From: neuron-request@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU ("Neuron-Digest Moderator")
Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Neuron Digest V9 #17
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:51:24 GMT
Reply-To: "Neuron-Request" <neuron-request@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Neuron Digest   Sunday, 12 Apr 1992
                Volume 9 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
                       Edelman criticism citations
                           Neural Net Software
                         Re: Edelman references
                        RE: AI and NN employment
                 closing remarks to Open letter to Amari
                     Some helpful resume information
                  E-Mail Conference Participation Study


Send submissions, questions, address maintenance, and requests for old
issues to "neuron-request@cattell.psych.upenn.edu". The ftp archives are
available from cattell.psych.upenn.edu (128.91.2.173). Back issues
requested by mail will eventually be sent, but may take a while.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Edelman criticism citations
From:    smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Date:    Mon, 06 Apr 92 08:23:03 +0700

[[ Editor's Note: Thanks to Steve for his good references.  I confess I
haven't read Steve's reviews yet; they're on "the list".  -PM ]]

Daryl,

I have reviewed both NEURAL DARWINISM and THE REMEMBERED PRESENT for
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.  If you do not mind LaTeX format, here are the
appropriate entries from my personal list of publications:

\item Review of {\em Neural Darwinism: The Theory of Neuronal Group
Selection} for Artificial Intelligence {\bf 39}, No. 1 (1989), 121-136.

\item Review of {\em The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of
Consciousness} for Artificial Intelligence {\bf 52}, No. 3 (1991),
295-318.

Peter would apparently like to start a discussion going here, so I am
sending a copy of this to neuron-request.  However, I would rather not
try to summarize either review in a few sentences.  Since the books cover
so much ground, it took a bit of time to review each with any degree of
fairness.

Steve

------------------------------

Subject: Neural Net Software
From:    domino@violet.berkeley.edu (Steven (Weebles) Santiago)
Date:    Mon, 06 Apr 92 09:04:41 -0800


Gentlemen

I wish to have our NN software, BIOPROP, included in your listings.  If
you wish a proprietary copy of the manual for review, I will be happy to
send one with the return of your complete postal address.

The licensing fee is $250.  I've been assured by the author that this is a
steal.

Thank you for your time.

Steve Santiago
Office of Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley


------------------------------

Subject: Re: Edelman references
From:    arbib%pollux.usc.edu@usc.edu (Michael Arbib)
Date:    Mon, 06 Apr 92 09:11:09 -0800

[[ Editor's Note: Unlike some fora, appropriate limericks are welcome in
this Digest. -PM ]]

The ideas of Wallace led
To Edelman's views of the head
But Neural Wallaceism
Was such a solecism
He called it Darwinism instead.



------------------------------

Subject: RE: AI and NN employment
From:    "Major Peter G. Raeth" <raethpg%avlab.dnet@aa.wpafb.af.mil>
Date:    Mon, 06 Apr 92 18:53:42 -0500

On the subject of companies employing AI or neural net experts:

This is a personal perception only.

According to one or two articles I have read in the business press, many
companies are folding their "AI" groups into the traditional computer
departments.  That is one reason you will not find many advertisements
for AI people.

Before coming into the service I spent some time as an independent
consultant in software applications.  Since then I have been in the Air
Force solving some of their automation problems.  These experiences have
taught me that the big sell is not AI or neural nets.  The sell is
solutions to difficult automation problems.  It is not the technology
used to create the solution that is important.  It is the solution itself
which must hold your primary focus.  Users, those people with automation
problems that need solving, want to go home to get a good nights sleep,
knowing that you are on the job solving their problems.  They worry about
the problem, not the technology.

So, my advice is to stop looking for jobs in AI or neural nets.  Start
looking for companies that have automation problems for which they can
find no solution.  Then learn their environment and offer solutions that
fit their environment and solve their problem cost-effectively.  This is
no mean task.

Hope this is helpful.  Good luck to you.

Pete.



------------------------------

Subject: closing remarks to Open letter to Amari
From:    Andras Pellionisz SL <pellioni@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov>
Date:    Thu, 09 Apr 92 14:27:08 -0800

Dear Peter: 

Thank you very much! With the help of the "Open Letter" on your bulletin
board, there is now a public record of Dr. Amari's own assessment of the
relative claims of his tensor-geometrical approach to neural nets (in
1991) and mine (since 1979). His public response touched on a number of
points.  Now that the exchange of opinions abated I need to respond in
order to inform readers about my side of the issues. Please find below
that I intend as closing remarks.

Dear Colleagues: 

My personal e-mail correspondence with Dr. Amari ceased when he did not
respond to my second private letter.  As for the open exchange of
opinions, I completely agree with Dr. Amari when he says "I do not want
to continue fruitless discussions". Therefore, by closing it, once the
goal of public record has been achieved, I wish here that he avoided the
whole affair by starting with public record.  I certainly don't intend
and will not pursue any issue different from establishing an
authoritative assessment by Dr. Amari on the relation of his geometrical
approach to neural nets and mine.  This will save an enormous amount of
time for him and for me, and more importantly for those left in the dark.
Most importantly, it will permit much more rapid progress for all of us.

As I will sum up below, a record has now been established by this method,
although I much prefer if my colleagues relating to a new scientific
initiative follow standard protocol that do not create such "horrible
times".  When my tensor-geometrical approach to neural networks unfolded,
most peers, say in 1985, did NOT call into question if there was any
reason for tensors being inappropriate in neural net research. I wish no
one did so. Also, when, say by 1991, peers DID muster a comparable
approach, most did NOT omit their own comparison of the new with earlier
efforts.  I wish no one did so. Simple citation of pre-existing related
approaches, with the author's public claims about the relation between
established and new approaches (if such comparison is warranted by any
substantial segment of READERS and even the author is thinking about it)
is a well-established standard.  By existing rules authors may claim
whatever they wish, but competing claims must be stated publicly, such
that the public is authoritatively guided in sorting them out.

Although I would have much preferred if Dr. Amari said flatly in his
paper (just as he "thought about citing", but suppressed), I am glad that
in Dr. Amari's public opinion HIS APPROACH BEARS NO RELEVANCE TO THE
ESTABLISHED CLAIMS OF MY TENSOR-GEOMETRY INITIATIVE.  Although not
everyone will agree with Dr. Amari's claims (e.g. it will be publicly
doubted that his metric tensors expressing neural geometry have nothing
to do with my metric tensors expressing neural geometry) it is certainly
helpful to have a "no interference" principle on record from his side.
Also, I am glad that his 1991 use of metric tensors will give those
readers a shining example that tensor geometry is suitable even for
Neural Networks, even by Dr. Amari. Especially since some readers may
have been under his impression since 1985 that introduction of tensors
into this field might somehow be inappropriate and needed to be
suppressed. Tensor geometry in neural networks is on record by both
Pellionisz and Amari, and soon we'll find other familiar names.

I sympathize with the other public record that Dr. Amari will "never
claim" that his 1967 approach in which he "suppressed the tensor
notation" needs to be referenced in the context of tensor geometrical
approaches to neural networks. Indeed, although it is well-known that
there are many who "thought about" a subject long before it became
trendy, it may be regrettable that those who "suppressed it", themselves
forfeit the claim.

Today, the basic science of future computer technology (brain theory) is
as fervently searching for the mathematics intrinsic to neural networks,
as nuclear technology scrambled "yesterday" to create its basic science.
At that time the basic science was nuclear physics; the task was to
create mathematics intrinsic to the scientific problem.  It resulted in
quantum mechanics.  Nowadays, a rapidly enlarging school of neural
network researchers THINK that the mathematical language of brain
function is geometry, and that we face the task of establishing the field
of "neural geometry".  Most likely, there will be many who THOUGHT about
this idea (but, interestingly and regrettably, "suppressed") while it was
possible (albeit occasionally remarkably difficult) to actually embark on
conscious and open pioneering of the approach.  It may well be, that SOON
there will be a consensus on "neural geometry" (as soon as we KNOW its
nature from Nature). Hopefully, it will soon be impossible to account for
ALL papers in this subject. THEN, the approach could perhaps be taken for
granted - as the mentioned use of calculus in Newtonian mechanics is
taken for granted today, 300 years after its pioneering.

Regrettably, we still are fewer than a couple of dozen in "neural
geometry" and thus need at least referencing from FRIENDS with whom we
share labor, as the geometrical approach to brain function has not yet
met with general acknowledgement.


------------------------------

Subject: Some helpful resume information
From:    "Major Peter G. Raeth" <raethpg%avlab.dnet@aaunix.aa.wpafb.af.mil>
Date:    Tue, 07 Apr 92 21:23:37 -0500

                                        Date:     07-Apr-1992 09:16pm EST
                                        From:     Major Peter G. Raeth
                                                  RAETHPG
                                        Dept:     WRDC/AAWP-1
                                        Tel No:   DSN-787, 513-257-5366

Subject: Some helpful resume information


Given your question in the last issue of Neuron Digest, I thought you might be
interested in the following information.

Best.

Pete.
   ------------------------------ CUT HERE -------------------------------

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     07-Apr-1992 10:11am EST
                                        From:     Maj Robert M. Peterson
                                                  PETERSONRM
                                        Dept:     AAAS
                                        Tel No:   56444

Subject: Resume Bank

The Professional Association of Resume Writers has a National Resume Bank
available for people to list their resume in and have "thousands of
employers" look at you as a potential employee.  Normally there is a fee
for each three month listing per career category.  HOWEVER FOR A LIMITED
TIME- TIL 30 JUN 92, THE SERVICE IS FREE FOR 90 DAYS.  Good opportunity
to get exposure and possible jobs.

Contact:  Ms Theresa A Duckro    513-427-1240
          Colonel Glenn Executive Suites
          4027 Col Glenn Hwy, Suite 400
          Dayton OH 45431
        

No promises, but the price is right and it can only help!


Bob Peterson



------------------------------

Subject: E-Mail Conference Participation Study
From:    "Diane Kovacs, Jeannie Dixon, Kara Robinson" <DKOVACS@Kentvm.Kent.edu>
Date:    Fri, 27 Mar 92 13:53:45 -0500

[[ Editor's Note: Although, strictly speaking, this is outside the
purview of neural networks, I feel strongly that the electronic method of
communication is a powerful and misunderstood medium.  As part of the
larger goal of improving electronic communication world-wide, I invite
your participation in this survey effort... -PM ]]

E-Mail Conferencing User Survey
________________________________

Dear E-mail Conference Participant:

This message precedes a survey of E-mail conference participants. E-mail
conferences are being established to fulfil perceived needs for
professional information sharing between librarians. Our study will
explore participation on e-mail conferences (who is participating) and
question how e-mail conferences are fulfilling information needs and
whether they are in fact replacing or enhancing traditional information
sources. As a further descriptive activity, this study will discover
whether some e-mail conferences with apparently duplicate topics or
overlaps in subject matter actually overlap in subscribers. (E-mail
conference refers to Listserv-based discussion lists as well as Internet
interest groups of various kinds)

We will look at the number of participants, their institutional
affiliations and their geographic distribution. Most importantly, we need
to ask our subcribers if they are using e-mail conferences as sources of
professional information.

Participation in this project is completely voluntary. Should you decide
not to respond to the survey there will be no penalty of any kind. You
may cease participation in the research at any time without penalty. Your
participation - if you elect to do so - is very important to the study.
Total anonymity is not possible because computers identify the senders of
all e-mail. However, we will keep your responses completely confidential.
Only summary data will be released. If we would like to quote part of
your response, we will contact you for permission.

If you want to know more about this research project, please feel free to
contact Diane Kovacs at (dkovacs@kentvm or dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu). The
project has been approved by Kent State University. If you have questions
about Kent State University's rules for research, please call Dr. Adriaan
de Vries, telephone (216)672-2070.

Sincerely,

Diane Kovacs             Jeannie Dixon                    Kara L. Robinson
Libres Editor            Educom-W Moderator               Libref-L Moderator
Kent State University    University of Texas-             Kent State University
dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu   Pan-American
dkovacs@kentvm
(216)672-3045

The Survey:

***PLEASE EDIT AND RETURN THIS SURVEY VIA E-MAIL to dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu
or dkovacs@kentvm

 - Because the survey will be coded electronically - PLEASE PUT YOUR
ANSWER(S) NEXT TO THE *'s IN THE SPACE DIRECTLY BELOW THE QUESTION (For
assistance in completing the survey, please feel free to contact
dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu or dkovacs@kentvm, or your local computer services
staff)

(for the purposes of this survey, E-mail conference refers to Listserv-
based discussion lists as well as Internet interest groups of various
kinds)
___________________

1. On which E-mail conference did you receive this survey? (If more than
one, please state the one you saw first)

*

2. Do E-mail conferences enhance other sources of professional information
for you? (Yes or No)

*

3. Please comment on which sources of professional information have been
enhanced by your participation on e-mail conferences? (type Yes or No at the
asterisk after each source)

Professional Journals
*
Professional Conferences
*
Telephone Conversation
*
Postal Mail
*

4. Do E-mail conferences replace other sources of professional information
for you? (Yes or No)

*

5  Please comment on which sources of professional information have been
replaced by participation on e-mail conferences? (type Yes or No at the
asterisk after each source)

Professional Journals
*
Professional Conferences
*
Telephone Conversation
*
Postal Mail
*


6. To which Library and Information Science e-mail conferences do you
subscribe?

 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

7. Are you a Librarian (possessing a Masters Degree in Library Science or
filling a position which requires Master's level knowledge or skill) or
Library Paraprofessional?  (If No please skip to question 14.)

*

8.  In what kind of library do you work?  (chose one of the categories below
and type it in beside the '*')

University Library (Graduate level school),
College Library(4 year)
College Library(2 year)
Public Library
Corporate for Profit Library
Private non-Profit Library
Government/Public Agency

Other (please state)

*

9. If you work in a Public Library, is it located in a city of:
  (type the letter of your selection next to the asterisk below)

a. 1 million +
b. 100,000-1 million
c. 50,000-100,000
d. 25,000-50,000
c  10,000-25,000
d. 5,000-10,000
e. less than 5,000

*

10. How many persons work in your library? Please give your answers in Full
Time Equivalents (FTE's). Include contract employees if they are employed 6
months or more.

*
*

11. What is your position? e.g. title, subject specialty, duties.

*
*

12. If you are not specifically a reference librarian, do you have Reference
Desk responsibilities?

*

13. Do you ever use information from E-mail conferences to assist patrons
with information needs? (Yes or No, please give example if possible)

*

Example(s)

*
*
*

14. What interests do you have in the E-mail conference that you received
this survey on?

*
*

15. How much time do you personally spend each week on Bitnet/Internet
(E-mail conference, personal e-mail or other activity)

*


------------------------------

End of Neuron Digest [Volume 9 Issue 17]
****************************************