I highly recommend the following Scientific American interview:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-power-of-introverts&WT.mc_i\
d=SA_CAT_MB_20120125

The book's author presents views about introverts and evidence for those views,
which I have held for most of my life, but which are contrary to what most
people in the current society appear to believe.

Likely her book is also worthwhile.

--Paul

[Excellent interview of author Susan Cain, who "explains the fallacy of
"groupwork," and points to research showing that it can reduce creativity and
productivity". Well worth reading since it provides information that ought to
benefit many individuals - introverts and extroverts alike in their thinking
about themselves and others. **Kitty]

Earlier today I made an upload to SelfSIP.org and MoreLife.org, the chief
purpose being for my new Focus on Freedom article, "Voting - Now and For a New
Social System?". It and all other Focus articles can be accessed via
http://selfsip.org/focus/

Additionally, the Preserving section's Practice now includes a link to and
encouragement of all to read the Alcor Forums, where I and Paul have been quite
active - I made 3 posts there myself today relevant to the subject of member
anonymity and also "The CAT Scan Project"

While making these updates, I also put the link for the SciAm interview of
author Susan Cain on introverts (that we recommended in msg 2358) on both the
Practice and Science Indexes for the Outlook section of MoreLife.

As always, all items can be reached from the MoreLife front page -
http://morelife.org - and let me know if you see anything that appears to be an
error.

**Kitty

I derived absolutely no pleasure from the creation of the newest Kitty Reflects
on MoreLife entry. Not only was it time-consuming (best part of 2 days) because
total accuracy is so vital for anything highly contentious, but it was also
emotionally distasteful in many respects. However, it needed doing - including
providing much email source information. As I emphasize near the conclusion:
"I will be doing this not as any sort of vindictive act (I *never* do such) but
rather as the logical consequence of your words, an act of social preferencing
that will demonstrate for others your present (and for the past ~8 years) level
of self-responsibility regarding your relationship with me."
Access via http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/

The addition of a "Comment Section" placed at the bottom of the Kitty Reflects
page referred to above is in line with the coincidental decision by me and Paul
to add this feature to the recent Focus on Freedom article on political voting,
which has now also been updated online and notation of that addition made to the
article listing. http://selfsip.org/focus/
A "Comment Section" will now be a feature of all newly created pages and will be
added to older pages as we get to them. Discussion is always still preferred at
MoreLife Yahoo since inline messaging is easier there, not necessitating html
coding by us. However, since MoreLife Yahoo appears not to be widely Internet
searchable (unless entering the domain in an advanced search:
health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/), this individual page Comment Section
method may elicit meaningful comments and make them more widely read.

**Kitty

I recently read an abstract, which had been posted to the newsgroup
sci.life-extension, which clearly showed just how bad d-ribose is for glycation,
particularly of brain proteins.

Full:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169629/?tool=pubmed

PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24623. Epub 2011 Sep 8.
D-ribose induces cellular protein glycation and impairs mouse spatial
cognition.
Han C, Lu Y, Wei Y, Liu Y, He R.
State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Institute of
Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.

BACKGROUND:
D-ribose, an important reducing monosaccharide, is highly active in
the glycation of proteins, and results in the rapid production of
advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in vitro. However, whether D-
ribose participates in glycation and leads to production of AGEs in
vivo still requires investigation.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:
Here we treated cultured cells and mice with D-ribose and D-glucose to
compare ribosylation and glucosylation for production of AGEs.
Treatment with D-ribose decreased cell viability and induced more AGE
accumulation in cells. C57BL/6J mice intraperitoneally injected with D-ribose
for 30 days showed high blood levels of glycated proteins and
AGEs. Administration of high doses D-ribose also accelerated AGE
formation in the mouse brain and induced impairment of spatial
learning and memory ability according to the performance in Morris
water maze test.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:
These data demonstrate that D-ribose but not D-glucose reacts rapidly
with proteins and produces significant amounts of AGEs in both
cultured cells and the mouse brain, leading to accumulation of AGEs
which may impair mouse spatial cognition.
PMID: 21966363

I then verified the highly glycative nature of d-ribose by reading the full text
of this paper (to see that the amounts they used were within the ballpark of
human consumption - they were!) and by reading several other papers about
d-ribose glycation.

While d-ribose has some value to aid cellular energy, particularly for those
with CVD problems, since neither I nor Kitty have any such problems and there
are plenty of other ways to prevent and ameliorate such problems, we immediately
ceased taking d-ribose. Even for those with CVD problems, I think that the
negatives of d-ribose far outweigh any positive and I strongly recommend to
everyone that they discontinue its use.

With respect to this issue, I wrote to LEF which has been selling d-ribose for
some time now as being beneficial without *any* mention of its major glycation
potential (worse than glucose and more like fructose which I have long
considered to be essentially poison). My discussion with Steven Joyal (LEF's
Science Director), began with his initial response similar to what I have said
for years "nothing is all good or all bad", but after a couple of exchanges,
ended with:

"Paul,

We appreciate your comments and desire to make our organization better.

I continually demand improvement from our staff, and I will use your comments as
a concrete example.

Thank you."

So hopefully, this exchange will lead to a change in LEF's product descriptions
so as to impartially state all the negatives as well as all the positives.

--Paul

This message is to notify anyone interested that there have been major online
discussions and analyses of the assertion of me and Kitty that the writer of any
message or the perpetrator of any action, by not clearly indicating his/her
identity, is having a highly negative effect with respect to the creation and
maintenance of a self-ordered society of full Liberty and maximum possible
Freedom - and therefore on the possible optimization of his/her own Lifetime
Happiness.

One of these occurred several years ago at the time that we began requiring full
identification of anyone posting on this group. The fist message in that thread
was: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1042

There have since been other related articles in the focus section of
SelfSIP.org: http://selfsip.org/focus/

And during the last few weeks (and ongoing, I expect) there has been more
discussion on the Alcor Forum: General under the thread name: Anonymity of Forum
Members and Cryonicists: http://www.alcor.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=60
Unfortunately, only Alcor registered users can post there (or see the hidden
Private Forum), but as always comments are welcome here from those meeting our
identification requirements, and, for this case only, from group members not
willing to be identified, as long as they have some reasoned comment on the
subject of anonymity.

--Paul

I think you both (Paul and Kitty) raised valid points in this discussion on
Alcor. It appears many of the users on there will be for anonymity. I've had
several conversations with anonymous users in chatrooms on the web before about
divorces or finding the right mate, and I usually bring up a point that maybe if
individuals were more open about their lives and where each person can access
background info and feedback on each other, people would make more sound
decisions in whom they choose for companionship. Also, a common theme with many
anonymous users on the web is to hide behind a pseudonym in order to disrespect
others or make the most absurd or derogatory comments, and to disappear from
obligations they had with others. I must admit...it took myself a while to be
more open about my identity on the web even after accepting the ID requirements
of the Morelife group and SelfSip ideas. The thing I feared was what companies
or family members may see that was atheistic and related to anarchy. I also
feared that strangers would use my identity in unauthorized ways. However, I've
grown out of that fear since I became confident and was able to have good
conversations about my stances with family members, friends, and strangers. As
for strangers using my identity without my permission, I would just have to fire
up some Social Preferencing.

As for the Alcor discussion again, two users (TDK and Southbay) there seem to be
trapped by the idea of privacy rights with anonymity and not seeing you can
still have private associations by being a member of a particular group or
website, yet still be open about your ID, views, and background for just that
group.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> This message is to notify anyone interested that there have been
> major online discussions and analyses of the assertion of me and
> Kitty that the writer of any message or the perpetrator of any
> action, by not clearly indicating his/her identity, is having a
> highly negative effect with respect to the creation and maintenance
> of a self-ordered society of full Liberty and maximum possible
> Freedom - and therefore on the possible optimization of his/her own
> Lifetime Happiness.
>
> One of these occurred several years ago at the time that we began
> requiring full identification of anyone posting on this group. The
> fist message in that thread was:
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1042
>
> There have since been other related articles in the focus section
> of SelfSIP.org: http://selfsip.org/focus/
>
> And during the last few weeks (and ongoing, I expect) there has
> been more discussion on the Alcor Forum: General under the thread
> name: Anonymity of Forum Members and Cryonicists:
> http://www.alcor.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=60 Unfortunately,
> only Alcor registered users can post there (or see the hidden
> Private Forum), but as always comments are welcome here from those
> meeting our identification requirements, and, for this case only,
> from group members not willing to be identified, as long as they
> have some reasoned comment on the subject of anonymity.
>
> --Paul

On 02/03/2012 06:51 PM, Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
> I think you both (Paul and Kitty) raised valid points in this
> discussion on Alcor. It appears many of the users on there will be
> for anonymity.

Most certainly, and I think more than in most situations. This is
particularly bad for a subject that most people do not understand and
think to be a somewhat kooky idea, but of course that is precisely why
so many cryonicists are afraid to put their names behind it. What they
forget is that historically all the radical new ideas which eventually
became accepted by the majority, only did so because their proponents
courageously put their reputations and sometimes even their lives on the
line.

[Think of the infant US with the Declaration of Independence - a *very* radical
idea at the time. Of course some of those same individuals resorted to
pseudonyms when it came to public discussion of the proposed Constitution on the
question of its replacement for the Articles of Confederacy. **Kitty]

> I've had several conversations with anonymous users in chatrooms on
> the web before about divorces or finding the right mate, and I
> usually bring up a point that maybe if individuals were more open
> about their lives and where each person can access background info
> and feedback on each other, people would make more sound decisions
> in whom they choose for companionship.

Excellent argument for non-anonymity, which Kitty just used in her
latest post on that Alcor Forums thread.

> Also, a common theme with many anonymous users on the web is to
> hide behind a pseudonym in order to disrespect others or make the
> most absurd or derogatory comments, and to disappear from obligations
> they had with others.

Absolutely true, and again used by Kitty in her recent post. If they
get kill-filed or banned from a venue they can then simply come back
again with a different pseudonym. They can even be there under two
different names setting each other up - I have experience with full
knowledge of some doing just that and reasonable suspicions of other
such happenings. Before I fully realized the harms of not being one
fully open person, my one time alter ego Tom Matthews sometimes
posted on the same group as Paul Wakfer, although I was always
careful never to play any games.

> I must admit...it took myself a while to be more open about my
> identity on the web even after accepting the ID requirements of the
> Morelife group and SelfSip ideas. The thing I feared was what
> companies or family members may see that was atheistic and related
> to anarchy. I also feared that strangers would use my identity in
> unauthorized ways. However, I've grown out of that fear since I
> became confident and was able to have good conversations about my
> stances with family members, friends, and strangers.

That's great to hear. Yes, I think that it should lead to even more
respect for your iconoclastic thinking and if it causes dislike from
someone, then do you really wish to continue to be associated with such
people - relatives or not?

> As for strangers using my identity without my permission, I would
> just have to fire up some Social Preferencing.

I already have described what happened to me and Kitty in this regard,
but except for possible government assault on us, it was merely a small
temporary nuisance. This lack of any major negative effect was precisely
because I had been posting fully openly identified and highly
beneficially on the group (sle), so that anyone there who had been
around for awhile knew this was an impostor and ignored him. There was
no way that he could imitate me and say anything that might appear to
come from me, while at the same time writing something quite opposite to my
known views.

> As for the Alcor discussion again, two users (TDK and Southbay)
> there seem to be trapped by the idea of privacy rights with anonymity
> and not seeing you can still have private associations by being a
> member of a particular group or website, yet still be open about
> your ID, views, and background for just that group.

That would be an intermediate stage, which at the least should be true
for the Alcor Forums (every member there should be able to determine the
full ID of every other member).  However, in the long run it is not good
enough for social order, which needs full identifying information
available to all members of society about every social action taken.

[It is also not beneficial to Alcor as an organization upon which members are
depending to be financially sound in the future, as I and Paul have written.
That is why I made the suggestion that an anonymity surcharge should be assessed
against those members who insist on anonymity. **Kitty]

--Paul

[Alton, I want to just add an aside that I remarked to Paul after reading your
comment that your writing is markedly more fluid than when you first started to
post here, to which he readily agreed :) **Kitty]

Meta
[For those who are unfamiliar with her, Jessie Neagle is a longtime member of
this group. She keeps us informed of her health, as she did with her late
husband Wes, who had suffered from Type 2 diabetes and its numerous disabilities
for many years before his death (description in the archives), even surviving on
renal dialysis for a very long time - likely due to his chemical regimen and
Jessie's care. **Kitty]
/meta

I had cataract surgery on my second eye on 2 February, which was
successful. I had general anaesthetic. because My opthalmologist did not
want the hazard of a direct injection, because of the lack of space
between parts of the eye. I am - or was- highly myopic.
The anaesthetist checked my heart and commented 'You do a fair bit of
exercise, do you?' which I took to mean everything there checked out OK.
I get a moderate amount of exercise.  Also, because my opthalmologist
described the back of my eyes as 'very bad' I decided months ago to take
every supplement I could find that was shown to benefit macular
degeneration (besides my prescribed BP medication).  There are many.
Probably these supplements also benefit other parts of the body.  I used
carnosine eyedrops for years, but obtained no noticeable benefit from
them.
There are some hazards with cataract surgery, which is why I postponed
surgery on the second eye, besides the fact that I would no longer be
able to read close up. I was told of a lady who could see nothing with
the operated eye after surgery. Her surgeon quoted her the 'one in
twenty' rule, which was not much comfort. Last I heard she was planning
to have the other eye operated on, despite advice by friends not to.
Had I thought about it at the time, I'd have offered her some carnosine
eyedrops.
When I awoke after the surgery, it was like looking through a thick fog,
although behind that fog was a focused image. This cleared by the end of
the next day.
When my niece rang the hospital to see how I was, she was told I was in
the cardiac ward.  She began to panic, till her nursing friends said
'Calm down, that may have been the only place they had to put her,'
which was true.
I discovered too late there are ocular implants that focus, although I
don't know whether they would have been suitable for me.  After
returning home, I tried in vain to read my mail. I found a pair of
glasses that I was prescribed when I had one intraocular lens and one
contact lens.  I was now able to read my mail.  Unfortunately, I put
them down somewhere and have yet to find them.  I got a pair of off the
shelf reading glasses, but they are a poor substitute.  I think the
prescribed pair assisted with astigmatism and coordinating both eyes.
So anyone having a second cataract operation, make sure you have some
help, even if only someone to read your mail.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 02/03/2012 06:51 PM, Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
> > I think you both (Paul and Kitty) raised valid points in this
> > discussion on Alcor. It appears many of the users on there will be
> > for anonymity.
>
> Most certainly, and I think more than in most situations. This is
> particularly bad for a subject that most people do not understand and
> think to be a somewhat kooky idea, but of course that is precisely why
> so many cryonicists are afraid to put their names behind it. What they
> forget is that historically all the radical new ideas which eventually
> became accepted by the majority, only did so because their proponents
> courageously put their reputations and sometimes even their lives on the
> line.
>
> [Think of the infant US with the Declaration of Independence - a
> *very* radical idea at the time. Of course some of those same
> individuals resorted to pseudonyms when it came to public discussion
> of the proposed Constitution on the question of its replacement for
> the Articles of Confederacy. **Kitty]

Instead of viewing radical to always mean something extreme or a drastic
political reform, people can also look into radical ideas going to the root or
origin of something/an underlying structure. The challenge is in the
presentation of these new ideas.

> > I've had several conversations with anonymous users in chatrooms on
> > the web before about divorces or finding the right mate, and I
> > usually bring up a point that maybe if individuals were more open
> > about their lives and where each person can access background info
> > and feedback on each other, people would make more sound decisions
> > in whom they choose for companionship.
>
> Excellent argument for non-anonymity, which Kitty just used in her
> latest post on that Alcor Forums thread.
>
> > Also, a common theme with many anonymous users on the web is to
> > hide behind a pseudonym in order to disrespect others or make the
> > most absurd or derogatory comments, and to disappear from obligations
> > they had with others.
>
> Absolutely true, and again used by Kitty in her recent post. If they
> get kill-filed or banned from a venue they can then simply come back
> again with a different pseudonym. They can even be there under two
> different names setting each other up - I have experience with full
> knowledge of some doing just that and reasonable suspicions of other
> such happenings.
>
> Before I fully realized the harms of not being one
> fully open person, my one time alter ego Tom Matthews sometimes
> posted on the same group as Paul Wakfer, although I was always
> careful never to play any games.
>
> > I must admit...it took myself a while to be more open about my
> > identity on the web even after accepting the ID requirements of the
> > Morelife group and SelfSip ideas. The thing I feared was what
> > companies or family members may see that was atheistic and related
> > to anarchy. I also feared that strangers would use my identity in
> > unauthorized ways. However, I've grown out of that fear since I
> > became confident and was able to have good conversations about my
> > stances with family members, friends, and strangers.
>
> That's great to hear. Yes, I think that it should lead to even more
> respect for your iconoclastic thinking and if it causes dislike from
> someone, then do you really wish to continue to be associated with such
> people - relatives or not?

Yes, this made me more mindful in who I choose to associate with. I also ended
up distancing myself from certain old friends.

> > As for strangers using my identity without my permission, I would
> > just have to fire up some Social Preferencing.
>
> I already have described what happened to me and Kitty in this regard,
> but except for possible government assault on us, it was merely a small
> temporary nuisance. This lack of any major negative effect was precisely
> because I had been posting fully openly identified and highly
> beneficially on the group (sle), so that anyone there who had been
> around for awhile knew this was an impostor and ignored him. There was
> no way that he could imitate me and say anything that might appear to
> come from me, while at the same time writing something quite opposite
> to my known views.
>
> > As for the Alcor discussion again, two users (TDK and Southbay)
> > there seem to be trapped by the idea of privacy rights with anonymity
> > and not seeing you can still have private associations by being a
> > member of a particular group or website, yet still be open about
> > your ID, views, and background for just that group.
>
> That would be an intermediate stage, which at the least should be true
> for the Alcor Forums (every member there should be able to determine the
> full ID of every other member).  However, in the long run it is not good
> enough for social order, which needs full identifying information
> available to all members of society about every social action taken.
>
> [It is also not beneficial to Alcor as an organization upon which
> members are depending to be financially sound in the future, as I
> and Paul have written. That is why I made the suggestion that an
> anonymity surcharge should be assessed against those members who
> insist on anonymity. **Kitty]
>
> --Paul

I agree on both points about social order in the long run and the anonymity
surcharge.

> [Alton, I want to just add an aside that I remarked to Paul after
> reading your comment that your writing is markedly more fluid than
> when you first started to post here, to which he readily agreed :)
> **Kitty]

Thanks. I was not that confident writing to the group when I first joined
compared to now. And both you and Paul's writing style made me take writing more
seriously even if it is not business or school related.

I read more of the Anonymity discussion on the Alcor forum and I noticed the
'southbay' user posted a link implying that you both (Paul and Kitty) were
arguing that people behave better under real names and with this study showing
that is  not true. But I know the actual argument by you two is with real
identities and openness, you show more credibility.
http://blog.disqus.com/post/15638234811/pseudonyms

But after reading the article, it wasn't about good behavior of Disqus users,
but that most contributing comments are made by pseudonym users on Disqus. And
if you look closely to their statistics and graphs, most of the negative or non
contributing comments are still made by both anonymous and pseudonym users which
would add up to 22% and real identity users only being 9%.

[I don't usually anymore comment about a message within the original, but in
order to fix an error, this time I need to. The graphs referred to above show
that:
1. 11% of the pseudonymous comments on Disqus are judged as negative.
2. 11% of the anonymous comments on Disqus are judged as negative.
3. 9% of the real name comments on Disqus are judged as negative.

Alton made an error in adding the two 11% because the total of comments from
which that percentage is taken is enormously different for each of the three
groups. --Paul]

Thanks for the correction. I forgot the ratio and percentage of negative
comments would be different even if I add the pseudonym and anonymous users
together as one group since pseudonyms are still unclear identities.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Alton Lindsay Jr." <junioreality@...> wrote:
>
> I read more of the Anonymity discussion on the Alcor forum and I
> noticed the 'southbay' user posted a link implying that you both
> (Paul and Kitty) were arguing that people behave better under real
> names and with this study showing that is  not true. But I know the
> actual argument by you two is with real identities and openness,
> you show more credibility.
> http://blog.disqus.com/post/15638234811/pseudonyms
>
> But after reading the article, it wasn't about good behavior of
> Disqus users, but that most contributing comments are made by
> pseudonym users on Disqus. And if you look closely to their statistics
> and graphs, most of the negative or non contributing comments are
> still made by both anonymous and pseudonym users which would add up
> to 22% and real identity users only being 9%.
>
> [I don't usually anymore comment about a message within the original,
> but in order to fix an error, this time I need to. The graphs referred
> to above show that:
> 1. 11% of the pseudonymous comments on Disqus are judged as negative.
> 2. 11% of the anonymous comments on Disqus are judged as negative.
> 3. 9% of the real name comments on Disqus are judged as negative.
>
> Alton made an error in adding the two 11% because the total of comments
> from which that percentage is taken is enormously different for each
> of the three groups. --Paul]

On 02/11/2012 12:12 PM, Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer<paul@...>  wrote:
>> On 02/03/2012 06:51 PM, Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
>>> I think you both (Paul and Kitty) raised valid points in this
>>> discussion on Alcor. It appears many of the users on there will be
>>> for anonymity.
>>
>> Most certainly, and I think more than in most situations. This is
>> particularly bad for a subject that most people do not understand and
>> think to be a somewhat kooky idea, but of course that is precisely why
>> so many cryonicists are afraid to put their names behind it. What they
>> forget is that historically all the radical new ideas which eventually
>> became accepted by the majority, only did so because their proponents
>> courageously put their reputations and sometimes even their lives on the
>> line.
>>
>> [Think of the infant US with the Declaration of Independence - a
>> *very* radical idea at the time. Of course some of those same
>> individuals resorted to pseudonyms when it came to public discussion
>> of the proposed Constitution on the question of its replacement for
>> the Articles of Confederacy. **Kitty]
>
> Instead of viewing radical to always mean something extreme or a
> drastic political reform, people can also look into radical ideas
> going to the root or origin of something/an underlying structure.
> The challenge is in the presentation of these new ideas.

That is an excellent point. The rational, foundational, responsible and
overall beneficial nature of one's uncommon ideas should always be
stressed and their uncommon nature ignored and/or downplayed since it is
essentially irrelevant to their validity.

[In reading Alton's comment and Paul's reply, my mind went immediately to a
couple of *very* radical ideas that resulted in an avalanche of ridicule because
they *were* so different. Those promoting the new idea of "germs" causing
disease may have been successful sooner if they hadn't been so reluctant to
publicize the evidence for their differences from colleagues. Semmelweis, the
acknowledged creator of the germ theory, is an excellent example:
http://www.experiment-resources.com/semmelweis-germ-theory.html **Kitty]

>>> I've had several conversations with anonymous users in chatrooms on
>>> the web before about divorces or finding the right mate, and I
>>> usually bring up a point that maybe if individuals were more open
>>> about their lives and where each person can access background info
>>> and feedback on each other, people would make more sound decisions
>>> in whom they choose for companionship.
>> Excellent argument for non-anonymity, which Kitty just used in her
>> latest post on that Alcor Forums thread.
>>
>>> Also, a common theme with many anonymous users on the web is to
>>> hide behind a pseudonym in order to disrespect others or make the
>>> most absurd or derogatory comments, and to disappear from obligations
>>> they had with others.
>>
>> Absolutely true, and again used by Kitty in her recent post. If they
>> get kill-filed or banned from a venue they can then simply come back
>> again with a different pseudonym. They can even be there under two
>> different names setting each other up - I have experience with full
>> knowledge of some doing just that and reasonable suspicions of other
>> such happenings.
>>
>> Before I fully realized the harms of not being one
>> fully open person, my one time alter ego Tom Matthews sometimes
>> posted on the same group as Paul Wakfer, although I was always
>> careful never to play any games.
>>
>>> I must admit...it took myself a while to be more open about my
>>> identity on the web even after accepting the ID requirements of the
>>> Morelife group and SelfSip ideas. The thing I feared was what
>>> companies or family members may see that was atheistic and related
>>> to anarchy. I also feared that strangers would use my identity in
>>> unauthorized ways. However, I've grown out of that fear since I
>>> became confident and was able to have good conversations about my
>>> stances with family members, friends, and strangers.
>> That's great to hear. Yes, I think that it should lead to even more
>> respect for your iconoclastic thinking and if it causes dislike from
>> someone, then do you really wish to continue to be associated with such
>> people - relatives or not?
>
> Yes, this made me more mindful in who I choose to associate with.
> I also ended up distancing myself from certain old friends.

Great! And pleased to see you express that to others.
I will be posting again at the Alcor Forum thread and again linking
to this thread.

>>> As for strangers using my identity without my permission, I would
>>> just have to fire up some Social Preferencing.
>>
>> I already have described what happened to me and Kitty in this regard,
>> but except for possible government assault on us, it was merely a small
>> temporary nuisance. This lack of any major negative effect was precisely
>> because I had been posting fully openly identified and highly
>> beneficially on the group (sle), so that anyone there who had been
>> around for awhile knew this was an impostor and ignored him. There was
>> no way that he could imitate me and say anything that might appear to
>> come from me, while at the same time writing something quite opposite
>> to my known views.
>>
>>> As for the Alcor discussion again, two users (TDK and Southbay)
>>> there seem to be trapped by the idea of privacy rights with anonymity
>>> and not seeing you can still have private associations by being a
>>> member of a particular group or website, yet still be open about
>>> your ID, views, and background for just that group.
>> That would be an intermediate stage, which at the least should be true
>> for the Alcor Forums (every member there should be able to determine the
>> full ID of every other member).  However, in the long run it is not good
>> enough for social order, which needs full identifying information
>> available to all members of society about every social action taken.
>>
>> [It is also not beneficial to Alcor as an organization upon which
>> members are depending to be financially sound in the future, as I
>> and Paul have written. That is why I made the suggestion that an
>> anonymity surcharge should be assessed against those members who
>> insist on anonymity. **Kitty]
>>
>> --Paul
>
> I agree on both points about social order in the long run and the
> anonymity surcharge.
>
>> [Alton, I want to just add an aside that I remarked to Paul after
>> reading your comment that your writing is markedly more fluid than
>> when you first started to post here, to which he readily agreed :)
>> **Kitty]
>
> Thanks. I was not that confident writing to the group when I first
> joined compared to now. And both you and Paul's writing style made
> me take writing more seriously even if it is not business or school
> related.

I and Kitty are both highly pleased that we have been of help to you
*and* that you have appreciated our style and our ideas.

--Paul

On 02/11/2012 12:59 PM, Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
> I read more of the Anonymity discussion on the Alcor forum and I
> noticed the 'southbay' user posted a link implying that you both
> (Paul and Kitty) were arguing that people behave better under real
> names and with this study showing that is not true. But I know the
> actual argument by you two is with real identities and openness,
> you show more credibility. http://blog.disqus.com/post/15638234811/pseudonyms

Yes, you have correctly described one major reason why I and Kitty wish
to see an end to pseudonymity and anonymity. The other major reasons are
that full identification and openness of a single identity for all
actions, is crucial for the effective socially ordering implementation
of both social preferencing (both negative and positive) and the
value-for-value method of exchange for all goods, services and other
social interactions.

I have now examined in detail the link above and here is my critique.
1. It is in no manner a "study" as that term is normally used for the
analysis of a data set by means of scientific methods and the
publication of such analysis in a peer reviewed publication.
2. The criteria for "real name" users of having linked their Facebook
identity to Disqus, does not correctly identify actual real name users.
Disqus users may be real name people not using Facebook (I do not),
may be real name people who were not using Facebook when first joining
Disqus or may still not be real name people because they did not use
a real name on Facebook (FB has no way to really check this out).
3. The positive "quality" of comments is related to the number of
times a comment is "liked" and "replied to", and the negative
"quality" is related with the number of times a comment is "flagged",
"marked as spam" or "deleted". But particularly with replies and
deletions, these actions may have little or no relationship with any
reasonable measure of quality, and no criteria is given for how these
numbers are used to generate a measure. These are all totally
subjective valuations by individuals and not any reasonable measure
of a reasonable definition of quality or non-quality - one man's spam
is another man's wisdom.

I fully agree with the writer of the Disqus article about the
reasonableness of someone being born with a certain name that s/he does
not like and which certainly does not in any manner relate to hir
personality and purpose in life or on a particular forum. However this
is still not a reason to be anonymous (which all pseudonymous posters
are if they do not also state their real name identity). I know many
fully identified individuals who use other names. A well known one is
Mike Darwin, who makes no secret that his birth, and still legal name
is Michael Federowicz. Another is Mark Plus, who, as I recall, legally
changed his birth name to that and who appears to adopt a user name on
each forum which is appropriate to his philosophy and purpose either
at the time or on that forum. Still another is Alcor CEO Max More,
(whose birth name is Max T. O'Connor). I have no problem with any of
these adoptions, as long as the person involved makes it clear that
all akas are the same person as s/he (as I did with my personal entry
at MoreLife.org: http://morelife.org/personal/ - but unfortunately
to my knowledge Mark Plus does not do this with all his akas). So be
as descriptive as you want with a user name, just don't be anonymous
- fearful of what others may think rather than proud to express yourself.

> But after reading the article, it wasn't about good behavior of
> Disqus users, but that most contributing comments are made by
> pseudonym users on Disqus.

But that is because most comments of any type are made by such people
and that is because the vast majority of people have not yet understood
why such behavior is opposed to increasing their own and everyone else's
Lifetime Happiness all at the same time.

--Paul

Hi, I haven't received the reply, but I have found an experiment result:

Supplemental Cellular Protection by a Carotenoid Extends Lifespan via
Ins/IGF-1 Signaling in Caenorhabditis elegans

Koumei Yazaki, Chinatsu Yoshikoshi, Satoru Oshiro, and Sumino Yanase*

Department of Health Science, Daito Bunka University School of Sports
and Health Science, Iwadono 560, Higashi-matsuyama, Saitama 355-8501,
Japan

Received June 1, 2011; Revised August 8, 2011; Accepted August 9, 2011.

Abstract

Astaxanthin (AX), which is produced by some marine animals, is a type of
carotenoid that has antioxidative properties. In this study, we
initially examined the effects of AX on the aging of a model organism C.
elegans that has the conserved intracellular pathways related to
mammalian longevity. The continuous treatments with AX (0.1 to 1 [ ] mM)
from both the prereproductive and young adult stages extended the mean
lifespans by about 16–30% in the wild-type and long-lived mutant
age-1 of C. elegans. In contrast, the AX-dependent lifespan extension
was not observed even in a daf-16 null mutant. Especially, the
expression of genes encoding superoxide dismutases and catalases
increased in two weeks after hatching, and the DAF-16 protein was
translocated to the nucleus in the AX-exposed wild type. These results
suggest that AX protects the cell organelle mitochondria and nucleus of
the nematode, resulting in a lifespan extension via an Ins/IGF-1
signaling pathway during normal aging, at least in part.



References:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195502/
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/oximed/2011/596240/
<http://www.hindawi.com/journals/oximed/2011/596240/>


Orhan Kulluoglu

[The message below is http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1552
from May 2007 Orhan follows through!! :)  **Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Orhan Kulluoglu" <okulluoglu@...>
wrote:
>
> I sent an e-mail to info@... about the reference for the
> experience. When i didn't receive any answer after 3 days, I sent the
e-
> mail to someone who works there. He replied me on 24 may saying he
> would forward it to the right person for reply. So far, I haven't
> received any reply.
>
> > [I hope that someone, if not Orhan, has or will contact
cyanotech.com
> > regarding substantiation for the statement, "Already research is
> > showing astaxanthin increases the life span of lab animals 37%," in
> > the January 18, 2001 article. Refer to this thread, if you wish, to
> > show that interest exists in lifespan study results and also concern
> > about the lack of evidence for statements/claims made. **Kitty]
> >

On 02/17/2012 01:35 AM, okulluoglu wrote:
> Hi, I haven't received the reply, but I have found an experiment result:
>
> Supplemental Cellular Protection by a Carotenoid Extends Lifespan via
> Ins/IGF-1 Signaling in Caenorhabditis elegans
>
> Koumei Yazaki, Chinatsu Yoshikoshi, Satoru Oshiro, and Sumino Yanase*
>
> Department of Health Science, Daito Bunka University School of Sports
> and Health Science, Iwadono 560, Higashi-matsuyama, Saitama 355-8501,
> Japan
>
> Received June 1, 2011; Revised August 8, 2011; Accepted August 9, 2011.
>
> Abstract
>
> Astaxanthin (AX), which is produced by some marine animals, is a type of
> carotenoid that has antioxidative properties. In this study, we
> initially examined the effects of AX on the aging of a model organism C.
> elegans that has the conserved intracellular pathways related to
> mammalian longevity. The continuous treatments with AX (0.1 to 1 [ ] mM)
> from both the prereproductive and young adult stages extended the mean
> lifespans by about 16--30% in the wild-type and long-lived mutant
> age-1 of C. elegans. In contrast, the AX-dependent lifespan extension
> was not observed even in a daf-16 null mutant.

Note that word "even" is not correct in the above. What the authors are
trying to say is that the longevity effect of AX was not seen in a C.
elegans with the DAF-16 protein gene deleted or made inactive. This
showed that the AX was effective for increasing longevity not because of
its antioxidant effects, but because it "enhanced the mRNA expression of
the DAF-16 target genes and increased the nuclear localization of the
DAF-16 transcription factor". Whether such a beneficial effect will
obtain in mammals remains to be seen, but is highly likely, IMO.

> Especially, the
> expression of genes encoding superoxide dismutases and catalases
> increased in two weeks after hatching, and the DAF-16 protein was
> translocated to the nucleus in the AX-exposed wild type. These results
> suggest that AX protects the cell organelle mitochondria and nucleus of
> the nematode, resulting in a lifespan extension via an Ins/IGF-1
> signaling pathway during normal aging, at least in part.
>
> References:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195502/
> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/oximed/2011/596240/

Thanks a lot for following up on this one, Orhan.
This is one more example of a chemical which is a strong antioxidant
also having important effects on protein transcription.
In the full text the authors also refer to the example of the marine
carotenoid fucoxanthin which "improved the insulin resistance and
decreased the blood glucose level in mammals through the downregulation
of the tumor necrosis factor-alpha" all of which are highly beneficial.
Fucoxanthin is available from LEF and I and Kitty will be soon
ordering it. We have been taking astaxanthin for some time now.

--Paul

Here is a great article that Olafur found and posted to sci.life-extension. I
highly recommend it to everyone.

Br J Pharmacol. 2009 Jul;157(6):907-21. Epub 2009 Jun 5.
To scale or not to scale: the principles of dose extrapolation.
Sharma V, McNeill JH.
Division of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

The principles of inter-species dose extrapolation are poorly understood and
applied. We provide an overview of the principles underlying dose scaling for
size and dose adjustment for size-independent differences. Scaling of a dose is
required in three main situations: the anticipation of first-in-human doses for
clinical trials, dose extrapolation in veterinary practice and dose
extrapolation
for experimental purposes. Each of these situations is discussed. Allometric
scaling of drug doses is commonly used for practical reasons, but can be more
accurate when one takes into account species differences in pharmacokinetic
parameters (clearance, volume of distribution). Simple scaling of drug doses can
be misleading for some drugs; correction for protein binding, physicochemical
properties of the drug or species differences in physiological time can improve
scaling. However, differences in drug transport and metabolism, and in the
dose-response relationship, can override the effect of size alone. For this
reason, a range of modelling approaches have been developed, which combine in
silico simulations with data obtained in vitro and/or in vivo. Drugs that are
unlikely to be amenable to simple allometric scaling of their clearance or dose
include drugs that are highly protein-bound, drugs that undergo extensive
metabolism and active transport, drugs that undergo significant biliary
excretion (MW > 500, ampiphilic, conjugated), drugs whose targets are subject
to inter-species differences in expression, affinity and distribution and drugs
that undergo extensive renal secretion. In addition to inter-species dose
extrapolation, we provide an overview of dose extrapolation within species,
discussing drug dosing in paediatrics and in the elderly.

PMCID: PMC2737649
PMID: 19508398

Free full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737649/

--Paul

A winner in the first National Library
of Medicine Software Challenge on Innovative Uses of NLM Information!

http://www.quertle.info/

[Paul knows how to use PUbMed quite well so is not planning to use this himself,
but those who do let us know how this works for you. **Kitty]

Meta
This is the second of two posts that I have recently made to the newsgroup
sci.life-extension and copied here. I will be doing that more often from now on
as the topics involved are deemed to be important to also place here for
information and additional discussion. Hopefully this will generate a little
more activity on this group.
/Meta

On Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:59:52 PM UTC-7, mikeV wrote:
> "Paul Antonik Wakfer"  wrote in message
> news:27832761.440.1330146966860.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai14...
>
>> On Friday, February 24, 2012 12:25:19 PM UTC-7, mikeV wrote:
>
>>> If I am 'getting it' correctly, it appears that under normal 'healthy'
>>> conditions, the process maintains a homeostatic oxidative balance between
>>> ROS derived from normal metabolic stresses, exercise, food, starvation, ,
>>> infections, endo and xeno toxins, and their clearance. While the system
>>> tends to defend satisfactorily against short term conditions, it seems
>>> that
>>> the effects of longer term activation are not yet certain.
>
>> Moreover with cancer cells, the same beneficial processes within healthy
>> cells may well protect them and further their proliferation. So because
>> cancer cells are still one's own cells and are very similar to healthy cells
>> it is exceedingly difficult to direct therapy to eliminate them without also
>> harming healthy cells, at least to some extent - with cancer one is "between
>> a rock and a hard place".
>
> Exactly. Cancer cells are defended against chemotherapy.
> I believe the 'normal' prevention for cancer is early detection, and cell
> death by apoptosis/autophagy.
> It is my impression that within limits a healthy nrf2 cytoprotective system
> allows for that, but I do not yet under stand the how the detection/cell
> death process begins.
> Actually I am not certain that anyone does, but I am trying to connect the
> dots.

My own take is that the important steps to prevent cancer are as follows:
1. Limit DNA insult by promoting a healthy ROS defense system (via diet and
exercise).
2. Use lots of dietary foods/supplements which inhibit cancer cell
proliferation.
3. Strongly promote all kinds of autophagy so that any cancer cells which
attempt to abnormally proliferate are terminated.

I think that I know how the first two work, but I don't know much about the 3rd.

>>> My personal take is that a varied range of small amounts of antioxidant
>>> substances is more effective and desirable, and less risky than constant
>>> levels of heavy amounts.
>
>> I fully agree, but mainly because the most beneficial effects of most
>> so-called antioxidants are not directly related to their antioxidant effect
>> at all, but to some other cellular effect(s). That is why I eat so many
>> different food types and vary my diet somewhat as the seasonal and sale
>> prices of various foods change.
>
> That is my ideal, but I do not come close to yours. I am not sure how close
> that is to realistic for an average family, often merging several different
> opinions and tastes.

It is important to realize that tastes are merely leftovers from the past of
one's life and can be as easily changed as can any other habit - to make one's
subconscious more consistent with one's consciously and logically held notions
of what is best for one's life. I have done just that for both tastes and habit
over many decades and have posted many places on my website and Yahoo group
MoreLife, just how this kind of "reprogramming" can be accomplished.

> Nevertheless I do fairly well, on my choice of nutrients, and my wife and I
> compromise quite well.

I and Kitty have rarely needed to compromise on anything, since after some
discussion we are almost always able to agree on what is best, even with foods.
There are only a very few foods of little overall consequence where we still
differ. OTOH, there have been an enormous number of new foods/tastes that we
have discovered and learned to like together.

> Not so easy with my teen grandkids who spend a good bit of time with us.

We do not hat that problem, but it should be amenable to working with them to
convince them of the value for their health and future of any foods that they
reject.

--Paul

On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:46:15 AM UTC-7, mikeV wrote:
> "Paul Antonik Wakfer"  wrote in message
> news:30137312.2093.1330326463383.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjc20...
>
> On Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:59:52 PM UTC-7, mikeV wrote:
> > "Paul Antonik Wakfer"  wrote in message
> > news:27832761.440.1330146966860.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai14...
>
>>> Nevertheless I do fairly well, on my choice of nutrients, and my wife and
>>> I
>>> compromise quite well.
>
>> I and Kitty have rarely needed to compromise on anything, since after some
>> discussion we are almost always able to agree on what is best, even with
>> foods. There are only a very few foods of little overall consequence where
>> we still differ. OTOH, there have been an enormous number of new
>> foods/tastes that we have discovered and learned to like together.
>
>>> Not so easy with my teen grandkids who spend a good bit of time with us.
>
>> We do not have that problem, but it should be amenable to working with them
>> to convince them of the value for their health and future of any foods that
>> they reject.
>
> Yeah, Right! LOL
> Please let me know how many 21st century teenagers have you have actually
> persuaded, in practice, to join your lifestyle.

We do not have any access to any teenagers, nor any younger children because of
being estranged from our own children (if you wish to know how and why, Kitty
recently made hers public at:
http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/kiton120202.html For mine, I will
explain as much as I can to those interested), but we have persuaded some in
their early twenties and older.

Unless one has had concentrated access to teenagers at earlier ages, their
philosophy of life is very highly distorted by the public school system and
wider social pressure, from being rational. In fact, in my experience younger
children, being more inquisitive (this characteristic has not yet been
shamed/pressured out of them) are much more open to trying new things and being
persuaded, even though they have less knowledge and capability of understanding.
Part of the reason for this aspect of most younger children is that they are
generally still respectful of the large knowledge and experience of their
elders. These days teenagers gain very little practical life experience as they
are developing during their teens (how many ever have part-time jobs these
days), yet they are constantly praised and quickly come to believe that all
older people are inferior to themselves. Thus, the only thing to do is wait
until they are somewhat older and have experienced reality more - but that is
also no guarantee of being open to rational persuasion even later in life.

--Paul

My new article (with major contributions by Paul), "Social Networks - Freedom
Enhancers or Internet Ghettos?" was prompted by the reason why I greatly reduced
my activity at Facebook a couple of weeks ago. While that reason is visible to
those with FB accounts because everything on my profile is "public", that word
has the limited meaning in that social network of just the FB world and
therefore the "Basic Information About You" section is not publicly visible. In
this latest article, I and Paul examine the tendency of very many to isolate
themselves within comfortable networking niches and what this isolation means
for attempts to attain a society in which each can maximize her/his lifetime
Happiness, all at the same time. Available via http://selfsip.org/focus/

Also I've added a Google+ (G+) +1 button on the above new pages and related ones
on Self-SIP and MoreLife, with plans to gradually add to older pages. (I'd
already placed "+Share" multi-site button on several pages but it does not
include G+. Addition of this button to older pages will also gradually be done.)
Also, I've reformatted some of these pages to keep most of the text to only 90%
of the screen width. With our new laptops (year old now :), the wide screen
really extended the text too far out in the periphery of vision for compfortable
reading. Hope this works better for many others with the newer wider screens.
I'll gradually get to more pages on the websites to do the same thing.

As usual, all items can be reached via the MoreLife home page:
http://morelife.org

And as always, please let me know if you see anything that appears to be an
error.

**Kitty

Kitty and Paul,

A very interesting piece! I'm writing to respond to a particular section which
cites me and raises valid questions as to my opinion, and also to offer a couple
of more general thoughts.

Here's the section I'm specifically responding to (NB: I encourage everyone to
read the WHOLE ARTICLE before reading this post; I'm excerpting it for the
recall convenience of those who have already done so, not by way of suggesting
that one shouldn't do so):

-----
One liberty-promoter friend told me in a comment on his post at Google+ that he
sees "issues of anonymity/pseudonymity as easily addressed as
pricing/preferencing matters, and so as not a major obstacle (indeed, not an
obstacle at all) to full liberty/maximal freedom." But if one does not know who
is the author of words on the Internet or the person committing various actions
described on the Internet, then how is one to know who to Socially Preference
for or against? Products and services have specific producers and sellers
associated with them and individuals can choose to purchase or not based on the
reputations of those sources. All that a person can do is refuse to voluntarily
associate online with someone who refuses to use hir real name directly or make
it available via link to hir commonly used pseudonym(s). This does not solve
"the issue of anonymity/pseudonymity" because this person could easily be saying
different things in different places (various social networks included) on the
Internet and doing something quite different again in person.
-----

When I refer to addressing issues of anonymity pseudonymity as
pricing/preferencing matters, what I have in mind is the general principle that
the more perfect/complete the information at one's disposal, the better off one
is for purposes of evaluating and acting on that information.

But, all of us make numerous decisions on the basis of limited information every
day, and we make allowances, compensating as best we can for incomplete or
imperfect information. Two hypothetical examples:

- You are about to cross a street. You look both ways, You see no cars coming,
but to your left there is a slight rise, at such a distance that if a car
suddenly topped it at excessive speed, it might hit you before you could get out
of the way. There's also some noisy machinery running near by, which prevents
you from hearing engine noises from that direction. In most cases, you don't
decide not to cross the street. You just move a little faster, so as to expose
yourself to that possible, but unlikely, danger as little as possible.

- You are buying groceries. The cashier is a woman with a name tag which simply
says "Helen." This is your first time in the store. You do not know the cashier
and you've never met her. You probably go ahead and buy your groceries. Since
you're new at this store, you may pay extra attention to whether or not you got
correct change, etc., but you probably don't stop at the head of the line and
demand to know Helen's full name and birthdate, and to await the return of a
background investigation you order from your cell phone on her, before buying.
Sure, there is some minimal chance that she's an escaped serial killer known to
take jobs at grocery stores and covertly inject cyanide into the food items she
moves from the conveyor belt to the bags by way of passing them over a bar code
scanner, but you assess that as unlikely and act accordingly because you value
(the time and money you'd spend doing a background check) on every new cashier
more than you value (the increased knowledge and enhanced safety you'd get from
doing that background check).

I don't see that online anonymity/pseudonymity differs in any essential respect
from either of these two situations.

Anyone you run onto online may actually be named "Helen" or may not be, or may
pretend to be named "Helen" but actually have an entirely different name, or may
take off hir name tag, put it in hir pocket, and insist on being addressed as
"Bebop5491 LOL." And, as with any other situation, you work with what
information you have, evaluate whether or not that information is likely to be
correct, consider the possible consequences, and then act on your own best
judgment of likely consequences, costs, etc.

In thinking about costs, etc., it's important to remember that "total openness
about personal and social characteristics/actions" itself implies both actual
and prospective costs.

Establishing to someone else, to any significant level of satisfaction (more on
that in a minute), that I am being truthful about my name, address, record of
interactions, etc. is not something that happens magically. It requires effort
and such on my part. Those are actual costs.

"Total openness" also exposes information in such a way as to create prospective
costs. If I'm open enough to establish my bona fides to Person A, Person B who
is looking on may be able to gather enough information about me to impersonate
me somewhere/somewhen else, in a way that harms me (for example, last week
someone managed to a few pieces of information about my wife -- her name and her
debit card number at least, and presumably another detail or two -- and use
those pieces of information to the tune of $400+ in fraudulent transactions,
which we are still in the process of recuperating).

In my opinion, EVERYTHING related to these matters breaks down to cost, benefit,
individual judgment and individual valuation.

If I'm buying a house from "Helen," it's going to cost hir more than "Helen" in
terms of personal information -- enough to convince me that she actually owns
the house and that it is not encumbered, and so forth. I'm going to know hir
last name, among other things. I won't buy a house from Bebop5491 LOL.

On the other hand, if I am browsing music selections online with an eye toward
buying, it's entirely possible that a review by Bebop5491 LOL might be
persuasive enough on its own merits for me to buy a particular album without
deciding that I need to know (or that I'm willing to pay the costs of finding
out) that Bebop5491 LOL is actually Helen Smith, of 874 Hollyhock Drive,
Schenectady, NY, who works as a cashier at Piggly Wiggly, has a paid-off
mortgage and no liens on hir home, and has never been convicted of arson.

Naturally, I invite any criticism of my take on the matter. Now, to hit on that
digression above, "Establishing to someone else, to any significant level of
satisfaction (more on that in a minute)" --

Among my occupations I count "Internet Marketer," and the general community I
belong to within that occupation has lately seemed to be developing an operating
ethos that seems to very much match Paul and Kitty's ideas about
anonymity/pseudonymity.

That is, for a long time Internet Marketing was characterized by "fly-by-night"
types, operating under obvious (Bebop5491 LOL) and not-so-obvious (John Smith)
aliases. Sometimes this was for the obvious reasons (they sold, and knew they
were selling, shoddy merchandise, or no merchandise at all), sometimes it was
just a "cultural" thing.

These days, though, much of the Internet Marketing community is very much into
"social marketing" and "personal branding," with both explicit and implicit
verifiability attached.

That is, to do well in that business these days, you increasingly have to use
your real name instead of a pseudonym, show something resembling your real face
instead of a stock photograph of some guy sitting in a Ferrari smoking a cigar,
and display some kind of contact information (email, web site URL, Twitter,
Skype -- my favorite guys, a company called Timtech, have a toll-free phone
number and keep office hours on it, something seldom seen in that niche of
marketing even a couple of years ago). All that is the "explicit" verifiability
part.

The "implicit" verifiability part is that good old "word gets around if you do
something dishonest" part.

The explicit part makes your name worth holding on to. You build up a reputation
attached to it, and you don't want to lose that and have to rebuild it under a
new name. The implicit part is that that's exactly what you will have to do if
word gets around that you (for example) bought a $200 information product and
then disputed the credit card charge to get it for free; or made false claims
about a program you were in to induce people to join it.

Semi-pseudonyms are still used (I often go by KN@PPSTER and for awhile used "the
ClickTrackProphet" -- a pun on a program I'm involved in -- if anyone is really
interested, I blog at knappster.biz about it), but not to HIDE identity. People
generally people append their real names and contact info to such usages,
because they know it helps their business to do so and hurts their business to
not do so.

My main reason for throwing all that in is just to note that the market seems to
be producing movement in the direction that your article proposes as most
beneficial.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

An interesting article at BBC, "Can three minutes of exercise a week help make
you fit?": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251

While the study sample used is small, the results are noteworthy for its effects
on reducing risk factors for Type 2 Diabetes. Right now I and Paul do about 15
mins worth of highly aerobic exercise most days, before eating and on fasting
days. The method described here is convenient for us to do in Arizona because of
our exercise equipment and inside steps down to basement. We'll be on lookout
for improved methods in Ontario where rain can often restrict outside
activities. And besides, it's time efficient :)

Here is the PubMed abstract for the study in the above article:
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Nov 29.

Towards the minimal amount of exercise for improving metabolic health:
beneficial
effects of reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training.

Metcalfe RS, Babraj JA, Fawkner SG, Vollaard NB.

School of Life Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.

High-intensity interval training (HIT) has been proposed as a
time-efficient alternative to traditional cardiorespiratory exercise
training, but is very fatiguing. In this study, we investigated the
effects of a reduced-exertion HIT (REHIT) exercise intervention on
insulin sensitivity and aerobic capacity. Twenty-nine healthy but
sedentary young men and women were randomly assigned to the REHIT
intervention (men, n = 7; women, n = 8) or a control group (men, n =
6; women, n = 8). Subjects assigned to the control groups maintained
their normal sedentary lifestyle, whilst subjects in the training
groups completed three exercise sessions per week for 6 weeks. The
10-min exercise sessions consisted of low-intensity cycling (60 W)
and one (first session) or two (all other sessions) brief 'all-out'
sprints (10 s in week 1, 15 s in weeks 2-3 and 20 s in the final 3
weeks). Aerobic capacity ([Formula: see text]) and the glucose and
insulin response to a 75-g glucose load (OGTT) were determined before
and 3 days after the exercise program. Despite relatively low ratings
of perceived exertion (RPE 13 ± 1), insulin sensitivity significantly
increased by 28% in the male training group following the REHIT
intervention (P < 0.05). [Formula: see text] increased in the male
training (+15%) and female training (+12%) groups (P < 0.01). In
conclusion we show that a novel, feasible exercise intervention can
improve metabolic health and aerobic capacity. REHIT may offer a
genuinely time-efficient alternative to HIT and conventional
cardiorespiratory exercise training for improving risk factors of T2D.

PMID: 22124524

Here is the link to the original article:
http://selfsip.org/focus/socialnetworks.html

On 02/28/2012 12:56 AM, Tom Knapp wrote:
> Kitty and Paul,
>
> A very interesting piece! I'm writing to respond to a particular
> section which cites me and raises valid questions as to my opinion,
> and also to offer a couple of more general thoughts.
>
> Here's the section I'm specifically responding to (NB: I encourage
> everyone to read the WHOLE ARTICLE before reading this post; I'm
> excerpting it for the recall convenience of those who have already
> done so, not by way of suggesting that one shouldn't do so):
>
> ----- start of quote -----
> One liberty-promoter friend told me in a comment on his post at
> Google+ that he sees "issues of anonymity/pseudonymity as easily
> addressed as pricing/preferencing matters, and so as not a major
> obstacle (indeed, not an obstacle at all) to full liberty/maximal
> freedom." But if one does not know who is the author of words on
> the Internet or the person committing various actions described on
> the Internet, then how is one to know who to Socially Preference
> for or against? Products and services have specific producers and
> sellers associated with them and individuals can choose to purchase
> or not based on the reputations of those sources. All that a person
> can do is refuse to voluntarily associate online with someone who
> refuses to use hir real name directly or make it available via link
> to hir commonly used pseudonym(s). This does not solve "the issue
> of anonymity/pseudonymity" because this person could easily be
> saying different things in different places (various social networks
> included) on the Internet and doing something quite different again
> in person.
> ----- End of quote -----
>
> When I refer to addressing issues of anonymity pseudonymity as
> pricing/preferencing matters, what I have in mind is the general
> principle that the more perfect/complete the information at one's
> disposal, the better off one is for purposes of evaluating and
> acting on that information.

Fully agree with that principle, which is the basis of our concerns
about the cultural trend towards ghetto creation, its fostering on
Facebook in particular and use of anonymity/pseudonymity in general.
This is as opposed to the information about products and many services
which is becoming ever more widely available and more easily evaluated
because of the Internet. The reason why this is our concern is directly
because of our conviction that a self-ordered society with top-down
rule/rulers cannot be achieved without far more "perfect/complete"
information about everyone in society being available to all than is
currently the case. It is not a matter of such a Stateless society being
merely less optimal than it might be, but rather that *it will be
impossible for it to arise*.
Almost 7 years ago we published the article: "Personal Characteristics
as Market Commodities" - http://selfsip.org/focus/personalcommodity.html
which is directly related to this issue and bears careful reading and
discussion.

> But, all of us make numerous decisions on the basis of limited
> information every day, and we make allowances, compensating as best
> we can for incomplete or imperfect information. Two hypothetical
> examples:
>
> - You are about to cross a street. You look both ways, You see no
> cars coming, but to your left there is a slight rise, at such a
> distance that if a car suddenly topped it at excessive speed, it
> might hit you before you could get out of the way. There's also
> some noisy machinery running near by, which prevents you from
> hearing engine noises from that direction. In most cases, you don't
> decide not to cross the street. You just move a little faster, so
> as to expose yourself to that possible, but unlikely, danger as
> little as possible.

We have just such a situation in Ontario on a out-in-the-country highway
from which we need to make a left hand turn every few weeks to go to the
nearest large city for shopping. This could very easily be solved by
technology available for many years. All that is necessary is for the
erection of some indicator on the left side of the road beyond the turn
off which examines the road down the non-visible part of the rise and
reports whether or not there is any vehicle there. This needs some
electronics sensors, but is essentially similar to the simple tech of an
angled mirror at a right angle of two crossing rows in a warehouse with
shelving so high that you cannot see down the crossing aisle
until/unless you stick your head out. Such measures have not yet been
provided on many roads because an accident has not yet occurred there
(or not yet occurred to a first-class person such as a politician or a
cop) and is mainly because the road system being a product of a
government monopoly is highly insensitive to user concerns, safety and
convenience. But you are correct. As it is now after taking a very
good look at the crest of the hill as we approach the turn, we simply
"dive" into the turn and get across as quickly as we can (which with
our all-wheel drive WRX, I consider to be sufficient).

> - You are buying groceries. The cashier is a woman with a name tag
> which simply says "Helen." This is your first time in the store.
> You do not know the cashier and you've never met her. You probably
> go ahead and buy your groceries. Since you're new at this store,
> you may pay extra attention to whether or not you got correct
> change, etc., but you probably don't stop at the head of the line
> and demand to know Helen's full name and birthdate, and to await
> the return of a background investigation you order from your cell
> phone on her, before buying. Sure, there is some minimal chance
> that she's an escaped serial killer known to take jobs at grocery
> stores and covertly inject cyanide into the food items she moves
> from the conveyor belt to the bags by way of passing them over a
> bar code scanner, but you assess that as unlikely and act accordingly
> because you value (the time and money you'd spend doing a background
> check) on every new cashier more than you value (the increased
> knowledge and enhanced safety you'd get from doing that background
> check).

Perhaps you have not read the recent articles about all the proposed
uses of Google glasses which will apparently be available for purchase
later this year.
This is the sort of technology that I talked about almost 6 years ago as
being necessary for a Freeman Society to really come into full bloom.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/116665417191671711571/posts/PqDSnMdgAPq
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/technology/google-glasses-will-be-powered-by-a\
ndroid.html
"Social Ordering Technologies"
http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Ordering_Tech.html

The "background investigation" can be fully automated from your
front-looking cam picture of whom you are looking at, according to your
own pre-customized guidelines of evaluation by a web-based AI program.
If people are open in their online identity and actions, then such
concern is effortlessly alleviated. Anyone who refuses to be so open
will simply not get hired or, if they do have their own business, will
not get patronized in comparison with another who is fully open.

> I don't see that online anonymity/pseudonymity differs in any
> essential respect from either of these two situations.

You are confusing the issue of *difficulty and benefit/cost* of gaining
and assessing information with the *impossibility* of doing so.
The first cannot even be addressed until the second is solved.

> Anyone you run onto online may actually be named "Helen" or may not
> be, or may pretend to be named "Helen" but actually have an entirely
> different name, or may take off hir name tag, put it in hir pocket,
> and insist on being addressed as "Bebop5491 LOL." And, as with any
> other situation, you work with what information you have, evaluate
> whether or not that information is likely to be correct, consider
> the possible consequences, and then act on your own best judgment
> of likely consequences, costs, etc.

That is the way of the past, although it is very much worse with the
Internet and the interactions with so many people who one has never met
and likely never will, as opposed to 50 years ago when most interactions
were with a real identifiable person. But operating in such a manner is
suboptimal at best, and no longer needs to be the case. All that we need
do is convince sufficient numbers of that fact of social reality.

> In thinking about costs, etc., it's important to remember that
> "total openness about personal and social characteristics/actions"
> itself implies both actual and prospective costs.
>
> Establishing to someone else, to any significant level of satisfaction
> (more on that in a minute), that I am being truthful about my name,
> address, record of interactions, etc. is not something that happens
> magically. It requires effort and such on my part. Those are actual
> costs.

It only requires "start up costs" for those who were born prior to
Internet openness and have a history and ID certification that needs to
be provided. After that startup, it develops automatically as one is
totally open about all one's social activities, since all of that is
then searchable and integrateable. For anyone being born today or still
a child, it can be done totally automatically and without additional
effort or cost by simply enabling all information about and actions of
that person to be openly available to all people everywhere.

> "Total openness" also exposes information in such a way as to
> create prospective costs. If I'm open enough to establish my bona
> fides to Person A, Person B who is looking on may be able to gather
> enough information about me to impersonate me somewhere/somewhen
> else, in a way that harms me (for example, last week someone
> managed to a few pieces of information about my wife -- her name
> and her debit card number at least, and presumably another detail
> or two -- and use those pieces of information to the tune of $400+
> in fraudulent transactions, which we are still in the process of
> recuperating).

I am not talking about openness of any bank or credit card account
information, passwords, SSN, DLN, etc - that is not information
pertaining to social interactions, but merely to personal transactions.
But you are correct that until large numbers of people start doing it
and those who don't are effectively ostracized from society, there will
be certain costs to full openness. This is one of many actions (such as,
for example, "everyone" refusing to pay taxes or submit tax returns)
which will not work well (and sometime not at all) until large numbers
of people adopt and practice it. OTOH, if no one goes out on a limb and
begins, then it certainly will never happen. I and Kitty have been
practicing it for years, and we see no major costs to us at this time.
Early adopters of any change/paradigm shift or any geographical/physical
move (pioneers) have always born some cost. But such people are
convinced that what they are doing is both proper and best for them in
the long run, so they go courageously forward. Unfortunately today, far
too many people today do not think long-range, but instead want
immediate benefit to themselves without any cost.

> In my opinion, EVERYTHING related to these matters breaks down to
> cost, benefit, individual judgment and individual valuation.

As I have said above, these question are not even applicable if the
basis for their consideration (an integrated identity of characteristics
and social actions) is not even available.

I will take another approach here, which hopefully will be more
persuasive to you as a "libertarian" holding that unpermitted initiation
of force, threat of force or use of fraud should not be acceptable human
actions in a free society.
If one views human social interactions as exchanges of value to mutual
advantage as I and Kitty do, then anyone who withholds or hides or
falsifies information about hirself is effectively being fraudulent in
any such exchange, just as much as someone who does not state that they
turned back the car odometer or does not state up front that the engine
block has a crack. Now I agree that this does somewhat relate to the
"buyer beware" principle which many libertarians appear to think is
perfectly ethical to use against someone ("if they are too stupid to ask
then it is their problem and I have no ethical responsibility to tell
them"). But from a Social Meta-Needs pov I do not agree with that at
all. Since a rational person wants all others to maximize their lifetime
happinesses at the same time as hir own (else hir own cannot actually be
maximized), s/he will do hir best to ensure that all information about
which the buyer can reasonably be concerned is available to that buyer.
And furthermore under the value-for-value principle, even if some
additional negative or positive information should later turn up (to
have been originally present), that the exchange value of the
transaction will be adjusted accordingly.

> If I'm buying a house from "Helen," it's going to cost hir more
> than "Helen" in terms of personal information -- enough to convince
> me that she actually owns the house and that it is not encumbered,
> and so forth. I'm going to know hir last name, among other things.
> I won't buy a house from Bebop5491 LOL.

More than that, however, you want to know the person's reputation for
honesty so that you don't get unknown leaky plumbing or squirrels in the
attic, but you will not get that reputation from any of the normal
legal search and other identification measures. And furthermore, it is
virtually impossible to think of all possible things that just might be
wrong with the house to ask her and get her to sign a legal contract
that they are all okay. And even then the contract is only binding and
the breach and restitution clauses only valid if the State's courts
agree that they are.

> On the other hand, if I am browsing music selections online with an
> eye toward buying, it's entirely possible that a review by
> Bebop5491 LOL might be persuasive enough on its own merits for me
> to buy a particular album without deciding that I need to know (or
> that I'm willing to pay the costs of finding out) that Bebop5491 LOL
> is actually Helen Smith, of 874 Hollyhock Drive, Schenectady, NY,
> who works as a cashier at Piggly Wiggly, has a paid-off mortgage
> and no liens on hir home, and has never been convicted of arson.

I have no disagreement with you about such a trivial purchase, but if your
automated evaluation software can easily do it then why not be more sure
that you are not purchasing either a stolen product or at least one for
which she has never given any value in return after downloading it.

> Naturally, I invite any criticism of my take on the matter. Now, to
> hit on that digression above, "Establishing to someone else, to any
> significant level of satisfaction (more on that in a minute)" --
>
> Among my occupations I count "Internet Marketer," and the general
> community I belong to within that occupation has lately seemed to
> be developing an operating ethos that seems to very much match Paul
> and Kitty's ideas about anonymity/pseudonymity.
>
> That is, for a long time Internet Marketing was characterized by
> "fly-by-night" types, operating under obvious (Bebop5491 LOL) and
> not-so-obvious (John Smith) aliases. Sometimes this was for the
> obvious reasons (they sold, and knew they were selling, shoddy
> merchandise, or no merchandise at all), sometimes it was just a
> "cultural" thing.
>
> These days, though, much of the Internet Marketing community is
> very much into "social marketing" and "personal branding," with
> both explicit and implicit verifiability attached.
>
> That is, to do well in that business these days, you increasingly
> have to use your real name instead of a pseudonym, show something
> resembling your real face instead of a stock photograph of some guy
> sitting in a Ferrari smoking a cigar, and display some kind of
> contact information (email, web site URL, Twitter, Skype -- my
> favorite guys, a company called Timtech, have a toll-free phone
> number and keep office hours on it, something seldom seen in that
> niche of marketing even a couple of years ago). All that is the
> "explicit" verifiability part.
>
> The "implicit" verifiability part is that good old "word gets around
> if you do something dishonest" part.

Yes. As long as the person is a known identity (to pin the actions to),
then, as with a small town of many decades ago, hir reputation for good
or bad actions does get known over time. Still AI evaluation software
will makes this ever so much easier and better, by making it automated
and customizable to each person's personal desires for those
characteristics in another which are of most value/concern to hir - the
receiver of the assessment report.

> The explicit part makes your name worth holding on to. You build up
> a reputation attached to it, and you don't want to lose that and
> have to rebuild it under a new name.

Except that a name change can still be done by clearly indicating that
certain past names and descriptions also apply to you. That will enable
reasonable name changes not made to avoid or evade anything.

>   The implicit part is that that's exactly what you will have to do
> if word gets around that you (for example) bought a $200 information
> product and then disputed the credit card charge to get it for free;
> or made false claims about a program you were in to induce people
> to join it.

The whole point of requiring openness is to discourage people from
acting in such ways, and if they should do so by some accidental manner,
then to persuade them to reverse any damages done. If openness is
required by all then all will necessarily be more fully responsible and
ethical in their actions.

But it is not merely the correction/elimination of unethical behavior
which is the benefit of openness. There are many characteristics of
person A which person B will more or less find attractive to interact
with. The automated evaluation software will also be programmed to
determine whether or not another person is good friend material, not
merely if s/he is trustworthy.

> Semi-pseudonyms are still used (I often go by KN@PPSTER and for
> awhile used "the ClickTrackProphet" -- a pun on a program I'm
> involved in -- if anyone is really interested, I blog at
> knappster.biz about it), but not to HIDE identity. People generally
> people append their real names and contact info to such usages,
> because they know it helps their business to do so and hurts their
> business to not do so.

Exactly. and I have no problem whatsoever with such catchy usernames,
as long as they are clearly linked to the one identity.

> My main reason for throwing all that in is just to note that the
> market seems to be producing movement in the direction that your
> article proposes as most beneficial.

That is great to hear and the Google glasses portend an even faster
movement in that direction!
I and Kitty have avoided tablets, laptops (except at home as a desktop
replacement) and smart phones, but we will very seriously be examining
Google glasses soon after they are available.

Thanks for starting off the discussion of the article.
I hope to see others join in, particularly to comment on other parts of
the article.

And since the article deals with anonymity, those who are still
reluctant to "out" themselves can even respond to this article (if with
something substantive about the anonymity portion) without needing to be
identified.

--Paul

I enjoyed reading this focus article. It made me envisioned Paul's "Open Lives"
idea being a social media network alternative even more. I see it being similar
to Facebook, but more public (you can't set your profile to private and everyone
can access your pages), and where agreements can be searched. On one hand, I
think Facebook has a neutral stance where they give users the option to choose
to be private or public, and on another hand, they want other people to sign up
to their network by making user pages inaccessible. I think non-users would want
to sign up to Facebook even more if they can browse public profiles, and
Facebook can market their additional features like fanpage creation, apps, wall
posting and pay-per-click ad services as additional incentives if they sign up.

Never the less, the current social networks on the web are indeed hiding grounds
for anonymous users despite having the technology to enhance freedom. At least
for now, those for openness can set an example on these different networks. And
it appears that some of these networks have the ability to link other social
media accounts like Twitter and LinkedIn together.

[For reference: Article link: http://selfsip.org/focus/socialnetworks.html
**Kitty]

On 03/03/2012 05:50 AM, Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
>
> I enjoyed reading this focus article. It made me envisioned Paul's
> "Open Lives" idea being a social media network alternative even more.

I have not envisioned it as operating similar in any way to any of the
current social media. For one thing everything on it would be entirely
public and fully searchable. I see it as a repository for all
information about the character and social actions of those who use it.
In that sense, the OpenLives wiki would be the prototype for the UCN
(Universal Communications Network) described in the Natural Social
Contract - http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html

These users would then have search-bot software which scans the entire
database of information and presents them with people and articles for
which they have instructed their search-bot. So this stream of things to
read, respond and relate to would be much more focused to the
individual's desires than are any of the current social media selection
methods - which currently provide many things which do not interest one
along with a few that do, and also miss many things that would interest
one because they are from someone to whom one is not connected in any
manner.

Because of the requirement for total openness of identity, character
attributes and social actions, I expect that the number of users will be
very minimal at the start, but I think that this will grow as others are
both persuaded and come to understand from those using it how beneficial
such openness can ultimately be.

> I see it being similar to Facebook, but more public (you can't set
> your profile to private and everyone can access your pages), and where
> agreements can be searched. On one hand, I think Facebook has a neutral
> stance where they give users the option to choose to be private or
> public, and on another hand, they want other people to sign up to
> their network by making user pages inaccessible.

Yes, a person's Valid Contracts with others would be part of hir social
action which would be on OpenLIves. Everything about a user would be
there except anything which might enable Violation of the user.

Facebook is definitely *not* neutral since it is impossible for a FB
user to make everything about hir accessible to those not registered
with FB, This also means that FB is inherently not fully searchable.

> I think non-users would want to sign up to Facebook even more if they
> can browse public profiles, and Facebook can market their additional
> features like fanpage creation, apps, wall posting and pay-per-click
> ad services as additional incentives if they sign up.

I think you are right, but you need to convince the FB owners of that.

> Never the less, the current social networks on the web are indeed
> hiding grounds for anonymous users despite having the technology to
> enhance freedom.

Not only are social media like FB providing such "hiding grounds", but
by enabling it to be so easily done, they are effectively promoting it.

> At least for now, those for openness can set an example on these
> different networks. And it appears that some of these networks have
> the ability to link other social media accounts like Twitter and
> LinkedIn together.

Both I and Kitty have found Google+ to be much more populated by far
more open people who practically all are using their real names. And yes
you can link your profile on Google+ to your Twitter and LinkedIn accounts.

[I've not found an app to link Twitter to Google+ that does not change the
Google+ "dashboard" and also send messages to Twitter. I only want the messages
to go one-way: Twitter to Google+, similarly as I did for Twitter to Facebook.
My messages at Google+ are all far too long to make for meaningful tweets.
**Kitty]

--Paul

Hi Francois (and Paul and Kitty, and any others watching this thread),

I know I'm coming to this conversation late, but I'd like to share an analogy
that I personally find helpful, and that I expect that others might find useful
as well.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Francois" <fr.rose@...> wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> > On 01/12/2012 09:13 AM, Francois wrote:
> <snip uncomment ; I will respond later>
>
> > > I probably would have told you my results even if they were bad but,
> > > sometimes, when I feel myself weak about something, I'm hiding it
> >
> > Have you been reading Nathaniel Branden's books on self-esteem? I
> > strongly urge you to do so and to learn from them.
>
> Thanks for your lenghty answer
> It is going to nourish my reflection
> It will take me some time to respond to it

<snipping the rest of Francois's most recent message>

Francois, we haven't communicated at all in the past, so I'll briefly introduce
myself. My name is Daniel Kimbel; I'm twenty-four, and live and work in the San
Francisco Bay Area. I have a Bachelor's degree in biological sciences, but am
not in graduate school (or planning to do any graduate work in the near future).
I'm interested in philosophy, and I have found the ideas that I have read about
so far on SelfSIP and MoreLife, as well as the ideas Branden describes in his
writings, to be quite powerful.

To the analogy I mentioned before: I think it's helpful to think of one's mind
as a garden, and of oneself (the kernel of your mind that can inspect your
beliefs – the conscious "you") as the gardener. Rational thoughts that you have
in your mind are like nourishing plants in your garden; irrational thoughts are
like weeds. You, the gardener, own your garden and are entirely responsible for
it.

Sometimes, a person whose thinking is criticized (we'll assume validly) will
become very defensive and close his/her mind while asserting that he/she did not
in fact make a mental error. This is not to his/her benefit. Think of the garden
analogy: to be defensive of one's own mind even when one is in error is to
assert that a weed in one's garden is not a weed at all, but is instead a
nourishing plant. This deception can only hurt the person who is being defensive
– the weed is that person's weed, and it's taking up space in that person's
garden, and that person is the only one who might in a sense eat the plant.

A gardener shouldn't try to convince himself/herself that his/her garden is
perfect just the way it is; rather, if a weed is present, the gardener would do
well to simply pull it. To maximize your own total lifetime happiness, you
should be very open-minded about your garden and be willing to pluck any and all
weeds. In fact, even though this isn't the way a typical person thinks, you
might be pleased whenever you notice a weed – when you become aware of one, that
means that you can now remove it, and make your life better. Noticing a weed
should only make you feel bad if what you value is how nice you believe your
garden is, rather than how nice it actually is. What you would presumably do
best to value is the continual improvement of your garden, or its future state
in reality (which would be benefitted by improving it in the present).

Now, to tie this in with openness: you should be open about your mind (or your
garden), because that gives other people an opportunity to suggest improvements
to you. Just as people in general have extremely limited insight into your mind,
other gardeners have very limited knowledge of your garden – in fact, the most
accurate analogy would be one in which other gardeners can never actually see
your own garden, but can only hear descriptions (or see drawings) of it from
you. In the same way that no one can insert himself or herself directly into
your mind and inspect your thoughts, no other gardeners can walk through and
inspect your own garden. But the more open you are about yourself – the more you
tell other gardeners about your own garden – the more your fellow gardeners can
suggest what may be weeds to you and, thus, help you improve your garden.
Remember, the point isn't to convince other gardeners that your garden is great
– the point is to have the best garden you can, for your own benefit. There are
only a couple of ways that you might benefit from other gardeners falsely
believing your garden is better than it really is; first, they might admire you,
which might make you feel good about yourself, and second, those gardeners might
choose to interact with you more, or generally treat you with more favor,
because they believed that you were a good gardener. But in both cases, the
admiration you receive from the other gardeners would be false and you would
know it to be false, and this would almost certainly damage your self-esteem.
Also in both cases, the other gardeners would in time be likely to figure out
that your garden was not actually as nice as you had claimed it was, and at that
point they might preference against you.

A quick note: only you can actually pluck the weeds in your garden. Others can
describe to you what they believe may be weeds, or you can notice them yourself,
but just being aware of a weed is not the same as pulling it. This is a point
where the analogy breaks down a bit: pulling a weed properly in a garden can be
a bit difficult, but takes very little time; pulling a "weed" in your mind is
not so straightforward, is markedly more difficult, and can take a considerable
amount of time.

Also note that the gardener may, as he or she first becomes conscious of the
many weeds that have overrun his or her garden (for a garden that long goes
untended does not develop well), feel overwhelmed. Branden discusses this. It is
in the gardener's best interest to be brave and face the weeds: short-term
happiness may be found in avoiding the reality of the weeds, but long-term
happiness presumably will not.

I hope that's helpful; I think it's an analogy that can be extended quite far.

I (Daniel Kimbel) am writing this post at Paul's suggestion as an expansion of
the following statement I made in an email exchange:

"I was also philosophically paralyzed by radical skepticism (which I still have
no solution for, but to dismiss it as impractical), and had what I would
describe as an autoimmune issue with reason. In my present thinking, I view
reason as the mind's immune system. While the body's immune system identifies
and degrades or in some way neutralizes antigens, the mind can use reason to
identify and purge irrational thoughts or beliefs. Like the human immune system,
reason malfunctions when it targets itself. When I looked for a rational
foundation for logic, I found logic to be something that could only be accepted
because it apparently "works." That wasn't good enough for me. In a world that
might or might not exist and might or might not be as it appears, something that
"seems to work" was not something I could feel confident in. I concluded that
reason could not stand up to itself, and that it was therefore
self-contradictory. Again, these are not problems that I have truly solved (I
know of no solutions, and do not believe that there can be any), but I'm trying
to actually enjoy my life, and that requires a philosophy that takes the world I
perceive at "face value," as something absolute and real."

	 I'll begin this post by elaborating on skepticism. Skepticism is, in essence,
doubt – it is doubt that any given claim is true. This doubt can be seemingly
impossible to address. Given that doubt in a claim might be countered by the
justification for that claim, we can go straight to the heart of the matter of
skepticism by investigating Agrippa's trilemma. The trilemma lists the three
ways in which a claim might be justified. First, a claim might be "justified" by
infinite regress. That is, a first claim might be justified by a second claim,
which is justified by a third, and so on, ad infinitum. The second item of the
trilemma is circularity. A claim might be "justified" in some loop, such that a
first claim was justified by a second, which was justified by the first.
Finally, the third piece of the trilemma is the "self-justifying" claim. This
would be a claim that is itself foundational – a claim that is perhaps
self-evident, or somehow does not require outside justification.
	 In light of the trilemma, how might we truly (with absolute rigor) justify any
claim? From the perspective of logic, circularity is fallacious. Infinite
regress is also problematic, as it leaves us with no apparent foundation for our
claims. And yet, how could a claim be self-justifying? What sort of claim could
possibly justify itself? It seems that there is, in fact, no way to justify a
claim – at least, not in an ideal sense. That is to say, a claim cannot be known
to be true with absolute certainty.
	 How do we generally justify the claims that we make? I might claim that I ate a
tomato yesterday, for instance. I would likely justify this claim using my own
memory. But what justifies my memory? Unless we claim that my memories are
"self-justifying" (and surely memories are not reliable enough to truly justify
themselves), we will be at a loss – there is no way for me to be absolutely
certain that I ate that tomato yesterday. In this way, skepticism can challenge
any and every claim that we might make about ourselves and about the world.
	 To go a bit further into skepticism, consider a thought experiment that is well
known in epistemology: the "brain in a vat" scenario. To present it simply: how
do I know that I am not, in fact, a brain in a vat? How do I know that all of my
experiences are not simply being simulated in a laboratory somewhere – that
everything I perceive is not reality, but rather some dream-like illusion? I
cannot be certain. Likewise, I cannot be certain that I am not in fact dreaming
right now, or being deceived by some strange supernatural beings, and so
on.

	 To take this discussion away from specific claims and back to philosophies
themselves: any particular philosophy is founded on some set of axioms. Axioms
must simply be taken as foundations with no outside support; they are the
self-justifying claims of the trilemma. In essence, they must be accepted on
faith alone. Given that we define an "ideal philosophy" as a philosophy that can
be known to be sound with absolute certainty, it appears that no philosophy is
"ideal," and no philosophy can be ideal. No philosophy could be known to be
sound with absolute certainty because the premises on which that philosophy
rests must in essence be accepted without proof – or, at least, without perfect
proof.
	 What, then, is left? When we cannot be certain of our axioms – or even, for
that matter, of reality – what sort of philosophy might we build? Necessarily,
it would be a "practical philosophy": a philosophy built for the purpose of
helping its practitioner navigate the world effectively. Such a philosophy will
not be able to demonstrate claims with absolute certainty; it will not provide
us with reasons to be completely certain that reality exists, or that the use of
evidence is absolutely ideal as a standard for judging the validity of claims.
In such a philosophy we will do without this level of certainty, and accept what
appears to be the only option that the universe gives us: beliefs that are not
justified to the most rigorous conceivable standards, but that are "good
enough." (Note: it was Max who first exposed me to the idea that I might let go
of trying to find a rigorous truth with philosophy, and simply base my
philosophy on what is practical.)

	 As an aside that will show more of the differences between practical and ideal
philosophies: I suspect that a person must choose between the pursuit of
happiness and the pursuit of truth. Given that the pursuit of truth is
sufficiently rigorous, I propose that a person will be unable to find happiness,
because he/she will be unable to overcome the doubt posed by radical skepticism.
Practical philosophies are for the pursuit of happiness, while "ideal
philosophies" are for the pursuit of truth. I do not believe that an ideal
philosophy is possible: that is, I do not believe that a person can derive some
absolute rules that state how people ought to live, or even derive absolute,
certain rules about the universe. I believe that we all need to settle for
accepting the world as it appears to be. Very importantly, I should note that
while a practical philosophy is fundamentally about the pursuit of happiness,
that pursuit may be made by what is very much like the pursuit of truth. If we
define "truth" not as some unobtainable and certain ideal, but rather as the
"reality" that our senses perceive, then the best practical philosophies would
pursue happiness by pursuing truth. And, indeed, it is quite "practical" to
define truth in this way.

	 I introduced skepticism earlier using Agrippa's trilemma. However, it bears
mentioning that the trilemma may take entirely the wrong approach to knowledge.
It is possible that we should not be concerned with "justification" at all.
(Quick note: philosophers in the past commonly defined knowledge as a "true
justified belief," and a similar but different definition is likely used by
numerous epistemologists today.)
Consider Karl Popper's "critical
rationalism" – his philosophy that reason is not for justifying claims at all,
but rather for falsifying them. Agrippa's trilemma would be irrelevant to a
philosophy built around critical rationalism – or, at least, the trilemma would
be irrelevant to that philosophy's statements regarding knowledge. This
philosophy might still run into issues with skepticism in so far as it is based
on premises.
	 Another important point to note is that we might do best not to be concerned
with "certainty" or the "absolute." It may even arguably be irrational to doubt
reality; if nothing that our senses perceive gives us reason to doubt that
reality is as it appears to be, then we are essentially "making things up" when
we claim that reality may not exist. This is a similar point to the one made by
G.E. Moore in his "Here is a hand" argument (there is a Wikipedia article on
this called "Here is a hand"), which is the most powerful objection to
skepticism that I am aware of. In fact, Moore's argument may deal with
skepticism entirely, and I'd encourage anyone else interested in the topic to
investigate it.
	 To sum all of this up, skepticism is doubt; it appears to prevent any
philosophy from being a genuinely "ideal" philosophy. However, depending on the
way that one thinks about the world – if, for instance, one is not concerned
with absolute justifications, but rather with a critical approach to knowledge
and the world – skepticism may not bear on a person's thinking, at least not in
a practical sense.

In an animal study Amino-acid Glycine extended average and maximum lifespan of
rats about 30%.
In another study Glycine significantly delayed the onset and the progression of
diabetic cataract in rats.

Morelife regimen includes TMG ( Tri-methyl-glycine or glycine betaine), but not
Glycine. Should Morelife regimen include Glycine supplement? Maybe it will have
less life extension effect for individuals who are already on CR or MR diet.

Orhan Kulluoglu

The studies:

Dietary glycine supplementation mimics lifespan extension by dietary methionine
restriction in Fisher 344 rats
The FASEB Journal. April 2011
Joel Brind1,2, Virginia Malloy2, Ines Augie2, Nicholas Caliendo2, Joseph H
Vogelman2, Jay A. Zimmerman2,3 and Norman Orentreich2
1 Natural Sciences, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, NY
2 Orentreich Foundation for the Advancement of Science, Inc., Cold
Spring-on-Hudson, NY
3 Biology, St. John's University, Queens, NY
Dietary methionine (Met) restriction (MR) extends lifespan in rodents by 30–40%
and inhibits growth. Since glycine is the vehicle for hepatic clearance of
excess Met via glycine N-methyltransferase (GNMT), we hypothesized that dietary
glycine supplementation (GS) might produce biochemical and endocrine changes
similar to MR and also extend lifespan. Seven-week-old male Fisher 344 rats were
fed diets containing 0.43% Met/2.3% glycine (control fed; CF) or 0.43% Met/4%,
8% or 12% glycine until natural death. In 8% or 12% GS rats, median lifespan
increased from 88 weeks (w) to 113 w, and maximum lifespan increased from 91 w
to 119 w v CF. Body growth reduction was less dramatic, and not even significant
in the 8% GS group. Dose-dependent reductions in several serum markers were also
observed. Long-term (50 w) 12% GS resulted in reductions in mean (±SD) fasting
glucose (158 ± 13 v 179 ± 46 mg/dL), insulin (0.7 ± 0.4 v 0.8 ± 0.3 ng/mL),
IGF-1 (1082 ± 128 v 1407 ± 142 ng/mL) and triglyceride (113 ± 31 v 221 ± 56
mg/dL) levels compared to CF. Adiponectin, which increases with MR, did not
change in GS after 12 w on diet. We propose that more efficient Met clearance
via GNMT with GS could be reducing chronic Met toxicity due to rogue
methylations from chronic excess methylation capacity or oxidative stress from
generation of toxic by-products such as formaldehyde. This project received no
outside funding.
Source:
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/25/1_MeetingAbstracts/528.2?s\
id=5ee9d349-1b71-4a6b-9fef-7faf4e03dae9

Glycine therapy inhibits the progression of cataract in streptozotocin-induced
diabetic rats
Published online 2012 February 11.

The results indicated that the oral administration of Gly significantly delayed
the onset and the progression of diabetic cataract in rats. These effects were
due to its antiglycating action and to a lesser extent, due to the inhibition of
oxidative stress and polyol pathway.
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3283203/

An interesting study relating to quality of life.

--Paul

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/timemoneyless-happiness-rotman-study-finds
-----------------------
Putting a monetary value on your time isn't the route to happiness
Ken McGuffin
time, money
Placing a monetary value on your time won't lead to happiness, say U of T
researchers. (Bigstock photo)

What does "free time" mean to you? When you're not at work, do you pass the time
-- or spend it?

The difference may impact how happy you are. A new study shows people who put a
price on their time are more likely to feel impatient when they're not using it
to earn money. And that hurts their ability to derive happiness during leisure
activities.

Treating time as money can actually undermine your well-being," said Sanford
DeVoe, one of two researchers at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of
Management who carried out the study.

Professor DeVoe and PhD student Julian House based their conclusions on three
experiments. In each, a sub-group of participants was primed, through survey
questions, to think about their time in terms of money. This group subsequently
showed greater impatience and lower satisfaction during leisure activities
introduced during the experiments. However, they also reported more enjoyment
and less impatience when they were paid during one of those activities, which
was listening to music.

The experiments' results demonstrate that thinking about time in terms of money
"changes the way you actually experience time," said DeVoe. "Two people may
experience the same thing, over the same amount of time, yet react to it very
differently."

With growth over the last several decades in jobs paid by the hour, it's
important for people to be "mindful," of the impact this can have on their
leisure enjoyment, he says, and allow themselves "to really smell the roses."
------------------------

[In addition to wondering whether time-pricers "allow themselves "to really
smell the roses"", there is the question of how much value/time they give to
really communicating with friends, spouses and children..... And the
philosophical message most of the latter will get is "this is how life is
supposed to be lived". **Kitty]

Meta
This is a part of an ongoing email exchange that Daniel and I were having, which
I asked Daniel to post here before next response because I thought that members
of the group might be interested and might even benefit from the exchange.

Because Daniel's email program will not do correct formatting, this required
extensive editing which is the reason for the delay between his posting date and
release time from the MoreLife Yahoo queue.
/Meta

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Paul Wakfer wrote:

> On 01/22/2012 10:08 PM, Daniel Kimbel wrote:

>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Paul Wakfer

>>> On 01/02/2012 04:28 PM, Daniel Kimbel wrote:

>>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Paul Wakfer wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Daniel Kimbel wrote:

>>>>>> During my last year of college, I spent a significant amount of
>>>>>> time thinking about what the most important thing I could do
>>>>>> with my life might be, and settled on life-extension research.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be interested to learn what you had read that led you to
>>>>> that conclusion and your reasons for it at that time.
>>>>>
>>>> This wasn't actually influenced significantly by many things
>>>> that I read. I had recently read Peter Singer's The Life You Can
>>>> Save, which is probably best described as "pop philosophy" and
>>>> is not at all rigorous, but which essentially put me in a
>>>> mindset of 'you can change the world through your consciously
>>>> chosen actions.' I've since found that Branden makes this point
>>>> more explicitly. The only other thing that I had read which was
>>>> particularly related to my decision was a brief paragraph
>>>> describing biological engineering in my Rice book of course
>>>> offerings. That left me with the impression that, if I (or
>>>> others) were to focus on biological research with the intention
>>>> of enhancing human life, a great deal of good might be done.
>>>> I've believed that technology could do a great deal to enhance
>>>> and lengthen human lives since I was little, though.
>>>>
>>>> My decision to work on life extension research was not one that
>>>> I made with a great deal of confidence, simply because I didn't
>>>> see anyone else drawing the same conclusions, but it was based
>>>> on logic. I didn't want to die, and science at least had a
>>>> chance to help me stay alive, so I decided to pursue that
>>>> science. I was a bit more extreme in my stance then than I am
>>>> now: at that point I believed that a life that ended in death
>>>> had not been worth living, as it would not be remembered (this
>>>> is based on the premise that death results in oblivion, among
>>>> others; I have always had a difficult time formulating some of
>>>> those others).
>>>
>>> The only one who can decide whether or not your life is or has
>>> been worth living is you. To be concerned about whether or not
>>> you are remembered is not self-directed, but rather purely
>>> other oriented. That having been said, since my major creative
>>> work is for the purpose of promoting and achieving a
>>> stateless. self-ordered society of total liberty and greatly
>>> increased freedom, I am concerned that at the present stage of
>>> understanding and acceptance of my work it will be all lost
>>> and the effort put into it will have gone for naught if I were
>>> to actually die soon. Of course, being both a life
>>> extensionist and a cryonicist, I have no intention of actually
>>> dying for a very long time to come, even though I may have to
>>> enter a state of suspended life for a lengthy period several
>>> decades from now.
>>
>> I should have been more clear in my phrasing -- I meant that my
>> concern was that, once I was dead, I myself would not have any
>> memory of my own life.
>
> But the facts are even stronger than that. Once dead, there would be
> no active or ever active mind that is a continuer of the current you
> to have any memories at all nor any other human attributes/concerns.

I agree with this -- the facts are as strong as you say. The main point I meant
to convey was that I ultimately will not remember my own life, which is relevant
to a point I'll make soon in this email.

>> In the same way that the dreams I have at night seem arbitrary and
>> meaningless because I do not remember them,
>
> Whether you consciously remember your dreams or not is not highly
> relevant to whether or not they are arbitrary, meaningless and
> mentally unimportant (all of which I am strongly convinced are
> false). They can still have all the attributes of non-arbitrariness,
> meaningfulness and importance wrt your subconscious, without any
> conscious memory. But I have another question: if you truly never
> remember your night dreams, then how do you even know that you have
> any?

I haven't given much thought to dreaming or read any scientific literature about
it, but I agree with your point that my lack of conscious memory of my dreams is
not sufficient to make them arbitrary, meaningless, or mentally unimportant.

I do at times remember my night dreams, which would be the way I know that I
have any. I'll leave major discussion of skepticism to the MoreLife thread, but
depending on one's standards of knowledge, even such memories might not be
enough to demonstrate that I did indeed have dreams. If one's standards are
rigorous enough, one will never "know" anything (with the apparent contradiction
that one "knows" that one knows nothing, which I do not take to be a serious
philosophical issue, though it likely merits more thought).

The main point I meant to make here was that, all other things being equal, if I
had the option to continue "dreaming" (such that I would continue to receive its
subconscious benefits) without consciously experiencing my dreams, I would not
have much of a preference either way. Since I do not remember the conscious
experience of the dreams, it feels as if that conscious experience may as well
never have happened. If we make a principle out of this, to the tune of
"forgetting something makes it not worth having experienced in the first place,"
that could then be applied to life, given that life ends in oblivion. I suppose
this is not a good philosophy to hold, though. At least I can enjoy myself while
I am alive. It does not seem rational to me to refuse to take pleasure in
anything that is not eternal -- not only because that would be wildly
impractical, but because there is no reason to hold that standard in the first
place.

>> life itself would perhaps be arbitrary.
>
> If you want to think that all of existence is arbitrary and
> pointless then I certainly cannot logically argue against you. All
> that I can do is give a practical and consistency-seeking response.
> What is the value in holding such notions as valid?

Throughout my life, I haven't weighed beliefs (convictions?) based on their
value to me, but rather based on their truth, in as absolute a sense as
possible. This may have been the wrong approach.

> If you really acted on such thoughts then you would not be alive
> right now to be having this discussion. Since you don't intend to
> adhere rigorously to such nihilistic notions (or we would not be
> having this discussion), then you must value your life somewhat and
> since you do, then practically, why not operate to optimize that
> value?

This last is an especially good point. I still eat food; when I want to drive
somewhere, I use my car, but not when the fuel tank is empty; and so on. There
isn't much point in interacting with the world half-heartedly, while essentially
refusing to take pleasure in it on account of some various imperfections. Given
that I am finding some value in life, I ought to optimize that value.

>> That was the gist of the argument I had in mind. (Granted, dreams
>> could be considered arbitrary for other reasons, too.)

> Much recent neurological research suggests that dreams are not
> arbitrary.

>> Out of curiosity, do you (Paul) consider your own concern about
>> your work being lost to be irrational? I just mean in the sense
>> that you described: that it isn't oriented at yourself.

> Good point! I am glad to see your analytical ability enabled you to
> spot my error of phrasing (because I haven't fully and totally
> eliminated irrationalities which I held earlier in life - and are
> highly expressed in current society, but which I no longer logically
> hold). I should have phrased it as follows: "...of my work I will
> not have actually maximally increased my lifetime happiness because
> all my efforts in this regard will not have born fruition (will not
> have succeeded according to my own evaluation) before the end of my
> life, were to actually die soon".
> But you are correct. As originally stated, it was inconsistent with
> my other statements regarding rational thinking re actual death (as
> opposed to cryopreservation with the possibility of restoration to
> fully functional life).
>
> The problem with thinking about self-orientedness wrt my SelfSIP
> work is that the very essence and purpose of the basic approach is
> that it is necessary for a person to be other-oriented in a certain
> way in order to be self-oriented. As you will see when you read and
> understand the ideas of Social Meta-Needs and their implementation
> operations, any possibility of maximizing one's own Lifetime
> Happiness in human society must necessarily entail efforts to help
> everyone else maximize hir own Lifetime Happiness. This is why my
> short slogan is "All for one, and one for all". This necessarily
> leads to other-orientedness, but only as that benefits self, rather
> than harming self (as it would in any consistent altruism).

I think I understand this already, without having yet finished reading your
Theory of Social Meta-Needs; a life lived in complete isolation would surely not
optimize one's own happiness, and treating others poorly (even with any
morals/ethics aside) would also not be conducive to optimizing one's own
happiness.

>>>> Now, I'm less concerned about that, because, so long as I'm
>>>> dead, I won't know or care that I am no longer alive. That
>>>> keeps death from being something that I find terrifying. I
>>>> still do prefer life, of course.
>>>
>>> I'm pleased to see that you have come to realize that -
>>> something which I too realized fully sometime in my 20s. Since
>>> that time I have always made a strong distinction between
>>> being afraid to die (which I am not), and very much wanting to
>>> continue to live (which I certainly do). But still better
>>> said: once you no longer exist, it matters not what is
>>> happening in the world. That is why cryonics gives one a very
>>> different attitude toward life and death - because a
>>> cryonicist has hopefully not ceased to exist when
>>> cryopreserved (only will s/he retroactively have ceased to
>>> exist if s/he cannot be restored to functional life and/or any
>>> possibility of that is ended).
>>
>> This is an interesting idea: retroactively ceasing to exist. I'm
>> not sure what field this would fall into (metaphysics?), but I
>> think of it differently. To me, a person who is cryogenically
>> preserved no longer exists (that is, his/her mind no longer
>> exists), but that mind has the potential to exist again. In that
>> way, if he/she is not resuscitated, then the potential is lost but
>> nothing happens retroactively. Granted, I'm probably wading very
>> deep into philosophical waters that I do not fully understand by
>> tossing around the notion of a nonexistent mind with the
>> "potential" to exist. Can a nonexistent entity be said to have
>> potential? Perhaps something that does not exist cannot have any
>> characteristic of any kind, and potential might be dubbed a
>> characteristic.

> Although your first thought might seem quite reasonable, in the end
> you have essentially described why it is not.
> The best metaphor that I know is to think of the mind/brain as like
> a computer. When a human's brain is cryopreserved it is like the
> computer power is off - just as the data and programs still exist on
> the permanent memory of the computer, so too does the software of
> the mind still exist as neuronal chemicals and synaptic
> interconnections in the cryopreserved brain. All that is lacking is
> the ability of the mind to process that software/data (BTW, with
> respect to a mind/brain, any distinction between data and programs
> is still very far from clear).
> The reason why the non-existence of the mind must necessarily be
> retroactive is that until everything possible has been tried to get
> the power back on for a given brain/mind, it is premature to say
> that the fidelity of mind software archive is insufficient to enable
> its reboot and therefore the original brain/mind is truly dead.
> Again the computer metaphor can be applied to the situation where
> the permanent storage has been damaged to such a state that the
> original data/programs are effectively lost/destroyed.

It still seems very metaphysically strange to me that an entity could
retroactively cease to exist, but I don't have any specific issues with anything
you've written here. I think this would make the most sense if we define
"potential" not as something that an entity truly possesses in a metaphysical
sense, but rather as something that humans assign to that entity as a matter of
convenience -- kind of like we say that a coin has a 50% chance of landing
"heads" when it's flipped, even though the precise forces acting on the coin
ought to give it either a 100% chance or a 0% chance of landing on heads. It's
just that those forces are not sufficiently known to us, so we need to assign
probabilities. Likewise, we simply don't know whether a person's consciousness
will be rebooted from a frozen brain, so we say that the person's mind
"potentially" exists -- that there is a nonzero probability that he/she will be
resuscitated in the future. I would not find it strange for us to retroactively
remove such a potential, just as we might look back and say, "ah, apparently
that coin was certain to land on heads."
<snipping old text>

Daniel