HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anthro@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Bramscher)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Akira/movies
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:48:51 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.

I recently saw the animated "Akira".  Cyberpunk in some aspects, it combined
urban decay, hints at plutocracy, and the life-is-cheap ideology.  I'd
be interested if anyone has a list of cyberpunkish movies that have been
produced.  There are many urban decay type films, but few that add in the
concept of neural interfaces.

UUCP: {crash, tcnet, petrus, quest}!orbit!pnet51!anthro
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!anthro@nosc.mil
INET: anthro@pnet51.orb.mn.org
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5950 rec.arts.sf.misc:2810 alt.cyberpunk:4123
From: danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Danny Faught)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:39:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: mercury.1992Sep3.183924.1074
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton

In article <185bhuINNj0v@agate.berkeley.edu> cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio) writes:
>btw-- F451 is on the list for the top 5 banned books in US schools...
>wonder why?

Don't worry - they made an asbestos-covered edition.
-- 
Danny Faught    danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu
Save this sig - I'll be famous someday
From: Jeremiah.Blatz@dartmouth.edu (Jeremiah Blatz)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:52:45 GMT
 <1992Aug27.160940.6008@auto-trol.com> 
 <1992Aug28.040259.2038@leela.cs.orst.edu> 
 <1992Aug28.140813.3399@sfn.ORG>  <1992Aug28.151754.16221@inesc.pt>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Aug28.151754.16221@inesc.pt>
usenet@inesc.pt (USENET News System) writes:

> In article <1992Aug28.040259.2038@leela.cs.orst.edu> mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee) writes:
> [...]
> >In general, there are more people living in prosperity and freedom than there
> >have ever been throughout human history.
> 
> 	WHAT ??? WHAT !?!!?!?!
> 
> 	I can name some examples of your prosperity and freedom... How about
> Somalia, Ex-Yugoslavia, East-Timor, etc... Or freedom & Prosperity for u
> means that Iraq is not attacking Kuwait ???
> 	Prosperity ??? FREEDOM ?? Don't give me that Bullshit...

Several hundred years ago people were forced to build large forts
around their cities/homes to protect themselves from others with
castles who wanted to kill them and steal their possetions. Around the
previously mentioned fortifications hundreds of people huddles around
in their houses made of mud, straw, and manure. Families needed to have
lots (say, 5 or so) kids in order to continue their bloodline. Hardly
anyone could read. Famine and epidemics were rampent, and no one had
medical care.
This was how the most wealthy cultures lived.

Today, this more describes the least well-off cultures.

I think Mr. Mcbee has a point.

Several hundred years ago, people were watched by almost no one. There
were no databases holding information about who you were. A person
could dissappear without a trace and hardly be noticed. There weren't
enough people do do widespread damage to the ecosystem. There were no
nuclear weapons. there were few chemical weapons. There were no long
range weapons of any kind.

I think Mr./Ms. USENET News System :-) has a point as well.

"Can we just get along?"
      --A f'ed up Rodney King

Jeremiah
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: Turing Test Myths
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 02:32:30 GMT

In article <BILL.92Aug17114642@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>For a male imitating a female, I would begin by asking for an
>explanation of the system of women's clothing sizes.  (Junior, Misses,
>etc.)  Then I would ask for an explanation of "her" philosophy for
>using makeup.  And so on.
>
>For a female imitating a male, I would begin by asking "him" to
>describe how "he" shaves his face.  Then I would ask "him" to describe
>the sensations he experiences during orgasm.  And so on.
>
>I sincerely doubt that many people could plausibly fake answers to
>these kinds of questions for an hour.

Questions of content are irrelevant and only invite the person putting up
misleading smokescreens.

You don't need to ask any questions to test.  All you need to do is just talk
to the person.  You can usually determine a person's gender before they even
finish uttering the first sentence, regardless of whether they're trying to
consciously confuse you or not.
From: iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Marvin Minsky's Conscious Machines
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:42:47 GMT

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>In article <iordonez.714442640@academ01>, iordonez@academ01 (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
>>P: This sentence is not true.

>>If senntence P were formalizable, it could be expressed in a logical
>>finite formal system, which would require defining each of its elements.

>Ways to formalize self-reference have been around for most of this
>century.  Intuitively reasonable ones are new.  See, eg, Barwise and
>Etchemendy(?) THE LIAR for two such.

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.

--Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso
iordonez@mitras.mty.itesm.mx

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5961 rec.arts.sf.misc:2815 alt.cyberpunk:4137
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date:  4 Sep 92 12:41:10 GMT

From: cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio)
>
>This was in sci.military, but is of definite relevance to this
>newsgroup. 
>
>I include all relevant posting information.
>
>  ... New infantry gear description trimmed ...

And just wait until the muggers can buy it at the local surplus store...
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:23:43 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

People today live longer and eat better than at any time in
history. This is scarred and desolate?

Chris Kostanick
"Range, 1000 yards"
From: mike@highlite.uucp (Mike Wiik)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: Gotham Communications Research
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:08:25 GMT

D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher) writes:
|Jason Asbahr writes:- (in <COSC176T.92Aug26010939@menudo.uh.edu>)
|...
|>_The Turing Option_ came as a welcome change to the recent endless
|>stream of near-future sci-fi novels that paint only scarred and
|>desolate futures.  Though everything isn't beautiful, and people
|>are still people, it's a hopeful vision.

|Lets be honest, we live in a pretty scarred and desolate present.

Let's see, you're a university student, with net access if nothing else,
living in a somewhat civilized country.

How many billions of people would gladly trade places with you?

Then again, if you're generalizing, I definitely agree..

	-Mike

-- 
   | o==== . : ... :  :  .     |Mail Me Neat Stuff->POB 3703 Arlington VA 22203
 --@-- . o o o ... O -O- o o : |No disclaimers needed: I actually pay for this.
   |           ... :  :        |-----------------------------------------------
mEssAGE fRoM sPAcE ARt stUdiOs |Man:TheMissingLinkBetweenApes&HigherIntelligence
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 15:18:58 GMT

In article <8338@orbit.cts.com> anthro@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Bramscher) writes:
>braca2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au writes:  

>>I know this is pretty harsh, and is possibly suited to another board.  But
>>I have a question.  Can we have a healthy, constructive, active, cyberpunk
>>here and now?

I thought by definition that any punk subculture (cyber-, splatter-, etc.)
existed as a rejecting or denying entity rather than a constructive one.

>In Gibsonian terms, there seems to be three groups of
>people: (1) The ultra-wealthy (2) the poor working-classes, and (3) the
>underground.                                

Not very far from what we have now, is it? Are there any other authors writing
plausible fiction set about 75-100 years from now? As I look at the "science
fiction" shelves at the local book monopolys (what's the word that implies 
"monopoly", but indicates two dominating units?), I see a HELL of a lot of
fluffy shit fantasy/Star Drek/Star Wars, but precious little that seems
plausible or relevant (as Gibson unfortunately does), unless you count
Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, which is getting closer every day.

I can't get the rec., sf., or alt. postings, so this is a refreshing
supplement to the ENDLESS Chinese Room and "how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin" discussions that go on here in ai.phil., although I
can't say it has much to do with Turing anymore.

Mark Shanks
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5935 rec.arts.sf.misc:2785 alt.cyberpunk:4086
From: morpheus@entropy.mcds.com (morpheus)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 18:41:04 EDT
Organization: Whoever you vote for, the government still gets elected.

stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer) writes:

> Some people do.  Some starve to death in the streets while others
> watch on TV, then switch channels to watch re-runs of "Star Trek"
> because it's not fun to watch people die.  I think that qualifies
> as "scarred and desolate".

to quote "Which Way to America" by Living Color:

I look at the TV
Your America's doing well
I look out the window
My America's catching hell
...
I change the channel
Your America's doing fine
I read the headlines
My America's doing time

(yeah, yeah, I'll burn in hell for breaking copyright.  Lucky I'm an atheist.)

Anyway, I just thought this song kinda illustrates the point that watching
Growing Pains on TV isn't going to give you an accurate picture of the world.



--
Big Brother is watching.  So are the Illuminati.  Maybe even your mother.
morpheus@entropy.mcds.com  /\/\/\/  f208.n2606.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:41:50 GMT

In article <185bhuINNj0v@agate.berkeley.edu> cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio) writes:
>>
>btw-- F451 is on the list for the top 5 banned books in US schools...
>wonder why?

Where is this marvelous list?  I'g like to see the rest of it!

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.192343.1144@kbsw1> chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes:
>People today live longer and eat better than at any time in
>history. This is scarred and desolate?
>
>Chris Kostanick
>"Range, 1000 yards"
>
Some people do.  Some starve to death in the streets while others
watch on TV, then switch channels to watch re-runs of "Star Trek"
because it's not fun to watch people die.  I think that qualifies
as "scarred and desolate".

Steve Deemer
stedee@auto-trol.com
From: iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: what is consciousness for?
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:54:33 GMT

markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.025506.2404@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>>Then what might be the functions and the organs of what we call
>>consciousness?  

>I find this a very interesting question: what is consciousness for?
>Why did nature bother to evolve it?  What can't be done without it?

>>	We humans do not possess much consciousness.
>>	That is, we have very little natural ability to sense
>>	what happens within and outside ourselves.

[...]

>I would hazard a guess that consciousness allows us to observe and therefore
>change our own behavior; in effect it expands the range of objects we can
>manipulate to include ourselves.

I find very hard to argue about the use of consciousness when we don't
have the least idea of what it is. Defining consciousness as 'self
awareness' is a somewhat circular definition, and it would indeed,
as M. Minsky points, imply that we human have very little conciousness,
and that computers (which can have a full internal description of their
own function) might be more conscious than we are.

I don't think consciousness can be defined in terms of observing,
noticing, knowing. Minsky's definition is, in my opinion, specifically
cooked to make appear that machines are better than us in this regard.
This is like a painter who uses a lot of green in his pictures defining
beauty as the amount of green a picture has!

Asserting that consciousness must have a specific purpose implies taken
for granted a certain materialistic point of view, and is by no means
the only possibility.

--Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso
iordonez@mitras.mty.itesm.mx



Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: tordm@vana (Tord Malmgren)
Subject: bio-chip (kind of)
Reply-To: TordM@VanD.PhySto.SE
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Stockholm -- Sweden
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:15:56 GMT


 hello! I just read an article about a Geunter W. Gross (AT&T Bell) doing
experiments letting nerves grow on a micro-chip thus studying how signals
are done (for example in the brains) -- does anybody have any more info
about this to share with me??




---------------+--------------------------------
 Tord Malmgren | InterNet: TordM@VanD.PhySto.SE | These opinions are my own,
               | BITNet  : TordM@SESUF51        | and NOT of this department!
---------------+--------------------------------
 Department of Physics, University of Stockholm 
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5886 rec.arts.sf.misc:2706 alt.cyberpunk:4000
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:58:10 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


>Tom Hatton writes:
>
>>chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes:
>
>>>People today live longer and eat better than at any time in
>>>history. This is scarred and desolate?
>>>Chris Kostanick
>>>"Range, 1000 yards"
>
>>Your sig seems to say it all, in terms of your vision. What people are you
>>talking about here? A few hundred million out of the 5+ billion on the
>>planet? And what percentage of those are living in poverty, hence *not*
>>eating enough, and *not* living longer? It appears nobody outside your 
>>little corner really matters to you. Future's so bright you gotta wear
>>shades, it seems.
>
>I was under the impression that several BILLION people live longer,
>better, and potentially happier (ha ha) lives these days.  Mass
>starvation has receded from a really significant fraction of the world's
>population with the growth in international ties and trade.  I would be
>quite surprised if the percentage of world population that starves in
>famines is any higher than times immemorial, and likely to much much
>lower.  Definitions of poverty in nations with a social-democratic
>.tradition (so probably not the US) do not include hunger, as
>satisfactory support exists for all residents.  The big problem is that
>.often poverty in the West is not owning a VCR ... I assume that's what
>you were referring to as "those".>
>
>>Not intended as a flame, just a little re-adjustment of your perspective.
>
>Agreed.  Not a flame.  Just another different perpective.
>
>Peter

The number of people living on the streets, and dying on the streets in the
western world may well be lower than in previous centuries, but it IS on the
increase at present.  The Third/developing whatever world, is in places significantly worse off than it was previous, and often in those places getting worse.
Look at Yugoslavia as an example of how a supposedly developed and stable
country can fall apart.  Admittedly the tension there was subdued rather than
removed over the last fifty odd years.
To blithely assume that everything is always getting better is niave, some
places, and some aspects of society are getting worse.  Some rapidly.

Dave.

--
David Butcher
n0404@ncl.ac.uk	 - Newcastle University -
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
From: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Subject: Virtual Symposium on Virtual Mind
Followup-To: sender
Summary: available by anonymous ftp
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room, Virtual Reality, Mind Modelling
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:38:21 GMT

The following article is retrievable by anonymous ftp on host princeton.edu
directory pub/harnad filename harnad92.virtualmind
                ----
Hayes, P., Harnad, S., Perlis, D. & Block, N. (1992) Virtual Symposium
on Virtual Mind. Minds and Machines 2(3) 217-238.
                ----

		VIRTUAL SYMPOSIUM ON VIRTUAL MIND

		Patrick Hayes
                CSLI
		Stanford University

		Stevan Harnad
		Psychology Department
		Princeton University
		
		Donald Perlis
		Department of Computer Science
		University of Maryland
		
		Ned Block
		Department of Philosophy and Linguistics
		Massachussetts Institute of Technology


KEYWORDS: Chinese Room Argument; Searle; Turing Test; computationalism;
functionalism; hermeneutics; implementation; mind; other-minds problem;
robotics; semantics; symbol grounding; virtual reality.

ABSTRACT:

When certain formal symbol systems (e.g., computer programs)
are implemented as dynamic physical symbol systems (e.g., when they are
run on a computer) their activity can be interpreted at higher levels
(e.g., binary code can be interpreted as LISP, LISP code can be
interpreted as English, and English can be interpreted as a meaningful
conversation). These higher levels of interpretability are called
"virtual" systems. If such a virtual system is interpretable as if it
had a mind, is such a "virtual mind" real?

This is the question addressed in this "virtual" symposium, originally
conducted electronically among four cognitive scientists: Donald
Perlis, a computer scientist, argues that according to the
computationalist thesis, virtual minds are real and hence Searle's
Chinese Room Argument fails, because if Searle memorized and executed a
program that could pass the Turing Test in Chinese he would have a
second, virtual, Chinese-understanding mind of which he was unaware (as
in multiple personality). Stevan Harnad, a psychologist, argues that
Searle's Argument is valid, virtual minds are just hermeneutic
overinterpretations, and symbols must be grounded in the real world of
objects, not just the virtual world of interpretations. Computer
scientist Patrick Hayes argues that Searle's Argument fails, but
because Searle does not really implement the program: A real
implementation must not be homuncular but mindless and mechanical, like a
computer. Only then can it give rise to a mind at the virtual level.
Philosopher Ned Block suggests that there is no reason a mindful
implementation would not be a real one.


-- 
Stevan Harnad  Department of Psychology  Princeton University
harnad@clarity.princeton.edu / harnad@pucc.bitnet / srh@flash.bellcore.com 
harnad@learning.siemens.com / harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu / (609)-921-7771
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: braca2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (BRAY CHRISTOPHER)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:30:40 GMT

anthro@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Bramscher) writes:


>                
>Jeremiah.Blatz@dartmouth.edu writes:            
>  [some cool medievil life style ]                                        
>>
>> Today, this more describes the least well-off cultures.
 
 [ relates this to modern day stuff, and goes on to say where cyberpunk
   fits in]

 I like cyberpunk, but once I loved the idea.  However the more and more I 
 look at it I see it as the childish acceptence of the way that modern 
 society is heading.  People are saying stuff like:

"Yeah, this is pretty fucked up.  The government cant keep my standard of 
living up. My wife's a bitch on drugs, my kids deal crack.  Fuck it, lets
try this cyberspace crap, the corp mightnt be that bad."

or else they have this dream of being case, and acting against it when it
comes.  

But I dont see anyone doing jackshit now, everyone seems to be waiting 
until the apocalypse is here, so they can taste their cyberspace.  Everyone
seems to be happy to let the world fall to shit, so it can fulfill a man's
dreams.

I know this is pretty harsh, and is possibly suited to another board.  But 
I have a question.  Can we have a healthy, constructive, active, cyberpunk
here and now?

sorry the post is so long.


                              -=[   hook   ]=-
-----------------------------                  ----------------------------
 braca2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au          |    "If you've got it shake it" - hook
       ========			      |    "My heart beats just like yours, 
      /        \                      |    When I dream, my mind soars,  
      |        |                      |    but no fantasy will pay my bills
      \        /                      |    Another dream unfulfilled"
       ---  ---                       |                - Living Color
	 / /                          | "Right now there are hundreds of
	 | |                          | sceptics falling of the edge of the 
	 \ \   /|                     | Earth"  Clem Turner (LEUT, RAN)
	  \ --/ |                     |
	   \---/                      |
copy this sig and help `Just Say No' to Big Brother monitoring public bandwidth
      NSA KEYWORDS:  AVIARY, OCELOT, KIT GREEN, JOHN ALEXANDER, ED DAMES

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5905 rec.arts.sf.misc:2741 alt.cyberpunk:4044
From: morpheus@entropy.mcds.com (Purple Haze...)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 02:50:06 EDT
Organization: Whoever you vote for, the government still gets elected.

chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes:

> People today live longer and eat better than at any time in
> history. This is scarred and desolate?

Who wants to live longer?  To be fucked over by the government more?

Only reason I'd want to live longer is to outlive the government.



--
Big Brother is watching.  So are the Illuminati.  Maybe even your mother.
morpheus@entropy.mcds.com  /\/\/\/  f208.n2606.z1.fidonet.org