HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:02:01 GMT

In article <Btuwx0.1I3@rice.edu> ratner@owlnet.rice.edu (Logan Joshua Ratner) writes:
>In article <COSC176T.92Aug29235513@menudo.uh.edu> cosc176t@menudo.uh.edu (Jason Asbahr) writes:
>>
>> Hans Moravec says:
>>
>>>   You're right, technology is making things worse.  Let's get
>>>   rid of television.
>>
>>I wouldn't mind getting rid of *most* of television, and changing
>>the nature of the rest.  An alarming (is it fashionable to be
>>alarmist?) portion of everyday television programming is fairly
>>mind-numbing stuff -- I try to avoid it whenever possible!
>
>
>Oh, I really feel I must disagree.  Personally, I find most aspects
>of Pop Culture academically fascinating.  Visual media especially so.
>Actually, there seems to be a large emphesis in studying Pop Culture
>within Postmodern thought (especially in Literary Circles.)  Seeing
>Jason posted to alt.cyberpunk I feel free to bring up postmodernism.
>
>In any case, I feel TV may in fact be the best window into the mass
>subconscious around.  Want to see what really moves a modern culture?
>Check out the top rated shows in prime time, then ask yourself, "Why
>does this sell?"
>
>To put it in 'punk terms, the masses can be useful if you know how
>to move them.  If that seems callous, well, thats the way thing run 
>in this group sometimes.
>
>There is a danger to all this, however.  Check out Gibson's short story
>"The Gernbeck Continumn" in the Burning Chrome collection.  Just because
>you are intellectually aware that you're viewing the mass subconscious 
>doesn't mean it won't reach you too.  Emotions are contagous...
>
>Well, know that I've made my plug for the day, I'm going to go rent 
>a really bad movie.  They keep the flying saucers away %-)
>
>					Ratner
>
>P.S. I'd love to recomend I book that deals with these ideas further,
>(especially the relationship between C.P. and postmodernism) but I 
>don't remember the author off-hand.  The title is Strange Weather, and
>it is non-fiction.  If anyone is interested, I'll look it up and let 
>you know who it's by.
>					Rat

What does any of this have to do with the philosophy of artificial
intelligence?  Just asking!
-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5923 rec.arts.sf.misc:2771 alt.cyberpunk:4061
From: anthro@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Bramscher)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:25:01 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.


                
Jeremiah.Blatz@dartmouth.edu writes:            
                                        
> Several hundred years ago people were forced to build large forts      
> around their cities/homes to protect themselves from others with
> castles who wanted to kill them and steal their possetions. Around the
> previously mentioned fortifications hundreds of people huddles around
> in their houses made of mud, straw, and manure. Families needed to have
> lots (say, 5 or so) kids in order to continue their bloodline. Hardly
> anyone could read. Famine and epidemics were rampent, and no one had
> medical care.
> This was how the most wealthy cultures lived. 
>
> Today, this more describes the least well-off cultures.


Sounds an awful lot like a typical American metropolis.  Our castles are our
mansions and skyscrapers.  The castle walls are goon squads, police, private
security agencies, and high-tech security.  The houses made of mud are the    

ghettos or, worse, the homeless.  As for health care, well, that DOES belong
in a different newsgroup.  Suffice it to say that it's not a pretty picture.

That's all the spirit of cyberpunk.  It combines leading-edge technology with
an ancient, and stagnant social system -- plutocracy.  Rule by the economic
giants, the physically powerful.  A vast separation between the have's and
have-nots -- as seen in their access to technology.

Cyberpunks are have-nots, forced underground, there to obtain the technology
that otherwise would be far beyond their means.            


UUCP: {crash, tcnet, petrus, quest}!orbit!pnet51!anthro
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!anthro@nosc.mil
INET: anthro@pnet51.orb.mn.org
From: mwodrich@cs1.uct.ac.za (M WODRICH)
Subject: A Question
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:33:49 GMT

Does anybody ever use this newsgroup ?
Any hope of Motorcycle Maintenance type rhetoric ?

Or is that a rhetorical question ?

Mark Wodrich.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Consciousness
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:39:29 GMT

   Consciousness exists everywhere and in everything, like the background in
a picture.  But you need a sufficient degree of self-awareness to see the part
that lies in you.  So naturally people are going to confuse having
self-awareness with being conscious.  But what I see runs far deeper than
mere perception.
   A good approximation of what it's like having a consciousness without any
self-awareness is when you're in a deep sleep, or even better when you're
asleep and in a dream that has no first person point of view.  I've had plenty
of those: dreams in which I wasn't there and didn't exist.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: what is consciousness for?
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:50:09 GMT

In article <Btn9H3.2ns@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> cpshelle@logos.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes:
>rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>> No, that was not my meaning.  Language is far more important to us than
>> mere communication.
>> [...]
>>                  I believe we would have almost no memory recall ability
>> if it were not for this phenomenon.

>Possibly not, but having studied communication a little, I can't
>concieve of it as "mere".

In the most general sense of communication, no it is not mere.  If you
look a computer as a network communicating information between memory
cells, adders, multipliers, comparators, etc, you realize that
communication is vital in the production of intelligence.

>                                I would be interested if your theory
>could be tested empirically.

There are certain natural experiments.  From time to time a child is
born deaf, and his parents do not recognize the problem, so there is no
attempt to provide alternatives such as sign language or lip reading.
It is my understanding that in such children there is little normal
memory of events preceding the time that their problem is eventually
recognized and they do acquire language.

Of course there is an alternative interpretation - namely that the lack
of language cause abnormal brain development, and the memory problems
result from the abnormal development rather than from a dependence of
memory on language.  I know of no way of distinguishing between these
interpretations.

Organization: Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.cyberpunk,rec.arts.sf.misc
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:16:38 -0400 
From: John Robert Leavitt <jl3j+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_

Logan Ratner says:

P.S. I'd love to recomend I book that deals with these ideas further,
(especially the relationship between C.P. and postmodernism) but I
don't remember the author off-hand.  The title is Strange Weather, and
it is non-fiction.  If anyone is interested, I'll look it up and let
you know who it's by.


Here is the CMU library info on the book:

Author       Ross, Andrew, 1956-
Title        STRANGE WEATHER : culture, science, and technology in the age of
             limits / Andrew Ross.
Series Title Haymarket series
Publisher    London ; New York : Verso, 1991.
Description  book  275 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.
Subjects     Science - Philosophy.
             Science - Social aspects.
             Technology - Philosophy.
             Technology - Social aspects.
             Social change.
             Social problems.
Notes        Includes bibliographical references (p. 251-267) and index.
Date         1991
Language     english
Standard No. 0860913546 (hb)  0860915670 (pb)
OCLC No.     23975531
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: xarax@eniac.inesc.pt (Luis Antunes)
Subject: Still defining intelligence
Organization: INESC - Inst. Eng. Sistemas e Computadores, LISBOA. PORTUGAL.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:28:40 GMT

Please excuse me for bringing up this subject again but I didn't save a
few posts that interested me and turned up to be needing them now.

I think that the subject of a thread that existed a few weeks ago was
'Defining Intelligence'. I am particularly interested on a definition of
AI given by M. Minsky (I tyhink) which stated something like 'When AI
achieves something it isn't AI anymore'.

I am also interested on a list of subject areas someone posted as 'once
having belonged to the AI research field'. Things like graph
transversing, etc... I would like to have the name of the poster, so
that I can give a full reference if I need it... and he aloows me to.

Again I sorry that my thoughtnessless prevented me from saving those
articles. I thanbk you in advance for reposting (or e-mailing me) those
articles as well as some others you find interestingly related to them


Luis Antunes


Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Don't try to "define" intelligence
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:02:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.151333.24453@u.washington.edu> wcalvin@hardy.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>Human estimates of intelligence in other animals seem, to me, to be based
>on an animal's versatility.

>Human estimates of another human's intelligence are often based, not on
>versatility but on the speed of thinking and on how many things can be
>juggled "in mind" simultaneously (as needed for analogical reasoning) 

Yes, this is a discrepancy.  In my view, the way we look at human
intelligence is very misleading.  We would be better off looking at
human intelligence in the same way we look at animal intelligence.

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: cosc176t@menudo.uh.edu (Jason Asbahr)
Subject: _The Turing Option_
Organization: /posole/cosc176t/.organization
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 06:09:44 GMT


Greets, all...

I hope unsolicited testimonials are accepted here.  :)  

I've just finished the very enjoyable (and much awaited) book by
Harry Harrison and Marvin Minsky, _The Turing Option_.  TTO reflects 
both authors' talent for pushing current trends into the future and 
realistically suggesting their result.  

The story starts in the year 2023, far enough into the future for High
Definition Television to become recognized as an important high-tech item.
Much the future technology in common usage in _The Turing Option_ can
be clearly recognized as first having been born in American
universities like MIT, CMU and UNC.  It is pleasing to lose oneself
in a world where the fruits of the last half century of CS, AI, and
robotics research are familiar and useful tools.  The characters in TTO
are believable, and, if they lecture a bit in the beginning, at least
the lectures are interesting!  

_The Turing Option_ came as a welcome change to the recent endless
stream of near-future sci-fi novels that paint only scarred and
desolate futures.  Though everything isn't beautiful, and people
are still people, it's a hopeful vision.

Thanks,




--
Jason Asbahr                           116 E. Edgebrook #603
asbahr@uh.edu                          Houston, Texas  77034
next@tree.egr.uh.edu   (NeXTmail)      (713) 941-8294  voice (summer)
asbahr@tree.egr.uh.edu (NeXTmail)      UH NeXT Campus Consultant
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Checkers master beats computer
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:58:48 GMT
Organization: Unocal Corporation

CBS news announced that the world checkers champ beat a computer 4-2 games.
I thought checkers was ceded to computers a couple decades ago because
those programs are easier to write than chess.  The winner claims "creative
strategies" still help.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Development of Complex Structures
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:04:26 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug20.153436.4779@u.washington.edu> forbis@carson.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes:
|In article <915@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|> No complex system or structure
|>can possibly evolve without *some* use.  But individual, *simple* features
|>may well occur more or less at random (*maybe*).  Culture is a very complex
|>phenomenon, and could not exist without some use.
|
|Would you support this claim?
|
|It seems to me one structure can build upon another.  Unless there is some
|negative to having a structure it can establish itself. 

A 'structure' composed of random functionless bits would just be a collection
of random fuctionless bits, it would be a case of higgledy-piggledy.

No such association would show any form of *integration*, of *organized*
internal interactions.  These sorts of things simply do no occur without
selection.

Also, many structures *do* have a cost.  And the larger, and more complex,
the structure the larger tha cost (in general).  Simply the metabolic cost
of building a structure can be evolutionarily significant.

Culture involves complex trade-offs, where immediate personal advantage is
traded-off against *long* term personal advantage.  Thus any cultural trait
that did *not* have a benefit would incur the cost of the immediate
disadvantage.

The above is a grossly oversimplified, highly abbreviated, summary.
The evolutionary literature available at your local university library
contains a much more detailed, more complete analysis.

|I feel that many 
|mating rituals fit this category.  While one may say they serve a use that
|use is not defined by the rituals themselves.  Likewise, much of physical
|aspects of secondary sexual traits serve no other use than they are selected
|by a mutually evolved behavior selecting that trait.
|
But that is still a *use*.  Anything that promotes reproduction has a use,
the promotion of reproduction.

In evolutionary biology saying something 'has no function' is a way of
saying it 'is selectively neutral'.  The two statements are essentially
equivalent.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5881 rec.arts.sf.misc:2695 alt.cyberpunk:3981
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: 26 Aug 92 14:01:15 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


Jason Asbahr writes:- (in <COSC176T.92Aug26010939@menudo.uh.edu>)

...
>_The Turing Option_ came as a welcome change to the recent endless
>stream of near-future sci-fi novels that paint only scarred and
>desolate futures.  Though everything isn't beautiful, and people
>are still people, it's a hopeful vision.

Lets be honest, we live in a pretty scarred and desolate present.

Dave.

--
David Butcher
n0404@ncl.ac.uk	 - Newcastle University - 
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Re: What do I do with it?
Organization: York University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 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

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: anthro@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Bramscher)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:45:07 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.

braca2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au writes:  

>But I dont see anyone doing jackshit now, everyone seems to be waiting
>until the apocalypse is here, so they can taste their cyberspace.  Everyone
>seems to be happy to let the world fall to shit, so it can fulfill a man's
>dreams.

>I know this is pretty harsh, and is possibly suited to another board.  But
>I have a question.  Can we have a healthy, constructive, active, cyberpunk
>here and now?


It seems a cyberpunk culture is riddled with social malaise, offering the
technological goodies to those with the money or proper connections.  As a
post-modern literary form, it seems to be essentially an exaggeration of
current techno-social trends...  I've noticed too how, as a movement, it's
remained generally apolitical.  There's no call within the ranks to prevent
the doom a cyberpunk society is sure to wreak on the human spirit.

Cyberpunk, especially as seen by Gibson's characters, seems to be (borrowing
from Bismark's term "realpolitik") realkulture.  His main characters -- his
society -- is strictly self-serving, hedonistic, short-ranged, with a
life-is-cheap attitude.  Interesting that Gibson's own context was the 1980's
"Me-Generation" or "Me-Decade" under Ronnie Raygun.  Trickle-down greed,
producing a sea of hopelessness maybe.  Social Darwinism.      
                                                        
Gibson's secondary characters are feeble-minded, rooted in position, addicted
to cyberspace soap operas, whatever.  Again, might have some analagous role in
contemporary society.  In Gibsonian terms, there seems to be three groups of
people: (1) The ultra-wealthy (2) the poor working-classes, and (3) the
underground.                                

Already we're starting to hear terms pop up in American press such as
"information rich" and "information poor".  No kidding....  Cyberpunks are
information piss-poor people forced to use "underground" (non-legitimized)
means to make life more liveable, maybe.
        
As for avoiding this dilemna, the fringe-right and industrial elites have
their Final Solution.  It'll take millions of concerned citizens, and a
responsible media to make a difference.  Not something very likely...         
        
Let's see.  Pipe bomb, terrorist, contras, CIA, assassination, JFK,
Iran/Contra, Cuba, drugs, wire fraud, skimpy bikinis, topless bar, nude
beach, and cryptology.  One of those words should trip the flagging
mechanism, storing this message in the NSA Police State archives...        


UUCP: {crash, tcnet, petrus, quest}!orbit!pnet51!anthro
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!anthro@nosc.mil
INET: anthro@pnet51.orb.mn.org
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Re: What do I do with it?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:45:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194253.12195@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca writes:
>
>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?
>
>Henry Choy
>choy@cs.usask.ca


Every time I pay my school taxes, I wish that more of us would ask
this sensible question.
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Development of Complex Structures
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:46:03 GMT
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA

A question brought up is whether a complex structure can evolve without
some use. 

Darwinian paradigm: The evolution of a complex structure requires a
fitness advantage to overcome the cost of generating the complex
structure. Single-gene mutations producing a complex structure can be
imagined, but only in the context of a gene with a significant involvement
in development. Most such mutations will be highly deleterious, so those
portions of the genome will be protected against mutation. Hence the
probability will be extremely small. Multiple simultaneous mutations are
even less likely.

Cultural paradigm: Innovation for innovation's sake occurs in modern human
societies, probably because a much higher proportion of the innovations
invented are advantageous. Ditto for complex innovations. Complex
structures in cultures can evolve without a direct use, particularly if
innovativeness is rewarded.


-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Don't try to "define" flight
Summary: "indistinguishability" followedy by "weakening" seems pointless
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:42:37 GMT

> From: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
> Intelligence is the thing people and animals have when they do the kinds
> of clever things that we ordinarily think of as requiring intelligence. 
> [...] A nonhuman, non-animal candidate's performance capacities must be
> indistinguishable from ours to justify inferring that they are
> intelligent.  That criterion may be too strong, but, methdologically, it
> can only be weakened AFTER it's been attained [...]

The omitted portions refer to flying.  This is very interesting, since
I claim that humans have NOT yet attained artificial flight.  The
capability of flight is the thing birds, bats, and insects have when
they do the kind of aerial things we ordinarily think of as requiring
flight.  A non-bird, non-bat, non-insect candidate's performance
capacities must be indistinguishable from the natural performance to
justify inferring that they are flying.  That criterion may be too
strong, but methodologically, it can only be weakened AFTER it's been
attained. 

And, since no artificial so-called "flying machine" has really flapped
its wings as the primary method of propulsion, they are all
distinguishable from natural flyers, the criterion has never been
acheived, so it's too soon to weaken it.  So clearly, humans have not
yet attained artificial flight. 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: cliff@sfn.ORG (R. Cliff Young)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: Society for Neuroscience
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:08:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.040259.2038@leela.cs.orst.edu> mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee) writes:
[...]
>In general, there are more people living in prosperity and freedom than there
>have ever been throughout human history.

Of course, there are more people LIVING than there have ever been
throughout human history, but that's beside the point!  ;)

--
 R. Cliff Young, SysAdmin, SFN --/\/-- cliff@sfn.ORG
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5916 rec.arts.sf.misc:2763 alt.cyberpunk:4054