HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:48:05 GMT

In article <4SEP199212055495@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>In article <185borINNj1l@agate.berkeley.edu>, cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio) writes...

>>From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
>>Subject: Improving the Way Infantrymen Are Equipped

>>From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

>>Improving the Way Infantrymen Are Equipped

>>By Jim Garamone
>>American Forces Information Service

>>     Luke Skywalker, look out.  The image and equipment of American
>>service members will make a quantum leap into the 21st century if
>>equipment now under development is adopted.

>This type of improvement is useful only at the beginning of a war or in small
>scale skirmishes where the high tech side numerically overwhelms the
>opposition.  As a good friend of mine (ex-Navy enlisted, ex-Marine officer,
>ex-merc) once said, "As the war gets longer, the level of technology used gets
>lower."  The new century may have added another technology layer, but it still
>comes down to who can fight better hand-to-hand.


I must have missed the hand-to-hand combat that took place in Kuwait/Iraq.
Where/when did it occur?


Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: oldham@ms.uky.edu (Joseph Oldham)
Subject: Re: Don't try to "define" intelligence
    <1992Sep6.195000.3465@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:09:55 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

Although the analogy to gravity seems weak to me Stevan Harnad seeems to
make a reasonable point.  However, my assumption would be that most of
us would think that trying to define intelligence is both useful and
necessary.  It is useful so long as we use our definition(s) to give
us focus on whatever more specific problem we're working on.  The danger
that Harnad seems to reasonably point out is that when you focus you may
unconsciously limit yourself.  To attempt to achieve Turing-indisinguisability
with absolutely no definition in mind seems impossible (not to mention
doomed to failure) to me.  I would argue anyone with such a goal has an
operative definition of intelligence -- consciously held or otherwise.
(And if it isn't conscious boy is that person in trouble!)

The gravity analogy seems weak because we all seem to agree on what gravity
does, so we know what we have a theory about.  On the other hand we do
not seem to agree so much wrt what intelligence does -- so how do we
have a theory?  Our "definition(s)" are at least an attenpt to specify
what we're talking about.

J.O.

-- 
Joseph D. Oldham
oldham@ms.uky.edu
oldham@UKMA.BITNET
home: 233 7614
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: langston@memstvx1.memst.edu (Mark C. Langston)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Marvin Minsky's Conscious Machines
Date: 9 Sep 92 09:25:34 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Sep9.025119.15500@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
> In article <iordonez.715293767@academ01> iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
>>>>P: This sentence is not true.
>>
>>I don't know if this is supposed to prove that sentence P is formalizable,
>>but anyway please note that in my original post I claimed that P is not
>>formalizable because it contains a "not TRUE" part, and not because it
>>is self referent. The concept "truth" is not formalizable.
> 
> This sentence implies that the concept of "truth" is irrelevent and immaterial
> regarding the issue of logical paradox and that only the existence of
> self-reference and implication matter.


I thought I extracted this file from the net, but apparently my VAX didn't have
lunch that day, and decided to eat it.  Could someone either email me a copy
of the original text in full, or perhaps repost it?  A couple of people on
campus would really like to read it.

(Marvin?  can you help?)



-- 
+--------8<------Cut Here------8<------Cut Here------8<------Cut Here---------+
  Mark C. Langston   |  "Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny."                 
  Psychology Dept.   |  "Always listen to experts.  They'll tell you what can't
  Memphis State U.   |     be done, and why.  Then do it."                      
      "Pftph!"       |           -From the notebooks of Lazarus Long         
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6089 sci.bio:3224 soc.men:16415 soc.women:16589
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:42:52 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: dwp@cci632.cci.com's message of 9 Sep 92 12:47:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.124758.11996@cci632.cci.com> dwp@cci632.cci.com (Dana Paxson) writes:
   In article <1992Sep9.034138.15488@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

   >More generally, I have found only a very few verbs that reflect any
   >appreciable discredit upon the subject-agent.  It is almost impossible
   >to admit to a fault without using the passive, or other form of
   >periphrase to be evasive.  Could this be a subtle way of imparting a
   >society's values to its members?  Weird.

   In this light, George Luger's (and another author's) book _Metaphors We
   Live By_ makes good reading, especially when he analyzes argument as 
   war.

That's George LAKOFF and Mark Johnson, U Chicago Press, 1980.  Lakoff
also has a later book, _Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things_, U Chicago
Press, 1987, which introduces his idea of Cognitive Linguistics,
recently being raged over in sci.lang.

-30-
Bob
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Monday, 14 Sep 1992 10:02:24 MST
From: Jon L. Campbell <KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject:    What's a turing verb got to do with anything???


Well, I must say that the attention level of intelligent debate in this
group is much less than I would have thought.  When someone posts something
that lacks 'sex' or 'abstract' verbage, the group seems to lose interest.
But, I must admit, with all the stimulating discussions going on about
verbs and turing, it is no wonder that when it comes down to discussing
physical or logical gated technology most people wait for the steamy
side to respond.

I hate to say this, but from what I've seen posted in this net, I think
that there is few loose synaps trying to articulate AI from the same
stage as someone discussing religion.

Flame off:  -----  Thought, abstract and yet concrete, it is the basis
                   for all mistakes man has ever made.
From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Keywords: cognition free-will
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:07:20 GMT
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA

You comment that memes evolve by Lamarckian evolution. I tend to agree,
although the cultural stasis seen prior to the Upper Paleolithic suggests
to me that genus Homo had to evolve some interesting processes in the
frontal cortex before s/he could be culturally innovative. I don't know
whether it was speech that was required, or a chaotic innovative process
in the frontal cortex, or (as I suspect) a combination of the two, but
prior to the U. P., human culture was _static_.

(Question for the anthropologists: how innovative are the chimpanzee
cultures?)

I also suspect that human social groups are cognitive units, and that
there has been significant evolution at that level.

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: What do I do with it?
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:28:51 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

|>  > Let's say I want to build an intelligent machine. What's it to be
|>  > used for? Can this machine out its role in the universe?
|> Well, let's just say, for sake of argument, that it has already been
|> done.
|> 
|> 
|> Remember ``Deep Thought''?

Do you mean the machine is supposed to think for a while?

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6015 sci.bio:3141 soc.men:16164 soc.women:16345
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Language (was Biological Sex Differences?)
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:17:12 GMT
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

In article <1992Sep9.124758.11996@cci632.cci.com> dwp@cci632.cci.com (Dana Paxson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.034138.15488@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>>In article <MELBY.92Sep9005959@dove.yk.Fujitsu.CO.JP> melby@dove.yk.Fujitsu.CO.JP (John B. Melby) writes:

>>>Perhaps a wider array of colorful terms (specifically, synonyms of
>>>"to bludgeon") are used in sports than in most other American cultural
>>>establishments? :-)

...

>>More generally, I have found only a very few verbs that reflect any
>>appreciable discredit upon the subject-agent.  It is almost impossible
>>to admit to a fault without using the passive, or other form of
>>periphrase to be evasive.  Could this be a subtle way of imparting a
>>society's values to its members?  Weird.


>In this light, George Luger's (and another author's) book _Metaphors We
>Live By_ 

Er, George Lakoff (& Mark Johnson)

Lakoff is very entertaining.  "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things"
perhaps is more to the original point of this thread ... :-)



-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6083 rec.arts.sf.misc:2903 alt.cyberpunk:4248
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:48:47 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <11SEP199211584293@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
}In article <1992Sep11.041641.9944@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, rwmurphr@crusader.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes...
}>according to an article in the last month or so of new scientist.
}>The soldier of tomorrow will carry a laser to blind other soldiers.
}>and wear goggles to save his own eyes.  Expect battlefield opthalmalic
}>surgery to be a big part of 21rst century MASH units.
}
}Yes, and cheap chemical smoke can block multimillion dollar lasers.

Point:  Remember who's gunsights worked in the northern battle where the oil
smoke was REAL think:  the iraqi tanks or the higher tec US tanks.  The first
clue (according to reports) that the iraqis had was when their forces started
exploding.  The smoke was so think that they couldn't detect, but the US
systems could not only detect but could target.

But along the same lines, a water mist (water is cheap) can take a lot of the
non-shock effects away from a nuc strike at sea.
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6041 rec.arts.sf.misc:2851 alt.cyberpunk:4203 alt.censorship:7427
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 09:30 MST  
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
 <MELBY.92Sep9005959@dove.yk.Fujitsu.CO.JP> <1992Sep9.034138.15488@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Sep9.124758.11996@cci632.cci.com>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Summary: gender bias, metaphor
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep9.124758.11996@cci632.cci.com>, dwp@cci632.cci.com (Dana Paxson) writes...
>In this light, George Luger's (and another author's) book _Metaphors We
>Live By_ makes good reading, especially when he analyzes argument as 
>war.  The original post concerning test questions suggests that the

Isn't that George Lakoff (and Mark Johnston)?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: caross@acsu.buffalo.edu (Christian Ross)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:24:56 GMT
Organization: UB

sdr57@cas.org writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.175430.11621@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>>
>>Nah.  A cesium seeded high temperature explosion can generate the electrical
>>pulse through MHD to send the wave through trailing wires.  A use-it-once
>>weapon, but most are.  Fits in a BIG artillery shell.
>>
>That's new to me - can you make the pulse directional by configuring the
>wires? And what kind of pulse strength are we talking here (for the arty)?
>(Inquiring minds want to know:-)
>Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts

On a side note...
An interesting idea I once heard was EMP bombs, which would use flux 
compression to generate a wideband microwave/uhf pulse. They detonate an 
explosive which slams an iron core into a charged inductor. How you configure 
the coil I would expect would make the field directional, but as to technical
details such as size of pulse and the exact mechanism I'm not sure.

Supposedly fluences of 1 Watt/sq. Meter is enough to damage unshielded 
microwave diodes, and within a couple orders of magnitude you start frying 
automobile ignition systems, etc...

-- 
Christian A. Ross                |               Student (Physics/Mathematics)
caross@acsu.buffalo.edu          |     State University of New York at Buffalo
-- 
 "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:46:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.041641.9944@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> rwmurphr@crusader.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>according to an article in the last month or so of new scientist.
>The soldier of tomorrow will carry a laser to blind other soldiers.
>and wear goggles to save his own eyes.  Expect battlefield opthalmalic
>surgery to be a big part of 21rst century MASH units.

There won't be any more wars in the 21st Century.  Everybody and their
sister will have the Bomb.  Secondly: the world will be united in a Federation
by then.  Actually, it already is a loosely organized confederation right now.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: braca2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (BRAY CHRISTOPHER)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 07:42:43 GMT

megazone@rivdell.sccsi.com (Megazoner) writes:
> ... You gonna tell me that the lenses on a heavy laser are 
>gonna last mounted on a tank moving in rough terrain? The ranging laser 
>on the M1 had those problems, even with turret stabilization.

	What about some form of sturdy magnetic lens? 

> Give me lighter night vision stuff, lighter ammo, a bigger rifle that's 
>lighter than the last, and heavy artillery support.

	Or a smaller rifle that's lighter.  I prefer the Steyr AUG (get mine
	in 3 months) to the M16, 4sure.

hook
From: epfaith@purina.berkeley.edu (Edward Paul Faith)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Date: 9 Sep 1992 00:01:41 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purina.berkeley.edu

Writes bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) in article
<BILL.92Sep7191546@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu>:

>epfaith@sunkist.berkeley.edu (Edward Paul Faith) writes:
>
>   > Here I want to question whether subjective experience actually
>   > occurs in the brain.
>       [. . .]
>
>What do you think about phantom limb experiences?  (These are very
>common in amputees; they are sensations -- often including severe pain
>-- that seem subjectively to come from the amputated limb.)
>
>	-- Bill


The "phantom limb" demonstrates that the self can be deceived into
thinking that it has a limb.  Of course, the self can be deceived about
many things.  But now what if instead of having his arm chopped off,
a person had part of his brain cut out?  He has no concepts by which
he can say, "I still feel that this part of my brain is in."  But he
might be under the illusion that he is a whole person, just as he
would be under this illusion in the case of a phantom limb.

I am under the impression that the two cases are essentially the same.
As a result, I still do not see why the self must reside in the brain,
and not in the brain plus limb.  For, cut out any sufficiently small
part of the brain and the self continues.  So the self is not located
in any sufficiently small part.  Rather, it would seem it is located
in "the holistic whole".  And why should this not include the arm?
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Searle's The Rediscovery of the Mind
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:10:53 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Has there been any discussion of Searle's new book _The Rediscovery
of the Mind_?  If not, why not?

Indeed, why has there been so little discussion of Dennett's
_Consciousness Explained_?

And why do we see so many people complaining that philosophers 
haven't a clue (as compared to AI and computational cog sci types)
without even mentioning any philosophers about whom the claim is
supposedly true much less explaining where they went wrong?

Possibilities:

 1. Philosophers are so clueless they're not worth discussing.

 2. No one's read the books or knows the views of any philosophers
    in sufficient detail.

 3. It's not worth discussing such things with the clueless,
    uninformed people who dominate the newsgroup.

 4. Everyone wants to talk about their own ideas without having
    to wait until they've done some reading.

 5. It's not worth discussing philosophers until they look like
    a serious "political" threat to AI (eg, the Chinese Room).

 6. It's much more important to (a) define "intelligence",
    (b) refute crypro-dualist scum, (c) roast that turkey who
    said such stupid things in the last article.

-- jd
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 04:05:22 EDT
From: <JAL137@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Question to Marvin

In "Ways of Knowing 3," I read an article which described the computer as
a universe.  Previously I thought of the super-adding machine a missed copy of
the human brain.  My question is:  how much do the associations programmers
(et.al.) make about computers (brain, universe, etc.) influence the direction
of their research?
Dave,  Science and Technology Historian
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: sdoki@maxine.wpi.edu (Suresh Doki)
Subject: text book for sale!
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 04:54:58 GMT



i have an expert systems text book for sale and if anyone is
interested in buying it send me email.


thanx in advance.

Suresh

ps: i am sorry if this is not the right group to post such an article.

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: charless@sco.COM (charles stross)
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Organization: The Somewhat Contagious Operation, Inc.
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 09:35:30 GMT
Keywords: cognition free-will


In article <705@trwacs.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) writes:
>This is a summary of recent comments on consciousness.
>	:
>Neil Rickert: "Actually, it is my suspicion that consciousness is there to
>increase the speed of learning."
>
>I have a comment on this: The dynamics of cultural and genetic
>transmission differ. In particular, genetic transmission can't track the
>evolution of a chaotic strategy, while cultural transmission can. (This is
>based on some simulation work and an analysis of why a difference was
>apparent in that work.) This is the reason that I believe social group
>behavior and consciousness are connected.

Apropos the dynamics of transmission; having thought for a while about
Richard Dawkins' meme theory [ref: The Selfish Gene], it occurred to me
that memes -- self-replicating informational constructs transmitted 
between the minds of conscious, communicating organisms -- evolve 
by Lamarckian evolution. That is, at the memetic level the inheritance 
of acquired characteristics is active, and evolution can therefore 
short-circuit the process of random generation of mutations and 
selection of the fittest that characterises the Darwinian paradigm. 

By opening up the range of adaptations that are transmissable to
include teleologically self-selected ones as opposed to randomly
generated throws of the DNA dice, consciousness and speech together
permit massively faster evolution directed towards actively selected
goals. (This would explain why it took three billion years of Darwinian
evolution to come up with genus homo ... and fifty thousand years to go
from there to AI (assuming that last step is imminent)).

Question: assuming that you don't shoot holes in the foregoing argument,
is there any reason to suppose that there is not a _higher_ level 
evolution-mediating process which we have not yet discovered? If there
is, what would its characteristics be, how would it relate to 
consciousness, and how could we analyse or use it?



[[ just trying to stir things up a bit ... ]]
-- 
this signature rescued by the .sigfile liberation front
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:10:32 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <14SEP199213315181@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.064805.16276@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes...

>>Doc, two questions...

>>1.  Why the heck do you think it will be hand to hand even then?  Even
>>in Vietnam there was very little hand-to-hand combat.  

>But there was still needed.  If you bypass the basics, you're dead if you lose
>your technology advantage.  

Sure.  And if everyone winds up nude and weaponless it will be nail
and tooth time.  So what?  That is so damned unlikely that we don't
worry about it.  OK.  So take a more reasonable worst case - the new
hightech stuff that is better than WWII gear all goes on the fritz.
Well, in tht case, based on real results in real wars there still
isn't going to be much hand to hand fighting.

>How is a soldier, who is dependant on high-tech, going
>to survive when his high tech gives out? 

The same way they have throughout the ages when they were cut off from
supplies.  Miserably and viciously.

>They only way to survive is with basic training.

Nobody is suggesti9ng eliminating basic training.  Cut out the straw
men.  The post I was responding to was claiming that the new high-tech
battlesuits would go on the fritz and that our soldier would then be
overwhelmed in hand to hand fighting by the enemy.  I pointed out that
even with current gear, or for that matter, 1940s gear, hand to hand
fighting was quite unlikely to be decisive.

>>2.  What on earth makes you think that those electronics aren't
>>hardened against EMP?  It seems like a pretty obvious system
>>requirement.

>Is it possible to completely harden a device against all EMP?  It depends on
>the strength of the pulse.

True, but at a certain point you have to ask "why bother with EMP.
Just drop the nuke on the bastards."
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy