HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Danny Faught)
Subject: Re: What is really AI?
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:52:23 GMT

In article <92254.103730KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET (Jon L. Campbell) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>    The brain is a component of AI, insomuch that it is a dependent
>peice of hardware that requires a certain amount of input before a
>decision can be made -- be it the right decision or not is not
>important. 

Whoa!  The brain is a component of RI - Real Intelligence.  :-)

-- 
Danny Faught    danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu
Save this sig - I'll be famous someday
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:36:27 GMT

In article <3274@ariadne.csi.forth.GR> tripaki@danae.csi.forth.gr (Stavros Tripakis) writes:
>(perhaps late, I've just discovered this list...)
>
>	 (Mike Wiik) writes:
>|> 
>|> I'd argue, though, that there's very few
>|> people today who live in the kind of freedom enjoyed by our hunter-
>|> gatherer forbears....
>|> 
>
>		EXACTLY !!!
>
>
>	(Jason Asbahr) writes:
>|>
>|>  Well, our 
>|> 'net is pretty amazing all by itself...its chief advantage
>|> over television is that it we can *respond* to it and through it...
>|>
>
> NO !!! Do you think freedom means listening to my + a million other's
>nonsense ? What did I say ? LISTENING ?! Not EVEN THAT !
>
>Communicating ! you'd say... Exchanging ideas ! Arguing about things !
>
>Sure...I'm long and deep into it myself. BUT :
> Communicating about what !? Exchanging ideas about what !?
>Arguing about what !? JUST FOR THE ARGUING ITSELF , that's what !

This is the most important human activity, and the freedom to do it is
real freedom.

>
>You see, when you lose your threads to your NATURE you try to find a
>substitute, whether that's called football, thrash metal, or cyberpunk
>lists. (Ooops, getting nasty, eh?)

The best way to find out what your nature is is to think about it, and
one of the best ways to keep your thinking in line is to talk about
it with other people.  Be reassured, though, at the outset.  You can't
lose your nature; it is always right here.


>
>Preaching:		SHIT MAILING LISTS !
>			FUCK NEW PRODUCTS !
>			GO OUT ! TALK TO PEOPLE, NOT CABLES !

I'm talking to you, not the cable.  You might as well say "Talk to
people, not the atmosphere in front of your mouth!"

>
>
>Stavros Tripakis (from Greece)
>
>PS. Address your responds also directly to me, I don't I'll be
>   watching the list for long
>
>-- 
>
>	Been Dazed and Confused for so Long...
>

;-^)
-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: mcke@unixg.ubc.ca (William McKellin )
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Keywords: cognition free-will
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:42:34 GMT

The kinds of cognitive evolution you are looking for can be seen in
the development of various kinds of artifacts, including language, and
literacy if you follow the work of Vygotsky, Bruner, Cole and Wertsch.
The relationship between cognitive and social is dialectical, with
cognitive development in large part the product of social interaction.

Bill McKellin                             mcke@unixg.ubc.ca
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, B.C. 
V6T 1Z1 

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: barry@godzilla.quotron.com (Barry Geipel)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Quotron Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:46:17 GMT

In article <11SEP199211572401@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>
>Everyone should remember that we can win a few battles, 
>but unless we are willing to fight on the enemies terms, we will still lose the
>war.  
HUH? You should never be willing to fight a war on the enemies terms! Throughout
history the victor has been the one with the initiative. In the case of
the Gulf turkey shoot, the Coalition high tech and their unwillingness 
to fight a frontal "over the top men!" war (the Iraqi terms) gave 
the Coalition the initiative.

>Iraq worked a fixed set stance.  Our air power was able to kick the snot
>out of them (besides their not willing to fight).  What would have happened if
>they decided to fight a guerilla war?  Our air power would have been
>meaningless against small fire group teams.  How effective was our air power in
>Vietnam?
>
>Dr. Forbin

Guerilla war??? in the desert... how would that be possible. TE Lawrence and
Company. were able to conduct one in WWI, but only with the help of the 
British,only along the Red Sea coast (so the could be supplied) and only by 
jumping between watering holes ( one GBU or tomahawk per hole and thats all 
folks! ).  (The scene in Lawrence of Arabia where they cross the Nafu desert 
is totally ficticious...)

Also remember that the Iraqi army was designed around Soviet doctrin. You
can't go guerilla with a T-72 MBT Battalion ( or even a single tank ). If
the Iraqi's had gone guerilla, the outcome would have been the same. Most
of the heavy "offensive" equipment would have been destroyed in place, Kuwait
would have been taken (Kuwait City at a higher price) and the Iraqi's would
have no offensive capabilities left... Same result, fewer Iraqi casualties.
Only Kuwait City would have produced more Coalition casualties.

But all this is academic. Hardware does not win wars, people do. The fact
is that the quality and morale of the Coalition soldier was much higher
and the average Iraqi soldier did not want to be there (even before the
Coalition started the air war... A soldier that does not want to be there
would make a very poor guerilla fighter.

-- 
==========================================================
Barry L. Geipel            || 
INTERNET:barry@quotron.com || Lacking a muse, my mauser
COMPUSERVE:710055,3726     ||  must be my  thunderbolt
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:49:31 GMT

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.
>
>Dr. Forbin

Yes, smoke can block lasers (if it is the right kind of smoke).
Of course, if the wind is blowing, or if you are in a vehicle
that moves out of the smoke, or if they shoot at you before you
set off that smoke grenade, or if you run out of smoke grenades
because you can't carry an infinite supply of anything, or you're
afraid to set off the smoke grenade because it would mark your
position for the other guys airplanes, or...
Well, you get the picture. Iraqi units in Kuwait were well
supplied with cheap portable antitank weapons, which could
destroy our multimillion dollar tanks. It just didn't work
out that way - combat can be unpredictable like that.

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5992 rec.arts.sf.misc:2837 alt.cyberpunk:4183
From: tripaki@danae.csi.forth.gr (Stavros Tripakis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:14:42 GMT
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: FORTH - ICS, P.O.Box 1385, Heraklio, Crete, Greece 71110 
       tel: +30(81)221171, 229302 fax: +30(81)229342,3 tlx: 262389 CCI

(perhaps late, I've just discovered this list...)

	 (Mike Wiik) writes:
|> 
|> I'd argue, though, that there's very few
|> people today who live in the kind of freedom enjoyed by our hunter-
|> gatherer forbears....
|> 

		EXACTLY !!!


	(Jason Asbahr) writes:
|>
|>  Well, our 
|> 'net is pretty amazing all by itself...its chief advantage
|> over television is that it we can *respond* to it and through it...
|>

 NO !!! Do you think freedom means listening to my + a million other's
nonsense ? What did I say ? LISTENING ?! Not EVEN THAT !

Communicating ! you'd say... Exchanging ideas ! Arguing about things !

Sure...I'm long and deep into it myself. BUT :
 Communicating about what !? Exchanging ideas about what !?
Arguing about what !? JUST FOR THE ARGUING ITSELF , that's what !

You see, when you lose your threads to your NATURE you try to find a
substitute, whether that's called football, thrash metal, or cyberpunk
lists. (Ooops, getting nasty, eh?)

Preaching:		SHIT MAILING LISTS !
			FUCK NEW PRODUCTS !
			GO OUT ! TALK TO PEOPLE, NOT CABLES !


Stavros Tripakis (from Greece)

PS. Address your responds also directly to me, I don't I'll be
   watching the list for long

-- 

	Been Dazed and Confused for so Long...

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: missing verbs
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:12:09 GMT

In article <BILL.92Sep10154813@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu>, bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes in part:
|> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|> 
|>    > In any case, you began with a discussion about active vs. passive 
|>    > voice in the concept of "defeated" (a transitive verb), and now
|>    > you're arguing over a simple locative.  The concepts involved are
|>    > quite different.
|> 
|> I think there is a connection.  The point is that the structure of a
|> sentence often contains subtle information about the roles of its
|> elements.  In a locative sentence of the form "A is acorp B", B plays
|> the role of a landmark -- a large immovable object -- while A is a
|> movable thing located relative to B.  Thus English speakers will
|> usually, if pressed, admit that if "The bicycle is next to the house"
|> is true, then "The house is next to the bicycle" is also true, but the
|> latter form is *bad* because of its connotations.

And so on.  Several people have waded in with claims about the
"rightness" and "wrongness" of the constructions, and folk explanations
for these judgements.

In fact, the meaning of those two sentences is CULTURALLY DEFINED,
as is the degree of "rightness".  Since both are intelligible, both
are clearly part of the English language in the broadest sense.  But
people clearly differ in the precise interpretation of the sentences,
and in the judgement of grammatical "OK-ness" of the sentences, which
is basically unrealted to the MEANING of the sentence.

I remember a talk by a linguist who indicated that, possibly because
of a yiddish background, found sentences such as "Beans I ate." to
be perfectly OK, while many consider that improper English (although
practically everyone can understand the meaning).

The point is, you guys are arguing about something based on your
individual linguistic idioms, which are not identical.  Perhaps
a more reasonable approach would be to ask who says one or both
of these sentences, and what do they mean when they say them.
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6107 rec.arts.sf.misc:2930 alt.cyberpunk:4285
From: vest@novavax.UUCP (Steven Vest)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re^2: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:15:37 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:


>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.

I'm not sure whether to reply to this or not.  You don't really believe that
there wont be any wars in the 21st century do you?  People have said that 
after every major war in the last century or so.  As long as there are two
groups of people, and rocks, we'll have wars.  The bomb has been around for
long enough that if it were going to change things that completely, it would 
have.  Our having the bomb didn't stop the Vietnamese nor the Iraqis.  
This is a bit sad and cynical but history bears me out.
e
-- 
========================== vest@novavax.nova.edu =============================
= Steven Vest: Electronic Reference Librarian: Nova University, Ft. Ldl, FL  =
=      Anything you see by me is just MY opinion.  Don't blame Nova.         =
=================Life is strange. Yeah, but compared to what?=================
From: shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is really AI?
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:14:39 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division

In article <92254.103730KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jon L. Campbell <KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>
>  For the sake of argument, I'd like to propose a discussion about
>  AI. Exploring what AI is or isn't and the boundaries of logic.
>
> Computational logic also has a set of inputs, yet solving mathematical
> problems does not use the same set of rules that were used to process
> common bodily functions (i.e. breathing)
> The set of rules required to breath are imbedded, basic rules
> that the brain always follows or we would forget to breath.  These
> rules are hardware dependent rather than learned and are therefore
> at the core of functional AI.  Learned rules are different in that
> they expand on the core layer of the brain or basic instructional set.

To make sure I understand: What you are saying is that hardware constructs
play an analagous role to physical (biological) constructs/survival
mechanisms with respect to AI, and that software/learning correlates to
human intellectual development. Is that close?

> How much software is needed to construct a truly intelligent unit?
> Is AI really software dependent?  Or can the hardware be independent
> of software to acheive AI?   Is software necessary?  Would hardware
> AI lack software as a counterpart?

Please forgive my editing: I want to address only some of the questions you
are asking, or maybe ask a few of my own. Is there NOW such a thing as
AI-dedicated software? (This is getting to be like a dog chasing his
tail; what is AI?) Let's assume (presume?) that Lisp, Prolog, and the
permutations of neural nets CAN be defined as AI-dedicated software in
that each is designed to manipulate SOME form of information in a manner
less "algorithmically" and more "relationship-oriented". This distiction
allows easier handling of "non-standard" inputs: the incoming data does
not necessarily need to be formatted in a specific way. Another benefit
is the ability of the software to alter itself (at least with NN) or
"learn". Hardware, on the other hand, can handle only what it is designed
to: the "inputs" are limited by the design. Hardware can't learn without
some software, and without learning, I don't think you can have AI. My
$0.02 worth.

Mark Shanks
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6061 rec.arts.sf.misc:2864 alt.cyberpunk:4213
From: olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:57:00 GMT
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep10.194805.6289@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James
Meritt) writes... >  >I must have missed the hand-to-hand combat that took
place in Kuwait/Iraq. >Where/when did it occur? >  High-tech equipment is
always valuable against a foe who cannot, or in the case of Iraq, will not
resist.  The 8 year war with Iran did more to destroy the Iraqi army than did
U.S. technology.  I think Desert Storm would have been much different if the
Iraqis had decided to fight.  The outcome may not have been different, but the
costs would have been much higher.  And I think there would have been some
defense contractors who would have been fined as a result of the high-tech
equipment not performing the way it should have.  Just take the wing crack
problems the F-16's were found to have as an example of the breakdown of high
tech equipment.

One thing I've been afraid of since Iraq is that it would give the people of
this country a false sense that our technology will overcome all enemies, and
from the messages which have appeared here, I would have to say that my fears
have been realized.  Everyone should remember that we can win a few battles,
but unless we are willing to fight on the enemies terms, we will still lose the
war.  Iraq worked a fixed set stance.  Our air power was able to kick the snot
out of them (besides their not willing to fight).  What would have happened if
they decided to fight a guerilla war?  Our air power would have been
meaningless against small fire group teams.  How effective was our air power in
Vietnam?

Dr. Forbin
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6075 rec.arts.sf.misc:2880 alt.cyberpunk:4231
From: megazone@rivdell.sccsi.com (Megazoner)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 05:52:51 CDT
Organization: Rivendell BBS / Hou, TX. / +1 713 941 2236

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.


 Here's my $2.0x10^-2 worth...

 Having been an infantry soldier, I found that using all sorts of high 
tech didn't help me very much while dodging bullets. Most of it we stored 
in the IFV, which we always expected to blow up when it hit the front 
lines. (Fortunately, this did not occur in Iraq. It's a long walk 
anywhere.)

 All we ever wanted was lighter stuff. Big death rays would be nice, but 
do you want to carry that stuff 30 miles? Humping batteries for the radio 
was a pain as it was, imagine the cell for a portable laser...I routinely 
discarded my flak vest 'cos it was too heavy and wouldn't stop much 
anyway, just grenade fragments. I'm more worried about concussion.

 What can one improve with conventional weapons? All the neat new stuff 
would break down after minimal use, cracked, peeled, dented, abused and 
rattled about. 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.

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

 Besides, lasers are active emissions. I used to watch 'em and figure out 
where the tanks were before they saw me. Result, dead tank.


--
megazone@rivdell.sccsi.com (Megazoner)
Rivendell BBS -*- Houston, TX -*- +1(713)941-2236
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6062 rec.arts.sf.misc:2865 alt.cyberpunk:4214
From: olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:58:00 GMT
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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.

Dr. Forbin
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:46:05 GMT

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:-)

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts

Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: marky@z.eecs.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:41:28 GMT

This thread has been going on for some time crediting me with the following:

>In article <1992Aug13.044325.16707@zip.eecs.umich.edu> marky@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>From: marky@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
>>Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
>>Date: 13 Aug 92 04:43:25 GMT
  [...]
>>OK, I've seen enough!  A new characterization of "intelligence": the 
>>capacity to adapt means to ends.  Differential abilities in respect of 
>>adapting means to ends by different orders of living being indicates 
>>why intelligence is both a type-word and a straightforwardly adjectival 
>>one. The more intelligent something is, the better able it is to find the 
>>best means to attain its ends. 

>>Theoretical Advantages:

>>      1. Accounts for our use of the word to cover any kind of living 
>>           entity capable of acting purposefully (this does not mean nor 
>>           entail that entities to which we may properly ascribe 
>>         intelligence select their own goals, only that they have them 
>>         and go about attaining them, and that their behavior must be 
>>         given a purposeful explanation.)                   

>>      2. Accounts for our gut feeling that intelligence is closely 
>>         tied to consciousness, because only conscious beings            
>>         know values (rooted in needs & desires) and thus can have 
>>         purposes. And, since consciousness is a matter of    
>>         degree, so is intelligence.        

>>Anticipated Objection1: Doesn't intelligence enter in to the choice of 
>>                      ends as well as means? 

>>Anticipated Objection2: Must the ends be pre-visioned (requiring 
>>                      consciousness)?

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
>>Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907

>>P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.

>>Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be clear from the signature that this was not written by me, but by 
Kenny Bell (in response to something I had written).  Please edit the 
attribution line to give proper credit.

thanks...mark young