<BJKlein> Thanks for joining us, Philip. What in your life brought you to focus on Life Extension?
<Philip> Actually, I am not quite focused on Life Extension...
<Philip> My focus is more on facilitating emerging technologies towards transvergence.
<BJKlein> can you define trasvergence?
<Philip> But Life Extension does loom large in my priorities, inevitably.
<Eliezer> Hypothesis: He clicked on the link, it opened in his browser and cut off the applet.
<BJKlein> could be
<BJKlein> the java chat had a tricky 'disconnect' button
<BJKlein> had=has
*** Joins: Philip (~Philip@cpe-66-91-179-53.hawaii.rr.com)
<BJKlein> welcome back..
<Philip> :-)
<John_Ventureville> you can't keep a good man down
<Philip> Seems I cannt copy and paste any text withut being kicked out....
<BJKlein> hmm, the troubles with the java chat interface..
<BJKlein> sorry
<Philip> OK, we'll manage.
<Philip> So...
<BJKlein> there are more reliable methods for future reference
<BJKlein> can you define trasvergence?
<hkhenson> wassail
<BJKlein> last question
<Philip> Transvergence combines transcension and (accelerating) convergence of technologies.
<BJKlein> can you define further?
*** Joins: Lazlo (~Lazlo@ool-182c9f9d.dyn.optonline.net)
<John_Ventureville> hello, Keith
<Philip> The accelerating convergence of NBIC technologies, in particular... which justify some hopes for enabling us to achieve transcenscion of our biologically limited human condition.
<Philip> It's not my term, actually. Google one it and you'll find prior usage.
<BJKlein> ah, k.. would you thus subscribe to Venge's Singularity idea?
<Philip> By and large, yes.
<BJKlein> so, you see LE as a byproduct of this transvergance goal?
<Philip> I think and sense we're headed for unusually interesting times -in the sense of the Chinese curse- in the decades ahead.
<Philip> As a component of it.
<BJKlein> so, if you were to die.. that'd be the end?
<BJKlein> for you?
<Philip> It would be the end of my biological life if I don't go for cryogenic suspension or transfer my sentience to another subtrate, yes.
<BJKlein> are you going for cryonics?
<hkhenson> when this is over, google for "interesting times" henson russell delong to find the origin of the "curse"
<Philip> I think cryogenic suspension is the second worst thing... after Death.
<John_Ventureville> lol
<Philip> I hope that I will be able to avoid having to go through that cold sleep.
<hkhenson> :-)
<John_Ventureville> Philip, does death scare you?
<BJKlein> why is death the worst thing?
<Philip> No, Death as it is to date irritates and frustrates and motivates me.
<hkhenson> besides, death is boring.
<John_Ventureville> lol
<Philip> It's the worst compared to cryogneics.
<hkhenson> cryonics
<Philip> But cryogenic suspension is no party either.
<John_Ventureville> ahh, but death can be very theatrical and makes for good storytelling if done right
<John_Ventureville> I'm signed up with Alcor
<hkhenson> same here
<Philip> Cryonics indeed.
<BJKlein> Philip, would you say that Death = Oblivion?
<hkhenson> helped freeze 18 of those Alcor has in suspension
<Philip> Sure, but I'll take uneventful longevity over a deathe with panache any day.
<BJKlein> heh
<John_Ventureville> what can I say, I'm a romantic at heart!
<John_Ventureville> lol
<BJKlein> Leon Kass says "Immortals can not be noble"
<Philip> I don't see why not...
<John_Ventureville> he obviously never saw an episode of "Highlander"
<John_Ventureville> ; )
<Philip> The scientifically accurate answer to your question about Death = Oblivion is "I don't know."
<BJKlein> Kass implies perhaps that Immortals are selfish
<Eliezer> logical fallacy of generalization from fictional evidence
<hkhenson> that's true
<Eliezer> (to John)
<John_Ventureville> LOL
<Philip> I think it is not necessarily impossible that there might be something beyond biological death that is more than benighted oblivion.
<BJKlein> sure.. but would you bet your life on it?
<hkhenson> there was a woman at the SF con in glasgow in 1995 who said people signed up for cryonics would not be adventurous
<John_Ventureville> but until we know for sure, get signed up with Alcor!
<John_Ventureville> that's how I look at it
<Philip> I think there is a whole lot of well-understood self-interest in transhumanism. And I think that's OK. At least we are not hypocritical about it.
<John_Ventureville> Keith, there might be a grain of truth in what that woman said
<hkhenson> she said this at a pannel. The previous night I had been helping with the fireworks and was 20 feet from a morter that blew up
<John_Ventureville> ouch
<hkhenson> you can always use me as a counter example. :-)
<hkhenson> considering my hobbies . . . .
<Philip> Until we actually have Indefinite Longevity, there's a lot ot say for being cautious and risk-averse.
<John_Ventureville> yes
<Philip> I for one don't go for adrenaline-rush sports or experiences.
<BJKlein> Philip, do you do things differently from most in your life in order to live longer?
<hkhenson> I am, but that does not prevent me from doing things that need to be done
<Philip> I excercise, I try to limit caloric intake, I take food supplements....
<hkhenson> such as surgery on HIV patients for cryonic perfusion
<John_Ventureville> I can envision a society with indefinite lifespan having quite a few "extreme risk-takers" who get a thrill out of their behavior at a level greater than those today because they potentially have so much more to lose if things go terribly wrong
<Philip> And I try to read a lot about various methods of life extension, the latest research results etc.
<BJKlein> perhaps, john, there are people like that already.
<John_Ventureville> yes, but they are not risking 100,000 years or more of potential lifespan should they splatter onto the ground after a long drop
<John_Ventureville> ; )
<Philip> I will start embracing physically risky adrenaline-rush activities only after I can safely back myself up... just in case.
<hkhenson> we have lost people who were doing risky things, one in the WTC and the guy who was killed by bandits in africa
<BJKlein> Philip, what's your feel on AI and smarter than human..
<John_Ventureville> Keith, right
<John_Ventureville> cryonicists are not wimpy cowards
<Eliezer> Philip, I see two sides to the word "transvergence". On the down side, it's a very vague word, so it doesn't tell you what kind of transvergence, what to do about it, or whether it's likely to come out okay.
<Eliezer> On the up side, it's a very vague word so it's more probable.
<hkhenson> heh heh.
<John_Ventureville> in fact, it takes courage to sign up for cryonics, and I believe a downright adventurous spirit
<Philip> We already have machines which can do things which -within limited constraints- make them do things that are arguably smarter than what we can do.
<Eliezer> The larger the size of the possibility space an event can describe, the more probable the event.
*** Joins: gustavo (~gustavo@pool-138-88-172-125.res.east.verizon.net)
<Philip> Yes, it's hard for a single word to be extremely definite. "transhumanism is arguably even more vague than transvergence.
<hkhenson> philip, do you often get people who bitch about the world filling up without death?
<Eliezer> However, in my experience so far, to describe how something works in an interesting way, you need to narrow it down quite a bit more. It's part of the dilemma of rationality; you have to be specific to be useful, but every fact you specify decreases the probability.
<Philip> I like 'transvergence' as an additional word to have in one's quiver in order to discuss TH issues. It ads more variety to the vocabulary.
<hkhenson> bb in 10-20
<Philip> The word transvergence as I use it has no ambitions towards assisting in that debate.
<Philip> I use it as a close synonym to transhumanism.
*** Joins: ct (~ct@c-67-171-36-123.client.comcast.net)
<Philip> Yes, I do get people who mention the perceived overpopulation problem.
<BJKlein> Philip, do you see a time when AI supplants humans because of accelerating intellignece?
*** Joins: TimFreeman (~tim@fungible.com)
<Philip> My stock answer to them is that MNT and other technologies stand a very good chance to help us deal with what we currently perceive as a potential big problem.
<Philip> I hope I will turn out to be right on that one...
*** Joins: gustavo (~gustavo@pool-138-88-172-125.res.east.verizon.net)
<Philip> I hope and believe that super-human AI will take the form, initially, as a neo-neo-cortex.
<Philip> So that it really becomes an extension of people. A superset of human brains.
<ddhewitt> Demographics trends are already stabilizing so the growth will actually plateau this century. The question becomes what is the Earth's carrying capacity with our technology at that time. Sustainable carrying capacity, I guess.
<BJKlein> explain neo-neo-cortex
<Eliezer> "hope" and "believe" are two words that should never even appear in the same sentence, let alone right next to each other like that
<Philip> If I will be able to do anything about it, that's the way I would like to see it arise.
<John_Ventureville> Philip, could you give us a timeline of how you see nanotech developing over the next thirty years?
<BJKlein> check pm (red tab) above ddhewitt, thanks
<John_Ventureville> when will we see the first nano-assembler, etc.?
<Philip> I do that a lot though, Eliezer. The useage of such words shows to audiences that I don't have all the answers... and that I don't pretend to that.
<John_Ventureville> when will the world at large first say "wowza!!"
<Philip> It shows them that what I think is based on whatever "evidence" I have seen for such.
<Philip> Neo neo-cortex would be an additional layer to the human brain.
<Philip> One that we add to it ourselves, rather than evolution. It would be a direct intervention of humans on their own brains.
*** Joins: Natasha (~Natasha@dialup-4.230.138.127.Dial1.Houston1.Level3.net)
* BJKlein waves to Natasha
<Natasha> Hi everyone!
<Philip> Ah, the timeline question!
<John_Ventureville> howdy, Natasha
<Philip> Greetings Natasha. :-)
<John_Ventureville> yes, reveal to us your timeline projections, please
<Natasha> Please don't let me interrupt - smiles to John and Philip
<Philip> Here's what I tell audiences when I get the timeline question.
* Eliezer waves to Natasha
<Natasha> waves back
<Philip> First I remind them that the scientifically accurate answer to such a question is that "i don't know."
<Philip> I also tell them that I don't have a crystal ball.
<Philip> Then, I tell them that I did the next best thing.
<Philip> I asked people who might have a clue what they thought the timeline could be.
<Philip> I asked Eric Drexler, ralph Merkle and some other people.
<Philip> And then I combined their guesttimates.
<Philip> The good news is that with every passing year, I can tell people that we seem to be ahead of schedule.
<John_Ventureville> *ahead of schedule*
<John_Ventureville> sounds good to me
<Philip> The other news -which one can interpret how one wants- is that really powerful nanotech is probably not likley to hit online shelves for another two decades.
<Philip> Convergent assembly is probably for sometime around the mid 2020s
<John_Ventureville> that is roughly what I have already been told
<BJKlein> Viable AI or Nanotech.. which first?
<TimFreeman> What's the guess for whether we get AI through uploading first, or by ab initio engineering?
<Philip> Difficult question. Personally, I think that one will be a neck and neck race.
<Natasha> What ae your ideas on "healthy (infinite) longevity"?
<Philip> But in the end, I suspect we'll see nanotech helping out with giving that final big push in terms of porcessing power to make superhuman AI possible.
<Eliezer> if you hand a moderately creative AI researcher 10^25 ops/sec, I think that not even AI researchers are silly enough to go on failing - though I could be wrong
<Philip> I'm all for indefinite longevity (IL).
<Natasha> What about the "healthy" aspect of this quote?
<Philip> Healthy is most desirable.
<John_Ventureville> Philip, if I may ask, how old are you?
<Philip> I'll take crippled indefinite longevity too though.
<Philip> As long as we have good pain control.
<Eliezer> The most important thing is to keep people alive, by whatever means, until I finish my own job. That's how I would reply.
<Natasha> Do you do CR?
<Philip> I'll tell you how old I am, but let me first ask you to guess my age first.
<John_Ventureville> 37?
<Natasha> I guess you have the body of a 27 year old and the wisdom of a 55 year old
<Philip> Yes, those that wish to stay alive, indeed.
<Eliezer> However, keeping people's mind-states intact is more important than keeping them breathing. It's possible that you're much better off frozen than with Alzheimer's.
<Natasha> and the stamina of a 12 year old
<Philip> I hope I have the body of a 27-year old. My recent medical checks told me something like that.
<Natasha> Congrads.
<Eliezer> I would guess 37
<John_Ventureville> in chronological age?
<Philip> I will be 37 come September 15.
<John_Ventureville> I'm just slightly older than you
<Natasha> I'd rather be frozen than in the later years of Alzheimers
<Natasha> but not in the early years
<John_Ventureville> *I remember being much younger than everyone*
<Philip> Yes, I agree that if you have a brain-degenerative disease, one would do well to go under the ice in time before there is too much decay.
<Natasha> Especially if Nancy Reagan is pouring money into stem cell research
<Philip> There should be a law allowing preventive suicide and CR for such cases.
<John_Ventureville> Thomas Donaldson could tell you a story or two about not being allowed by big brother to stop the brain destroying disease by choosing "preventive" cryonics
<Philip> But I don't think we'll ever get such a law.
<Eliezer> It's a pity that this country would never accept the argument that we ought to freeze nursing-home patients to save 30% of the expenditures in the health care industry and prevent Medicare from going under, because it would actually *save their lives*, which is the important thing.
<Philip> Yes, it's a pity indeed.
<Philip> A few years I lost my father to prostate cancer.
<Philip> I proposed CR to him, and sadly enough he refused....
<Natasha> Good thinking Eli. This would be a very worthwhile piece
*** Joins: MaxMore (~MaxMore@cs6668150-102.austin.rr.com)
* BJKlein waves to MaxMore
<Eliezer> Natasha: It has no chance of being accepted, though, until cryonics has become accepted for other reasons.
<Philip> Unfortunately, we will have more of those before things really get better on that front.
<John_Ventureville> howdy, Max
<Eliezer> So I would argue that it would be wiser to hold off on making that argument.
<MaxMore> Hello all
<Philip> Greetings Max :-)
<Eliezer> However, the question does occur to me of whether a ship in international waters could perform voluntary suspensions.
<MaxMore> Howdy Philip
<Philip> Good question. Who can find out the answer to that one?
<MaxMore> The water had better be very steady...
<John_Ventureville> regarding public attitudes about cryonics, I can say that the rural inhabitants of the part of Arizona which I live in are quite open-minded about it
<Natasha> :-)
<Philip> We could also set up a sovereign seastead for preventive CR etc. But we have but limited resources....
<MaxMore> The answer might lie in the Extropy list archives, since there was
<Natasha> What is that organization for people over 54 which is an American
<MaxMore> a LOT of "free oceania" discussion
<Natasha> organization about health and public policy
<BJKlein> Philip, what's your feel for creating a documentary with a focus on life extension...
<Philip> That's great.... for that little path of this planet....
<Eliezer> The thing that gets me is that they spend all the money to keep the patients alive just one more day, with their brains slowly disintegrating, and then they *do* die, inevitably. Maybe someone should write that piece. Cryonics has to be a better answer than that.
<Philip> I'm all for it.
<Natasha> AARP - (thanks Max for shouting it down the hallway)
<Natasha> Eli - AARP would be excellent for the article
<BJKlein> great... seems you have experience from E-spaces
<Philip> Such a documentary could be avary valuable tool for cautious yet effective memetic engineering.
<Natasha> Who can write this? Ron Bailey?
*** Joins: cionmuag (~cionmuag@209.48.4.105)
<Philip> Well, even though I have written some draft documentary concepts, I have yet to direct on myself. With E-spaces, I assist(ed) some documentaries with 3D animations and such.
<Natasha> P - How is E-Spaces doing?
<Eliezer> Natasha, you really think that'd be a good idea? (Max: The topic is writing an article that advocates voluntary suspension as an alternative to very expensive and painful final years of life after which you die forever anyway.)
<Natasha> And what are your current projects?
<Philip> E-spaces is alive. Which is an achievement in itself.
<Natasha> Eli - Yes, I certainly do. AARP interviewed Max and it was farreaching
<Philip> Still licking wounds from the dot.com crash though. It's brutal out there.
<John_Ventureville> when we applied for permission to open our restaurant, a woman became vocal about her concerns that we be "freezing people in the basement while we were cooking food upstairs in the kitchen!" But fortunately, the other city/counsel officials did not take her concerns seriously, though they know Dave used used to be an Alcor Vice-president.
<MaxMore> Thanks, Eli. Excellent topic, tremendously tricky to write.
<Natasha> What is your clientel?
<Philip> Current projects include an multi-user online world for educators subsidized by the EU.
<Philip> Some minor virtual worlds projects.
<Philip> And quite a projects involving 3D animation for TV and HDTV.
<Natasha> I just pitched a talk for the TED Conference. If I get it we will be in business
<Philip> Business, government, educational world.
<Philip> Glad to hear that!
<Natasha> We would design a virtual world for Primo and I'd want you to do it with me
<Philip> I would be most honored to do so. I am sure we'd fork some great lightning together.
<Natasha> By the way, if you could get a handle on the "game" industry
<Philip> I have ample experience with that.
<Natasha> and its presence in education, you would have a great edge
<Philip> See www.mobile-spaces.com, for instance.
<Natasha> on next step visualizations
<Philip> Which is/was a play at shoehorning ourselves into the cell-phone game market.
<Natasha> Talk with Jeannie Novak in Santa Monica - she is brilliant
<Philip> I will, please introduce me.
<Natasha> BJ - where are the faces and other symbols and color ?
<Philip> I have attempted multiple times to get a game funded etc. Not easy though, even if you have relevant experience.
<BJKlein> ah.. for the chat room?
<Natasha> yes
<Philip> e-spaces is really specialized in multi-user online virtual worlds.
<BJKlein> sorry, not here
<Natasha> I'm feeling very black and white :-(
<Philip> Without using proprietary technology.....
<BJKlein> only barebones ;(
<Philip> Did I miss any questions?
<BJKlein> dont think so..
<Philip> :-)
<Natasha> What are your current projects? What is Foresight doing?
<BJKlein> so you're back to CA soon, Philip?
<Philip> Yes, returning to LA Sept 10.
<Philip> My largest project at this moment is a new start-up.
<Natasha> A dot.org?
<Natasha> :-)
<Philip> I found a way to apply Augmented reality to security surveillance for terrorism-sensitive infrastructure.
<Natasha> WOW!
<Natasha> So you will joining Harvey Newstrom working for the government
<Philip> The newco has been incorprated as a California C-Corp.
<Natasha> doing security?
<Philip> Named "Panoptic Systems, Inc."
<Natasha> What is a c-corp?
<Philip> It's a form of incorpration.
<Philip> If a company is called an "inc." it's a c-corporation.
<Philip> Other forms include LLC etc.
<Natasha> Well let's toast the dot.c-corp doing better than dot.coms!
<Philip> In the US, that is.
<Philip> <grin>
<Natasha> How is Elena?
<BJKlein> wife?
<Philip> So it basically applies about 12 years of experience of mine in virtual reality and augmented reality to a currently very lucrative emerging market.
<Philip> Elena is doing great. She's watching over my shoulder right now. :-)
<Natasha> waves!
<BJKlein> Thanks for allowing Philip to join us, Elena!
<Natasha> Come back to Austin - I miss seeing you dance
<Philip> [Elena giggles]
<BJKlein> I take it Philip/Elena used to live in Austin?
<Philip> Well, it turns out that one of the potential lead investors would have us set up shop in Austin, as this is his home base and he has avilable facilities there. I would not mind.
<Natasha> Philip - just a comment I trust is not off topic,
<Natasha> your writtings on the TransColloquium were excellent
* Eliezer nods - I didn't post to TC, but I read your posts.
<Philip> Thank you, Natasha. Thank you for inviting me to moderate the very first installment of this most needed forum.
<BJKlein> as chat is now officially ended.. any topic is ON topic
<MaxMore> Philip -- do you think the demand for security surveillance will hold up? I suspect that it might drop as few people actually die at the hands of terrorists. (Of course that's only part of the market.)
<Philip> And my hat of to you once more for taking that initiative.
<Philip> Yes, it will subside to some extent.... but not if Bush gets re-elected.
<Philip> Even so, I am not hoping for the latter. ;-)
<MaxMore> BTW, if you didn't see it, there an excellent article in Tech Review
<MaxMore> "Can Sensemaking Keep Us Safe?"
<Philip> Bush getting re-elected would be great for the business of this newco... alas.
<MaxMore> Feb 2003 issue by Mitchell Waldrop
<Eliezer> Max, demand is not determined by need, but by perceived need. When you ask people to estimate the seriousness of threats, there are two good predictors, (a) the number of people who die in any given event and (b) the number of media stories about the event.
<Philip> Thank you for the reference. I will look it up.
<MaxMore> Eli -- indeed. But in the UK, and perhaps even here, the perception is growing that the threat is overrated.
<Eliezer> People worry more about plane crashes than car crashes because plane crashes kill more people and plane crashes are reported more.
<Philip> But the solution I came up with is really brodaly applicable to any security surveillance situation.
<MaxMore> In the UK, I hear, most people yawn at the latest alert.
<MaxMore> Certainly the general demand for security surv. should hold up well.
<Eliezer> Yeah, but commercially, the question is the budget for terrorism prevention of the person buying security cameras.
<Philip> We obviously focus on homeland security because the US government is throwing around billions in that segment right now.
<John_Ventureville> Philip, will you get a healthy share in the profits of this new security technology venture?
<MaxMore> My review of that TR article is here:
http://www.manyworld...CO2140317265153<John_Ventureville> *we need more transhumanist millionaires!*
<John_Ventureville> : )
<Philip> Yes, I and my partner will together keep a minimum of 51%.
<Philip> Interesting comment.
<John_Ventureville> I'm impressed
<Philip> I certainly strive to become as affluent as possible, because I anticipate -among other monetary needs- that early on it will take a lot of $ to get life-extending treatments etc.
<John_Ventureville> just remember to make healthy donations to the Extropy Institute and Alcor when you are "rolling in dough!"
<John_Ventureville> Philip, I agree
<Philip> The other reason of course is that money is leverage. If you have a lot of it, you can make more of a difference towards making things go a certain way rather than other ways.
<John_Ventureville> first generation anti-aging treatments (of the kind that really make a difference) may be very expensive
<Philip> Correction: money *can* be leverage.... if judiciously applied
<hkhenson> few do so thought
<hkhenson> though
<Philip> Yep.
<Eliezer> If you asked me to project, right now, the way things will go, I think my main-line projection would be that this will be settled suddenly and decisively in one AI research team's basement before there are any expensive, workable life-extension treatments
<Philip> As an entrepreneur, I still make mistakes.... But at least I try not to repeat them.
<hkhenson> there are two people in alcor, one worht at least 200 million and the other 2 billion
<John_Ventureville> when Alcor last had their standby training course here, a family of Canadian billionaires sent their doctors here to get certified
<Philip> And one needs to make mistakes in order to really learn.
<hkhenson> they help fund things but at a very low level
<Philip> Better than nothing....
<Philip> I suspect things will start to improve on this point over the next decade.
<BJKlein> can we make a mistake in creating smarter-than-human intelligence?
<Philip> More and more really wealthy people will be starting to feel the pinch of aging....
<John_Ventureville> I find it ironic that men like Aubrey deGray go begging for the funds to try to break the bands of aging, when right within our ranks their are those who could easily fund him
<Philip> And will be more easily inclined to be generous towards efforts that may hep them eke more years out of their existence.
<ddhewitt> Ironic or tragic, John?
<John_Ventureville> BOTH
<Philip> Time is working in our favor on this point.
<hkhenson> humans are not wired up to make rational decisions in such matters john
<Philip> A good example is Jose Salgado.
<John_Ventureville> who is that?
<Eliezer> Since at least some billionaires got that way by being smart, and you only need one true visionary, I will not reply, as I usually do, that you far overestimate rationality. But unfortunately, they got to be billionaires by being smart when they were young.
<Philip> He is becoming ever more active in his Project Life, by sheer pressure from his aging body.
<Philip> He started and runs Project Life
<John_Ventureville> ok
<hkhenson> since all topics are open, eliezer, did you know you are mentioned in Nano, the sf thriller book?
<MaxMore> John -- Jose is a wonderfully warm fellow from Venez.,living in LA. Runs a subtitling business when not thinking about Project Life.
<Philip> So I think the pressure of aging will increasingly make activists as well as wealthy people get very serious about tackling the problem.
<Natasha> Jose Salgado is a truely honorable person.
<Philip> especially now that real solutions and breaktrhoughs get ever more tantalizingly close.
<Natasha> Oops gotta go. Many thanks!
<BJKlein> take care, Natasha
<Natasha> U 2
<Philip> There already is the example of Larry Ellison funding an anti-aging clinic.
<John_Ventureville> so perhaps in another 10-20 years we will see a number of super-wealthy people "catch fire" with the notion that they don't want to die and that they should fund "to the gills" anti-aging research?
<John_Ventureville> bye, Natasha!
<Philip> Be well, Natasha!
<Eliezer> Henson: Where, when, how?
<hkhenson> just a sec, will get book
<Philip> I think and hope this will happen sooner.
<Philip> More like in the next 5 to 10 years.
<Philip> Start happening sooner, that is.
<Eliezer> Henson: The Front Matter acknowledement, or elsewhere in the book?
<Philip> As a wave, this development has already startin rearing its head.
<hkhenson> Second page of the acknowledgements eliezer
<Philip> Jose Salgado and Larry Ellison are laready two data points.
<Philip> laready = already
<hkhenson> drexler gets mentioned in the book
<hkhenson> have you seen it yet?
<John_Ventureville> Philip, as men in our late thirties, do you think we will be able to "ride the wave" and live to see the technology needed to provide indefinite lifespan?
<Philip> I can't know that for sure. I do hope so.
<Philip> I think we stand a pretty good chance.
<Eliezer> Henson: No, haven't seen it. I just searched on Amazon. Is my name spelled "Yudlowsky", or is that just a scanning error by Amazon?
<hkhenson> nope spelled that way
<Philip> I think the age group for whom it's gonna be more dicey are th 50-yera olds.
<Philip> year = year
<hkhenson> the book is good from the action standpoint
<hkhenson> but the science really sucks.
<BJKlein> would be nice to interview Larry Ellison for the ImmInst film
<Philip> For them, it will make a great difference whether or not they excercise now and tkae great care of their body and mind already right now.
<BJKlein> may have Michael Shermer (Skeptic.com)
<Philip> 40 year olds had better do it to already.
<hkhenson> hmm
<BJKlein> also may have William Hurlbut
<hkhenson> philip, my dad lived to be 30 years older than I am now.
<Philip> 30 year olds... might scrape through even if they are a bit sloppy about things. But obviously it will be to their advantage if they too take care.
<Philip> 20 year olds should take care about not dying from stupid accidents
<Eliezer> I'd guess the whole thing to be settled one way or the other by 2030.
<Eliezer> And quite possibly 2010-2015.
<hkhenson> :-) sixty years olds better be signed up for cryonics
<Philip> In any case, by that time we will know a lot more about our chances and what we are in for.
<Philip> John Smart reckons it will be more in the 2060s... We'll see.
<BJKlein> let's play it safe.. and keep keith away from the fireworks
<Eliezer> 2060 is a projection I simply don't understand.
<ddhewitt> Let us not complacent or it might not happen at all.
<Philip> What I do know is that if we want to live indefinitely, we probablyhad better actively do something about this ourselves to.
<Philip> Like getting rich quick and fund our own longevity research.
<Philip> Which is why I am inclined to help Project Life, for instance.
<ddhewitt> That sounds like a plan. I will get right on that.
<BJKlein> heh
<Philip> I also try to help David Kekich in any way I can.
<hkhenson> speaking of such things, know anyone in europe who needs a hardware engineer?
<John_Ventureville> "Get "rich quick" through extensive education and years of hard work!!"
<John_Ventureville> : )
<BJKlein> Philip, will you be at David's meeting Sept?
<Philip> quick means within 5 to 10 years or faster..... That's quite feasible.
<Philip> Yes, I will be :-)
<BJKlein> great
* Eliezer says to John_Ventureville: "I'm putting that line in my quotes file. Is it original?"
<John_Ventureville> Eliezer, yes
<hkhenson> A Theoretical Understanding By H. Keith Henson
<hkhenson> and Arel Lucas The March '89 Cryonics carried Dave Kekich's article "A ...
<John_Ventureville> thank you
<hkhenson> this kekich?
<Philip> Don't bank too much on the education part. More often than not, it prevents you from getting rich swiftly.
<BJKlein> Philip.. you have more suggestions for who to interview for the ImmInst film?
<BJKlein>
http://www.imminst.org/film<Philip> Yes.
<Philip> I think we need celebrity power.
<John_Ventureville> I was always told education would almost always pay off in the end
<BJKlein> no answer from kurz or minsky yet
<Philip> Try to interview Madonna, for instance.
<John_Ventureville> wow
<BJKlein> hmm
<ddhewitt> Christopher Reeve?
<Philip> Or Sophia Loren.
<John_Ventureville> would she be up for it?
* BJKlein slumps
<John_Ventureville> *Madonna*
<BJKlein> i see the benefit..
<hkhenson> michael jackson too
<BJKlein> but for the next film, perhaps..
<Philip> You see... we have a natural alignment of goals with movie and other celebrities.
<John_Ventureville> NO!
<Eliezer> No... no, I don't think you want to interview Michael Jackson at this particular point...
<John_Ventureville> Not Jackson
<BJKlein> the first is to be more technical minded
<hkhenson> :-)
<Philip> Such celebrities have a vested and very financial interest in staying young and doing so for as long as possible.
<BJKlein> agree
<Philip> Look at how greeat Demi Moore came out the other end of her plastic surgery at 40.
*** Joins: Guest (~Guest@pool-68-162-49-95.nwrk.east.verizon.net)
<hkhenson> according to a rumor I once heard, he and elizabeth taylor visited the riverside facility when Alco r was still there
<John_Ventureville> how about Travolta or Cruise?
<John_Ventureville> ; )
<Philip> So we will see ever more such celebrities -who have money, BTW!!- become ever more interested in healthy life-extension.
<Philip> Sophia Loremn is a great example of a person continuing to look dashing for many many decades.
<Philip> This arguably also goes for Tina turner.
<Philip> Travolta and Cruise may muddy our waters with their Scientology association.
<Philip> Which is a pity. Travolta is a great technology afficionad and especially loves airplanes. He owns and flies his own 747.
<BJKlein> one celebrity i may consider for the first film is C.Reeve
<John_Ventureville> hey, how about Will Smith?
<John_Ventureville> I read in Wired that he is a big tech fanatic
<Philip> Yes, Will Smith is a good candidate.
<BJKlein> as he is serious about his work
<Eliezer> Many celebrities are famous (literally) for not understanding their own interests. They want to be young forever but this is best accomplished through crystals, not the evil death-force technology.
<John_Ventureville> ok, Will Smith is a real possibility
<John_Ventureville> Eliezer, I p.m.'d you
<Eliezer> If it were me, I would focus chiefly on rationality as the hopeful sign, because that's what it ends up boiling down to.
<Philip> If you put household-name level celbirities in your documentary, it will sell far more easily and you even may get it on some of the bigger TV networks.
<Eliezer> JV, yeah, I got it
<John_Ventureville> very good to hear
<BJKlein> that's true, Philip.. to which we will do such a film in the future
<Philip> Eliezer, you would be right about that if the world were filled with rational human beings. Sorry to dissapoint you on that, but it's not.
<ddhewitt> Good night, thanks for the chat.
<BJKlein> seya duane
<hkhenson> philip, 707
<Philip> OK, 707 :-)
<BJKlein> film title/series:
<BJKlein> Exploring Life Extension
<BJKlein> Part I - Regenerative Medicine
<BJKlein> Part II - Improving the Mind & Body
<BJKlein> Part III - Risk Management
<Eliezer> Philip: My point is that you would look for celebrities who were most likely to be rational, not celebrities who wanted to be young forever.
<hkhenson> hmm
*** Joins: John_Ventureville (~John_Vent@24-117-201-237.cpe.cableone.net)
<John_Ventureville> I'm back
<BJKlein> welcome
<hkhenson> eliezer, celebs are not particularly rational to start with and the process warps them even more
<Eliezer> Hence, Reeve good - chances with Madonna somewhat less so
<hkhenson> they are much like dope addices
<Philip> Here's the rationale which I think the attention-span deficient LCD audiences will warm to:
<hkhenson> addicts
<John_Ventureville> Reeve and Will Smith are both great possibilities
<Philip> 1) Big name celebiryt wants to stay young for as long as possible
<Eliezer> but that's not *positive* publicity... is it?
<Philip> 2) Big name celbrity is aware of, and endorsed technologies X Y and Z to achieve such
<Philip> 3) Big name celebrity applies such technologies to self with great results
<Philip> 4) Big name celebiryt invests own money heavily into one or more ventures developing these technologies
<Eliezer> You'd be playing directly into the hands of the "Longevity is selfish" folks. Remember, outside these narrow walls, people feel guilty about selfishness.
<Philip> I think we should not be hypocritical about the self-interest part of longevity.
<John_Ventureville> and Hollywood is often considered the most self-centered of places
<Philip> Better own up to it and put a good spin on it.
<Philip> Yes, and the masses look up to the stars and want to be just like them. The stars are role-models, guys....
<Philip> or at least lifestyle models
<John_Ventureville> on a bumpersticker "life is good and I want to many more years- support biotech research"
<Philip> "Life is great and I want lots more of it"
<Eliezer> Right. Lifestyle models and gossip entertainment. Others want to have the celebrity lifestyle but they also want a chance to sneer a bit and feel morally superior; I'd rather not play into that.
<John_Ventureville> "...support responsible biotech research"
<Philip> Not when the advantages cut so close to home/.
<John_Ventureville> hey, hold on here....
<Eliezer> Better to interview rabbis than celebrities - or make sure you sandwich the celebrities between rabbis.
<Philip> If we can find a pro-IL Rabbi, put them in, by all means.
<John_Ventureville> since we have already spoken about transhumanists "succeeding on their own laurels" by winning in the business arena, why not have transhumanists head off to Hollywood to become successful actors and directors??
<Philip> Let's find a pro-IL pope too, while we're at it.
* Eliezer shakes his head
<John_Ventureville> "Holy Fire"
<John_Ventureville> great book
<Eliezer> Rabbis are not like Christian priests. I would guesstimate around a 40% that any given rabbi would be in favor of healthspan extension.
<Philip> Yes, a couple high-profile succesful TH people would not harm us.
<hkhenson> John, there is a reason
<Eliezer> Higher as you got into the upper echelons of smarter rabbis.
<John_Ventureville> with a great passage about the "holy fire" elixir which caused an explosion of creativity and energy within the church
<Philip> But we can get virtually the same result by having some high-rpofile people find out that they actually ar TH but did not know this yet.
<John_Ventureville> like Will Smith?
<John_Ventureville> (but I believe he is a devout Christian in his own way)
<hkhenson> actors are people who are highly rewarded by attention
<Philip> I was not being saracastic about Rabbis, Eliezer. I do think it would be great to have pro-IL rabbis in there.
<Philip> Will Smith might be a candidate for such, indeed.
<John_Ventureville> you don't have to be Jewish to appreciate the wisdom and humor of a Rabbi
<John_Ventureville> Hollywood films have endeared them to the world population
<BJKlein> what are the best LE films thus far?
<BJKlein> Immortality On Ice?
<Philip> Did you notice Madonna very publicly embracing Kaballah recently. Well, it's causing a wave of other stars turning to it and it is invaluable positive promotion for Kaballah.
<John_Ventureville> not "Bicenntennial Man!"
<John_Ventureville> lol
<BJKlein> Vanilla Sky
<Philip> We should hope to have some high profile star of her caliber very publicly embrace TH.
<Eliezer> Okay. Maybe you have a point.
<John_Ventureville> "Late for Dinner"
<John_Ventureville> good film
<John_Ventureville> "Chiller"
<John_Ventureville> *just kidding"
<BJKlein> about Life Extension?
<John_Ventureville> BJ, have you ever seen "Late for Dinner"?
<BJKlein> no
<John_Ventureville> if not, rent it for a romantic stay at home night with Susan
<John_Ventureville> *she will like it*
<BJKlein> ahk
<John_Ventureville> involves cryonics
<Philip> There's a very funny CR movie in French.
<Philip> With Master comedian Louis De Funes.
<BJKlein> In 1962, two best friends take part in an experiment that allows them, 29 years later, to return to their hometown and families without having aged.
<Philip> I think it is called "Hybernatus". Hilarious.
<John_Ventureville> cool
<John_Ventureville> I had never heard of it
<John_Ventureville> the last French film I tried to watch I could not stand
<Philip> It's about a guy who got frozen in the arctic ice when he was totally pissed on booze... and they wake him up in France in the 60s or 70s.
<John_Ventureville> "The Triplets of Belville"
<BJKlein> i'm away now.. feel free to stay longer Philip.. and return any Sun night.
<BJKlein> great chat!
<John_Ventureville> BJ, take care
<Philip> Yeah, there are not that many really good French films. But thier comedies with De Funes and Bourville are masterpieces.
<John_Ventureville> one of the best chats in ages
<Philip> Thank you for having me, folks. It was a pleasure!
<John_Ventureville> it was our pleasure
<Philip> :-)
<John_Ventureville> : )
<Philip> If anyone has any further questions, I will be happy to field them....
<John_Ventureville> what is your educational background?
<John_Ventureville> *just curious*
<Philip> I have an MA in Communication.
<John_Ventureville> your undergraduate?
<Eliezer> What is your knowledge background?
<Philip> And a postgraduate degree in Media and information Science.
<John_Ventureville> interesting
<Philip> No, it's a Master's degree.
<John_Ventureville> how do you respond to American claims that western Europe is very stifled by red tape & socialistic tendancies?
<Philip> Knowledge background.... Not sure how to answer that one.
<Philip> I think that criticism has a lot of grounds to it.
<John_Ventureville> would you have tried to get your upcoming startup off the ground in Europe?
<Philip> One problem that the US has though -and I am speaking in sweeping generalities now- is that they still equate socialism with communism and that they perceive scoialism as necessarily bad and pernicious etc.
<Philip> No, but that's because of therivers of money on homeland security in the US at present.
<John_Ventureville> we do not have the same degree of "communal responsibility" you Europeans tend to have
<John_Ventureville> lol
<Philip> Generally, I do prefer the US for its climate which is more encouraging towards entrpreneurs.
<John_Ventureville> I think over here we tend much more toward "social darwinism"
<Philip> But I like to go back and forth. Europe has some great sides too. It's not perfect anywhere, so I mix and match.
<Eliezer> That reminds me. Philip, while I am against hypocrisy, it is possible to advocate life extension for reasons of strict altruism. I am in favor of selfish people pouring money into life extension because it might save my grandparents.
<John_Ventureville> "if you poor young folks in the ghetto need a leg up in life, enlist in the army for skills-training and to get a chance to attend college!"
<Philip> Yes, the divide between the have's (and the "knows") and the have-not's (and know-nots) is muhc larger and sharper out here in the US.
<Eliezer> So this is an issue you can avoid, if you want to avoid it; just interview the strict altruists among you, and if another should challenge you for selfishness, reply that you know strict altruists who have vetted the endeavor.
<Philip> Eliezer, I did not suggest to present IL only as a well-understood selfish thing.
<John_Ventureville> Eliezer, are you signed up for cryonics yet?
<Philip> I certainly do think it is also altruistic. I for one want it to save loved ones too.
<John_Ventureville> You are young, but accidents and disease could still strike you down
<Philip> I think self-interest and altruism are not mutually exclusive at all.
<Eliezer> John: Nope, I still think the money has more altruistic leverage if I spend it on my research.
<John_Ventureville> too bad, sounds like you need more income
<Philip> We all need far more income.... <sigh>
<John_Ventureville> some much more than others
<Eliezer> Philip: I agree, they are not. I am pointing out that a *strict, absolute* altruist will be in favor of life extension research. This makes a fine reply to anyone accusing you of selfishness.
<Philip> Good point, that one. :-)
<Philip> But you assume that this altruist does not espouse religious beliefs which make him think that the best thing for his loved ones is to die a natural death as he himself will also want.
<Eliezer> The flaw in the attack is not that you are allowed to be a little selfish, but that you will invest even more money if you are altruistic (since you can save many more lives than just your own)
<Philip> True.
<John_Ventureville> Eliezer, if I had a magic wand I would have you inherit a few billion dollars tomorrow just so I could see how you would go about spending it
<Philip> I think one should put a good spin on the self-interest stuff only when another party accuses you of selfishness.
<Eliezer> Philip: Correct. Since you yourself do not share those religious beliefs, you are not acting selfishly. (Note that acting selfishly is a different matter from whether your motives for an altruistic action are selfish, altruistic, or mixed.)
<John_Ventureville> *I might have a good movie script in that idea*
<Philip> If that doesn' happen, then of course it is better to spotlight the altruistic aspects of IL.
<Eliezer> Philip, I think that we have to establish that investing money in life extension is both self-benefiting and other-benefiting. That you are willing to be open about your selfishness may have the disadvantage of overlooking the better moral defense.
<Philip> I think we agree.
<Eliezer> The answer, if someone should raise the question, is not "It's okay to be selfish" but "I am agnostic about whether you invest in LE to save your own life or to save the lives or others, just so long as you do it."
<Philip> As I said, I will only nonh-yporcitally discuss the well-foundedness of some self-interest when attacked.
<Eliezer> Yeah. I do understand that you are constrained in what arguments you can offer by your own beliefs - there are arguments that would be hypocritical for me but not you and vice versa.
<Philip> Depending on the audience, that would be a good wya to spin things too, yes.
<Eliezer> But if an altruist in the audience should ask, is it hypocritical to give them my reply and attribute it to an altruist of your acquaintance? I think it's only hypocrisy if you yourself, not being a strict altruist, try to argue it from a strict altruistic viewpoint. I can do it, and I think you can ethically quote me on it.
<Philip> If attacked though, I will try to gently, kindly, non-confrontationally try to point out that a lot of Christian and ither altruism arguably is hypocritical.
<Eliezer> Eek! Why step into that mudhole?
<Philip> I don't believe there is such a thing as strict altruism or strict selfishness.
<Eliezer> A *non-hypocritical* altruist will be interested in saving lives by funding LE. Why attack altruism itself?
<Philip> I would not be doing such.
<Philip> I would be pointing out that what looks like altruism hides some selfishness and vice-versa,
<Philip> Very Ying-Yang.
<Eliezer> Yeah, but we strict altruists might react badly to that.
<Philip> better than "hides" would be "includes" or "comprises"
<Eliezer> For myself, I will permit myself to be selfish iff I think that will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number.
<Philip> If I burst the bubble of people who think they are strict-altruists, so be it. I believe I would be doing them a favor.
<Philip> You are a beatiful selfishly altruistic and altruistically selfish human being, Elizer. :-)
<John_Ventureville> isn't the past history of technological/social advancement a prime example of what you both are trying to do?
<Eliezer> We are not always defined by what we feel, or what evolution bred us to be. Sometimes we can be defined by what we choose. I choose to be a strict altruist until my work is done.
<Philip> Your work and stance is commendable, Eliezer.
<Eliezer> It wouldn't work if everyone tried it, mind you. There wouldn't be anyone to be altruistic *for*. But I think for sufficiently extreme cases, we can have an exception or two.
<Philip> And I suspect it is necessary for you to be able to focus your considerable mental resources on the task at hand.
<Philip> Keep in mind that my task is far more on the memetic engineering side of things.
<NickHay> ok
<NickHay> (ignore that; wrong window)
<Eliezer> I know. That's why I'm advising you to say, "I am not a strict altruist, but I know a guy who is, and he said it shouldn't matter to a strict altruist whether I invest in LE to save my own life or to save the lives of others, just so long as I do it."
<Philip> :-))) OK, Eliezer, I will consider it.
<Eliezer> Rather than detouring to the Yin-Yang of selfishness thingy.
<Philip> we will have to agree to disagree on the latter though.
<Philip> You see...
<Philip> Take the example of Christians.
<Philip> They do a lot of things which are altruistic.
<John_Ventureville> Eliezer, this reminds me somewhat of something C.S. Lewis once wrote
<Eliezer> Well, agree to disagree on the philosophy, or on the wisdom of bringing it up in a 5-minute TV interview?
<Eliezer> We can agree to disagree on the philosophy, it's the pragmatic aspect that got me worried.
<John_Ventureville> "just do right, and don't worry so much about your motives"
<Philip> In a 5 min interview, I wouldn't touch any of this with a 5-foot pole. There is no bandwidth for it.
<Eliezer> Oh, I worry a lot about *my* motives. It's *Philip's* motives that a strict altruist shouldn't worry about.
<Philip> I am not sure I completely agree with CS Lewis on that point. I read quite ab it of his work and admire him for the execpetional christian apologist that he is, but stilll.
<Eliezer> I have to go in a minute, I'm afraid.
<John_Ventureville> Lewis was writing about those people with generally good hearts who would obsess about their motives
<Philip> Christian do understand that they are doing all these altruistic things for a deeper quid-pro-quo. They are busy earning their Heaven. Which is clearly self-interested.
<John_Ventureville> yes and no
<Philip> Most of them are not too hypocritical about that. So it is another thing with which we have common ground with them.
<Philip> In that case, he is right, of course.
<John_Ventureville> a truly committed & mature Christian goes beyond the "earning his place in Heaven" mindset to trying to do right simply because of the nature of his "redeemed" heart
<Philip> True too. But the quid-pro-quo never disappears. It is alwasy there in the back of their minds.
<John_Ventureville> true
<Philip> And it comes to the fore the more they approach death.
<John_Ventureville> definitely
<Eliezer> "Altruistic behavior: An act done without any intent for personal gain in any form. Altruism requires that there is no want for material, physical, spiritual, or egoistic gain."
<Eliezer> -- Glossary of Zen
<John_Ventureville> it's hard to get away from the egoistic gain!
<John_Ventureville> real hard
<Philip> Well, as far as that goes, I don't believe there can be such a thing as a pure intentional altruistic act.
<Philip> I think there can be such a thing as a pure non-intentional altruistic act.
<Philip> Fundamentally, we are all driven by selfpreservation and self-interest.
<John_Ventureville> and I think it's good that nature has most of us "feeling good" when we help another who needed our assistance
<John_Ventureville> and if they can help us down the road (even if highly unlikely) I don't see a problem with that
<John_Ventureville> the ole lion and the mouse story
<Eliezer> Philip, I think that's a common misconception. Psychologically it just isn't so. Humans have altruistic drives as well as selfish drives.
<Philip> And for Christians this self-preservation extends beyond Death. So they are capable of dying altruistically-looking Deaths.
<Eliezer> But atheists can also sacrifice their lives, Philip. Without hope of material, physical, spiritual, or egoistic reward. You can't feel the reward if you're dead.
<John_Ventureville> like the knight who dies protecting a small village from a large number of enemies who he knows will overpower him?
<Philip> When acts are acts of will, they invariably have some mix of altruism and self-interest.
<Eliezer> How does this apply to an atheist sacrificing his life?
<John_Ventureville> what does he get out of it? the immortality of a name immersed in valor?
<John_Ventureville> the increased glory and respect for his order or nation?
<Philip> An atheist can sacrifice his life for many self-interested reasons....
<Eliezer> Name one.
<John_Ventureville> protecting his children
<John_Ventureville> (his little immortality vehicles)
<Eliezer> That's not self-interest, that's highly focused altruism.
<Philip> His support of noble ideals which he wants to see further adhered to and developed.
<Eliezer> Sounds like altruism to me.
<Philip> His reputation beyond death... and its influence on others.
<Philip> As I mentioned, they are alwasy mixed, these two.
<John_Ventureville> I would say protecting one's children is definitely self-interest
<Eliezer> Mm, I suppose I'd grant that reputation beyond death is a selfish desire. So let us consider an atheist dying anonymously, and alone, without anyone ever knowing of the deed - in an explosion that wipes out a vial of dangerous virus, say.
<Philip> I think we cannot keep up the IL for purely altruistic reasons for very long....
<Philip> Not without being hypocritical.
<Eliezer> Hypocrisy is different things to different people, for we have, and choose, different motives.
<John_Ventureville> good point
<Eliezer> I am in the pleasant position of being able to argue your selfish interest in XYZ to anyone except myself, since, after all, I also want it to benefit you; isn't that what altruism is about?
<Philip> Eliezer, why do you seem to think that there is such great harm in conceding that we want IL for a mix of altruistic as well as self-interested reasons?
<Philip> It shows our humanity, for one thing.
<John_Ventureville> brb
<Philip> We should not claim to be perfect beings, capable of perfect altruism. We are not gods. At least not yet ;-)
<Eliezer> Philip, I have no problem with that. And I think I currently plan to go back to being mixed after my work is done, for the reason you name, that I am human. It's when people start claiming that there is no altruism or that you *can't* be a strict altruist that my hackles rise.
<Philip> Well, I agree that altruism exist.
<Eliezer> I dislike the argument that selfishness is inevitable because people may run into challenges that demand of them that they hit a higher level of competence, and that may include hitting a higher level of altruism than they would ordinarily be comfortable with.
<Philip> I also agree that it is possible that there are purely altruistic acts... but that would be a post-factum consideration. And the purity would be accidental, not intentional.
<Philip> Hmmm. That argument seems to assume that selfishness would prevent one from such.
<Philip> Only ignorant selfishness could od that, I think. Well-understood, intelligent self-interest can ahppily co-exist with altruism.
<Eliezer> On truly difficult problems, you have to aspire to be perfect because only intolerance of even tiny errors will let you move forward and make progress.
<Philip> I agree that one has to aspire to perfection... while being conscious of one's imperfection.
<Eliezer> The next step forward doesn't come with a big label that says "NEXT". It looks like some tiny issue that would be really inconvenient to deal with and would be much easier to sweep under the rug. Only a perfectionist would look at it more closely, and find it wasn't so tiny after all.
<Philip> I'm all for perfectionsim when it comes to such tasks. No argument whatsoever.
<Philip> perfectionism
<Philip> ;-)
<Eliezer> I'm sorry... but I really do have to go now.
<Philip> So am I.
<Philip> Thank you for a spirited dialog, Elizer.
<Philip> Eliezer.
<Eliezer> Cya.
<Philip> C U!
<Philip> I have a little bit more time...
<Philip> If anyone has any remaining questions or topics theywould like to see tabled.... Let's hear them!
<Philip> All right. A very good night to all! Be well & take care.
