HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arao@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Andy Rao    )
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: fuzzy logic, lisp, AI
Keywords: fuzzy logic lisp AI
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:03:49 GMT

i'm new to the world of AI and fuzzy logic, but the topic fascinates
me..  i am thinking about pursuing graduate studies in the field in
3 years.  my question is this....why lisp?? why is lisp THE language
used for AI?

one more thing, could somone give me a good definition of fuzzy
logic? my concept of it is...fuzzy at best. :)
From: colinb@PARAMOUNT.NIKHEFK.NIKHEF.NL (Colin Brace)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Language Industry Monitor (follow up)
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:19:12 GMT


 
 
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
July 1992
 
 
               LANGUAGE INDUSTRY MONITOR
               =========================
 
                      [Follow-up]
 
In February of this year, I posted a notice on this net
about LANGUAGE INDUSTRY MONITOR, a bimonthly newsletter
dedicated to the world of natural language computing. The
reponse was overwhelming, with many new subscriptions and
orders for sets of back issues. Inquiries from this posting
are still trickling in. If any of you did respond but have not
yet heard from me or have not received a sample issue, my
sincere apologies. Please contact me again, restating your
request.
 
For those who did not see the original announcement, very
briefly, LANGUAGE INDUSTRY MONITOR offers a lively roundup
of news, background information, and commentary the world of
natural language computing. This includes such technologies
as speech processing, handwriting recognition, terminology
management, full text indexing and retrieval, document
processing, and computer-aided translation (including MT).
LANGUAGE INDUSTRY MONITOR is currently the only publication
of its kind. It is unique because it addresses these related
technologies as a whole, placing them in relation to each
other, and viewing them in the context of broader
technological, social, and political issues.
 
To clarify a couple of points which weren't clear from the
original notice and caused some confusion:
 
* LANGUAGE INDUSTRY MONITOR is not (yet) distributed in
  digital form; it's printed on paper.
 
* LANGUAGE INDUSTRY MONITOR does cost money (US$ 95
  airmail). Published independently and advertisement-free,
  it's "subscriber-driven."
 
If you would like to receive a sample copy of the next issue
of LANGUAGE INDUSTRY MONITOR, send me your name, department,
company, or institute, and full mailing address.
 
             > > > > > > IMPORTANT < < < < < <
 
If you are involved in a natural language processing project
and have a product announcement or interesting research
results to share, or, for example, you have evaluated or
extensively used any of the NLP-based products currently
available, I would very much like to hear from you. Send
announcements, reports, publications, voluntary
submissions, or other relevant materials to my attention at
the following address. Or contact me directly to make an
appointment for an interview.
 
 
Colin Brace
Editor
 
      ===============================================
      L A N G U A G E  I N D U S T R Y  M O N I T O R
         "The World of Natural Language Computing"
                       ISSN 0925-3327
                  Eerste Helmersstraat 183
             1054 DT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
        Tel: + 31 20 685-0462   Fax: +31 20 685-4300
        Internet: colinb@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl
                   CompuServe: 70023,1164
      ===============================================
 
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.shells
From: dcb@willow.wpi.edu (David C. Brown)
Subject: Re: What shell to use
Organization: CS Dept., Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:19:34 GMT

I would give another vote for CLIPS. Even without the interface, 
the inference engine portion is easy to port, runs very fast, 
and will work with programs written in C.  We've used it with 
Motif/X interfaces, and with a solid modeller, for example.  
For PC use, we've adopted Level 5 Object.  The big win for us 
has been the ability to develop nice interfaces.  We've also 
linked to Fortran and to Visual Basic, and have used the DBase III 
facility.  It wasn't that great when it first came out, but now it 
is much more reliable. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. D. C. Brown, AI Research Group,     DCB@CS.WPI.EDU    Phone: (508) 831-5618
CS Dept, WPI, Worcester, MA 01609, USA.                   FAX:   (508) 831-5776
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky comp.ai:2937 sci.electronics:13701 sci.research:846 comp.ai.neural-nets:3032 comp.robotics:1469 sci.bio.technology:204 sci.engr:1887 sci.engr.biomed:469 sci.engr.mech:161
From: kohli@umbc2.umbc.edu
Subject: Management Simulation/Games packages: Info rqd.
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore County
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:41:12 GMT

Does anyone know of Management Games or Simulation packages used to conduct
simulated lab experiments.  There is one called Micr-Compete for Marketing
management which simulates marketing management situations.

I am interested in finding about any such packages for Healthcare, and 
Manufacturing/Engineering.

These may be called by other names, but the purpose is to provide a case
study for subjects and collect data based on treatment(s) for one group
vs. the other untreated group.

Any info will be appreciated.

Rajiv
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: davids@eng.auburn.edu (David Schreibman)
Subject: actor-based languages
Reply-To: davids@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:35:32 GMT

	Can anyone provide a list of actor-based languages? I've got good sources on
the conceptual basis, but I need details about specific languages.  Is there one out
there that I could ftp?  Thanks in advance to anyone how can help.


---
David Schreibman           ^ ^    
CSE Dept., Auburn Univ.    o o     
davids@eng.auburn.edu     < - >
From: cisneros@cs.ucf.edu (Jaime Cisneros)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Stock market analysis
Keywords: stock market analysis
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:02:11 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida, Orlando

Hello everyone,
             I would like to know if there is anyone
out there who has some information on stock market
analysis.  Are there any programs?  If so, are
any of them ftpable?  Are there any good references?
Is there any reliable work on this area?
   If someone can help, I will appreciate it very
much.

  Jaime Cisneros

P.S. Please send any information to cisneros@cs.ucf.edu.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:13:38 GMT

In article <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>
>        This thread has been beating at this subject for quite some time 
>now, and I believe a reassessment of the progress that has been made here 
>(or that has not been made, as the case may be) would be useful to 
>provide redirection for the discussion.
>        I'm not ambitious enough to undertake this, but I wonder if we 
>can agree on some basics?  Criticism on these points is welcome.
>
>        I. Intelligence requires a memory storage/retrieval system.

  Strongly disagree.

  Certainly humans are capable of learning, and learning implies some
kind of memory.  But I deny that it is a "storage/retrieval" system.
Indeed it is my opinion that the often held belief that we have a
storage/retrieval system is a major stumbling block in understanding
human cognition.

>        II. Intelligence is about problem-solving.

  Strongly disagree.

  Intelligence is all about survival.  For survival, response to stimulus
is the important feature.  Problem solving certainly helps by greatly
broadening the variety of possible responses.  But I would prefer to
say that problem solving ability is a side effect of intelligence, rather
than a central component.

>        III. Intelligence requires drives.

  Of course, there is the genetically implanged drive for survival.
But if you intended some conscious drive, I must strongly disagree.
That has it backwards.  Intelligence is needed to produce the type of
conscious awareness necessary as a prerequisite for having such drives.

>        IV. Intelligence requires creativity.

  Again, I must disagree.  Once again, creativity is an effect of
intelligence, but I very much doubt that it is a prerequisite.  Indeed,
it is much more likely that intelligence is a prerequisite for creativity.

>        V. Intelligence is a function of speed.  It's likely we all agree 
>on this point.

  Can't agree here either.  Speed certainly has utility.  But I don't
believe it is central.  Certainly speed is an important part of
intelligence for an animal involved in intense predator/prey relations.
But if a creature adopts an ecological niche where there are no predators,
it might be able to adopt a quite sedate life style and still be very
intelligent.

>        VI. Certain types of intelligence require communication.

  Finally, something I can agree with - sort of.

>                                                                  This is 
>where the Turing Test comes in,

  Just a moment there.  The communication you are thinking of in the
Turing test is needed to demonstrate the intelligence to others.  It is
not itself an integral part of the intelligence.

  That being said, the term "communication" is so general, and your
equivocation "certain types of" is so broad, that I have to agree with
statement VI.

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:39:41 GMT
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In article <1992Jul27.035104.22491@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu> charles@dirac.physics.sunysb.edu (Charles Ofria) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.151338.28804@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>In article <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>>>        VI. Certain types of intelligence require communication.
>>
>>  Finally, something I can agree with - sort of.

>Gee, I don't agree with either of you here.  I don't see why it would be
>necessary to have any form of comunication to have intelligence.

  OK.  Let's try removing all communication, and see how much intelligence
is left.  First we sever all neurons, for they are clearly communication
channels.  Next we sever all arteries to prevent hormonal communication.
There are some other system we need to disrupt too, but I think you will
agree that not much intelligence remains.

  I realize that this is not the type of communication either you or
Justin intended.  This is why I commented that communication is too
general a term to deny its relevance.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:28:27 GMT

In article <4474@rosie.NeXT.COM> paulking@next.com (Paul King) writes:
>rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>> >        I. Intelligence requires a memory storage/retrieval system.

>>   Certainly humans are capable of learning, and learning implies some
>> kind of memory.  But I deny that it is a "storage/retrieval" system.

>Could we instead say that "intelligence requires the ability to use
>information from past experience to influence behavior"?

  I have no serious argument with this.  It sounds like a good working
definition of memory.
From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:39:15 GMT
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA

Intelligence is not a prerequisite for survival. There is a good deal of
evidence that the costs of intelligence are so high that very few species
can afford it.

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rcsjp@cgl.rmit.oz.au (Jason Pouflis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:38:53 GMT
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>  If man was created by a god in an act of creation, then perhaps it is
>true that we were given intelligence to solve problems.  But I happen
>to believe in evolution.  The driving force of evolution is survival,
>particularly survival of the species.  Simple things that evolved may
>have done so out of random luck.  But as the complexity increases, the
>probabilities of random luck diminish.  Anything as complex as intelligence
>could only have evolved because it aided survival.  The fact that it
>happens to aid in solving problems is an incidental side effect, and
>merely reflects that the ability to solve certain problems also has a
>relation to survival.
>  --------------


As I Understand It, 
	By being able to transfer survival skills (fluid or static)
to the next generation, chances of survival increased.
	If we assume humans to be intelligent, then communication 
(the capacity for language) or learning is the sign of intelligence.
	When we personally estimate someones intelligence,
we are trying to find out how quickly they can learn, their capacity
for knowledge, how smart they are. We judge this based on
their vocabulary, personality, and the attention they pay us.

	So,
	I wonder if the question of intelligence has relevance to computers.

	Maybe we should try again, when we feel empathy for a computer.

However, I'm only talking about intelligence in the human aspect.
what intelligence MEANS to someone who is trying to measure it.

Otherwise your talking about how well some entity can acheive it's goals,
a matter dealt with in game theory.

IMHO,
Jason Pouflis
From: khise@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (Martin Andrew Shobe)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 24 Jul 1992 15:05:26 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: conquest.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Jul24.023513.25326@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>  Let me start by saying that I am not arguing for the sake of arguing.
>We clearly disagree on this, and we will have to agree to disagree.
>But you are reading things into my answer that are not there.  Or, to
>put it differently, I am not quibbling about words, but I really am
>saying something that you probably view as radical and contrary to the
>conventional wisdom.
>

Actually, we might be quibbling over words.
Are store/retrieve memories limited to storing and retrieving data by location?
(Both examples below do).
If so, then I agree that human memory is not a storage/retrieval memory.

>  To be sure there is no confusion, let me clarify my position.  The
>virtual memory example you cite IS a store/retrieve operation, even if
>done indirectly by the operating system, rather than directly by the
>program.  To pretend that it is not a store/retrieve system would be
>quibbling about words.
>

The point of the example was that you could have a store/retrieve memory
without a *conscious* store or retrieve command.  You showed that there 
was no conscious store or retrieve command, and then said that it meant there
was no storage/retrieval memory.  I used that example to show that the latter
does not follow from the former.  I do not believe that it is an accurate
model of human memory.

>  When I said that human memory was not a store/retrieve memory, I
>intended to claim that there is no such thing a storage operation and
>no such thing as a retrievel operation at any level, or with any degree
>of indirectness.  I am claiming that the storage/retrieval model of
>memory is just a very misleading way of looking at the workings of the
>mind.  What we perceive as storage, retrieval, memory search, is really
>something else.  We are allowing ourselves to be confused by looking
>for memory which is similar to the storage retrieval memories we have
>built in computers, tape recorders, etc.
>

Martin Shobe
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: How do computers fare on scholastic achievement tests?
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:14:44 GMT


> Using the Turing test as something to talk about during a Turing test
> is dangerous; more than 90% of the people I know (some of which are
> very intelligent) just would plain not be interested in the subject :-)
> --
> Thomas Koenig, ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz, ib09@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
> The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
> diagram.

Indeed. But they tell you how to peel a grape.


Gordon Joly      Phone  +44 71 387 7050 ext 3703      FAX  +44 71 387 1397
Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk        UUCP: ...!{uunet,uknet}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
From: ropella@engcon.marshall.ltv.com (GEROPELLA)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Defining Intelligence
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:12:54 GMT
Reply-To: ropella@engcon.UUCP (GEROPELLA)
Organization: LTV MEG, Dallas, TX

In
Article 7026 of comp.ai.philosophy:
From: jones@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jones)
states:

A recent poster (I have lost the pointer) says that the way to achieve
A.I. is to *define* "intelligence."  This is a classic mistake. 

Tom


The problem here is in the word "artificial."  I think what you're
claiming is that artificial intelligence should not be regarded
as intelligence.  If this is true, then the definition and development
of ai would not require (and indeed be obfuscated by) a definition
of intelligence.  Whoever named the subject of ai (and I'm sure
someone out there in net-land could tell me) forced upon us a
misnomer.  What I'd recommend is that if an ai expert wants people
to use correct and unambiguous language about his or her science,
then she or he better think up or use a term for his or her 
specialty and then tell people he or she worked on that and not
on ai per se.

In other words, *get rid of the term 'artificial intelligence.'*

But, until that happens, there will be those of us who are 
determined to link ai to intelligence.  And intelligence is a
*very* philosophical subject.

glen e. ropella
ropella@engcon.marshall.ltv.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:35:13 GMT

In article <14nj5oINN9e2@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> khise@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Martin Andrew Shobe) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul23.223809.11316@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>>  If there is no store operation, and no retrieve operation, then it is
>>not a storage/retrieval memory.

>I'll agree that there is no conscious store/retrieve.  But, that does not 
>mean that there is no store/retrieve on another level.
>
>For example.
>  Many large computer systems today have virtual memory.  At some point, the
>code for the process may not be in main memory.  When the process gets to this
>point, the operating system retrieves the code from storage and places it in 
>main memory.  The process itself never issued a retrieve command.  

  Let me start by saying that I am not arguing for the sake of arguing.
We clearly disagree on this, and we will have to agree to disagree.
But you are reading things into my answer that are not there.  Or, to
put it differently, I am not quibbling about words, but I really am
saying something that you probably view as radical and contrary to the
conventional wisdom.

  To be sure there is no confusion, let me clarify my position.  The
virtual memory example you cite IS a store/retrieve operation, even if
done indirectly by the operating system, rather than directly by the
program.  To pretend that it is not a store/retrieve system would be
quibbling about words.

  When I said that human memory was not a store/retrieve memory, I
intended to claim that there is no such thing a storage operation and
no such thing as a retrievel operation at any level, or with any degree
of indirectness.  I am claiming that the storage/retrieval model of
memory is just a very misleading way of looking at the workings of the
mind.  What we perceive as storage, retrieval, memory search, is really
something else.  We are allowing ourselves to be confused by looking
for memory which is similar to the storage retrieval memories we have
built in computers, tape recorders, etc.

  Could I be wrong in this claim?  Of course.  I never claimed omniscience.
But let me put it this way - I have been around on this planet for quite
a few years.  I have not yet seen any evidence that would convince me
that our cognitive memories are store/retrieve memories.  I have seen
much that would persuade me otherwise.

  Again, let me clarify further.  I am not disputing that we are capable
of learning.  I certainly agree that some kind of physical changes take
place during learning.  It is very reasonably to refer to this as some
kind of memory system.  So I am not denying the existence of memory.
I am only claiming that our memory is not the type of system we like to
believe it is.  That the way in which we learn is such that it would be
very difficult to characterize it as a storage system, and the way that
we remember is such that it would be very difficult to characterize it
as a retrieval system.
From: ljones@andrew.ATL.GE.COM (LeRoy E Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:50:07 GMT
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs

In article <982@engcon.marshall.ltv.com> ropella@engcon.UUCP (GEROPELLA) writes:
>In
>Article 7026 of comp.ai.philosophy:
>From: jones@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jones)
>states:
>
>A recent poster (I have lost the pointer) says that the way to achieve
>A.I. is to *define* "intelligence."  This is a classic mistake. 
>
>Tom
>
>
>The problem here is in the word "artificial."  I think what you're
>claiming is that artificial intelligence should not be regarded
>as intelligence.  If this is true, then the definition and development
>of ai would not require (and indeed be obfuscated by) a definition
>of intelligence. [...]

It seems that to judge if what is called AI is really artificial or not,
we have to have a definition of intelligence to work from. If AI stands
up to the definition of real intelligence, whatever that may be, then
we can drop the A, but until then, we seem to be trying to make machines
mimic things, namely humans, which they are not, and that seems to make
what they are doing artificial to me. The twist is that we don't want the 
machine to just follow orders...we want it to think, and reason, hence the
intelligence part. Put them together and we have AI.

	-- Lee
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: d3g637@duke.oname (David P. Chassin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Defining Intelligence
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:33:37 GMT
Reply-To: d3g637@duke.oname
Organization: Battelle/Pacific Northwest Laboratories

I came across an article in Feb 91 IEEE Expert about 
Artificial Life.  In this article the author builds on
the ALife-AI claim: "The dumbest smart thing you can
do it stay alive," adding "that is, ALife represents
the lower bound for AI."

This leads me to a more general thought about defining
intelligence:  "If it gets the job done, it's intelligent
_enough_".  The pragmatist in me arises ;-) James would
be pleased, IMHO. What I like about this kind of
definition is it uses no a priori notions about how 
intelligence is measured, rather it measures intelligence
based on the success of the subject within its range.


        Dave Chassin
        Email: dp_chassin@pnl.gov           "Life is either a daring
        Vox: (509)375-4369                    adventure or nothing"
        Fax: (509)375-3614                           - Helen Keller