascal 5.5 . . . " PC Week, vol. V7, No. 15, Apr. 1990, p. 126. Nance, B., "Speaking OS/2's Native language Rev." Byte, vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 206-210, Sep. 1990. Sometinger, J. "A Tool for the maintenance of a C++ . . . " Proc. 1990 IEEE Conf. M software Maintenance, pp. 54-59, 1990. ------------------------------ From: hanson@hss.caltech.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 08:40:25 -0700 Subject: [#94-9-342] SCI: role for Q.M in neurobiology Ray writes: >one can "compute" the complex hull of a set of points (no matter how >large) in constant time. ... Draw the points on a piece of wood. Place >nails in each point. Now, put a rubber band around the outside and it >will quickly form the complex hull. Er, don't most of us take linear, not constant, time to draw points and nail them? And doesn't the size of the board needed, and perhaps therfore the time to stretch the rubber band around it, scale with the smallest separation between the points (so you can fit both nails in the board?) It seems you must mean you can compute an appoximate convex hull in constant time, once you already have a nail-board representation of a 2D set of points. Seems I could do the same thing with a finite connection-machine. If I had a nanocomputer, I might be able to beat *any* physical nail-board-rubber-band computer with the same mass. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ From: Naval A Deshbandhu Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 12:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [#94-9-343] Quantum Erasers (fwd) On Tue, 20 Sep 1994, Ray wrote: > Naval A Deshbandhu writes: > > Quantum theory and experimental observations (eg., Alain Aspects > > experiments in 1964 to test out Bell's Inequality theorem) have given us > > indications about the unifying connectedness of the universe. > > > > Suppose if one were to construct an isolated system (say a mini-universe),............ > > Actually, Bohm's hidden variables Pilot Wave theory is isomorphic > to Quantum Mechanics in that it gives the same predictions. The > Pilot Wave theory uses a superluminal *physical* wave function . > Many Worlds can provide yet another explanation -- when you measure > the photon, you end up in one of two possible universes where > either it was one direction, or the other. Mike Price is the resident > expert on Many Worlds (since he argues it constantly in sci.physics) > > I'm still not convinced that QM is the "right theory" I'm hoping > something better comes along to explain some of the results > of QM. > > > Any change in the entire universe, occurs one by one. There are no > > concurrent events, however smooth events appear to us. The universe, on > > examination on smaller and smaller scales of time, would appear to a > > hypothetical observer outside it, as a jerky old movie or a human miming a > > robot carrying out its actions sequentially, going from one state to > > another. One event is conveyed to the rest of the universe instantaneously > > (or, in fractal time) before the next step in evolution of the chaotic > > universe is carried out by the universe. > > It's a fine theory (having been invented plenty of times before), > the question is, does it lead us to anything new? If a new interpretation > of quantum mechanics doesn't lead to any new measurable predictions, > it's useless as physics. It becomes theology. One of the neat things > about the Many Worlds hypothesis is that it actually does make > a testable prediction that would fail under the Copenhagen interpretation. > Find a way to transmit information faster than light in QM, and you'll > be famous. > > So the question is, if the universe simulator distributes the > result of a measurement all over the universe before processing > the next one, can we manipulate or predict the outcome of the > experiment deterministically? How does your interpretation > explain the randomness in QM? > Naval replies... Consider the many world interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Also, lets accept QM as being 'correct theory' for the time being. Then, the fact that I have created an interpretation means that what my brain has conjured up, is a complete possibility! I and others who might agree with me on the completeness of my ideas and arguments have together created a universe where my theory (or perception of the universe) holds true. You and others by an opposition to my proposition have created an other equally valid universe which can coexist with mine and those of many others. Now regarding the wonderful question of being able to made predictions about QM that are measurable, hasn't one measurement about the universe already been made by my brain in such a formulation of perception of reality ? what's a measurement in QM ? it is the collapse of a wave function. if we have agreed on the universe being a Quantum system, then every thought that occurs to any one in its completeness is a measurement of the universe and the possible following a collapse of the wave function of the universe. Every thought occurs because it is a possibility. (Even the thought that the brain cannot think of the impossible). There are phenomenon we cannot account for yet, but in time we may come to explain it in mathematical (deterministic) terms which is but just one such language in which to picture something, just one mode of inquiry. Maybe, we will even explain randomness in QM (though, I agree, my interpretation doesn't yet). ___ _|||||_ (0_0) ________(__~__)________ |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_ _|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| ------------------------------ From: Bo Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 10:21:07 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [#94-9-344] Extropians Digest #94-9-333 - #94-9-338 resend #94-9-317 Bo the Bohemian..... *****************************[ ****************%%%%Bo@bohemia.metronet.org%%%%********************** ------------------------------ From: dkrieger@netcom.com (Dave Krieger) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 10:04:13 -0700 Subject: [#94-9-345] SILLY: Let's see, how many hands is that? At 10:08 AM 9/20/94, Craig Presson wrote: >OTOH, I like the assonance with "accuracy" and "accurate". And Sasha's >dismissal of linguistics is premature, because a term needs to "echo" >correctly, and it's not just scholars who can hear dissonances. > >OTOOH, scholars who are too picky, who deride terms that mix Latin and ^^^^^ Don't you mean "OTGH"? :-) "OTGH" == "on the gripping hand"; a reference to Niven and Pournelle's "Mote in God's Eye" and its lame sequel, "The Gripping Hand." The use of this phrase for the third of three alternatives figures prominently (but irrelevantly) in the early part of the sequel. 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: machado@newton.apple.com (Romana Machado) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 12:39:05 PDT Subject: [#94-9-346] Subjectivity informs debate? >> Beware arguments >>from nothingness, from subjectivity, from superstition, from emotionality, >>from symbolism, from fantasy, from tradition... > > But all of them can inform debate. ALL of them? No such thing as a useless opinion? > Most important, any time you talk about what you're going to do >in the future, your desires do more than inform the debate, they're the >whole point. (Spirituality and desire are angles on the same issues.) > You seem to have developed yet another definition of spirituality. I admit that even after serious investigation I don't have a clear idea of what people are talking about when they are talking about spirituality, and I doubt that they do, either. It seems to label a personal experience of the ineffable; something that is quite individual, variable, and difficult to gather truth from. (By truth, I mean "information that has predictable consequences."). But I don't disdain the numinous in its proper realm of story, fantasy, art, and song. Desire, by contrast, can usually be traced to a reason, or at least a motivation, that can be communicated. ............................................................................ Romana Machado romana@apple.com http://www.mps.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/hpp?romanaHQ.html ............................................................................ The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time. - George Bernard Shaw ------------------------------ From: pavel@PARK.bu.edu (Paul Cisek) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 16:26:15 -0400 Subject: [#94-9-347] SCI: role for Q.M in neurobiology >From: doug@OpenMind.com (Doug Cutrell) >X-Message-Number: #94-9-329 > >I'd like to emphasize the point that there are advantages to be afforded by >quantum mechanics-based neurobiological mechanisms that do *not* have to do >with non-computability. I would ephasize these two: > (out of order) >2) Recent research on "quantum computation" suggests that quantum mechanics >may simply be *qualitatively* better at solving the same sorts of problems >that can *also* be solved with classical computation... for example, Shor's >results on factoring in polynomial time with quantum computers. This has >nothing to do with the issue of non-computability. But again, one is never presented with a convincing argument suggesting a relationship between these conclusions from quantum computation theory and behaviors, especially simple ones. In brain science it is simple to suggest that "something" might be happening and then searching out neural justifications that might support this "something". The brain is sufficiently complex that if your theory required pink elephants then you'd probably be able to find them ;-) . What the quantum-biology supporters fail to provide is any functional justification for the mechanisms they are proposing. At least I haven't heard anything not of the form "but it could happen, and might be useful!". (Well, the following is a reasonable attempt...) >1) All of the proposals that I have heard about suggest information storage >densities and processing rates many orders of magnitude higher than what >would be estimated from a simple neural network model of neurobiological >function. >...evolution takes advantage of >whatever is possible and accessible through the fitness landscape. The Ok, but what did the primitive creatures need to store or compute that required such scales? When they needed more storage they added more neurons and synaptic mechanisms. That was much easier to do. And evolution is not only guided by the fitness landscape, it is also guided by the availability of a potential mechanism . If a simple creature did not require massive amounts of storage than a descendant that required more would not be able to redesign the substrate of memory, but would rather expand on the existing substrate. So once again we are back to the choice: either all organisms since the birth of life required quantum computation, or something very improbably happened since then. (One might be tempted to suggest: Wait! The single celled creatures didn't have neurons so they must have operated using quantum coherent microtubules! But in fact, a cell appears to have sufficiently complex machinery to implement the behaviors that are observed. Do cell biologists feel the need to invoke quantum theory to account for their experimental results?) To raise again the issue of non-computability (which I realize is not what Doug is arguing for), the only examples I have heard involve closed form solutions. Organisms are happy with less. And it is questionable if humans perform non-computable feats. Consider the possibility that the so-impressive mathematical insight is merely a good guess. > Marvin Minsky: > >Hidden just under the surface is THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHEN A MATHEMATICIAN >"INTUITS" THE TRUTH OF A THEOREM, HE/SHE IS NEVER WRONG. >Doug Cutrell: > >Perhaps, then, we may discover that a scientific definition >of consciouness extends continuously to even unicellular life forms! Now why should that be surprising? "Consciousness" is after all a label we have made up. We may be labeling a region of a continuum, naively thinking we have delineated a meaningful ontological distinction. Nature has not promised us that when an answer is found it will fit our preconceptions. Paul ------------------------------ From: levy@cs.utk.edu Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 16:54:20 -0400 Subject: [#94-9-348] TERM: acracy / anarchy > > From: fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 05:08:57 -0500 > Subject: [#94-9-332] TERM: "acracy", "acrat", "acratic" > > OTOOH, scholars who are too picky, who deride terms that mix Latin and > Greek roots (I can't remember an example offhand) would do well to look > at the accepted name of a genus of dinosaurs discovered in N. Africa -- > _Oranosaurus_, where Ourano- is from a *Tuareg* root. An example is "sexologist" (Latin + Greek) or (even worse) "garbologist" (English + Greek), someone who studies garbage (not someone who studies Greta Garbo). The word "ouranos" means "sky" or "heavens" in Greek; but if the root is indeed Tuareg, one could still justify it on the grounds that the Tuareg root was Hellenicized before its prefixation to "saurus", perhaps because of the difficulty of finding a suitable corresponding word in Greek. One would have a harder time justifying the other two coinages, since Greek has perfectly good words for garbage and sex (as does, I suspect, every other human language). > > Since we don't learn Latin and Greek in school anymore -- and too damned > bad, too, since languages, mathematics, logic and rhetoric are still a fine > curriculum -- we'd do well to coin chauvinistic Anglo terms like > "self-government" instead. > I second your feelings about Latin and Greek. We would do well to remember that Nietzsche got his start in classical philology, which informed his entire career. > Conclusion? I dunno. I like "acracy" but I don't fancy having to explain > it without reference to "anarchy". When people ask me what form of government I like, I say "no government at all". When people ask me what I "am" politically, I reply "anarchist" (if I'm too tired to drag out an explanation of how E-prime teaches us to avoid such formulations). Anarchy does connote chaos to most people, but the term "anarchist" has proud historical (and even romantic) associations, like the Spanish anarchists who fought against Franco in the 1930's. "Viva la quince brigada" always raises a lump in my throat. Arriba! Afuera! Adelante! Simon ------------------------------ From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 17:24:03 -0500 Subject: [#94-9-349] 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 Believe me, if the writer didn't like us, he wouldn't be bothering to criticize us. How many times have you seen the political opinion manufacturers in your local newspaper criticize libertarians? ------------------------------ From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 17:29:33 -0500 Subject: [#94-9-350] TERM: "acracy", "acrat", "acratic" From: dkrieger@netcom.com (Dave Krieger) X-Message-Number: #94-9-319 Since "anarchy" has so much negative baggage (as you know, the dictionary gives it as a synonym for "chaos"), for a while now I've been using the terms "acracy" (AY-kruh-see), "acrat" (AY-krat), and "acratic" (ay-KRAT-ik) to indicate the condition of the absence of a coercive State, without the negative connotations of "anarchy". Comments? dV/dt Bah, humbug! The reason people think anarchy has a negative connotation is because they in general appear to belive the state has a positive connotation. Please remember that we anarcho-capitalists are the minority. (Besides, acratic-capitalism sounds lousy; so does crypto-acracy). ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #264 *********************************