On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:20 PM, bacigalupiworks wrote:
>
> 3. Without death evolution is slowed

Even granting that this is true:  without death,
what's your hurry?

Live long and prosper,
Kennita
--
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
none but ourselves can free our minds.
            -- Bob Marley, "Redemption Song"

Greetings:

  This is one, just one of the main reason...your
intelligent computer should never be trusted...

  and the one fact we all keep overlooking in all that
data were collecting...

  the human is gonna see something no machine,
"collective intelligence" or knee-jerk,
do-as-your'e-told  worker is ever gonna see.


--- joschka@... a écrit :

> De: <joschka@...>
> Objet: September 26, 1983 - The Man who saved the
> world.
> À: grabarkowic@...
> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:49:13 +0100
>
>
http://www.mosnews.com/feature/2004/05/21/petrov.shtml
>
>
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47998
>
>
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5235
>
>
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=130833
>
>
http://www.dashes.com/anil/2005/03/30/the_man_who_sav
>
> http://www.logtv.com/films/redbutton/
>
>
http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2004/09/man-who-saved-world-from-nuclear-war.\
html
>
> http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/002784.html
> _________________________________________________
> Votre mail gratuit avec http://lexpress.net
>







___________________________________________________________________________

Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger
! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la
France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com






___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

from the " meet ya half-way" desk of joschka fischer

Well....how about a wee bit of apoptosis?


--- Kennita Watson <kennita@...> a écrit :


---------------------------------
On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:20 PM, bacigalupiworks wrote:
>
> 3. Without death evolution is slowed

Even granting that this is true:  without death,
what's your hurry?

Live long and prosper,
Kennita
--
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
none but ourselves can free our minds.
            -- Bob Marley, "Redemption Song"




      bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



       SPONSORED LINKS

Artificial intelligence
     Southern cross
Palo alto ca
                      North america
                Math problem
         Technology


---------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


     Visit your group "bafuture" on the web.

     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.


---------------------------------









___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

You bring up an interesting point, Kennita, because really what is the hurry
if I'm around ostensibly forever.  Change is inevitable and an immortal has
the time to wait.  Development of our species could still happen when
immortals die due to accident or choice.  Hypothetically, technology may
also be to a point where an immortal could modify their own physical plant,
but this raises other concerns such as diversity.  Nature is robust because
old patterns give way and mix with other patterns to become new more
resonant forms with the current context.  I am concerned that the immortal
cohort would lose pace with their environment and begin to expend a great
deal of energy trying to preserve an old context.  There would be a point of
diminishing returns in their future.  Paradoxically, death is necessary for
a vital system.  And this is where Joschka's introduction of the process of
apoptosis is really relevant.



We can see the necessity of deliberate cell death in the development of a
single human agent.  Without this death we would have mittens for hands and
our brain would not develop much past adolescence where a large amount of
cell death is the process by which our neural circuits are honed into who we
become (a process that occurs throughout our life cycle).  Now, if we assume
that the vitality of the human community (or biosphere) is predicated on the
cellular community, which constitutes a human individual, we may conclude
that death at each level is necessary for proper development and sustained
vitality.  To stop death at one level, say the macroscopic level, is to
necessarily stop it at the microscopic level in which case the subtractive
process (a.k.a. apoptosis) that makes us who we are is mitigated.



Joschka mentioned meeting "half-way" and if I understand the sentiment
correctly I think it points to the idea that existence is necessarily about
death and life.  Our desire to live forever is a natural extension of our
intrinsic desire to live.  In design theory, there are additive and
subtractive processes.  Some ideas are put in and made to live and others
must be discarded in order to enhance the vitality of the whole.  As one
becomes a better designer, less must be discarded as the process of finding
an overall solution becomes more efficient.  Our development as a species is
similar, for the more complex and resolved we become as a system the more
efficient we become at refining a wider swath of the universe before us and
this is ultimately about a greater manifestation of life.



As an aside, I have nothing categorically against longer life for the
individual.  In fact, I believe it will happen as a matter of course.  Never
the less, I think it is in the interest of our species to enhance our
ability to more expertly engage our world first and let the longevity follow
as a natural and inevitable byproduct.



Thanks for your feedback.


Josh in SF


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,

Is there anyone on this list who is going to the Emerging Technologies
conference next week who would be interested in sharing a hotel room?

http://conferences.oreillynet.com/etech/

Thanks,
Matt

--- joschka@... a écrit :

> De: <joschka@...>
> Objet: From Biotech to Jazz: How to Innovate in Drug
> Development "
> À: grabarkowic@...
> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:39:06 +0100
>
>
>  From Biotech to Jazz: How to Innovate in Drug
> Development
> "
>     Samuel Saks, M.D.
>
> CEO: Jazz Pharmaceuticals
> Former Chairman: ALZA Corporation
> UCSF Alum: Oncology Fellow
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ucsf.edu/cbe/saks1.htm
> _________________________________________________
> Votre mail gratuit avec http://lexpress.net
>







___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

from the " Hippocampus & amygdala " desk of joschka
fischer


  Perhaps, we should be focusing on consciousness
itself?

  Understanding what it is?

  Is it transferrable: machine<->human
                              species<-> species

Moreover, is it possible to store "it" or these
bodies/cells in some "spore" or dormant state only to
regenerate and diversify later on?

joschka fischer
--- Josh Bacigalupi <bacigalupiworks@...> a
écrit :


---------------------------------
You bring up an interesting point, Kennita, because
really what is the hurry
if I'm around ostensibly forever.  Change is
inevitable and an immortal has
the time to wait.  Development of our species could
still happen when
immortals die due to accident or choice.
Hypothetically, technology may
also be to a point where an immortal could modify
their own physical plant,
but this raises other concerns such as diversity.
Nature is robust because
old patterns give way and mix with other patterns to
become new more
resonant forms with the current context.  I am
concerned that the immortal
cohort would lose pace with their environment and
begin to expend a great
deal of energy trying to preserve an old context.
There would be a point of
diminishing returns in their future.  Paradoxically,
death is necessary for
a vital system.  And this is where Joschka's
introduction of the process of
apoptosis is really relevant.



We can see the necessity of deliberate cell death in
the development of a
single human agent.  Without this death we would have
mittens for hands and
our brain would not develop much past adolescence
where a large amount of
cell death is the process by which our neural circuits
are honed into who we
become (a process that occurs throughout our life
cycle).  Now, if we assume
that the vitality of the human community (or
biosphere) is predicated on the
cellular community, which constitutes a human
individual, we may conclude
that death at each level is necessary for proper
development and sustained
vitality.  To stop death at one level, say the
macroscopic level, is to
necessarily stop it at the microscopic level in which
case the subtractive
process (a.k.a. apoptosis) that makes us who we are is
mitigated.



Joschka mentioned meeting "half-way" and if I
understand the sentiment
correctly I think it points to the idea that existence
is necessarily about
death and life.  Our desire to live forever is a
natural extension of our
intrinsic desire to live.  In design theory, there are
additive and
subtractive processes.  Some ideas are put in and made
to live and others
must be discarded in order to enhance the vitality of
the whole.  As one
becomes a better designer, less must be discarded as
the process of finding
an overall solution becomes more efficient.  Our
development as a species is
similar, for the more complex and resolved we become
as a system the more
efficient we become at refining a wider swath of the
universe before us and
this is ultimately about a greater manifestation of
life.



As an aside, I have nothing categorically against
longer life for the
individual.  In fact, I believe it will happen as a
matter of course.  Never
the less, I think it is in the interest of our species
to enhance our
ability to more expertly engage our world first and
let the longevity follow
as a natural and inevitable byproduct.



Thanks for your feedback.


Josh in SF


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



       SPONSORED LINKS

Artificial intelligence
     Southern cross
Palo alto ca
                      North america
                Math problem
         Technology


---------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


     Visit your group "bafuture" on the web.

     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.


---------------------------------









___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

On 02-Mar-06, at PM 04:19, Joschka Fisher wrote:
>  Perhaps, we should be focusing on consciousness itself?
>  Understanding what it is?

Is the word meaningful?

-- Steve

From: Steve Dekorte <steve@...>
>Is the word ["consciousness"] meaningful?

I used to be able to find an article on the web that gave a meaning to
"consciousness" that made sense to me, but now I can't.  If anyone can
recognize the original author of the ideas I sketch below or find the
original citation, please help me.

In this article, it claimed that conscious happens when making plans
about what to do, and it consists of the following:

1. Free will.  This means that when a conscious entity is making a
    plan about the future, there are two very different types of
    entities in the plan: the entity that it is planning for (the "I"),
    and everything else.  The plan isn't complete, so while it is
    making the plan, it can't predict the future behavior of the future
    version of itself which will execute the plan.  It can't even assign a
    probability distribution for what it will do, since what it will do is
    determined by the not-yet-complete plan.  However, the planning
    entity can try to predict what everything else is going to do.

    A failure of free will would happen in the case where an entity
    makes plans based on the assumption it won't have good control of
    its behavior while executing the plan.

2. Transcendent ego.  This means that the "I" entity in the plan acts
    as a coherent whole; that is, during planning its behavior is
    assumed to be controlled by the plan-in-progress.

    So if a system consisting of me and my car is planning to drive to
    Palo Alto, and I briefly park my car at a restaurant to eat breakfast and
    the car is stolen, then the system of me and my car failed to
    have transcendent ego because the car is no longer controlled by the
    plan.  If I'm going to plan what to do if the car is stolen, I have
    to make a plan about what I am going to do, not about what
    me-and-my-car are going to do.  Making plans about the
    me-and-my-car entity presupposes that me-and-my-car is controlled
    by the plan, that is, that me-and-my-car has transcendent ego.

3. Qualia.  This means that the sensory perceptions of the entity are
    processed and do update its model of the world.

    By this definition my computer has qualia when I type, if my typing
    is processed by the computer, but not if it's turned off.  I guess
    it has trivial qualia in reaction to dropped network packets and
    more profound qualia in reaction to network packets constituting a
    useful SSH connection.

With this definition, there's some recognizable resemblance between
the definition of "consciousness" and what we intuitively mean by the
term, and we have a definition that doesn't trivialize the question of
whether an engineered system can be conscious.

--
Tim Freeman               http://www.fungible.com           tim@...
Pass it on: The Integral Fast Reactor can provide safe, clean
energy.  Politically motivated misrepresentation stopped the research.
Check it out at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

On 02-Mar-06, at PM 05:42, Tim Freeman wrote:
> 1. Free will
> 2. Transcendent ego.
> 3. Qualia.
>
> With this definition, there's some recognizable resemblance between
> the definition of "consciousness" and what we intuitively mean by the
> term, and we have a definition that doesn't trivialize the question of
> whether an engineered system can be conscious.

It seems to me that by your definition, mice, fish, reptiles, insects
and even some fairly simple robots and computer programs are conscious.
Would you agree?

-- Steve

>It seems to me that by your definition, mice, fish, reptiles, insects
>and even some fairly simple robots and computer programs are conscious.
>Would you agree?

I don't know how well those entities can make plans, but quite
possibly yes for some of them.

I suspect insects don't make plans, so I doubt they would fit the
definition, but it would be better to talk about that with someone who
spends more time observing insect behavior.

If there's no rule of inference that says "we must do X with entity Y
if entity Y is conscious", this isn't a bad thing.
--
Tim Freeman               http://www.fungible.com           tim@...
Pass it on: The Integral Fast Reactor can provide safe, clean
energy.  Politically motivated misrepresentation stopped the research.
Check it out at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

Hi, I just had to add my 2 cents to the debate over whether superlongevity
will somehow be bad because it impedes evolution.  Everyone should
remember that evolution is a cruel, stupid force that does not deserve any
sort of reverence.

Bill Rowan

May argument's a wee bit different.  I think superlongevity could be
advantageous in the long run since sticking around on the earth might well
make people more sensitive to taking care of it.  Currently we treat the
earth as we treat the commons, to be used up for immediate and selfish
benefit.

And I don't mind slower evolution; I think our current rate of progress and
change is past our ability to deal with it anyway.

All the best, -- Clark

> Hi, I just had to add my 2 cents to the debate over whether superlongevity
> will somehow be bad because it impedes evolution.  Everyone should
> remember that evolution is a cruel, stupid force that does not deserve any
> sort of reverence.
>
--
Clark Quinn
http://www.quinnovation.com
clark@...
+1-925-200-0881

Also check out Learnlets.com, the official Quinnovation blog,
& EngagingLearning.com, the site to accompany my learning game design book




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Insects do make plans, but much of this behavior is hardcoded. e.g. much like a
dog will circle it's bed before lying down (presumably to make sure no
snakes/etc are there), a certain type of wasp will circle it's ground nest a
few times before placing the rock to seal the hole (and fate of the stunned
spider inside it surrounded by soon to be hungry larva), presumably looking out
for potential predators of the larva.

The wasp is a little bit OCD. If anything around the hole is disturbed slightly
(e.g. moving the rock), it will repeat this loop, some researches tested this
and found it did it something like 43 times before breaking out of the loop and
proceeding as normal. Consciousness has a target, 'e.g. conscious of my
actions', which in one metric involves recognizing patterns (intelligence is
the sooner rather than later part), operating at the right level of
abstraction/detail, and when no known solution improvising a solution (e.g. if
there weren't any rocks, but there were a plastic toy of similar shap.

For many dogs and humans I think we have similar templates of behavior running
in the amigdala and lower brains, just they are more complex and multilayered
so are harder to see and given we have the same perspective, sometimes we don't
have the right frame of reference for seeing it all (but history and fiction
shows we do have many patterns, engrained into us to maximize genetic and
memetic propogation.
--- tim@... wrote:

> >It seems to me that by your definition, mice, fish, reptiles, insects
> >and even some fairly simple robots and computer programs are conscious.
> >Would you agree?
>
> I don't know how well those entities can make plans, but quite
> possibly yes for some of them.
>
> I suspect insects don't make plans, so I doubt they would fit the
> definition, but it would be better to talk about that with someone who
> spends more time observing insect behavior.
>
> If there's no rule of inference that says "we must do X with entity Y
> if entity Y is conscious", this isn't a bad thing.
> --
> Tim Freeman               http://www.fungible.com           tim@...
> Pass it on: The Integral Fast Reactor can provide safe, clean
> energy.  Politically motivated misrepresentation stopped the research.
> Check it out at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
>
>
>      bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Troy Gardner -"How you live your seconds, is how you live your days, is how you
live your life..."

http://www.troygardner.com -my world
http://www.troyworks.com - building Rich Internet Applications
http://www.intrio.com -helping bridge the gap between the humans and machines.
Home of the Flickey™

Title:
Structural change in the presence of network
externalities: a co-evolutionary model of
technological successions.

Relevancy to previous bafuture discussions:

a) Introduction/dispersion of new technologies
vs. established ones.
b) Monopoly power in context
c) Intellectual property: The good and the bad
d) The Current fight between Microsoft & the EU
e) Innovation
f) Information/knowledge sharing vs innovation

http://springerlink.metapress.com/(aulso1553vrwf1454chgya45)/app/home/contributi\
on.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,9;journal,6,44;linkingpublicationresults,1\
:100519,1
(may require subscription...I'll send the actual pdf
if wanted)

Source:
Journal of Evolutionary Economics

Publisher: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg

ISSN: 0936-9937 (Paper) 1432-1386 (Online)

DOI: 10.1007/s00191-004-0226-8

Issue:  Volume 15, Number 2

Date:  April 2005
Pages: 123 - 148

Actual citation:

Structural change in the presence of network
externalities: a co-evolutionary model of
technological successions

Paul Windrum1, 2 Contact Information and Chris
Birchenhall3 Contact Information
(1)  Manchester Metropolitan University Business
School (MMUBS), Aytoun Street, M1 3GH Manchester, UK
(2)  MERIT, University of Maastricht, Tongersestraat
49, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
(3)  School of Social Science, University of
Manchester, Oxford Road, M13 9PL Manchester, UK

Abstract.  The paper uses a two-stage, multi-agent
simulation model to examine the conditions under which
technological successions can occur in the presence of
network externalities. Data is used to identify a
robust econometric model of the probability of
succession. Four key factors are identified. First,
the trade-off between higher direct utility from new
technology goods and the network utility of old
technology goods. Second, the relative innovative
performance of new and old technology firms. Third,
cost (price) differentials due to increasing returns
in production. Fourth, the time old (new) firms have
to develop their product designs prior to entry.

Keywords:  Succession - Demand - Innovation -
Externalities - Sail ship effect
JEL Classification:   O30, C15
Correspondence to: Paul Windrum
The authors would like to thank Richard Nelson and Uwe
Cantner for their helpful comments on an earlier draft
of the paper, and for the comments provided by the
anonymous referees. The usual disclaimers apply. The
authors gratefully acknowledge supportive funding
through SEIN-Project, European Commissionrsquos
Framework 4 Programme (contract# SOEI-CT-98-1107) and
through the Policy Regimes and Environmental
Transitions (PRET) project funded by the Dutch
Scientific Research Council (NWO).

Contact Information Paul Windrum
Email: p.windrum@...

Contact Information Chris Birchenhall
Email: Chris.Birchenhall@...


Excerpt of paper:

1 Introduction:
technological successions and network externalities
The paper investigates the conditions under which
technological successions occur.

It draws together two areas of research that have, by
and large, previously treated as separate: competition
between sequential technologies and network
externalities.

Interest in sequential technology competitions dates
back to Schumpeter’s proposition that new technologies
are the fuel of long-run economic growth, and
increasing welfare. Long-run economic development, he
argued, occurs when an economy moves from one base
technology to another. Empirical research by Gr¨ubler
(1990,1991) and Naki´cenovi´c (1986, 1991) on the
changing relative market shares of sequential
technologies in primary energy, shipping, and urban
transport over long historical periods, clearly
indicates that new technologies displace (however
infrequently) established dominant technologies. In
order for this to occur, a new technology must
overcome the network externalities enjoyed by an
established (old) technology.
Research on network externalities has tended to
consider contemporaneous competitions between rival
variants of the same technology (e.g. Arthur, 1989;
Katz and Shapiro, 1986; Farrell and Saloner, 1985).A
notable exception is David’s empirical case study of
the qwerty keyboard (David, 1985). The dvorak
keyboard, a later and more efficient typing layout,was
unable to displace the established qwerty technology
due to the network externalities enjoyed by the
latter. This has been challenged, theoretically and
empirically by Liebowitz and Margolis (1990). They
make two distinct arguments. First, they challenge the
proposition that unsponsored competitions between
rival variants of the same technology variants will
result in the selection of an inferior variant.
Second, they challenge the proposition that
established technologies can then subsequently
lock-out (in the manner described
by David) later, superior technologies.


Arthur (1988), and David and Greenstein (1990) list a
range of supply and demand side factors that may
lock-out a new technology. In addition to pecuniary
and non-pecuniary switching costs faced by users,
scale economies in production, learning and competence
creation costs of firms, and the marketing and
advertising costs of establishing a market for a new
technology may be significant. For each
of these factors, increasing marginal returns
accompanies growing market size and share. Taking
these factors into account, the paper will consider
the conditions under which supply and demand side
externalities may be overcome by a later
technology.

In order to proceed, we need to clarify the stage of
technology development that we are considering here,
and to distinguish between technological successions
and technological substitutions. Here we are
considering the factors relevant to the diffusion of a
new technology. This is the third, and final, phase of
technology development discussed by Schumpeter (1912,
1939). The first phase, invention, is usually related
to some empirical or scientific discovery. In itself,
an invention has no economic or social significance,
and typically offers no hints about possible
applications. For various reasons, many discoveries
are never applied in the economic domain.
"snip............................................."snip"
"let me know if you want the full paper!"






___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

Subsume: offshoring...an interesting twist


Summary:
"The latest trends in technology are in India, so
Indian employees in the US are heading back home &
staying way ahead of the Americans?"


A Reversal of the Tide in India
Tech Workers Flow Home to More Success

By S. Mitra Kalita
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; A01

MADRAS, India -- In 1997, Dutt Kalluri left India to
work for a Canadian software company, hoping the
overseas experience would do his résumé good. A year
later, he was promoted to head U.S. operations from
Rockville. But as he returned to India for business
and to visit his elderly mother, he marveled at the
changes sweeping his homeland: new stores, more cars,
enthusiasm for technology.

In 2001, not wanting to miss out on this
transformation, Kalluri gave up a six-figure salary
and the family's townhouse in Gaithersburg for a job
here with an Indian conglomerate. His wife, Uma, gave
up her daily syndicated dose of "Seinfeld." Daughter
Lakshmi said goodbye to her Montessori preschool
classmates.

These return migrations have become increasingly
common; Indian expatriates such as the Kalluris are
finding that, at times, the best way to move up is to
move back.

They bought a beachfront house here, arranging the
contents from their former home just as they were in
Gaithersburg. But other transitions were not as
simple.

They do not drive anymore; chauffeurs do that. Dutt
Kalluri is one of the few executives arriving at
meetings on time; his colleagues follow "IST" --
Indian Standard Time, which is to say, late. A wistful
Uma Kalluri longs to make Folgers coffee instead of a
sugar-and-spice-laden South Indian java and is
adjusting to living with her mother-in-law.

Yet the Kalluris brush off the cultural disconnects,
saying they have simply followed opportunity to the
United States and back. "If you want to be in the
latest trends, you have to be in India," said Dutt
Kalluri, who heads data warehousing and business
intelligence at the information-technology division of
Larsen & Toubro Ltd., India's largest construction and
engineering company. "Technology development happens
in India. Technology consumption happens in the U.S."

President Bush travels to India this week with an
ambitious agenda that includes boosting U.S.-Indian
commercial ties. Such ties have strengthened in recent
years, as Indian workers have migrated back and forth
between the two nations. Largely over the past five
decades, that migration has been outward as millions
of Indians left their homeland to seek riches abroad,
from the United Arab Emirates to the United Kingdom to
the United States. They earned graduate degrees,
launched careers in medicine and engineering, or took
jobs as gas-station attendants and hotel clerks. They
sent money back to their villages and delighted
relatives with gifts such as Nike sneakers and
Pringles potato chips during visits home. But since
1991, as foreign firms have poured billions of dollars
into a more open and deregulated Indian economy, some
expatriates have found the best thing they can give
back is themselves.

"In the IT industry, there's significant value for
people coming back," said Prakash Grama, an Indian
native turned U.S. citizen who now lives in Bangalore
and runs an association linking returning Indians with
volunteer work. "And here you are not just accepted
into society, you're recognized at the top."

Other countries are experiencing mass returns as well.
The 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown spurred some of
China's most entrepreneurial minds to flee, but with a
thriving and more open Chinese economy, they are going
back. Immigrants from Africa and Latin America, too,
are starting businesses that allow them to divide
their time between multiple homes and countries.

Here, members of India's diaspora are known as NRIs,
or non-resident Indians. They are a revered lot,
presumed to be successful due to their international
experience. Those who return to India -- known as
returned NRIs, or RNRIs -- tend to fill jobs on the
higher rungs of the corporate ladder. They are the
country's new elite, living in gated communities,
networking in golf clubs, celebrating holidays such as
Halloween and Thanksgiving -- transplanting their
foreign lives in Indian soil.

Tens of thousands of India's best and brightest have
made these multiple migrations, helping businesses on
both sides of the ocean navigate East and West and
providing a big boost to India's development.

The cultural impact on their nation is visible and
visceral. The New Delhi suburb of Noida boasts a
collection of luxury homes known as an "NRI Colony."
Meanwhile, returning stay-at-home spouses confess they
miss the freedom and distance of America, far from the
prying eyes of in-laws and nosy neighbors.

"I learned how to drive there . . . a minivan," Uma
Kalluri said proudly about her three years in
Gaithersburg. "Outings, shopping. There I could go and
do it all myself. Here, I have a driver."

She knows that sounds luxurious, but between the
driver, other servants, her 75-year-old mother-in-law,
and extended family in her home, Uma Kalluri is rarely
alone. "In India, it's just how it is," she said.

Asked about living with his mother, Dutt Kalluri's
business-speak does not miss a beat. She "adds a lot
of value to the household," he said, because the
children speak fluent Tamil and have ready access to
the family history.

In India, his employer is a household name, a
conglomerate that makes everything from cement to
software. His office is located in this thriving
coastal city, also known as Chennai. Companies here
seek managers with U.S. experience such as Dutt
Kalluri to connect American customers with Indian
workforces. In a tech sector relying on cheap labor,
these hires are often the priciest. Dutt Kalluri would
not elaborate on his compensation except to say it was
in the "top 5 percent of Indians."

His management approach strives to be American, he
said. "I want a systematic approach to anything we
do," he said. "It's like the new blood mixing with the
old blood. We are the change agents."

Beyond his official job description, Kalluri's tasks
range from emphasizing the importance of time
management and punctuality to making sure the Indians
do not mispronounce Rockville (it sometimes comes out
ROKE-vill-ee) or San Jose (San JOE-zee). Indians tend
to overpromise, Kalluri said, and he tries to get a
new generation of young software engineers to be
honest with clients, committing only to what they
truly can deliver.

"Working in India and working in the U.S. is entirely
different," said Kalluri. "I used to get a little
ticked off by the commitment system."

Besides new workplace dynamics, Indian families find
themselves adjusting to other facets of life.

With their husbands at work and children at school,
RNRI women devise activities to stay busy. On a recent
morning at the DLF Golf and Country Club in the New
Delhi suburb of Gurgaon, women filled the gym to
capacity by 9 a.m. They were there to exercise, but
another attraction had lured them: Oprah.

Women cluster around the gym's lone television to
watch every morning, then resume jogging, walking or
biking -- and dissecting the show.

"Almost 98 percent of the people here are NRIs," the
gym's trainer Surinder Sharma said. "I didn't ever see
the U.S. but from what I know, this is what it's
like."

"This" could be considered a paradise. He gestured at
a bastion of manicured lawns, swimming pools and
fountains, trimmed bushes that rise and fall like the
humps on a camel's back. There are caddies, guards and
masseuses.

After her workout, Nazneen Modak collapsed into a
wicker chair on the veranda. It sounds odd, she said,
but returning to India has made her feel even more
American.

"It is a very Westernized life here," said Modak, who
was born and raised in Bombay, then lived in New York,
New Jersey and Hong Kong. She moved back to India six
years ago because her husband transferred to General
Electric Co.'s India office. "If you have money, you
can live quite comfortably."

That can pose a challenge to raising well-adjusted,
grounded children, she said. Her three boys have been
instructed to call the driver and the cook "uncle" and
to treat them like elder relatives, Modak said.

The RNRI Association estimates that between 30,000 and
40,000 expatriates have returned to Bangalore, India's
largest technology hub, in the last decade alone.
Their boomerang migration exists alongside two
seemingly opposite trends: a rapidly Westernizing
India and an ethnically diversifying United States
where immigrants form tight networks to retain
cultural ties.

In the United States, "we used to go the temple every
week for a half day on Sundays. We drove 60 miles,"
Grama, president of the RNRI Association, said
laughing. "Here, it's right across the street and I
haven't gone there for six months." Religion in India
is "in the air, so I just pick it up," said Grama, who
spent a decade working in the United States but
returned to India in 1998 to become chief executive of
Span Systems Corp., a company he co-founded.

Five years after returning to India, the Kalluri
children have picked up an Indian accent when they
speak English. Lakshmi, 9, lists the names of several
friends and brags that she can already divide decimals
-- ahead of where would have been in Montgomery County
schools, her father points out.

Perhaps, Lakshmi said, but that does not outweigh what
she misses most from the States: her cousin Anita. She
lives in the Maryland suburb of Laurel -- and is still
an NRI.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company






___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

African Americans and Aids:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=1653


Aids budgeting by the Federal Government in the USA
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=1669

Session on Evidenced based medicine and drugs.
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=1657


Children & Teens with Mental Illness: Mending a broken
system
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=1673

Vitamin D might prevent Tuberculosis infection
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=35627


Administering Intermitten prophylactic Malaria
Treatment among children might protect against
disease, study says:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=35626


[Mar-01-2006]Executives Examines Factors Contributing
to High Malaria Burden in Kenya
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=35719



In The Courts | Silver Ring Thing Abstinence Education
Program To Lose Federal Funding Under Settlement
[Feb 24, 2006]
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=35604









___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

Superlogevity or not is a subjective and psychological
concept, purely. As for an insect whose life span is
only matter of  a few human hours, living one human
day would seem to be very much a superlogevity. What I
am trying to point out is that, the concept of time
perhaps is the key to this discussion, even to the
subject of consciousness. For example,
Is it true that only a conscious being has the concept
of time (i.e., knowing what time means)? And why? Does
the word 'superlongevity' have a meaning at all to
someone who is not conscious?

Shawn

--- Joschka Fisher <grabarkowic@...> wrote:

> from the " Hippocampus & amygdala " desk of joschka
> fischer
>
>
>  Perhaps, we should be focusing on consciousness
> itself?
>
>  Understanding what it is?
>
>  Is it transferrable: machine<->human
>                              species<-> species
>
> Moreover, is it possible to store "it" or these
> bodies/cells in some "spore" or dormant state only
> to
> regenerate and diversify later on?
>
> joschka fischer
> --- Josh Bacigalupi <bacigalupiworks@...> a
> écrit :
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> You bring up an interesting point, Kennita, because
> really what is the hurry
> if I'm around ostensibly forever.  Change is
> inevitable and an immortal has
> the time to wait.  Development of our species could
> still happen when
> immortals die due to accident or choice.
> Hypothetically, technology may
> also be to a point where an immortal could modify
> their own physical plant,
> but this raises other concerns such as diversity.
> Nature is robust because
> old patterns give way and mix with other patterns to
> become new more
> resonant forms with the current context.  I am
> concerned that the immortal
> cohort would lose pace with their environment and
> begin to expend a great
> deal of energy trying to preserve an old context.
> There would be a point of
> diminishing returns in their future.  Paradoxically,
> death is necessary for
> a vital system.  And this is where Joschka's
> introduction of the process of
> apoptosis is really relevant.
>
>
>
> We can see the necessity of deliberate cell death in
> the development of a
> single human agent.  Without this death we would
> have
> mittens for hands and
> our brain would not develop much past adolescence
> where a large amount of
> cell death is the process by which our neural
> circuits
> are honed into who we
> become (a process that occurs throughout our life
> cycle).  Now, if we assume
> that the vitality of the human community (or
> biosphere) is predicated on the
> cellular community, which constitutes a human
> individual, we may conclude
> that death at each level is necessary for proper
> development and sustained
> vitality.  To stop death at one level, say the
> macroscopic level, is to
> necessarily stop it at the microscopic level in
> which
> case the subtractive
> process (a.k.a. apoptosis) that makes us who we are
> is
> mitigated.
>
>
>
> Joschka mentioned meeting "half-way" and if I
> understand the sentiment
> correctly I think it points to the idea that
> existence
> is necessarily about
> death and life.  Our desire to live forever is a
> natural extension of our
> intrinsic desire to live.  In design theory, there
> are
> additive and
> subtractive processes.  Some ideas are put in and
> made
> to live and others
> must be discarded in order to enhance the vitality
> of
> the whole.  As one
> becomes a better designer, less must be discarded as
> the process of finding
> an overall solution becomes more efficient.  Our
> development as a species is
> similar, for the more complex and resolved we become
> as a system the more
> efficient we become at refining a wider swath of the
> universe before us and
> this is ultimately about a greater manifestation of
> life.
>
>
>
> As an aside, I have nothing categorically against
> longer life for the
> individual.  In fact, I believe it will happen as a
> matter of course.  Never
> the less, I think it is in the interest of our
> species
> to enhance our
> ability to more expertly engage our world first and
> let the longevity follow
> as a natural and inevitable byproduct.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
>
> Josh in SF
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>      bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>       SPONSORED LINKS
>
> Artificial intelligence
>
>     Southern cross
>
> Palo alto ca
>
>                      North america
>
>                Math problem
>
>         Technology
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>     Visit your group "bafuture" on the web.
>
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
>  bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
>
> Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo!
> Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour
> appeler la France et l'international.
> Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

On 03-Mar-06, at AM 05:58, Tim Freeman wrote:
> I don't know how well those entities can make plans, but quite
> possibly yes for some of them.

In that case, is "consciousness" a particularly interesting property
given that definition?

For example, is this C program conscious?

#include <stdio.h>

int plan(int c, int c)
{
	 // define however you like
}

int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
	 int state = 0;
	 for(;;)
	 {
	     int in  = fgetc(stdin); // qualia
	     int out = plan(state, c); // planning (uncertainty provided by
cosmic rays)
	     fputc(out, stdout);  // output
	 }
	 return 0;
}

-- Steve

DEEP BLUE certainly does planning. Is it conscious
then?

--Shawn


--- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:

>
> On 03-Mar-06, at AM 05:58, Tim Freeman wrote:
> > I don't know how well those entities can make
> plans, but quite
> > possibly yes for some of them.
>
> In that case, is "consciousness" a particularly
> interesting property
> given that definition?
>
> For example, is this C program conscious?
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int plan(int c, int c)
> {
>  // define however you like
> }
>
> int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
> {
>  int state = 0;
>  for(;;)
>  {
> 	    int in  = fgetc(stdin); // qualia
> 	    int out = plan(state, c); // planning
> (uncertainty provided by
> cosmic rays)
> 	    fputc(out, stdout);  // output
>  }
>  return 0;
> }
>
> -- Steve
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Allow me to go all Wikipedia on your arses...

Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to
comprise such key features as:

Subjectivity - the actions or discourses that produce individuals
or 'I'; the 'I' is the subject -- the observer

Self-awareness - the ability to perceive one's own existence,
including one's own traits, feelings and behaviors. In an
epistemological sense, self-awareness is a personal understanding of
the very core of one's own identity.

Sentience - the ability to feel or perceive

Sapience - the ability of an organism or entity to act with
intelligence

and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and
one's environment.


Doesn't really clear things up much does it?




--- In bafuture@yahoogroups.com, Shawn Pan <sac36837@...> wrote:
>
> DEEP BLUE certainly does planning. Is it conscious
> then?
>
> --Shawn
>
>
> --- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:

While many Americans (or perhaps "Westerners" in general) might find
this disconcerting and a threat to their ecomony, I think off-shoring
and the "twist" mentioned in the posted article to be a key element to
world peace.  I see it to be sort of like the alliances of the past
where one kings daughter would marry the son of the king of another
country.  But in this case, the alliance is made from the bottom up,
rather than top down.

Clearly offshoring does "steal" jobs from the West, but I think that
sufficient investment in things like R&D and science research can
backfill those jobs through the creation of new jobs, working on
technologies borne from that research.  Given my experience in the
manufacturing sector, I've seen this happen first hand.

I dunno, perhaps I'm being way too obvious...or way too naive.




--- In bafuture@yahoogroups.com, Joschka Fisher <grabarkowic@...>
wrote:
>
> Subsume: offshoring...an interesting twist
>
>

>In that case, is "consciousness" a particularly interesting property
>given that definition?

IMO yes.

>For example, is this C program conscious?

>int plan(int c, int c)
>{
> // define however you like
>}
>...

The definition of "plan" matters.  For example, it might include
callouts to a human who is reading the input and dictating the
outputs, and in that case I presume we'd agree that the C program +
human system is conscious.  An implementation of "plan" that did a
similar-enough computation to the human being would also be conscious
according to my definition.

>     int out = plan(state, c); // planning (uncertainty provided by
>cosmic rays)

My definition didn't mention "uncertainty", so I don't know where
you're coming from there.  Using my definition, the unknowns involved
in free will are unknown because they are decisions that have not yet
been decided by the planner or consequences of such decisions.
Nondeterminism isn't required.

Something that is conscious with the same frequency that cosmic rays
affect the behavior of real computers isn't conscious enough to
matter, so cosmic rays aren't relevant.

I don't think we can get around the requirement that we have to read
something's mind to figure out whether it's conscious.  This isn't
impossible -- you can do autopsies, brain scans, or you can make
plausible guesses by observing behavior.

Socratic dialogue via email doesn't work because the latency is too
long, so I won't participate in this one any more.  If we compare the
length of my reply to the length of your provocation, you can perhaps
understand that the amount of work it puts on me exceeds my expected
value for hearing whatever is it that you're coyly avoiding saying.
Also, the lack of coherent discussion tends to discourage readers.

If you have a point to make and you wish to engage me in a
conversation about it, you'll have to use declarative sentences and
try to write a coherent argument.
--
Tim Freeman               http://www.fungible.com           tim@...
Pass it on: The Integral Fast Reactor can provide safe, clean
energy.  Politically motivated misrepresentation stopped the research.
Check it out at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

>DEEP BLUE certainly does planning. Is it conscious
>then?

Its computation is also affected by its opponents moves, so it
experiences qualia as I defined them.  As I've defined consciousness,
it is conscious, but only of chess.

In particular, it isn't self-aware.  I don't think self-awareness is
an essential aspect of consciousness.  When I'm brushing my teeth in
the morning, I think a reasonable definition of consciousness should
say I'm conscious.  Most of the time I'm not cogitating about my
internal mental processes while I'm brushing teeth so I'm not
self-aware.  I've known people who appeared to lack any accurate
self-awareness, and they are commonly regarded as conscious by those
around them.

--
Tim Freeman               http://www.fungible.com           tim@...
Pass it on: The Integral Fast Reactor can provide safe, clean
energy.  Politically motivated misrepresentation stopped the research.
Check it out at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

On 04-Mar-06, at AM 10:52, Tim Freeman wrote:
> If you have a point to make and you wish to engage me in a
> conversation about it, you'll have to use declarative sentences and
> try to write a coherent argument.

Rational discussion is impossible without clear definitions, and as far
as I can tell, the term "consciousness" (as it is generally used) is so
vague as to be meaningless.

A meaningful definition would consist of a test whose observations
would answer the question "is this conscious?". Defining it in equally
vague terms such as "free will" and "transcendent ego" isn't helpful,
which is why I was trying to translate these poetic notions into
something that could actually be measured.

In general, such terms are minefields for reasoning as people tend to
define them in one way, do some reasoning and then sneak in other
definitions of the term and say that the conclusions apply to the new
definition. This history of philosophy is the repetition of this error.

I guess what I'd like to see is for more of the energy that gets put
into chasing these philosophical phantoms to be redirected towards
productive goals - less pretentious hand waving and more learning
algorithm design, implementation and testing.

-- Steve

Hey Everybody,

Nanomatrix and I have been having a side discussion about the SuperLongevity
issue.  I thought I'd insert it into the discussion for those interested.  I
look forward to integrating the issues of longevity and consciousness in my
next post.

Cheers,
Josh


*Nanomatrix to me*



While the planet-centric logic of death may look good on paper, I
doubt if you will find many humans telling their doctor that they
prefer that option rather than one of his life saving alternatives.

Mass production of life extending alternatives and human augmentation
will drive our expansion to other planets and beyond, where presumably
we would have the ability to survive in more biologically hostile
environments.

Those who wish to gamble on random evolution can die here.



*Me to nanomatrix*



Whereas I wouldn't consider the vital and robust workings of our biosphere
mere speculation on paper, I do take your point and to some extent agree
with you.   I am an ardent supporter of human augmentation including, but
not limited to, the advancement of AI, melding of man/machine, gene
therapies, etc.  I also agree that it is our destiny to populate the
universe as a flower spreads its pollen.   Additionally, I agree that market
forces are a manifestation of this destiny and will be fueled by our innate
desire to go forth from the bosom of Mother Earth some glorious day.



I respectfully disagree, however, that immortality of the single human
individual is necessary for the human augmentation and its ultimate destiny
it seems we can agree upon.   In fact, I would argue that immortality of the
individual ultimately stands in the way of said augmentation and thus
eventual dissemination into the surrounding universe.



In order to make the transformation into a form that can withstand the
biologically hostile environments you refer to, this form we have inherited
to date must parish and give way to more robust forms of existence.   To
this end evolution is not random.  I don't believe it ever was and I'm
pretty sure we could agree that the future evolution of our species will be
anything but random.   It is exactly that desire you describe for
augmentation that will purposefully direct our future development as a
species.  One must consider, however, that towards that end we must let this
version of human form give way to future forms, which necessitates death in
some way or another.



Respectfully,

Josh in SF



*Nanomatrix to me*



Josh,

  Sorry I haven't responded. I've been trying to
figure out why my replies to you weren't posting on
the bafuture board. Anyway now that I've figured it
out...

First we seem to be in general agreement on
augmentation. It's a good thing. Although I'm not sure
we are being driven by "market forces". I don't think
Homo Erectus was driven by "market forces" to explore
the Earth. "Market forces" may just be one of the
collateral symptoms of what is driving us.

I don't understand the disagreement part.
Where did I say anything about "... immortality of the

single human individual is necessary for the human

augmentation..."
The concept is backwards. Human augmentation is likely
to be a necessary stage in the pursuit of immortality.


Actually I think we need to be clear as to whether we
are talking about "immortality of the body" or
"immortality of the personality".  I don't consider
immortality of the current bodies to be necessarily
useful or desirable. Although I know some people are
very "body centric" and I certainly have gotten good
use out of mine.

Anyway I don't get this part either: "I would argue

that immortality of the individual ultimately stands

in the way of said augmentation..." This sounds like
your talking about "body centric" immortality. I
consider the "individual" to be the occupant of the
container, not the container. So what we are really
talking about are upgradeable containers. I don't
understand how and individual with an upgradeable
container "stands in the way of said augmentation".

"...we must let this version of human form give way to

future forms, which necessitates death in some way or
another."

I'm not sure that I would call the upgrade process
death unless you're talking about a direct neural
upload from a wetware body. Certainly in the beginning
stages it will be a matter of extending life by
embedding new systems and digital prosthetics.
Eventually the replacement process will create a new
modular container giving you the ability to download
into any system with a compatible interface.
I don't see the death.

PS. I do think evolution has a vector.



*Me to nanomatrix*



Nanomatrix,



You have brought up some really good points that coincide with some other
replies to this post.  You and I, however, are just emailing back and forth
I believe.  Do you mind if I insert our side discussion into the general
discussion so as to tie it all together?



Josh


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Futurists,

Weblog post with picture:
http://www.futuresalon.org/2006/03/electric_sheep_.html

One of us Future Saloners: Spot Draves (You once set a foot into a
Future Salon and you are one of us :-) and of course this is
California, so you can never leave)

Spot has done a lot more. In June 2004 he presented his Art at the
Future Salon. He also beautified the Accelerating Change Technight
at SAP with his computer creations.

Little background for the people that don't know about his art:

Electric Sheep is a distributed screen-saver that harnesses idle
computers into a render farm with the purpose of animating and
evolving artificial life-forms. Each clip of animation has a genetic
code, and the collective voting of users determines its fitness.

The voting is proof that the intelligent design proponents are
right. Just look at these beautiful results, you need a guiding
intelligence aka voting behind it to get to them. God does not play
dice. ;-)

Seeing the results of a million hours of computer rendering, you
really want to jump into them and ride the lines, fly through the
the fractals and take a closer and closer look from all sides. It
would totally change your perspective on beauty and life.

Finally the New York Art Scene is able to discover Spot and his
Sheep too at the Art Expo. If you are in New York go there today or
tomorrow.

Enjoy, Mark.

Good thoughts.  I like to add on:
1. Evolution does have a vector. The history we know
has clearly told us that. However, the vector had its
own direction for billions of years until now - humans
are slowly taking control of it. So, where does
evolution lead us at this point? It will be more and
more dependent on human intentionality. What are our
intentionality then? ... It is a scary feeling to
realize that how much power we have in our hands,
which may either prosper or destroy our species.
Specifically, I think the fate of the universe will be
determined by the evolution of our consciousness.
2. The idea of "a direct neural upload from a wetware
body" assumes that preserving our personalities is
what superlognevity means. I am not sure about this.
Both personalities and identities are social construct
that we obtain through life experience, and they are
not identical to who we really are. I think we need to
think deeper on this.

Shawn

--- Josh Bacigalupi <bacigalupiworks@...> wrote:

> Hey Everybody,
>
> Nanomatrix and I have been having a side discussion
> about the SuperLongevity
> issue.  I thought I'd insert it into the discussion
> for those interested.  I
> look forward to integrating the issues of longevity
> and consciousness in my
> next post.
>
> Cheers,
> Josh
>
>
> *Nanomatrix to me*
>
>
>
> While the planet-centric logic of death may look
> good on paper, I
> doubt if you will find many humans telling their
> doctor that they
> prefer that option rather than one of his life
> saving alternatives.
>
> Mass production of life extending alternatives and
> human augmentation
> will drive our expansion to other planets and
> beyond, where presumably
> we would have the ability to survive in more
> biologically hostile
> environments.
>
> Those who wish to gamble on random evolution can die
> here.
>
>
>
> *Me to nanomatrix*
>
>
>
> Whereas I wouldn't consider the vital and robust
> workings of our biosphere
> mere speculation on paper, I do take your point and
> to some extent agree
> with you.   I am an ardent supporter of human
> augmentation including, but
> not limited to, the advancement of AI, melding of
> man/machine, gene
> therapies, etc.  I also agree that it is our destiny
> to populate the
> universe as a flower spreads its pollen.
> Additionally, I agree that market
> forces are a manifestation of this destiny and will
> be fueled by our innate
> desire to go forth from the bosom of Mother Earth
> some glorious day.
>
>
>
> I respectfully disagree, however, that immortality
> of the single human
> individual is necessary for the human augmentation
> and its ultimate destiny
> it seems we can agree upon.   In fact, I would argue
> that immortality of the
> individual ultimately stands in the way of said
> augmentation and thus
> eventual dissemination into the surrounding
> universe.
>
>
>
> In order to make the transformation into a form that
> can withstand the
> biologically hostile environments you refer to, this
> form we have inherited
> to date must parish and give way to more robust
> forms of existence.   To
> this end evolution is not random.  I don't believe
> it ever was and I'm
> pretty sure we could agree that the future evolution
> of our species will be
> anything but random.   It is exactly that desire you
> describe for
> augmentation that will purposefully direct our
> future development as a
> species.  One must consider, however, that towards
> that end we must let this
> version of human form give way to future forms,
> which necessitates death in
> some way or another.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Josh in SF
>
>
>
> *Nanomatrix to me*
>
>
>
> Josh,
>
>  Sorry I haven't responded. I've been trying to
> figure out why my replies to you weren't posting on
> the bafuture board. Anyway now that I've figured it
> out...
>
> First we seem to be in general agreement on
> augmentation. It's a good thing. Although I'm not
> sure
> we are being driven by "market forces". I don't
> think
> Homo Erectus was driven by "market forces" to
> explore
> the Earth. "Market forces" may just be one of the
> collateral symptoms of what is driving us.
>
> I don't understand the disagreement part.
> Where did I say anything about "... immortality of
> the
>
> single human individual is necessary for the human
>
> augmentation..."
> The concept is backwards. Human augmentation is
> likely
> to be a necessary stage in the pursuit of
> immortality.
>
>
> Actually I think we need to be clear as to whether
> we
> are talking about "immortality of the body" or
> "immortality of the personality".  I don't consider
> immortality of the current bodies to be necessarily
> useful or desirable. Although I know some people are
> very "body centric" and I certainly have gotten good
> use out of mine.
>
> Anyway I don't get this part either: "I would argue
>
> that immortality of the individual ultimately stands
>
> in the way of said augmentation..." This sounds like
> your talking about "body centric" immortality. I
> consider the "individual" to be the occupant of the
> container, not the container. So what we are really
> talking about are upgradeable containers. I don't
> understand how and individual with an upgradeable
> container "stands in the way of said augmentation".
>
> "...we must let this version of human form give way
> to
>
> future forms, which necessitates death in some way
> or
> another."
>
> I'm not sure that I would call the upgrade process
> death unless you're talking about a direct neural
> upload from a wetware body. Certainly in the
> beginning
> stages it will be a matter of extending life by
> embedding new systems and digital prosthetics.
> Eventually the replacement process will create a new
> modular container giving you the ability to download
> into any system with a compatible interface.
> I don't see the death.
>
> PS. I do think evolution has a vector.
>
>
>
> *Me to nanomatrix*
>
>
>
> Nanomatrix,
>
>
>
> You have brought up some really good points that
> coincide with some other
> replies to this post.  You and I, however, are just
> emailing back and forth
> I believe.  Do you mind if I insert our side
> discussion into the general
> discussion so as to tie it all together?
>
>
>
> Josh
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

>DEEP BLUE certainly does planning. Is it conscious
>then?

>In particular, it isn't self-aware.  I don't think
>self-awareness is an essential aspect of
consciousness.

The concept of an 'observer' who is watching through
our eyes is essential to the aspects of both
self-awareness and consciousness. When it observers
things around, it is called being conscious; when it
observers specifically the representation of self
(i.e., physical body, thoughts etc.) in relation to
other objects, it is called being self-aware.

If you know how DEEP BLUE works, then you would agree
there is no such an 'observer' in the machine.
Therefore it is not conscious. However, as its
opponent, a human player does feel there is an
illusive entity who 'thinks' and 'plans'. When a
caveman walks towards an automatic door, upon having
detected the man via its sensors, the door opens and
then closes for him; the man certainly thinks the door
is watching, thinking and planning. Well, countless
things can 'do' these simple tasks; however, these
doings do not make the doers conscious if the observer
is not at home.

Shawn


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

from the "oh what a lovely war" desk of joschka
fischer

Just the headlines and not the articles.  Need
subscription...I'm negotiating with them.

http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/index.shtml






___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com