HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU (William T. Powers)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Language
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:08:05 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

[From Bill Powers (921117.1430)]

Wolfgang Zocher (921116) --

I tried to reply to you but there's something wrong with the address I
have. In brief, you program sounds wonderful and I would like a copy of
of the source code (email should be OK). Let's work together on it for a
while; it sounds as if it should be ideal for the Primer series.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Taylor, Bruce Nevin (921117) --

Pask's level 3 seems to require the same finite universe of propositions
that the Hamming-distance idea needs. You'll notice that the level 3
feedback was a formal statement about the properties of a circle. This
would not work if the figure that was being described was a squashed
irregular oval (in other words, some natural shape not clearly and
formally distinguishable from others). There is no "iron-clad" guarantee
that R has received what O intended to send unless the number of
alternative guesses is small, and each guess is separated cleanly and by
a large "distance" from all other possible intended transmissions. I
don't think that is the general case in communication.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Nevin (921117) --

RE: ideas held in common among linguists.

You sound to me like a person who has done a lot of reorganizing about
PCT. I think you understand what I mean when I say we have to start from
scratch. I was talking about psychology and you're talking about
linguistics, but it's the same phenomenon.

If linguists don't have any shared reality, then perhaps that leaves us
free to invent one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,


Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:40:09 -0600
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was cziko@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      "Science" and Bizzi

[from Gary Cziko 921123.2100 GMT]

Bill Powers (921123.1000) informed us:

>This morning, at Mary's brilliant suggestion, I wrote letters to Bizzi
>and (via Science) the two anonymous reviewers. I explained to Science
>that I wanted these reviewers at least to see the model, as they had
> allexpressed doubts about it. In the cover letter to Science I also quoted
>the relevant parts of the 1991 reviews, as follows: . . .

So it turns out that writing the technical review first of Bizzi means that
your foot is still (slightly) in the door.  There may be a lesson here for
anyone wishing to publish in Science

You have put Bizzi and your two reviewers in very interesting situations.
Will Science even forward your paper to the two reviewers?  How will Bizzi
react now that you and Greg have put your model where your mouths are?  My
prediction will be that the two reviewers (if they ever get to see the
paper) will be positively impressed.  I also predict that Bizzi will do his
best to find all sorts of reasons why your model may APPEAR to work but is
invalid due to what he will claim are certain simplifying assumptions that
you and Greg made.  What else can he do?

Do keep us informed as to how this plays out.  This is the interface of
normal science and revolution.  And we on CSGnet are very fortunate to have
first-row seats as the drama unfold (except for those of us who are also on
the stage).--Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: 217.333.8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: 217.244.7620
University of Illinois           E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu
1310 S. Sixth Street             Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:45:50 EST
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      foundations of linguistics

[From: Bruce Nevin (Tue 921117 12:28:49)]

(Bill Powers (921113.1000) ) --
>-----------------------------------------------------
>We have quite a few different approaches to linguistics on this net.
>I've been wondering: is there anything about language on which ALL you
>linguists can agree? It seems to me that as in physics, there has to be
>a level of description that is so simple and low-level that we can at
>least agree on what phenomenon is occurring at that level. What are the
>absolutely non-controversial aspects of language that different people
>explain differently?
>------------------------------------------------------

Bill, there is little unanimity and much contention among the various
flags raised and defended in the field called linguistics.  It seems
clear to me at least that there can be none until the field has a
firm scientific basis, which I believe it now lacks, and that in a PCT
context we may establish such a basis.

Reinterpreting every proposal and every claim in terms of perceptions
and control of perceptions is a much needed emetic.  The patient has to
swallow the medicine, however, and go away privately for a spell to
reestablish equilibrium.  This has to happen singly for each linguist,
and on interim visits we tend to have a dissheveled appearance.  Perhaps
others who are committed to the process can share my sentiments when I
say that I expect agreements in the outcome but probably not in its
antecedents.

To continue the metaphor, I believe I have been on a rather spare health
food diet for most of my career in linguistics, and consider myself
fortunate in having relatively little in the way of extranea to lose.
But de gustibus, and the fat lady hasn't done her thing yet.

Sorry about the imagery.  Must be the weather.

        Bruce
        bn@bbn.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: Language
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:37:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

[Martin Taylor 921117 17:30]
(Bill Powers 921117.1430)

>Pask's level 3 seems to require the same finite universe of propositions
>that the Hamming-distance idea needs. You'll notice that the level 3
>feedback was a formal statement about the properties of a circle. This
>would not work if the figure that was being described was a squashed
>irregular oval (in other words, some natural shape not clearly and
>formally distinguishable from others). There is no "iron-clad" guarantee
>that R has received what O intended to send unless the number of
>alternative guesses is small, and each guess is separated cleanly and by
>a large "distance" from all other possible intended transmissions. I
>don't think that is the general case in communication.

I think you are only saying that it takes an infinite amount of information
to describe a real number.  Yes, it does, and it would take an infinite
amount of communicated information to arrive at an agreement over an
understanding on a proposition from a continuous universe.

I don't buy the "iron-clad guarantee" either.  But that was what Pask claimed.
I don't buy it because it is impossible to have error-free communication over
any physical channel.  The same holds for any perception.  It's not unique
to communication.  All you can really talk about is the amount of information
available in your perceptual value or equivalently your communicated
message.

For most purposes of communication, we are working at the category level or
above in the messages we want to communicate.  So the universe is not only
finite, but each "guess is [usually, MMT] separated cleanly and by
a large "distance" from all other possible intended transmissions."

Martin
From: Len.Lansky@UC.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Formatting -Reply
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:18:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: Len.Lansky@UC.Edu
Registered-mail-reply-requested-by: Len.Lansky@UC.Edu
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L%UIUCVMD.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
UA-content-id: F31F092B01AA4A44
X-Hop-count: 2
A1-type: MAIL

correction to previous messages

[Len Lansky (921117.1619)]

Thanks to someone who wrote me directly about the issue, I double
checked.  I can cope with the length as it now exists IF I PRINT
FROM DOS AND IF I READ IN DOS ON THE SCREEN.  However, when I
made hard copies from, or read the screen in  wordperfect after
downloading from bitnet, I had many "orphans" etc.

I wonder if others may have a similar problem with formatting.

Len Lansky
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 13:40:32 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Gloomy Sunday

[From Bill Powers (921122.1300)]

I'm disappointed that Science didn't want the arm paper. It was a good
paper. They didn't realize what they were looking at, but that's nothing
new. Greg and I will work on a longer version for submission elsewhere
when the adrenaline comes back.

I think I'm going to concentrate on modeling for a while. The Primer
series seems to be coming along; another one soon. Right at the moment I
can't work up a lot of enthusiasm for hypothetical linguistics or
abstract neural networks. It's back to spadework at the foundations for
me. Let others worry about how to decorate the penthouse, should it ever
be finished. Modelers of the world, arise!

Best to all,

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:34:15 EST
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      formatting line length

[From: Bruce Nevin (Wed 921118 08:39:13)]

Another consideration: a 65-char line is 6.5 inches on typical
ASCII display or printout, pretty standard for text.  (Two
inches for side margins on 8.5 x 11 paper.)  Longer lines get
harder to read.  Since 65 (or maybe 64) is the limit for
Cincinnati, perhaps we should all set our window sizes, editor
margins, whatever, to format text accordingly.  If you just have
to insert returns by hand, a mark at the top and bottom of your
screen can support a reference perception.  Other than that,
those who will be bothered by overlong lines will have to work
out some kind of accommodation with those who can't be bothered
to tailor them.  With drop-ins and new entrants this will be a
recurrent issue.

The above text fits the constraint.

Of such processes are born bureaucratic regulations and other
things perceived as social control, as witness reaction of one
(no longer with us) to the convention about date stamps at the
beginnings of csg-l posts.

        Bruce
        bn@bbn.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: Len.Lansky@UC.Edu
Registered-mail-reply-requested-by: Len.Lansky@UC.Edu
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L%UIUCVMD.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
UA-content-id: 76DD082B01AA4A44
X-Hop-count: 2
A1-type: MAIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:53:00 -0500
From:         Len.Lansky@UC.EDU
Subject:      Formatting -Reply

subject: formatting
(from Len Lansky 9921117.1149))

I am not knowledgable about the system, but I do know that I
messages, when downloaded to disks, do not fit properly.  THus if
the lines were, by convention, made shorter, I would like it.

I will check this message too and send a followup if it does not
work.  It is 64 units wide and fits a "message box" in our setup
at the University of CIncinnati.

Len Lansky
From: andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU (Avery Andrews)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: language
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:37:06 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

[Avery Andrews 921119.1136]

(Bill Powers (921118.0730))

This helps a lot.   I think people have to be very careful about
terminology here, since I doubt that I'm the only person who is
likely to react this way.  `image' is a pretty controversial word
these days.  I think it would be best to reserve it for things like
bitmaps, & find some other terminology for the higher-level perceptual
signals.

(Martin Taylor (assorted postings))
presumably my perception of a social inhibition against checking for
comprehension comes from spending most of my time in circumstances
(e.g. Academia) where comprehension actually doesn't matter very much,
and other values such as social cohesion prevail (e.g. it isn't helpful
to make people think that you think that they're so dumb that they can't
be expected to understand what you're saying).

Perhaps people whose perspective was formed in,say, naval aviation
would have a different view of things (choosing that because, from what
I've read about it, it seems to be the most complicated and dangerous
thing that any group of people do on a routine basis).

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:17:00 CDT
From:         PAPANICOLAOU@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Gloomy Sunday

Bill [921122],
   It is indeed time to get ba
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 14:01:08 PST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:01:08 PST
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      standards

[From Rick Marken (921116.1300)]

Martin Taylor (921116 13:00)

>I suspect this is an angel-free tread zone...

Aw. What the heck.

>It seems to me that "standards" have evolved in much the same way as
>linguistic conventions.

We're talking about cultural evolution here, right?  No genes for particular
linguitic conventions of social standards in other words?

>Other sets are stable because deviation from them tends to set up conflict
>in the person who deviates.  Such sets tend to be acceptable to the majority
>of the community, and deviation from them causes conflict that is enhanced
>by the actions of other community members that object to the deviant actions
>(they can't see the behaviour, by PCT slogan #1).  So, conflict in each
>community member is reduced by conformity to community standards.

It sounds like you are saying that there are certain standards which are
adopted because not doing so creates internal conflict. I interpret
this to mean that only by setting their reference for certain standards
perceptions at a certain level can people avoid internal conflict. This
is certainly true on an individual basis -- a person who wants to
perceive themselves as socially cooperative would be creating a
big conflict for themselves if, for some reason, the reference for
a perception with a socially accepted reference (like, wearing clothes in
public) were changed to a different value. By I don't belive that there
are ANY standards perceptions which, if controlled at a particular
reference level, would be intrinsically internal conflict producing;
conflict depends on what other perceptions a person is controlling and
at what level. I think Ed believes that there are certain intrinsically
intrapersonal conflict producing standards perception reference settings.
Do you believe this too, Martin? If so, could you give me an example of
such a reference setting for such a standard perception?

I do believe that there are settings for references for standards perceptions
that produce interpersonal conflict -- there are LOTS of them. You (Martin)
gave one example -- setting the reference for the perception of what people
to kill to "whoever".  Such conflicts occur because carrying out the
purpose tends to produce disturbances to INTRINSIC variables in the other
person; there is a biological basis to much (but not all) interpersonal
conflict.

Regards

Rick


     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-else-reply-to: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:36:33 PST
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: visual-linguistic-motor model (or, vision, instruction,
              & action)
              19 Nov 1992 07:45:10 -0800
              <92Nov19.085552pst.11662@alpha.xerox.com>

(penni sibun 921119.1300)

   We obviously don't need to figure out how words are recognized or
   produced; we can just say that they are. The associative part looks easy
   to implement in a limited situation.
   I think we could make up a working model that could do the following:
   given the name of an object, turn and look at it; given a picture of an
   object, name it and turn to look at its prototype in the room; given a
   direction in which or a location at which to look, know that the object
   seen is a familiar object and name it. We would have to stipulate object
   recognition. Perhaps we could work in kinesthetic body configuration
   sensing, but we would have to stipulate, for the time being, conversion
   of visual images to objective space. But even with these limitations, I
   think this might be an interesting model. I invite anyone who is
   interested to be the first one to get such a model working.

chapman's system Sonja does just this sort of thing.  chapman also
finesses the hard problems you suggest finessing, viz., object
recognition and language use.

cheers.

                                --penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:07:11 -0500
From:         Ed DeRouin <edd@ORL.MMC.COM>
Subject:      Unsubscribe me.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|


Please drop me from the list.  Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Ed DeRouin -- ed-derouin@orl.mmc.com -- Neural Guy
  Martin Marietta Corporation -- Electronic Systems Center -- Orlando, Florida
                  Voice: (407) 356-8745 -- Fax: (407) 356-8944
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:07:51 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject:      Re: Complexes of perceptions

[Martin Taylor 921119 11:00]
(Oded Maler 921119)

>Now consider a different situation where those two signals are
>not combined to create a new perceptual function which is servoed,
>but rather are both servoed independently but their effects
>are combined via the output function (e.g., two nerve fibers that
>feed into neighboring parts of the same muscle).

Actually, one can go a little more microscopic than this.  If it is true,
as we discussed some months ago, that an ECS can be represented by a single
neuron, then that neuron seems to do exactly the combination your are
talking about.  Each dendrite serves the reference-perceptual input-comparator
functions, but they combine into a single output function. I really don't
know what kind of control that permits for the perceptual signals derived
from the separate dendrites.  There is an intrinsic degree-of-freedom
problem.  Unless someone wants to try it out either mathematically or in
simulation, it's probably best not to worry too much about this complication.

It isn't really what I was talking about in connection with distributed
representation and the control of perceptual complexes, which I think is
what you were responding to.  Your point seems valid, but hard to analyze.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:12:00 CDT
From:         PAPANICOLAOU@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Science rejects are model -- unreviewed

Bill and Greg  [Re: WTP, 921120]
     Incredible.  Simply incredible.  You must have had the misfortune
to submit just at the time Bizzi sent them another manuscript.  Is it the
case that they publish his without review -- surely reviewers would
not let them pass.
    Are you considering Jean Arcady's  journal, *Adaptive Behavior*?
Or have you even had time to contact another?  (Time for *Journal of
Living Control Systems*?
   Tom Bourbon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:25:47 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: pasking levels

[Avery Andrews 921117.1125]

 (Martin Taylor 921116 16:45)

I'll have to mull this over, but a random remark:

>I don't think there are "strong social constraints on serious checking of
>comprehension" when lack of comprehension would probably lead to serious
>perceptual error in the Originator of the message.

I'm not sure, but I bet there are plenty of cases where nasty consequences
follow from (some ?) people's reluctance to really make sure they've been
understood, tho probably not in cases as clear cut as you bomb example.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:45:39 EST
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      Conference: Complex Systems '92

----BEGINNING OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----
Received: from LABS-N.BBN.COM by CCB.BBN.COM ; 18 Nov 92 16:20:07 EST
Received: from KARIBA.BBN.COM by LABS-N.BBN.COM id aa03766; 18 Nov 92 16:20 EST
To: neural-people@BBN.COM, machine-learning@BBN.COM
Subject: [compsys@nimbus.anu.edu.au: Final Circular: Complex Systems '92]
From: aboulang@BBN.COM
Reply-to: aboulanger@BBN.COM
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:18:23 EST
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

To: comp-simulation@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:11:56 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Modeling and linguistics

[Avery Andrews 921118.1311]
 (Bill Powers (921117.1430))


 >If linguists don't have any shared reality, then perhaps that leaves us
 >free to invent one.

You might, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:42:07 EST
From:         Todd D Nelson <nelsont1@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      for dag

Dag,

I always thought the quote you start your 'leadership paper' with was from
the famous German Psychologist Kurt Lewin. Did kurt steal it from Bertrand
Russel?

--Todd

OweJri
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU