HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: curtis@eos.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Position of conciousness
Originator: curtis@c00127-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Keywords: Consciousness, Mind, Dennett
Reply-To: curtis@eos.ncsu.edu 
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:19:48 GMT


I know little about the neurophysical aspects of the construction of 
consciousness, and this entire buisness seems new to me (being a design 
student as opposed to a linguist, computer scientist, or philosopher, etc.)
so excuse any sophmorishness -- I AM indeed so.
	Anyway, it has occured to me that the "seat of consiousness" is indeed
a "hundred little men", or a thousand for that matter, attempting to fend for 
their individual tasks whilst coexisting, etc.  This is not news.  This point
seemed to surface in an argument I recently had with a friend of mine about 
Descartes "I think therefore I am" -- him for, me against.  Against because it 
led to a view of consciousness as a singular act defining experience; a
badly reasoned, rationalist, circular definition that (while 
meaningless/meaningful at the outset as a cleverish paradoxical definition
"explaining" the paradoxical nature of consciousness), gives rise to a view
(held by my friend) of the ego as the seat of consciousness.  
	Without attempting to recap the wandering logic that led to this
(this un-newsworthy "discovery"), and the attendant buying of books
(still unread) such as "The evolution of consciouness" (a primer for, um, who?)
my story:  I began to wonder about the nature of the ego, schizophrenia and 
short-term memory.  The self, if not a magic seed floating around the wiring of 
our brains, picking up info and processing along, does seem to reside -- but 
only in a kind of immidiate retrospect -- a general memory that defines the 
self.  This other self -- "I remember, therefore I am, or was, um, maybe" --
need not be "inhabited"; indeed, from an existentialist point of view,
this self functions like a sputtering motor, responding as a full-fledged
ego when running well, but dissolving into a kind of singularity of experience
when not, that is, when not being well-remembered.  If shizophrenia is
chemically induced existintialism (squared, cubed,)  (still a huge if) then 
memory drugs (another big if) and schizophrenics (together) might be used to 
study the construction of the ego through a kind of short term memory 
("if", cubed).  
	I'm sure this is still not news, but as you guys seem to be into 
hardware, you might advise some books or papers or concepts that might place
the argument (apart from "consciousness explained"). Or even direct input. 
(write me, this stuff is really too silly for this board).

Thanks,

Curtis
--
Newsgroups: 
Distribution: world
Followup-To: 
From: curtis@eos.ncsu.edu (Abba Jones)
Reply-To: curtis@eos.ncsu.edu (Abba Jones)
Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler)
Subject: Questions about SOAR
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:12:03 GMT

I watched Allan Newell's 1987 William James Lectures on tape this weekend.
I was left with a few questions that someone better acquainted with SOAR
may be able to answer:

1) Where does the initial rule set come from?  I understand that chunking
provides a way of forming new rules by concatenating and backtracing through
older rules, but no account was given of how basic domain knowledge was
acquired (e.g. basic comprehension operators for English).  Is it all
considered innate?

2) When *don't* humans chunk?  Prof. Newell mentions on the tape that SOAR
chunks in some places where humans don't.  There also seems to be a
theoretical limit on how much SOAR can declaratively represent its own
processing, and thus on what it can chunk on.  Is there empirical
evidence showing a definite boundary between content we do chunk on and
content we don't?

3) Why make impasse resolution procedural rather than declarative?  Since
SOAR runs to quiescence, and impasse resolution knowledge can presumably
be represented declaratively, making impasse resolution procedural rather
than just another part of the rule set seems pretty arbitrary to me.

4) Is all new information ("after" perceptual processing) the result of
inference?  Similarity judgements (e.g. Dedre Gentner's model) and
likelihood judgements (e.g. Kahneman & Tversky's model) add information
but aren't based on inference.  I was surprised that Prof. Newell didn't
mention this in any way.  Do SOAR researchers plan to incorporate non-
inferential mechanisms?

(Also, I'm sorry to hear Prof. Newell recently passed away).

	-dp-
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: <none>
From: swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN Philip)
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:55:38 +0200
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland


This proposal is like claiming that we can understand Unix
by simulating a specific computer hardware architecture in
software: just because Unix runs on a 386 or whatever doesn't
mean you`ll learn *anything* about Unix by laboriously
imitating the 386. To understand Unix you have to look at
the history of computing, at the types of problems people
want to solve using computers etc. etc.

philip swann
university of geneva
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones)
Subject: Re: Wetware
Reply-To: matty@cs.su.oz.au
Organization: Basser Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:02:31 GMT

	Is intelligence an emergent property of 	
	reducable (and electronically reproducable)
	biological matter (ie neurons), or is our
	brain more than the sum of many explicable parts?

	If the former, then AI can produce intelligence,
	if the latter, then AI can never fully succeed?
	(even without ever defining intelligence outside
	it being 'what intelligent creatures -> humans have')

	tom
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 07/22/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Galileo, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:22:13 GMT

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109.  TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011


                     GALILEO MISSION STATUS
                          July 22, 1992

     The Galileo spacecraft is more than 204 million kilometers
(about 127 million miles) from Earth, and some 269 million
kilometers from the Sun; its speed in orbit is 20,651 meters per
second or 46,194 miles per hour.  The spacecraft has flown about
2.13 billion kilometers (1.32 billion miles) since launch.

     This week Galileo is conducting exploratory activities with
the high-gain antenna deployment motors and retracting its rear-
view low-gain antenna.  On Monday, the flight team sent the mini-
sequence for these operations to the spacecraft.

     Tuesday, the spacecraft turned to a warming attitude (31
degrees off the Sun) and turned on the antenna-deploy motors for
less than 2 seconds, and today, Wednesday, the motors are being
turned on for another 2 seconds after 24 hours of warming.  (The
first deploy-motor pulse was done April 29, when the antenna
tower region was somewhat cooler).

     Thursday, July 23, the spacecraft's second low-gain antenna,
which pivots down on a long mast from one of the RTG booms, will
be driven back up to its stowed position.  This action will exert
small forces on the spacecraft, which will be measured using the
spacecraft gyros.

     Engineering telemetry for these events will be captured on
the spacecraft tape recorder and played back each day.  The
engineers believe these activities may provide a better under-
standing of the antenna situation to support future action.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Delta
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:14:14 GMT

In article <150geiINNgif@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:{

>	The HL Delta is a neat vehicle concept... 

It sure is. If they had been putting money into this instead of NLS
we would have a heavy lift vehicle now.

>years to qualify it.  He was figuring an order of magnitude
>less expensive and eighteen months.  Probably optimistically,
>but nonethelessvery reasonable. 8-)  I had a chance to talk to 
>him for a while ... he knew it could be done quick and dirty and wanted
>to do it that way, dammit. 8-)  

for a lot buy of 20 flights they offered $500 million for the first flight
$250 million for the second flight, and $150 million for the remaining
flights.

>[name escapes me entirely, and I may
>not have written it down... sorry].

Could it be Larry Stafford or Michael Rendine?

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------270 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rob@apache.dtcc.edu (Rob Jarman)
Subject: Re: FTL drives
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:21:08 GMT


Actually, In the books Dune they didn't actually "fold" space. They looked
the future along a certain time line and plot the safest most direct course
toward their destination. In the movie they calle dit folding space, but the
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Visual acuity for MS
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:31:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BrIoI2.Fz3@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.215326.9130@news.larc.nasa.gov> claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>>Most of the literature  that  I have read about the visual acuity 
>>requirements for Missions Specialists, MS, says that the applicant 
>>must have a 20/100 uncorreted *however* ...
>
>The exact number is probably pretty much irrelevant.  You'd have to be
>awfully good to overcome a handicap like poor vision....

Good point. One practical use of such a requirement, however, might
be to provide a guideline for deciding when an active astronaut
should retire. A number of the astronauts wear glasses on-orbit;
likely many of them due to deteriorating eye-sight as they grow
older. Even if all new-hires had 20-20 uncorrected vision, once they're
in their 40's it'd start getting worse. The requirement may apply
less to new-hires than to old hands.
-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: "Inertial" propulsion
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:33:56 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci

About two years ago an Japanese physicist published a paper in which  
he seemed to show a measurable change in weight of a spinning  
gyroscope. The paper was good enough to survive peer review in a  
major journal (Physics A or B I think)

It has not been replicated to my knowledge, and may even have been  
proved to be artifact by now. Otherwise there would be a hell of a  
lot more being heard about it.

That is the only "scientific" mention of the rotational to linear  
motion idea in recent years. 


There are, of course, the drill-bit-on-a-balance types, of which  
there is one practitioner who seems to show up in the pseudo science  
literature a great deal. They are heard from a great deal more.

But as to any hardcore experimental evidence? .... Nope.

As to theoretical backing? Don't even ASK a theoritician. They'll  
bite your kneecaps off.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.msfc.nasa.gov (This one works)
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Zodiak
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:07:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.203241.24531@pixel.kodak.com>, dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes...
>In article <1992Jul27.183247.14412@eos.arc.nasa.gov> brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody ) writes:
>>I was just reading that the Earth precesses at a period of 26000 yrs.
>>This means that over the past 2000 years, we have precessed about
>>30 degrees or one month.  If the vernal equinox was in March back then,
>>how do we account for the missing (or extra) month in our calendar?
>>To reiterate, the vernal equinox is occurring 2000/26000 sooner than when
>>it occurred 2000 years ago in a solar system coordinate system.  In another
>>2000 years, will spring star in February, or do we account for precession
>>somehow in the calendar?
> 
>This is an interesting question.  I just looked in my desktop database
>(actually the paperback 1991 Information Please Almanac, 10Mb equiv, 
>$7.95 cheap) and on the subject of calendars it deals only with drift
>due to the solar year not being a whole number of solar days, and the
>various systems for correcting for that, adding days under various
>rules.
> 
>This being the case, I will stick my neck out and say that the length
>of the solar day must be governed by three things: the Earths rotation
>period, its orbital speed (which causes a shift of the Sun's apparent
>position in the sky) and the rate of precession of the rotation axis.
>Thus a calendar based on the solar day must automatically be corrected
>for precession.
> 
>I'll stick it out even further and assert that the sidereal day (which
>is not affected by the orbital speed) also incorporates precession.
> 
>P.S.  Don't make those nooses too small: I've a size 17 neck.
> 
> 
>-- 

Here is what I know about the precession of the equinox.  the rate of precession
is 1/72 of a degree a year. This gives a rate of precession of 25920 years for
a full turn.  This rate is not constant due to the imbalances in the Earth's 
mass distribution.  How this precession affects the seasons is thus: 

Today in the Northern Hemisphere's summer, the earth is at the apogee of its 
orbit around the sun.  As the precession continues on its merry way this will
be the main parameter that will change. In 12,900 years the northern hemisphere
will be in its summer when the Earth is at perigee. (I know these are the wrong
terms, I just don't remember the right ones for sun centered orbits).

This is why the calender will not change (I think) on the day of the year of the
equinox. It is interesting to note that the change is about 1 degree per 
72 years.  This effects lattitude lines so maybe my first guess is incorrect. 
I remember reading that the great pyramid was at the tropic of cancer when it
was built a few thousand years ago.

Maybe this info will help, no guarantees, no flames. :-)

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Revive the Saturn Five!
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whales and dolphins
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:53:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: cmr.9207230053.AA03376
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
-Subject: Re: Whales and dolphins
-Date: 22 Jul 92 18:33:49 GMT

-The social structure of dolphins is among the most complex on Earth,  
-right up there with Homo Sapiens and Pan.
                                      ---
Chimpanzees? They also have a very complex (and violent) social structure.

-Dolphins form small cooperative groups that will sometimes form  
-coalitions with other cooperative groups. What is interesting is that  
-they may be the only other species that understands the double-cross  
-in the Machiavellian sense.

-They will work with a group until it becomes in their interest to  
-work with yet another group against the first group.

I don't doubt you're right, but other less intelligent animals will sometimes
do this too, particularly the "bachelor groups" as you describe. I've heard of
groups of male lions attacking a dominant male to get territory or mates,
then fighting among themselves. There are extensive studies of possible
evolutionary incentives to form specific behavior patterns.

-So much for the peaceful, lovable porpoises... But they definitely  
-are far, far up the scale of social evolution.

At least they tend to be well-disposed toward humans.

Speaking of behavior patterns and cultures, E.E. Smith did a really interesting
job of them in the Lensman series. Dozens of possible ET cultures, vividly
described but in an unobtrusive way, and most of them fairly believable.
In fact in "Masters of the Vortex", a novel placed in the setting of the
Lensman universe, he describes two cultures, both intelligent and sympathetic,
yet each acting in ways that are very harmful to the other, because the
physical makeup of the two cultures is so different that neither is aware that
the other exists. Heinlein apparently learned a lot from Smith (he wrote at
least one article praising Smith as a pioneer in SF), and this theme is
reflected in some of his novels, as well as the general theme of 
misunderstandings between cultures. This is a case where the speculations of
science fiction have had a strong influence on the approach toward scientific
research (SETI).

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: joe@andosl.anu.edu.au (Joe Elso)
Subject: Re: Visual acuity in microgravity
Organization: Comp. Sci. Lab., Autralian National Uni.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 05:16:22 GMT

In article <9207221207.AA29101@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

|> definitive has been found yet. I think the current theory is that fluid
|> shift may have some influence on the shape of the eyeball, rather than direct
|> gravitational distortion.

This sounds more reasonable.  After all, I can lie down on my back or side,
or stand on my head without having my vision go all blurry.

-- 
Cheers,
Joe Elso, CSLab, ANU
joe@andosl.anu.edu.au
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antiproton-boosted fission
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:25:49 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

[stuff about antiproton induced fission deleted]

>Great! Now we can build hand-held tactical nuclear machine guns. (One shot
>destroys a building several miles away.)  :-(  (Another E.E. Smith idea,
>this time from the Skylark series.)

>Maybe they ought to be careful of who gets hold of the technology.

Well, considering that the system to carry the antiprotons is arguably
the smallest system, and it would mass over a couple tons (with things like
the laser or electron inertial confinement guns massing hundreds of tons),
I don't think it quite qualifies as a hand-held machine gun.

Unrelated: Weren't books like the Skylark series and the Lensman series
(both by E.E. Smith) written sometime in the thirties?  As in, he was
simply ignoring the physics which said one simply could not accelerate
to a speed faster than that of light?


"The future is a race between education and catastrophe."
		- H.G. Wells 

-- 
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent		e-mail: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:40:20 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


[Note: the following is not an endorsement of any party or candidate.]

-From: rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge)
-Subject: Clinton Space Position
-Date: 22 Jul 92 21:05:17 GMT
-Organization: Express Access Online Communications Service, Greenbelt, Maryland USA

-The following was passed on to me.  I'm told it came from the Clinton
-Headquarters (I don't have any reason to doubt that):

-Bill Clinton on America's Space Program
...
 
I think Henry chose about the most negative possible interpretation. I've
heard (unofficially and third hand) that the NASA folks aren't unduly 
concerned about the space platforms of either of the major candidates.
Note that the platform isn't too different from the current trends in
Administration and Congress - keep the manned program going, support
aircraft research, make the unmanned program more efficient, and for
proposed big programs, concentrate on finding ways to make them more
affordable, without major changes in funding. From NASA's viewpoint, it's
probably highly desirable that the two platforms be similar.

To maintain integrity, it's in a candidate's interest to try to
stay fairly close to the campaign platform once elected, and both parties
have generally expressed support for the space program, so it would be
difficult for either of them to turn around and attempt large budget cuts.
(In this context, it's perhaps encouraging that neither has promised to
triple the space budget, since that's impractical in the current political
and economic climate - a realistic platform at least has a chance of
being honored.)

There are several indications in the proposal that some of the military
space funding would be shifted to the civilian space program, which ought
to be beneficial to the civilian program.

Please direct followups through Peter Jennings, the Official Canadian to Tell
Americans How to Vote.  :-)  :-)  :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Friday, 24 Jul 1992 08:45:13 CET
From: <TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Facility Tours

Sorry, but I haven't followed the full story, what's about JSC and White Sands?
Regards
         -Thorsten-
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:11:02 GMT

Gary Coffman writes:

> There wasn't a March 2000 years ago. The calender we use is a modern 
> invention of the 17th century. When the Gregorian calendar was rationalized,
> we lost a week, and renters rejoiced and landlords cried. Precession is not
> figured into the calendar. Unless someone rationalizes the calendar again,
> the seasons will precess across the months. The Chinese calendar, and the
> Jewish calendar now have the new year occurring on dates other than Jan 1.
> That's because both calendars are old enough to have precessed a bit.
> Besides, it's midwinter now, in the southern hemisphere. Which one stands 
> on it's head?

The month of March did exist prior to the 17th century, but not in all
calendars.  Precession is figured into the calendar.  The seasons will
not precess across the months.  I'm no expert on the Chinese calendar,
but I believe it is based on the Moon, not the Sun, so a comparison with
a solar calendar isn't entirely appropriate, but I doubt the new year
differs from January 1 because of precession.
Newsgroups: sci.space