HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Marvin Minsky"@media.mit.edu
Subject: unpublished chapters of "The Turing Option"
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory, MIT AI Laboratory
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:50:52 GMT

I have archived two unpublished chapters of "The Turing Option" by
Harry Harrison and Marvin Minsky, published by Warner Books, August
1992.  Use  
  ftp wuarchive.wustl.edu  (and then login with name "anonymous")
  cd doc/minsky
  get option.chapters

These chapters have a lot of far-out ideas about how to build a
humanlike machine. Harry Harrison and I have been longtime friends.
One day he said that he liked my book 'The Society of Mind' and
suggested that the ideas could reach a larger audience if I wrote a
version in the form of a novel.  When I said I didn't have the talent
for that, he offered to collaborate.  We decided that the central
character Brian would be a mathematical super-hacker of the future who
would build the first AI with a human-like mind. Harry drafted the
action plot, and I suppled the technical stuff. While our hero is
building his robot (in the year 2023) he is shot in the head by
mysterious criminals who steal the prototype.  This lets us explain
computational aspects of the theory in the context of repairing
Brian's brain, while also explaining psychological aspects in the
context of reconstructing his childhood memories.

A co-author does not have complete control.  These FTP chapters are
part of the text I wrote that did not make it into the published book.
Both Harry and the editor at Warner thought they would slow down the
story too much.  At the time I disagreed, but now I think they were
right.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:53:32 GMT

In article <kmr4.50.718378369@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang )) writes:
>	The major difference between science, and mysticism:
>
>	Science: Doesn't always have an answer.
>	Mysticism: Always has an answer, even if non sequiter.

	Hey! I'm inclined to mysticism, and I haven't the vaguest idea
if there's a god or not. Mind your terminology.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: yohan@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism in the future
Date: 3 Oct 1992 18:20:25 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: caravan.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <92275.141625CP8219A@auvm.american.edu>, Christopher H. Prokop <CP8219A@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>The way I see it there are two major themes people cling to in
>order to reject atheism. 1. Big Bang era of the universe (initial
>creation) and 2. The 'soul'.  More and more people that I talk
>to place some kind of faith in some kind of form in one of those
>two main ideas.  I also think it interesting that those are the two
>main areas left for human comprehension of the world.  Just as
>most people don't believe the Earth is flat due to overwhelming
>evidence, I feel in about 50yrs. MAX the evidence will be so
>powerful that generations growing up then will begin to not
>even think of having a soul.  I see a very fast development
>of biotech. and AI that it will be rather obvious that the
>human body is merely a machine, 100% physical, 0% meta-
>physical, 'soul'ish, fluff.  The Big Bang, however, may take
>a little more time................
>                   Chris


I wish, but the cynic in me demands to speak out :)

To some people, probably alot of people, there will never be enough evidence
to change their views about their religion.  Furthermore, even I don't see how
artificial intelligence or deciphering the history of the universe to the 
big bang would be proof against a soul or god creating the universe.

Jon Newton
From: dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu (Pawel Dobrowolski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Looking for e-mail for prof. Lippard(?)
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:42:17 GMT
Distribution: alt.atheism
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


		Hi folks!

	I am looking for e-mail of a guy called Lippard (not sure of
spelling)  who used to post here.  I think that he is a prof. of
philosophy ( ?psychology)  at some college.  If anyone knows his
co-ordinates could you e-mail me at:   dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu



		Thanx a lot,

		Pawel
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:03:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


"Hannu" sez:
 
 
|In article <1992Sep26.145623.6825@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
|(Kelley Miller) writes:
|>
|> In a previous article, hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi () says:
|>
|>>
|>> Hi !
|>>
|>>
|>> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
 
	That is IF the Bible is true. And that is a BIG if. Your
argument is based on a book of fairy tales....you're gonna have to 
do better than that.....
 
 
|>> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
|>> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
|>>
|>>         Hannu.
|>>
|>>
|>
|> I would say any thinking person.
|>
|
|  Then I would say that these thinking persons must be stupid, because
|  they assert at the same time that they themselves does not exist. !
|
	Like I said, IF that book of fairy tales is right.......How about
if you try to come up with more of a basis than an old book and then you
can try to make sense.
 
 
 
|
|> --
|> *...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
|> *      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *
|> *                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
|> ****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
|
|
|        Hannu.
 
                  ____
 \        /      /   /           
  \  /\  /      /\__/          
   \/  \/hite  /  \ook
 
-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Reveal to me the sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | alias: White Rook | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:14:06 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1a5ptpINNprl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
>Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
>Date: 28 Sep 92 02:16:25 GMT


>        While many claim both science and religion are both belief
>systems. But I would rather put my "faith" (and my butt) in the care
>of a science than a book of superstitious bull. For example, if I 
>where hurt in a car crash, I would trust a mediocre doctor than a
>good priest.


>-- 
>"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
> Reveal to me the sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
>A. Trent Phillips | alias: White Rook | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
>aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu

May I suggest that you seem to be confused.  Your post assumes that 
religion is just bad [unreliable, bogus, pseudo] science, which in turn 
rests on assuming that religion is just a competing scientific activity. 
But they are are very different in their purposes and content. The purpose 
of a religion is to orient a person's thought and conduct to what is 
believed to be of most worth in an absolute sense.  The purpose of science, 
if it makes sense to speak of science as having a "purpose", is to frame 
laws of the utmost generality about observeable nature.  Pure or basic 
science is a purely intellectual or theoretical undertaking making available 
all kinds of useful, immediate and practical advantages, such as bridges, 
medicine, electricity.  To assume, or to argue against religion in a way 
that depends on assuming, that religion competes with science, either in its 
theoretical or practical purposes, argues only a lack of familiarity with 
either science or religion, or both.  

IMO, if religion and science are both described as "belief systems", they 
are certainly belief systems in very different senses of that term. 
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:25:12 GMT
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

Summary: Fundamentalist Christianity helps spread satanism

>>>>> On 30 Sep 92 19:30:16 GMT, jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) said:

> Some more research would provide a better description than the above.
> Briefly, they exist in the spiritual realms, which can be reached by
> certain types of meditation (esp. yoga - yes yoga!), seances, ouija,
> and other OCCULT practices.  BUT BE WARNED, DO NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN
> THESE THINGS.  THEY ARE EVIL, AND WILL NOT HELP YOU IN ANY POSITIVE WAY!

Rrright.  So the only way of verifying the spiritual realm is by using
things that we shouldn't use.  (Do many Christians really believe that
yoga is evil?  I thought not.)

Q: What's the best way of encouraging teenagers to take up occult
   practices?
A: Tell them:
     a) They work
 and b) They're evil, and I forbid you from even considering them

> Yours in Christ,
> James.

--
Bruce
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 3 Oct 92 05:27:54 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <TORKEL.92Oct2185504@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.204328.7748@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca
> (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>   >These are your topics.  Why do you want me to do all the talking?
>
>  A reasonable question! Why don't I try to introduce into the group
>all sorts of interesting discussions about religion? For a combination
>of reasons, I suppose. I don't really expect to get any interesting
>discussion going.

You'll never know until you try.

>After all, you, for example, already know all about
>religion - nonsensical mythology, right?

Yes, much of it is nonsensical mythology, and I think you agreed with me
on that point.  In fact, you criticized me for being so boring as to
bother stating such common knowledge.  But no, I do not know all about
religion.  I learn new things about it all the time.  I'm fascinated
by the effects that it has on people's minds, and often wonder just
how much my own mind has been cluttered with garbage.  I think that
if we could somehow start bringing up children without putting in the
garbage to start with, soon every member of the populace would be capable
of putting Einstein to shame.  But I'll stop this tirade now.

>Similarly, fundamentalist Christians also know all about religion.

Am I being accused of being as closed-minded as the fundies?

>For another reason, I have no particular inclination to put forward
>any views of mine concerning religion. 

That's unfortunate, because I'm truly interested in where you're
coming from.

>Mostly I just take pot shots at the sillier comments made by atheists such
>as yourself, for no other reason than to balance the output in the group.

Yeah, I've noticed that your specialty is cheap, and often cryptic,
pot shots.  Some of them are probably even justified.  But I wish
you'd expand a bit more on them.  How am I to improve on my ignoramus
status if you won't share some of your knowledge?
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 27 Sep 92 11:33:00 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.n
> > If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
> > (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
> > then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
[...]
> By the way, if you're not already familiar with Hannu, I might note that his
> five year old daughter receives particle physics lessons directly from God.

By pink laser beam?


mathew
-- 
"I refuse to be President of a country called Czesko." -- Vaclav Havel
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:16:55 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct01.190233.5751@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
>Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
>Date: 1 Oct 92 19:02:33 GMT

>In article <exukjb.273.717952506@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>Whether or not Einstien was a fideist is beside the point. Why listen to 
>>what a particle physicist has to say about the nature of religion?  Einstien'
>>s authority or reliability on questions of physics should be not allowed to 
>>spill over into his views on politics, ethics, or religion; however 
>>interesting his opinions might be, and even if they are ultimately shown to 
>>be correct or more worthy of belief than the opinions of some theologian or 
>>other religious authority, a rational person should consider them secondary 
>>to the opinions of religionists and theologians.

>You gotta be joking.  See Simin Clippingdale's post concerning asking a
>missionary about demons.

>>And Doug, exactly what do you see in science which tends to show that "man
>>is insignificant"? Fruedianism? Evolutionism?  Behaviorism? --- what? 

>Evolution, and the grand scale, both in time and space, of the universe.
>--
>Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
>dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
>My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_

So Doug, are elephants more "significant" than humans because they're
bigger!  
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: <tonyp@cnvxla.COM> (good, Conan - good!)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Reply-To: tonyp@convex.COM 
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 20:54:47 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Oct6.170132.20516@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
}good, Conan - good! writes
}
}>}So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
}
}>It is no more possible to prove that God does not exist than it is
}>to prove that he does exist.
}
}>Logic and thinking tell us that the existence of such a being is not
}>possible. 
}
}Logic tells us? But you just said that God's non-existence is
}unprovable. Thinking tells us? Thinking tells some that God's
}existence is not only possible, but necessary. Let's not slide into
}the same sort of arrogance that some theists seem to wallow in. 
}
Explain the "not only possible, but necessary".

Don't use the bible to back up any of your statements. You must use "fact".

Ambrose Pierce points out that you can not use the bible in the 
U.S. legal system because there is no one who can verify, first hand (as
opposed to hear-say) the accuracy of its information. You can, however use
witches, as there are records of sworn testimony to the existence of witches.
These have never been reversed from the Salem Witch Trials.

"God is necessary" for those who can't face the fact that they are of no,
or so little, importance to the universe that when they die, the universe
will go on without them.

"God is necessary" for those who want justice, and can't deal with the
fact that man can get away with anything he wants and not have to pay
for it in the end.

"God is necessary" to make life worth living. It is pretty silly to "live",
and know it is all for naught. This is the hardest part for me as an atheist.

I would give anything to be able to believe in God.


--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:42:32 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <esposito.29.717774605@hamlet.uncg.edu> esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) writes:
>God is real for many people on the planet.  It is not real for me, and many 
>others on this list, but that does not mean that "God does not exist."

I don't understand the phrase "is real for so-and-so people".  What does this
mean?

If I have a board covering a hole, and the board is real for only some people,
people for whom it is real can step on it, but people for whom it is not real
will fall through.  This is what the phrase "is real for only some people"
seems to tell me.  It's obvious you don't mean this, but then what _do_ you
mean?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 26 Sep 1992 17:32:34 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu

In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>
> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
>
>         Hannu.

Ah, Hannu!  I'd suggest you go back to sci.physics, but they don't want you
either.  And neither do I.  If you want to call God 'Existence', go right
ahead, but don't expect anyone in this group to really care.
By the way, if you're not already familiar with Hannu, I might note that his
five year old daughter receives particle physics lessons directly from God.
Just ask him.  And I thought a Ph.D. was worth getting.  Geesh!

-Scott Oser


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.133017.164697@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
}bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
}>	The problem with your position is that demons do not
}>exist.                                                  ~~~
} ~~~~~
}
}But demons DO exist.  Just because you haven't (or think that you
}haven't) come across them or been influenced by them does not mean
}that they don't exist.

Of course daemons exist.  Just read /etc/inetd.conf!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: god is in all of us
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 13:33:54 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Sep30.093755.29218@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>michalek@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Libor Michalek) writes:
>: Sure this could be counter productive someone could
>: say to them self "I could die today so I better do something outragous
>: like kill as many people as I can". But If you use the same wisdom you
>: used when becoming an athiest this can be avoided. Maybe being an athiest
>: isn't ok BY ITSELF but if you apply some of that atheist logic to the
>: rest of your life you will probablly see an overall improvment in the
>: rest of your life and you hopefully wont kill someone. I have seen alot of
>

>One thing that I see over and over that makes me curious is statements such
>as above.  Whenever someone finds out that I'm not a Christian (or any other
>religion) I usually hear: "So you can go out and kill people then."
>Why is atheism so often equated to killing?  Just because one deceides not
>to believe in some organized religion doesn't mean that person doesn't still
>have morals.  The mistake is that you *need* religion to have morals.
>I think it's been proven over and over in the world that just because you
>claim to be a member of some religion you aren't guaranteed morals!
>
>Jeff West

 That always made me wonder, too. Are these people (who ask such questions)
saying that they have strong, recurring desires to go out and kill randomly,
and only their religious morals restrain them from doing so?

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:09:15 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: x@beyond.one's.understanding's message of Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:34:17 GMT

In article <x.35.718245257@beyond.one's.understanding> x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah) writes:

	   I bring word from our great Creator! She is given word that her
   presence shall be felt by the world! Spread The Word! Make haste to 
   prepare for Her Second Comming! All ye mortal souls must be in order!
			   ^
I hate to be picky, but isn't that a typo :-?

   Armageddon is near! She is mercefull and gives all yee unbelievers one 
   last chance to repent your sins, and recognise Her Divinity!

	   The world shakes with thunder in one week!
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu