perm filename S86.OUT[LET,JMC] blob
sn#820362 filedate 1986-07-03 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00350 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00035 00002 ∂03-Apr-86 0931 JMC
C00036 00003 ∂03-Apr-86 1336 JMC re: What do you think?
C00038 00004 ∂03-Apr-86 1350 JMC re: trip to Austin
C00039 00005 ∂03-Apr-86 1353 JMC
C00040 00006 ∂03-Apr-86 1414 JMC re: VTSS course
C00041 00007 ∂03-Apr-86 1603 JMC reply to message
C00042 00008 ∂03-Apr-86 1800 JMC re: "Any fool" reference
C00043 00009 ∂03-Apr-86 1926 JMC re: Qlisp Task Description
C00044 00010 ∂03-Apr-86 2012 JMC re: Milestones
C00045 00011 ∂03-Apr-86 2146 JMC re: EBOS budget
C00046 00012 ∂04-Apr-86 0127 JMC responses
C00049 00013 ∂04-Apr-86 0144 JMC re: responses
C00052 00014 ∂04-Apr-86 0146 JMC re: EBOS Budget
C00053 00015 ∂04-Apr-86 0146 JMC
C00054 00016 ∂04-Apr-86 1202 JMC re: Quote on teaching (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00056 00017 ∂04-Apr-86 1528 JMC Charniak
C00057 00018 ∂04-Apr-86 1631 JMC
C00058 00019 ∂04-Apr-86 1743 JMC re: Charniak
C00059 00020 ∂04-Apr-86 1848 JMC re: Alliant 5th Proposal
C00060 00021 ∂04-Apr-86 2116 JMC re: slides
C00061 00022 ∂05-Apr-86 0949 JMC re: [CSNET-RELAY Memo Service: Failed mail (msg.a027248)]
C00063 00023 ∂05-Apr-86 1042 JMC finite versions of Freiling's axioms
C00066 00024 ∂05-Apr-86 1907 JMC requested papers
C00067 00025 ∂06-Apr-86 0922 JMC (→17721 20-Apr-86)
C00068 00026 ∂06-Apr-86 1003 JMC
C00069 00027 ∂06-Apr-86 1011 JMC Toledo paper
C00070 00028 ∂06-Apr-86 1348 JMC
C00071 00029 ∂07-Apr-86 0857 JMC visit
C00072 00030 ∂07-Apr-86 0901 JMC
C00076 00031 ∂08-Apr-86 1243 JMC
C00077 00032 ∂20-Apr-86 0001 JMC Expired plan
C00078 00033 ∂20-Apr-86 2240 JMC re: Program Committee Reception
C00079 00034 ∂20-Apr-86 2244 JMC re: AI DISC: Douglas Hofstadter
C00080 00035 ∂20-Apr-86 2246 JMC Errata for Lisp Programming & Proving
C00082 00036 ∂20-Apr-86 2247 JMC re: finals CS306
C00083 00037 ∂20-Apr-86 2249 JMC re: pointer needed
C00084 00038 ∂20-Apr-86 2250 JMC re: Mitchell visit
C00085 00039 ∂20-Apr-86 2251 JMC re: The next contest . . .
C00086 00040 ∂20-Apr-86 2252 JMC re: Miklos Simonovits
C00087 00041 ∂20-Apr-86 2253 JMC reply to message
C00088 00042 ∂20-Apr-86 2255 JMC re: talk at May CPSR meeting
C00089 00043 ∂20-Apr-86 2257 JMC re: Fellowships in AI←
C00090 00044 ∂20-Apr-86 2259 JMC re: IBM Almaden dedication ceremony
C00091 00045 ∂20-Apr-86 2300 JMC re: Mitchell meeting times
C00092 00046 ∂20-Apr-86 2302 JMC re: AI Disc: Joseph Weizenbaum
C00093 00047 ∂20-Apr-86 2308 JMC re: Industrial lecturers
C00094 00048 ∂20-Apr-86 2310 JMC re: Industrial Lecturship
C00095 00049 ∂20-Apr-86 2315 JMC re: AI Fellowships
C00096 00050 ∂20-Apr-86 2317 JMC re: SIGART
C00097 00051 ∂20-Apr-86 2319 JMC re: Invitation
C00098 00052 ∂21-Apr-86 0839 JMC re: AI Search Committee
C00099 00053 ∂21-Apr-86 1055 JMC re: Miklos Simonovits
C00100 00054 ∂21-Apr-86 1127 JMC re: Industrial Lecturship
C00102 00055 ∂21-Apr-86 1127 JMC re: Industrial Lecturship
C00105 00056 ∂21-Apr-86 1551 JMC re: [Ellie Engelmore <EEngELmore@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>: SJ Mercury/Book Review request]
C00106 00057 ∂22-Apr-86 1349 JMC Common Business Communication Language
C00109 00058 ∂22-Apr-86 1605 JMC
C00110 00059 ∂23-Apr-86 0851 JMC lecture at DARPA
C00111 00060 ∂23-Apr-86 1014 JMC
C00112 00061 ∂23-Apr-86 1117 JMC Report on Scientific Contributions of Computer Science
C00113 00062 ∂23-Apr-86 1250 JMC re: japan
C00114 00063 ∂24-Apr-86 0701 JMC We should give diplomacy a chance in Libya.
C00118 00064 ∂24-Apr-86 0943 JMC re: pointer needed
C00119 00065 ∂24-Apr-86 1015 JMC re: pointer needed
C00120 00066 ∂24-Apr-86 1029 JMC re: AI Prospective/Shoham
C00121 00067 ∂24-Apr-86 1203 JMC re: AI Candidate - Batali
C00122 00068 ∂24-Apr-86 1344 JMC Batali
C00124 00069 ∂24-Apr-86 1406 JMC Afterthought on Libya
C00126 00070 ∂24-Apr-86 1724 JMC re: Rozak Book Review
C00127 00071 ∂24-Apr-86 1730 JMC
C00128 00072 ∂24-Apr-86 1742 JMC re: fun (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00129 00073 ∂24-Apr-86 1907 Mailer failed mail returned
C00130 00074 ∂24-Apr-86 1908 JMC re: fun (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00131 00075 ∂25-Apr-86 1157 JMC re: Etherington
C00132 00076 ∂25-Apr-86 1540 JMC re: Orals committee?
C00133 00077 ∂25-Apr-86 1648 JMC re: [Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: Faculty Candidates]
C00135 00078 ∂25-Apr-86 1819 JMC Action on Khadaffi
C00141 00079 ∂25-Apr-86 2125 JMC re: AI DISC.
C00142 00080 ∂26-Apr-86 1128 JMC re: diplomatics question (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00145 00081 ∂26-Apr-86 1225 JMC reply to message
C00147 00082 ∂26-Apr-86 1231 JMC The rationalist approach to AI
C00164 00083 ∂26-Apr-86 1232 JMC Reply to Dreyfus's
C00169 00084 ∂26-Apr-86 1233 JMC Searle's Deturs
C00184 00085 ∂26-Apr-86 1234 JMC Winograd's vagueness
C00187 00086 ∂26-Apr-86 1245 JMC Comments on Hofstadter
C00190 00087 ∂26-Apr-86 1253 JMC Reply to Weizenbaum
C00191 00088 ∂26-Apr-86 1259 JMC Comments on Rumelhart
C00192 00089 ∂26-Apr-86 1301 JMC request for acknowledgment
C00193 00090 ∂28-Apr-86 0822 JMC
C00194 00091 ∂28-Apr-86 1653 JMC making normality logic do the bird problem
C00195 00092 ∂29-Apr-86 0926 JMC Sweden
C00196 00093 ∂29-Apr-86 1001 JMC re: library
C00197 00094 ∂29-Apr-86 1003 JMC
C00198 00095 ∂29-Apr-86 1126 JMC failure
C00199 00096 ∂29-Apr-86 1151 JMC
C00200 00097 ∂29-Apr-86 1541 JMC re: AI Qualifying Exams, 5/20 and 5/23
C00201 00098 ∂29-Apr-86 1545 JMC re: Dr. Peled of IBM
C00202 00099 ∂29-Apr-86 1546 JMC
C00203 00100 ∂30-Apr-86 0207 JMC asking for the RT
C00204 00101 ∂30-Apr-86 0211 JMC re: lisp standardization and conference
C00205 00102 ∂30-Apr-86 1200 JMC re: Shoham
C00206 00103 ∂30-Apr-86 1348 JMC re: Rumor
C00207 00104 ∂30-Apr-86 1418 JMC travel grant
C00208 00105 ∂30-Apr-86 1453 JMC permission denied
C00209 00106 ∂30-Apr-86 1501 JMC
C00210 00107 ∂30-Apr-86 1601 JMC re: ibmrtpc1
C00211 00108 ∂30-Apr-86 1736 JMC are you there?
C00212 00109 ∂30-Apr-86 2043 JMC re: kcl
C00213 00110 ∂30-Apr-86 2054 JMC
C00214 00111 ∂30-Apr-86 2117 JMC
C00215 00112 ∂30-Apr-86 2244 JMC reply to message
C00217 00113 ∂01-May-86 0215 JMC 30 year lisp conference
C00218 00114 ∂01-May-86 1303 JMC
C00219 00115 ∂01-May-86 1354 JMC re: proposal for the 30-years lisp conference
C00221 00116 ∂01-May-86 1423 JMC re: Inference Corporation
C00222 00117 ∂01-May-86 1527 JMC
C00224 00118 ∂01-May-86 1736 JMC reply to message
C00225 00119 ∂01-May-86 1747 JMC
C00226 00120 ∂01-May-86 1850 JMC re: cbcl
C00227 00121 ∂01-May-86 1858 JMC re: the undersecretary of idiocy (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00228 00122 ∂02-May-86 0937 JMC
C00229 00123 ∂02-May-86 0950 JMC disk
C00230 00124 ∂02-May-86 1448 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00235 00125 ∂02-May-86 1453 JMC re: Iodine tablets vs. the Soviets' latest exports... (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00236 00126 ∂02-May-86 1519 JMC Cate
C00237 00127 ∂02-May-86 1741 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00239 00128 ∂02-May-86 1745 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00240 00129 ∂02-May-86 2133 JMC re: Arcane AI terms? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00241 00130 ∂03-May-86 1426 JMC re: Comments on your paper conjecture settled
C00242 00131 ∂03-May-86 1810 JMC
C00252 00132 ∂04-May-86 1036 JMC your comments
C00253 00133 ∂04-May-86 2033 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00254 00134 ∂04-May-86 2039 JMC re: Quotation without comment (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00256 00135 ∂04-May-86 2047 JMC re: tenure (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00257 00136 ∂04-May-86 2255 JMC freili.1
C00258 00137 ∂05-May-86 0957 JMC re: dinner with edwina and oliver
C00259 00138 ∂05-May-86 1038 JMC re: Have you ever made a mistake?...
C00261 00139 ∂05-May-86 1045 JMC re: Have you ever made a mistake?...
C00263 00140 ∂05-May-86 1101 JMC re: Comments on your paper conjecture settled
C00264 00141 ∂05-May-86 1144 JMC re: tenure (from SAIL's BBOARD) (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00268 00142 ∂05-May-86 1349 JMC re: Robotics Search Committee
C00269 00143 ∂05-May-86 1451 JMC hat and ring sizes and trip
C00270 00144 ∂05-May-86 1501 JMC
C00271 00145 ∂05-May-86 2105 JMC proposal
C00272 00146 ∂06-May-86 0043 JMC Batali
C00273 00147 ∂06-May-86 0935 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD) (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00276 00148 ∂06-May-86 1042 JMC re: Batali
C00277 00149 ∂06-May-86 1322 JMC re: Robotics Search Committee
C00278 00150 ∂07-May-86 0905 JMC re: RA support for summer
C00279 00151 ∂07-May-86 1151 JMC re: summer work
C00280 00152 ∂07-May-86 1315 JMC re: dinner on Thursday.
C00281 00153 ∂07-May-86 1316 JMC re: John Coke
C00282 00154 ∂07-May-86 1443 JMC robotics list
C00283 00155 ∂07-May-86 1626 JMC ns
C00284 00156 ∂07-May-86 1718 JMC re: [Tom Garvey <Garvey@SRI-AI.ARPA>: Danny Cohen visit]
C00285 00157 ∂07-May-86 1719 JMC re: Draft EBOS proposal
C00286 00158 ∂07-May-86 1828 JMC
C00287 00159 ∂07-May-86 1832 JMC
C00288 00160 ∂08-May-86 0935 JMC re: AI Search Committee
C00289 00161 ∂08-May-86 1324 JMC alliant system for q-lisp
C00292 00162 ∂08-May-86 1327 JMC re: alliant system for q-lisp
C00293 00163 ∂08-May-86 1349 JMC re: alliant system for q-lisp
C00294 00164 ∂08-May-86 1601 JMC
C00295 00165 ∂08-May-86 1822 JMC re: alliant system for q-lisp
C00296 00166 ∂08-May-86 1830 JMC re: Letter to USSR
C00297 00167 ∂08-May-86 1843 JMC datadisc
C00298 00168 ∂08-May-86 2225 JMC
C00299 00169 ∂09-May-86 0941 JMC re: scott
C00300 00170 ∂09-May-86 1054 JMC re: transparencies
C00301 00171 ∂09-May-86 1344 JMC re: NSF report on computing
C00302 00172 ∂13-May-86 1408 JMC re: Conference on Computers and Mathematics, July 29, 1986
C00303 00173 ∂13-May-86 2220 JMC copyright holder
C00304 00174 ∂14-May-86 1415 JMC Computers and Mathematics conference
C00305 00175 ∂15-May-86 0945 JMC reply to message
C00306 00176 ∂15-May-86 1128 JMC circumscriptive aspects
C00310 00177 ∂15-May-86 1150 JMC re: circumscriptive aspects
C00311 00178 ∂15-May-86 1713 JMC
C00312 00179 ∂15-May-86 1725 JMC
C00313 00180 ∂15-May-86 1725 JMC reference
C00314 00181 ∂15-May-86 1731 JMC reply to message
C00315 00182 ∂15-May-86 2314 JMC
C00316 00183 ∂17-May-86 1155 JMC re: should I sent this to BBoards about the uncertainty workshop?
C00318 00184 ∂18-May-86 1052 JMC re: Turning off call waiting
C00319 00185 ∂18-May-86 1501 JMC re: Turning off call-waiting (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00320 00186 ∂19-May-86 0920 JMC re: Expense Report (LA and Washington)
C00321 00187 ∂19-May-86 1528 JMC re: TEX course
C00322 00188 ∂21-May-86 1125 JMC cs306
C00324 00189 ∂21-May-86 1128 JMC cs306
C00326 00190 ∂21-May-86 1129 JMC re: cs306
C00327 00191 ∂21-May-86 1236 JMC
C00328 00192 ∂21-May-86 1726 JMC sanitized ebos proposal
C00329 00193 ∂22-May-86 1513 JMC reference to GPS
C00332 00194 ∂22-May-86 1749 JMC
C00333 00195 ∂22-May-86 2043 JMC re: reference to GPS
C00334 00196 ∂23-May-86 0928 JMC any sign of life?
C00335 00197 ∂23-May-86 1017 JMC Friedberg
C00336 00198 ∂23-May-86 1052 JMC Linguistic Institute proposal
C00338 00199 ∂23-May-86 1635 JMC re: Saturday schedule
C00339 00200 ∂23-May-86 1636 JMC re: pointwise circ'n paper
C00340 00201 ∂23-May-86 1859 JMC re: maternity leave (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00343 00202 ∂23-May-86 2359 JMC Shoham
C00344 00203 ∂24-May-86 0010 JMC good
C00348 00204 ∂24-May-86 1311 JMC unempl.ess[ess,jmc]
C00349 00205 ∂24-May-86 1446 JMC re: Mason trip request
C00350 00206 ∂24-May-86 1842 JMC prolog digest
C00351 00207 ∂25-May-86 0857 JMC reply to message
C00352 00208 ∂25-May-86 1834 JMC re: any sign of life?
C00353 00209 ∂25-May-86 2249 JMC 1986 May reply to the Dreyfus's
C00356 00210 ∂25-May-86 2250 JMC Reply to Weizenbaum's second round.
C00362 00211 ∂26-May-86 1520 JMC letter to Maydell
C00363 00212 ∂27-May-86 1135 JMC
C00364 00213 ∂27-May-86 1217 JMC Stockholm
C00365 00214 ∂27-May-86 1306 JMC
C00366 00215 ∂27-May-86 1316 JMC
C00367 00216 ∂27-May-86 1441 JMC
C00368 00217 ∂27-May-86 1445 JMC re: [Reply to message recvd: 27 May 86 14:41 Pacific Time]
C00369 00218 ∂27-May-86 1810 JMC re: maternity leave (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00370 00219 ∂27-May-86 2146 JMC typo
C00371 00220 ∂28-May-86 1013 JMC re: Academic Costume
C00372 00221 ∂28-May-86 1207 JMC re: maternity leave
C00373 00222 ∂07-Jun-86 1755 JMC re: please respond!
C00374 00223 ∂07-Jun-86 1757 JMC re: Pucci visit
C00375 00224 ∂07-Jun-86 1758 JMC re: busy Friday evening? (6/6)
C00376 00225 ∂07-Jun-86 1856 JMC re: busy Friday evening? (6/6)
C00377 00226 ∂07-Jun-86 1923 JMC
C00378 00227 ∂08-Jun-86 1655 JMC re: please flesh out this line of poetry (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00380 00228 ∂08-Jun-86 2321 JMC I always thought musicians were fools.
C00385 00229 ∂09-Jun-86 1127 JMC re: telex from Barbara Kuhn
C00386 00230 ∂09-Jun-86 1129 JMC re: I always thought musicians were fools.
C00387 00231 ∂09-Jun-86 1457 JMC You and I and Les should get together on Qlisp
C00388 00232 ∂09-Jun-86 1520 JMC re: Trip to LA
C00389 00233 ∂09-Jun-86 1601 JMC re: ebos meeting
C00390 00234 ∂09-Jun-86 1843 JMC re: EBOS meeting
C00391 00235 ∂10-Jun-86 0729 Mailer failed mail returned
C00392 00236 ∂10-Jun-86 1008 JMC Please find that letter.
C00393 00237 ∂10-Jun-86 1105 JMC
C00394 00238 ∂10-Jun-86 1343 JMC Ernest Davis
C00395 00239 ∂10-Jun-86 1418 JMC re: Ebos meeting
C00396 00240 ∂10-Jun-86 1420 JMC reply to message
C00397 00241 ∂10-Jun-86 1428 JMC re: EuLisp meeting in Bath -- Private Message
C00398 00242 ∂10-Jun-86 1452 JMC re: CSL fac cand--MacQueen
C00399 00243 ∂10-Jun-86 1456 JMC re: calendar item
C00400 00244 ∂10-Jun-86 1457 JMC re: CSL fac cand--MacQueen
C00401 00245 ∂10-Jun-86 1535 JMC
C00402 00246 ∂10-Jun-86 1608 JMC United Cerebral Palsy Computer Access Project.
C00403 00247 ∂10-Jun-86 1712 JMC re: where?
C00404 00248 ∂10-Jun-86 1816 JMC re: Evaluation of CS Profs @ Stanford (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00405 00249 ∂10-Jun-86 1854 JMC re: Evaluation of CS Profs @ Stanford (from SAIL's BBOARD) (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00409 00250 ∂11-Jun-86 1550 JMC reply to message
C00410 00251 ∂11-Jun-86 1553 JMC re: Starting summer work
C00411 00252 ∂11-Jun-86 1706 JMC Why no AI?
C00412 00253 ∂11-Jun-86 1822 JMC re: Low signal-to-noise ratio on SU-BBOARD (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00414 00254 ∂11-Jun-86 1852 JMC possible research associate position
C00415 00255 ∂12-Jun-86 1218 JMC re: timberline workshop
C00416 00256 ∂12-Jun-86 1420 JMC Re: possible research associate position
C00418 00257 ∂12-Jun-86 1421 JMC re: possible research associate position
C00419 00258 ∂12-Jun-86 1436 JMC Re: possible research associate position
C00421 00259 ∂12-Jun-86 1508 JMC re: Alliant
C00422 00260 ∂12-Jun-86 1551 JMC re: mail probably intended for you
C00423 00261 ∂12-Jun-86 1555 JMC misdirected mail from Earl Dowdy and Jim Dray
C00424 00262 ∂12-Jun-86 1758 JMC reply to message
C00426 00263 ∂12-Jun-86 1830 JMC re: Why no AI?
C00427 00264 ∂13-Jun-86 0936 JMC re: CSL fac cand--MacQueen
C00428 00265 ∂13-Jun-86 1635 JMC
C00429 00266 ∂13-Jun-86 1640 JMC re: Strategic Planning Meeting
C00430 00267 ∂13-Jun-86 1643 JMC re: reply to message
C00431 00268 ∂13-Jun-86 1740 JMC re: [AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>: Exec Council Meeting]
C00432 00269 ∂13-Jun-86 1741 JMC re: free tech conf registration
C00433 00270 ∂14-Jun-86 1356 JMC Interpress
C00434 00271 ∂14-Jun-86 1620 JMC re: NEXT
C00435 00272 ∂14-Jun-86 1720 JMC Israel and the Arabs
C00444 00273 ∂15-Jun-86 0942 JMC
C00446 00274 ∂16-Jun-86 0920 JMC
C00447 00275 ∂16-Jun-86 0943 JMC re: Common Lisp
C00448 00276 ∂16-Jun-86 1140 JMC further development of Lisp
C00456 00277 ∂16-Jun-86 1143 JMC re: Bob Givan
C00457 00278 ∂16-Jun-86 1145 JMC re: objectivity
C00458 00279 ∂16-Jun-86 1204 JMC letter
C00459 00280 ∂16-Jun-86 1206 JMC
C00460 00281 ∂16-Jun-86 1801 JMC re: stolen land (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00461 00282 ∂16-Jun-86 2307 JMC re: A proposal
C00462 00283 ∂16-Jun-86 2307 JMC A proposal
C00471 00284 ∂17-Jun-86 1233 JMC
C00472 00285 ∂17-Jun-86 1707 JMC re: Alliant acceptance
C00473 00286 ∂17-Jun-86 1729 JMC
C00474 00287 ∂17-Jun-86 1758 JMC two proposed workshops
C00476 00288 ∂17-Jun-86 2212 JMC Hussein's positions
C00482 00289 ∂18-Jun-86 0009 JMC possible Freiling visit
C00483 00290 ∂18-Jun-86 0034 JMC
C00484 00291 ∂18-Jun-86 0038 JMC
C00485 00292 ∂18-Jun-86 1115 JMC re: (on TTY161) Documentation? (Non-Sail Ascii terminals)
C00486 00293 ∂18-Jun-86 1359 JMC Nunez
C00487 00294 ∂18-Jun-86 1409 JMC Message to Dantzig
C00488 00295 ∂18-Jun-86 1439 JMC book
C00489 00296 ∂18-Jun-86 1536 JMC
C00490 00297 ∂18-Jun-86 1732 JMC re: two proposed workshops
C00491 00298 ∂19-Jun-86 1015 JMC re: blocks
C00492 00299 ∂19-Jun-86 1016 JMC reply to message
C00493 00300 ∂19-Jun-86 1313 JMC
C00494 00301 ∂19-Jun-86 1344 JMC
C00495 00302 ∂19-Jun-86 1346 JMC
C00497 00303 ∂19-Jun-86 1843 JMC re: Zionism and Beauty Contests (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00500 00304 ∂19-Jun-86 2342 JMC Did paper by Ernest Davis get in AAAI-86?
C00501 00305 ∂20-Jun-86 0002 JMC E. Davis
C00502 00306 ∂20-Jun-86 1046 JMC US-Japan collaboration
C00507 00307 ∂20-Jun-86 1130 JMC re: US-Japan collaboration
C00508 00308 ∂20-Jun-86 1352 JMC Third International Conference on AI and Education
C00509 00309 ∂20-Jun-86 1400 JMC 2nd AAAI Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems.
C00510 00310 ∂20-Jun-86 1406 JMC re: AAAI-sponsored scientific meeting?
C00511 00311 ∂20-Jun-86 1409 JMC another
C00512 00312 ∂20-Jun-86 1430 JMC re: possible Freiling visit
C00513 00313 ∂20-Jun-86 1434 JMC
C00514 00314 ∂20-Jun-86 1449 JMC letter to Manevitz
C00517 00315 ∂20-Jun-86 1511 JMC Workshop on Complex Learning
C00518 00316 ∂20-Jun-86 1516 JMC
C00519 00317 ∂20-Jun-86 1520 JMC reply to message
C00520 00318 ∂20-Jun-86 1533 JMC
C00521 00319 ∂20-Jun-86 1746 JMC reply to message
C00522 00320 ∂20-Jun-86 2151 JMC
C00523 00321 ∂21-Jun-86 1742 JMC re: Alliant
C00524 00322 ∂22-Jun-86 1751 JMC re: historical question
C00526 00323 ∂22-Jun-86 2304 JMC Chernobyl
C00530 00324 ∂23-Jun-86 1326 Mailer failed mail returned
C00531 00325 ∂23-Jun-86 1333 JMC
C00532 00326 ∂23-Jun-86 1334 JMC
C00533 00327 ∂23-Jun-86 1440 JMC We shouldn't be paying.
C00534 00328 ∂23-Jun-86 1442 JMC
C00535 00329 ∂23-Jun-86 1444 JMC
C00536 00330 ∂23-Jun-86 1450 JMC
C00537 00331 ∂23-Jun-86 1657 JMC
C00538 00332 ∂23-Jun-86 1834 JMC re: hosts
C00539 00333 ∂23-Jun-86 1836 JMC re: Gnu & Editor based operating system
C00540 00334 ∂23-Jun-86 1855 JMC re: cultural brainwashing (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00542 00335 ∂23-Jun-86 2223 JMC re: Freiling visit
C00543 00336 ∂23-Jun-86 2242 JMC re: domain names
C00544 00337 ∂24-Jun-86 0040 JMC reservations to Portland
C00545 00338 ∂24-Jun-86 0815 JMC re: Paper on circumscription and induction
C00546 00339 ∂24-Jun-86 0847 JMC re: Macqueen impressions
C00547 00340 ∂24-Jun-86 0920 JMC
C00548 00341 ∂27-Jun-86 1306 JMC re: machine learning workshop
C00549 00342 ∂27-Jun-86 1327 JMC re: Hi
C00550 00343 ∂27-Jun-86 2145 JMC re: Hussein's position (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00552 00344 ∂27-Jun-86 2203 JMC re: Chernobyl (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00553 00345 ∂27-Jun-86 2213 JMC re: contra aid (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00554 00346 ∂28-Jun-86 0906 JMC
C00555 00347 ∂28-Jun-86 1658 JMC re: It's CONTRA AID! (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00557 00348 ∂28-Jun-86 1704 JMC re: avg life expectancy (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00558 00349 ∂28-Jun-86 1750 JMC re: First discussion topic
C00560 00350 ∂28-Jun-86 1901 JMC re: Contra aid (from SAIL's BBOARD)
C00565 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂03-Apr-86 0931 JMC
To: RPG
Yes, I'll give those talks.
∂03-Apr-86 1336 JMC re: What do you think?
To: TRACZ@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 3 Apr 86 12:37:05-PST.]
I can understand why you got only a few ideas. To express my own opinion
on the questions you raise might require writing 20 pages, especially as
my opinions on some of the topics you list would be indefinite, and there
would be other ways of dividing some of the topics I would prefer. There
is also the problem of distinguishing the importance of the topic per se
from the importance of the questions currently being raised. Therefore,
I can't bring myself to answer your questions as posed beyond the remark
that I consider AI important and CD/Optical Disks not really a research
topic at all except for people working on a narrow area of hardware.
∂03-Apr-86 1350 JMC re: trip to Austin
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Apr-86 13:48-PT.]
Yes, please.
∂03-Apr-86 1353 JMC
To: rosenschein@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
{\bf McCarthy, John (1977)}:
``On The Model Theory of Knowledge'' (with M. Sato, S. Igarashi, and
T. Hayashi), {\it Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference
on Artificial Intelligence}, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
∂03-Apr-86 1414 JMC re: VTSS course
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Apr-86 13:58-PT.]
I still don't have it.
∂03-Apr-86 1603 JMC reply to message
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 3 Apr 86 15:15:33 PST.]
I have received the papers of Dreyfus, Winograd and Searle.
I am leaving for two weeks on Sunday and probably will not
be able to reply till I return.
∂03-Apr-86 1800 JMC re: "Any fool" reference
To: ROSENSCHEIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 3 Apr 86 17:28:30-PST.]
I forgot. IJCAI bungled and lost the manuscript. There is a Stanford
CS report of the same title.
∂03-Apr-86 1926 JMC re: Qlisp Task Description
To: LES, RPG, CLT
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 03-Apr-86 18:47-PT.]
My goal is less to have a full Common Lisp with extensions for parallelism
than to have a working Qlisp with enough features so that programming
experience in making Qlisp parallel process can be obtained.
∂03-Apr-86 2012 JMC re: Milestones
To: RPG, LES, CLT
[In reply to message from RPG rcvd 03-Apr-86 19:54-PT.]
Fine but are you sure that the Qlisp constructions are
unambiguous when extended over the whole of Commmon Lisp?
I know of know counterexamples, but I haven't thought about
it enough to be confident.
∂03-Apr-86 2146 JMC re: EBOS budget
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Apr-86 20:17-PT.]
Please show me the budget that comes to $135,416.
∂04-Apr-86 0127 JMC responses
To: vijay.ernie@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
I found the three papers disappointingly insubstantial.
I have written out responses to all of them, but I think I'll
hold on to the responses to Searle and the Dreyfus's until
I return from the two week trip to Europe I'm starting on
Sunday. Searle's was the most fun, because it offers the
opportunity to respond to him with the same vigor with
which he treats those with whose opinions he disagrees.
I'm sending you the response to Winograd in the
hopes that it will induce him to overcome his laziness
and subject more of the material from his book to criticism.
Here is the response to the little Winograd wrote.
I would defend the "rationalistic orientation" against the
attack given in Flores's and Winograd's book, which I have read,
had Winograd bothered to present some of the attack. This defense,
however, would have to admit that some of the examples
in the book present problems for previous formalizations used
in AI. Their proper treatment requires a considerable elaboration
of the existing, though new, methods of formalized non-monotonic
reasoning. They may also require something along the lines of
formalized contexts, a subject I have recently been studying.
I especially like the question about whether there is
water in the refrigerator, the issue of what knowledge of flies
may be ascribed to a frog's retina, and the Heidegger (or is
it Flores and Winograd) parable of hammering.
Oh well, too bad.
As for the stuff about considering the consequences of
one's work, one should indeed, but the one must remember that
the scientist isn't the boss of society and can neither force
society to use the results of science nor prevent it from doing
so.
∂04-Apr-86 0144 JMC re: responses
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 3 Apr 86 15:22:57 PST.]
I found the three papers disappointingly insubstantial.
I have written out responses to all of them, but I think I'll
hold on to the responses to Searle and the Dreyfus's until
I return from the two week trip to Europe I'm starting on
Sunday. Searle's was the most fun, because it offers the
opportunity to respond to him with the same vigor with
which he treats those with whose opinions he disagrees.
I'm sending you the response to Winograd in the
hopes that it will induce him to overcome his laziness
and subject more of the material from his book to criticism.
Here is the response to what little Winograd wrote.
I would defend the "rationalistic orientation" against the
attack given in Flores's and Winograd's book, which I have read,
had Winograd bothered to present some of the attack. This defense,
however, would agree that some of the examples
in the book present problems that AI has not yet solved.
Their proper treatment requires a considerable elaboration
of the existing, though new, methods of formalized non-monotonic
reasoning. They may also require something along the lines of
formalized contexts, a subject I have recently been studying.
I especially like the question about whether there is
water in the refrigerator, the issue of what knowledge of flies
may be ascribed to a frog's retina, and the Heidegger (or is
it Flores and Winograd) parable of hammering.
Oh well, too bad.
As for the stuff about considering the consequences of
one's work, one should indeed, but the one must remember that
the scientist isn't the boss of society and can neither force
society to use the results of science nor prevent it from doing
so.
∂04-Apr-86 0146 JMC re: EBOS Budget
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Apr-86 23:37-PT.]
I'll think about whether to flush the student or the whole project
try the local IBM for more support or try to get Ralph to help with
Greep's support.
∂04-Apr-86 0146 JMC
To: LES
Who pays for Lauren Weinstein, UCL?
∂04-Apr-86 1202 JMC re: Quote on teaching (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
I remember once having a new idea on how to teach something. I
was teaching differential equations here at Stanford in 1954 and reached
the topic in the book of linear differential equations with constant
co-efficients with trigonometric functions on the right hand side.
It occurred to me to vary the treatment by taking a finite dimensional
space spanned by products of some powers of x and the trig functions
that appeared on the right hand side and to regard the differential
operator as represented by a matrix. The matrix is singular in general
and the various cases of solvability are reflected in properties of
the matrix and the vector representing the right hand side. I thought
it went well, and the class seemed to understand. However, it turned
out that some of the students protested to the math department that
I evidently didn't understand the material, since I sometimes changed
my mind at the blackboard on how to present it. Thus originality
has its risks - not serious in this case.
∂04-Apr-86 1528 JMC Charniak
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
Please mail me your EMAIL address for Charniak.
∂04-Apr-86 1631 JMC
To: SJM
I'm done with women2 for the next two weeks.
∂04-Apr-86 1743 JMC re: Charniak
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 4 Apr 86 16:58:34 PST.]
I want to think more about my responses to the Dreyfus's and Searle. Also
all three of them attack the rationalist approach, using caricatures
of one kind or another. Therefore, it might be useful if I were to
produce also a more generalized exposition of what I regard as a present
day rationalist approach to AI. They could then attack it.
∂04-Apr-86 1848 JMC re: Alliant 5th Proposal
To: LES, CLT
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 04-Apr-86 18:47-PT.]
That looks good enough.
∂04-Apr-86 2116 JMC re: slides
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 04-Apr-86 19:37-PT.]
Thanks, Rutie.
∂05-Apr-86 0949 JMC re: [CSNET-RELAY Memo Service: Failed mail (msg.a027248)]
To: bibel%germany.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Sat, 5 Apr 86 10:55:59 MET.]
I received the message addressed as follows.
mccarthy%su-ai.arpa%germany.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA.
However, it would be better to replace mccarthy by jmc.
Picking me up Thursday morning would be fine.
If it's convenient I'll phone you at home Wednesday evening
or you can phone me at the hotel Wednesday evening.
I have no idea about whether I'll be very tired or not.
I'm leaving Stanford tomorrow afternoon, so you won't be
able to get me by electronic mail here after then.
Just before I come to Munich I'll be visiting Alan Bundy
in Edinburgh, and his electronic mail address from here
is
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa
However, unless there is some surprise, communicating at Munich
will suffice.
∂05-Apr-86 1042 JMC finite versions of Freiling's axioms
To: IAM, CLT
A finite version has the form. For any map
f taking a set X of n elements into subsets
of not more than k elements, ∃x1 x2.(¬(x1 ε f(x2)) ∧ ¬(x2 ε f(x1))).
Let N(k) be the largest n for which the statement is false,
and let f↓k be the map that demonstrates it. Of course, the
finite true versions of the axiom for fixed k are all theorems
of Peano arithmetic. We have N(1) = 3, and f↓1 can be taken as
the cyclic permutation of three elements. When n is a power
of three (say 3↑m) we can construct a map as follows. Divide X in three
parts taken cyclically and include the next part in f(x) for
x in one of the parts. This is enough to show that x1 and
x2 can't be in different parts, but they could be in the same
part. However, we can divide each part in 3 and add to the
image of each point all the points of the successor part
and continue the process till we get down to a cyclic permutation.
We then have k = (3↑m - 1)/2 if I haven't made a mistake. This
tells us that N(k) grows at least as fast as 2k. My guess is
that this is indeed how fast it grows, which would say that the
the finite versions of Freiling's first axiom are very true indeed,
thus making the infinite version very plausible.
∂05-Apr-86 1907 JMC requested papers
To: RA
I recommended two papers to Paul Haley at Inference, so please ask their
authors to send them to him in L.A.
Mike Genesereth and David Smith - Recursive Inference
William Clancey -Heuristic Classification
∂06-Apr-86 0922 JMC (→17721 20-Apr-86)
To: "#___JMC.PLN[2,2]"
I will be travelling from April 6 to April 20. Rutie Adler has my
schedule.
∂06-Apr-86 1003 JMC
To: CLT
305 583-9318 Sue Walker Toledo
∂06-Apr-86 1011 JMC Toledo paper
To: RA@SU-AI.ARPA
CC: or.dantzig@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
The chron file has a paper by Sue Walker Toledo. If Professor Dantzig
wants it please send it to him.
∂06-Apr-86 1348 JMC
To: CLT
color[s86,jmc] contains preliminary notes for the letter to math. intell.
∂07-Apr-86 0857 JMC visit
To: bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK
Yes, the visit is on. I'll be staying with the Michaelson's.
I'll be glad to give an informal seminar, but I don't have
a specific title now.
∂07-Apr-86 0901 JMC
To: CLT, LES
∂07-Apr-86 0623 somewhere!ito@aoba.tohoku.junet
Received: from SU-SHASTA.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Apr 86 06:23:10 PST
Received: by su-shasta.arpa with TCP; Mon, 7 Apr 86 06:23:03 pst
Received: by ntt.junet (4.12/4.7JC-7) CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL
id AA05102; Mon, 7 Apr 86 10:34:50 jst
Received: by ntt.junet (4.12/4.7JC-7) CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL
id AA05076; Mon, 7 Apr 86 10:34:16 jst
Message-Id: <8604070134.AA05076@ntt.junet>
Received: by aoba.tohoku.junet (systemV.tohoku)
id AA05212; Sat, 5 Apr 86 23:30:55 JST
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 86 23:30:55 JST
From: ito@aoba.tohoku.junet (Takayasu ITO)
To: nttlab!nttlab!nttlab!Shasta!jmc@su-ai
Subject: On Lisp System
Dear Professor McCarthy:
I am sending this mail to you since I have heard that you have started
your project on Parallel Lisp System.
Last year my graduate students implemented a simple experimental parallel
processor based on MC68000. We constructed four MC68000's system successfully
,which works in 12.5MHz and have 0.5MB local memory and 4MB common memory at
present. We are expanding our system for eight MC68000's system.We are
designing parallel processor system based on MC68020's.
My graduate student and I are working on designing and implementing Parallel
Lisp System on these parallel processor system (and concurrent object oriented system).
My student have a good experience of writing Franzlisp interpreter on Unix
Workstation based on MC68000 and MC68020,using Assembler of MC68000.
This experience helps us to implement Parallel Lisp system.
At present our Lisp system automatically detect program fragment which can
be executed in parallel.
I appreciate if you would let me know the state of your project.
Professor M. Sato,formerly at University of Tokyo, was promoted as Full
Professor of Tohoku University on April 1st as you might know.
Please come to visit Sendai when you visit Japan next time.
Sincerely,Takayasu Ito(Sendai)
P.S.: My daughter was visiting my friend at Stanford to have experience to
stay at your country.She returned home on April 1st. She told me
that she could see you at campus while she was walking with Richards.
If you are going to attend IFIP at Dublin we may be able to see there.
∂08-Apr-86 1243 JMC
To: CLT
bye from Austin
∂20-Apr-86 0001 JMC Expired plan
To: JMC
Your plan has just expired. You might want to make a new one.
Here is the text of the old plan:
I will be travelling from April 6 to April 20. Rutie Adler has my
schedule.
∂20-Apr-86 2240 JMC re: Program Committee Reception
To: AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 9 Apr 86 09:48:22-PST.]
I hope to make it.
∂20-Apr-86 2244 JMC re: AI DISC: Douglas Hofstadter
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 9 Apr 86 10:33:32 PST.]
I have Hofstadter's.
∂20-Apr-86 2246 JMC Errata for Lisp Programming & Proving
To: CLT
∂09-Apr-86 1129 KOHEN@SU-SUSHI.ARPA Errata for Lisp Programming & Proving
Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Apr 86 11:29:32 PST
Date: Wed 9 Apr 86 11:30:30-PST
From: Abraham Kohen <KOHEN@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
Subject: Errata for Lisp Programming & Proving
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12197511258.19.KOHEN@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
Errata:
LISP Programming & Proving @ 1984
(Version TeXed at 12:12pm September 19,1984)
p.37 equations (8)
fibb[n,k,m] <- if n = 0 then k else ....
↑
↑
reads "then k"
should be "then m"
(Symbols used above are approximations.)
(Been carrying this errata note in my pocket for some time now, so if
someone else has already noted this, then never mind.)
Abe Kohen
-------
∂20-Apr-86 2247 JMC re: finals CS306
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Apr-86 11:34-PT.]
I will be grateful to him for that.
∂20-Apr-86 2249 JMC re: pointer needed
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Apr-86 14:16-PT.]
I did, and I referred to it in my 1980 circumscription paper and
possibly in my 1977 paper.
∂20-Apr-86 2250 JMC re: Mitchell visit
To: HIRSH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 10 Apr 86 15:50:33-PST.]
No constraints.
∂20-Apr-86 2251 JMC re: The next contest . . .
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 11-Apr-86 00:35-PT.]
Gang of Four
∂20-Apr-86 2252 JMC re: Miklos Simonovits
To: guibas@DECWRL.DEC.COM
[In reply to message sent 11 Apr 1986 1123-PST.]
I have no competitor.
∂20-Apr-86 2253 JMC reply to message
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 11 Apr 86 17:38:20 PST.]
Got it.
∂20-Apr-86 2255 JMC re: talk at May CPSR meeting
To: Carnese@SRI-KL.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Sun, 13 Apr 1986 21:42 PST.]
OK, I'll be there if you tell me where. I will want an overhead projector.
∂20-Apr-86 2257 JMC re: Fellowships in AI←
To: WINOGRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 14 Apr 86 12:15:49-PST.]
Probably, but not addressed to me. Let me wait for other reaction.
∂20-Apr-86 2259 JMC re: IBM Almaden dedication ceremony
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Apr-86 15:29-PT.]
I can't come; I'll be in Sweden.
∂20-Apr-86 2300 JMC re: Mitchell meeting times
To: HIRSH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 15 Apr 86 22:34:19-PST.]
1:30 to 2 is ok.
∂20-Apr-86 2302 JMC re: AI Disc: Joseph Weizenbaum
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 15 Apr 86 23:32:47 PST.]
I have Weizenbaum's.
∂20-Apr-86 2308 JMC re: Industrial lecturers
To: WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 17 Apr 86 16:51:11-PST.]
I don't understand how Sowa could arrange to come if he is at Yorktown.
We pay $4K for a quarter course, so it is appropriate for someone already
in the area. The lecturers for the following year are determined in
January. I would appreciate receiving praise of Reid Smith, by
message or in person, at the beginning of January.
∂20-Apr-86 2310 JMC re: Industrial Lecturship
To: gnelson@DECWRL.DEC.COM
CC: berg@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu, 17 Apr 86 16:56:09 pst.]
I thought we have already scheduled you, and Kathryn Berg spoke
to you about which quarter.
∂20-Apr-86 2315 JMC re: AI Fellowships
To: Bonnie%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu, 17 Apr 86 15:03 EST.]
Sorry to offend, but I said "historically", not "inevitably" or "desirably".
Actually, I would have no objection to the amendment of any collective
document.
∂20-Apr-86 2317 JMC re: SIGART
To: VARDI@IBM.COM
[In reply to message sent 18 Apr 86 14:49:46 PST.]
I'm a member. Apart from the fact that it has been overshadowed by
AAAI, it functions reasonably.
∂20-Apr-86 2319 JMC re: Invitation
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 20-Apr-86 19:51-PT.]
I have no objection, but you might want to be careful about signing
anything that prevents further publication of a longer version.
∂21-Apr-86 0839 JMC re: AI Search Committee
To: RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 21 Apr 86 08:24:19-PST.]
yes
∂21-Apr-86 1055 JMC re: Miklos Simonovits
To: guibas@DECWRL.DEC.COM
[In reply to message sent 21 Apr 1986 1018-PST.]
I'm truly puzzled about why you are asking me this question. Perhaps
you imagine this is connected with Industrial Lecturers. I am only
the advocate of regular visiting appointments but have no responsibility
or authority. The authority and responsibility lie with Nils as Department
Chairman.
∂21-Apr-86 1127 JMC re: Industrial Lecturship
To: gnelson@DECWRL.DEC.COM
CC: berg@SU-SCORE.ARPA, reges@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message from gnelson@decwrl.DEC.COM sent 21 Apr 1986 1033-PST.]
I doubt that an estimate of the number of students is available, but
perhaps Stuart Reges knows the variance of attendance at previous
such courses. Whether there are undergraduates is basically up to you,
but the probability that some will want to enroll is a function of the
course description now in the catalog. I dunno about a TA; that is
Reges's department. Likewise photocopying and office space. There
is a regular mechanism for photocopying and charging the students.
I believe they are charged according to expected amount of notes, and
then individual handouts are not charged or accounted for.
∂21-Apr-86 1127 JMC re: Industrial Lecturship
To: reges@SU-SCORE.ARPA
∂21-Apr-86 1118 gnelson@decwrl.DEC.COM re: Industrial Lecturship
Received: from DECWRL.DEC.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Apr 86 11:14:17 PST
Received: from magic.ARPA (magic) by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
id AA18714; Mon, 21 Apr 86 10:36:25 pst
Received: by magic.ARPA (4.22.04/4.7.34)
id AA01189; Mon, 21 Apr 86 10:34:02 pst
From: gnelson@decwrl.DEC.COM (Greg Nelson)
Message-Id: <8604211834.AA01189@magic.ARPA>
Date: 21 Apr 1986 1033-PST (Monday)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc: berg@SU-SCORE.ARPA, gnelson@decwrl.DEC.COM
Subject: re: Industrial Lecturship
In-Reply-To: Your message of 20 Apr 86 2310 PST.
<8604210713.AA10376@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Kathryn Berg asked me which quarter I preferred, and I said the fall.
I did not get the impression from her that everything (or even much of
anything) was settled.
If you have scheduled me for the fall, I'd like to know more about what
to expect. A ballpark estimate of the number of students would be
helpful. Will there be undergraduates? Can I hire a TA, and will the
department pay for photocopying lecture notes? Will I have office space
for holding office hours?
Greg
∂21-Apr-86 1551 JMC re: [Ellie Engelmore <EEngELmore@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>: SJ Mercury/Book Review request]
To: FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 21 Apr 86 15:41:05-PST.]
I would be glad to review Rozak's book.
∂22-Apr-86 1349 JMC Common Business Communication Language
To: RA
∂22-Apr-86 1130 nttlab!NTT-20!Goto@su-shasta.arpa Common Business Communication Language
Received: from SU-SHASTA.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Apr 86 10:51:39 PST
Received: by su-shasta.arpa with TCP; Tue, 22 Apr 86 10:51:21 pst
Received: by ntt.junet (4.12/4.7JC-7) CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL
id AA15590; Tue, 22 Apr 86 14:55:58 jst
Message-Id: <8604220555.AA15590@ntt.junet>
Date: 22 Apr 1986 1453
From: Shigeki Goto <nttlab!NTT-20!Goto@su-shasta.arpa>
Subject: Common Business Communication Language
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: kawasima@nttyrl.ntt.junet, nttlab!NTT-20!goto@su-shasta.arpa
John,
One of my colleagues at NTT Laboratories got interested in your work
on the Common Business Language. Could you send your paper to him?
Thanks in advance.
-- Shigeki, sg@sail = "nttlab!goto"@Shasta
===== Forwarded message =====
From: Nobuo Kawashima
NTT Commun's and Inf. Proc. Labs.
Subject: Common Business Communication Language
Dear Prof. McCarthy:
I am writing you to ask a favor. When I attended at the International
Symposium on Prospects and problems of Interpreting Telephony, which
was held on Apr. 12, 1986 in Tokyo, Dr. Philip. R. Cohen of SRI
International mentioned your Common Business Communication Language
as a suggestion for the research on interpreting telephony.
I would appreciate it if you could send me a copy of your papers on
Common Business Communication Language. Following is the address of
my laboratory:
Nobuo Kawashima
Commun. Proc. Programs Sect.
NTT Commun's and Inf. Proc. Labs.
1-2356, Take
Yokosuka, Kanagawa
238-03 JAPAN
Thank you in advance.
---------
-------
∂22-Apr-86 1605 JMC
To: ME
I have mislaid what you told me about what my ultimate net address will be.
∂23-Apr-86 0851 JMC lecture at DARPA
To: simpson@USC-ISI.ARPA
Am I expected April 28? I can make it, but I could supply a proper
abstract if there were a bit more time. The title will be "The logic
approach to AI".
∂23-Apr-86 1014 JMC
To: RA
Anything labelled News from Persoft should go instantly to the wastebasket.
∂23-Apr-86 1117 JMC Report on Scientific Contributions of Computer Science
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
John Hopcroft is preparing such a report at the request of NSF. Draft
copies are available from Rutie Adler (RA@SAIL). Hopcroft solicits
comments. Presumably the report will be used in some way by Kent Curtis.
∂23-Apr-86 1250 JMC re: japan
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 23-Apr-86 12:09-PT.]
JAPAN[1,CLT] is ok as is. I have no papers. I suppose we could mention
Timothy as a reason for postponing travel, but most likely it isn't necessary.
∂24-Apr-86 0701 JMC We should give diplomacy a chance in Libya.
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
To begin with, some queries.
1. Why did we need the F-111s? Was it political - to involve at
least one other country? That could be a good reason. Was it
political - perhaps the Air Force didn't want it all left to the
Navy? That would be a bad reason. The reason given was that the
F-111s were more accurate, and that could be a good reason.
Losing one airplane out of eighteen is probably too high a loss
rate for the repeating the operation more than once or twice.
Was the loss to be expected?
2. Did the agreement with Britain provide for repeating the
operation?
Now for comments.
1. Already the Europeans seem to be getting used to our undertaking this
kind of operation. America is like that, they are beginning to say.
Of course, some approve. Surprisingly, the Iraqi businessman I sat
next to on an airplane, said he approved.
2. The operation makes more sense if it is part of a sustained plan
rather than a one shot. However, even the one shot seems to have
had some good effects on the attitude of the Europeans, i.e. it has
moved them off dead center. See Craxi's statement.
It also may have had some effects within Libya. If as rumored,
Cadafi (my very own spelling) has had to share power, it's unlikely
that the other four are all as crazy as he is.
3. Now that we probably have Libya's attention, it may be time for
diplomacy. Libya should, through intermediaries, be offered a reward for
giving up supporting terrorists with money and smuggling arms through
their diplomatic pouches. The reward might be a promise to refrain from
blockading them or wrecking their oil installations. Of course, it
may turn out that we don't have their attention yet.
4. The predicted big increase in terror may not occur. Libyan sponsored
terrorism may already have been limited by their ability to plan
and carry out operations. Also Caddaffi's (another spelling)
war cries, "Let's you commit suicide to avenge me." may not meet
with the mass response he hopes for.
∂24-Apr-86 0943 JMC re: pointer needed
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 24-Apr-86 09:36-PT.]
No.
∂24-Apr-86 1015 JMC re: pointer needed
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 24-Apr-86 09:59-PT.]
Sure. Send it.
∂24-Apr-86 1029 JMC re: AI Prospective/Shoham
To: RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 23 Apr 86 07:47:06-PST.]
Yes, on appointments with Etherington and Shoham.
∂24-Apr-86 1203 JMC re: AI Candidate - Batali
To: RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 24 Apr 86 11:59:10-PST.]
My part of the Batali schedule is ok.
∂24-Apr-86 1344 JMC Batali
To: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
I'm about to (mentally) flush Batali after reading his "A proposal for
research with the goal of formulating a computational theory of rational
action" unless there is something more recent that shows very substantial
progress beyond the point reached in that thesis proposal. The main
problem is vagueness illustrated by the fact that there is nothing in the
proposal about the domain (travel) in which the proposed program is to
operate. I am skeptical about the grand plan, which ignores declarative
information, and without actual progress toward implementation, we cannot
consider him as competitive with Shoham, Shankar or Mitchell. The other
two documents "computational introspection" and "Theorem Remembering" are
earlier.
Has he submitted any later work?
∂24-Apr-86 1406 JMC Afterthought on Libya
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
There is another issue concerning Libya, and that is why
we should bother doing anything about Libyan supported
terrorism other than diplomatic protests and requests for
police protection in the countries where it occurs. After
all, for tourists and diplomats it is still a considerably
smaller hazard than automobile accidents, and we don't
protest to European countries about their higher automobile
accident rates than that of the U.S.
In my present opinion, if the media would lay off, ignoring
the terrorism except for police measures might be a viable
option. However, the media find one terrorist killing much more
fun than 50 automobile deaths. Kidnappings and taking hostages
are even more fun for them, and there are relatives to be
interviewed for as long as the hostages are imprisoned.
I have not formulated the exact reasons, but I think that as
long as the media give terrorism that much publicity, then
the Government has to react, and counterattack is far more
healthy than appeasement - even if it should cost more lives,
which isn't clear.
∂24-Apr-86 1724 JMC re: Rozak Book Review
To: EEngELmore@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 24 Apr 86 17:21:32-PST.]
That's Roszak; I await Johnson's call.
∂24-Apr-86 1730 JMC
To: RA
Please find some staples that fit my stapler.
∂24-Apr-86 1742 JMC re: fun (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
I assume "hypocracy" means "excessive rule" or "big government".
As such it is anomalous to refer to a "we bit of hypocracy".
∂24-Apr-86 1907 Mailer failed mail returned
To: JMC
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The command was aborted because these Host Name(s) are Unknown:
LOTS-B.STANFORD.EDU
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
∂24-Apr-86 1907 JMC re: fun (from SAIL's BBOARD)
[In reply to message sent Thu 24 Apr 86 18:11:07-PST.]
You're right.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂24-Apr-86 1908 JMC re: fun (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: y.yduJ@LOTS-B
[In reply to message sent Thu 24 Apr 86 18:11:07-PST.]
You're right.
∂25-Apr-86 1157 JMC re: Etherington
To: NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Fri 25 Apr 86 11:52:09-PST.]
I'll come.
∂25-Apr-86 1540 JMC re: Orals committee?
To: avg@SU-AIMVAX.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Fri, 25 Apr 86 15:28:05 pst.]
I will be in Europe for the two weeks before and maybe even through June 6.
If it were even a week later, I could do it, but as is, I probably shouldn't.
∂25-Apr-86 1648 JMC re: [Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: Faculty Candidates]
To: FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 21 Apr 86 15:45:12-PST.]
Etherington is from UBC and interested in applications of logic to AI,
especially non-monotonic reasoning.
Shoham is getting his PhD at Yale as a student of McDermott and is
interested in formalizing action and time.
Batali is from M.I.T. and is interested in making a system that does
introspection.
Shankar is from U. Texas and is finishing a PhD with Boyer on pushing
Goedel's theorem through the Boyer-Moore proof checker. He also has
other AI interests.
There is also Tom Mitchell whom you know. All the others are new PhDs.
∂25-Apr-86 1819 JMC Action on Khadaffi
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
Somehow the U.S. action seems to have triggered European
action - contrary to the opinion that the action spoiled U.S.
relations with Europe.
a239 1501 25 Apr 86
AM-Europe-Libya,0495
Europe-Libya at a Glance
By The Associated Press
Following are actions this week by Western European governments to
expel or restrict the activities of Libyans living in their
countries:
---
BRITAIN - The government, citing national security, announced Friday
it would bar 336 Libyans from continuing their studies to become
pilots and airplane mechanics and expelled 22 other Libyan students.
It said the 320 studying airline mechanics and the 16 taking pilot
training would be expected to leave the country when their visas
expire.
---
SPAIN - The Foreign Minister ordered three Libyan diplomats and
eight Libyan teachers and students Friday to get out of Spain. A
statement accused the diplomats of actitivies incompatible with their
functions and said the others acted ''contrary to state security.''
The Spanish news agency, EFE, said the diplomats were a commercial
counselor and two administrative employees. It also said other Libyan
diplomats would need permission to travel outside Madrid.
---
FRANCE - The Foreign Ministry imposed restrictions Friday on the
movements of Libyan diplomats and said visa applications from Libyans
would be carefully scrutinized. It did not say how many diplomats
would be affected, but said employees of the Libyan embassy in Paris
and the consulate in Marseilles would be restricted to those
metropolitan areas. France has expelled six Libyans, including at
least two diplomats, over the past two weeks.
---
ITALY - Defense Minister Giovanni Spadolini on Friday urged the
government to implement the decision by the European Common Market to
reduce the number of Libya's diplomatic personnel in its member
countries and to restrict their movements. He did not announce any
specific actions, but said Italy has ''an unswerving duty to put into
effect a long series of anti-terrorism measures'' without delay.
---
DENMARK - The government on Thursday ordered the Libyan embassy to
reduce its staff from 11 to six, citing ''the Libyan government's
support for international terrorism.'' It said the six embassy staff
members remaining - four accredited diplomats and two administrative
assistants - will be restricted to the Copenhagen area.
---
WEST GERMANY - Libya was told Wednesday to reduce immediately its
embassy staff from 41 members to 22, with those remaining not
permitted to travel outside Bonn, the federal capital. Chancellor
Helmut Kohl said West Germany will cut back its trade with that North
African country.
---
COMMON MARKET - At a meeting Thursday in the Hague, Netherlands, the
12-nation Common Market agreed to step up the exchange of information
with the United States and other non-member countries to combat
terrorism. The information will involve names of suspected
individuals, stolen or false passports and air traffic security
measures. On Monday the Common Market advised its members to reduce
the number of Libyan diplomats in their countries, limit the movement
of those remaining and establish tighter visa regulations for
Libyans.
AP-NY-04-25-86 1801EST
***************
∂25-Apr-86 2125 JMC re: AI DISC.
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 25 Apr 86 20:18:09 PST.]
This is a reply to the middle of three messages from you; it urges
an immediate answer to the discussion. I expect to finish my answers
this weekend. The other two messages consisted of header only.
∂26-Apr-86 1128 JMC re: diplomatics question (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
It isn't merely that their diplomatic credential fails to be valid,
because no diplomatic credential is required for ordinary travel in the
U.S. The U.S. practice is to protest and declare the individual persona
non grata if their is too much repetition. "Too much" depends on the
state of relations. The Russians normally arrest people who go beyond the
bounds. In the case of a diplomat, the worst that is done is to require
him to leave the country. In the case of non-diplomats, it is a crime in
the Soviet Union to go out of the allowed area, and I believe there have
been a few prosecutions, but mostly they deport the individual - or just
threaten if the violation is minor. Again it depends on the state of
relations. In the U.S. case, there could be a law against foreigners
violating restrictions imposed on nationals of certain countries, but I
believe there is not, so the worst that can be done is deportation.
In the U.S. it is monitored very sloppily. For example, sometimes the
State Department hears that a Soviet scientific visitor, e.g. to Stanford,
attended a meeting in (say) L.A. for which he was denied permission. They
may then threaten to deport him, but usually relent if his Stanford hosts
protest. In the Soviet Union there are actual police roadblocks in the
vicinity of Moscow that stop foreign cars. However, if one buys a ticket
on a suburban train from a machine, one has a very low probability of
being caught.
∂26-Apr-86 1225 JMC reply to message
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 25 Apr 86 20:16:22 PST.]
The next four messages include a general statement of what I
regard as the rationalist or logical approach to AI and specific
replies to the Dreyfus's, Searle and Winograd. The Winograd
reply is a minor variation of what I already sent you. The
copyright notices attached to these contributions are to
maintain my right of approval over the form of publication.
In particular, I would have to approve any condensation and
wouldn't want to give a publisher exclusive rights without
sufficient reason.
∂26-Apr-86 1231 JMC The rationalist approach to AI
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
Copyright 1986 John McCarthy
In their various ways, Winograd, Searle and
the Dreyfus's are attacking rationalism. I have commented
separately on their essays, but I would like to enunciate a
doctrine about AI that bears some resemblance to what they are
attacking. In its present form it recognize that some of the
phenomena the Dreyfus's and Winograd have mentioned present
real problems that AI systems must solve.
I shall begin with the programme of my 1958 "Programs
with Common Sense" (McCarthy 1960) and then modify it.
It was proposed to represent a robot's information about
the world as sentences of mathematical logic. This information
would include both general information about the world, including
especially general information about the effects of actions and
other events. It also includes information obtained through the
robots sense organs about the particular situation.
Qualification 1. It was explicitly mentioned in that paper
that certain information, especially pictures, would be too longwinded
to represent pixel by pixel as sentences and would be represented
by any convenient data structure. It was also stated that certain
computations would most efficiently be made by programs that didn't
do logical deduction per se.
Goals and a general principle that the robot should do
what was likely to achieve its goals were also to be represented
by sentences. A subset of the sentences in the memory of the
machine were in a small database corresponding to consciousness.
The program would attempt to deduce from the sentences
in consciousness a sentence of the form should(<action>). When
it did, it would do the action. The actions included physical
and mental actions. The latter included modifying consciousness
by getting more information from memory, forgetting some
information, making observations both of the outside world
and the machine's own memory. Computations with the data
not represented by sentences would be possible actions and
could result in sentences.
There was an example of deducing from data in consciousness that
a certain two step plan would succeed in getting to the airport.
Beyond this details were not given, because they weren't available.
Nothing was said about how long all this would take. My opinion was
that conceptual problems remained to be solved, but I certainly expected
faster progress than has occurred.
I will refer to this approach and sufficiently similar
proposals by others as the "reasoning program" approach. I don't
claim that it is the only workable approach to AI. However, its
variants have had the most success so far.
While many attempts have been made to realize the plan
of "Programs with Common Sense" or variants of it, I have never
felt that the conceptual problems had been solved well enough
for my own next step to be an implementation. Nevertheless,
progress has been made both in implementing systems meeting
part of the goals and in developing improved concepts. Some
of the progress, e.g. STRIPS and Microplanner, involved putting
more information in the program or in production rules, thus
avoiding some of the combinatorial difficulties of a pure
logic approach with the almost uncontrollable predicate
calculus theorem provers that have been available.
Putting information that humans represent as facts in the
form of program has led to excessively specialized systems.
Thus it has always seemed to me that the solution would
eventually involve theorem proving problem solvers that
were controlled by referring to declarative meta-information.
Others have independently come to this conclusion but its
realization has been difficult.
One of the most serious current attempt along these lines is Michael
Genesereth's MRS.
While I have described this rationalist approach in
terms of my own work, many of the concepts in similar
or variant form have been developed independently by other
people.
Akin to this viewpoint is Allen Newell's (1980) notion
of the "logic level" and the ideas of my "Ascribing Mental
Qualities to Machines" (1980) and Daniel Dennett's "intensional stance".
These notions all take the view that beliefs and goals may
legitimately be ascribed to physical systems independently
of whether sentences in some language are explicitly represented.
The ascription is legitimate when certain minimal properties
of the concepts are realized and useful when it helps understand
interesting aspects of the structure, state or behavior of the system.
These ascriptions are piecemeal, and do not require anything
like the full set of properties of the human mind. While
all of us believe that eventually the full set of human
mental properties will be understood and realized in
computer programs, no-one currently claims to understand
what they all are.
Now I shall return to the reasoning program approach.
It has been modified in various ways. The most important
modification is the addition of non-monotonic reasoning since
the late 1970s. In some sense non-monotonic reasoning was
already anticipated in the 1958 proposal, because the ability
to observe its own consciousness could generate sentences
that sentences of a certain kind did not exist in consciousness,
and such sentences could be realized deductively. However,
my attempts to work this out at that time merely confused me.
Non-monotonic reasoning has been proposed both at the
program level and at the logical level. At the program level
we have Jon Doyle's TMS and the more recent ATMS of Johann de Kleer.
Less systematic approaches to default reasoning have been included
in many programs.
At the logic level we have my circumscription, the McDermott
and Doyle non-monotonic logic and Reiter's logic of defaults.
Non-monotonic reasoning is important in solving some of the
problems cited by the gang of three as reasons why logic can't be
successful. It is also relevant to Carl Hewitt's and Marvin Minsky's
objections to logic as the basis of AI.
It seems to me that these objections are based on an observation
and an intuition. The observation is that the collections of facts
used as a basis of reasoning by all contemporary AI programs are too
specialized to the problem the particular program is solving. Thus
they could not be incorporated as is in a general common sense database.
This is also true of the rules in the various semi-logical approaches
used in expert system shells. More specifically there is the qualification
problem, e.g. the problem that specification of the conditions under
which an action (rowing a boat across a river) can be performed cannot
be made complete, because one can always invent some exotic condition
that would prevent the action from being successful.
My 1980 and 1986 papers in Artificial Intelligence on circumscription
make proposals for relieving this problem by using the circumscription
method of non-monotonic reasoning. Proposals for this and other
ways of incorporating non-monotonic reasoning into logic have been
in the literature since 1980. However, none of the critics of AI
have bothered to comment on them. Perhaps the logic, though not deep,
is too technical for them.
My opinion is that more is required than the uses of non-monotonic
reasoning that have been developed so far. To this end I am working
on a formalized notion of context. The idea is to use wffs holds(p,c)
where p is a proposition and c is a context, e.g. the context of
the Sherlock Holmes stories or the context of a particular real
conversation or piece of writing. To some extent contexts correspond
to sets of assumptions, but a key idea is that the context is never
assumed to be fully known - like situations in situation calculus.
There are axioms relating different contexts, especially general
contexts and their specializations. These axioms involve non-monotonic
assumptions, so that properties of contexts are assumed to be inherited
by generalizations and other related contexts unless there is information
to the contrary.
More details have been developed, but I'm not ready to publish.
Moreover, I have found the vaguely stated conundrums proposed by Hubert Dreyfus
and by Winograd and Flores helpful in constructing examples of the
non-monotonic reasoning required. In particular, Dreyfus's ancient
notion of "ambiguity tolerance" admits an interesting non-monotonic
formalization.
Suppose there a law is passed against attempting to bribe a public
official, and a knowledge engineer has the responsibility of putting
it in a database to be used by an expert system that advises prosecutors
on when they should seek an indictment. Must this expert anticipate the
following defense that may be offered twenty years hence. "It is true
that my client offered this man $5000 to fix his drunk driving conviction
under the impression that he was the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.
However, the Governor had never signed his commission and therefore
he wasn't a public official." The issue is whether the individual
whom the defendant attempted to bribe was actually a public official
or is believing that he was a public official sufficient to make him
guilty of the attempt. Our contention is that the knowledge engineer
can put the law in the database without anticipating this ambiguity
provided he uses an "ambiguity tolerant" formalization. Ambiguity
tolerance is achieved in this case by the non-monotonic assumption
that the law is unambiguous in a particular case unless an ambiguity
is exhibited.
A more ambitious treatment of a law that may contain unknown
ambiguities is Robert Kowalski's logical formalization of the British
Nationality Act.
The Gang of Three may grumble that it is unfair to bring
unpublished work to bear on their argument against rational and
logical approaches to AI. However, they are claiming to have proved
that logic won't work, but their proofs are merely appeals to intuition.
Therefore, it seems legitimate to bring up undeveloped approaches
as counterintuitions.
Many of the issues are treated at greater length in my "Ascribing
Mental Qualities to Machines" published in Martin Ringle's Philosophical
Perspectives in Artificial Intelligence, Harvester Press, July 1979.
This publisher is so obscure that I have never met anyone who has
seen the book. Therefore, I will be glad to supply a copy of the
paper to anyone who wants it.
∂26-Apr-86 1232 JMC Reply to Dreyfus's
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
Copyright 1986, John McCarthy
The history cited by the Dreyfus's is approximately correct as far
as it goes, although I am perhaps naturally inclined to consider
incomplete the list of ideas they mention, since it doesn't mention the
"Programs with common sense" paradigm. This research programme seemed
difficult to carry out when I proposed it in 1958, and for that reason, I
always considered it likely that AI would turn out to be a difficult
scientific problem.
Remark: The people who place their hopes on parallel processors
are often distinct from those who postulate still vague notions
of holism.
"Another human capacity which computers functioning as
analytic engines cannot copy is the ability to recognize the
similarity between whole images. Recognizing two patterns as
similar, which seems to be a direct process for human
beings, is for a logic machine a complicated process of
first defining each pattern in terms of objective features
and then determining whether, by some objective criterion,
the set of features defining one pattern match the features
defining the other pattern."
It cannot be excluded that other computational processes besides
logical inference will be required for artificial intelligence. Even
non-monotonic inference may not be enough. In fact my 1958 paper
mentioned this possibility but proposed to use the processes under the
control of the logical reasoning proposed as corresponding to human
conscious thought. However, it is important to recognize that our ability
to observe our own brain processes is very partial, and therefore the fact
that we often don't identify subprocesses of the recognition of similarity
doesn't prove that there aren't any.
The common sense knowledge problem is indeed unsolved
to this day. However, you need more than that fact to prove
it unsolvable. After all it was formulated in the 1950s, and
the idea of formalized non-monotonic reasoning didn't come along
till the late 1970s. It's just a fact that science takes a long
time.
"But it just may be that the problem of finding a
theory of common sense physics is insoluble. By playing
almost endlessly with all sorts of liquids and solids for
several years the child may simply have built up a repertory
of prototypical cases of solids, liquids, etc. and typical
skilled response to their typical behavior in typical cir-
cumstances. There may be no theory of common sense physics
more simple than a list of all such typical cases and even
such a list is useless without a similarity-recognition
ability."
It isn't clear how the usage of "typical" here differs from
the generality required of a theory. The similarity-recognition
ability mentioned here and above is undescribed. However, it
must differ from the hologram type similarity hinted at above,
because it has to recognize correspondence of parts as well
as correspondence of wholes.
∂26-Apr-86 1233 JMC Searle's Deturs
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
Copyright 1986, John McCarthy
Searle's "Turing the Chinese Room" is concisely and
crisply written. It is also a pleasure to attempt to
imitate its vigorous way of dealing with people whose
opinions differ from those of the author.
For all its crispness and vigor, it is not entirely unmeaningless.
The trouble is that the crisply and tersely written "definitions" and
"propositions" have no clear meaning in any branch of knowledge.
Searle's Reith Lectures, which I have read, don't offer significantly
more detail on the important points.
For brevity I shall suppose that the reader has Searle's
paper at hand.
Definition 1 of "Strong AI". "... the ... digital computer ...
would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense that human
beings have minds". The trouble is that "exactly the same"
sense isn't a clear concept. Searle can and does put whatever
he pleases into that "exactly the same sense". In my "Ascribing
Mental Qualities to Machines", the paper in which I justify
ascribing simple beliefs to devices as simple as thermostats, I
state in what sense I take mental qualities.
"Proposition 1: Programs are purely formal (i.e. syntactical).
I take it this proposition needs no explanation for the readers
of this journal". I don't know what journal is referred to, but
it is a bluff to say that the proposition needs no explanation.
Program texts are syntactical. However, there is a well developed
theory of the the semantics of programming languages in which
programs are given semantics in essentially the same way as sentences
of logic are given semantics - the prescription of domains and
predicates and functions operating on these domains.
Didn't Searle ever take a course or read a book by his late
colleague Alfred Tarski?
"Proposition 2. Syntax is neither equivalent to nor sufficient by
itself for semantics." This can be taken as a reference to
the above fact that assigning semantics to a logical or programming
language is a step beyond merely prescribing the strings of symbols
that constitute wffs of the language. Perhaps it is also a reference
to incompleteness theorems. The sense in which it is taken is
relevant to what further conclusions can be drawn from it.
"Proposition 3. Minds have mental contents (i.e. semantic contents)" What
kind of entity a mind is supposed to be we aren't told. I suppose, since
references aren't given, that a common sense meaning is implied. I
certainly prefer interpretations in which minds have states about which it
can sometimes be said that in that state a mind has certain beliefs and
desires. For reasons discussed in my "Ascribing Mental Qualities to
Machines" paper, I think it most fruitful scientifically to treat mental
qualities in a fragmentary way, i.e. some quite simple systems can be
ascribed some mental qualities. What qualities a system would require
before Searle would admit it as a mind is unclear, but an unpleasant
fellow like me might worry that he would pack so many in that no possible
system would have all of them. If he defines mind he should prove that
minds exist, e.g. human minds, satisfying his definitions.
"Conclusion 1 : Having a program -- any program by itself --
is neither sufficient for nor equivalent to having a mind"
While the meaning of this isn't clear, taken in one attractive
sense, it seems to be false. Since the argument is based on
the idea that programs don't have semantics, and programming
languages are often given interpretations, i.e. semantics
in the Tarski sense, then programmed systems can have minds
in exactly the same sense in which programs can have semantics.
Without precise definitions we can't go further.
While I think it scientifically fruitful to ascribe mental
qualities to certain machines in the same sense in which it
is fruitful to ascribe semantics to programs, I agree that
humans have much less trivial sets of mental qualities than
can be ascribed to even the most sophisticated of today's
programs. It is an important scientific problem to identify
what these qualities are. (I say scientific, because I have
just about abandoned hope that philosophers can be persuaded
to take the problems in a sufficiently precise and detailed
scientific sense to allow them to make scientific contributions to the
problem. For example, no philosopher seems to be willing even
to try to disentangle the components of consciousness, including
the self as a physical object, the ways of comparing oneself
with other people so as to learn more about oneself and about
other people, observations that a person can make of his own state
of mind, and how the ability of a computer to read both its own
manual of operations and its own program fits in).
Remark on the Chinese room: In the present paper, the Chinese
room is almost irrelevant, but I will repeat a remark I made
in my BBS commentary on Searle's paper. Consider the very
strong form of the puzzle in which a person has a complete
set of rules for handling the Chinese texts in his mind, so
by following the rules mentally he conducts the dialog. He
indeed may not realize he is conducting a Chinese dialog.
However, the system still may be ascribed a knowledge of
Chinese. We can even imagine that our hero began with rules
for simulating a Chinese one year old, and the rules included
the possibility of self-modification so that the dialogs became
more sophisticated via a Chinese conventional education.
We have here a situation that doesn't actual occur with people
but which occurs with computers all the time. Namely, a program
in machine language interprets another language. Machines even
time-share among different interpreters which would correspond
to our here conducting three independent Chinese dialogs and
and one in German. In this case, different knowledge and
desires should be ascribed to each program being interpreted.
With normal humans, however, only one program is being executed,
and it doesn't cause confusion to ascribe the mental qualities to
the person as a physical object.
Searle then goes on to use the word "cause". There I
can't follow him, since I have read only a little of the
philosophical literature on "causality" and can't guess which
if any accepted sense he is using. It obviously not the common
sense usage of "Throwing the baseball through the window caused
it to break". Naturally I suspect the worst, and here's where
I imagine the legerdemain lies.
"But the actual powers of the brain by which it causes mental states have
to do with specific neurobiological features, specific electrochemical
properties of neurons, synapses, synaptic clefts, neurotransmitters,
boutons, nodules and all the rest of it. We summarize this brute
empirical fact about how nature works as:
Proposition 4. Brains cause minds."
The claim that this ascription is an empirical fact is, as the
philosophers like to say, confused - a category error or something
like that. Why can't I just as well say, "computers cause
the semantics of programs." I won't say it, because I don't
want to pretend to understand Searle's usage of "cause".
Now I'll skip a chain of assertions about what
causes what and go to a rather typical Searle pomposity,
namely,
"But, once again, does anyone in AI really question it? Is
there someone in AI so totally innocent of biological
knowledge that he thinks that the specfic biochemical powers
of human nervous systems can be duplicated in silicon chips
(transistors, vacuum tubes -- you name it)?"
This seems to assume that Searle has already proved that the biochemistry
is relevant to what mental qualities a system may have. But perhaps not.
Who knows what surprises may lurk in the phrase "biochemical powers"?
Maybe, as Searle suggests earlier, we've got him wrong. Perhaps the
phrase doesn't presuppose anything about the system being built up from
DNA, proteins and cells.
Finally, we have
"It can no longer be doubted that the classical concep-
tion of AI, the view that I have called strong AI, is pretty
much obviously false and rests on very simple mistakes. The
question then arises, if strong AI is false what ought AI to
be doing ? What is a reasonable research project for weak
AI? That is a topic for another paper."
Frankly, I think think this is a bluff. Distinguishing
"weak AI" is a rhetorical device that deflects attempts to
demand empirical consequences of the denial of "strong AI".
At the NY Academy meeting symposium, I predicted that someday
Searle's secretary would tell him something like, "The computer believes
that you haven't accounted for your travel advance. How will
you correct her?" If I recall correctly, he said that this
usage on her part would be ok, but it was just weak AI. This
left me entirely confused about what Searle had been asserting.
Enough years have elapsed since the original Chinese room paper
so that we can reasonably ask Searle for at least a few hundred
words on what the "electronic powers" of weak AI programmed
into a computer might be.
∂26-Apr-86 1234 JMC Winograd's vagueness
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
Copyright 1986, John McCarthy
I would defend the "rationalistic orientation" against the
attack given in Flores's and Winograd's book, which I have read,
had Winograd bothered to present some of the attack. This defense,
however, would have to admit that some of the examples
in the book present problems for previous formalizations used
in AI. Their proper treatment requires a considerable elaboration
of the existing, though new, methods of formalized non-monotonic
reasoning. They may also require something along the lines of
formalized contexts, a subject I have recently been studying.
I especially like the question about whether there is
water in the refrigerator, the issue of what knowledge of flies
may be ascribed to a frog's retina, and the Heidegger (or is
it Flores and Winograd) parable of hammering.
Oh well, too bad.
As for the stuff about considering the consequences of
one's work, one should indeed, but the one must remember that
the scientist isn't the boss of society and can neither force
society to use the results of science nor prevent it from doing
so. This division of labor between science and politics is
socially appropriate.
∂26-Apr-86 1245 JMC Comments on Hofstadter
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
Hofstadter discusses three characterizations of AI but unfortunately
omits the one I and many others favor. AI is the study of how
problems can be solved and goals can be achieved in common sense
environments. In this it is like analysis of algorithms in being
conceptually a mathematical subject. Unfortunately, we still have
no full characterization of the kinds of environment in which
AI programs must operate and in which humans achieve their impressive
performance. Nevertheless, for AI we don't need to fully imitate
human mental qualities or even to fully understand them. It's
just that, for the present, contemplating natural intelligence
is useful in developing artificial intelligence.
I agree with Hofstadter that there is a lot still to be learned
from the blocks world, but I am doubtful about letter forms. There
is also A. S. Kronrod's dictum "Chess is the Drosophila of artificial
intelligence" which may still come to life if more of the chess
programmers regard their activity as a scientific experiment rather
than just as a sport.
The chain of equalities Hofstadter lists and criticizes needs to
be replaced by a chain of relations other than equality if one
wants to make sense of it.
∂26-Apr-86 1253 JMC Reply to Weizenbaum
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
1. That's "intelligentsia".
2. The views expressed by Weizenbaum in these remarks are similar
to those in his book "Computer Power and Human Reason", and I have
commented on them at more than sufficient length in my review
of the book. Copies available on request.
3. The question of what psychological principles are embodied
in the new chess program is, I believe, dealt with in Berliner's
paper on Hitech.
∂26-Apr-86 1259 JMC Comments on Rumelhart
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
Copyright 1986, John McCarthy
In general I have only minor quibbles with Rumelhart's classification of
AI related activities. Whether PDP style architectures will win out over
logic based architectures or whether they will be combined is something
for the future to tell us.
∂26-Apr-86 1301 JMC request for acknowledgment
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
Please acknowledge receipt of the following messages:
general position statement and separate messages on the Dreyfus's, Searle,
Winograd, Hofstadter, Weizenbaum and Rumelhart.
∂28-Apr-86 0822 JMC
To: richardson@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I will come to the lunch with Etherington.
∂28-Apr-86 1653 JMC making normality logic do the bird problem
To: VAL
It looks like we need to tinker with the notion of minimization.
Suppose we have N ¬Np. We want to prefer having ¬Np true to having p
true. The reason is that we use the outer normality statements to control
the inner ones, so we might as well explicitly give them higher priority.
Thus inner anomalies are better than outer anomalies. How can we express
this in a general way?
∂29-Apr-86 0926 JMC Sweden
To: CLT
Lest I forget, we should make travel plans soon. Yesterday I received
a phone call from Erik Sandewall asking about them.
∂29-Apr-86 1001 JMC re: library
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 29-Apr-86 09:58-PT.]
I'd rather you used additional pages on the old file, since that way I
don't have to FIND in several files for a document.
∂29-Apr-86 1003 JMC
To: kolkowit@SU-SCORE.ARPA
What is your state of mind on fixing RT mail bug?
∂29-Apr-86 1126 JMC failure
To: SJM
I got your reminder in the office, but when I went home, the computer
didn't work. We thought it was down, but actually it was a loose
wire in the connection to the line to our house.
∂29-Apr-86 1151 JMC
To: llw@S1-A.ARPA, rah@S1-A.ARPA
If you are going to Pournelle's next, I'd like to go along.
∂29-Apr-86 1541 JMC re: AI Qualifying Exams, 5/20 and 5/23
To: GSMITH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 29 Apr 86 12:16:23-PDT.]
I believe I'm still Leslie Kaelbing's adviser.
∂29-Apr-86 1545 JMC re: Dr. Peled of IBM
To: TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 29 Apr 86 14:22:19-PDT.]
Please schedule me for an appointment with Dr. Peled, although (a) I
plan to call him much sooner, and (b) Carolyn and I may go to
Europe before then (not you - a different Carolyn), but we don't know yet;
I'll let you know.
∂29-Apr-86 1546 JMC
To: CLT, LES
Local IBM prospects for helping with EBOS funding look moderately good.
∂30-Apr-86 0207 JMC asking for the RT
To: LES
CC: CLT
We have the RT for evaluation. In order to keep it we need to ask for
it for EBOS from the IBM equipment grant through Eustis. Semans or
Gerrish know details.
∂30-Apr-86 0211 JMC re: lisp standardization and conference
To: HST
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Apr-86 01:14-PT.]
At Gabriel's request, I joined the Committee, but I don't plan to be
very active. I am somewhat interested in the 30 years conference,
but I confess I've forgotten exactly when and where it is to be.
Also is there a relation between your two questions?
∂30-Apr-86 1200 JMC re: Shoham
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Apr-86 11:51-PT.]
Let's do it.
∂30-Apr-86 1348 JMC re: Rumor
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Apr-86 13:41-PT.]
No, but Yoav Shoham will be here from Yale tomorrow. Of course, he
may have been travelling and may not know the latest news or rumors.
In general I thought Yale only pressed charges against reactionary
students.
∂30-Apr-86 1418 JMC travel grant
To: CLT
CC: LES
According to an NSF official (clerk?) named Robert Walker who phoned me
the travel grant doesn't expire till Sept 87, and if we spend the money
by then, we don't have to do anything. Otherwise we can get a six
month extension by applying to the "Grants Research Office" here at
Stanford. Getting an extension beyond 1988 March 31 is probably
impossible because of the agreement between the U.S. and Japan.
∂30-Apr-86 1453 JMC permission denied
To: RWW
CC: CLT
I tried usr/kcl/kcl on the RT after hearing from Les that kcl was
working and got "permission denied". When and how can I try it out?
∂30-Apr-86 1501 JMC
To: SJM
I have made some improvements in produc, especially in the last section.
∂30-Apr-86 1601 JMC re: ibmrtpc1
To: kolk@SU-CARMEL.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed, 30 Apr 86 15:42:48 pdt.]
Ask the IBMer
Semans, Robert L. 3-4296, 855-3415
hx.rls@forsythe
for a pointer.
∂30-Apr-86 1736 JMC are you there?
To: vijay@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU
I sent you lots of mail over the weekend. Did you get it?
∂30-Apr-86 2043 JMC re: kcl
To: RWW
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Apr-86 20:39-PT.]
Carolyn told me how to get Lisp. However, if there's a manual
available, I'd like one. Please tell Fausto - on what machine
that I can get to Lisp.
∂30-Apr-86 2054 JMC
To: RWW
No data.
∂30-Apr-86 2117 JMC
To: fausto@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Carolyn told me how to reach KCL. Is there a manual?
∂30-Apr-86 2244 JMC reply to message
To: UMA@IBM.COM
[In reply to message sent 30 Apr 86 11:20:31 SET.]
I have been hoping to get a precise address and telephone number, but
I haven't succeeded yet. The place to visit is the Institute of
Cybernetics in Tallin, Estonia. The "head of laboratory" or something
like that is named Tyuugu, I forget the first name. He comes to
AI meetings, and you can say that I thought you and he would have
some common interests. The person of considerably greater interest
is named Grigory Mints, sometimes spelled Minc. He is a logician
from Leningrad, who tried to emigrate and was turned down. After
a period of unemployment, he is now at this institute in Tallin
working in Tyuugu's lab. If you get to speak to him alone, you
can mention his friend Vladimir Lifschitz, who works in my group
as a senior research associate and is also from Leningrad.
You can mention my name whether alone or
not. We would like to know how Mints is doing and whether he has
any message for us.
People who want to visit laboratories often get less than total
co-operation from Intourist, so ask early and often. If we get
any more precise addresses and phone numbers before June 4,
I'll telephone.
∂01-May-86 0215 JMC 30 year lisp conference
To: HST
If there is such a conference I will come. However, I won't take part
in organizing it. Organizing conferences is something I am not good
at and dislike doing.
∂01-May-86 1303 JMC
To: HST
ok, I'll look.
∂01-May-86 1354 JMC re: proposal for the 30-years lisp conference
To: HST
[In reply to message rcvd 24-Feb-86 23:30-PT.]
The list of topics and speakers seems in general ok to me. However, I doubt
that Hartley Rogers will be interested; I now regret not having tried to
interest him in Lisp. I am curious whether Scott would be interested.
Is J. Fitch the logician; if so, why would he be interested? I don't
know W. Clinger and W. White; what do they work on? I have no objection
to the people I suppose uninterested if they actually are or to the people
I don't know.
I suppose you should try to form a program committee now. If you
are inviting Fikes for expert system shells, maybe you should invite Chuck
Williams of Inference Corp., their main competitor. How about more
Europeans?
∂01-May-86 1423 JMC re: Inference Corporation
To: TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 1 May 86 14:06:10-PDT.]
I go there frequently, because I'm on their Scientific Advisory Board.
Should something else be done?
∂01-May-86 1527 JMC
To: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Are you interested in picking up the $2K for your unrestricted at the
cost of a day at Inference Corp. in L.A., a rather good expert system
shell company. Maybe you have enough now.
∂01-May-86 1426 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA re: Inference Corporation
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 May 86 14:26:13 PDT
Date: Thu 1 May 86 14:26:24-PDT
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: re: Inference Corporation
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Thu 1 May 86 14:23:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12203299527.22.TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
They are entitled to one day a year consulting, seminar, or equivalent
as a Forum benefit. Since you go anyway, they may want someone else
to go. If you go specifically as a Forum rep, then $2K will be
transferred into your unrestricted account.
Carolyn
-------
∂01-May-86 1736 JMC reply to message
To: GIUNCHIGLIA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 1 May 86 14:35:39-PDT.]
Thanks for the manual.
∂01-May-86 1747 JMC
To: LES
∂30-Apr-86 1538 CLT to try kcl
/usr/kcl/okcl/unixport/kcl
∂01-May-86 1850 JMC re: cbcl
To: NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 1 May 86 18:13:35-PDT.]
I can do it, but it won't be a prepared lecture.
∂01-May-86 1858 JMC re: the undersecretary of idiocy (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
"You can say what you want, but we can take your money away if
we don't like it." - Joseph D. Jacobs.
This can be interpreted inaccurately. The money referred to isn't
money people already have; it's new SDI money as I understand it.
∂02-May-86 0937 JMC
To: SJM
I have started constr.ess[ess,jmc].
∂02-May-86 0950 JMC disk
To: LES
CC: CLT
Carolyn points out that, believe it or not, the three disks are almost
full, and the machine will become unusable if we give up one.
∂02-May-86 1448 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
Unfortunately, I don't have an accurate memory of what Hicks said,
so I won't commit myself as to whether he said something wrong. My
own opinion is the following. Many people, taking DoD research money,
have said that they hoped their work had no actual military application.
I disapprove of this, and have always hoped that DoD would get value
from the work I do with their support, although the major justification
I have always given is that my work enhances the probability that
major AI breakthroughs will occur in the U.S.
My opinion is that DoD should favor people who sincerely want to help
with defense problems --- and they do. However, the research institutions
in the U.S. aren't and can't be nicely sorted into those whose people
want to help with defense and those who oppose it. Therefore, defense
officials who are offended by anti-defense statements by people with
DoD support have usually not found it feasible to act on this
conviction, and I believe Hicks will find out the same.
The ancient flap concerned M.I.T. when Jerry Wiesner, the President,
took positions that offended DoD. (I forget what they were, so I
can't say whether I think the offense was justified). Anyway they
found out that it would be an exceedingly bad idea to react against
M.I.T. as an institution, and they didn't.
With regard to SDI, there is a technical difference of opinion. Some people
think the relevant research is to determine whether SDI is a good
idea by arguing about countermeasures, possible destabilizing effects,
etc. However, DoD (via the Presdent) has proposed, and Congress has agreed
to start on research on how to shoot down missiles. In my opinion this
decision is correct and doesn't exclude research of the other kind, although
most likely DoD isn't going to put a lot of money in it. If a system
for shooting down missiles (including warning, etc.) is specified that the
proponents in DoD and industry are willing to propose for implementation,
then the resulting debate will surely include all relevant (and many
irrelevant) considerations. I can, of course, understand that many
people are already sure they will oppose such a system regardless of
its characteristics and would like to kill it now.
The consequence of this position is that the SDI Office should support
proposals to develop implementable systems made by people interested
in developing them. How much support they should give to proposals
from people who oppose the systems is questionable.
∂02-May-86 1453 JMC re: Iodine tablets vs. the Soviets' latest exports... (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
The main problem around here is that health food cranks are likely
to harm themselves and their children by taking exotic forms of iodine
and even more exotic substances.
∂02-May-86 1519 JMC Cate
To: CLT
phoned and recommended we buy some PanAm stock. He said there is
$45K in the cash account now, so that's more than taxes and a large
American Express bill will amount to even if the Europeans and MCC
are slow in paying.
∂02-May-86 1741 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
I have reread the article posted on BBOARD and I think he has
gone too far in a few places, but then he backed off a bit. However,
I think some of Science's indirect quotes from him are distortions -
as politically motivated sections in the News and Comment sections
of Science often are. I have the following questions for the critics.
Suppose Hicks considers that his job involves developing the best
possible SDI system. What policy should govern his distribution of
SDI money? What policy should govern his allocation of other DoD
research money - basic and applied (separately if you like).?
∂02-May-86 1745 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: MOGUL@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Fri 2 May 86 15:29:11-PDT.]
I don't agree that "the administration is selling SDI as an alternative
to arms control", because I don't agree that the Administration has
any clear viable arms control options at the moment, i.e. I don't
think there are clear useful proposals acceptable to the Soviets.
∂02-May-86 2133 JMC re: Arcane AI terms? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
When AI people hire PR people, that's what happens.
∂03-May-86 1426 JMC re: Comments on your paper; conjecture settled
To: HALPERN@IBM.COM
[In reply to message sent 3 May 86 10:33:54 PDT.]
Thanks for your remarks. It will take me a while to absorb them. If
you're right, then I'll have to try to modify the logic - perhaps
by relaxing the preservation of normality rules.
Hopcroft is looking for comments, and I hope you will be able to
take the time to make them. I agree with the trend of your remarks,
but I just don't have time to do the job. If you send something to
him please send me a copy.
∂03-May-86 1810 JMC
To: VAL
A first reading of the following has just about convinced me that
Halpern has indeed exploded the first version of normality logic.
Perhaps there is a modification that will work. Since he used
disjunctions (alias implications), perhaps I can exclude them
somehow.
∂03-May-86 1121 HALPERN@IBM.COM
Received: from IBM.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 May 86 11:21:18 PDT
Date: 3 May 86 10:33:54 PDT
From: HALPERN@IBM.COM
To: jmc@su-ai
Subject: Comments on your paper; conjecture settled
John, I think I can settle your conjectures on the propositional
case of Normality Logic, although I'm not sure you'll be pleased
with the answers. First of all, there are always minimal models for
satisfiable formulas; lots of them, in fact. Indeed, either a
formula is satisfiable in a model with no anamolies (and there
are infinitely many distinct such models) or it is not satisfiable
in a model with no anamolies. In this case, if the formula is
satisfiable at all, then ALL models are minimal. Any two models
for the formula are incomparable in terms of their anamolies
(in this sense, normality logic does bear some relationship to
the work on "all I know is".) The proofs of these claims are
pretty straightforward.
First of all, suppose a formula pi can be satisfied in a model
with no anomalies. It is quite easy to check whether
such a model exists: you simply consider all the subformulas
of the formula and see if they can be assigned truth values
in a consistent way with no anomalies. Suppose they can.
In this case, suppose p1, ..., pk are the subformulas for
which N(pj) holds. We can then extend to all formulas by
saying N(q) holds for a formula q iff q is a logical consequence
of p1&...&pk. We can also set all primitive propositions not
subformulas of pi to be true. This gives us a model of pi where
there are no anomalies. But we can easily modify this
model to get lots of others. In some sense, this is the
model where the LEAST number of things are normal, but I can
easily make more things normal.
Now suppose pi has no models where there are no anomalies.
Suppose I1 and I2 are distinct models for pi. Then I claim
that I1 and I2 are incomparable in their anomalies. It thus follows
that all models are minimal. An argument like that above actually
shows there are infinitely many such models. To prove the claim,
suppose that phi is in anomalies(I1) but not anomalies(I2).
Thus N(phi) is true in I1, but phi is false. There are two
possibilities for I2: either (1) both N(phi) and phi are true,
or (2) N(phi) is false. Since there are anomalies in I2, there
must be some formula psi such that N(psi) is true in I2, but
psi is false. In case (1), consider the formula
(psi or ~phi). (On my terminal ? is a negation symbol; I'm not
sure how it comes out on yours.) Since N(psi) is true in I2,
and (psi or ~phi) is a logical consequence of psi, then
N(psi or ~phi) must be true in I2. (This follows from your
conditions 2 and 3 on interpretations. To see this, note
that psi => (psi or ~phi) is a tautology, so that
N(psi => (psi or ~phi)) is true in I2. Putting that together
with the assumption that N(psi) is true in I2, we get the
desired result using condition 3.) But since by assumption
psi is false and phi is true in I2, (psi or ?phi) is in
abnormal(I2). Since (psi or ~phi) is true in I1 (since
phi is false in I1), (psi or ~not phi) cannot be
in abnormal(I1). Thus I1 and I2 are incomparable.
In case (2), consider the formula (psi or N(phi)). A similar
argument to that used for case 1 shows that N(psi or N(phi))
is true in I2, so that the formula (psi or N(phi)) is in
abnormal(I2) but not in abnormal(I1).
I'm afraid that this argument shows that minimal models as
you've defined them are not very interesting. You might
want to consider what happens if you look for models that
have the least number of purely propositional abnormalities,
or, as you've suggested, look at more complex orderings
among abnormalities.
One thing that bothers me in your discussion about the birds
is the use of NN. Your explanation of why you need it seems
awfully ad hoc. I think we all have some intuitions of what
"normally" really means, and it would be nice if we could get
a modal logic that captured them. (That's what I meant when
I asked you about semantic conditions on normality.) Instead
of using the NN as you've done in your example, you might consider
using a whole class of N's, perhaps subscripted by the rationals.
If a>b, then Na is a stronger normality condition than Nb.
Thus, in the example with the birds, you can capture the fact that
condition (3) is meant to supersede condition (1) by using a larger
subscript on N. (To be honest, I haven't thought this through very
carefully, but it seemed like an interesting possibility. I
suggested rationals rather than integers simply because that way
there's always room to put in new condition "in between" pre-existing
ones.)
To change the subject somewhat, I also picked up a copy of Hopcroft's
report yesterday and read it reasonably carefully. I have lots of
comments for him. While I think the idea of doing such a report is
very important, I don't think the key ideas in a number of areas are
brought out very well. As it stands, it reads to me a bit like
computer science is the science of finding good algorithms for very
important problem x (where x= linear integer programming, solving
linear equations, primality testing, planesweeping, etc.) It's not
that these aren't important problems! But it seems that to give
integer linear programming more space than the whole area of AI
somewhat distorts the picture. Am I right in assuming
that Hopcroft is looking for comments?
Do keep me informed on the latest developments in normality logic.
-- Joe
∂04-May-86 1036 JMC your comments
To: halpern@IBM.COM
I now understand and agree with your proof that this kind of minimal
model isn't interesting. I plan to tinker further with the notion,
but I have to admit that I'm out of intuition at the moment.
∂04-May-86 2033 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
In fact, the DoD does not fund most of the basic research
in the country; NSF does.
∂04-May-86 2039 JMC re: Quotation without comment (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
The virtue of tenure is all the trouble it takes to determine who
gets it. Stanford's seven year up-or-out policy prevents putting off
decisions. The places that don't have formal tenure often have effective
instant tenure. All the places with the largest fraction of strong
active researchers have tenure.
You could claim, of course, that tenure is a perk, and the places
with tenure have the best people, because the best people can
bargain for that perk. However, my opinion is that if Stanford
dropped the tenure system, it would keep less qualified people
than it now does.
∂04-May-86 2047 JMC re: tenure (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
I assume Harinder Singh is referring to the tenure track junior faculty
process after the long period as a graduate student rather than the possibility
that a person denied tenure at one place will undergo an equally long period
trying at another. My opinion is that "instant tenure" would avoid considerable
unhappiness at the cost of quality. Many of the best new PhDs would find no
openings at all.
∂04-May-86 2255 JMC freili.1
To: RA
is a letter which needs to be in TEX, because of the mathematics.
Please fix it up.
∂05-May-86 0957 JMC re: dinner with edwina and oliver
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 05-May-86 09:30-PT.]
It's ok with me, but when I asked Timothy he didn't give a clear
answer, and only yawned and tried to put his foot in his mouth.
∂05-May-86 1038 JMC re: Have you ever made a mistake?...
To: BIL@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 5 May 86 10:17:55-PDT.]
It's a very specialized audience to which I would be better known than
Rutherford. My errors tend to be on the side of optimism. My one
major error than could be regarded as pessimistic has to do with
microcomputers. I didn't believe they would become as important
relative to terminals on time-shared machines as they have. However,
it isn't that I thought the technology of making them would be
more difficult than it turned out to be. I suppose I thought that
time-shared machines would be operated more efficiently than they
were, so maybe it's an error of optimism after all. I thought AI
would advance more rapidly than it did, but I didn't make
specific predictions of accomplishments by given dates, except
that I did expect that we would be able to program a robot to
assemble a Heathkit in a few years after 1965.
∂05-May-86 1045 JMC re: Have you ever made a mistake?...
To: BIL@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 5 May 86 10:17:55-PDT.]
A few remarks on the SDI issue itself.
1. It is worthwhile to point out that very few of the catastrophes,
schedule delays and cost-overruns in the space program or
(less certainly) military programs have been due to software
problems. In space - just a few delayed launches and one
spacecraft lost.
2. With proposed systems so little specified, there is little
occupy a grown man for an hour's argument. They'll say they
think the software problems will be overwhelming, and you'll
have to say you don't think so.
3. The political ad hominem arguments are more interesting.
The antis say the Reagan Administration wants to acquire
first strike capability, and the pros say the antis are
indulging in technological wishful thinking. They just
want SDI to be infeasible, partly because of who proposes
it.
4. The insincerity of the Soviet arguments against American
SDI while they remain far ahead in the field is one of the
major pro-SDI arguments.
∂05-May-86 1101 JMC re: Comments on your paper; conjecture settled
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 05-May-86 10:23-PT.]
That may work. Another possibility is to change the language so that
N isn't applied to arbitrary formulas but only to formulas built up
from propositional letters (or atomic formulas in general) using N
and ¬. The proposed useful examples fit that restriction.
However, before studying any of these possibilities in detail, I
want to try to repair my intuition.
∂05-May-86 1144 JMC re: tenure (from SAIL's BBOARD) (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
While a new assistant professor has to worry about tenure, he does
have the academic freedom to work on what he likes. He doesn't answer
to the University for subject matter. In an industrial laboratory he
has to work on the projects the laboratory management has initiated.
Of course, in favorable cases, his desires may coincide with theirs or
they may permit new PhDs considerable freedom. For example,
systematic AI work was started at universities and not in industrial
laboratories. M.I.T. AI work was started by two new assistant
professors. IBM Research made a management decision about 1960 to stop AI
work.
I think the American system, which gives academic freedom to new PhDs
with a tenure hurdle after 6 or 7 years works better than the various
European systems. The French, German and Russian systems involve
a higher level thesis, presented some years after what corresponds
to an American PhD. This tends to keep the young scientist under
the academic thumb of his elders longer.
It is a fact that a university usually cannot tell the outstanding
researchers from others at the time of awarding a PhD.
In my own case, Stanford decided not to keep me as an assistant professor
in 1955, and then hired me as a full professor in 1962. If whoever
was hired as an assistant professor with a new PhD had a permanent
position, they wouldn't be able to hire people whose later
accomplishments impressed them.
One question this doesn't answer is this. Why try to have outstanding
universities at all? Perhaps the outstanding people will do the same
work wherever they are. If so, moving them around is a waste of
effort as well as traumatic to those sweating out the decision. Let
people and jobs be randomly matched. My intuition is that this is
wrong; the total accomplishment is increased by having some outstanding
universities, but I don't know how to prove it.
∂05-May-86 1349 JMC re: Robotics Search Committee
To: RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 5 May 86 13:41:22-PDT.]
I will be in Washington, alas.
∂05-May-86 1451 JMC hat and ring sizes and trip
To: RA
My hat size is 7 1/2 and my ring size is 8 1/2. The Swedes can't
interpret the hat size, because it's American, and I don't know if
they will be able to interpret the ring size. Can you try to
find, via the phone book, some store (perhaps claiming to be European)
that can correlate the two, and give me European equivalents.
∂05-May-86 1501 JMC
To: CLT
You were going to phone Cate.
∂05-May-86 2105 JMC proposal
To: LES@SU-AI.ARPA, CLT@SU-AI.ARPA, greep@SU-AI.ARPA
The only problem I see is that we need to say what we can do with
Peled's $100K, since we have said that 2 man years are needed for
implementation. I suggest we say that we will completely specify
the system and make experimental implementations of parts.
∂06-May-86 0043 JMC Batali
To: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA
has some good ideas, but is being let out much too soon. One can't yet
tell whether the ideas are implementable. I fear if we hired him, he'd
be like Jon Doyle - endless advocacy articles.
∂06-May-86 0935 JMC re: Purge of dissident scientists? (from SAIL's BBOARD) (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
It seems to me that we have a weasel wording in Joe Pallas's
"While the DoD may have little or no respect for science (as
evidenced by an apparent commitment to design, build, and deliver a
system that many leading scientists in the relevant fields believe is
not technically feasible) ...". The wording suggests the possibility
that many other "leading scientists" may believe it is feasible.
Is it indeed a sign of "little or no respect for science" to
commit to design, etc. something about which there is controversy?
Moreover, since the "leading scientists" here are led by the same
ones that have opposed other defense programs, some of us think
there is a substantial component of politically motivated wishful
thinking in the readiness of many to sign statements expressing
scientific opinions on matters they have studied at most superficially.
Whether leading or not, I don't see any evidence that the computer
part is infeasible. There is an inaccuracy in the statement about
"commitment ... to deliver". There is no present commitment to
build, and a decision on implementation isn't planned till the
90s. There is an article in the latest Commentary by my neighbor Angelo
Codevilla complaining about this; I'll leave it in the CS
lounge.
∂06-May-86 1042 JMC re: Batali
To: NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 6 May 86 10:36:39-PDT.]
While I would be pleased if the theory committee reconsidered, I suppose
you intended to reply to my message about Batali.
∂06-May-86 1322 JMC re: Robotics Search Committee
To: RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 6 May 86 11:19:28-PDT.]
I have discussed this with Nils, and I'm afraid I won't be able to attend
the Latombe events because of lack of time. I've already met him and have
a favorable impression.
∂07-May-86 0905 JMC re: RA support for summer
To: JJW
CC: LES
[In reply to message from JJW rcvd 07-May-86 06:56-PT.]
Yes. I assume this means you are getting close on the thesis.
∂07-May-86 1151 JMC re: summer work
To: GIVAN@SU-SUSHI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 7 May 86 11:50:06-PDT.]
1:40 will be fine.
∂07-May-86 1315 JMC re: dinner on Thursday.
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 07-May-86 12:33-PT.]
Yes, I thought we had already settled on that.
∂07-May-86 1316 JMC re: John Coke
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 07-May-86 12:30-PT.]
Thanks, for future reference, that's John Cocke.
∂07-May-86 1443 JMC robotics list
To: richardson@SU-SCORE.ARPA
On the robotics committee list, please change me from JMC@SAIL to JMC-LISTS@SAIL.
∂07-May-86 1626 JMC ns
To: SJM
soviet+nuclear
l <filename>
/on 1986
∂07-May-86 1718 JMC re: [Tom Garvey <Garvey@SRI-AI.ARPA>: Danny Cohen visit]
To: NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 7 May 86 10:23:25-PDT.]
The original message says "SRI visitors are welcome". Are non-SRI visitors
welcome also to Cohen's talk?
∂07-May-86 1719 JMC re: Draft EBOS proposal
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 07-May-86 13:32-PT.]
Fire it off to Eustis.
∂07-May-86 1828 JMC
To: RA
olson.1 and ask the Department to send him info about MS in AI.
∂07-May-86 1832 JMC
To: RA
Please respond to requests for reprints directly.
∂08-May-86 0935 JMC re: AI Search Committee
To: RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 8 May 86 08:07:23-PDT.]
Monday, May 19 is ok for me.
∂08-May-86 1324 JMC alliant system for q-lisp
To: LES, CLT
∂08-May-86 1226 alliant!jat@EDDIE.MIT.EDU alliant system for q-lisp
Received: from MIT-EDDIE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 May 86 12:26:27 PDT
Received: by EDDIE (5.31/4.7) id AA06702; Wed, 7 May 86 17:53:02 EDT
Received: by alliant.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA02221; Wed, 7 May 86 14:29:31 edt
Date: Wed, 7 May 86 14:29:31 edt
From: alliant!jat@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Jack Test)
Message-Id: <8605071829.AA02221@alliant.ARPA>
To: mit-eddie!jmc@su-ai.ARPA
Subject: alliant system for q-lisp
Cc: mit-eddie!clt@su-ai.ARPA, mit-eddie!les@su-ai.ARPA
Everybody here at Alliant is enthusiatic about working with your
group at Stanford on the Q-Lisp project. It is my understanding
that we have already shipped you a 1-CE system which is to be
upgraded to 4-CE's in the near future.
For your information, the version of the operating system to be
initially installed with your system will support preliminary
porting efforts for Common Lisp. The only thing it will not
support is dynamic loading of text. This capability is present
in the latest version of the operating system that is currently
under final testing here at Alliant. This version supports
execution out of data space and should be available for use at
Stanford later this month or early next month. (I had hoped it
would be available prior to shipping your system but it has fallen
behind schedule by a couple of weeks. I will see to it that your
system gets it as soon as possible).
When the new operating system is available, I plan on coming out
to Stanford to touch base with your group at Stanford and with
the people at Lucid. In the meantime, I hope to stay in touch
with you via mail.
-Jack
∂08-May-86 1327 JMC re: alliant system for q-lisp
To: alliant!jat@MIT-EDDIE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed, 7 May 86 14:29:31 edt.]
Thanks for your message. The Alliant has indeed arrived, but we won't
have power for it till next week. Further messages should be sent
also to Carolyn Talcott clt@su-ai and Lester Earnest les@su-ai.
∂08-May-86 1349 JMC re: alliant system for q-lisp
To: alliant!jat@MIT-EDDIE.ARPA, CLT@SU-AI.ARPA, LES@SU-AI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed, 7 May 86 14:29:31 edt.]
Also the name of the Alliant is GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU nicknamed
GO4.STANFORD.EDU.
∂08-May-86 1601 JMC
To: CLT
No answer from Cocke's phone 512 838-0705; please try tomorrow.
∂08-May-86 1822 JMC re: alliant system for q-lisp
To: alliant!jat@MIT-EDDIE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed, 7 May 86 14:29:31 edt.]
I missed the fact that you had sent copies to Carolyn and Les by
misreading the header. They got them ok.
∂08-May-86 1830 JMC re: Letter to USSR
To: GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 8 May 86 17:35:44-PDT.]
If you can't get someone to carry the letter for you, the best thing
is to send a telegram. They do get through, and many more Russians
use them than Americans, because they are so much faster.
∂08-May-86 1843 JMC datadisc
To: ME
There's a bad spot on my screen image on line 14, character position 45.
I guess that's DD75. A period in that location isn't displayed.
∂08-May-86 2225 JMC
To: CLT
John Cocke says that Andy Heller would like to know about C problem.
We should check into Spector Lisp.
∂09-May-86 0941 JMC re: scott
To: HST
[In reply to message rcvd 09-May-86 07:08-PT.]
If 1963 is correct, I'm almost certain the answer is no. I remember
attending one seminar by Scott at Stanford on lambda calculus, but I'm quite
certain it was a lot later. At the one I attended I believe he explained
how he did car, cdr and cons in lambda calculus.
∂09-May-86 1054 JMC re: transparencies
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 09-May-86 10:50-PT.]
I'm not done. In fact, I'll be in before noon with the material for
you to put on the transparencies.
∂09-May-86 1344 JMC re: NSF report on computing
To: jeh@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 9 May 86 15:45:34 edt.]
There's a lot more to AI than computer vision and temporal logic.
In fact these shouldn't even be major subheads. Unfortunately,
I haven't time to go into details as I must leave for a trip.
More next week.
∂13-May-86 1408 JMC re: Conference on Computers and Mathematics, July 29, 1986
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 13-May-86 14:04-PT.]
There's a poster or program or something on my desk. However, people
should be referred to the source of information mentioned on the poster.
I'll be in shortly.
∂13-May-86 2220 JMC copyright holder
To: cl-steering@SU-AI.ARPA
I think the organization that holds the copyright can be entirely informal,
i.e. the notice can be Copyright Common Lisp Steering Committee.
It can assign the copyright later. A lawyer won't like it, because
he'll ask, "What if the members fall out?". In so far as there is
confidence that people will continue to get along, this will work.
Legally it will be a partnership, and it would be best if the
organization as such never received any money.
∂14-May-86 1415 JMC Computers and Mathematics conference
To: RA
A letter says that all technical questions should be referred to
the Conference Secretary, Mrs. Tiyo Asai 914 945-3190.
∂15-May-86 0945 JMC reply to message
To: GIVAN@SU-SUSHI.ARPA, LES@SU-AI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 15 May 86 09:28:33-PDT.]
$15 per hour is the best we can do. Let Les and me know if this
is acceptable, and if so, when you would like to start.
∂15-May-86 1128 JMC circumscriptive aspects
To: VAL
∂15-May-86 1050 perlis@mimsy.umd.edu circumscriptive aspects
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 May 86 10:50:25 PDT
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.9/4.7) id AA15298; Thu, 15 May 86 13:53:08 EDT
Date: Thu, 15 May 86 13:53:08 EDT
From: Don Perlis <perlis@mimsy.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8605151753.AA15298@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Subject: circumscriptive aspects
Cc: perlis@mimsy.umd.edu
John,
I have been puzzled for some time by your comment in at least one
version of your paper on formula circumscription, to the effect that aspects
are something of an embarrassment. It has always seemed to me that they
have a very natural interpretation. Namely, the aspect appropriate to a
given class (e.g., birds) with respect to some other class or property
(e.g., flying) is simply the relationship between the class and the property
(e.g., the typicality of birds being able to fly, or more generally, the
Q-ness of P). Formally this can be recorded simply as the pair
<`Bird',`Flying'>. Thus ab(aspect1,x) can be rewritten rather as
ab(x,`Bird',`Flying')
i.e., x is an abnormal member of the class of birds with regard to flying.
In fact, this way of writing aspects suggests a predicate such as
`Normally', which might be used as follows:
Normally(`P',`Q') -> Circum(`P & -Q')
That is, if P's are normally Q's, then we want to minimize the
extension of P & -Q. This can be written as a single wff if Circum is taken
to be either your second-order axiom but with the circumscribed wff replaced
by a variable, or a first-order axiom using sets as in the recent draft I
sent you.
Then aspects are implicit in the use of the Normally predicate, that
is, in the pair of arguments <`P',`Q'>. In general, any pair of properties
P and Q have an associated aspect or relation, which may be include
typicality or normalcy of Q given P in some cases.
Have I failed to grasp some other aspect of aspects (!) that you
were referring to?
Don
∂15-May-86 1150 JMC re: circumscriptive aspects
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 15-May-86 11:47-PT.]
I had a similar reaction, but I need to think about it a bit more
before replying to his message.
∂15-May-86 1713 JMC
To: LES
Pat Smith, mgr distributed systems
Frank Tung, exploratory systems
∂15-May-86 1725 JMC
To: RA
Please find publication year
∂15-May-86 1725 JMC reference
To: RA
Please find publication year of "The making of the counterculture"
by Theodore Roszak. It wasn't in Socrates, so perhaps it precedes
1973.
∂15-May-86 1731 JMC reply to message
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 15-May-86 17:30-PT.]
I'll be home by 6:45 unless you want me sooner.
∂15-May-86 2314 JMC
To: RA
If Mercury-Sun calls about review, promise it by Monday.
∂17-May-86 1155 JMC re: should I sent this to BBoards about the uncertainty workshop?
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 17-May-86 11:31-PT.]
I don't think you should send it to BBOARD in its present form.
It merely perpetuates the p,¬p sequence or starts a new one.
Since the libel laws do not forbid criticizing the views of
specific people, I suppose Cheeseman is really expressing
frustration at being unable to formulate his criticisms or
possibly frustration that the views he believes certain people
hold haven't been articulated in a form he can get at. Perhaps
the same comment applies to your present position. It is better
to express one's opinions in a way that provides an explicit
challenge, e.g. in the form of examples, to the other side.
Have you seen McDermott's "Critique of Pure Reason"? It is
partially successful in advancing concrete challenges to us
"logicists".
Also, while I have views on reasoning under uncertainty, I'm currently
thinking about more specific problems, and don't relish the immediate
prospect of consing up a 5 minute general lecture.
∂18-May-86 1052 JMC re: Turning off call waiting
To: WEISS@SU-SUSHI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Sun 18 May 86 01:53:40-PDT.]
Is this from Stanford phones or outside phones?
∂18-May-86 1501 JMC re: Turning off call-waiting (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
What is the source of the information about how to turn off
call-waiting. It's not in the phone book, and not in the booklet
I got when I ordered the special features. Are there other useful
ways of controlling phone features. I'm referring to outside phones.
∂19-May-86 0920 JMC re: Expense Report (LA and Washington)
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 19-May-86 09:07-PT.]
No, I did an "instant check-in". It should have arrived in the mail
by now. If worst comes to worst, we'll have to wait for the AMEX bill.
∂19-May-86 1528 JMC re: TEX course
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 19-May-86 10:56-PT.]
I would prefer to pay for it out of DARPA if Betty says it's legal.
Otherwise, unrestricted would be ok. I presume you have no short
term plan to depart.
∂21-May-86 1125 JMC cs306
To: givan@SU-SUSHI.ARPA
∂21-May-86 1021 UNIETIS@su-sushi.arpa cs306
Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 May 86 10:21:06 PDT
Date: Wed 21 May 86 10:19:29-PDT
From: David R. Unietis <UNIETIS@su-sushi.arpa>
Subject: cs306
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Message-ID: <12208497455.21.UNIETIS@su-sushi.arpa>
I was a student in your CS306 class last fall, and I have not yet received
a grade for the class (my final was in within the 8-day time period, but
after the deadline to get a grade turned in that quarter). I am an honors
co-op student, and I need to get a grade for this class in order to
graduate.
Thanks,
David Unietis (unietis@sushi)
-------
∂21-May-86 1128 JMC cs306
To: RA
∂21-May-86 1021 UNIETIS@su-sushi.arpa cs306
Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 May 86 10:21:06 PDT
Date: Wed 21 May 86 10:19:29-PDT
From: David R. Unietis <UNIETIS@su-sushi.arpa>
Subject: cs306
To: jmc@su-ai.arpa
Message-ID: <12208497455.21.UNIETIS@su-sushi.arpa>
I was a student in your CS306 class last fall, and I have not yet received
a grade for the class (my final was in within the 8-day time period, but
after the deadline to get a grade turned in that quarter). I am an honors
co-op student, and I need to get a grade for this class in order to
graduate.
Thanks,
David Unietis (unietis@sushi)
-------
∂21-May-86 1129 JMC re: cs306
To: UNIETIS@SU-SUSHI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 21 May 86 10:19:29-PDT.]
Sorry. A grade change card with an A- will be turned in today.
∂21-May-86 1236 JMC
To: RA
casey.1 is a rush job
∂21-May-86 1726 JMC sanitized ebos proposal
To: LES
We need a sanitized version of the proposal than shouldn't mention the RT
except peripherally or contain budget or even personnel, except perhaps
me, you and Carolyn. I have promised to send one to Dr. Egon Loebner,
H-P Labs, 1501 Page Mill Rd. How is the budget coming for Peled? I got
the impression that the money might disappear if we didn't get it in.
∂22-May-86 1513 JMC reference to GPS
To: newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU
ACM has given me another chance to write up my 1971 Turing
award lecture which was entitled "The problem of generality in AI"
While I don't intend a balanced history of all efforts at achieving
generality, I would like to mention GPS. Are the bare facts, minus
opinions, in the following correct? I would also be grateful for
the reference. Should the mention of production systems refer just
to you, to both, or perhaps to CMU as an institution?
The General Problem Solver:
Allen Newell and Herbert Simon proposed GPS in 195x. The
idea was to represent problem solving in general as the problem
of transforming one expression into another by means of a set
of allowed rules. It was even proposed that improving GPS could
be thought of as a problem of this kind. In my opinion, GPS was unsuccessful
as a general problem solver, because problems don't take this
form in general and because most of the knowledge about the common
needed for problem solving and achieving goals is not simply
representable in the form of rules for transforming expressions.
If Newell and Simon had been right about GPS, perhaps their
predictions about rapid success for AI would have been realized.
Most likely GPS did contribute to their subsequent more successful
work with production systems.
∂22-May-86 1749 JMC
To: VAL
Perlis is now entirely moot unless neither Shoham nor Mitchell accept.
∂22-May-86 2043 JMC re: reference to GPS
To: Allen.Newell@A.CS.CMU.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 22 May 86 23:40 EDT.]
Many thanks.
∂23-May-86 0928 JMC any sign of life?
To: vijay@ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU
I shall be leaving for a week next Wednesday. It occurs to me
that the discussion would make better reading if the participants
would start over. Then they would anticipate the points to be
made by the other side. I could let my general statement stand
or I could tinker with it a little.
What is your state of mind on the debate so far?
∂23-May-86 1017 JMC Friedberg
To: simon@A.CS.CMU.EDU
The ACM has offered me another chance to write up my 1971 Turing award
lecture on generality in AI. One approach I am referring to is Friedberg's
idea of representing behavior by programs and modifying the behavior
by changing unsuccessful instructions. I vaguely remember that you
showed that Friedberg's program would have been better if it had
completely thrown out any program that was not perfect and chosen
a new program completely at random. Have I got it right? When did
you do it? Did you publish it? If not, is it ok to refer to it?
If so, how?
∂23-May-86 1052 JMC Linguistic Institute proposal
To: sag@SU-CSLI.ARPA, aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
phw@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Most likely this message is redundant. In my opinion, the proposal
is beyond the scope of the AAAI Workshop programme that I administer.
I have no opinion on whether it should be supported by some other
mechanism or whether it should be discussed at the Council meeting
in August.
∂23-May-86 1635 JMC re: Saturday schedule
To: SJM
[In reply to message rcvd 23-May-86 15:15-PT.]
How about 2pm? This will give me more time to work on it.
∂23-May-86 1636 JMC re: pointwise circ'n paper
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 23-May-86 16:24-PT.]
I'll look.
∂23-May-86 1859 JMC re: maternity leave (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
Taking the long range point of view, there is no need to argue
with people taking MRC's position about children. As Niven and
Pournelle put it, "Think of it as evolution in action" - whether
the evolution be genetic or social. Here are a few other points.
1. MRC will be taken care of in his old age by other people's children
- even if he has money.
2. One of the ways people deal psychologically with
the shortness of life is to transfer ambitions to the family among
other continuing entities. Perhaps Stanford will get a large
inheritance from MRC.
3. The U.S. is not overpopulated - at least in terms of the ability
to support population for the indefinite future with the resources
of its own territory. Psychologically it isn't overpopulated either;
the evidence is the tendency of the population to clump up rather
than spread out.
4. Different people have different tastes, and what may strike MRC
as frittering away one's gifts may strike someone else differently.
5. Subsidizing children with tax breaks (rather tiny at present
compared to other countries) is basically a consequence of equalitarianism.
The children live better than they would otherwise and so do their
parents.
6. Alas, until we develop adequate child care robots, all parental
time spent with children benefits them.
7. Finally, what is waste for a person who isn't future oriented?
∂23-May-86 2359 JMC Shoham
To: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Carolyn points out that it might be well to get a commitment from
him that Stanford will be his only job.
We did not anticipate that Manna would spend half time in Israel.
∂24-May-86 0010 JMC good
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
a024 0005 24 May 86
PM-Speed Limit,0357
Nevada Speed Limit Increasing To 70 mph
By BRENDAN RILEY
Associated Press Writer
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Nevada, last state in the nation with no
speed limit on outlying highways until the 55 mph limit was imposed
12 years ago, shifts to a 70 mph limit July 1 - but possibly only for
a few minutes.
That's the day a key section of a bill from the 1985 Legislature
takes effect: a 70 mph speed limit on any highway in Nevada to see
whether it's safe to travel that fast.
If the federal government authorizes the 70 mph limit, then a
mandatory seat-belt law also will go into effect July 1, but it
appears unlikely that will occur.
What's expected instead is a withholding of federal highway funds
allocated for Nevada road projects, and as soon as that happens the
higher speed limit ends.
The author of the bill, Republican Assemblyman Bob Thomas, says he's
not sure the higher limit will expire that quickly.
''I'm really convinced the feds don't want a court confrontation
because I think they know they have usurped states' rights via the
usual blackmail route which they have so effectively employed,''
Thomas said.
If the withholding notice is given, Thomas said his law will be
pre-empted but at the same time state Attorney General Brian McKay
will use that action for a lawsuit against the federal government.
Thomas said the issue for McKay would be a breach of faith by the
federal government, because the 55 mph limit was imposed for reasons
of safety and his new law is designed to prove a higher limit plus a
seatbelt requirement provides more safety.
Nevada already has eased penalties for exceeding the 55 mph limit by
imposing a $15 ''energy-wasting'' fine for people ticketed for speeds
up to 70 mph.
''We've geared up all along for a showdown over this thing,'' Thomas
said. ''This is a state's rights issue. Somebody in the East
shouldn't be telling somebody in the West how fast they can drive.
It's a completely different environment out here.''
AP-NY-05-24-86 0305EDT
***************
∂24-May-86 1311 JMC unempl.ess[ess,jmc]
To: SJM
Is for collecting all remarks about unemployment for incorporatin in
one essay. Other essays may have casual remarks, but mostly they should
be replaced by references to the discussion.
∂24-May-86 1446 JMC re: Mason trip request
To: LES
CC: CLT
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 24-May-86 14:44-PT.]
It seems reasonable, but Carolyn thought he might be able to get Workshop
travel expenses from the organizers of the workshop.
∂24-May-86 1842 JMC prolog digest
To: restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I received two copies of vol. 4 #14.
∂25-May-86 0857 JMC reply to message
To: FTD%MIT-OZ@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 25 May 1986 11:27 EDT.]
Sorry, I can't help. Long shot. Did he have a moustache and a foreign
accent?
∂25-May-86 1834 JMC re: any sign of life?
To: vijay@ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 25 May 86 18:32:30 PDT.]
Thanks. Papert isn't spelled Pappert by the way.
∂25-May-86 2249 JMC 1986 May reply to the Dreyfus's
To: vijay@ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU
Copyright 1986, John McCarthy
With their reply, the Dreyfus's enter the arena of theoretical AI
as participants, i.e. they attempt to propose mechanisms for intelligent
behavior. Welcome.
An attempt to propose mechanism in AI may be criticized on two
grounds. First, one may claim that a mechanism is not well enough defined,
i.e. that the attempt to propose a mechanism has failed. Second, one may
claim that in so far as a mechanism is proposed, it won't work.
I have doubts on the first grounds, but since they refer
to a book I haven't time to read for this reply, I let this pass.
As to the second, the mechanism seems to be a variant of
behaviorism, i.e. learned S-R relations are postulated. The course
of cognitive psychology has been away from this. Experience suggests
that if any mechanism is to work, it must be much more strongly
based on internal state, i.e. the theory must take internal state
into account to a greater extent than supposing the internal state
to consist of learned S-R relations.
There is a final point that really should have been in my
first commentary. We advocates of logic are basing ourselves on
its utility in combining information obtained from different
sources. The Dreyfus's outline doesn't mention this problem.
Each skill seems to be learned separately.
For example, Sherlock Holmes combined the fact that
the dog didn't bark with the fact that the horse trainer was
the dog's master and inferred that the trainer stole the horse.
The Dreyfus theory would ascribe no utility to the fact
that humans communicate mainly in declarative sentences.
∂25-May-86 2250 JMC Reply to Weizenbaum's second round.
To: vijay@ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU
Copyright 1986, John McCarthy
I don't understand the quotes around the words "scientific"
and "technical" as applied to "issues". Does Weizenbaum imply that
there are no scientific and technical issues even if he doesn't want
to discuss them? Or is this just a rhetorical excess?
I don't place any limit our eventual ability to understand
humans well enough to embody this understanding in a computer program.
I also don't place any limit on our eventual ability to make a computer
program that might learn by scientific experiment how humans operate
and might know more about humans than humans know, just as humans
know more about viruses, bacteria, dogs and apes than any of these
know about themselves.
However, it turns out that some people imagine that we are
further on in this study than we are. These people might give others
the impression that today's or next year's artificial intelligence
can surely "understand and produce wisdom with respect to
interpersonal, social and cultural human affairs, as occasionaly human
intelligence can."
Like all exaggerations, this is unfortunate, but I don't see it as
having any more tragic consequences than any others that we are always
encountering - perhaps less so that exaggerated expectations that some
disease is about to be cured. Perhaps someone will place excessive trust
in some expert system, but I haven't heard that has happened yet, and like
all similar errors of overconfidence, it will be rudely corrected. So far
excessive confidence in computer programs hasn't had results as
unfortunate as excessive confidence in the seals between the segments of
solid rocket boosters.
My opinion that AI will eventually succeed in a high-level
understanding of human affairs is just an opinion. I don't see it as a
problem that is ripe for attack. Maybe someone else (e.g. Minsky) has
ideas on how to attack it. Weizenbaum has the opinion we won't
succeed ever. As far as I can see the dispute is at the cogency of
arguments about whether humanity will eventually succeed in travelling to
other galaxies.
I don't know how applicable AI is to SDI. Given the
present state of AI, I hope it's not vital. My opinion is
that the SDI work, including the computer work, reduces the
probability of nuclear war as well as increasing the likely
number of survivors if it happens. Conversely, I think
that if Weizenbaum makes converts, the probability of nuclear
war will increase and the expected number of survivors be reduced.
Unless Weizenbaum deals with these opinions, probably
held by a majority of Americans as well as the
participants in defense research, his moral criticisms of
these participants are unwarranted. Perhaps he supposes that
these opinions are not sincerely held.
I also find the following somewhat misleading.
"But I would add that science is a social enterprise in another sense
as well. What is and what is not to be counted as scientific, as
fact is decided by a consensus of members of the relevant section of
the scientific community. Who is and who is not a member of a
particular section is similarly a social decision. It makes a
difference when someone who was once out is, as the communists say,
rehabilitated."
Its error is to ascribe a more decisive importance
to scientific public opinion that than that opinion has or even
claims. There are many sources of support, and people who think
that some activity, e.g. AI, is not scientific hardly ever
attempt witch hunts. The institution of academic freedom is
explicitly intended to protect people who go against the consensus.
∂26-May-86 1520 JMC letter to Maydell
To: RA
Please get this ready to go out today. Two brochures taken from
CHRON are in my out box. Enclose xeroxes with the letter and
refile the originals.
∂27-May-86 1135 JMC
To: RA
pls put them in genera
∂27-May-86 1217 JMC Stockholm
To: CLT
I asked Nils what to see in Sweden, and he recommended spending some
time in Stockholm, which has fine museums and stores, especially a
store called NK.
∂27-May-86 1306 JMC
To: CLT
Sten-Ake phoned to invite us to visit Uppsala; I said we'd try.
∂27-May-86 1316 JMC
To: CLT
Our tickets are in my left drawer.
∂27-May-86 1441 JMC
To: RA
Newell, A. Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. "A variety of intelligent learning
in a General Probelm Solver", in Self-Organizing Systems, Yovits, M. C., &
Cameron, S. eds., Pergammon, 1960, pp 153-189 (RAND P-1742).
∂27-May-86 1445 JMC re: [Reply to message recvd: 27 May 86 14:41 Pacific Time]
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 27-May-86 14:44-PT.]
A good question. I would think math library and suggest a phone call.
∂27-May-86 1810 JMC re: maternity leave (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
The way to alleviate the detrimental effect mentioned by Stephanie
Singer is to require that the organizations have insurance to pay
for maternity leaves. It only alleviates it, because only the financial
consequences and not the job continuity consequences are eliminated.
However, alleviation is worthwhile.
∂27-May-86 2146 JMC typo
To: rosenbloom@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In figure 1-1, the initial state is incompletely given. The (2 1 7) of
the left column is omitted. Determining what was omitted might make
a nice problem to do in Soar.
∂28-May-86 1013 JMC re: Academic Costume
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 28-May-86 10:11-PT.]
Yes, Stanford will do if the other doesn't turn up.
∂28-May-86 1207 JMC re: maternity leave
To: SINGER@SU-SUSHI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 28 May 86 12:02:30-PDT.]
I never heard of it. The insurance might have to be paid at a rate
independent of the number of female employees; otherwise there might
still be a motivation to minimize their number. In general, insurance
companies will insure anything if asked.
∂07-Jun-86 1755 JMC re: please respond!
To: FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 2 Jun 86 15:12:20-PDT.]
I have just returned from Sweden. My tentative
choice is the old "tough nut" paper. Non-exclusively, of course.
∂07-Jun-86 1757 JMC re: Pucci visit
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 05-Jun-86 17:41-PT.]
Sure, I'll talk to him.
∂07-Jun-86 1758 JMC re: busy Friday evening? (6/6)
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 05-Jun-86 19:57-PT.]
I just got back from a week in Sweden.
∂07-Jun-86 1856 JMC re: busy Friday evening? (6/6)
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 07-Jun-86 17:59-PT.]
I got an honorary degree from Linkoping University. A good time
was had by all including Timothy. My fellow honorees were a good
lot in engineering were a good lot including John Argyris, the
inventor of the finite element method, but the medical honorees
included Helen Caldicott, for whose sense I have a low regard.
Oh, well.
Certainly, a rain check.
∂07-Jun-86 1923 JMC
To: SJM
Do we still have The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong?
∂08-Jun-86 1655 JMC re: please flesh out this line of poetry (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
The poem was about the Crimean War, and, guess what, the enemy was
the Russians. The French, Turks and and Sardinia-Piedmont were allies of
the British in that one. According to the Britannica, the subject was a
demand by the Russians to "exercise protection over the Orthodox subjects
of the Ottoman sultan and by a dispute between Russia and France over the
privileges of Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic monks in the holy places
in Palestine". Each side lost about 250,000 men, mostly from disease.
My guess is that previous to that time, such large armies could not have
fought at such long distances, and the war grew bigger than the participants
anticipated. I doubt that the poem was a positive reinforcement to
military participation or was regarded as such at the time. The lesson
the British drew from the Crimean war was that command by amateurs
chosen according to their positions in the nobility was a losing
way to run an army.
What a pity that one can't answer such questions from one's terminal
without having to go to the library.
∂08-Jun-86 2321 JMC I always thought musicians were fools.
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
a003 2130 08 Jun 86
PM-Musicians-Chernobyl,0391
Two Skip Prestigious Tchaikovsky Musical Competition
By JIM IRWIN
Associated Press Writer
DETROIT (AP) - Two musicians invited to compete in this week's
Tchaikovsky Festival in Moscow have decided to skip the prestigious
competition because of fears about the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
Pianist Laura Kargul of Ann Arbor said she decided Saturday not to
participate, four days after singer Edith Diggory of Detroit
withdrew.
Kargul had planned to fly Sunday from Toronto to Moscow for the
five-week international musical competition.
But she said during a telephone interview she changed her plans
after receiving conflicting reports about radiation levels in Moscow,
500 miles from the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which caught fire April
26, sprewing radiation thousands of miles.
The accident has killed 26 people, two in the initial blast and 24
who succumbed to the effects of heavy radiation, said Dr. Robert
Gale, a University of California at Los Angeles bone marrow
specialist who has gone to the Soviet Union to treat victims of the
accident. All who were seriously exposed were within about 20 miles
of the plant, Gale said.
''I haven't received enough information to make a decision that it's
safe to go,'' Kargul said. ''Sources at the State Department are
saying that it's not safe to go, although the official line is that
it's safe.''
Kargul, citing Dutch media reports that food being sold in Moscow is
highly contaminated, said Soviet officials would not let her bring
her own food and water into that country.
Kargul, who is single, and Diggory, married and mother of a
2-year-old son, said they feared exposure to radiation would impair
their ability to bear healthy children.
Both women are 30 years old and will not qualify for the 1990
quadrennial competition, which is limited to persons 32 and under.
Kargul, a suburban Detroit native who earned a doctorate in music
from the University of Michigan, said she had trained more than a
year for the competition and was invited to the event in mid-April.
Diggory, a soprano, said she decided June 3 not to travel to the
Soviet Union after talking to her doctor about potential long-term
effects of radiation exposure. She said her doctor told not to go if
she wanted to have more children.
''It appears that (radiation) is significantly more dangerous than I
was previously led to believe,'' Diggory said.
AP-NY-06-09-86 0030EDT
***************
∂09-Jun-86 1127 JMC re: telex from Barbara Kuhn
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Jun-86 09:07-PT.]
Alain Colmerauer and Sid Harris
∂09-Jun-86 1129 JMC re: I always thought musicians were fools.
To: OR.LUSTIG@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 9 Jun 86 10:40:00-PDT.]
Oh well, I guess I'll have to accept the correction.
∂09-Jun-86 1457 JMC You and I and Les should get together on Qlisp
To: CLT
CC: LES
work statement and hardware request. The work statement
looks ok to me, so unless you notice something that may return
to haunt us, it's primarily a matter of choosing $50K in equipment.
I guess we'd better check whether RPG has equipment requirements.
∂09-Jun-86 1520 JMC re: Trip to LA
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Jun-86 15:17-PT.]
It's ok.
∂09-Jun-86 1601 JMC re: ebos meeting
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Jun-86 15:20-PT.]
2pm on thursday is ok.
∂09-Jun-86 1843 JMC re: EBOS meeting
To: CLT@SU-AI.ARPA, LES@SU-AI.ARPA, REG@SU-AI.ARPA, GRP@SU-AI.ARPA
[In reply to message from CLT rcvd 09-Jun-86 18:39-PT.]
After the Faculty meeting is ok with me. For example, 4pm will
give us 45 minutes, and I'm willing to leave the Faculty meeting
at that time.
∂10-Jun-86 0729 Mailer failed mail returned
To: JMC
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The command was aborted because these Host Name(s) are Unknown:
nttyrl.ntt.junet
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
∂10-Jun-86 0729 JMC re: Common Business Communication Language
[In reply to message sent Tue 10 Jun 1986 09:54:02 JST.]
"Common Business Communication Language" and "Applications of Circumscription
to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge" are different papers. Did you
want both, and which do you have?
------- End undelivered message -------
∂10-Jun-86 1008 JMC Please find that letter.
To: RA
∂10-Jun-86 1001 MDD Ernie Davis
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
CC: davism@NYU-CSD1.ARPA
Your comments about him (cf. recent letter) would really be very helpful.
If you reply by computer mails please use this address:
davism@csd1
By the way, I''ll be in Berkeley, July 16-Aug. 31.
Thanks, Martin
∂10-Jun-86 1105 JMC
To: tajnai@SU-SCORE.ARPA
When is the departmental part of commencement?
∂10-Jun-86 1343 JMC Ernest Davis
To: MDD@SU-AI.ARPA
I don't know him. What does he do that I might have opinions about?
In general I'm reluctant to spend much time on evaluations other than
for appointments to tenure, since we evaluate our own non-tenure
re-appointments locally.
∂10-Jun-86 1418 JMC re: Ebos meeting
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Jun-86 11:16-PT.]
Yes, I thought we already agreed to this.
∂10-Jun-86 1420 JMC reply to message
To: TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 10 Jun 86 11:12:28-PDT.]
OK, I'll be there at 12:30. I'm planning to skip the stadium part,
since I have no high regard for TV personalities.
∂10-Jun-86 1428 JMC re: EuLisp meeting in Bath -- Private Message
To: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
[In reply to message sent 10 Jun 1986 06:56-PDT.]
John McCarthy
Computer Science Dept.
Stanford, CA 94305
∂10-Jun-86 1452 JMC re: CSL fac cand--MacQueen
To: CSL.GERLACH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 10 Jun 86 14:20:33-PDT.]
I prefer 11am.
∂10-Jun-86 1456 JMC re: calendar item
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Jun-86 19:58-PT.]
23 june is a Monday.
∂10-Jun-86 1457 JMC re: CSL fac cand--MacQueen
To: CSL.GERLACH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 10 Jun 86 14:20:33-PDT.]
It turns out that 4pm would be better, since 11am may not be possible.
∂10-Jun-86 1535 JMC
To: GRP, LES, CLT
Bill Webb and Alex Morrow at IBM ACIS development
∂10-Jun-86 1608 JMC United Cerebral Palsy Computer Access Project.
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
I received a phone call from Kathleen Martin (415) 832 7430
of this project asking if I knew anyone who might volunteer to teach
LISP to people with cerebral palsy. They are already teaching
the languages Autocad and Autolisp. Anyone who might be willing
should phone her at the above number.
∂10-Jun-86 1712 JMC re: where?
To: SJM
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Jun-86 16:16-PT.]
They are in the directory lit,jmc containing my literary efforts.
∂10-Jun-86 1816 JMC re: Evaluation of CS Profs @ Stanford (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
The Tau Beta Pi survey is correctly entitled an opinion survey.
∂10-Jun-86 1854 JMC re: Evaluation of CS Profs @ Stanford (from SAIL's BBOARD) (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
It calls itself an opinion survey, and it is indeed useful in
evaluating teaching. However, to call it an evaluation is to imply
that student opinion is authoritative. I have no special ways to
propose for evaluating teaching. The way that is used prospectively
is to invite each job candidate to give a lecture. There
appears to be a high correlation between the quality of such lectures
and subsequent teaching. Of course, teaching ability is the second
criterion at a research university.
∂11-Jun-86 1550 JMC reply to message
To: davism@NYU-CSD1.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed, 11 Jun 86 11:47:30 edt.]
I may even have seen it and not remembered the name. Anyway
I'm willing to look at any papers you send me.
∂11-Jun-86 1553 JMC re: Starting summer work
To: GIVAN@SU-SUSHI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 11 Jun 86 11:52:12-PDT.]
Monday will be fine. I'll probably be in at ten or so.
You can see Rutie about filling out forms to begin with.
∂11-Jun-86 1706 JMC Why no AI?
To: lwd%vanderbilt@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Why isn't artificial intelligence one of the allowed topics for
ACM Doctoral Dissertation Award? It is a larger and more active
field than most of those you list.
∂11-Jun-86 1822 JMC re: Low signal-to-noise ratio on SU-BBOARD (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
It is my guess that the number of ads substantially exceeds the
number of flames, and most people aren't interested in most ads.
For this reason I conjecture that the people who object to flames
and don't mention ads are offended by flames in some way that goes
beyond the time it takes to skip by them.
I again suggest that some
hero do the software required to design a system in which the
type of message if designated in the subject field could be skipped
by a suitable program. For example, a flame about Israel, Isreal
or Israil could be have subject "F: Israel did it again" and an
ad for a car could have subject "A: Rolls-Royce for sale". At
SAIL it would probably be possible for a user to have an E macro
that would skip whatever categories he wished.
∂11-Jun-86 1852 JMC possible research associate position
To: cl.shankar@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Might you be interested in a Research Associate position in the
Formal Reasoning Group here? If so another visit would be needed
to discuss your research goals and to meet Jussi Ketonen, who has
also worked on computer aided proofs in mathematics.
∂12-Jun-86 1218 JMC re: timberline workshop
To: LANSKY@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu 12 Jun 86 12:11:31-PDT.]
I will attend for the whole workshop and not longer, so I'll need a room
for Sunday, Monday and Tuesday nights. I want a private room and don't
need any subsidy of room or travel. I have no dietary restrictions.
Sorry about the delay; I was dithering about coming.
∂12-Jun-86 1420 JMC Re: possible research associate position
To: JK
∂12-Jun-86 1322 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Re: possible research associate position
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Jun 86 13:22:23 PDT
Date: Thu 12 Jun 86 15:22:34-CDT
From: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Re: possible research associate position
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 11 Jun 86 18:52:00-CDT
Message-ID: <12214297952.13.CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
I would definitely be interested. It would be a wonderful opportunity.
I can visit there some time in July after my dissertation has been
completed. I can get in touch with Ketonen directly and work things
out.
Regards,
Shankar
-------
Replying-To: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Reply-Subject: re: possible research associate position
Reply-Text:
[In reply to message sent Thu 12 Jun 86 15:22:34-CDT.]
I am primarily involved, especially because Ketonen is still unsure
about whether and when he will return from his leave of absence at
Lucid. However, even if he doesn't return I welcome his advice.
When you are ready to name a date, MAIL to me with a copy to JK@SU-AI.
∂12-Jun-86 1421 JMC re: possible research associate position
To: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 12 Jun 86 15:22:34-CDT.]
I am primarily involved, especially because Ketonen is still unsure
about whether and when he will return from his leave of absence at
Lucid. However, even if he doesn't return I welcome his advice.
When you are ready to name a date, MAIL to me with a copy to JK@SU-AI.
∂12-Jun-86 1436 JMC Re: possible research associate position
To: CLT, VAL
∂12-Jun-86 1322 CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Re: possible research associate position
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Jun 86 13:22:23 PDT
Date: Thu 12 Jun 86 15:22:34-CDT
From: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Re: possible research associate position
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 11 Jun 86 18:52:00-CDT
Message-ID: <12214297952.13.CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
I would definitely be interested. It would be a wonderful opportunity.
I can visit there some time in July after my dissertation has been
completed. I can get in touch with Ketonen directly and work things
out.
Regards,
Shankar
-------
∂12-Jun-86 1508 JMC re: Alliant
To: LES
CC: CLT, JJW, RPG
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 12-Jun-86 14:46-PT.]
It occurs to me that it may be necessary to discuss the concurrency features
of the machine in a future publication about Qlisp, because part of the
result of our research may concern the relation between the concurrency
features provided in the hardware and the performance of Qlisp. I have
no objection to keeping their secrets temporarily, but we may have to
publish eventually.
∂12-Jun-86 1551 JMC re: mail probably intended for you
To: john@LBL-CSAM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu, 12 Jun 86 15:47:49 pdt.]
Thanks for the mail from Dowdy.
∂12-Jun-86 1555 JMC misdirected mail from Earl Dowdy and Jim Dray
To: ota@USC-ISI.ARPA
John McCarthy at LBL has forwarded some mail from you that he thinks
was intended for me. I'm willing to participate in your study. Note
that my ARPANET address is JMC@SU-AI.
∂12-Jun-86 1758 JMC reply to message
To: Jeff←Pelletier%UQV-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu, 12 Jun 86 17:11:48 MDT.]
AAAI supports workshops, and this would count as one. In general they
have involved more people than seven, but I don't see this as an
obstacle. We have never given any money for salary replacement -
only expenses, and I wouldn't do it before asking about it at the
AAAI meeting in August. We began by giving a maximum of $5K but have given
up to $10K more recently to a few large workshops. In view of the
small size of yours and the limited connection of the
group to AAAI, I'll hold it to $5K. I look forward to seeing your
proposal.
∂12-Jun-86 1830 JMC re: Why no AI?
To: "Lwd at vanderbilt"@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
[In reply to message sent 12 Jun 86 10:30:16-CDT.]
Hmm. Is it necessary to use that somewhat random set of classifications at all?
∂13-Jun-86 0936 JMC re: CSL fac cand--MacQueen
To: CSL.GERLACH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Fri 13 Jun 86 09:03:45-PDT.]
It is MJH356, and I don't have time for lunch or dinner.
∂13-Jun-86 1635 JMC
To: VAL
AI Journal doesn't count proceedings as published, and Bobrow is sure the paper was recently received.
∂13-Jun-86 1640 JMC re: Strategic Planning Meeting
To: AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Fri 13 Jun 86 16:04:23-PDT.]
I have put it in my calendar.
∂13-Jun-86 1643 JMC re: reply to message
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Jun-86 16:41-PT.]
Bobrow approved, and I'll write Brady.
∂13-Jun-86 1740 JMC re: [AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>: Exec Council Meeting]
To: AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Fri 13 Jun 86 16:07:46-PDT.]
I will make the Sunday meeting too.
∂13-Jun-86 1741 JMC re: free tech conf registration
To: AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Fri 13 Jun 86 16:13:23-PDT.]
I'm assuming that since I'm still on the mailing list, that the free
tech conf registration applies to me.
∂14-Jun-86 1356 JMC Interpress
To: LES, CLT
Am I mistaken or is its collection of mathematical symbols rather
random and scattered through the set as a whole.
∂14-Jun-86 1620 JMC re: NEXT
To: HK.WFM@SU-FORSYTHE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Sat, 14 Jun 86 16:12:32 PDT.]
The visit was interesting, and I'm not surprised that there wasn't
agreement on the price. I assume your mailer told you that
nillson is incorrect (unless Nilsson has arranged to trap
the more usual misspellings of his name).
∂14-Jun-86 1720 JMC Israel and the Arabs
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
The problem won't be solved by someone deciding what is the most just
solution. It will be solved by compromise or by war. Since a war to the
end is likely to turn nuclear in the end, compromise is better for all
parties. Here are some facts that I hope are stated sufficiently weakly
so that they will not be seriously disputed.
1. Some Arabs still say they are determined to eliminate the state of
Israel. Egypt has made peace, and others are willing to make peace
on some terms. Few favor unilateral concessions to get negotiation
started.
2. The PLO, which the other Arabs still mainly recognize as the sole
representative of the Palestinian people, has not been able to come
to a negotiating position, because it is divided.
3. Some Israelis want to hold on to just about everything Israel
now has. Others are willing to give up substantial amounts of land
for peace. No-one has had to say what he is willing to give up for
what because of the lack of concrete negotiations. Few Israelis
favor unilateral concessions to get the process started.
4. Imagine being a mediator between Israel and the Arabs. First,
recall that a mediator, as in a labor mediator, has no position
as to the just solution of any issue. If he has opinions he must
conceal them from both sides. His role is merely to discover whether
an agreement is possible within a time limited by his patience.
He runs back and forth between both sides carrying proposals and
trying to help each side understand the negotiating position of
the other. He says things like, "I'm sure they won't agree to A,
but they might agree to B. Shall I ask them? You don't like B;
well how about B'? I understand about how groups X and Y on your
side will torpedo any agreement unless it contains C. I don't
believe the other side will go for C, but do you think that X would agree
to C', and you and X could coerce Y into going along?" That's
mediation. The mediator may end up saying, "I don't think there
is any chance of an agreement now, so pay me the fee agreed on
for that eventuality, and I'll call you back in a year (or ten
years) or you can call me if you see renewed possibilities".
5. Unfortunately, there is no-one interested in mediating
international conflicts like this. It's much more fun to
try to arbitrate; i.e. to state your idea of what is the
just solution. The U.N. and many governments are even more
primitive. They simply take sides according which side seems
more advantageous.
6. It is a serious question as to whether negotiations would
be worthwhile at present. From the Israeli point of view there
are several arguments against it.
a. The Israelis are in possession of what some of them
want. Why risk political defeat in Israel by offering concessions?
Whatever concessions are discussed will lead to terrible political
battles.
b. As long as the PLO isn't ready as a whole for unconditional
negotiations, there is a question about whether a peace agreement
would be fulfilled.
c. Some Israelis hope the West Bank Palestinians can be
induced to move to Jordan. (A mediator might go so far as to tell
them that this is wishful thinking).
From Arab points of view there are also arguments against it.
a. For any Arab politician, negotiation risks assassination.
b. Maybe conditions will develop so that the Arab side
can turn its population advantage into military advantage.
c. For certain people, guerrilla warfare and even terrorism
are fun.
7. From the Israeli point of view, here are some arguments in favor
of negotiation.
a. Maybe peace can be obtained. There's always a danger
that Israel will lose or that a war will be terribly destructive.
What if it turns nuclear?
b. Many Israelis believe the Palestinians were treated not
entirely justly.
c. An Israeli state ruling so many Palestinians, isn't for
them a desirable long term proposition.
8. From the Arab point of view, here are some arguments for negotiation.
a. The longer the Israelis hold on to all the territory, the
harder it will be to get anything back.
b. If the dispute ends up in a nuclear stalemate, the Israelis
will have all the territory.
c. There are other things worth doing than squabbling with
the Israelis.
From the U.S. point of view there are both sentimental and
practical arguments for helping Israel survive. I'll not go into
them, because I haven't a precise enough formulation to be concise.
The U.S. has no position about what an eventual settlement should be.
The Russian point of view is strictly cold war. They regard
themselves as an underdog entitled to make whatever alliances as expedient
in the "fight against imperialism". They simultaneously regard themselves
as the carriers of an ideology that will eventually dominate the world.
They regard any resistance to this ideology as an act of aggression.
In 1947 they supported the existence of Israel and let their Czech
satellites sell Israel arms, because they regarded the Arab countries
as British satellites. Later they discovered that Arab nationalism
could turn into hostility to Britain and America and that they could
encourage this by taking a totally anti-Israel position and encouraging
efforts aimed at destroying it. It's hard to say what could make them
favor Mid-East peace. Probably there would have to be advantages or
avoidance of disadvantages elsewhere in the world. Their approval
isn't absolutely necessary, e.g. Israel's peace with Egypt, but it
would certainly help.
∂15-Jun-86 0942 JMC
To: RA
wallst.1[let,jmc] is a letter to the Wall Street Journal.
∂16-Jun-86 0920 JMC
To: RA
Please decorate cate.1
∂16-Jun-86 0943 JMC re: Common Lisp
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Jun-86 09:36-PT.]
I haven't talked substantively with Stoyan. He asked me in a message
some months ago whether I supported Common Lisp, and I told him that
I supported it as a standard language for now.
∂16-Jun-86 1140 JMC further development of Lisp
To: cl-steering@SU-AI.ARPA
Common Lisp needs to be a standard, and effecting this requires making
only clarifying changes and fixing the worst bugs. However, Lisp isn't
perfect and should be developed further. This is being done by individual
projects, and ideas are being exchanged through the public literature. It
seems to me that much of the European concern (is it called Eulisp?) is
oriented towards a collective effort at a futuristic Lisp. Perhaps some
of the Common Lisp people would be interested in taking part in such an
effort in addition to the Common Lisp standardization. On the other hand,
it may be that the best way to make advances for the next n years is to
avoid any official effort and await the results of the individual
projects. It may even be that the official standardization efforts for
Common Lisp are redundant; perhaps a de facto standard is good enough.
I don't know the answer to either question, and I don't even know how to
get an answer.
∂16-Jun-86 1143 JMC re: Bob Givan
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Jun-86 11:36-PT.]
Les and I agreed to pay him $15 per hour. The title is up to Les.
∂16-Jun-86 1145 JMC re: objectivity
To: SJM
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Jun-86 10:12-PT.]
I agree to your first suggestion, but I don't see how the putting in
jumping to conclusions is relevant.
∂16-Jun-86 1204 JMC letter
To: RA
I need to send two of my United Airlines frequent traveller stickers to
SAS Ticket counter
380 World Way
Bradley International Terminal
Los Angeles, CA 90045
along with the one boarding pass I saved and a copy of my ticket (just mine)
to Sweden and back. The note should say that I didn't know that I could
get United credit for that SAS trip. Only the part between the U.S.
and Copenhagen is relevant.
∂16-Jun-86 1206 JMC
To: RA
If we don't have the stickers, the Mileage Plus number is W196901.
∂16-Jun-86 1801 JMC re: stolen land (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
One of Ataturk's reforms was to cause the Turkish language to be
written in the roman alphabet rather than in arabic. Therefore, there is
an official romanization. According to Socrates, his name is Mustapha
Kemal Ataturk.
∂16-Jun-86 2307 JMC re: A proposal
To: hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, VAL@SU-AI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent 13 Jun 86 10:40:50 EDT.]
I have a draft of McDermott's Lament and will have an answer,
probably in collaboration with Vladimir Lifschitz. We regard
"The Shooting of Fred" as a challenging problem that corresponds to
a problem Vladimir found with my simple abnormality theory of the
blocks world. We have various approaches to solving it and hope
to do so within a few months. Even if we don't solve it soon, we
are not inclined to despair.
∂16-Jun-86 2307 JMC A proposal
To: VAL
Here is the message from Hector Levesque.
∂16-Jun-86 2250 hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA A proposal
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Jun 86 22:50:36 PDT
Received: from toronto by csnet-relay.csnet id au08611; 17 Jun 86 1:38 EDT
Received: from utai.uucp by utcsri.uucp id AA12026; Fri, 13 Jun 86 10:51:58 edt
Received: by utai.uucp id AA03528; Fri, 13 Jun 86 10:41:01 edt
Message-Id: <8606131441.AA03528@utai.uucp>
Received: by utai.uucp id AA03525; Fri, 13 Jun 86 10:40:53 edt
Date: 13 Jun 86 10:40:50 EDT (Fri)
From: Hector Levesque <hector%utai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: A proposal
Dear fellow researcher,
As you may already know, Drew McDermott has recently written a paper called "A
Critique of Pure Reason" where he explains why he thinks the "logicist"
programme in AI (as in the work of Hayes, McCarthy, Moore etc.) is bound to
fail. The conclusion is certainly not original, and you probably consider it
obviously correct, or maybe obviously incorrect. Either way, it's obvious, and
you've no doubt lost interest in the whole issue by now, and want to get on
with your work. What makes Drew's paper more than just the trouncing of some
plainly defunct equine specimen is that he has very clearly changed his mind
after a decade or so of work within the logicist programme (including research
papers, a textbook, and methodology papers insisting that this was the *only*
way to go). Right or wrong, he has unquestionably amassed considerable
experience in actually doing AI, and his arguments are street-smart in a way
that so much armchair philosophizing about AI simply is not.
So what does this have to do with you? I will be guest editing a special
issue of the journal COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE that will be a public forum
devoted to the issues raised by this paper. The model we will follow is that
of The Behavioral and Brain Sciences: the paper in question, followed by
commentary from two dozen or so luminaries in the field, and a final reply and
summary from Drew himself. He has agreed to all of this, so the only thing
left is to find suitable luminaries willing to illuminate. Like you, say.
I can guess what you're starting to think at this point (i.e. something like
"Groan!"), but let me try to convince you. First, I know you already have
opinions in this area, as you have expressed some of them publicly before.
And it's not that big a job, really. All I would need from you is a thousand
words (or less), and you'll have lots of time: a couple of months after
receiving the final draft of the paper (which should be ready in a month or
so). Finally, I would encourage you to share the modest workload involved
with a like-minded colleague or student. At best, you'll just send me an
electronic mail message with your commentary and I'll do the rest. With luck,
by the end of the year, we should have something of interest to a wide variety
of AI researchers. So if you feel (as I do) that scientific discussions are
impossible at our AI mega-conferences, and cringe at the thought of the AIList
as our only public forum, then now's the time to change all this. If nothing
else, it should be fun (I am grateful to Pat Hayes for this last observation).
Obviously this project won't get off the ground if I can't solicit suitable
commentary. I'm not asking you today if you have such commentary; you may not
have even seen the paper. What I'm asking is whether or not you're willing to
make an honest effort in this direction once I send you the final draft.
Ultimately, it will be my responsibility to select for publication and edit
those commentaries that I find the most interesting, all the while minimizing
redundancy, irrelevancy, ad hominem remarks, and the like. So I really can't
even guarantee that what you send will appear in print since, for instance, I
assured Drew that only a small number of "Nyah! Nyah! I told you so!!" would
actually be published.
Since many of you are probably away for at least part of the summer, I need to
know who exactly received this message so please PLEASE *PLEASE* answer this
immediately. (I'll have to track down by phone those of you who do not
answer.) To make it even easier for you, feel free to use the following codes:
A -- Got your message. Don't know what to think. Will send another
message within a couple of days.
B -- I'm tempted. But I absolutely must see a draft of the paper before
I decide. Can't get one around here. Please mail me a xerox.
C -- Sounds good to me. I'm not sure I'll have anything very relevant
to say, but I'm willing to give it the old college try.
D -- I don't think I want to get involved. If you're really stuck, I
suppose I could be convinced. But for now, the answer is no.
E -- Sorry, no. I have many excuses, but you probably don't want
to hear even the best of them.
If your response is other than E please also send me a phone number, a
preferred electronic address, and a regular address for future use. My
addresses are (don't trust "reply" on your mail system):
ARPA: hector%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY
CSNET: hector@toronto
UUCP: ...{utai,utcsri}!hector
REGULAR: Dept. of Computer Science
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A4
CANADA.
PHONE: (416) 978-3618
Thanks for your attention and I await your reply.
Hector Levesque
∂17-Jun-86 1233 JMC
To: RA@SU-AI.ARPA
CC: givan@SU-SUSHI.ARPA
Give Bob Givan an S2 key next time he comes around.
∂17-Jun-86 1707 JMC re: Alliant acceptance
To: LES
CC: CLT, JJW
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 17-Jun-86 17:03-PT.]
No dissent from me.
∂17-Jun-86 1729 JMC
To: RA
graham.1
∂17-Jun-86 1758 JMC two proposed workshops
To: clancey@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
I have proposals for AAAI support for two workshops about which I would
like to ask your opinion. One is from J. A. Self of the University of
Lancaster who plans a Workshop on Complex Learning and who tells me that
you attended his Workshop on Intelligent Computer Assisted Instruction.
Was it sufficiently worthwhile to justify supporting the new one?
The other proposal is from Jeffrey Bonar and Stellan Ohlsson of the
University of Pittsburgh for the "Third International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Education". I see that the two conferences
are somewhat similar. Can you compare them?
∂17-Jun-86 2212 JMC Hussein's positions
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
Some people are sufficiently angry with him that they don't read
carefully what he says. It was indeed clear from his message
about the 200 year old Jewish plot that he was citing what was
taught in school rather than asserting it on his own. In this
he confirms what Bernard Lewis says about classical European
antisemitism becoming the norm in the Arab world. Of course,
it is entirely reasonable to ask him his own view of this matter.
He is rather stoutly putting forward one of the Arab points of
view.
While others have dealt with his anti-Israel and anti-Jewish
remarks, I want to discuss other aspects of his position,
namely, its Moslem religious aspects. Kemal Ataturk won power
in Turkey, because the Turks were tired of always losing to
the Europeans and correctly ascribed it to backwardness.
In 1453 the Turks conquered the 1000 year old Christian Byzantine Empire,
and engaged in conquests that got them an empire in the Balkans,
the Middle East and North Africa. By the nineteenth century
Europe had far surpassed them in culture, technology, human
welfare and humanitarianism. Russia would have clobbered them
in the nineteenth century were it not for Britain and France
propping them up for balance of power reasons. They guessed
wrong in World War I and lost their empire. None of the
other Moslem states was any better off.
The problem was that while in Europe modernism had beaten religion
into submission sufficiently so that religion no longer interfered
with science and technology and often even acted as a humanitarian
force, in the Moslem world religion was still a powerful reactionary
force. The Moslem world could not advance in industry, commerce, science or
politics because of the religion and the power of the Mullahs. This
gave rise among the young people of the Moslem world to modernist
movements of various kinds. These took power in Turkey and later in
Iran.
After World War II modernism split in Marxists and ordinary Western
ideologies. Marxism ends up reactionary, because its politics
are basically feudal and do not lead to democracy and personal
freedom. Western modernism lost its morale in the 1960s as
a consequence of Western intellectuals losing their morale.
Moreover, the Arab countries gained their political freedom
without modernizing but because the West decided that
imperialism was a bad idea. Some of these countries were
lucky with oil and became rich without really modernizing.
The Koran based ideology that Hussein expounds will never
modernize the Moslem world. Perhaps he doesn't care about
that, but as Kemal Ataturk saw, the Moslems will always
be beaten as long as they remain backward any time any
modern nation wants to take the trouble provided
the other modern nations don't interfere. They can also
be beaten by a communist country. Communist countries
are strong militarily in relation to their industrial
and cultural level.
However, the best reason for modernizing is that the Koran
based ideology is inhumane, and people shouldn't have
to live that way. The case of Iran shows how much worse
a theocratic Islamic regime is than an ordinary authoritarian
monarchy.
∂18-Jun-86 0009 JMC possible Freiling visit
To: sf@SU-CSLI.ARPA, barwise@SU-CSLI.ARPA
I wrote Chris Freiling, who wrote the paper in JSL about evidence
against CH, some comments and got a reply asking whether there was
interest in his giving a seminar. Is there?
∂18-Jun-86 0034 JMC
To: genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Did Delfin Systems ever pay?
∂18-Jun-86 0038 JMC
To: RA
sandew.1
∂18-Jun-86 1115 JMC re: (on TTY161) Documentation? (Non-Sail Ascii terminals)
To: JL
[In reply to message rcvd 18-Jun-86 03:23-PT.]
Do you have Short Waits and Essential E - obtainable from Kathy Berg?
∂18-Jun-86 1359 JMC Nunez
To: or.dantzig@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
He couldn't make the 28th after all. He will phone us the week
of August 18 to set a new time.
∂18-Jun-86 1409 JMC Message to Dantzig
To: RA
Please phone his secretary at 3-1304 and tell him that Nunez cancelled
our June 28 meeting and will call to set up a new one the week of Aug.
18. I phoned and got no answer.
Also ask whoever is in charge of the phone number file to check on
the 3-1094 number listed for him. I dialed it and got someone in
the financial aids office.
∂18-Jun-86 1439 JMC book
To: RA
Please obtain for me Mathematical Problem Solving by Alan H. Schoenfeld
from the Bookstore. It should be charged to my Bookstore credit card
number 3613. Academic Press.
∂18-Jun-86 1536 JMC
To: RA
bajcsy.1
∂18-Jun-86 1732 JMC re: two proposed workshops
To: CLANCEY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 18 Jun 86 17:26:34-PDT.]
Self isn't asking for much money, so maybe I'll fund both. Many thanks
for the comments.
∂19-Jun-86 1015 JMC re: blocks
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Jun-86 08:45-PT.]
That's fine.
∂19-Jun-86 1016 JMC reply to message
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Jun-86 08:54-PT.]
Ask Carolyn if she has the list of WISC summer school courses.
∂19-Jun-86 1313 JMC
To: SJM
>Michaelson, Sidney 011 44 31 667-2200
1 hit on key "michaelson" in PHON[1,JMC].
Exit
↑C
.
∂19-Jun-86 1344 JMC
To: RA
sato.4
∂19-Jun-86 1346 JMC
To: RA
∂18-Jun-86 2042 GENESERETH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Jun 86 20:42:11 PDT
Date: Wed 18 Jun 86 20:40:27-PDT
From: Michael Genesereth <GENESERETH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 18 Jun 86 00:34:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12215950532.18.GENESERETH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
John,
Yes after a little prodding I got the check for the full amount,
as we discussed. You should probably get you rsecretary to call Garo.
mrg
-------
That's Garo Kiremidjian at Delfin Systems about my pay for the
conference at CIA.
∂19-Jun-86 1843 JMC re: Zionism and Beauty Contests (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
My observations about Islamic states are not based on reading the
Koran any more than my observations about the Soviet Union are based on
reading the works of Marx and Lenin. Hussein should doubt that just
reading the Koran would bring me to his point of view since "Just very few
of the latest leaders [of Turkey] were really good muslims" My objections
to Islamic states are based on the barbarous punishments I have read
about, the idea (re-affirmed by Hussein) that people who leave the Muslim
religion are subject to the death penalty, the Koranic objection to
lending money at interest, the feudal politics of the Islamic states and
the more direct observation that the Islamic states don't seem to be
advancing very rapidly in science and technology in spite of their wealth.
Islamic ideology is not the only religious ideology that can cause
backwardness. It is also true of certain variants of Christianity
and Judaism, and all of these are less harmful than the
even more primitive animist religions. Hussein's apparent intolerance
of other variants of Islam is an attitude that has led Islamic
states and factions to waste their lives in intra-Islamic religious
wars in addition to external battles.
My opinion is that BBOARD discussants should ignore personal intolerance
and bad manners and concentrate on those issues that raise interesting
questions. My tolerance of this intolerance is based on the opinion
that it is extremely unlikely to lead to violence in the context of
an electronically mediated discussion.
∂19-Jun-86 2342 JMC Did paper by Ernest Davis get in AAAI-86?
To: RA
The preliminary program is in my current events file.
∂20-Jun-86 0002 JMC E. Davis
To: MDD@SU-AI.ARPA
Well, I suppose I'd favor reappointment, assuming that this
doesn't carry tenure. He tends to approach problems top down,
and this results in long lists of requirements. His opinions
are generally sensible, but in his discussion of common sense
he avoids formal detail including detailed discussion of the
formalisms introduced by others. I was particularly put off
by the vagueness of his dismissal of non-monotonic reasoning.
I wonder if he really understands the papers he refers to.
Sorry not to be more help.
∂20-Jun-86 1046 JMC US-Japan collaboration
To: RA
Please make letters like that I sent to Sato for these people.
∂20-Jun-86 0335 a32275%ccut.u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA US-Japan collaboration
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Jun 86 03:33:54 PDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by csnet-relay.csnet id af12970; 20 Jun 86 6:30 EDT
Received: by u-tokyo.junet (4.12/4.9J-1[JUNET-CSNET])
id AA01382; Fri, 20 Jun 86 18:11:20+0900
Received: by ccut.u-tokyo.junet (4.12/6.1Junet)
id AA09070; Fri, 20 Jun 86 18:05:38+0900
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 86 18:05:38+0900
From: NAKAHARA Hayao <a32275%ccut.u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8606200905.AA09070@ccut.u-tokyo.junet>
To: jmc%su-ai.arpa%u-tokyo.junet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Cc: clt%su-ai.arpa%u-tokyo.junet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: US-Japan collaboration
Dear Professor McCarthy:
I send a mail to you on June 7 via nttlab!Shasta. Today, I heard that
the Shasta machine has been very unhealty, and that some mails via
Shasta machine were lost. So I include the copy of the mail dated
June 7 (some mistakes are corrected). If you did not send the letter
or something mentioned the mail dated June 7, please send it to me
and Mr. Hagiya, as soon as possible.
I am looking forward to seeing you.
Sinceary Yours
Nakahara, Hayao
P.S.
My email address via CS-NET is the following.
a32275%ccut.u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay@csnet-relay.arpa
**** Here, I put the copy of the mail dated June 7. ****
Dear Professor McCarthy:
I am very pleased that I shall join in the join US-Japanese
collaboration on logic and computer science and visit to Stanford
this summer. I suppose that Professor Sato would inform our schedule
to you, but I inform our schdule here again. I and Hagiya (at RIMS,
Kyoto) are plannig to stay at Stanford from July 1 to August 31, and
Sato from July 17 to August 19. I would appreciate it if you would
arrange for our office and using computer during our stay at Stanford.
Sato said me that we will need your invitation letter or some
certificate which proves our position as a visiting researcher at
Stanford University and shows we will join US-Japanes collaboration
supported by NSF and JSPS. Without it, we would have some trouble
with the immigration officer. For this reason, please send your
invitation letter or certificate to me and Hagiya (and to Sato, if
you did not send it to him), as soon as posible.
I am looking forward to seeing you soon at Stanford.
Sinceary Yours
Nakahara, Hayao
Department of Information Science
Faculty of Science
University Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan, 113
P.S.
Hagiya's address:
Masami Hagiya
Research Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Kyoto University
Kyoto, Japan, 606
∂20-Jun-86 1130 JMC re: US-Japan collaboration
To: a32275%ccut.u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Fri, 20 Jun 86 18:05:38+0900.]
I got your message and will send the letter. Please acknowledge this,
because I'm still not sure the address works.
∂20-Jun-86 1352 JMC Third International Conference on AI and Education
To: aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
CC: bonar@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU
Jeffrey Bonar and Stellan Ohlsson at the University of Pittsburgh
I have decided to give them $10K. This is to include neither overhead
nor honoraria for speakers. I'll send you a copy of their proposal.
They will be in touch with you.
∂20-Jun-86 1400 JMC 2nd AAAI Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems.
To: aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
I have decided to support Kowalik's second workshop. I see you
have a copy of the proposal. That will be $5K. Please inform him.
∂20-Jun-86 1406 JMC re: AAAI-sponsored scientific meeting?
To: SLEEMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
CC: buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[In reply to message from SLEEMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA sent Thu 19 Jun 86 18:12:47-PDT.]
The answer in principle is yes. Please submit a proposal.
∂20-Jun-86 1409 JMC another
To: aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
I have a pre-proposal from Derek Sleeman and Bruce Buchanan for
a workshop on learning around the time of IJCAI-87 to be held in
Aberdeen. No action needed yet as I've asked for detailed proposal.
∂20-Jun-86 1430 JMC re: possible Freiling visit
To: SF@SU-CSLI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed 18 Jun 86 21:45:50-PDT.]
I think Logic Lunch would be appropriate, and I will pay for bringing
him, speculating that he is very smart and that he might be interested
in some of the problems Vladimir and I have concerning non-monotonic
reasoning. I'll write him asking him to phone. July 7 is the only
impending Monday that is feasible for me.
∂20-Jun-86 1434 JMC
To: RA
freili.2
∂20-Jun-86 1449 JMC letter to Manevitz
To: RA
see msg.msg[1,jmc]/383p
Dear Prof. M.
I have no near term possibility of a position for another logician.
∂20-Jun-86 1511 JMC Workshop on Complex Learning
To: aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
by J.A. Self, University of Lancaster
I have decided to support this workshop as requested at $2500.
I'll send a copy of his letter.
∂20-Jun-86 1516 JMC
To: RA
self.2
∂20-Jun-86 1520 JMC reply to message
To: Jeff←Pelletier%UQV-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Thu, 12 Jun 86 17:11:48 MDT.]
We don't support salary replacement, and the the work seems somewhat
tangential to AI. I guess I'd better not.
∂20-Jun-86 1533 JMC
To: RA
witsch.1
∂20-Jun-86 1746 JMC reply to message
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 20-Jun-86 17:21-PT.]
ok
∂20-Jun-86 2151 JMC
To: SJM
Well maybe their L.A. branch will buy the Buick.
∂21-Jun-86 1742 JMC re: Alliant
To: Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Sat 21 Jun 86 17:39:20-PDT.]
It will be used in a DARPA sponsored project to implement and
test Qlisp - a lisp for parallel machines based on queues.
∂22-Jun-86 1751 JMC re: historical question
To: shoham@YALE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent 22 Jun 86 19:36:25 EDT.]
My address is jmc@su-ai.arpa. If I introduced the problem it would have
been a potato in the tailpipe. It is possible that I introduced it orally
mentioning a potato, which is the way I had read about it in some story
or seen it in some movie, and someone else took it from me and changed
it to a banana. However, I don't remember precisely what the problem
is other than a possible reason that a car won't start - to be assumed
away without explicit thought by non-monotonic reasoning. If it's
something else, let me know, and I'll tell you whether it's likely that
it originates with me.
As I remember your initialization problem it is a case of the qualification
problem - i.e. the problem of suitably qualifying the premise
of an axiom, in your case (and perhaps all the cases I explicitly treated)
an axiom that gives the consequences of an action.
∂22-Jun-86 2304 JMC Chernobyl
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
Readers of BBOARD will recognize me as a non-fan of the Soviet Union
and communism. However, the Soviets deserve favorable recognition
for the resolute way they are dealing with the Chernobyl disaster.
It seems likely that we would do very much worse.
I don't refer to their safety standards for nuclear reactors, which
seem to be worse than ours - not merely as ours are at present but
as they were in 1966 when the utilities made their first major
commitments to nuclear power.
I also am not referring to their initial attempts, apparently both
local and Moscow-directed, to conceal the extent of the disaster.
I also don't refer to their initial confusion about what to do.
What I do admire is their present effort to minimize the effects
of the accident, to clean up as quickly as possible, to improve
the safety of their other plants while keeping them running and
to operate the other plants on the site as soon as it is safe.
I fear that were we to suffer an accident of even a tenth the magnitude
(Chernobyl apparently released about three million times as much
radioactivity as Three Mile Island), the result would be complete panic,
mainly caused by TV, with help from newspapers, radio, assorted
environmentalists, Federal judges and other politicians. (The headline
writers of the Stanford Daily are evidently preparing themselves well for
their future jobs in the media by having written panicky headlines about
Chernobyl completely unwarranted by the stories that follow).
Excessive flight from areas only slightly subject to radioactivity
would kill many more than the accident itself. Efforts to clean up would
be stymied by lawsuits and demands that nothing be changed until the
lawyers finished their discovery proceedings. The inevitable damage of
the disaster would be greatly magnified. Nuclear power would be halted
for many years.
Such a panic is not a traditional part of the American character
or political system. Until about 1970, the American system would have
handled such a disaster better than the Soviets did. It is the development
of anti-technology as a political movement with powerful roots in the
media that is doing the damage. Of course, anti-technology is only one
of the anti-American society movements among American intellectuals.
I am hoping for media apologists to claim that the panic mongering
proves that our media are doing their job. Go ahead. Make my day.
∂23-Jun-86 1326 Mailer failed mail returned
To: JMC
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The command was aborted because these Host Name(s) are Unknown:
MCC.COM
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
∂23-Jun-86 1326 JMC re: visit to MCC
[In reply to message sent Mon 23 Jun 86 11:45:31-CDT.]
Yes, please. For Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂23-Jun-86 1333 JMC
To: ai.ellie@MCC.ARPA
Yes please, for Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
∂23-Jun-86 1334 JMC
To: ME
∂23-Jun-86 1326 Mailer failed mail returned
To: JMC
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The command was aborted because these Host Name(s) are Unknown:
MCC.COM
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
∂23-Jun-86 1326 JMC re: visit to MCC
[In reply to message sent Mon 23 Jun 86 11:45:31-CDT.]
Yes, please. For Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂23-Jun-86 1440 JMC We shouldn't be paying.
To: LES
∂23-Jun-86 1435 SJG who should handle this?
John -
It appears that Mike's group is not paying for my SAIL account.
Are you somehow still paying for it from when I was a visiting
scholar?
Thanks. (You're only too welcome to ignore this message ... !)
Matt
∂23-Jun-86 1442 JMC
To: RA
See msg.msg[1,jmc]/616p and please do it.
∂23-Jun-86 1444 JMC
To: ai.boyer@MCC.ARPA
∂23-Jun-86 1437 RA Frank, Dina Bolla
Frank wanted to let you know that for your trip to Austin tomorrow, the South
West flight was sold out so he booked you on Western 650 which leaves at 10:30
from San Jose and arrives at Austin at 6:28. There are two stops, at Salt Lake
and San Antonio. This is the best he could do. Note that you are leaving from
San Jose and returning to San Francisco.
∂23-Jun-86 1450 JMC
To: SJM
Expotel, Banda House, Cambridge Grove, London W6 OLE
Tel. (01) 741 4411
∂23-Jun-86 1657 JMC
To: GRP
I told Ralph EBOS meetin is off. Be sure all know what you and Carolyn decide.
∂23-Jun-86 1834 JMC re: hosts
To: ME
[In reply to message rcvd 23-Jun-86 13:39-PT.]
Is it then an error on their part to furnish MCC.COM as a return
address?
∂23-Jun-86 1836 JMC re: Gnu & Editor based operating system
To: AI.BOYER@MCC.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon, 23 Jun 1986 20:27 CDT.]
I look forward to seeing it. I shouldn't have passed up Stallman's
recent offer of a demo, but I was just going on a trip or something
like that.
∂23-Jun-86 1855 JMC re: cultural brainwashing (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
Well, Bil should look inward at his present invisible bias that
prevents him from crediting America as a country for the moon landing.
This "political region" managed to make the political decision to
devote the resources to that purpose. Europe with larger resources
hasn't made any such achievement and isn't even trying. Both in
defense and space Europe is, by its own intention, a satellite of
the U.S. When a person abandons one rigid doctrine he is very likely
to fall into another - in this case ritualistic liberalism.
∂23-Jun-86 2223 JMC re: Freiling visit
To: SF@SU-CSLI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon 23 Jun 86 22:18:33-PDT.]
OK. I can't do anything till he phones in response to my letter.
∂23-Jun-86 2242 JMC re: domain names
To: ME
[In reply to message rcvd 23-Jun-86 22:37-PT.]
For now then, the reply macro doesn't work. However, since MCC is
an abbreviation for MCC.AI, which is their main computer, it seems
to work just to strip off the .COM.
I assume we'll eventually have a domain server, but actually wouldn't
it work if we just put MCC.COM in our host table?
∂24-Jun-86 0040 JMC reservations to Portland
To: RA
Please get me reservations to arrive in Portland Sunday evening
and to return Wednesday evening. Say leave 6pm each day.
∂24-Jun-86 0815 JMC re: Paper on circumscription and induction
To: bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK
[In reply to message sent Mon, 23 Jun 86 10:41:46 -0100.]
Now I'm puzzled about what paper you mean. I have two papers on
circumscription. The 1980 paper in Artificial Intelligence,
which mentions induction as an example, and the 1986 paper in
the same journal on "Applications of circumscription ...". It
doesn't seem like either of them. Could I have been referring
to someone else's paper, e.g. one of Vladimir Lifschitz's?
∂24-Jun-86 0847 JMC re: Macqueen impressions
To: CSL.GERLACH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Tue 24 Jun 86 08:44:31-PDT.]
MacQueen seems reasonably smart, but I think his area has much less
activity and potential than logic programming in which we don't
have anybody.
∂24-Jun-86 0920 JMC
To: RA
Have a good trip.
∂27-Jun-86 1306 JMC re: machine learning workshop
To: langley@ICSE.UCI.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 27 Jun 86 10:54:27 -0800.]
I'm still in charge. The workshop seems appropriate. We don't pay overhead.
Ask for up to $10K.
∂27-Jun-86 1327 JMC re: Hi
To: AI.Woody@MCC.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Fri 27 Jun 86 15:14:11-CDT.]
Thanks for the message. Yes, I'm better now. When you go to Jeffrey's
next, tell them to be careful about their steak tartare.
∂27-Jun-86 2145 JMC re: Hussein's position (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
The sentence "Just very few of the latest leaders [of Turkey] were
really good muslims" ascribed to me by Omur Tasar
<tasar@su-pescadero.ARPA> was a quote from Hussein. I do not consider
myself qualified to say who is or was a good Muslim. Although I am
an atheist, and therefore not inclined towards any religion, I am
happy to see Tasar's humane interpretation of the Muslim religion,
just as I am happy to see humane interpretations of other religions.
Alas, it seems to me that the less humane and tolerant interpretations
of the Muslim religion dominate the governments of a large and
increasing number of countries.
∂27-Jun-86 2203 JMC re: Chernobyl (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
I can't say that the discussion of punctuation has made my day.
Andy Freeman's parsing of anti[American Society] indeed expresses the
meaning I intended. I still don't know whether "anti-American-society"
is allowed in English. It seems to me that my usage was ok on the
grounds that "anti-American[society]" has no obvious meaning, i.e.
many common usages, e.g. "nuclear physicist" escape ambiguity
because all but one parsing don't provide sensible meanings for
the sentence as a whole.
∂27-Jun-86 2213 JMC re: contra aid (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
The idea that supporting the Sandinistas would promote democracy in
Nicaragua was tried. The Carter Administration gave them $75 million
soon after they took power. The contras represent a Nicaraguan reaction
to the result and the U.S. support of the contras is, in my opinion,
an appropriate U.S. reaction to the result. There seems to be a
widespread belief that a revolt against communism is illegitimate in
its very nature.
∂28-Jun-86 0906 JMC
To: TAL
Please open my mail.
∂28-Jun-86 1658 JMC re: It's CONTRA AID! (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
Bill expresses the same naive lack of information about the
Sandinistas as was displayed by the Carter Administration about
them and by liberals about the North Vietnamese. Ortega and his
cohorts have been quite open about their Marxist-Leninist doctrine.
Their efforts to put it into practice have proceeded steadily but
more slowly than they would like, but they are on the same track
as every other communist government. In the case of the Sandinistas,
this is well documented in the issues of Commentary I have left
in the lounge.
∂28-Jun-86 1704 JMC re: avg life expectancy (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
No. Richard wasn't speaking of a decline of life expectancy in
Nicaragua but of the Soviet Union. However, his figures are out of
date. Life expectancy in the Soviet Union declined in the ten years
prior to 1974. At that point the problem of the use of these statistic
by imperialist propaganda was solved in a true Marxist-Leninist way;
the statistics on death rates were made secret and so far as I have
read, have remained secret.
∂28-Jun-86 1750 JMC re: First discussion topic
To: OTA-CIT@USC-ISI.ARPA
[In reply to message sent 21 Jun 1986 21:18:00 EDT.]
I think that interest in applications per se helps basic research. However,
the ratio of basic to applied research is too low, especially since
applications expected in the next ten years require basic research
advances.
Some support
organizations concentrate too much on research promising
very short term payoff.
Here are some suggestions.
1. Organizations doing or supporting applied research should support
some basic research also - in universities and in their own organizations.
The ratio should correspond to that in other fields where the link is
close, e.g. in the semi-conductor physics and material science basis
of semi-conductor electronics.
2. As I have advocated elsewhere there needs to be a postdoctoral fellowship
program for new PhDs in artificial intelligence. New PhDs are the
people most likely to make the conceptual advances AI requires.
3. The centers of AI research need new buildings and professorships
more than they need additional computer equipment.
∂28-Jun-86 1901 JMC re: Contra aid (from SAIL's BBOARD)
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-AI.ARPA
The World Court never pronounced on the North Vietnamese invasion
of South Vietnam or on Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia or Hungary. I don't
agree that helping an anti-communist revolution necessarily fails. Of
course, we may have to be as persistent as the Russians were in helping
the North Vietnamese. If after, say forty years, the contras are
still unsuccessful, then maybe we should give up helping them.