HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: What do I do with it?
Date: 6 Sep 92 01:11:00 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep4.001558.18246@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca> tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis) writes:
>From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
>Subject: Re: What do I do with it?
>Date: 4 Sep 92 00:15:58 GMT

>Henry Choy wonders:
>> Let's say I want to build an intelligent machine. What's it to be
>> used for? Can this machine out its role in the universe?

>If we can build one truly intelligent machine, then in principle we
>can build a very large number of them. (Recall that the only numbers
>of interest to theoretical computer scientists are zero, one and
>infinity.)  With just a wee bit of randomization we can give them
>differing biases/prejudices/bigotries.  We can then set them arguing
>against (and "killing") each other: very large scale genetic algorithmics.

>As well as confounding immensely such issues as God and qualia,
>they could also, as a minor sub-task, do all of the posting in
>the newsgroup comp.ai.philosophy, freeing us to do some real work.

>--
>tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada

If it's truly intelligent, it should claim not to be *used* for your 
purposes at all. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Test Myths (long)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:34:38 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Aug13.025506.2404@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>Then what do ordinary people do?  So far as we know they scarcely use
>any logic at all.  The studies made by the great child psychologist
>Jean Piaget suggest that the abilities required for to manipulating
>formal expressions are not reliably available to children until their
>second decade, if ever.

Many of Piaget's conclusions have been questioned, and later work
has often found evidence pointing the other way.  See, eg, Margaret
Donaldson's book Children's Minds (or somehting like that).

Nonetheless, the general conclusion that people scarcely use logic
at all still seems right.

-- jd
From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:15:46 GMT
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona

epfaith@sunkist.berkeley.edu (Edward Paul Faith) writes:

   > Here I want to question whether subjective experience actually
   > occurs in the brain.

	[ . . . ]

   > The result is that an experience does not require simply the
   > brain to exist, but rather requires a combination of the brain
   > plus part of the outside world in order to exist.

   > I would be very grateful for comments.

What do you think about phantom limb experiences?  (These are very
common in amputees; they are sensations -- often including severe pain
-- that seem subjectively to come from the amputated limb.)

	-- Bill
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Language (was Biological Sex Differences?)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 9 Sep 1992 14:16:39 EDT
 t.edu><1992Sep9.124758.11996@cci632.cci.com> <37843@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
-
-Lakoff is very entertaining.  "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things"
-perhaps is more to the original point of this thread ... :-)
-
-Dave DeMers                      ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu

There is a particular category of nouns in Sanskrit, female nouns ending
in the  oo  sound.  There are only three nouns in this category.
They are vadhoo, svastroo and chamoo, meaning, respectively,
bride, mother-in-law, and army.  I have no idea what causes these particular
three to go together!  Recall also, Shaw's `flies, flees and fathers of the
Church'.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:18:30 GMT

megazone@rivdell.sccsi.com (Megazoner) writes:
> ... You gonna tell me that the lenses on a heavy laser are
>gonna last mounted on a tank moving in rough terrain? The ranging laser
>on the M1 had those problems, even with turret stabilization.
>
For large lasers, you can use a front surface rear mirror that's
part of the housing (rock-solid) with an output coupler which can
be dynamically adjusted with piezoelectrics - needed anyway because
of heating effects on firing - inside a nice long protective tube
with shock absorbers that will take advantage of the bigger laser's
greater inertia. The big lasers, properly designed, will probably
survive better than either the M1's ranging laser or the small
alignment lasers that will be used in field maintenance of the
big lasers.
******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Sense of time (was Re: Consiousness)
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:32:36 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Aug26.000119.10596@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>A related myth is that because Chinese doesn't have verb tenses (they actually
>do have a few) they cant express time.  I can think in Chinese and the sense
>of time is as clear as English.

But you also know English.  Your thinking in Chinese may therefore
be contaminated.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re:
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:40:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.205807.10882@linus.mitre.org>,
mark_turnbull.g033@qmgate.mitre.org (Mark Turnbull) writes:

>> The real point of the TT is that if we had a
>> pen-pal whom we had corresponded with for a lifetime, we would never
>> need to have seen him to infer that he had a mind. So if a machine
>> pen-pal could do the same thing, it would be arbitrary to deny it had a
>> mind just because it was a machine. That's all there is to it!
>
>> [stuff deleted]
>
>Well, that's all there would be to it if, whenever I embarked on a 
>lifetime pen-pal relationship, I could make no reasonable assumptions 
>about the nature of the pen-pal.  I wouldn't arbitrarily deny a pen-pal 
>its mind just because I knew it to be a machine of a different type than I 
>am, nor would I expect its performance to be better in any respect than 
>that of the human I assume has a mind, but isn't there a lot left out if one 
>takes the responses, verbal and otherwise, of a device, to be the only 
>relevant (and indeed, sufficient) information to be used in judging the 
>presence of a mind?  I'm not willing to jettison all the other things I 
>believe about my currently likely pen-pals and state that biological facts 
>play no part in my assessment of the chances that my correspondent has a 
>mind.  The TT is only "enough to allow us to correctly infer that a real 
>person has a mind" with the appropriate background information.  Of 
>course, you may be saying (and may have said elsewhere) that we have no 
>reason to even consider anything other than the responses and that those 
>who do consider other factors ought to rethink their habits ...

Harnad was only presenting Turing's reasoning. He agrees with you that
the Turing Test is not enough. But I don't.

I find it strange to you assert that your assumptions about the
*biology* of your pen-pals plays any kind of role in knowing whether
they have minds. What aspects of biology are relevant? What
assumptions about my biology are needed for you to conclude that I
have a mind?

Personally, I think that biology is relevant only to the extent that
it affects performance: for example, we know that things without
brains (or with only tiny ones) are generally incapable of the kind of
behavior that we associate with having a mind. I think that behavior
tells us what biology is sufficient, rather than (as you suggest)
biology tells us what behavior is sufficient.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY











Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5993 rec.arts.sf.misc:2838 alt.cyberpunk:4184
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:29:13 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


>>Where is this marvelous list?  I'g like to see the rest of it!

If any one has a copy post it.. I think its relevant

Dave
--
David Butcher n0404@ncl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: action verbs
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:20:32 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.034138.15488@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>More generally, I have found only a very few verbs that reflect any
>appreciable discredit upon the subject-agent.  It is almost impossible
>to admit to a fault without using the passive, or other form of
>periphrase to be evasive.  Could this be a subtle way of imparting a
>society's values to its members?  Weird.

How about invade, hurt, abuse, slander, torture, flame, rape, neglect,
kill, murder, violate, misuse, screw, flee, mock, maim, mislead, backstab,
corrupt, brainwash, pillage, despoil, enslave, mistreat, fail, cheat,
devastate, disappoint, abandon, ruin, annoy, bore, dominate, overwork,
trap, damage, deceive, con, mug, poison, infect, spoil, defraud, lurk,
trick, misjudge, scam, bankrupt, impoverish, terrorize, exasperate, stiff,
stonewall, break, dupe, betray, bilk, hate, oppress, upset, and repel?

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5966 rec.arts.sf.misc:2820 alt.cyberpunk:4147
From: morpheus@entropy.mcds.com (morpheus)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 06:45:42 EDT
Organization: Whoever you vote for, the government still gets elected.

chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes:

> Pretend the people following you around are casting agents from
> the movie studios.

You mean they aren't?  Who else but a casting agent would drive one of those
dark blue LTs that I see so many of.. (one lives at the end of my driveway)


> "One world government. Have a nice day. Or else."

"Look into the camera, please."



--
  "The Hell Law says that Hell is reserved exclusivly for them that believe in
  it. Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that believe in it
  on supposition that they'll go there if they don't."-the Principia Discordia

         morpheus@entropy.mcds.com  /\/\/\/  f208.n2606.z1.fidonet.org
From: iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Marvin Minsky's Conscious Machines
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:18:50 GMT

markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>In article <iordonez.715293767@academ01> iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
>>>>P: This sentence is not true.
>>
>>I don't know if this is supposed to prove that sentence P is formalizable,
>>but anyway please note that in my original post I claimed that P is not
>>formalizable because it contains a "not TRUE" part, and not because it
>>is self referent. The concept "truth" is not formalizable.

>This sentence implies that the concept of "truth" is irrelevent and immaterial
>regarding the issue of logical paradox and that only the existence of
>self-reference and implication matter.

OK. Let's go again. This is sentence P:

P: Sentence P is not true.

Lets define property T:

T: To be true.

So P can be expressed as:

P: Sentence P does not have property T.

IMHO, formalizing sentence P implies formalizing property T, or else P
would be incomplete. Matthew P Wiener wrote in another note:

>Tarski's theorem is about the non-formalizability of a general truth
>predicate.  It says nothing about particular instantiations of truth.
>In particular, B&E show how to formalize "This sentence is true".

Please note that property T does not contain a particular instantiation
of truth, but a general, abstract and unformalizable concept: _To be
true_. Given this, I don't think that the concept of truth is irrelevant
at all; au contraire, it is the very core of the paradox, while self
reference is the not-so-important part.

--Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso
iordonez@omega.mty.itesm.mx
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6034 comp.robotics:1753 comp.databases.theory:467
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:54:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.134609.23335@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org () writes:
}In article <BuH0JM.5E4@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
}>In article <1992Sep11.230936.14718@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org writes:
}>
}>       On using small nuclear devices to produce EMP  to destroy
}>high-tech gadgets:
}>
}>
}>       Hmmm. Anyone  know if EMP-enhanced weapons are available?
}>A  non-nuclear EMP device might be very useful in a near-future war,
}>as well. Only problem is that producing EMP weapons may require
}>First World grade industry, in which case the Third World may find
}>it hard to get their hands on them.
}>
}Generating an electromagnetic pulse can be done without a nuclear device.
}It requires lots of power and an interesting array of wires. There is an
}EMP setup big enough to put whole airplanes into at Kirtland Air Force
}Base in New Mexico (it was, and presumably still is, used to evaluate
}the vulnerability of aircraft electronics to emp - military electronics
}are designed to survive with the possibility of exposure to EMP in mind).
}It is big - not portable - and the aircraft has to be inside. Its use
}did not disrupt electronics in Albuquerque, which is adjacent to the
}site. In short, if you want to generate an EMP under battlefield conditions,
}you will need a nuclear device

Nah.  A cesium seeded high temperature explosion can generate the electrical 
pulse through MHD to send the wave through trailing wires.  A use-it-once
weapon, but most are.  Fits in a BIG artillery shell.

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:17:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.204605.8351@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org writes:
}In article <1992Sep14.175430.11621@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>
}>Nah.  A cesium seeded high temperature explosion can generate the electrical
}>pulse through MHD to send the wave through trailing wires.  A use-it-once
}>weapon, but most are.  Fits in a BIG artillery shell.
}>
}That's new to me - can you make the pulse directional by configuring the
}wires? And what kind of pulse strength are we talking here (for the arty)?

I do not recall that information from open sources.(I DO remember the first
shell being mentioned in Newsleak about....oh...9 years ago or so)


Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: langston@memstvx1.memst.edu (Mark C. Langston)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_news
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:28:36 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Sep7.165639.291@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jmilhoan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jason T Milhoan) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.204150.21696@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>>>In article <185bhuINNj0v@agate.berkeley.edu> cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>btw-- F451 is on the list for the top 5 banned books in US schools...
>>>>wonder why?
>>>
>>>Where is this marvelous list?  I'g like to see the rest of it!
> 
> An example of just how ridiculous this list can be...  The Where's Waldo series of kid's books (wjere you have to find the picture of Waldo on a page with hundreds of other people) is banned because of the Satanic elements.  Yes, some even have a little picture of a witch in them.
> 
> I had a girlfriend who worked at a bookstore.  She had access to the list of banned books, and I actually got pretty upset at the reasons for why some of the books were banned.  The store even sponsored a "Banned Book Week", where all titles of the banned books which they had in stock were on sale and special displays were made up.
> 
> JT
> 
> 
> 


Davis Kidd Booksellers does this from time to time, and would probably be
receptive to requests for the list...


-- 
+--------8<------Cut Here------8<------Cut Here------8<------Cut Here---------+
  Mark C. Langston   |  "Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny."                 
  Psychology Dept.   |  "Always listen to experts.  They'll tell you what can't
  Memphis State U.   |     be done, and why.  Then do it."                      
      "Pftph!"       |           -From the notebooks of Lazarus Long
From: william@moica.berkeley.edu (William E. Grosso)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re:
Date: 12 Sep 1992 22:08:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: pinoko.berkeley.edu

Daryl McCullough writes
> mark_turnbull.g033@qmgate.mitre.org (Mark Turnbull) writes:
> >Well, that's all there would be to it if, whenever I embarked on a 
> >lifetime pen-pal relationship, I could make no reasonable assumptions 
> >about the nature of the pen-pal.  I wouldn't arbitrarily deny a  
pen-pal 
> >its mind just because I knew it to be a machine of a different type  
than I 
> >am, nor would I expect its performance to be better in any respect  
than 
> >that of the human I assume has a mind, but isn't there a lot left out  
if one 
> >takes the responses, verbal and otherwise, of a device, to be the only 
> >relevant (and indeed, sufficient) information to be used in judging  
the 
> >presence of a mind?  I'm not willing to jettison all the other things  
I 
> >believe about my currently likely pen-pals and state that biological  
facts 
> >play no part in my assessment of the chances that my correspondent has  
a 
> >mind.  


> I find it strange to you assert that your assumptions about the
> *biology* of your pen-pals plays any kind of role in knowing whether
> they have minds. What aspects of biology are relevant? What
> assumptions about my biology are needed for you to conclude that I
> have a mind?
> 

I think the point my be that "biology" is a very strong piece
of corroborating evidence that could sway the decision towards 
the conclusion "my pen-pal is intelligent". Because, if an
entity which is quite similar to me is writing me letters, I
am predisposed to say that it is producing the letters in much
the same way I would. E.g. by thinking.

Whereas I might not have a similar insight into how a dis-similar
entity produces its letters and therefore might not be so hasty
in crediting said entity with intelligence.

Having said the above, let me say that I think it is flawed.
It gives me another method to detect intelligence (e.g 
through the argument "I am intelligent. That being is functionally
equivalent to me. therefore that being is intelligent"). It does
bot invalidate TT.

Bill Grosso


Newsgroups: comp.ai,alt.hypertext,comp.ai.edu
From: hougen@deci.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen)
Subject: Re: Number of Expert Systems currently in use
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: comp,alt
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:29:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.165822.25585@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
>It depends greatly on whom you ask (and what you call an expert system).
>Here is an excerpt from my upcoming Intro AI text:
>
>   How many successfully fielded expert systems are there?  It depends on
>   whom you ask.  Of the three that we have mentioned, R1 and the
>   oil-well tool were successfully delivered to their corporate sponsors;
>   MYCIN has not been put into actual use.  Ed Feigenbaum will tell you
>   that there are on the order of 5000 successfully fielded expert
>   systems; Hubert Dreyfus, one of AI's leading critics, has said that
>   there are about five fielded systems, and only four of those make
>   money.  A decade ago, \cite{Feigenbaum:fifth} listed forty-three
>   ``selected experimental and operational expert systems,'' of which six
>   were described as operational.  Two of these six were medical systems
>   that have, to the best of my knowledge, never been used clinically.
>
I agree, it definitely does depend on what you call an expert system.  And
on what is meant by "successfully fielded".  The state of Minnesota is 
currently using a system that I wrote using a commercial expert system shell
in order to rate soils with regard to degree of pesticide run-off and 
leaching, using data collected from the state-wide soil surveys.  Does this
count?  (Are we up to six now Dreyfus?  I'm sure he'd find a reason to
discount it.  Perhaps because it works.)

>I, too, would appreciate hearing about any definitive answer.  Thanks!
>
>						Matt Ginsberg

Dean Hougen
--
"What is it?"  - Talking Heads
From: tyleri@rhqvm19.VNET.IBM.COM (Irv Tyler)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 16:32:22 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: test
Organization: ISSC (An IBM Company)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

no text
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy