HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ucjtpsk@ucl.ac.uk (Mr Shiv Kaul)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Observer effect in cog sci?
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:21:04 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium
Organisation: University College London

furry@hitl.washington.edu (Jeff James) writes:

>You're right, cognitive science follows technological fads, applying
>whatever theory is currently popular to the modelling of the mind.  I
>believe this is representative of minimal progress on an exceedingly
>difficult problem.  Any reasonable progress would provide a foundation for
>future work that is more compelling than the current trends of thought.  In
>my opinion, cognitive science will remain a 'toy' discipline until a
>significant breakthrough provides that foundation.

You're certainly right about the exceedingly difficult problem.  But what is it
that you class as 'reasonable progress'?  Isn't Cognitive Science a special
case in that as well as trying to formulate theory with predicitive power,
you are also trying to incorporate neuroscience data, for example?

I think that because Cognitive Science is a multi-discipline, there is 
always an 'angle' that is coherent from one discipline's viewpoint
but causes problems in the incorporation of others.  Progress is thus made
difficult to define in terms that satisfy all the disciplines.  I think that
the realisation that we should not be trying to reduce Cog Sci to
neuroscience but to develop both in parallel and building 'inter-field'
theories is certainly progress.

However, I am reminded of the comment that if a subject has the word
'science' in its title, its still trying to justify itself as one!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Physiology       : Tel: (071) 387 7050 x3248 : 
University College London      : Fax: (071) 383 7005       :  
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT  : Email: s.kaul@ucl.ac.uk   :
From: lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady)
Subject: Re: NLP - what exactly is it?
Followup-To: sci.cognitive
Organization: University of Hawaii (Mathematics Dept)
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:01:32 GMT

In article <AeYHzey00UhBE2Q6Ms@andrew.cmu.edu> sr0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Ritter) writes:
>
 >Well, the only relation I know between neurolinguistic programming and
 >cognitive science is that NLP was reseached by a committee of
 >psychologists on the National Research Council. They looked at at NLP as
 >well as other "techniques for enhancing human performance." The study
 >was funded by the Army, which wanted to see if it could speed up
 >training of recruits. With respect to NLP, the committee concluded that
 >"little if any evidence exists to support NLP's assumptions or to
 >indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence." It
 >also looked into NLP as a means of modelling expert performance, but
 >found only one study investigating it (and they weren't impressed with
 >it). They recommend more research into expert modelling (but not
 >necessarily with NLP techniques).
 >
 >There's a good summary of the NRC report in Swets and Bjork, "Enhancing
 >human performance: An evaluation of 'New Age' techniques considered by
 >the U.S. Army," Psychological Science, 1, 85-96. The article contains
 >lots of interesting background about the army's interest in stuff like
 >parapsychology. The full NRC report is Druckman and Swets (1988)
 >Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories and techniques, DC:
 >National Academy Press.
 
Someone last year was good enough to do a PsychLit search for me on NLP
and email me the results.  There are an whole lot of studies -- the file
I was sent was somewhat over 100K in length.  I'm not a psychologist, so
I can't really make much of a judgement, but there seemed to me to be
only a few that could be taken very seriously.  

From the point of view of people in sci.cognitive, I think the main
concern is not whether NLP as it exists today is an effective therapy or
approach to increasing performance or whatever.  I don't think that's
very relevant to cognitive scientists in any case.  The question is more
whether there are some interesting ideas in NLP, whether explicit or
implicit, that cognitive scientists could transform and use in a
scientific way.  I believe that there are, but I'm a mathematician by
trade.  In any case, identifying such ideas and figuring out how to use them
is a task that will require intelligence and imagination.  

I will be posting some articles on NLP to sci.psychology this fall and
will cross-post to sci.cognitive when I think there are some things in
them that somebody in cognitive science might want to explore.  Those who
have made up their minds in advance that nothing in NLP can possibly have
any scientific interest can adjust their kill files accordingly.  

--

Imagination is more important than knowledge.  -- Einstein 

lady@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu         lady@uhunix.bitnet
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: ucjtpsk@ucl.ac.uk (Mr Shiv Kaul)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Observer effect in cog sci?
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:14:41 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium
Organisation: University College London

cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:

>In this case, cognitive science is not so much a describer of what occurs
>as it is a prescriptor, "social engineering" in the most profound sense
>of the term.  Thoughts?

But what of the normal scientific critical process?  Even though 'Neural Net'
models have captured the imagination and interpretation of cognitive
scientists, its guise has changed as it has grown.  Once the 'connectionist
zeitgeist' faded, an attempt to understand the science that had gone before
in terms of the current Neural Net models changed the original form of
the impact it had and is having on our understanding of mind.

'Social Engineering?'  I think I have more faith in Scientific Revolution
that brings us closer to the truth, taking the best bits of all our
models along the way.  Comments?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Physiology       : Tel: (071) 387 7050 x3248 : 
University College London      : Fax: (071) 383 7005       :  
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT  : Email: s.kaul@ucl.ac.uk   :
From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Heuristic Dynamic Programming
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:03:46 GMT
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA


I'd like to thank Dr. Thompson for commenting on my posting. 

There are some points that I would like to respond to.

Dr. Thompson understands the cerebellar cortex to be more involved in
motion smoothing than in plan storage. Actually, I think the two functions
are not that different. The issue here is whether the CC stores the
short-term plans involved in motion smoothing or longer-term plans
involving multiple subgoals, while still performing motion smoothing for
each subgoal. There should be a way of distinguishing the two cases
experimentally.

If the output of the inferior olive remains constant for a specific "image
of achievement" involving multiple stages, but differs for different
"images of achievement," then plan storage occurs in the CC. If, on the
other hand, the output of the inferior olive changes during a plan, and an
atomic motion present in two different "images of achievement" results in
the same output from the inferior olive, then plan storage must be
upstream of the cerebellar cortex. I conjecture we may find some
compromise position to be the most accurate model with multiple layers of
plan storage.

Dr. Thompson also comments that he doesn't see a role for "goals" in the
AI sense in biological systems. In order to have a clear goals in HDP, you
need to be informed when you have reached certain terminal states. I agree
that biological systems do not have those terminal states, however, that
doesn't prevent them from approximating such states. I suspect there is a
calibration process involved.

I appreciate the reference to Dr. Thompson's work on natural language
understanding.

Cheers,

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

Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,alt.self-improve
From: spice@convex.csd.uwm.edu (James G Spice)
Subject: Re:  Application to the Softer Sciences
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:26:08 GMT

I am a graduate student in Political Science, a field not well known
for its mathamatical or modeling sophistication (though exceptions
certainly exist).  Does anyone know of any applications of cognitive
science methods in the softer social sciences?  My field is notorious
for borrowing techniques from more mathamatically advanced disciplines
and scaling them down a bit to be more accessable to mainstream
political science.  My question arises from recent articles in 
"Scientific American" by Geoffrey Hinton and Drew van Camp outlining
neural networking and learning systems.  The math and modeling presented
(granted, at a fairly simple level) would seem to lend themselves nicely
to the social sciences, and show similarity to some of the methods
commonly used in my field (causal modeling using regression techniques,
for example).  

Secondly, how user friendly is the software available on the market.
BrainMaker and Neuralyst are two packages that I have seen advertised.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

--JS
B
B
B
Any input would be greatly appeciated.
-- 
--------------------------------------     Jim Spice
And we're off, like a dirty shirt!         U. of Wisconsin -- Milwaukee
		--Lester Earnest Spice     Dept. of Political Science
======================================     spice@convex.csd.uwm.edu
From: pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: NLP - what exactly is it?
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:46:06 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

If you've heard cognitive science researchers talk about "NLP" they're
probably referring to "natural language processing" not "neurolinguistic
processing".  Natural language processing is the subfield of AI concerned
with the interpretation and production of text in English and other
natural languages.  It's closely allied with computational linguistics.

	-dp-
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Thursday, 20 Aug 1992 11:23:51 CET
From: <RFLOOD@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Germans drop European Shuttle ?
 <pgf.713577979@srl02.cacs.usl.edu> <1992Aug14.071635.1@ssdvax.mdcbbs.com>

Don't laugh about an overweight Hermes: it's been an in-joke for
months now that the Ariane 5 plus Hermes has a negative lift capability:
when the motors are ignited, the whole caboodle sinks slowly into the
ground.......

Just my own opinion, and not that of my Employers.
(Who are doing a great job, really).

RaF
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: SPS feasibility and other space development
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:42:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.172512.8712@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes...
>In article <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu>
>wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
> 
>> As for quasi-religious; why are you so hung up on that phrase? Does it
>> have some special meaning for you? My religion or lack thereof does not
>> enter in to this discussion.
> 
>Yes - it means faith prevailing over reason.

Faith is an essential part of life. You must have faith that you will make
it to work in the morning without being killed in order to function in society
Ask a Croat how much faith that requires. You have to have faith to get out
of bed in the morning. If you did not have confidence based on belief and
justified by confirmation in action (which is the meaning of faith in the
greek frame of the first century (pistis is the word)) you could not get out
of bed for fearing that gravity might fail. 

Faith in the realm of engineering covers things like Chris Kraft & Von Braun's
decision to allow the Saturn V first mission to proceed when enough mission
rules had been violated that autodestruct would have been the prudent action.

Faith allowed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to ignore both computer problems
and fuel near exaustion to pilot the Lunar Module to the surface of the moon.

Faith says that you can go home to your wife with a reasonable chance she is
not getting in on with your best friend.

Reason is limited. It takes faith to move a civilization forward. It takes
action based upon a premise that we will find the answers out there even if
we do not have conclusive evidence for it.

Upon that definition of faith I claim guilt. Heck so does Allen Sherzier and
his HL Delta Dreams. It is faith until it is a done deal.

Religon is simply another aspect of faith, so don't go all ga ga with accusing
me of bringing religion into this. 

All other discussion along this line is not appropriate for sci.space

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: Tether and Space Junk
Organization: Express Access Online Communications Service, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:15:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.152518.11581@unlinfo.unl.edu> cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis) writes:
>
>I have been waiting to see this issue discussed: in the event of 
>serious difficult with the tethered satellite experiment, I understand
>that one option was to cut the tether. Wouldn't a 20 km cable in orbit
>be the environmental equivalent of a drift net for space craft and 
>pose an unacceptable hazard?
>Cliff Bettis

A follow up to the above question is what happens when a 12 to 20 or
so mile-long tether starts to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere?  Aren't
the Russians planning on flying a tether experiment and cutting it at
the end of the experiment?  Would a long tether burn up?

Bob Bunge
rbunge@access.digex.com


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Arthur C. Clarke interview
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:01:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: sci.space

In article <1992Aug17.171546.26881@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>I could believe 200km, but then you wouldn't
>be in orbit.  If you had a counterbalance system that sent mass down 
>at the same time as other masses went up, you might make it to GEO for $100.
>
I have a hard time dealing with the dynamics of a beanstalk. Since you
are moving mass up and down this thing, how do you retain the center of
gravity at the geosyncronous point? As the asronauts have found, manuevering
is very difficult and fuel intensive because of this problem.

As I understand it (though I worked the figures out a long time ago) the
small changes in center of gravity that are affected by these mass changes
turn out to be rather critical.


Xref: sparky sci.space:11701 sci.physics:12741
From: bowman@reed.edu (Eric Bowman (bobo))
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:09:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug12.200919.16945
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <ZOWIE.92Aug12004854@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>This talk of parsecs and so forth reminds me of my favorite volumetric unit:
>the barn megaparsec.
>
>A barn is a unit of atomic cross-section, 10^-20 cm^2.  A barn megaparsec is
>about 1.6 teaspoons!

Actually, a barn megaparsec is 0.626 teaspoons.  A barn is 10^-24 cm^2.

I know, I know, nit-picking  :^)

bobo
bowman@reed.edu
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:27:32 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug18.125111.15553@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.150641.23766@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>The problem with this scenario is *the service isn't provided*. That
>>can't be tolerated when there are crews up there. So the government
>>*will* pay, and the contractor knows it.
>
>Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? If GD says "Ah Uncle Sam, we
>got you by the balls now!" then Uncle Sam replies: "Screw you, I'm taking
>my buisness to Martin Marrietta".

And wait how many years for MM to develop a comparable system? *Time*
critical missions go on the first *available* transport, not on a
hypothetical system that promises to be cheaper by and by. Once Fred
is up there, all resupply flights become *time* critical. That gives
the current contractor enormous leverage. There is no market for *two*
HL systems today, only Fred, and a possible return to the Moon. Winner
takes all.

Gary
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other space development)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:46:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bt8Kss.4GA.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or  
may
> 

> not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes 

> faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of  
what 

> two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Thorne and  
others 

> are trying their hardest to find what's wrong with it, as it  
severely 

> strains the notion of causality...
> 


Now all we have to do is find a pair of superstrings. Details,  
details.... :-)

PS: when it comes out I'd love the citation so I can go dig it out.  
I'm sure it's well beyond my mathematical level, but I'd sure like to  
take a look at it!
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS feasibility / Astrophysical Engineering
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:33:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: pixel.1992Aug19.173302.26325
Distribution: na
Organization: :noitazinagrO

In article <1548@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:
>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Numbers could be 2X either way. That's still a near *planetary* body
>>we're talking about plating with solar cells in any case. That's so
>>unreal I'm surprised *anyone* would seriously consider it.
>
>I'm working on a book that discusses DISMANTLING planetary bodies
>(and rebuilding them more to our liking, sigh - all that wasted
>mass inside planets doing nothing more useful than holding
>atmospheres down, sheesh what poor design).
>
>(1) The energy required to dismantle a planet is 0.6Mgr, where
>M is the mass, g is the surface gravity, and r is the radius.
>
>(2) If we calculate the amount of solar energy falling on a
>planetary body, and relate it to the disassembly energy, we can
>derive a natural time constant: how long will it take to dismantle
>a planet using the sunlight falling on an area the size of the
>planet?
>
(0.8)d.r^2 / F(e) where d is density, r is radius, F(e) is energy
flux in units/unit area/time.  I was looking for the result to be
independent of radius, but it was not to be.....The Earth would take
22 times as long as the Moon, in case there are any Vogon wannabe's
listening.




-- 
||)) Dump the Whatizit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 ! )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
From: TIF%NIHCU.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Subject: Challenger records
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:08:20 GMT

August 13, 1992

Dear Mr. Woods:

I am writing to supplement information posted on the SCI.SPACE
newsgroup on August 11, 1992 regarding the Rogers Commission
report.  The records of the the Presidential Commission on the
Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, chaired by former Secretary of
State William P. Rogers in 1986 were transferred to the National
Archives and Records Administration for permanent preservation,
following the release of the Commission's final report.  The
records have been accessioned in Record Group 220: Records of
Temporary Committees, Commissions, and Boards, and are available
to the public.

Paper and microfilm records from the Challenger (Rogers)
Commission are in the custody of the National Archives, Civil
Reference Branch, Textual Reference Division (NNRC, (202) 501-
5395); electronic records are in the Center for Electronic
Records (NSXA); and video and audio tapes are in the custody of
the Motion Picture, Sound, and Video Branch of the Special
Archives Division (NNSM, (202) 501-5449).

with respect to the machine readable (electronic) records, seven
public use text files are available.  This series contains
transcripts of some hearings, meetings, and interviews, text
files of selected affadavits, digests, and reports; and the
INQUIRE index to the Commission's materials.   These files all
fit on one 9-track magnetic tape (6250 bpi) and are available for
$90, or on one 18-track 3480-class tape cartridge (37,781 bpi)
for $80.75, with default technical specifications (EBCDIC,
standard label, default block size).

A handout describing the Commission and its records is available
from the Center for Electronic Records (NSXA), National Archives,
Washington, DC 20408, phone (202) 501-5579.  We would be happy to
send all interested parties a copy of this information; please
providing your snail mail address.

Sincerely,

Ted Hull
Center for Electronic Records
National Archives
TIF@NIHCU.BITNET
tif@cu.nih.gov
From: mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Meteor Soaks Datona FL
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 13:16:14 PST
Organization: Club Zen BBS - Fidonet/Internet - +1 408 734 2289

dddurda@pine.circa.ufl.edu (DURDA) writes:

>   I am skeptical for the following reason: an object a meter across traveling
> through the atmosphere would be extremely bright. The night sky should
> have been lit up across north Florida. There should have been reports from
> thousands of people about shooting stars and UFO's. (It seems that at worst
> the cloud cover was scattered to broken across most of the area at the time.)
> The only person to date to report anything at all was a single sailor. I
> do not discount his observation - I merely wonder if it was coincidental.
> The data are there - it just needs to all be looked at together - the timing
> of the arrival of the wave at various locations along the coast, the weather
> conditions at the time, perhaps relevant radar data from the time (missile
> defense radar would be nice), etc. Until someone comes up with a way to
> hide a meteor as bright as the Sun, I'll stick with the squawl line
> hypothesis.

Excuse me, but what makes you think a 1 metre rock would "... be extremely
bright ..." or be "... as bright as the Sun ..."? A metre isn't very big
at all. My concern would be that something that small should create a wave
of (presumably) several feet in height. Also, an impact would create
multile waves, not a single wave, though the following ones would be
smaller. Is that the recorded pattern at Daytona?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org - Michael Wallis
            Oakland lost the Raiders. Now SF has lost the Giants.
            Guess that makes then even again.               8-)
From: dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: female astronauts
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:39:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: atlas.1176.2a939271
Organization: TRW San Bernardino


If a shuttle was launched with an all-female crew, would it be
referred to as an unmanned space flight?
Newsgroups: sci.space