54 Message 54: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Thu Aug 5 12:42:23 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA19846; Thu, 5 Aug 93 12:42:21 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA12728; Thu, 5 Aug 93 12:41:59 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA12820 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Thu, 5 Aug 1993 15:32:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 15:32:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199308051932.AA12820@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 5, 373 P.N.O. [19:32:45 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Thu, 5 Aug 93 Volume 93 : Issue 216 Today's Topics: [3 msgs] Aquinas Opposed Religious Persecution? [1 msgs] Coenzyme Q-10 [2 msgs] DIET: Alcoholic beverages [1 msgs] Harvey Newstrom [2 msgs] Perry's Natural Law Mistakes [1 msgs] Perseid meteor shower [2 msgs] SEARLE: Axioms, Tautologies, etc [2 msgs] investing [2 msgs] investing [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 54155 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 9:20:35 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: SEARLE: Axioms, Tautologies, etc From: Arkuat Subject: SEARLE: Axioms vs. Tautologies >I can't stand it anymore. > >Rand's rants to the contrary, "Existence exists" is not and cannot be an >axiom. It is a tautology, a statement with null information content. For all the hostility to tautologies I have seen, I have seen not one single distinction between an axiom and a tautology, nor any criticism of tautologies that doesn't entail the fallacy of self-exclusion. >When Euclid wrote the Elements, he did not include among his axioms such >statements as "a point is a point", "lines are linear", or "a horse is a >horse, of course, of course". Actually, that's exactly what I remember axioms being like when I was learning them in school. I thought they were too obvious to be of any significance whatsoever, and the proofs that followed from them seemed just as obvious. So, I didn't pay much attention to them, and failed the tests. This, and imaginary numbers, soured me on mathematics. I once proposed to turn in imaginary homework on imaginary numbers, to which my teacher responded with the counter-offer of giving me an imaginary grade :-). From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) >I don't think that argument is intolerant per se unless it lapses into >verbal assault. How would you like it if you asked me how, e.g., Classical civilization could have developed out of Minoan, Mycenaean, Phoenician, and Indo- European roots (since that's what I'm reading about at the moment), and my reply was: How could it not have? Prove that it couldn't have! I dare you! >|> I must conclude that Craig has failed to read where I have made clear >|> some of the things he asks me for, such as an example of a metaphysical >|> axiom which is testable: existence exists. > >This statement is not testable, as Ray has already pointed out. It most certainly is, as I have already pointed out. So is Mises' action axiom: human action is purposeful behavior. So is Descartes' "cogito" argument: Cogito, ergo sum, which translates badly to: "I think, therefore I am." The test is whether they can be denied without their presupposition. >If >I diabolically advocate a radical idealism, that No Thing Exists >(uh-oh, this is the question that got Descartes in the headlines), I >can quite happily claim that any proof you have of existence is just a >tribute to the completeness of the illusion. If nothing existed, this would include the illusion that anything existed. If the illusion exists, then existence must exist. This denial presupposes what it denies. Thus, your test proves that the axiom holds. >If you deny "Existence exists", there are no consequences except that >you have trouble explaining why you would bother to argue about it; if >you accept it, there are no consequences, either, because it has only >one term, so nothing for Modus Ponens to take hold of. Not at all. One consequence is that it bars radical idealism from the realm of possibility. >all of >the axioms of FPC, for instance, are tautologies What's FPC? >The creationist/fundie tie-in is simply that they are always looking >for ways to discredit science in general. "It's only a theory", they >harp. If that's true, then their "theory" is just as good as anyone's >and should be taught in schools, etc. As Rauch points out in "Kindly Inquisitors," this is only if all theories are equal. They aren't. 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 - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 9:50:13 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: Perry's Natural Law Mistakes Perry's back, with a vengeance (as usual): >From: "Perry E. Metzger" >Subject: Natural Law and Senator Joseph Biden > >starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu says: >> So, Biden doesn't need to be beaten over the head with natural law, he >> needs to learn that property rights are part of it. > >What does it matter what one does and does not consider to be part of >a fiction? Natural law isn't a fiction, but even if it were, then the answer to your question would be: that depends upon the function of the fiction. >How can one learn what is and is not part of something that >exists only in one's mind? Introspection, silly! >In any case, Joe Biden is the same guy who had to plagarise Neil >Kinnock's speeches because his folks were such losers that stealing >from a socialist was the best they could do. He also sponsored the >"sense of congress" on the government right to tap telephones. He's >not a friend. Hey, I hissed when Randy mentioned his name! Don't have to tell me he's evil. >From: "Perry E. Metzger" >Subject: Natural law and natural rights > >the universe >doesn't give a rats ass if we live or die. Strawman. No natural law advocates on this list take this position. >Stalinism, genocide of all people who wear glasses, or the income tax, >are not inherently bad -- we just are folks who dislike them because >they interfere with what we want. Strawman. Perry, you do a great job of criticizing the intrinsicist view of natural law. You do a terrible job of addressing the view of natural law being advocated on this list. >The day you get me a scientific demonstration of "natural law" is the >day I believe in it. James Donald indicates in his essay on the subject, which you don't seem to have paid much attention to, that a 3-player iterated prisoner's dilemma game constitutes such a demonstration. I haven't checked up on this the way I plan to, so I may be leaving something essential out of the description, but Donald's account of it is plausible. If I recall correctly, his source for this is the book with Cosmides and Tooby's work in it. She's an anthro prof at UCSB, and he's a psych prof. ISIL members, both, from the LI days. Great folx. >Such a demonstration would have to be real >scientific proof that the universe cares about how I behave one way or >another. Yet another strawman. Natural law means nothing more than if you don't do the particular things which support your particular life, you die. If particular individuals in a particular society don't do those particular things which support their lives, they die. Universal animism has nothing to do with it. >From what I can tell, natural law is just a religion. This is a confession of profound ignorance. Time to study up on it before you talk about it any more, Perry! Do your homework. You could do worse than read James Donald's essay on the subject instead of ignoring it. >Libertarian Adherents of "natural >law" strike me as being people who know what the right answer a lot of >the time but have no idea why its right. They take their arguments >from faith and authority, and claim to be scientific about it the same >way that Marxists used to believe that their ideas were "scientific" >and had been "proven right". More ignorance. Perhaps that's how you acted when you were a Marxist, but that's not how libertarian natural law advocates are. 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 - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 09:28:25 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: Coenzyme Q-10 >CoQ-10 can be used by people wishing to *increase* their weight, or to >*decrease* it? It can be used by people wishing to *decrease* weight. It specifically helps the mitochondria burn up calories to produce energy. The mitochondria is an organelle inside each cell. Helping this process does not make it occur, meaning it will help burn off calories, but won't if you are a couch potato. (I am not a doctor, but I watch one on TV...) __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 09:32:08 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: Harvey Newstrom Harvey Newstrom says: > About coenzyme Q-10, here is an excerpt from my _Nutrients Catalog_: Perry asks: >Is this going to be available in machine readable format? Might make >searching a lot easier... I plan to put it into a searchable database, but not as an on-line copy of the book. I will target Macintosh and DOS-PC platforms first, with UNIX coming later. I have no experience in software marketing, however. __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 09:42:08 -0400 From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) Subject: SEARLE: Axioms, Tautologies, etc In a formal language: Tautologies are sentences that are true for all possible value assignments. Such as ; "It is raining here and now or it isn't raining her and now." This can be written in symbolic logic as ;(A V ~ A) the V is the disjunction symbol(logical sum) the tilde is negation( A "and" "not" A). Tautologies convey no information. (and yes A = A is a tautology and not an axiom!) Axioms are sentences that must be accepted as true before any logical deductions can be made(ie the formation of theorems). Thus within the language or "system" one can prove the theorems, axioms are either taken as self evident or "on faith". about Euclid: The Greeks did allow for intuition in there applications of logic. Still I recall that he took several pages to describe the concept of a "point" (odorless, colorless, taking no volume, etc). -sjm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean J. Merritt | Dept of Physics Boston University| "You leave me dry." merritt@macro.bu.edu | P.J. Harvey ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1993 10:08:24 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: investing Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~ says: > > > Ah, but how do you qualify a company as being well-run and > > > underpriced? > > > > Well, when I've done it, its generally been easy. Find a company you > > really like and who's products you use -- say, Cabletron a couple of > > years ago. Then, examine the PE ratio of the stock, read the annual > > report, and do some more miscelaneous research. If you have a friend > > there, ask them how they like the place and the like. If the company > > looks well run, you like their products, and the stock looks like the > > ratio of price to future earnings is probably low, then buy. Its not > > hard. > > This is known as the fundamentalist approach, and studies have shown that, > in and of itself, it is no better than any other method. Perhaps you've never tried it. > worse yet, stock prices don't necessarily reflect performance! Really? Thats news to me. I'll admit that over periods of days or weeks they don't reflect performance, but in the long term they always do. If they didn't, someone could do an arbitrage between the value of the company in the stock market and the "real" value of the company. This is why LBOs made so much money at one time -- there was a period where big companies traded for a fraction of breakup value. Not any more, though. > by > themselves, fundamental indicators are still no better at predicting stock > prices than the dart board. Fundamentals are the only tools Peter Lynch ever used. Somehow, the guy made billions for his clients, year in, year out, like clockwork. Most so called "studies" are horribly flawed. They don't take into account the fact that most investors don't really understand what they are buying. > > If you want to pay low commissions, you can. Go to a discount broker > > like Schwab or Fidelity. (Schwab even has programs for your PC that > > enter trades for you by modem -- they give you discounts for using > > them!) If you get experienced, you can go to a deep discount broker > > and save even more. Some of the deep discounters will sell to you for > > only $.02 or $.03 a share commission, which is very close to what > > institutions pay, and not so far from the lowest even people with > > seats on the exchange manage in practice. `taint hard, me boy. > > Perry, you will _not_ get those commissions with small investments. Sure you can -- it just depends on what you call "small". The private banker types won't even touch you if you have less than $1,000,000 to spend. On the other hand, you can get extremely low commissions with a portfolio of only about $15-20k, which really isn't large. I had savings of twice that when I was just 21 years old and had been working for only a few years at what was a fairly low salary for a person with a BS in comp sci -- the money was entirely saved out of salary and money made from the savings themselves. It wasn't even hard. Anyone can do it. Even a comparitively poor person can manage it. You just have to be careful with your money, thats all. > > > Also, even if you do pay commissions, which even most of the > > > wealthiest of investors have to, they are virtually nothing for > > > large volumes (either in shares or dollars). For instance, the > > > "average" investor is probably paying 5% coming and going. > > > > Only fools pay that much. (Fools or people who work for one of the > > houses -- I'm required to trade through Lehman. The commissions are > > sky high. It blows -- believe me.) > > Isn't that the point? The average investor _is_ a fool. Thought you'd > get my point. Who cares about the average investor? I'm giving out advice here to EXTROPIANS. These are openminded and very intelligent people. They need not behave foolishly. > > > > There are exceptions, but from what I know of the successful investors, > > > they are by and large people who had money to invest in the first place. > > > I think if you want any kind of flexibility, $10-$30K is a bare minimum. > > > > > You can surely play with less, > > > > Mutual funds will take investments of far far less. > > And thus are the only way to go for low-risk, sorta-decent returns. Not if you do decent research. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 09:14:39 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) Subject: Harvey Newstrom In <9308051332.AA11905@ess.harris.com>, Harvey Newstrom writes: [...]|> Perry asks: |> >Is this going to be available in machine readable format? Might make |> >searching a lot easier... |> |> I plan to put it into a searchable database, but not as an on-line copy of the |> book. I will target Macintosh and DOS-PC platforms first, with UNIX coming |> later. I have no experience in software marketing, however. Gee, maybe someone here does, nudge nudge wink wink ... -- Craig ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 09:24:10 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) Subject: Perseid meteor shower In <9308032146.AA01737@cleo.MasPar.Com>, Jay R. Freeman writes: [...] |> Notwithstanding, in my experience a quarter moon in the sky is good for |> perhaps one stellar magnitude of naked-eye limiting magnitude, on stars. |> And of course, I want to see *all* the meteors. |> |> -- Jay "I saw the Sculptor dwarf galaxy" Freeman That lines up with my experience, too. Well, you know very well that you can't paint the moon matte black or cover it with flock paper by 8/11, and I doubt you want to miss the fireworks, so you'll have to control the variables that you can. I'll check sci.astro for the ephemerides. -- F_cP Unrelated note: I just picked up a copy of MathCad 4.0 on a special offer for 79.95, close to an order of magnitude below list. I haven't done a whole lot with it yet, but it's very nice to have such a powerful tool on my home box. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1993 10:25:54 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: DIET: Alcoholic beverages "Andrew I Cohen" says: > Recently many of us may have heard pop media outlets trumpetting > the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. (60 minutes did > a piece on how the French have a lower level of coronary disease, > and this was pegged to their regular consumption of red wine.) > I wonder if there is any merit to those claims. (Whatever the case, > the gov't forbids vintners from mentioning such potential health > benefits in ads or on the products themselves.) (Saved again.) > > I still get the sense that many folks on this list avoid the > stuff like the plague. How come? > > I usually have a glass of wine with dinner, but that's all. Alas -- > am I bringing myself to a premature grave? Is there any evidence > that alcohol consumption in such moderate quantities is foolish? > Anybody done any reading on this topic? Well, there is some evidence that the benefits of red wine come from some of the components of the wine other than the alchohol. Now, its true that some studies show a bit of wine with dinner raises your HDL/LDL ratio, but on the other hand, mine is stellar already. Alchohol, even in moderate amounts, does seem to interfere with things like liver function and your body's antioxidants, and it does kill brain cells (which I am anxious to keep as many of as possible :-) so myself, I tend to avoid it. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1993 00:26:34 -0500 (EST) From: X91007@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au Subject: Perseid meteor shower Can anyone tell me if this shower will be visable in the Southern Hemisphere? I know this is unlikely - given Perseus is in the Northern Hemisphere. According to my copy of _Norton's Star Atlas_ the peak of meteor activity for the Perseus shower should be on August 12th - not 10th. Does this change each year? And if so how do we know when the peak of greatest activity will occur? According to the atlas the shower should appear from 3h 4min 46sec (R.A.) and +58 (Dec.). According to the atlas the next big shower occurs on August 20th in k-Cygnids - again in the Nth. Hemisphere. Perhaps I should move North 8) --Patrick Wilken x91007@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1993 11:07:31 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Perry's Natural Law Mistakes starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu says: > >The day you get me a scientific demonstration of "natural law" is the > >day I believe in it. > > James Donald indicates in his essay on the subject, which you don't seem > to have paid much attention to, I did an ::exclude on his messages long ago. I choose not to read what he has to say largely because I've never found it to be of value. > that a 3-player iterated prisoner's > dilemma game constitutes such a demonstration. All it constitutes is evidence that IF you have the goal of having a society where people can maximize their personal utilities that the NCP and the like are a good idea. It says NOTHING about whether particular sets of goals are or are not "rational" or "natural". > >Such a demonstration would have to be real > >scientific proof that the universe cares about how I behave one way or > >another. > > Yet another strawman. Natural law means nothing more than if you don't > do the particular things which support your particular life, you > die. Thats the first time I've ever seen "Natural Law" phrased that way. Most people who believe in "Natural Law" believe that some things are "right" and others are "wrong", not that there are particular behaviors that do and do not tend to support life. Go and read some Locke ("Two Treatises on Government" will do) if you don't believe me. > >From what I can tell, natural law is just a religion. > > This is a confession of profound ignorance. Time to study up on it before > you talk about it any more, Perry! Do your homework. Tim, I've had a classical education. I've read more Lock, Rousseau (sp?), Montesquieu, Hobbes, etc than I care to remember. As a result of my university's core curriculum, I suspect that I've read nearly every major philosophical work of the last 2500 years written in the west, from Plato to Heiddiger(sp?), and I've added lots more in the classical liberal camp since. I think I have a reasonable idea of what the natural law people contend. The notion of "Natural Law", that is, a law above the law of the state, was first advanced somewhere in the 1500s -- putting one's finger on where is hard. One of the first major historical outcomes of the belief in question was, ironically, Cromwell's beheading of Charles I. I say ironically because "Natural Law" has, since the time of Locke, been associated with libertarian style constraints. Remember those words from the Declaration of independance? Pardon, I am repeating from memory, so there may be slight errors. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable RIGHTS, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Emphasis mine. Those words were cribbed by Jefferson straight from Locke. They are reflections of the Natural Law tradition. Note the elements: 1) There are such things as "rights", which are inherent, "inalienable", and fixed. 2) They are GIVEN to us by a divine entity (although newer users of the terminology often speak in terms of these rights simply "existing".) 3) That these "rights" are "self-evident", another crib that "Natural rights" types bring up over and over. 4) In the "Declaration", the notion is advanced that because these "rights" exist, certain acts performed by the crown were "obviously" abhorant. This is a typical "Natural rights" application -- the notion that certain acts impinge on people's "natural rights" and are therefore obviously "bad". > You could do worse than read James Donald's essay on the subject > instead of ignoring it. What James Donald contends I have less than zero interest in. I have made myself incapable of reading his posts largely because I never found anything of value in them. He is, of course, free to do the same with mine. He is also free to call anything anything -- if he wants to refer to saltmines as "tape dispensers" he is free to. However, "Natural Law" has a pretty well accepted use in the philosophy of legal systems and governments. > >Libertarian Adherents of "natural > >law" strike me as being people who know what the right answer a lot of > >the time but have no idea why its right. They take their arguments > >from faith and authority, and claim to be scientific about it the same > >way that Marxists used to believe that their ideas were "scientific" > >and had been "proven right". > > More ignorance. Perhaps that's how you acted when you were a Marxist, but > that's not how libertarian natural law advocates are. Would you like me to start quoting? I can drag out Locke, Spooner and others if you like. I can demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 10:13:50 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) Subject: SEARLE: Axioms, Tautologies, etc In <9308050920.aa27056@genie.genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes: |> From: Arkuat |> Subject: SEARLE: Axioms vs. Tautologies [...] |> This, and imaginary numbers, soured me on mathematics. I once proposed to |> turn in imaginary homework on imaginary numbers, to which my teacher responded |> with the counter-offer of giving me an imaginary grade :-). I've heard this before. I think secondary-school math teachers learn it at their conferences ;-) |> From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) |> |> >I don't think that argument is intolerant per se unless it lapses into |> >verbal assault. |> |> How would you like it if you asked me how, e.g., Classical civilization |> could have developed out of Minoan, Mycenaean, Phoenician, and Indo- |> European roots (since that's what I'm reading about at the moment), and |> my reply was: How could it not have? Prove that it couldn't have! I |> dare you! I'd handle it. I've handled far worse. I'd have to explain why I had asked the question, thus exposing more of my assumptions or agenda if any, and we might be able to discuss the subject. |> >|> I must conclude that Craig has failed to read where I have made clear |> >|> some of the things he asks me for, such as an example of a metaphysical |> >|> axiom which is testable: existence exists. |> > |> >This statement is not testable, as Ray has already pointed out. |> |> It most certainly is, as I have already pointed out. So is Mises' action |> axiom: human action is purposeful behavior. So is Descartes' "cogito" |> argument: Cogito, ergo sum, which translates badly to: "I think, therefore |> I am." The test is whether they can be denied without their presupposition. We are talking about different things here. Testability, which requires falsifiability, in science simply means whether a real-world test can distinguish between the statement and its contradiction. There is no _experiment_ which can distinguish between the various degrees of realism/idealism that you mentioned before. That is what distinguishes them from scientific theories. |> >If |> >I diabolically advocate a radical idealism, that No Thing Exists |> >(uh-oh, this is the question that got Descartes in the headlines), I |> >can quite happily claim that any proof you have of existence is just a |> >tribute to the completeness of the illusion. |> |> If nothing existed, this would include the illusion that anything existed. |> If the illusion exists, then existence must exist. This denial presupposes |> what it denies. Thus, your test proves that the axiom holds. D1. E = {x|x exists} D2. I = {x|x illusory} H1. Assert E = {} H2. Assert I = {x|all x} for x = "the illusion that E is not-empty", x is in I, by H2, and x is illusory, by D2 and specification. Ergo, any such illusion is itself illusory, and part of the illusory nature of all phenomena. Or did you think the Hindu/Buddhist doctrine of _maya_ was _inconsistent_? Your verbal formulation does not track what I wrote, and is broken at the point where you _assume_ !exists(illusory(t)) -> exists(t) which is not in the system. |> >all of |> >the axioms of FPC, for instance, are tautologies |> |> What's FPC? First-order Propositional Calculus. The usual axiomatization of PC uses three axioms (Mendelsohn is at home, and I don't trust my memory -- note to me: take more DMAE :-) but anyway, there are usually three axioms, such as (A => A), ((A => B) => B) => A, and so on, plus Modus Ponens. Then you throw in quantifiers over variables to get FPC. Anyway, the axioms are tautological in form: all valuations are true. It has to be so if you're going to have a consistent logic. |> >The creationist/fundie tie-in is simply that they are always looking |> >for ways to discredit science in general. "It's only a theory", they |> >harp. If that's true, then their "theory" is just as good as anyone's |> >and should be taught in schools, etc. |> |> As Rauch points out in "Kindly Inquisitors," this is only if all theories |> are equal. They aren't. _We_ know that, but if the voting public and school boards can be swayed by constant repetition of superficial and invalid arguments, as experience suggests, then they get what they want and the truth be damned. Hell, just look at today's high school biology texts, as Gould does in an essay in _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_. ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 10:23:59 CDT From: capntaz@dudemar.b24a.ingr.com (Heath G. Goebel) Subject: investing > From: "Perry E. Metzger" > > > Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~ says: > > > > Also, even if you do pay commissions, which even most of the > > wealthiest of investors have to, they are virtually nothing for > > large volumes (either in shares or dollars). For instance, the > > "average" investor is probably paying 5% coming and going. > > > Only fools pay that much. (Fools or people who work for one of the > houses -- I'm required to trade through Lehman. The commissions are > sky high. It blows -- believe me.) I think that 5% coming and going is unrealistic. I'm just a beginning stock market investor with a small portfolio. I trade through Quick & Reilly, here are my last four trades, in order to calculate the commissions percentages... PRINCIPAL COMMISSION % --------- ---------- --- 1200 38.80 3.2 1700 45.80 2.7 3075 51.83 1.7 1942.50 49.20 2.5 -- Heath "Remember, this is just one man's commisions." Goebel, ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 10:19:32 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) Subject: Coenzyme Q-10 In <9308051328.AA11897@ess.harris.com>, Harvey Newstrom writes: [...] |> meaning it will help burn off calories, but won't if you are a |> couch potato. Or computer potato ;-( |> (I am not a doctor, but I watch one on TV...) Hopefully Dean Edell and not Timothy Johnson. Actually, if your cable system or satcom gets Lifetime, you can watch a lot of MDs. -- F_cP ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 5 August 1993 07:31:58 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: Aquinas Opposed Religious Persecution? In <9308040858.aa16444@genie.genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu wrote: > > Since George Smith mentions that Aquinas advocated the death penalty for > heretics, I'd like to know how James Donald can support his claim that\ > Aquinas was a great opponent of religious persecution. I doubt that that is exactly what George said. If George said that, he was wrong. Aquinas did not advocate the death penalty for heretics. He said it was permissible to execute heretics, not for heresy, but for oath breaking *if* they had previously sworn to be faithful to the "true" church. Aquinas stated that natural law meant that heretics had the right to practice their religion without punishment or coercion, but then found several legalistic ways to justify some, though not all of the things the church was doing. One of the legalism was that if someone swore to be faithful to a particular religion, and broke that oath, he could then be executed, not for heresy, but for oath breaking. Repeat: Not for heresy, but for breaking an oath freely made. Aquinas proposed several legalistic ways around the principle that heretics had the right to practice their religion, but they were all ways around it, not flat violations of it. None of the legalisms were such as would permit the forcible suppression of "false" religion. They were such as to constitute a serious irritation and substantial inconvenience to "heretical" religions, but were not such as would put them out of business. The church could not punish heretics, and could not confiscate their property, though, according to Aquinas, it could do a bunch of things to slow them down. Further, these legalisms were not such as would make a holy war of aggression a just war. This was the key issue in his day, for in his day the church was strong, and the state was weak, hence the concept of the separation of church and state was meaningless. Aquinas, unlike Locke, denied separation of Church and State, but remember than in the days of Aquinas, there was not much state to be separate from. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves and our James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we | are. True law derives from this right, not from jamesdon@infoserv.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 5 August 1993 08:00:59 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: Aquinas Opposed Religious Persecution? In <9308040858.aa16444@genie.genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu wrote: > > Since George Smith mentions that Aquinas advocated the death penalty for Who is George Smith, what exactly did he say (I doubt he said that "Aquinas advocated the death penalty for heretics" in those words), and where did he say it. I doubt that that is exactly what George said. If George said that, he was wrong. Aquinas did not advocate the death penalty for heretics. He said it was permissible to execute heretics, not for heresy, but for oath breaking *if* they had previously sworn to be faithful to the "true" church. Aquinas stated that natural law meant that heretics had the right to practice their religion without punishment or coercion, but then found several legalistic ways to justify some, though not all of the things the church was doing. One of the legalism was that if someone swore to be faithful to a particular religion, and broke that oath, he could then be executed, not for heresy, but for oath breaking. Repeat: Not for heresy, but for breaking an oath freely made. Aquinas proposed several legalistic ways around the principle that heretics had the right to practice their religion, but they were all ways around it, not flat violations of it. None of the legalisms were such as would permit the forcible suppression of "false" religion. They were such as to constitute a serious irritation and substantial inconvenience to "heretical" religions, but were not such as would put them out of business. The church could not punish heretics, and could not confiscate their property, though, according to Aquinas, it could do a bunch of things to slow them down. Further, these legalisms were not such as would make a holy war of aggression a just war. This was the key issue in his day, for in his day the church was strong, and the state was weak, hence the concept of the separation of church and state was meaningless. Aquinas, unlike Locke, denied separation of Church and State, but remember than in the days of Aquinas, there was not much state to be separate from. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves and our James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we | are. True law derives from this right, not from jamesdon@infoserv.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 8:28:54 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: investing > Fundamentals are the only tools Peter Lynch ever used. Somehow, the > guy made billions for his clients, year in, year out, like clockwork. > > Most so called "studies" are horribly flawed. They don't take into > account the fact that most investors don't really understand what they > are buying. You keep missing my point. Fundamental tools are _not_ all your Mr. Lynch has. He has his wits. And, there is a _big_ difference. You can program computers with fundamental variables, such as your PE ratios, quarterly report figures, and so forth and so on, and they _will_ do no better than the dartboard. So you see, I won't argue your second point, because that is the point I make as well. The problem is, in taking fundamentalist's advice and studying all these factors, many common investors do all the research, and still lose, and wonder why. It's because, by themselves, fundamental variables mean nothing. It really does take an expert to properly interpret them. Now, this expert can simply be a genius who just has a knack for doing this, or it could be someone who has studied a particular market or industry for years. So, my advice to budding investors would be: don't religiously stick to these fundamental approaches unless you either study this pursuit for years, or simply know you have a "knack" for it. Both are valid ways to put this method to good use. > > > If you want to pay low commissions, you can. Go to a discount broker > > > like Schwab or Fidelity. (Schwab even has programs for your PC that > > > enter trades for you by modem -- they give you discounts for using > > > them!) If you get experienced, you can go to a deep discount broker > > > and save even more. Some of the deep discounters will sell to you for > > > only $.02 or $.03 a share commission, which is very close to what > > > institutions pay, and not so far from the lowest even people with > > > seats on the exchange manage in practice. `taint hard, me boy. > > > > Perry, you will _not_ get those commissions with small investments. > > Sure you can -- it just depends on what you call "small". The private > banker types won't even touch you if you have less than $1,000,000 to > spend. On the other hand, you can get extremely low commissions with a > portfolio of only about $15-20k, which really isn't large. I had > savings of twice that when I was just 21 years old and had been > working for only a few years at what was a fairly low salary for a > person with a BS in comp sci -- the money was entirely saved out of > salary and money made from the savings themselves. It wasn't even > hard. Anyone can do it. Even a comparitively poor person can manage > it. You just have to be careful with your money, thats all. Perry, I'm not going to argue this point with you. A "portfolio" of $15-$20K means about 3-4 good investments is all, and a $5K investment in a typical stock is not enough to get $.03 commission per share. I'm thinking a stock priced at about $20 - my own subjective number for a "typical" stock price. If you _can_ get that kind of commission, then I'll stop debating and ask for your discount broker's number. I don't have the charts with me, but from what I can recall, you need more along the lines of 5,000 _shares_ in any given transaction to get that low of commission, or $10K+ per transaction. If your whole portfolio is $15K, it wouldn't exactly make sense to have it all in one place. (I'm making generalizations on those figures, I'm sure there's a margin of error in there, and it does change quite a bit from one broker to the next). Bottom line is, "small" to me is a starting portfolio of $5-$10K. Even people better off than you were at 21 usually don't have this much to spare these days. Part of the problem is that, given housing prices these days, most people are mortgaged up to their eyeballs. But I digress. > > Isn't that the point? The average investor _is_ a fool. Thought you'd > > get my point. > > Who cares about the average investor? > > I'm giving out advice here to EXTROPIANS. These are openminded and > very intelligent people. They need not behave foolishly. Extropian does not equal very intelligent. Not when it comes to investing, anyway. I've observed that really successful investors are, yes, intelligent, but more importantly have an uncanny market-sense, if you will. I know plenty of intelligent people who have made attempts at making money in the market, yet did not do well, because they just didn't seem to have that overall view of all the factors involved. Even smart folk can be overwhelmed by a complex system such as the stock market. > > > > > > > There are exceptions, but from what I know of the successful investors, > > > > they are by and large people who had money to invest in the first place. > > > > I think if you want any kind of flexibility, $10-$30K is a bare minimum. > > > > > > > You can surely play with less, > > > > > > Mutual funds will take investments of far far less. > > > > And thus are the only way to go for low-risk, sorta-decent returns. > > Not if you do decent research. My assumption in that statement was a lack of resources to do "decent research". Don't forget, Perry, time is money. If I only have $3K to invest (and given the things I'm doing with my money right now, that wouldn't be too far off in my case!), I'm not going to spend 3 months researching stocks so I can figure out what to do with it. I have "sure thing" investments available to me which can maximize my profit from that $3,000, while allowing me to spend that time making money in other ways. Of course, I can guarantee 20-25% on any of my investments with no thought, thanks to things like employee stock participation plans and such. I could probably do as well on the market, but we're only talking $750 here, which isn't much over, say, a 3-6 month period. Like I said above, in order to get some really good returns, I estimate I'd need more along the lines of $10-$30K to have the flexibility needed, and to maximize my time spent managing that money. Perry: It occurs to me that we could eventually just get into a silly argument over what investment methodologies are best (and we have to some extent already, I'll admit), which doesn't go anywhere. Why doesn't someone try putting together an Extropian investment newsletter or something? After all, if you _really_ want folks to sign on with Alcor, invest in future technologies, and so forth, they'll need money. And if you really want it to make a difference, it'll have to come from the "little people", not just a few well-to-do extropians. Give those with less money a chance to make money, and you'll be investing in the future, right? Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #216 ********************************* &