HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Keywords: penrose, church-turing hypothesis
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:49:53 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Oct11.200006.685@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:

> Sloman ... sold out on the fundamental question of strong
> AI's validity. 

> We in AI cannot afford to relinquish the strong AI thesis, and at
> this point, we have no substantive reason for doing so.  It is a shame
> that the only reply to Penrose that has appeared in our premier journal
> does just this.

Just for the record there are many AI researchers who do not hold the
strong AI thesis, and there has never been a period when it was
unanimously agreed in AI. The strong AI thesis is not essential to a
justification of current AI research. For example, a great deal of
current research would continue unchanged if everybody suddenly agreed
that while running a computer program could not _produce_
understanding that it was nevertheless an essential ingredient.
Necessary but not sufficient. A position consistent both with Searle's
Chinese Room criticism and most current AI research.

I'm not suggesting that anybody actually holds this view; simply that
for most researchers it would make little difference to what they are
doing if they did. Therefore strong AI is not an essential plank in
the platform supporting AI research. QED.

-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Xref: sparky comp.ai:3821 comp.ai.neural-nets:3831 comp.ai.philosophy:6335 sci.psychology:4053
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:33:16 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <burt.718398109@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:

[I have omitted other attributions since this poster messed them up.
In fact, I am the author of the >>> remarks.]

>>>Penrose, although a famous physicist, can't be counted as an expert in
><>this field.

>  Like the 300 lb gorilla, Penrose can be counted an expert in whatever
>field he chooses to put his mind to.

Well, this may the case, for you, if Penrose happens to know more about
everything than you do :-)

>  Actually, Penrose gives much better arguments against machine intelligence
>than this.  The Godel argument, for example...  

The silliness of the Godel argument has been pointed out many times on
this group. If you care to post a statement of it, cross-posting to
sci.phil.tech, I'm sure hundreds of posters will oblige you with
refutations :-) For a start it only applies to consistent systems, and
consistency is neither necessary, desirable, nor probably even
achievable in a system capable of behaving intelligently in a world
described by sensed categories it has had to learn.

Any more good arguments of Penrose you'ld like to cite?

>>>An indication of the status of Penrose's critique of artificial
>>>intelligence is that -- apart from reviews at the time of publication
>>>-- nobody in the field is bothering to refute it ....

>  More likely, nobody in the AI community can refute them.

Clearly you haven't read any of the reviews of Penrose by AI people.
At least one was posted here.

>  What seems to be the case in this debate is that people on either side
>are really arguing from hidden metaphysical assumptions ...

These days the assumptions aren't so hidden. If authors fail to make
their metaphysical assumptions explicit it doesn't usually take long
before someone remedies the omission.

>In terms of a research paper this gives one the opportunity
>to investigate such things as the nature of consciousness ...

You'ld better hurry up, since almost every philosopher with
pretensions to expertise in the area has either just published a book
dealing with consciousness, or is writing one.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: "Ono Tjandra" <KG05@DKAUNI2.BITNET>
Subject: Inquiry on literature
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:02:21 GMT

Dear Comp.ai readers,

I'm a Ph.D. student from Brazilian Aeronautics Technologic Institut, and
I would like to receive bibliographic information, and contact mail addresses
of people working in the following topics:

- Diagnosis Theory (specially medical diagnosis)

- Diagnosis Expert Systems

This message has been posted by a friend, so please send answers to:

ITA@BRFAPESP.BITNET
Subject: To Claudio Sa (room 127)

Thanks in advance,

Claudio Sa
ITA
Sao Jose dos Campos - SP
Brazil
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: schwartz@nynexst.com (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Subgroup for announcements??
Originator: schwartz@baba
Reply-To: schwartz@nynexst.com
Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 13:46:00 GMT


In article <Iep9_7_00WB8Ef=mwp@andrew.cmu.edu>, sn13+@andrew.cmu.edu (S. Narasimhan) writes:
> Considering the number of conference, sysmposium and other announcements
> on this bboard creating a sub-group netnews.comp.ai.announcements might
> be appropriate. I'd like to know what other netters feel (Please post on
> the bboard).

I don't know how you receive news there, but here, we get "comp.ai".

I have no objection to comp.ai.announcements, though I'd like to see
a shorter name.  Also, going by frequency of posts, we could make
another newsgroup, comp.ai.software, for those seeking public domain
software or specific systems.
-- 
Steven H. Schwartz		Expert Systems Laboratory
schwartz@nynexst.com		NYNEX Science and Technology Center
PROFS: SCHWARTZ@UNIX		500 Westchester Avenue
914-644-2960			White Plains NY 10604
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Keywords: penrose, church-turing hypothesis
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:00:06 GMT


I don't want to get involved in this, really I don't.  Let me only
state what I think the argument is about:

By "strong AI" is meant, I believe, the view that an algorithm can
respond to stimulus in a way exhibiting intelligence.  Strong AI is
important because -- among other things -- it provides the fundamental
justification for the continued support of our field.

Penrose says that the strong AI thesis is wrong.  His argument, very
briefly, is that Godel's theorem is the linchpin in a proof that the
behavior of mathematicians cannot be duplicated by algorithmic
methods.  I believe that Penrose's argument here is technically
flawed, but this editor buffer is too small for me to refute it here.
: )

Sloman says that the strong AI thesis is wrong because "behaviour
alone is not a sufficient basis for attributing intelligence" [his AIJ
review, p.365].  He then goes on to raise a variety of arguments
against Penrose, having sold out on the fundamental question of strong
AI's validity.  And Sloman's claim about behavior ignores probably the
most profound lesson of twentieth century science: Claims are only
meaningful to the extent that they can be tested.  This observation
underlies advances in the philosophy of science, the development of
quantum mechanics, and the development of theories of computation.
And what it tells us is that behavior alone is a sufficient basis
for attributing anything whatsoever.

We in AI cannot afford to relinquish the strong AI thesis, and at
this point, we have no substantive reason for doing so.  It is a shame
that the only reply to Penrose that has appeared in our premier journal
does just this.

						Matt Ginsberg


Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: maf@GTEtele.com (Mary Ann Finnerty)
Subject: probably a silly question
Organization: GTE Telecom, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:49:06 GMT

Does anyone have the address I should write to to join AAAI?  You
can just e-mail me, since the information is probably already
known to everyone here...

Thanks!

maf
From: jimi@sage.cc.purdue.edu (elton glaser)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Artificial life
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:46:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University

In <38890@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers) writes:

>In article <klliou.717916988@milton> klliou@milton.u.washington.edu (Kan-Lee Liou) writes:
>>Is there anyone familiar with the 'Artificial Life' mentioned in the latest Newsweek magazine?

>Yes.
>Check out the proceedings of the first two ALife conferences, edited
>by Chris Langton:

>Langton, Chris, ed. "Artificial Life" and "Artificial Life II",
>Addison--Wesley
>ISBNs 0-201-09356-1 and 0-201-52751-2. 

>Alife II also comes with a video proceedings which includes
>a fascinating segment of Roger Penrose as a boy assisting
>his father in demonstrating some self-organizing mechanisms.

>Dave

	I'm also interested in artficial life, just from what
I've read in a few magazines (Omni, Science News).  Are there 
other books or articles about this field?  Specifically, I'm interested
in the simulation of evolution using data structures to simulate
organisms, as in the Tierra program developed at the University of 
Delaware.  
	Really, any information concerning this subject would be 
appreciated.  Also, if there is anyone in the Purdue University area
(where I am) who could lead me to further information about artificial 
life, I'd be happy to follow your directions, or chat with you about this
fascinating field.

Thanks a bunch,

elton "Voodoo Chile" glaser  "I didn't mean to take up all your sweet time,
jimi@sage.cc.purdue.edu       I'll give it right back one of these days."
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: The Yale Artificial Intelligence Group
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 05:44:41 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: clin@periodic.eng.umd.edu


In article <1992Oct1.195224.3167@cs.yale.edu>, engelson-sean@CS.YALE.EDU (Sean Philip Engelson) writes:
>
>For those looking for a good grad school, or just interested in what's going
>on, here's a synopsis of the AI work going on here at Yale:
>

   Oh, wasn't it Drew McDermott who said that Yale at the best group in
AI?


   Do I need a smiley?

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
Xref: sparky comp.ai:3906 comp.ai.neural-nets:3920 comp.ai.philosophy:6426 sci.psychology:4122
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Keywords: penrose, church-turing hypothesis
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:12:07 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Oct11.200006.685@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:

>I don't want to get involved in this, really I don't.  Let me only
>state what I think the argument is about:

>By "strong AI" is meant, I believe, the view that an algorithm can
>respond to stimulus in a way exhibiting intelligence.  

That statement is trivially true. since algorithms can play chess better 
than their designers. I think that AI postulates more than that. I think
that strong AI postulates that an algorithm can have a subjective mental
state to the same extent that a human can. Unfortunately, AI people 
are constantly confusing mind and intelligence. Sargon III has intelligence,
but presumably no mind, while a person in the dream state has mind, but
presumably little or no intelligence.

>Sloman says that the strong AI thesis is wrong because "behaviour
>alone is not a sufficient basis for attributing intelligence" [his AIJ
>review, p.365].  

Granting the usual AI misuse of the word "intelligence" to mean having a 
subjective mental state, this statement is trivially true.

>And what it tells us is that behavior alone is a sufficient basis
>for attributing anything whatsoever.

Only if subjective experience can be reduced to objective observations.
At present, there is no reasonable prospect of success in this endeavor.

>We in AI cannot afford to relinquish the strong AI thesis, and at
>this point, we have no substantive reason for doing so.

We humans cannot afford to accept the strong AI thesis, and at this point,
we have no substantive reason for doing so.

mt
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.engr.control
From: bart@netcom.com (Harry Bartholomew)
Subject: Re: Fuzzy Logic in Japan
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:56:36 GMT

From daemon Thu Oct  8 02:39:34 1992
Return-Path: <Mailer-Daemon>
Received: by netcom2.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
	id AA17001; Thu, 8 Oct 92 02:39:32 -0700
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 02:39:32 -0700
From: Mailer-Daemon (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
Message-Id: <9210080939.AA17001@netcom2.netcom.com>
To: bart
Status: OR

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 farzin@apollo3d.apollo3.ntt.JP... Host unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Return-Path: <bart>
Received: by netcom2.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
	id AA16999; Thu, 8 Oct 92 02:39:32 -0700
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 02:39:32 -0700
From: bart (Harry Bartholomew)
Message-Id: <9210080939.AA16999@netcom2.netcom.com>
To: farzin@apollo3d.apollo3.ntt.JP (Farzin Mokhtarian)
Subject: Re: Fuzzy Logic in Japan
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.engr.control
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

All things considered, after copying down the seven lines of his address
it occurs to me that perhaps Mr. Katsuno and Omron might just be willing
to make the contents of "Clearly Fuzzy" available in soft copy to the net.
Could you perhaps make the request on all our behalf's?

						Thanks,		Bart
-- 
"Partly it may be due to a phenomenon known since the very dawn of spaceflight
in connection with certain pharmaceutical drugs. They induced adverse
psychological effects, including radical changes of mood and personality.
However the fact that they were prescribed by a physician militated
against the patient's chance of deducing that they were the proximate cause
of his suffering; indeed, he would be more inclined to ask for further drugs
to counteract the first, and since the whole process was extremely profitable
for all concerned save the ultimate consumer, they would be provided.
				John Brunner in "A Maze of Stars"
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: tonya@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Tonya Hill)
Subject: Stuttgart Neural Network Simulator
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:54:27 GMT

I am looking to get the Stuttgart Neural Network Simulator running on the
alliant FX/2800 using FXC-2800 v1.3.00.
If anyone else has already gotten it to run could you please send me a
summary of any major patches you applied.

thanx in advance
tonya
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: rajeev@CS.MsState.EDU (Rajeev Agarwal)
Subject: References needed...
Reply-To: rajeev@CS.MsState.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:52:25 GMT

I need some references in the following two areas:


1) REPRESENTATION OF PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE:  

   I am working on the Merck Veterinary Manual and we have several instances where 
   they describe the procedure to be used to treat the animal.  It looks something 
   like this:

	" ... give the dog 1.1 ml of medication A for three days.
	 If the eyes turn red, then try 2.2 ml of medication B...."

   We want to come up with a flexible representation structure for such information.
   It is evident that in representing such information, we get into a complex 
   interaction between conditional and temporal information (the example here
   is a simple one compared to what we actually have in the manual).  


2) DETERMINATION OF SEMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS LIKE SYNONYMY, ANTONYMY, MERONYMY, AND 
   HYPONYMY BETWEEN WORDS IN ANY TEXT:

   In the Merck manual, we want to be able to identify such relationships between
   words that are contained in the text.  We have already tagged the words with
   syntactic/semantic tags.

In case you are aware of any reference in either of these areas, please send me
e-mail.   Thanks for your help.

-- Rajeev Agarwal
   Department of Computer Science
   Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
	<burt.718665726@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:48:12 GMT

Burt Voorhees writes:

     I find it interesting tht people who support what is called "strong AI"
   are now trying to get out of the Godel argument against this by saying
   that Godel's theorems only apply to consistent systems and it is clear
   that any machine which matches human capacities would have to be running
   on some sort of inconsistent system.

I do not know what you are talking about. Do you have references
to any books or articles that contain such an argument made by a
supporter of strong AI?

If you are interested in a refutation of Lucas's G"odel argument,
see [eg] R. Kirk's article in Synthese [1].

oz
---
[1] Roland Kirk
    Mental Machinery and Godel
    Synthese, 66, 437-452. 1986
---
It is harder to get lost in an imagined forest than in a real one,
for the former assists the thinker furtively. - GOLEM lect. XLIII

Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Keywords: penrose, church-turing hypothesis
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:21:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.200006.685@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:

>And Sloman's claim about behavior ignores probably the
>most profound lesson of twentieth century science: Claims are only
>meaningful to the extent that they can be tested.  This observation
>underlies advances in the philosophy of science, the development of
>quantum mechanics, and the development of theories of computation.

That's amusing.  Maybe it's the most profound observation of
twentieth century engineering; it's certainly doesn't follow
from twentieth century science or philosophy.  Most physicists,
for instance, are quite happy in accepting that the difference
between (a) nonlocal hidden-variables theory of quantum mechanics,
(b) wavefunction-collapse theories, and (c) "many-worlds" theories
is quite meaningful, even though it's probably untestable.

Of course, untestable aspects of reality may not be very *useful*,
but that's quite a different matter.

>And what it tells us is that behavior alone is a sufficient basis
>for attributing anything whatsoever.

Even if one accepted this kind of unreconstructed verificationism,
what reason is there to suppose that behaviour is the only
testable aspect of intelligence?  Internal causation is quite
accessible as well, for example.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."
From: mramesh@cbnewse.cb.att.com (m.ramesh)
Subject: AI programs for stock market analysis
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:09:02 GMT
Keywords: expert-system, AIQ, technical-analysis, trends

Does anybody know of any inexpensive programs that use AI techniques to 
do technical-analysis of stocks, etc. I am looking for one that runs on
IBM-PC preferebaly Windows environment with the ability to display
graphics etc.

How is AIQ? I know it is expensive - $1000 or something.

Ramesh
From: rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu (Rob Douglas)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Searle and AI - clarification needed
Date: 7 Oct 1992 20:00:46 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu (Rob Douglas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: maxine.wpi.edu

In article <barkerb.65.718485694@slab.unt.edu> you write:
|> I am writing a research paper on AI and expert systems and have run upon 
|> the work of Dreyfus and Searle and now need some questions answered.  I hope 
|> the AI fraternity here does not object to what is probably some very basic 
|> questions.
|> 
|> 1. Searle talks about 'weak' and 'strong' AI.  Could someone give me a quick 
|>    and dirty definition of each?
|> 


Weak AI - computers don't think but simulate human activity.
Strong AI - computers can be made to actually think, i.e. be cognizant.

|> 2. Are expert systems, neural nets, etc., considered to be either weak or 
|>    strong or are they entirely different things?
|> 

Most methods of AI, by themselves are considered to be weak methods, but the 
strong position is that by combining enough of them, we get actual thought.

|> 3. Is the weak/strong concept a division that is generally accepted to exist 
|>    or is it a grammatical construct by Searle for arguments sake?
|> 

pretty much generally accepted, I think partly thanks to Searle.


|> 4. Last but not least, could someone enlighten me as to the current state of 
|>    AI.  By that I mean, what type of work is currently considered to be 
|>    a part of the AI field (expert systems, neural nets, cognitive studies, 
|>    etc).

case-based reasoning, many forms of machine learning.  Esentially any task
put to a computer that is usually solved by humans, i.e. considered too
difficult, and requiring intelligence.  There are many aspects to this.
Lots of stuff is considered AI.

|> 
|> To any and all respondents, I thank you.  For all our sakes, short answers 
|> are the order of the day.
|> 
|> Thanks again.
|> 
|> Bob Barker
|> barkerb@slab.unt.edu

ROB

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Rob Douglas          | (508) 831-5006    | Computer Science Department     ~
~ rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu  | AI Research Group | Worcester Polytechnic Institute ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      	 	  __
	         /_/ _   /     /\  _       _,  / _   _
        	/ \ (_) /_)   /_/ (_) /_/ (_) / (_\ _\
	                                 (_)
From: frj@ambra.dk (Finn Rasmus Jensen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.shells
Subject: Constraint Satisfaction Problems - shells.
Summary: Request for information.
Keywords: CSP, Constraint
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:03:06 GMT
Organization: AmbraSoft A/S

I am very interested in information about tools to solve
constraint satisfaction problems. It there anyone able to give
references to articles, systems etc. If there exist any shells 
for this kind of solution I would be happy to know about them and
if possible to have access to evaluation copies.

I hope to see some responses to this, as it seems to be a very
promissing area.

Thanks and regards

Finn R. Jensen    
Newsgroups: comp.ai.shells