HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: petry@corona.math.washington.edu (David Petry)
Subject: Re: Self-Reference and Paradox (was Re: Human intelligence...)
Organization: University of Washington, Mathematics, Seattle
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:14:56 GMT

In article <BxtBwx.LvH@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov14.151559.13227@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>
>|> 
>|>     This sentence is false.
>|> 
>|> refers to an unrestricted notion of falsity, and is therefore
>|> meaningless. We can replace "false" by a restricted notion of falsity
>
>This sort of thing has been tried before.  One problem is that the displayed
>sentence is *not* meaningless in any normal sense of this term.  We
>know perfectly well what it means -- and that's the problem.

Well, we think we know perfectly well what it (the paradoxical sentence)
means, but we humans use non-monotonic logic.  That is, we are willing to 
reject our previous conclusions in light of new knowledge.

For example,  if you found out that I had just written down the sentence
"2+2 = 5" and was pointing to it while I exclaimed "This sentence is false",
you would quickly change your belief about the meaning of that exclamation.

I've always felt that that observation is crucial to the understanding of
the so-called paradoxes.


David Petry

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Self-Reference and Paradox (was Re: Human intelligence...)
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:41:11 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <26551@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
|> In article  <BxtBwx.LvH@unx.sas.com> Gary Merrill writes:
|> ]In article <1992Nov14.151559.13227@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
|> ]|> 
|> ]|>     This sentence is false.
|> ]|> 
|> ]|> refers to an unrestricted notion of falsity, and is therefore
|> ]|> meaningless. We can replace "false" by a restricted notion of falsity
|> ]
|> ]This sort of thing has been tried before.  One problem is that the displayed
|> ]sentence is *not* meaningless in any normal sense of this term.  We
|> ]know perfectly well what it means -- and that's the problem.
|> 
|> The term "meaningless" is ambiguous here.  There are many examples of
|> problematic meanings in language.  For example, what does the word
|> "unicorn" denote?  What does "nothing" denote?  Clearly, both words
|> have a meaning in some sense, but neither has a "normal" denotation.
|> If you take the view that sentences denote their truth values, then
|> the liar's paradox can be taken as another example of the same thing.

The liar's paradox is quite independent of the position that sentences
denote their truth values.  Moreover, "meaningless" appears to be unambiguous
in the above context.  My point was that the meaning of the sentence
is sufficiently clear for us to use it in common inferences.

The analogies to "unicorn" and "nothing" are weak and unconvincing.
Surely it is not suggested that "This sentence" fails to denote as
"unicorn" does or as "nothing" does.

Certainly if we wish to take the position that a sentence is a *name*
that *denotes* something, then we may court various problems.  Thus
it is wise not to take that position.  Unfortunately, the liar remains
with us.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: grounding and the entity/environment boundary
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:38:35 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)

In article <1992Nov10.020502.116627@Cookie.secapl.com>, frank@Cookie (Frank Adams) writes:
>There is one way in our technology already greatly outstrips the
>brain: the speed at which signals propagate.

This, assumes, of course, that signal speed is what's relevant.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: The Paradox of the Unexpected Hanging
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:46:35 GMT

In article <B147TB4w165w@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz>,
system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes:

>>>> The statement "You will be executed today, but you will not be able to
>>>> figure out that you will be executed today" is *not*
>>>> self-contradictory...

>Ok, so the judge's statement is NOT self-contradictory if you assume 
>the truth-value of the statement is unknown.

It isn't self-contradictory, in any case. It may be false, however.

>So we're saying it is either meaningless, or we don't know if it is true.
>We are also saying that we, as the prisoner, cannot believe ALL of the
>statement to be true. So the prisoner can conclude that either all or
>part of the statement is false.

No! Just because I cannot consistently *believe* that something is
true, does not mean that I must believe that it is false. For example,
PA cannot consistently prove the statement "PA is consistent" (coded
as an arithmetic statement), but that doesn't mean that the statement
is false, or that PA can prove that it is false.

The prisoner can neither consistently believe the judge, nor
consistently believe the judge is lying. That's why it is important to
partition sentences into those that you believe true, those you believe
false, and those whose truth values you can't determine (and may *never*
be able to determine).

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6852 sci.logic:2146
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Self-Reference and Paradox (was Re: Human intelligence...)
From: system@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 09:06:09 NZST
Organization: The Code Works Limited, PO Box 10 155, Auckland, New Zealand

petry@pythagoras.math.washington.edu (David Petry) writes:

> The question is, how do you know that in the original context the subject
> refers to the sentence itself?  The answer is that you have been taught
> to "see" paradox.  Many, perhaps most, people that have not been taught
> to see the paradox will ask the question "What sentence is being referred
> to?" when they see the sentence "This sentence is false."
> 
> Anyways, I find that most people who defend the paradoxes have at their
> command laws of logic which I never even imagined could exist.  I will
> probably drop out of this discussion.

I would have to agree with both paragraphs. In regard to the first one, 
I asked my wife [very intelligent, BUT a medical doctor, so not well 
versed with hair splitting], or at least said to her:

"Jenny McDougall will never believe this sentence."

to which she replied:

"Which sentence?"

:-)

-- 
  Wayne McDougall, BCNU
  This .sig unintentionally left blank.

Hello! I'm a .SIG Virus. Copy me and spread the fun.
From: connolly@piglet.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Ian Connolly)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: grounding and the entity/environment boundary
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:20:58 GMT
Reply-To: connolly@piglet.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Ian Connolly)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Originator: connolly@piglet.cs.umass.edu


In article <1992Nov10.020502.116627@Cookie.secapl.com>, frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams) writes:
> There is one way in our technology already greatly outstrips the brain: the
> speed at which signals propogate.  I see no reason to think we cannot at
> least equal its performance in other areas without giving up this advantage.

Are you considering gap junctions as well as chemical synapses?  Gap junctions allow ions 
and small molecules to flow between coupled cells.  They provide a direct electrical 
coupling between neurons, and appear in a number of places in the CNS (see, e.g. Principles
of Neural Science, Kandel, Schwartz & Jessell).  Granted, CMOS is probably "faster" than 
cytoplasm, but I  wouldn't say our technology greatly outstrips this aspect of cellular
communication.

	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Christopher Ian Connolly			connolly@cs.umass.edu
Laboratory for Perceptual Robotics		wa2ifi
University of Massachusetts at Amherst		Amherst, MA 01003
-- 
	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Christopher Ian Connolly			connolly@cs.umass.edu
Laboratory for Perceptual Robotics		wa2ifi
University of Massachusetts at Amherst		Amherst, MA 01003
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6836 sci.philosophy.tech:4160 talk.philosophy.misc:2518
From: shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: talk.philosophy.language?
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:45:11 GMT
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX


Yes! A philosophy of language group would be great!  Who do we pester to get 
one?

Shari Heino




Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.misc
From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: talk.philosophy.language?
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:15:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.070931.44866@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.023057.19347@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, John Wilkins <john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au> writes:
>> In article <1durs4INN9hl@sequoia.ccsd.uts.EDU.AU> Chris Chesher,
>> cchesher@uts.edu.au writes:
>>>And let's talk about Foucault, Baudrillard, Lyotard too!
>> 
>> Oh, please, let's not. Create a talk.philosophy.continent or something.
>
>Hear, hear...

No, you won't be able to HEAR, only read.

Still it is interesting to know that Australia and Kansas have something
in common besides dryness...

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: "Bernd Finkemeyer" <p00122@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Self_Reference and Paradox (was Re: Human Intelligence...)
Organization: Bear Software
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:37:25 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

| The following has been relayed from a Compuserve subscriber. Please send
| private replies to: "76675.1422@compuserve.com".

I find that I can evaluate true or false only with statements that make a
definite unambiguous assertion of fact (in the sense of a datum or an algorithm
that can be used to process a chain of thought to a useful conclusion).  If a
statement has no ultimate potential usefulness, I have trouble evaluating it as
true or false.

I don't see that "This sentence is false." makes any assertion or counter
assertion of fact, only of logical incomprehensibility.

Forget true or false, try yes or no.

This sentence can be interpreted as true or false.   NO (maybe?)
This sentence can only be interpreted as false.  NO (I'm pretty sure.)
This sentence is false.
     NO, absolutely, the true/false test can not be applied here.

Granted, the paradox does serve a purpose in processing thoughts about the
thinking process.  The paradox itself can be evaluated as useful, but only
inasmuch as it's assertions remain ambiguous and impossible to evaluate in
terms
of true or false.

Ken Easlon, Third Austrian Crosshatch, The Wiggleburner Institute
76675.1422@COMPUSERVE.COM
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: It is AI when...
From: system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 10:28:03 NZST
Organization: The Code Works Limited, PO Box 10 155, Auckland, New Zealand

avl0@cine88.cineca.it writes:

> In article <Stafford-101192104649@stafford.winona.msus.edu>, Stafford@Vax2.Wi
> > Another foolish attempt -
> > 
> > Complete AI is when a machine produces useful, unsolicited
> > solutions to unanticipated problems and we cannot discern 
> > it's methods.
> 
> Consider this attempt too:
> 
> Complete AI is when a machine produces the same behaviour and the
> same functionality of a human being and uses them to reach the same 
> Fundamental Goal.
> This definition can be a superset of your.
> 
> N.B. I believe that the main step in this way is the definition
> of the Fundamental Goal. Does anybody have any idea about that?
> 

I would venture to disagree with this. Why should AI be a copy of human 
I? Would we really expect an ET to have a human I, or some sort of 
alien I? The goal of artificial intelligence is not necessarily 
artificial human intelligence. As we don't have much intelligence 
around to build models on, much [particulary early] AI work was based 
on emulating humans, but it seems to me [I'm not well grounded ;-)] 
that this is less the case.

I'm very much looking forward to "dealing" with an artificial 
intelligence that is distinctly recognizable as "alien" or a "computer 
intelligence" while still being a near match, my match, or better.

-- 
  Wayne McDougall, BCNU
  This .sig unintentionally left blank.

Hello! I'm a .SIG Virus. Copy me and spread the fun.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: grounding and the entity/environment boundary
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:07:38 GMT
Organization: Security APL, Inc.

In article <97918@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.020502.116627@Cookie.secapl.com>, frank@Cookie (Frank Adams) writes:
>>There is one way in our technology already greatly outstrips the
>>brain: the speed at which signals propagate.
>
>This, assumes, of course, that signal speed is what's relevant.

No, it only assumes that signal speed *is* relevant.  It all but explicitly
assumes that it is *not* the *only* thing that is relevant.

I think it is pretty obvious that signal speed is relevant.
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: <EASWAR@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:    UNCERTAINTY IN Exp. Sys
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:59:27 GMT

Hi!
I am taking a course in Decision Sciences and chose initially to review
the role of expert systems as a tool for modelling decision making under
uncertainty. However, as I went on with the review, I realised that
Probability Theories based on an amazing variety of aximatic foundations
are being used to capture uncertainty.

For example;some systems allow the subjective probabilities to be
ranges rather than point estimates, some allow ignorance about the
events( Eg. I don't know if it will rain today) etc. Now, I think
reviewing the various axiomatic foundations in terms of their impact
on knowledge acquisition and uncertainty modelling might be a good idea.

I was wondering if any of you could suggest me a standard book/ a
comprehensive review article which introduces and compares these
alternative theories. I would appreciate your help in this regard,


Thanx in advance,
Easwar Nyshadham


P.S : I read a book review of 'Uncertain Reasoning' authored by Judea
Pearl and Shafer. If you have read the book already, could you give me
your opinions please?
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.lang,comp.multimedia,comp.cog-eng,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai.neural-nets
From: kaykit@iti.gov.sg (Chan Kay Kit (KSL))
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: A pattern recognition problem
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:14:39 GMT
Reply-To: kaykit@iti.gov.sg
Organization: Information Technology Institute, National Computer Board, S'pore


Hello,

	I have an interesting problem on hand that I feel should have
been solved before but have been unable to find any literature on. Hence
I hope to seek some pointers by airing the problem in this newsgroup.

	Say there are a few types of printed documents each with its own
different format and layout. These documents are simple enough to be 
segmented into rectangles containing pure text (assuming the documents are
clean and clearly printed). All rectangles so segmented are either upright
or lie flat ie. the text is not tilted. 

	The formats have been so restricted such that the spatial 
relationships between all the rectangles is sufficient to distinguish 
the different types of documents. The size of individual rectangles is
of secondary importance as the width or height of some of them can vary even 
within a single format. For a particular format, it is known in advance
which rectangle is of variable height/width. 

	Spatial relationships refer to the type of overlap between any
2 rectangles both in the horizontal and the vertical direction eg. for
the horizontal direction, some possible overlap types are


_________________
_______


and

________________
    _______

and

_____________
		____________	



The effect of variable size rectangles is that, for some rectangle-pairs, the
overlap types can vary from one document to the next for a single document
type.

	For each type of document, I have scanned in a typical sample,
segmented it into rectangles and computed the spatial relationships between 
all pairs of rectangles. 

	THE PROBLEM IS THIS: given a new document, how do I match its pattern of 
rectangles to the database of known formats to determine its type? The algorithm
must be robust enough to handle noise in this new document which can corrupt the
pattern of rectangles. It should also be able to output a similiarity measure for
the document type(s) that it has chosen so that one can reject the document as 
being foreign if one deems the similiarity to be too low.

	At first glance, I thought syntactic pattern recognition or case-based 
reasoning might be a good way to solve the problem. Are there any pattern 
recognition gurus out there who can offer suggestions/ftpable code/references 
for an accurate and efficient solution? If so, please email to kaykit@iti.gov.sg. 
If there is sufficient interest, I will summarise all replies to the net. 

	Thanks a million!

(Sorry for occupying so much bandwidth)



 

---
Kay-Kit CHAN    			| Internet: kaykit@iti.gov.sg
Knowledge Systems Lab			| Bitnet:   kaykit@itivax
Information Technology Institute	| Tel:      (65) 772-0920
National Computer Board of Singapore    | Fax:      (65) 770-3043
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:28:22 EST
From: Your Puerto Rican neighbor! <JJH113@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Chess and AI

I need algorithms on how to implement a Chess game using LISP or any
other AI computer language.  Please let me know if have information
or a reference where I can look for.
Thanks.
Jose
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu,comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.arch,comp.cog-eng
From: wfsq_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Billy the Kidd)
Subject: BS Degree
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 04:03:52 GMT

	Thanks to all who reponded to my posting regarding the opportunities
for CogSci BS Degrees.  I think the bottom line is that if you're paying
$80,000-$100,000, you might as well make the best of your education,
and get the most out of it.  In addition, the BS makes a world of difference
in the job market, and afterall - what good is a degree if you can't put it
to use?

		Thanks Again, 

		  Billy
From: wfsq_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Billy the Kidd)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu
Subject: Summer Jobs ?
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:33:37 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


	I am a University of Rochester third year student, majoring in Cognitive
Science.  I am hoping to get some king of paid internship/job within my field
this summer.  My concentration is in Artificial Intelligence/Computer
Architechture.  Any suggestions would be great.

            Thanx in advance!!!!

		Billy Kidd
	(wfsq_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu
From: fb42@rummelplatz.uni-mannheim.de (Wolfgang Eger)
Subject: Utrecht University internal paper
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:27:11 GMT
Organization: RUM
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Hi,

I am looking for following reference:

Pascal J.F. de Vink "On Integration of Neural Networks and Expert Systems"
Utrecht University internal paper, January 1991.

If anybody knows about this paper or has a copy from it, please contact me
or send me the paper via E-Mail.

Wolfgang Eger
fb42@rummelplatz.uni-mannheim.de

Carl-Zuckmayer-Str. 14
6800 Mannheim
W-Germany
From: rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu (Rob Douglas)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.edu
Subject: John Hopkins and AI???
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:23:09 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: chestnut.wpi.edu
Keywords: grad school, AI, PhD, John Hopkins

I recently saw John Hopkins University on somebody's list of good grad schools in
CS and AI.

	1) Could someone give me the email address of the CS dept there, as I would
like to ask them for info on their PhD program?  I may want to apply for next 
Fall Semester.

	2) How good are they?  Does anyone have a specific reference to a JHU researcher
in AI.

I am just finishing my Master's degree this semester, and am looking at jobs in the
Maryland area, and since I would be interested in continuing my education as well,
and JHU is in Baltimore, I wantm to get in an application before it is too late.

I almost forgot
	3) How does it compare with U Maryland - College Park or Baltimore?


thanks for replies, (I could summarize for those interested).


ROB
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Rob Douglas          | (508) 831-5006    | Computer Science Department     ~
~ rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu  | AI Research Group | Worcester Polytechnic Institute ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      	 	  __
	         /_/ _   /     /\  _       _,  / _   _
        	/ \ (_) /_)   /_/ (_) /_/ (_) / (_\ _\
	                                 (_)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,news.groups
From: jwiegand@moe.eng.temple.edu ()
Subject: Re: RFD -- where to put "fuzzy"?
Organization: Temple University EE Dept.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:16:04 GMT
X-Posted-From: moe.eng.temple.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Sci.logic.fuzzy sounds good!
jim jwiegand@moe.eng.temple.edu

Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.edu,sci.cognitive
From: shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks)
Subject: Re: B.S. Degree
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 23:28:02 GMT

In article <BxzCKy.JtC@acsu.buffalo.edu> rapaport@acsu.buffalo.edu (William J. Rapaport) writes:

>But, in any case, why do you think it matters whether your degree says
>"BS" or "BA"?  Do you think one is "better" than the other? 

Well, the corporations think it matters. Go knock on the door at
GM, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, or Honeywell (and these are the ones
I know of) with a BA, and you will be given the bum's rush. It's
a corporate "cookbook" thing. No BS - no job.

>I urge most students to go for the BA, since it requires them to know
>something besides CS and math.

And BOY, do they need it. While at McDonnell, I was stunned to hear
the University of Missouri - Rolla grads brag that they never had
to read a book or write a paper. None of that "fuzzy study" shit
for _these_ geniuses. And it showed.

>At MIT, I'm told, English majors get a BS in English, so I'm not
>sure that what the degree is called really matters.

Only if you're looking for a job at one of the corporations. The US
military academies operate the same way - BS is what it says on the
diploma. Doesn't matter what you focused on (although you don't
get many electives there anyway.) That has been my experience over
the last 10 years. I recommend a BSEE, then get your BSCS or MSCS.
Then you can work for anyone.

Mark Shanks
shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai