Re: Cryonics/Nanotech Skepticism

J. Maxwell Legg (
Sat, 15 Aug 1998 13:44:48 +1200

Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

> [Hal]
> > Robin Hanson has an interesting argument that factual
> > disagreements should not persist. However I think it
> > took as one of its premises that people believe that
> > others are basically rational. If that is the case then
> > over time people should modify their beliefs in the face
> > of persistent disagreement. Disagreements about factual
> > matters should not be stable.
> > What if people hold the contrary belief, that there are
> > significant numbers of other people who are stubbornly
> > irrational? It would seem that we might have a stable
> > outcome similar to what we actually see: people collecting
> > into subgroups with shared opinions, where they believe
> > other members of their group are rational (at least on this
> > issue!). However the existence of significant groups with
> > other opinions does not lead them to change their ideas
> > because they simply assume that the others are irrational.
> I cannot speak for others, but I certainly hold the latter
> belief myself--that the vast majority of humans on Earth
> are indeed stubbornly irrational, and that I am a better
> judge of facts than even the most educated ("education" as
> practiced today, after all, is merely indoctrination into
> the currently popular prejudices).
> Not only would that serve to stabilize disagreeing factions,
> but also the fact that there exists a vast cosmos of facts
> that are simply unknowable/untestable with present technology,
> for which reason--even perfect reason--simply cannot supply
> answers. Every discovery that answers a question creates 10
> more questions, so there is a vast universe of ignorance with
> only a few specks of knowledge that reason can verify. I see
> no reason why disagreement about facts in that great unknown
> should cause any discomfort to reasonable people.

How is can it be then, that I percieve a single unifying software concept? By visiting my webpage you are helping create enough critical mass to make my view a universal concept. Some in my field feel that such technology should only be used for rational leadership, but I disagree. Only by including the irrational can the hidden layers be exposed for the occult corruption that they are. Be warned: - this website is not for thin skinned economists.

Sorry to intrude on this thread in this way but you should understand my long field of perception in this area makes it very dificult at times for me to get across what I mean. At this website is the bud of the technology that you say doesn't exist. There is software you can download there to balance the individual hemispheres of both rational and irrational complete story worlds that can coexist in an ever elevating stasis. I believe Ingrid can toggle each of these components inside a feedback multilayed grid. Ingrid has already been demonstrated on this list in that short NSPIC debate on this list last year; - backed up here.

Ingrid is a rep-grid freeware offer to Kellian constructivists- who make inferences about meanings by looking at the relationship between constructs. Parallel Ingrid will not use a dendritic pruning method but will use Principle Component Analysis and will therefore be able to replay secret scenarios when that situation arises. This is radical constructivism at its finest.

FYI, I'm taking Ingrid into the field of Internet promotions to support the gossip dance party scene, here in Auckland NZ. Right now through the admiring support of local NZ agents, Playboy BMG, we are into our second sponsor's party and we are going after the 20-30yr female market. With the Playboy Online Live theme, we're seeing what happens when a woman to woman network, using an Ingrid projection, steps in to control the night scene. There's also a strange mix of Palm Pilot boyfriends, alcohol and a mock gangster party smokeasy.

"This is the new world of PLAYBOY produced, directed and starring women. Also starring as a woman, and to be included as a member of this group is a computer program that its author {me} claims is the essence of a woman's mind, a transhuman called Ingrid. to meet a personification of the mathematics of female intuition, lovingly called Ingrid, and you will meet her in an oasis of glamour filled with a wealth of entertainment."


> --
> Lee Daniel Crocker <> <>
> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and
> past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used
> for any purpose without permission, attribution, or notification."