perm filename S88.OUT[LET,JMC] blob
sn#859334 filedate 1988-07-09 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00190 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00018 00002 ∂29-Apr-88 2316 JMC
C00119 00003 ∂01-Apr-88 1648 JMC lunch reservation
C00120 00004 ∂01-Apr-88 2122 JMC lunch
C00121 00005 ∂30-Apr-88 1302 JMC missed message
C00123 00006 ∂30-Apr-88 1348 JMC
C00124 00007 ∂30-Apr-88 1438 JMC
C00125 00008 ∂01-May-88 1034 JMC re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
C00126 00009 ∂01-May-88 1042 JMC re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
C00127 00010 ∂01-May-88 1050 JMC re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
C00128 00011 ∂01-May-88 1052 JMC
C00129 00012 ∂02-May-88 1138 JMC
C00130 00013 ∂02-May-88 1415 JMC re: CSD Retreat
C00131 00014 ∂02-May-88 1420 JMC
C00132 00015 ∂02-May-88 1909 JMC visits
C00133 00016 ∂02-May-88 1911 JMC lossage
C00135 00017 ∂02-May-88 2126 JMC visits
C00136 00018 ∂02-May-88 2204 JMC re: mail et al
C00137 00019 ∂03-May-88 1143 JMC re: WAITS
C00138 00020 ∂03-May-88 1409 JMC
C00139 00021 ∂03-May-88 1844 JMC re: WAITS
C00140 00022 ∂03-May-88 2011 JMC re: WAITS
C00142 00023 ∂03-May-88 2014 JMC re: WAITS
C00143 00024 ∂03-May-88 2322 JMC account for Paul Flaherty
C00144 00025 ∂04-May-88 1200 Mailer moral responsibility for Indochina genocide
C00153 00026 ∂04-May-88 1402 JMC re: AI Qual - URGENT
C00154 00027 ∂04-May-88 1450 JMC (→21313 21-May-88)
C00155 00028 ∂04-May-88 1543 JMC re: Special Faculty Meeting 5/3/88 - Vote
C00156 00029 ∂21-May-88 0000 JMC Expired plan
C00157 00030 ∂21-May-88 1934 JMC re: Delphes
C00158 00031 ∂21-May-88 1939 JMC please respond to this
C00160 00032 ∂21-May-88 1944 JMC job situation resolved
C00162 00033 ∂21-May-88 1946 JMC Quarterly Reports
C00166 00034 ∂21-May-88 1954 JMC
C00174 00035 ∂21-May-88 1959 JMC re: pocket computer with LISP
C00175 00036 ∂21-May-88 1959 JMC re: vardi
C00176 00037 ∂21-May-88 2003 JMC BITNET mail follows
C00178 00038 ∂21-May-88 2111 JMC re: CSD Retreat
C00179 00039 ∂22-May-88 0610 JMC free will
C00185 00040 ∂22-May-88 0644 JMC the free will discussion
C00190 00041 ∂22-May-88 0704 JMC absence
C00191 00042 ∂22-May-88 1544 JMC
C00192 00043 ∂22-May-88 1646 JMC
C00193 00044 ∂22-May-88 1704 JMC letter
C00194 00045 ∂22-May-88 2329 JMC re: Call
C00195 00046 ∂23-May-88 0032 JMC re: Meeting
C00196 00047 ∂23-May-88 0136 Mailer re: Jackson's Bush reference
C00197 00048 ∂23-May-88 0139 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 43: Police Practices -- Roadblocks & Missing Information
C00199 00049 ∂23-May-88 1515 JMC re: Input
C00200 00050 ∂23-May-88 1520 JMC phone number
C00201 00051 ∂24-May-88 0815 Mailer conservative humor, installment 2
C00204 00052 ∂24-May-88 1151 JMC re: conservative humor, installment 2
C00205 00053 ∂24-May-88 1222 JMC
C00206 00054 ∂24-May-88 1224 JMC proposal
C00207 00055 ∂24-May-88 1232 JMC re: Proposal
C00208 00056 ∂24-May-88 1426 JMC
C00209 00057 ∂24-May-88 1546 JMC qlisp contract
C00210 00058 ∂24-May-88 1644 Mailer re: conservative humor, installment 2
C00212 00059 ∂25-May-88 0728 JMC lost message
C00213 00060 ∂25-May-88 0732 JMC free will
C00219 00061 ∂25-May-88 1014 JMC re: Arrangements for your visit to China.
C00222 00062 ∂25-May-88 1015 JMC Your travel arrangement to China.
C00224 00063 ∂25-May-88 1126 JMC Qlisp
C00227 00064 ∂25-May-88 1641 JMC re: AIList Digest V7 #6 [JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU: free will discussion ]
C00228 00065 ∂25-May-88 1645 JMC Please phone
C00229 00066 ∂25-May-88 1857 JMC
C00230 00067 ∂25-May-88 2212 JMC
C00231 00068 ∂25-May-88 2219 JMC invoice
C00232 00069 ∂25-May-88 2230 JMC re: Bios
C00233 00070 ∂31-May-88 2027 JMC article on free will
C00234 00071 ∂31-May-88 2032 JMC re: G81
C00235 00072 ∂31-May-88 2033 JMC re: NAE reference letter
C00236 00073 ∂31-May-88 2036 JMC
C00237 00074 ∂31-May-88 2053 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 43: Police Practices -- Roadblocks & Missing Information
C00238 00075 ∂01-Jun-88 1056 JMC re: support letter
C00239 00076 ∂01-Jun-88 1215 JMC Prof. McCarthy's Article on Free Will
C00241 00077 ∂01-Jun-88 1550 JMC re: Joe Weening
C00242 00078 ∂01-Jun-88 1705 JMC re: Lunch
C00243 00079 ∂01-Jun-88 2216 Mailer re: gender gap in national politics
C00245 00080 ∂01-Jun-88 2254 JMC with or without Joe
C00246 00081 ∂01-Jun-88 2258 Mailer quote for today
C00247 00082 ∂01-Jun-88 2310 JMC reply to message
C00248 00083 ∂02-Jun-88 0901 JMC re: SPO Advisory Committee
C00250 00084 ∂02-Jun-88 1151 Mailer re: The Feynman quote is
C00252 00085 ∂02-Jun-88 1247 Mailer re: the education-politics relation
C00253 00086 ∂02-Jun-88 1247 JMC keyboard
C00254 00087 ∂02-Jun-88 1553 JMC
C00255 00088 ∂02-Jun-88 1606 JMC re: Thesis Proposal
C00256 00089 ∂02-Jun-88 1715 JMC re: meeting
C00257 00090 ∂02-Jun-88 1718 Mailer failed mail returned
C00258 00091 ∂02-Jun-88 1719 JMC meeting
C00259 00092 ∂02-Jun-88 2326 JMC re: The dam busters
C00260 00093 ∂02-Jun-88 2330 Mailer re: On the Feynman
C00261 00094 ∂03-Jun-88 0050 JMC re: Civil Liberties 52: Police Misconduct
C00262 00095 ∂03-Jun-88 1208 JMC
C00263 00096 ∂03-Jun-88 1220 Mailer Nicaragua
C00265 00097 ∂03-Jun-88 1402 JMC
C00266 00098 ∂03-Jun-88 1425 JMC re: computer charges
C00267 00099 ∂05-Jun-88 1114 Mailer aclu question
C00271 00100 ∂05-Jun-88 1145 Mailer Reagan gets the main thing right again
C00274 00101 ∂05-Jun-88 1335 Mailer re: aclu question
C00277 00102 ∂05-Jun-88 1405 Mailer aclu
C00278 00103 ∂05-Jun-88 2052 JMC re: pocket computer with LISP
C00279 00104 ∂05-Jun-88 2345 JMC
C00280 00105 ∂06-Jun-88 1006 JMC re: Free will
C00286 00106 ∂06-Jun-88 1155 JMC re: Free will
C00288 00107 ∂06-Jun-88 1451 Mailer re: aclu questions
C00293 00108 ∂06-Jun-88 1915 Mailer re: aclu questions
C00294 00109 ∂06-Jun-88 2017 Mailer re: aclu question
C00297 00110 ∂06-Jun-88 2121 JMC dialnet
C00298 00111 ∂06-Jun-88 2123 JMC
C00299 00112 ∂06-Jun-88 2231 JMC re: dialnet
C00300 00113 ∂06-Jun-88 2353 JMC Can you figure out
C00304 00114 ∂07-Jun-88 0856 Mailer Actually he has some regrets.
C00314 00115 ∂07-Jun-88 1602 JMC re: your sterilization example
C00315 00116 ∂08-Jun-88 0158 JMC reservations
C00316 00117 ∂08-Jun-88 1322 JMC re: benchmarks
C00318 00118 ∂08-Jun-88 1619 JMC consensual reality
C00323 00119 ∂08-Jun-88 2137 JMC re: vacation
C00324 00120 ∂08-Jun-88 2145 Mailer re: Otero incident
C00326 00121 ∂09-Jun-88 1525 JMC
C00327 00122 ∂09-Jun-88 1531 JMC
C00328 00123 ∂09-Jun-88 1532 JMC
C00329 00124 ∂09-Jun-88 1533 JMC another example
C00330 00125 ∂09-Jun-88 1622 JMC phone message
C00331 00126 ∂09-Jun-88 1632 JMC re: Consensus and Reality
C00333 00127 ∂09-Jun-88 1659 JMC
C00334 00128 ∂10-Jun-88 1126 JMC re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C00336 00129 ∂10-Jun-88 1145 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 60: Two views of Death
C00338 00130 ∂10-Jun-88 1455 JMC reply to message
C00339 00131 ∂10-Jun-88 1514 JMC re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C00341 00132 ∂10-Jun-88 1538 JMC
C00342 00133 ∂10-Jun-88 1625 JMC re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C00343 00134 ∂11-Jun-88 0043 JMC re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C00344 00135 ∂11-Jun-88 1340 JMC re: Problems with UUCP
C00345 00136 ∂18-Jun-88 1624 Mailer Reagan achievement?
C00348 00137 ∂18-Jun-88 2312 JMC cataleptics
C00349 00138 ∂20-Jun-88 0322 JMC Ding an sich
C00358 00139 ∂20-Jun-88 1223 JMC Your travel arrangement to China?
C00361 00140 ∂21-Jun-88 1044 JMC Alex Gorbis
C00363 00141 ∂21-Jun-88 1234 JMC re: nmr-proceedings
C00364 00142 ∂21-Jun-88 2015 JMC re: visit
C00365 00143 ∂21-Jun-88 2347 JMC re: mailpaths
C00366 00144 ∂21-Jun-88 2348 JMC
C00367 00145 ∂22-Jun-88 1516 JMC Thanks
C00368 00146 ∂23-Jun-88 0835 JMC
C00369 00147 ∂23-Jun-88 0906 Mailer Franklin
C00376 00148 ∂24-Jun-88 1150 JMC
C00378 00149 ∂24-Jun-88 1151 JMC
C00384 00150 ∂24-Jun-88 1151 JMC
C00386 00151 ∂24-Jun-88 1152 JMC
C00387 00152 ∂24-Jun-88 1347 JMC reply to message
C00388 00153 ∂24-Jun-88 1412 JMC
C00389 00154 ∂24-Jun-88 1542 Mailer re: bad news re: Dukakis
C00391 00155 ∂24-Jun-88 1625 JMC re: Kyoto Prize
C00392 00156 ∂24-Jun-88 1641 JMC nmr-conference and testing
C00393 00157 ∂25-Jun-88 0129 Mailer medical supplies for Nicaragua
C00395 00158 ∂25-Jun-88 0908 JMC re: Kyoto Prize
C00396 00159 ∂25-Jun-88 0911 JMC
C00397 00160 ∂25-Jun-88 1213 JMC re: Two Americans, West German Receive Kyoto Prize
C00398 00161 ∂25-Jun-88 1507 JMC re: Kyocera Prize
C00399 00162 ∂25-Jun-88 1643 JMC reply to message
C00400 00163 ∂25-Jun-88 1713 JMC re: congratulations
C00401 00164 ∂25-Jun-88 1828 Mailer re: Drugs
C00404 00165 ∂25-Jun-88 2326 Mailer re: Bruce Franklin's account of his dismissal
C00407 00166 ∂26-Jun-88 1645 JMC phone calls
C00408 00167 ∂26-Jun-88 2321 JMC reply to message
C00409 00168 ∂26-Jun-88 2322 JMC re: Congratulations on your Kyoto Prize
C00410 00169 ∂27-Jun-88 0805 JMC re: another congratulation
C00411 00170 ∂27-Jun-88 0916 JMC re: Congratulations.
C00412 00171 ∂27-Jun-88 1428 JMC re: Kyoto prize
C00413 00172 ∂27-Jun-88 1601 JMC
C00415 00173 ∂28-Jun-88 1304 JMC friday
C00416 00174 ∂28-Jun-88 1330 JMC re: prospective Ph.D. student
C00417 00175 ∂28-Jun-88 1430 JMC June 1 start date
C00418 00176 ∂28-Jun-88 1450 JMC re: Congratulations!
C00419 00177 ∂28-Jun-88 1500 JMC
C00420 00178 ∂28-Jun-88 1554 JMC re: friday
C00421 00179 ∂29-Jun-88 1026 JMC
C00422 00180 ∂29-Jun-88 1431 JMC Simpson on travel
C00423 00181 ∂29-Jun-88 1437 JMC
C00424 00182 ∂29-Jun-88 1439 JMC re: Simpson on travel
C00425 00183 ∂29-Jun-88 1803 JMC
C00426 00184 ∂30-Jun-88 1238 JMC BAA
C00428 00185 ∂30-Jun-88 1634 JMC re: Historians
C00429 00186 ∂30-Jun-88 1636 JMC re: CPL
C00430 00187 ∂30-Jun-88 1644 JMC re: CPL
C00431 00188 ∂30-Jun-88 1646 JMC re: CPL
C00432 00189 ∂30-Jun-88 2155 JMC
C00433 00190 ∂30-Jun-88 2312 JMC
C00441 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂29-Apr-88 2316 JMC
To: RPG
How does your garden grow?
∂29-Apr-88 2228 Mailer re: reparations to interned Japanese
To: LYN@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LYN@sierra.stanford.edu sent Fri 29 Apr 88 21:07:57-PDT.]
I just checked all the A.P. news stories in the last 3 weeks mentioning
the word Japanese to see if any of them recounted any previous payments
to the Japanese who were interned. None of them did. Surely, a fact
like that would have been mentioned! Wouldn't it? Surely, KGO must
be mistaken, mustn't it?
∂29-Apr-88 2008 JMC
To: ME
My SAIL keyboard is nonfunctional. No obvious disconnection.
∂29-Apr-88 1635 JMC re: CSD Retreat
To: chandler@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 29 Apr 1988 15:07:00 PDT.]
I will give a talk about logic in AI. Incidentally, in your first
message you misspelled Feigenbaum.
∂29-Apr-88 1633 JMC re: CS101
To: JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 29 Apr 88 13:36:12-PDT.]
Those who took it were not students who would otherwise have
taken cs105. For example, all used editors and had written
programs. In fact, it turned out that all owned computers.
I thought it was worthwhile. If Stanford doesn't consider
the enrollment too small for a viable class, I'd like to
teach it again at least once - say in 89-90.
∂29-Apr-88 1629 JMC re: JPL Paper
To: Rich.Thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 29 Apr 88 13:03:15-EDT.]
I can get Lifschitz's, and I think it's one I've seen. All that
might shorten mine is a little information about Levesque's.
∂29-Apr-88 0911 JMC re: JPL Paper
To: Rich.Thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 29 Apr 88 07:43:41-EDT.]
I think I can make it. Who are your other contributors? I want to
avoid superfluous redundancy.
∂27-Apr-88 1737 JMC re: Orals
To: JSW
[In reply to message rcvd 27-Apr-88 16:34-PT.]
As soon as you are ready to propose a date, I will try for a chairman.
∂27-Apr-88 1509 JMC cs306
To: stager@Score.Stanford.EDU
CC: NSH@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Shankar would like to teach it again.
∂27-Apr-88 1459 JMC Western Culture
To: hk.gjl@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
Thanks for taking the time to tell me about the discussion. My last
remark about it not being over yet is based on the idea that the BSU and
its allies, which Kennedy says didn't intimidate the Senate, seem to be
of the opinion that they did. I fear they'll be back for more next year,
since playing intimidation is such fun. I wrote to the New York Times to
that effect, but I haven't heard that they intend to print my letter.
∂27-Apr-88 1432 JMC re: Our 1-page flame
To: rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
CC: woodfill@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 27 Apr 88 14:09:45 pdt.]
I didn't ask for a flame. I asked for something much more concrete,
e.g. what is the simplest knowledge about which you have some doubt of its
expressibility in logic. I never heard of "orbiculus" and doubt that
it adds anything.
∂27-Apr-88 1227 JMC re: Civil Liberties 17: Vampirism -- Driving the Stake
To: yeager@ARDVAX.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 27 Apr 88 10:39:12 PDT.]
Bill Yeager writes
"Sometimes I wonder if these bureaucracies are just self serving agencies,
more interested in their own survival than the athletes well-being.
Perhaps we'd be better off if we just let the athletes compete, and forget
about drugs, RBC replacement, etc ... (Sort of athletic anarchy)"
Les's fascinating account supports Bill's first paragraph partially but
not the second. Like all human institutions, athletic bureaucracies
have self-serving tendencies mixed in with their tendency to get it right.
The proportion varies and depends on the subject matter.
If the U.S. athletic bureaucracy were dissolved, many American athletes
would die or suffer serious side effects from drugging themselves to
compete with the East German and Soviet athletic bureaucracies which take
a military attitude towards athletic competition. What matters a few dead
or crippled athletes if the Socialist Fatherland wins more gold medals?
Both anabolic steroids and amphetamines win the most medals when used in
ways that have serious side-effects.
∂27-Apr-88 1206 JMC
To: MPS
Has Dina Bolla said when they'll deliver tomorrow's ticket?
∂27-Apr-88 1057 JMC re: Teaching next year
To: STAGER@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 27 Apr 88 10:19:20-PDT.]
Sorry to have dithered so long. I will teach CS323 in Winter and
also VTSS160 (not in this department). I discussed cs101 with
Stuart Reges, and we agreed that it should be taught every other year,
but whoever is now in charge might want to decide differently.
I would be agreeable to teaching it again the year after next. I
have asked Shankar (today) whether he wants to teach cs306 again
next year and haven't gotten a reply yet.
∂27-Apr-88 1054 JMC re: [H. Roy Jones <JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>: Re: 326,32x]
To: SHOHAM@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 27 Apr 88 09:38:02-PDT.]
Oh, well. Let's leave it that I will teach 323 in Winter, and we'll
arrange some guest lectures in 323 and 324.
∂27-Apr-88 1036 JMC
To: NSH
Would you like to teach cs306 again next year?
∂26-Apr-88 2053 JMC re: fax et al
To: paulf@UMUNHUM.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 26 Apr 88 20:29:37 pdt.]
Only tomorrow. How about noon at the Faculty Club?
∂26-Apr-88 1955 JMC re: fax machine
To: paulf@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 26 Apr 88 19:32:32 PDT.]
As you probably know, fax machines are connected to the ordinary telephone
network and have ordinary telephone numbers. You dial the other guys
fax telephone number to set up the connection, and the message is
directly transmitted. Compatible machines can communicate anywhere
on the worldwide telephone network. No complicated addresses, no
forwarding. Electronic mail could equally well work the same way.
Time-sharing machines, work stations and even pcs could have
telephone numbers and would thereby automatically be on the same
worldwide network that serves voice. Instead there are networks
with connections that have delays and are unreliable, addressing
problems, and some even use polling so that a message is relayed
through several computers rather than using a single ordinary
phone call.
∂26-Apr-88 1706 JMC
To: MPS
brown.re1 is a review for Deken - forms in my out box.
∂26-Apr-88 1628 JMC re: article
To: bek@CS.DUKE.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 24 Apr 88 14:32:40 EDT.]
They should get the Edinburgh Machine Intelligence series. I can send
you a paper copy or you can ftp phil.tex[ess,jmc] at this computer. I
believe we don't require a password for that.
∂26-Apr-88 1557 JMC fax machine
To: faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
I am getting increasing numbers of requests to communicate by
fax. If others are experiencing the same, we should get a
departmental fax machine.
It irritates me that fax communication is winning out over
electronic mail when text is being communicated. The reason
is the tower of complexity introduced by networks. Fax
communication is by direct telephone connection which is the
way electronic mail should have been done in 1970 and still
should be done.
∂26-Apr-88 1437 JMC reply to message
To: PHY
[In reply to message rcvd 26-Apr-88 14:24-PT.]
I didn't know about it, haven't started and don't even know who is
in charge.
∂26-Apr-88 1241 JMC re: The moon
To: helen@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 26 Apr 88 12:38:44 PDT.]
If you haven't eaten yet and have time, I could pick you up.
∂26-Apr-88 1213 JMC re: The moon
To: helen@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 26 Apr 88 12:09:22 PDT.]
I'll be in L.A. Thursday and will be travelling starting the middle of
next week. We'd better put it off till summer. Did you not that
Stendhal was entirely wrong? Whether the moon is full doesn't depend
on where on earth you observe it from.
∂26-Apr-88 1104 JMC
To: helen@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
"The people of the antipodes, gazing at the moon when for us it is only
a small crescent, remark, 'What a splendid brightness! It's nearly full
moon'" - Stendhal in Memoirs of an Egotist, p. 92, Noonday Press.
∂25-Apr-88 1106 JMC re: Frank T. Carey Inst. ??
To: TAJNAI@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 25 Apr 88 10:11:28-PDT.]
If this is the Carey who was formerly President of IBM, IBMers might know.
∂24-Apr-88 0011 JMC phone number
To: MPS
Please telephone the State Department and get the phone number of
the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and put it in my phon file. I have it,
but I want to be sure the number is correct.
∂23-Apr-88 1831 JMC re: Getting together?
To: HALPERN@IBM.COM
[In reply to message sent 21 Apr 88 15:38:44 PDT.]
We did get together on April 22. Your April 21 message proposing it just arrived.
∂23-Apr-88 1655 Mailer re: Jackson for president
To: bill@CAPPUCCINO.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from bill@cappuccino.stanford.edu sent Fri, 22 Apr 88 20:48:16 PDT.]
"I think it would be really fun to have something approaching a radical as
president, though an anarchist would be even more fun. Might wake some
folks up, which is always a good thing."
Some people voted for Hitler on the basis of some such reasoning. Millions
woke up dead. Your experience and reading are evidently too slight
to know that choosing a radical out of boredom more often leads to
disaster, i.e. lots of killing, than choosing the boring option.
My remark concerns the general proposition and isn't specifically
directed at Jackson.
∂22-Apr-88 1924 JMC
To: CLT
Did the piano tuner reach you?
∂22-Apr-88 1901 JMC terminal
To: CLT
I don't know whether you were trying to use the terminal, but
I found it in a strange state. It looks like Timothy had got
to it since the TAPE button was pushed. Exactly the buttons
marked with arrows should be pushed. Also the RESET button
had been pushed. On this terminal that always resets to
R=1200, T=150, wherease our modem is set for R=2400,T=2400.
To set it right one first pushed <baud set> at the right
end of the top row of keys. Then presses <shift lock>,
then R 2400<cr> and T 2400<cr> and one more <cr> which
makes the settings disappear. Then <call> will work, and
the terminal is back in business.
∂22-Apr-88 1419 JMC re: Dead Serious
To: bhayes@CASCADE.STANFORD.EDU,
oper.bjr@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from bhayes@cascade.stanford.edu sent Tue, 19 Apr 88 13:33:59 MST.]
Should your researches turn up a source of Grateful Dead tickets, I
would be grateful for the opportunity to acquire two, three or four
of them for either day.
∂22-Apr-88 1417 Mailer re: Sex/Israeli Law
To: crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RITTS@sierra.stanford.edu sent Mon 18 Apr 88 11:52:31-PST.]
I don't agree that maternity/paternity leave policies are irresponsible
because they encourage couples to have children. Each country is sovereign
and responsible for its own population. A few are severely oppressed
by excessive population and many others are not. For an urban country
Israel is not overcrowded, and its population makes contributions to
world culture, science, technology and culture out of proportion to
its population. More Israelis will benefit the world. So would more
Americans.
I fear that the reduction in the number of people with
scores over 700 in the verbal SAT between 1965 and 1985 from 33,000
to 14,000 may be related to the fact that the high SAT people are
not reproducing themselvelves.
∂22-Apr-88 0949 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 3a: Recognition of Error of Interning Japanese
To: V.VARDI@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU, RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from V.VARDI@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU sent Fri 22 Apr 88 05:01:21-PDT.]
My opinion is that the Japanese should have been compensated even
when the Government, i.e. General Dewitt (sp?), still believed that
many of them might be spies. Not even he supposed that they were
all spies, and when an individual is made to suffer for some public
purpose, e.g. when property is taken, then compensation is normal and
even required by the 14th Amendment. The issue of compensation should
not be confused with the fact that the evacuation was a mistake in the
first place.
∂22-Apr-88 0151 JMC
To: RDZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I forgot to mention contexts in my Omni list.
∂21-Apr-88 2329 Mailer re: Junk phone calls...
To: S.SALUT@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from S.SALUT@lear.stanford.edu sent Thu 21 Apr 88 20:23:16-PDT.]
Remember that the people who actually make the junk phone calls are
not the advertising people who decide on the junk mail campaign.
I don't imagine it's a very good job. Sometimes it's a housewife
trying to make a little extra money. Sometimes it's a student.
Why don't you have some fun. Try to think of something to say
and a way to say it that will make a housewife cry. Then you can
keep score on what fraction you can make cry and compete with
your friends.
Of course, you could also politely ask for the name of the company
and their phone number promising to call back. Then you could look
up the name of a big shot in the company, call her and try to sell
her something.
∂21-Apr-88 2039 JMC re: Qlisp
To: billo@CMX.NPAC.SYR.EDU
CC: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 21 Apr 88 23:19:44 EDT.]
Our qlisp is working on the Alliant. Please inquire about getting
it to Igor Rivin, igs@sail.stanford.edu.
∂21-Apr-88 2038 JMC Qlisp
To: IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
∂21-Apr-88 2018 billo@cmx.npac.syr.EDU Qlisp
Received: from cmx.npac.syr.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Apr 88 20:18:37 PDT
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 23:19:44 EDT
From: billo@cmx.npac.syr.edu (Bill O)
Received: by cmx.npac.syr.EDU (5.51/Northeast Parallel Architectures Center)
id AA28212; Thu, 21 Apr 88 23:19:44 EDT
Message-Id: <8804220319.AA28212@cmx.npac.syr.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Qlisp
Dear Prof. McCarthy:
I work for the Northeast Parallel Architectures Center at Syracuse
University, and I am writing to you about Qlisp. Here at NPAC we have
several parallel machines (including a couple of Connection Machines,
an Alliant FX/80, and an 18 processor Encore Multimax) and we are
constantly evaluating new architectures for possible future
acquisition. Because AI is one of the subject areas that we hope to
develop expertise in, we are very interested in obtaining version of
Lisp with constructs for parallelism. My question concerns Qlisp. Is
it currently implemented on any multi-processor computers, and if so,
what kind. Of course, we would be thrilled if it were already available
for one of the machines we currently own, but we would still be interested
in knowing of other implementations (or proposed implementations).
Also, if it is available, how would we go about getting it?
Thank you very much for lending your valuable time to this query.
∂21-Apr-88 1627 JMC reply to message
To: bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK
[In reply to message sent Tue, 19 Apr 88 15:11:41 BST.]
Sorry, that's all there is.
∂21-Apr-88 1218 Mailer re: moral responsibility
To: poser@CRYSTALS.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU sent Thu, 21 Apr 88 11:32:20 pdt.]
Bill Poser says:
"I suggest that in order to indict the anti-war movement JMC needs
to show two things. One is that things are worse as a result of the actions
of the anti-war movement. It isn't sufficient to say that they were bad.
He has to argue that things are worse than if there had been no
anti-war movement. The other is to show that these consequences were
forseeable."
I agree entirely, except that if I could show these two things, I
could convict and not merely indict. I will undertake to do it in a
future message, cribbing, of course, from writings that have already
done it. The part about "reckless disregard for the forseeable consequences
of one's actions" seems especially apropos of what I propose to show
about the "anti-war" movement.
Finally, the point about "Sure, of course they should honor their
word." with regard to the Sandinistas may not be accepted as the only
reasonable answer by part of the "peace movement" and by the Sandinistas.
For example, the peace movement showed not the slightest interest in
whether the North Vietnamese were adhering to the 1973 agreement. We will
see whether the "peace movement" will be willing to put any pressure on
the Sandinistas if they violate the agreement. At least Jim Wright seems
to be willing to put on some pressure, but I doubt that he would be
counted as part of the "peace movement".
∂20-Apr-88 2214 JMC re: Hey there
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 20 Apr 88 22:10:10 PDT.]
That will be fine. 1145 in front then. I've given up on the elementary
particle theory for this year, but maybe I'll do a physics experiment.
∂20-Apr-88 2030 JMC papers to Tom Bethell
To: MPS
Please tex and print the following files, and then take
them to Tom Bethell in the Hoover Institution. He wants
them before he gives a talk.
beckma.2[let,jmc]
lewont[f85,jmc]
∂20-Apr-88 1457 JMC re: School Prayer etc.
To: poser@CRYSTALS.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 20 Apr 88 12:03:53 pdt.]
from Bill Poser:
"I certainly do not disagree with JMC's claim that the net result in Cambodia
was horrible. But I doubt very much that it was the protests against the
American attack on Cambodia that caused this. The reason for the American
invasion of Cambodia was to further American strategy in Vietnam. It had
nothing to do with preventing the bloodbath in Cambodia, which was not
yet happening and which there was no basis for predicting."
1. On the basis of "I doubt very much ... ", Bill Poser exempts the
anti-war movement from any obligation to consider the possible or likely
consequences of its actions. Looking at the matter objectively, i.e.
without regard to the intentions of the parties involved, the anti-war
movement's contribution to the Khmer Rouge victory helped kill those
Cambodians.
2. Looking at it subjectively, i.e. with regard to the intentions
of the parties involved, what Bill Poser regards as U.S. propaganda
is specifically a viewpoint of the consequences of communist victories
on the basis of past experience with communist victories. More specifically,
there was plenty of information about the murderous characteristics of
the Khmer Rouge, for example their murder of 17 jounalists. This
information was reported in the U.S. press, but not emphasized, because
it interfered with the general press attitude developed by that time
that the U.S. was on the wrong side in Vietnam. There was also plenty
of information about the oppressive character of communist regimes
in general and of the North Vietnamese in particular.
3. In 1967 I supported the "anti-war movement" and took part in a large
demonstration in San Francisco. It turned out to be led by people
chanting, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi-Min, NLF gonna win". This led me to conclude
that it wasn't an anti-war movement. It was merely a communist victory
movement. In my view, those who chanted that slogan were taking moral
responsibility for the consequences of the communist victory they were
striving for. Were they?
4. Can't Bill Poser see the self-serving character of his argument
that if the U.S. opposes somebody on the grounds that they are murderous
and they win and prove to be murderous, it is the fault of the U.S.
anyway? If the U.S. hadn't opposed them, they might not have turned
out to be murderous.
Robbers accused of murder often offer the argument that if their
victims hadn't resisted, the robber wouldn't have killed them.
Let me put a more precise question to Bill Poser.
Does the "peace movement" have any MORAL responsibility AT ALL for
the consequences of its successes, independently of the question
of whether the U.S. Government and its supporters have some
responsibility for their actions?
Specifically, does the "peace movement" have any MORAL responsibility for
the consequences of the communist victory in Indochina?
Turning to the future, do the Sandinistas have any MORAL obligation
AT ALL to live up to the human rights provisions of their tentative
agreement with the Contras? This includes the release of political
prisoners, freedom of the press and freedom to demonstrate.
Do the American supporters of the Sandinistas take any MORAL responsibility
for the Sandinistas' living up to the human rights provisions of the
agreement?
If you wish to further attack the actions and motives of the U.S. Government,
please do it in a separate message.
∂20-Apr-88 1416 JMC re: I need to reach Gosper
To: DEK
[In reply to message rcvd 20-Apr-88 13:24-PT.]
Gosper, Bill (symbolics secret: 969-0955),rwg@scrc-yukon
That phone number has been updated, although the net address may not work.
He still lives with Weyhrauch, and 948-2149 is still the number there.
∂20-Apr-88 1136 Mailer re: children's intolerance
To: Byrd@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from Byrd@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Wed, 20 Apr 88 11:14:02 PDT.]
I agree with Greg Byrd that children tend to persecute those who
differ and that this has nothing in particular to do with religion.
However, I remember from my own school days very explicit propaganda
on the part of the teachers in favor of tolerance, and I think it
had some effect. The propaganda for tolerance did not carry the idea
that those who differed were equal, so it didn't conflict directly
with tendencies for identification with peers.
∂20-Apr-88 1039 Mailer re: School Prayer etc.
To: poser@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from poser@csli.stanford.edu sent Wed, 20 Apr 88 00:25:18 PDT.]
This is not an assertion that Bill Poser should have been required
to salute the flag, but I have promised myself not to allow assertions
like "the United States attacked Cambodia" to pass unprotested.
Instead it was Mr. Poser, in his juvenile way, who helped the
communists kill two million Cambodians.
∂19-Apr-88 1929 JMC sorry to have missed you
To: helen@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
Maybe we should wait till you are a bit less rushed.
Thursday dinner would work for me, but otherwise it might
be best to try for something late next week or the following
on short notice.
∂19-Apr-88 1353 Mailer re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 19-Apr-88 13:26-PT.]
Mary Holstege has (or had) a fully justified complaint. Let me point
out that the School Prayer Amendment draft I saw would have protected
her had it been the U.S. instead of Britain. It might also have
protected Les from the Bible readings. At present there is a substantially
liberal Supreme Court, but if that should totally flip, there would be
no more protection than existed before 1940. On the other hand, the
occasional municipal creche doesn't oppress people. As usual the oppressed
readily turn into oppressors.
Bennett was justified in referring to bullying. I see the Stanford Daily
writer was surprised that there was no "protest" at the Bennett speech.
Since people did speak up in disagreement with Bennett, I conclude that to
the Daily writer "protest" is a euphemism for an attempt to disrupt the
meeting and prevent Bennett from speaking. He seemed disappointed.
However, Bennett's mention the bullying tactics of the opponents of
Western culture had one disadvantage. It enabled Kennedy and other
spokesmen for the Academic Senate to ignore his substantive points about
the importance of Western culture and merely deny being intimidated.
They didn't even have to say whether they considered chants of
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture's got to go" a legitimate form
of discussion of issues.
"Bullying" is mentioned a lot in "current rightist rhetoric", because
there is currently a lot of left wing bullying going on on campuses.
By making the rhetoric the issue, Les avoids committing himself on
whether this is true. What about it Les? What's your opinion of
the SUNY Law School statement I posted. How do the civil liberties
issues it poses compare in magnitude with those posed by a random
creche at Christmas.
∂19-Apr-88 1305 JMC
To: MPS
Tell Lisa at Regis-McKenna that 4:30 will be ok for meeting with Bull big shot.
∂19-Apr-88 1158 JMC
To: helen@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
lunch?
∂19-Apr-88 0226 Mailer re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 19-Apr-88 02:04-PT.]
I am not proposing to institute school prayers. I merely have a
moral and aesthetic objection to the bullying attempts to suppress
essentially harmless customs. I regard the spirit of these attempts
as potentially dangerous.
I have no desire for equal time, and I would object if the prayers
took significant time. If there is raucous and uncompromisable
competition for prayer time in some community, that would be a reason
for flushing the whole thing in that community.
What requires explanation is not tolerance of customs, even obsolete
ones, but the overbearing desire to ``eradicate'' them that causes
outsiders to seek out the communities where they still exist. It
smells like an old-fashioned religious war.
∂19-Apr-88 0142 Mailer liberal complaint about conservative humor
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
A.P. 1986 August 7
Joseph Rauh, speaking for the Americans For Democratic Action, said
Scalia could shift the high court to the right.
''Judge Scalia has ice water in his veins, when the Supreme Court
really ought to have a feeling of compassion,'' Rauh said. ''He makes
jokes about things that we believe in deeply. He laughs at
affirmative action.''
∂19-Apr-88 0136 Mailer Proverb for the day
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Unbroken drive even for welfare is only warfare. - Al Mutanabbi
∂19-Apr-88 0134 Mailer re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 18-Apr-88 23:04-PT.]
Not being offered any rationale for the bullying of the religious,
I sustain my suspicion that the spirit that sustains it is the
same joy in smiting the heathen that motivated so many religious
massacres. There are probably the same fraction of psychologically
intolerant people born into each generation; only the cause on behalf
of which they are intolerant changes. What is done on behalf of the
cause varies according to the degree of Western culture in the
civilization, however.
∂19-Apr-88 0113 JMC re: Munich, May
To: reinfra@ZTIVAX.SIEMENS.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue, 19 Apr 88 10:09:14 -0200.]
Yes, I would be glad to visit the Siemens AI Lab. I plan to remain in
Munich that week and go from there to Moscow on Sunday.
∂18-Apr-88 1815 Mailer Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
an organization of which I believe I am currently the sole member.
Once upon a time, it was hazardous to one's health to be an
atheist. The provisions against establishment of religion in
the Constitution were intended to protect people against this
hazard, and more prominent at the time, the hazard of being of
the wrong religion.
Occasional examples of someone taking prejudiced action
against an atheist probably occur. However, I have reached the
age of 60 without ever being bothered.
Legal efforts to obtain protection for atheists from prejudice have
a substantial and honorable history. However, sometime about in the
1950s, the situation changed. Instead of most of the actions being
for the protection of atheists from prejudice, they became actions for
the suppression of religious practices in the guise of protecting
nonbelievers. I used to subscribe to the Realist, which featured
the activities of Madalyn O'Hair in suppressing religious practices
in schools for the protection of her son. Her activities always seemed
to me to be motivated by prejudice, and I confess to taking a malicious
pleasure when the son turned into a Jesus freak.
About two years ago I made a hundred dollar contribution to an organization
formed to protect the practice of posting the Ten Commandments in
some rural schools in Kentucky. Were I a member of a Kentucky school
board I would probably have voted against the posting, but it
seemed to me that the people demanding its suppression were
legal bullies.
In my view, the ACLU has recently been the vehicle for such bullying.
It also seems to me that the fanatical anti-smokers are also bullying
and that self-righteousness of the kind they represent has killed
far more people than smoking has.
While fanaticism has often taken a religious form, that's not the
only form it can take.
As for the proposed school prayer amendment, it seems to have enough
protections for atheists and others who don't want to participate.
∂18-Apr-88 1745 JMC re: AIList V6 #72 - Queries
To: AIList@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Sun 17 Apr 1988 23:35-PDT.]
McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969): ``Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), Machine
Intelligence 4, American Elsevier, New York, NY discusses the problem of
free will for machines. I never got any reaction to that discussion,
pro or con, in the 19 years since it was published and would be grateful
for some.
∂16-Apr-88 2235 JMC
To: ME
HOT is garbaging now, so you'll eventually catch it in the act.
∂16-Apr-88 1936 JMC
To: ME
NS is garbaging badly. All stories are garbaged.
∂16-Apr-88 1304 JMC re: Oops
To: helen@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 16 Apr 88 13:01:47 PDT.]
Actually it turned out that today is inconvenient but Tuesday would
be good. How about 1145, because I'm still trying to attend a physics
class at 1:15?
∂16-Apr-88 1105 JMC
To: helen@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
How does 1pm look to you?
∂15-Apr-88 2136 JMC re: taxes
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Apr-88 21:35-PT.]
I indeed forgot.
∂15-Apr-88 0959 JMC
To: MPS
I'll be in with the overheads about 11. I'll need them by 1145.
∂14-Apr-88 2322 Mailer Freedom of speech
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Imagine that the contributors to su-etc were law students at the
State University of New York at Buffalo. Which contributors might be
subject to accusations of prohibited harassment by which other
contributors and prevented from passing the bar exam. according to the
following policy statement. $25 to the best accusation of violating the
policy. In the accusation, say who is accusing whom. Perhaps mutual
accusations would be best, e.g. Mark Crispin and Lyn Bowman accusing
each other. On second thought, I have decided not to offer this prize.
It might get too unpleasant, so just think about it. My opinion is that
the SUNYAB Law School Faculty is creating an atmosphere of fear of freedom
of speech. Also I would guess they do not have in mind enforcing this
regulation symmetrically, e.g. they don't contemplate denouncing feminists
who accuse the whole male sex of being rapists at heart or Naderites
accusing the whole business community of being larcenist.
The following statement was adopted unanimously by the Law School Faculty
at a meeting on October 2, 1987. (Signed by Wade J. Newhouse)
Anyone wishing to comment on this regulation should address their remarks to:
Dean David Filvaroff
SUNYAB Law School
North Campus
Buffalo, NY 14260
FACULTY STATEMENT REGARDING INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM, TOLERANCE, AND PROHIBITED
HARASSMENT
Every intellectual community worthy of the name thrives on sharp and
heated controversy--on the free and full expression of opposing
ideas and values; on impassioned arguments for, and equally passionate
arguments against. Given the particular professional skills required
for the practice of law, law schools, including this one, especially
prize and encourage such unencumbered give-and-take, the more lively
and uninhibited the better.
Because both the common law and two centuries of Constitutional
tradition have long given American lawyers a special role in assuring
fairness and securing equal treatment to all people, our intellectual
community also shares values that go beyond a mere standardized
commitment to open and unrestrained debate. We support the particular
values shaped by the special traditions and responsibilities of the
legal community to which all of us--students and faculty alike--belong.
Any and all expressions of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination are
abhorrent to these traditions; they not only detract from the person
uttering them, but reflect poorly upon the profession as a whole.
By entering law school, and joining this legal community, each
student's absolute right to liberty of speech must also become tempered
in its exercise, by the responsibility to promote equality and justice.
Therefore, it should be understood that remarks directed at another's
race, sex, religion, national origin,, age, or sexual preference will be
ill-received, or that racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-lesbian,
ageist and ethnically derogatory statements, as well as other remarks
based on prejudice and group stereotype, will generate critical
responses and swift, open condemnation by the faculty, wherever and
however they occur.
We note with dismay recent acts of harassment, intimidation, and
assault against persons of color and other groups which have taken
place on campuses around the country, and which have often gone far
beyond the bounds of constitutionally protected speech. Concern
regarding such inappropriate and often outrageous behavior compels the
faculty to add a clear and specific warning concerning any such acts
that may occur in this school. It is the policy of this law school to
take strong and immediate steps against any and all such behavior. The
means of doing so will always be informed by the faculty's strong
commitment to the requirements of due process but will not be limited
solely to the use of ordinary university disciplinary procedures.
Where such acts indicate that a student may lack sufficient moral
character to be admitted to the practice of law, the school can and
will make appropriate communications to the character and fitness
committees of any bar to which such a student applies, including, where
appropriate, its conclusion that the student should not be admitted to
practice law. In addition, in appropriate cases, the school will not
hesitate to act upon its legal and ethical duty to notify state and
federal law enforcement authorities of such acts, and to cooperate with
those authorities in their investigation and prosecution.
Although the faculty is prepared to exercise such sanctions, we
hope and expect that the occasion to do so will not arise. Thus, we
expect that students will accept, and act in accordance with, the moral
obligations of the profession and this community and honor the
traditions of fairness, equality and respect for others that sustain
the legal professon and inform the culture of this law school.
∂14-Apr-88 1707 JMC re: Teaching next year
To: STAGER@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 14 Apr 88 16:39:27-PDT.]
I'll tell you tomorrow, but that isn't right.
∂13-Apr-88 1716 JMC reply to message
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Apr-88 17:14-PT.]
ok, I'll be there.
∂13-Apr-88 1634 JMC re: Lunch and things
To: DEVLIN@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 13 Apr 88 15:43:44-PDT.]
Any day the week after next is feasible but Wednesday. If Tuesday or
Thursday, it should be relatively early so that I can get to a 1:15
class I am attending on elementary particles - if I haven't given up
by then.
Let me pursue the travel between the Pasadenas just a little further.
You would probably give the same answer to the possibility of driving
between Aix-en-Provence and Aix-la-Chapelle. In my 1958 paper, I
used a predicate drivable and would have used axioms like
drivable(Continental U.S.) and drivable(Continental Europe). However,
it isn't obvious that this is general enough to represent either what
people know or what we want in a general common sense database. Even
if one is not presently interested in AI, it is worthwhile to check
whether one's ideas on representation of information are general enough.
The use of "(say)" in your message suggests that you consider the
problem of generality solved or uninteresting.
∂13-Apr-88 1241 JMC re: Answers
To: DEVLIN@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 12 Apr 88 14:19:32-PDT.]
How about lunch some day next week to discuss these matters?
The key point about Pasadena, CA and Pasadena, TX, is that
one's ability to say that it is possible to drive from one to the
other has to be the result of some kind of reasoning, since it is
not believable that a human stores facts about every pair of cities
he has heard of. Of course, since you hadn't heard of Pasadena, TX
(just East of Houston), your reason to suppose you could drive there
from Pasadena, CA is based even more on reasoning. It seems to me
that something rather like substitution into general facts followed
by modus ponens is actually required.
∂13-Apr-88 1233 JMC re: su.etc
To: paulf@ACIS-NW-RT5.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 13 Apr 88 10:18:20 PDT.]
I have generally found that introducing new information and proposals is
more rewarding than long dialogs. However, a lot depends on whether
one can anticipate objections in the initial writing. Homer Chin is
the most dogged leftist. Crispin is opinionated but nowhere near as
solidly leftist as he used to be. However, I suppose he will always
be rather random. Goldberg is the most rational of the three. I don't
follow the Nicaraguan news except in the New York Times and in my
conservative weeklies and monthlies, so I am often not in a position
to argue details about who did what and with what and to whom. However,
one should remember that the Nicaraguan truce is an embarassment to
the leftists, because they have always argued that the Contras are
just bandits and tools of the CIA, and there is no need for the
Sandinistas to negotiate with them. I'm planning to ask the liberals
whether they consider that the Sandinistas have any moral obligation
to live up to the terms of the agreements.
I agree with your opinion about SDI as expressed in your draft article,
but I don't think the article was as convincing as it should be. Would
you like to have lunch some time and discuss politics? Next Wednesday
would be possible for me, and tomorrow might be possible. I expect to
know later today.
∂13-Apr-88 1223 JMC re: messages to reinfra
To: hayes.pa@XEROX.COM
[In reply to message sent 13 Apr 88 11:20 PDT.]
Vladimir Lifschitz and I have also tried and failed. I have some ideas
about what I will say but don't have a manuscript yet.
∂13-Apr-88 1219 JMC re: Friday no good
To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 13 Apr 88 11:23 PST.]
I thought we could make the lunch early enough to go to your class,
and I have to be off Campus Monday.
∂13-Apr-88 1212 JMC
To: MPS
Please tell
312 984-7081, Donna Chambers, I will not have time to see Nancy Osborn.
∂13-Apr-88 1209 JMC
To: CLT
04-17 Sunday, 10am, breakfast at Hurds'
∂12-Apr-88 1450 JMC Friday no good
To: elliott%slacvm.bitnet@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU
I want to attend the Hi Tech Easy Listening lecturer Friday noon.
In fact I pretty near have to, since I'm the lecturer.
How about Thursday noon?
∂12-Apr-88 1153 JMC okner
To: CLT
called with questions and asked for a check for $1000 for Calif.
We're overpaid on the Federal. I gave him the check and put the
questions on your desk. He says that T will need a social security
number by age 5. If Hazel hasn't got hers yet, T's could be gotten
at the same time.
∂12-Apr-88 1115 Mailer failed mail returned
To: JMC
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The following message was aborted because of a command error,
namely, nonexistent recipient(s):
Paul
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
12-Apr-88 1115 JMC _Abrahams%Wayne-MTS@um.cc.umich.edu
re: LISP 2 memos for Herbert Stoyan
[In reply to message sent Tue, 12 Apr 88 12:12:30 EDT.]
I'm sure he would like the LISP 2 stuff. He has been in
West Germany for quite a few years. Here is my current address
file entry for him.
Stoyan, Herbert Information Sciences
University of Konstanz
PO-Box 5560
D-775 Konstanz 1
Federal Republic of Germany
tel: 07531-88-3593
home: Kapplerbergstr. 73
D-7753 Allensbach
tel: 07533-3408
(Ursula, Roland, Norman)
------- End undelivered message -------
∂12-Apr-88 1112 JMC
To: ME
How about 1989 and 1990 calendar files?
∂12-Apr-88 0111 JMC re: Lakoff
To: RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 11 Apr 1988 16:46 PDT.]
The preaching man's immense stupidity.
.
.
.
In the natural fog of the good man's mind.
- Robert Browning, Christmas Eve.
∂11-Apr-88 2311 JMC semi-apology
To: devlin@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
Barwise tells me you have done a lot of work in logic and set theory.
Therefore, you know it well. I should have waited for Barwise's
answer before I sent my message.
Nevertheless, I am even more
puzzled than before about why you (and he) think logic itself is
at fault rather than merely the set of predicate and function
symbols people have chosen for their examples. I have never been
able to understand his ideas about what is difficult or even
inconvenient to express in logic. I also found your very brief
comments unconvincing.
Specifically, when one operates at a level
of intensionality where material implication is unsatisfactory,
one can reify propositions and axiomatize modalities as operators
on these propositions as objects.
I don't claim to know what the best axiomatization would be. The
problem about the dirty handed waiter is like some I and other logic-in-AI
people have considered, though rather more complex. It involves both the
use of other facts about restaurants and people's tastes and nonmonotonic
reasoning. Some of this nonmonotonic reasoning is intensional and
involves considerations like those described by Grice, i.e. that
are based on the assumed completeness of the story told by the
three sentences. Thus one's conviction of having understood why
Jon left the restaurant would be much reduced if these were the
only three sentences heard of a much longer story told in a noisy
environment.
None of this is well worked out yet, but we (maybe 50 people,
mostly in the U.S., Canada and Germany) don't find logic per se
inadequate, although some people use modal logic.
As far as I can see, the contexts I mentioned at the logic
lunch don't correspond to the situations of situation semantics.
Unfortunately, I don't have a writeup, but I'll be glad of the
opportunity to discuss it.
Anyway if I haven't been too offensive, I'd like to get
together. How about this week some time?
∂11-Apr-88 2212 JMC reply to message
To: barwise@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 11 Apr 88 21:25:40 PDT.]
Oh well, I have probably offended him then by my negative reaction to
his book draft. It seemed to me that he was re-inventing bits of
logic as he went along in an ad hoc way for his examples.
∂11-Apr-88 2107 JMC manuscript
To: devlin@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
Thanks for sending me your manuscript. It surely represents quite
a lot of work. Nevertheless, from my point of view, it would need
a complete reworking in order to become a useful contribution.
In the first place, it takes no account of the work that has been
done in AI in using logic to express facts about the world. You
have no references to this literature and there is no indication
that you are familiar with any of it. This is too bad, because
not only don't you address the problems where logic-in-AI work
has encountered difficulties, but you also give no indication
that you even recognize the problems the work has solved.
Second, you reject standard logic but invent bits of it as you
go along in order to do the examples that occur to you. However,
you are imprecise about what you allow - both syntactically and
semantically. For example, none of your examples tells me whether
you allow as a situation-type one that accepts just those
situations in which Jon sees ALL the members
of CSLI, although it's clear you allow a situation-type in which
he sees SOME member of CSLI. In your list of variable-types
you don't mention anchor variables. I suspect it of being an
oversight that may be corrected in some later chapter. I only
got half way through the manuscript.
You don't motivate your specific deviations from ordinary logic
and ordinary logical notation and your deviant terminology for
what seem to be standard ideas.
The exammples in the sections I have seen so far don't involve
the logical connectives AND, OR and NOT and use quantifiers
in a restricted way.
Finally, you don't tell us what one will be able to do with
a theory of information when we get it. For example,
do infons provide a suitable internal notation for a computer
program to represent information about the world.
I offer the following trivial problem from my 1958 paper
"Programs with Common Sense". How do you propose to represent
the information that permits a human or would permit a program
to infer that it could drive a car from Pasadena, California
to Pasadena, Texas.
If you don't find these remarks too negative to be of use to you,
I would be glad to discuss the problems further.
∂11-Apr-88 1946 JMC
To: barwise@ALAN.Stanford.EDU
Who is Keith Devlin?
∂11-Apr-88 1420 Mailer Redneck
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: chin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, goldberg@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
It now seems to me that I was too eager to pounce on Jeff Goldberg's
definition. Had he stated that it was a derogatory term, I would have had
no legitimate complaint at all. I have heard it used as an expression of
prejudice, and I could complain about that, but the only one who used it
in the current discussion was me, and I used it ironically. I have never
even visited the rural South. I think perhaps Homer Chin misunderstood.
I didn't criticize Goldberg's definition as an attack on me; I was
up to my usual academic didactic purpose.
∂11-Apr-88 1325 JMC Please send to Jukes
To: MPS
a copy of the material on Bruce Ames in my OUT box.
∂11-Apr-88 1220 Mailer re: Rednecks
To: goldberg@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, SINGH@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from goldberg@csli.stanford.edu sent Mon, 11 Apr 88 10:08:44 PDT.]
When I used the term "redneck" and Harinder Singh asked for a definition, I
held off partly in the expectation of that someone would provide the kind of
prejudiced definition Jeff Goldberg gave.
"The classic Redneck will speak with a southern or Okie accent, drive a
pick-up with a gun rack, vote very conservatively, isn't himself a Klan
member but has friends who are, literary tastes ranging from Louis L'Amour
to Penthouse, has an `independent' life-style, and is very mistrustful of
us over-educated city folks."
The mischief-making potential of this is similar to that involved in
defining the classic Jew.
"The classic Jew speaks with a Yiddish accent, is small, sly and greedy,
isn't necessarily a swindler but has friends who are."
"The classic X" as defined by someone prejudiced against X's includes the
collection of negative features that serve to warrant the prejudice. Usually
the prejudiced person will admit exceptions, as Jeff's use of "classic"
suggests, but encountering an X will elicit behavior appropriate to a classic
X.
Of course, general prejudice against Jews was used by the Nazis to put
over their genocide, and nothing like that is in the cards for rural
Southerners. However, in the academic community, prejudice against
Southerners and Southern academic institutions plays a quite significant
role, and many an individual Southerner has to go out of his way to prove
to his liberal friends that he isn't a redneck.
My most recent personal experience with this prejudice in the academic
community was the tone in which people asked, "Why would you take a
sabbatical in Texas?"
∂11-Apr-88 1145 JMC re: Getting together?
To: halpern@IBM.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon, 11 Apr 88 11:10:45 PDT.]
Could you make it 2:40? There's a class that ends at 2:30 I
want to attend.
∂10-Apr-88 2350 JMC re: Ernie Konnyu and AIDS
To: goldberg@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 10 Apr 88 23:45:49 PDT.]
Your notion of legislation is ok. It's the word "sponsored" that's
got you. It only means "proposed" in this case.
Campbell's supporters have been complaining that Konnyu has been abusing
his Government mailing privileges by sending a large number of
"information bulletins" to his constituents. Presumably, however, Konnyu
been complying with the letter of the House rules about how many times and
in what size type his name can appear and how many photographs there can
be apart from his taking part in official acts.
∂10-Apr-88 2317 Mailer re: Ernie Konnyu and AIDS
To: goldberg@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, ginsberg@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from goldberg@csli.stanford.edu sent Sun, 10 Apr 88 17:25:00 PDT.]
HR3695 stands for House Resolution number 3695 of the current Congress,
i.e. since January 1987. Guess how many HRs lead to bills passed by the
House and Senate and signed by the President. Most bills introduced by
Congressmen have no chance of passage. I'll bet the chairman of the
relevant committee won't even schedule hearings, since the Democrats have
a much more vocal "privacy" constituency than a health constituency.
Konnyu merely hopes that we rednecks will know that his heart is in the
right place and vote for him against Tom Campbell in the Republican
primary. He may quite possibly have used his Congressional District
mailing list. Since the flyer says to vote for him, you are assured it
wasn't mailed at Government expense.
∂10-Apr-88 2224 JMC
To: MPS
Pls reserve for 2 at Faculty Club Tues. noon 3-4325.
∂10-Apr-88 2223 JMC re: Getting together?
To: halpern@IBM.COM
[In reply to message sent Sun, 10 Apr 88 14:54:51 PDT.]
How about 2pm?
∂10-Apr-88 1421 JMC
To: IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In conclusion, you'll send me a publication plan.
∂09-Apr-88 2237 JMC reply to message
To: JK
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Apr-88 20:30-PT.]
John Nafeh has a copy. Also you can get a copy from me or from
Pat next time you come by. It's called Common Business Communication
Language. You certainly will not have seen the book in which it is
published - Textverabeitung und Burosysteme edited by Jurgen Reetz.
∂09-Apr-88 2028 JMC reply to message
To: JK
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Apr-88 20:24-PT.]
There is only the published paper.
∂09-Apr-88 1952 Mailer re: Citizens arrest
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 09-Apr-88 19:42-PT.]
The other possibility is that the cases were
dismissed at the request of the prosecutor.
∂09-Apr-88 1522 JMC
To: MPS
gallai.1
∂09-Apr-88 1521 JMC ios, cbcl, etc.
To: JK
I have looked at the material you gave me. The one entitled
"Ending the Paper Chase" has extra copies of some pages and
is missing others - at least the ending is missing. Can you
have someone send me another copy. The following
considerations occurred to me.
1. We should look at X.12. Does it have the virtues of
CBCL, e.g. list format, expandibility, the Chomsky property.
2. There is a possible niche for MAD. Namely, an IOS integrator
which would permit people at a an outfit like Gates rubber to deal with
MAD's IOS integrator in a uniform way which would deal with the variety
of IOSs.
3. I would suggest arranging a meeting with Gates Rubber and exploring
the possibility of a contract. Assuming no contract is obtained,
whoever talks to them will get an idea of what the requirements
would be for a MAD IOS integrator.
∂08-Apr-88 2258 Mailer re: Political Humor
To: CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Fri, 8 Apr 88 15:08:42 PDT.]
Homer Chin's "Yes John, for once I would agree with you. That is
precisely what the American Spectator is: A joke." shows some irritation.
Perhaps the American Spectator made fun of something Mr. Chin considers
sacred. Would Mr. Chin please elaborate what he finds "a joke" about the
American Spectator? Is it conservatism in general? Is it what it jeers
at? Or is it something else? To aid SU-ETC readers in evaluating the
complaints, I'll leave the next issue I get in the CSD Lounge. There may
be some old issues there now. We can have a solemn debate about which,
if any, of the American Spectator's jokes are funny and which are
offensive.
∂08-Apr-88 1135 JMC Please send the one page in my out box on problems of AI to
To: MPS
Joe Tabbi
167 Ludlow St.
New York, NY 10002
∂07-Apr-88 2114 JMC re: Political Humor
To: paulf@ACIS-NW-RT5.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 7 Apr 88 19:10:50 PDT.]
I believe the Stanford Review is in a similar situation.
Stanford Review, Stanford Conservative Politcal Alliance
P.O. Box 10401 Stanford, CA 94305
Leon Dayan, 328-1275
Dave Eisner, 328-6246
∂07-Apr-88 1903 JMC re: Political Humor
To: paulf@ACIS-NW-RT5.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 7 Apr 88 18:43:44 PDT.]
Dunno. I have a slightly higher score getting my letters printed by
the New York Times than by the Stanford Daily.
∂07-Apr-88 1723 Mailer re: Political Humor
To: paulf@UMUNHUM.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu sent Thu, 7 Apr 88 12:09:11 pdt.]
For right wing political humor, try the American Spectator. Actually
Judge Bork was attacked for being humorous when he was being confirmed
to the Appelate Court. The head of ADA complained that he laughed at
things "we consider sacred".
∂07-Apr-88 1714 JMC re: Lunch Saturday no-go
To: helen@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 7 Apr 88 16:49:42 PDT.]
Next Saturday looks ok.
∂07-Apr-88 0931 JMC re: Use of Sun for Devon McCullogh
To: JSW
[In reply to message rcvd 07-Apr-88 09:06-PT.]
Please call him if you think there is a chance some suitable hours
can be arranged. I think we should help the GNU project.
∂07-Apr-88 0906 JMC
To: CLT
Michael Doherty, contractor recommended by Barbara Gunther 408 423-4222
∂06-Apr-88 2341 JMC Revenge at last!
To: ailist@SRI.COM
In article <962@daisy.UUCP> klee@daisy.UUCP (Ken Lee) writes:
>
>Is AI just too expensive and too complicated for practical use? I
>spent 3 years in the field and I'm beginning to think the answer is
>mostly yes. In my opinion, all working AI programs are either toys or
>could have been developed much more cheaply using conventional
>techniques.
At last I get to use a retort that I thought of a half hour too late
almost 30 years ago. After one of my first public lectures on LISP
in about 1960 in which I gave examples of algebraic computations,
someone in the back of the audience, I think his name might have
been Carl Peterson, said scornfully, "I could easily have programmed all
that in assembly language". The retort should have been, "Well then,
why didn't you?"
∂06-Apr-88 2328 JMC reply to message
To: DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 5 Apr 88 12:37:43 EDT.]
I'm looking for a suitable machine.
∂06-Apr-88 2327 JMC Do you know of such a machine whose owner might be motivated?
To: JJW
∂05-Apr-88 0934 DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Apr 88 09:34:13 PDT
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 88 12:37:43 EDT
From: Devon Sean McCullough <DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
To: JMC@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Message-ID: <353789.880405.DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Hi. I wonder if you would give me access to one of your machines
that runs gnumacs and has a mouse (eg a sun with xwindows) so I can
continue to write documentation for RMS's free software foundation
this week. I am visiting Palo Alto until 12 April for interviews..
∂06-Apr-88 2325 JMC re: lunch
To: MCCARTY@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 5 Apr 88 10:38:29-PDT.]
Tuesday April 12 is it.
∂06-Apr-88 1801 Mailer re: The Palo Alto `Reich'
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, peyton@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from rick@hanauma.stanford.edu sent Mon, 28 Mar 88 13:28:17 pst.]
Liam Peyton says he was unconvinced by my arguments on behalf of Palo
Alto. I wasn't arguing on Palo Alto's behalf, merely reciting the history
of the matter. As a resident of Stanford, I am excluded from Foothill
Park. I hold no brief for the attitude of Palo Alto bureaucratic
employees, although I have always found their police polite. When Peyton
was a resident of Palo Alto, I'll bet he could have gotten some
satisfaction by complaining to the mayor. At least I knew one mayor of
Palo Alto, who was the business manager of the Center for Advanced Studies
in Behavioral Science, and he struck me as a reasonable man. He had
reasonable reasons for not wanting the Stanford residential areas annexed
to Palo Alto.
There are two other facts relevant to Peyton's assumptions.
1. East Palo Alto was in San Mateo County not in Santa Clara
County, and I believe it still is. I suppose the State Legislature would
have to change this with the agreement of both Counties, the residents of
East Palo Alto and the city of Palo Alto if East Palo Alto were to be
annexed to Palo Alto. The prospect of getting all those politicians to
agree on anything was considered minuscule.
2. The reason Palo Alto is late with cable TV is liberalism. They
argued for ten years before deciding to give the monopoly to Cable Co-op.
John Kelly, at least recently Cable Co-op's guru was a Stanford Law School
student when I first knew him through his taking one of my courses. My
impression is that he would consider a ten year delay in getting cable TV
of trivial importance compared to making sure that it eventually happened
in the politically correct way.
In case I wasn't clear in my previous message about the Palo Alto
Unified School District, besides the city of Palo Alto it includes various
other areas. It is financially distinct from the city.
∂06-Apr-88 1737 JMC re: Occam
To: RWF
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Apr-88 16:10-PT.]
I'll tell you afterwards.
∂06-Apr-88 1510 JMC
To: MPS
jukes.1
∂06-Apr-88 1129 JMC re: TRAVEL GUIDE THROUGH EUROPE ON A LOW BUDGET NEEDED
To: CHEMISTRY@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 6 Apr 88 10:27:21 PDT.]
You can't suppose that a money maker like "Europe on $5 a day" would
be left without a successor. It has been updated, and there are
competitors. Try any bookstore, e.g. Printer's Inc.
∂06-Apr-88 1126 JMC re: Japan
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Apr-88 10:18-PT.]
During the visit by John McCarthy and Carolyn Talcott, McCarthy
gave talks at Kyoto University, IBM Japan, ICOT and Tohoku University
in Sendai. The most productive part of the visit for McCarthy was
at Tohoku, where Professor Takayasu Ito has started on a project
for a LISP using parallel procesors. The goals of this project are
similar to the goals of the QISP project at Stanford of which McCarthy
is principal investigator. Specifically, it was agreed to try to
standardize the language for expressing parallelism in LISP after
two years, when the groups in the U.S. and Japan have had a little
more experience with their own linguistic variants.
∂05-Apr-88 2251 JMC re: mail connection nmr-workshop
To: reinfra@ZTIVAX.SIEMENS.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue, 5 Apr 88 12:58:02 -0200.]
This to acknowledge.
∂04-Apr-88 1759 JMC
To: VAL
Please make your proposed change to Math Logic in AI".
∂04-Apr-88 1533 JMC lunch
To: mccarty@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
Was it tomorrow or next week that we were to have lunch? I have it
down as next week.
∂03-Apr-88 0023 JMC re: Robotics at JPL
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 2 Apr 88 20:56:24 PST.]
That's the guy. I'll look in the office on Monday, but I don't
think I have his phone number.
∂02-Apr-88 1823 JMC re: lunch
To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 2 Apr 88 16:22 PST.]
Let's make it Wednesday then. I have made the reservation.
∂01-Apr-88 2244 JMC re: Problems with flight simulator tomorrow
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 1 Apr 88 22:35:49 PST.]
I look forward to seeing you at 1130.
∂01-Apr-88 1152 JMC re: good friday
To: MPS
[In reply to message rcvd 01-Apr-88 10:53-PT.]
Have a good Good Friday.
∂01-Apr-88 1648 JMC lunch reservation
To: MPS
Please call faculty club to reserve for me for 2 on Tuesday the 12th.
∂01-Apr-88 2122 JMC lunch
To: elliott%slacvm.bitnet@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU
How about later this week? I hear you came by while I
was at Livermore.
∂30-Apr-88 1302 JMC missed message
To: ailist@SRI.COM
I sent you the following on the 18th. Since it wasn't included in your
recent digest number #86, I assume it got lost due to the incorrect
address having been generated by some reply macro. This seems like
a good occasion to solicit reactions to our 1969 notions. If you like,
I'll send a longer message summarizing the ideas, but I probably won't
have time to do it before I go on a two week trip starting May 4.
∂18-Apr-88 1745 JMC re: AIList V6 #72 - Queries
To: AIList@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Sun 17 Apr 1988 23:35-PDT.]
McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969): ``Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), Machine
Intelligence 4, American Elsevier, New York, NY discusses the problem of
free will for machines. I never got any reaction to that discussion,
pro or con, in the 19 years since it was published and would be grateful
for some.
∂30-Apr-88 1348 JMC
To: MPS
I took both packets of pendaflex tabs and labels.
∂30-Apr-88 1438 JMC
To: MPS
Please try to remind me about expenses after every trip.
∂01-May-88 1034 JMC re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
To: paulf@ONO-SENDAI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 1 May 88 10:02:20 PDT.]
Maybe I'll borrow it when I return from my trip to France, Germany and
the Soviet Union about May 20. How about lunch tomorrow or Tuesday,
preferably tomorrow. I leave on Wednesday.
∂01-May-88 1042 JMC re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
To: paulf@ONO-SENDAI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 1 May 88 10:35:52 PDT.]
Faculty club at noon. Do you know what I look like? White hair and
beard.
∂01-May-88 1050 JMC re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
To: paulf@ONO-SENDAI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 1 May 88 10:47:11 PDT.]
Let's meet inside in the usual place. That's on the ground floor
where people line up to be seated. There are sofas to sit on.
∂01-May-88 1052 JMC
To: MPS
Please reserve for 2 at faculty club today (Monday) 3-4325.
∂02-May-88 1138 JMC
To: MPS
grauba.6. Please find the enclosures mentioned.
∂02-May-88 1415 JMC re: CSD Retreat
To: chandler@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 2 May 1988 9:45:18 PDT.]
single
∂02-May-88 1420 JMC
To: paulf@ono-sendai.Stanford.EDU
mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!herold or herold%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET
∂02-May-88 1909 JMC visits
To: herold%mcvax!unido!ecrcvax.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET
I hope this email address works. The visits are fine except that I don't
want to go to Kaiserslautern, because I need to work on a paper and prefer
to stay in Munich the whole week. I presently plan to fly to Moscow
directly from Munich.
∂02-May-88 1911 JMC lossage
To: paulf@ono-sendai.Stanford.EDU
∂02-May-88 1909 MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET Returned mail: Host unknown
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 May 88 19:09:41 PDT
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14)
id AA10707; Mon, 2 May 88 22:09:29 EDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 88 22:09:29 EDT
From: MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
Message-Id: <8805030209.AA10707@uunet.UU.NET>
To: <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <herold%mcvax!unido!ecrcvax.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET>... Host unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14)
id AA10696; Mon, 2 May 88 22:09:29 EDT
Message-Id: <8805030209.AA10696@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 02 May 88 1909 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: visits
To: herold%mcvax!unido!ecrcvax.uucp@uunet.UU.NET
I hope this email address works. The visits are fine except that I don't
want to go to Kaiserslautern, because I need to work on a paper and prefer
to stay in Munich the whole week. I presently plan to fly to Moscow
directly from Munich.
∂02-May-88 2126 JMC visits
To: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!herold@UUNET.UU.NET
I hope this email address works. Please acknowledge if you get it. The
visits are fine except that I don't want to go to Kaiserslautern, because
I need to work on a paper and prefer to stay in Munich the whole week. I
presently plan to fly to Moscow directly from Munich.
∂02-May-88 2204 JMC re: mail et al
To: paulf@ono-sendai.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 2 May 88 21:22:45 PDT.]
Thanks, it hasn't complained yet.
∂03-May-88 1143 JMC re: WAITS
To: PAULF@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue 3 May 88 09:10:36-PDT.]
I got an acknowledgment, so the address worked. Thanks, again.
SAIL can't be replaced in full functionality. I anticipate some
loss in some aspects of the SAIL users' standard of living. Maybe
there will be gains in other aspects. For example, I consider
GNU Emacs an advance on E except for very large files in which
SAIL has better paging.
∂03-May-88 1409 JMC
To: bjork@Score.Stanford.EDU
Many thanks.
∂03-May-88 1844 JMC re: WAITS
To: PAULF@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue 3 May 88 18:38:11-PDT.]
I don't have in mind any uniform solution for all SAIL users. It will
be ``Sauve qui peut''. My own group can most likely get by with
Gang-of-Four which is now Gang-of-Seven. I suppose we will also
get more work stations of some commonly available kind, e.g. Suns.
We can also use Polya. Do you have a recommendation?
∂03-May-88 2011 JMC re: WAITS
To: PAULF@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue 3 May 88 20:01:13-PDT.]
We have no current need or capability to experiment with peripherals.
In fact the 6 IIIs were not intended as an experiment. The IIIs were
ordered in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) and were the second
set of general purpose CRT terminals in the world. The first were the 12
Philco displays bought for a PDP-1 on our previous RFP. At the time the
32 channel Datadisc system was ordered (about 1970) they were also the
first system intended to put display terminals in offices. There were
already displays in military systems and expensive display systems
with single displays.
The purpose of getting the terminals was to do our work in AI and robotics.
DARPA didn't include any money for time-sharing research in our contract.
As a result we never wrote papers about the WAITS system. This was
unfortunate, because some of its valuable features may still not be
incorporated in present operating systems.
∂03-May-88 2014 JMC re: WAITS
To: PAULF@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue 3 May 88 20:01:13-PDT.]
I'm really short of money now, so if you want a SAIL account, I'll try
to make it a free one. The justification would be, if you are
interested enough so that the justification would be genuine, that
it would help figure out what kind of configuration the SAIL users
might best migrate to.
∂03-May-88 2322 JMC account for Paul Flaherty
To: ball@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
CC: paulf@SRI.COM
I would like to recommend an account on SAIL for Paul Flaherty
charged to maintenance. He has offered to help recommend how
to preserve some of SAIL's good features in a future system
and possibly some of its peripherals. I'll be away till about
May 22 after tomorrow. He can be reached as paulf@sri.com.
∂04-May-88 1200 Mailer moral responsibility for Indochina genocide
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
A bit before April 21 I asked whether the "anti-war" movement had
any responsibility for the tragic events after the communist victory
in Indochina. Bill Poser's reply included the following:
"I suggest that in order to indict the anti-war movement JMC needs
to show two things. One is that things are worse as a result of the actions
of the anti-war movement. It isn't sufficient to say that they were bad.
He has to argue that things are worse than if there had been no
anti-war movement. The other is to show that these consequences were
forseeable. If they weren't, then we would have causation but not
moral responsibility."
I delayed answering, because I felt that this was my big
chance, and I wanted to do it right. Now I'm going on a trip (to
France, Germany and the Soviet Union), so I'd better do what I can
now. First a side issue. This isn't a legal matter with an
a prosecutor and an indictment. One could ask from the "anti-war"
movement that it evaluate its own actions critically and not merely
pick holes in someone else's criticism. However, they seem to regard
any self-criticism as concessions to the enemy. Indeed when Joan
Baez complained about suppression of civil rights by the North
Vietnamese, she immediately was classified a traitor to the cause
and lost all her left-wing access to publicity. Since she wasn't
willing to criticize her own former position, she didn't get any
continuing right wing publicity channel and so became a non-person.
Now to the issue itself.
1. Were things worse than if there had been no anti-war movement?
No-one can be conclusive about the truth of counterfactual conditionals,
but I believe they were worse for the following reasons.
a. The Indochina war was very difficult to lose. Everyone
had to do his part to lose it. There was military incompetence and
putting careers ahead of winning. There was political micromanagement
by the Johnson Administration. There was Secretary of Defense
MacNamara who running the Defense Department was just like running
Ford. There were the scientists, unlike in World War II, took no
interest in making the electronic anti-infiltration line work.
Above all there was Congress who eventually, substantially in
response to the "anti-war" movement, refused to supply the
Vietnamese even at a cost of one percent of what the war had
previously been costing.
In all this the "anti-war" movement played a substantial
role in interaction with the counterculture generally. I write
"anti-war", because I believe that the movement ended up not
anti-war but in favor of a communist victory.
b. The number of people killed in Indochina after the
communist victory was more than had died on both sides and
among civilians in the previous 30 years of war. Most died
in Cambodia but the number killed in Vietnam and Laos was
also large. The people who drowned or were killed by pirates
trying to escape has to be charged to the communist account and
indirectly and partially to the account of their supporters.
c. The situation in South Vietnam in terms of civil rights
(number in prison), continuing poverty and desire to escape
at any risk is far worse than in South Korea, the closest
comparable situation, where a weaker "anti-war" movement wasn't
able to prevent the Free World from getting a draw. (I don't
put quotes around "Free World", because I regard the phrase as a
substantially correct characterization.
2. Could the "anti-war" movement have known the consequences
of its actions? To convince oneself of this one would need to
read some part of the enormous literature that existed before
(say) 1965 on the consequences of communist victories. There
was substantial genocide in the Soviet Union (on several occasions)
and China and serious repressions in Eastern Europe, North Korea,
North Vietnam, Cuba and Yugoslavia (despite its dispute with
Stalin). The evidence for all this was voluminous.
Indeed the people who formed the "anti-war" movement
had previously made the necessary distinctions between communism
and the left generally. In particular, SDS had made this
distinction. However, as the counterculture developed and
took a turn toward revolutionary rhetoric, they rejected
all they had learned (and new people didn't learn it). The
left wing movement abandoned almost all of its democratic
principles, except that they continued to oppose any
measures against themselves that they could characterize
as anti-democratic. Why?
It's hard to say why the American left turned so
anti-democratic at that time. Of course, the communists
had always been cynically one-sided in their appeal to
democratic slogans. My opinion is that when the Johnson
administration stopped student draft deferments in response
to justified complaints that the deferments were unfair to blacks,
this put self-interest in support of an existing ideological
tendency to find the U.S. at fault. When the internal U.S.
conflict intensified, the attitude that the enemy of my
enemy is my friend, caused the left to forget all it had
learned about the anti-democratic nature and genocidal tendencies
of communism.
Necessarily this exposition has to rely substantially
on literature. A recent book by (Ronald?) Radosh a reformed former
leader of the "anti-war" movement elaborates many of the
points I have made (judging from the reviews I have seen).
∂04-May-88 1402 JMC re: AI Qual - URGENT
To: Irvine@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 4 May 88 13:37:38 PDT.]
I will, alas be out of town.
∂04-May-88 1450 JMC (→21313 21-May-88)
To: "#___JMC.PLN[2,2]"
I will return from a trip to France, Germany and the Soviet Union
on May 21.
∂04-May-88 1543 JMC re: Special Faculty Meeting 5/3/88 - Vote
To: chandler@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 4 May 1988 15:37:27 PDT.]
I will be away till May 21 and will have to abstain unless the matter
drags out. You have misspelled Nilsson in your cc.
∂21-May-88 0000 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 return from a trip to France, Germany and the Soviet Union
on May 21.
∂21-May-88 1934 JMC re: Delphes
To: bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@EAN.UBC.CA
[In reply to message sent 4 May 88 11:49 -0700.]
I didn't get your message till today, because I was on a trip
including Paris, Munich and the Soviet Union. I had decided not to go
to Delphi. Among other things, I met with your group in Munich
and also with some professors concerned with AI. They asked for
suggestions for professorships. I suggested you. They didn't
react. If you aren't satisfied with where you are, I suggest
you consider the University of Texas at Austin. I spent the
Fall there and consider it a good place.
∂21-May-88 1939 JMC please respond to this
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
∂06-May-88 1447 SLA%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Qlisp
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 May 88 14:47:41 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Fri, 6 May 88 14:48:34 PDT
From: SLA%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 6 May 88 14:45:25 PDT
Date: Fri, 6 May 88 16:43 cst
Subject: Qlisp
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
X-Vms-To: IN%"jmc@sail.stanford.edu"
I am interseted in Qlisp and heard you are working on it. Is it
available, what does it run on? I would appreciate any information
you can give. Thanks,
Sincerely,
Sue Arneson
University of Minnesota
Academic Computing Services & Systems
SLA@UMNACVX
∂21-May-88 1944 JMC job situation resolved
To: MPS
∂11-May-88 2056 justeson@polya.stanford.edu job situation resolved
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 20:56:37 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA22284; Wed, 11 May 88 20:56:48 PDT
Date: Wed, 11 May 88 20:56:48 PDT
From: John Justeson <justeson@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805120356.AA22284@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: job situation resolved
I've accepted the postdoc at Watson, and they've accepted my acceptance
(i.e., I passed the drug screening). So you needn't respond to any more
letter requests.
Thanks for the help,
John
∂21-May-88 1946 JMC Quarterly Reports
To: CLT
∂12-May-88 1434 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Quarterly Reports
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 May 88 14:34:15 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA25354; Thu, 12 May 88 17:30:04 EDT
Posted-Date: Thu 12 May 88 17:13:38-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA06376; Thu, 12 May 88 17:13:40 EDT
Date: Thu 12 May 88 17:13:38-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Quarterly Reports
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil, squires@vax.darpa.mil, pullen@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <579474818.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Here is the format we would like to use for quarterly reports.
Please try to send us your reports for the quarter that ended
30 March by the end of this month. We apologize for the delay
in getting this to you. The report for the current quarter
will be due on 15 August. Please send the reports to Nicole
Fields at Darpa by netmail (nfields@vax.darpa.mil). Thanks,
Bill
-------------------------------------
Institution:
Project Title:
Principal Investigators:
Phone No.:
Project PI Net Address:
Technical Information
a. Recent accomplishments and major events:
b. Immediate technical objectives and challenges:
c. New opportunities:
d. Major personnel changes:
e. Major recent publications:
Financial Information (Dollar amounts can be in $K)
a. ARPA Order number, agent, and contract number:
b. Basic contract dollar amount:
c. Dollar amounts and purposes of options, if any:
d. Start and end dates for task/contract (Mention no-cost extension):
e. Total spending authority received to date (Note the date):
f. Total spent to date (Note the date to which it applies):
g. Approximate monthly expenditure rate:
h. Any major non-salary expenses planned within this increment of funds
(and any other deviations expected from the item above):
i. Date next increment of funds or other government action (specify)
is needed:
Please send a separate report for each separately funded effort.
Thanks,
Bill Scherlis
-------------------------------------
∂21-May-88 1954 JMC
To: andy@CARCOAR.Stanford.EDU
su-etc
Freedom of speech
Imagine that the contributors to su-etc were law students at the
State University of New York at Buffalo. Which contributors might be
subject to accusations of prohibited harassment by which other
contributors and prevented from passing the bar exam. according to the
following policy statement. $25 to the best accusation of violating the
policy. In the accusation, say who is accusing whom. Perhaps mutual
accusations would be best, e.g. Mark Crispin and Lyn Bowman accusing
each other. On second thought, I have decided not to offer this prize.
It might get too unpleasant, so just think about it. My opinion is that
the SUNYAB Law School Faculty is creating an atmosphere of fear of freedom
of speech. Also I would guess they do not have in mind enforcing this
regulation symmetrically, e.g. they don't contemplate denouncing feminists
who accuse the whole male sex of being rapists at heart or Naderites
accusing the whole business community of being larcenist.
The following statement was adopted unanimously by the Law School Faculty
at a meeting on October 2, 1987. (Signed by Wade J. Newhouse)
Anyone wishing to comment on this regulation should address their remarks to:
Dean David Filvaroff
SUNYAB Law School
North Campus
Buffalo, NY 14260
FACULTY STATEMENT REGARDING INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM, TOLERANCE, AND PROHIBITED
HARASSMENT
Every intellectual community worthy of the name thrives on sharp and
heated controversy--on the free and full expression of opposing
ideas and values; on impassioned arguments for, and equally passionate
arguments against. Given the particular professional skills required
for the practice of law, law schools, including this one, especially
prize and encourage such unencumbered give-and-take, the more lively
and uninhibited the better.
Because both the common law and two centuries of Constitutional
tradition have long given American lawyers a special role in assuring
fairness and securing equal treatment to all people, our intellectual
community also shares values that go beyond a mere standardized
commitment to open and unrestrained debate. We support the particular
values shaped by the special traditions and responsibilities of the
legal community to which all of us--students and faculty alike--belong.
Any and all expressions of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination are
abhorrent to these traditions; they not only detract from the person
uttering them, but reflect poorly upon the profession as a whole.
By entering law school, and joining this legal community, each
student's absolute right to liberty of speech must also become tempered
in its exercise, by the responsibility to promote equality and justice.
Therefore, it should be understood that remarks directed at another's
race, sex, religion, national origin,, age, or sexual preference will be
ill-received, or that racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-lesbian,
ageist and ethnically derogatory statements, as well as other remarks
based on prejudice and group stereotype, will generate critical
responses and swift, open condemnation by the faculty, wherever and
however they occur.
We note with dismay recent acts of harassment, intimidation, and
assault against persons of color and other groups which have taken
place on campuses around the country, and which have often gone far
beyond the bounds of constitutionally protected speech. Concern
regarding such inappropriate and often outrageous behavior compels the
faculty to add a clear and specific warning concerning any such acts
that may occur in this school. It is the policy of this law school to
take strong and immediate steps against any and all such behavior. The
means of doing so will always be informed by the faculty's strong
commitment to the requirements of due process but will not be limited
solely to the use of ordinary university disciplinary procedures.
Where such acts indicate that a student may lack sufficient moral
character to be admitted to the practice of law, the school can and
will make appropriate communications to the character and fitness
committees of any bar to which such a student applies, including, where
appropriate, its conclusion that the student should not be admitted to
practice law. In addition, in appropriate cases, the school will not
hesitate to act upon its legal and ethical duty to notify state and
federal law enforcement authorities of such acts, and to cooperate with
those authorities in their investigation and prosecution.
Although the faculty is prepared to exercise such sanctions, we
hope and expect that the occasion to do so will not arise. Thus, we
expect that students will accept, and act in accordance with, the moral
obligations of the profession and this community and honor the
traditions of fairness, equality and respect for others that sustain
the legal professon and inform the culture of this law school.
∂21-May-88 1959 JMC re: pocket computer with LISP
To: masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp
[In reply to message sent Tue, 17 May 88 18:26:27 JST.]
Do you suppose Casio would be willing to send me one?
∂21-May-88 1959 JMC re: vardi
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 18-May-88 12:32-PT.]
I don't recall agreeing to it.
∂21-May-88 2003 JMC BITNET mail follows
To: MPS
Didn't I write them no?
∂19-May-88 1718 PP248641%TECMTYVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu BITNET mail follows
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 May 88 17:18:28 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Thu, 19 May 88 17:20:06 PDT
From: PP248641%TECMTYVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 19 May 88 17:16:43 PDT
Date: 19 May 88 16:48 EDT
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: BITNET mail follows
Date: 19 May 1988, 16:48:23 EDT
From: PP248641 at TECMTYVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
DEAR PROFESSOR:
WE SENT YOU A LETTER TO INVITE YOU AS A GUEST LECTURER OF THE FIRST
ISAI-KBS TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 24-28 TH IN MONTERREY, MEXICO.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED YOUR ANSWER. THEREFORE, WOULD
YOU BE SO KIND TO LET US KNOW IF YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO COME ? THANKING
YOU IN ADVANCE WE REMAIN SINCERELY YOURS.
CONFERENCE COMITTEE. PROF. R. GUILLEN.
∂21-May-88 2111 JMC re: CSD Retreat
To: chandler@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 18 May 1988 15:50:51 PDT.]
Contrary to previous plans, I won't be going to the retreat for
family reasons. Let me suggest that Nils ask Vladimir Lifschitz
to give a talk about our work.
∂22-May-88 0610 JMC free will
ailist@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
free will
I dealt with meta issues in a previous message that was sent after this
one and included in a recent digest. However, this one, dealing with the
substantive issues, seems to have gotten lost, so I'm sending it again.
The following propositions are elaborated in
{\bf McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969)}: ``Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), {\it Machine
Intelligence 4}, American Elsevier, New York, NY.
I would be grateful for discussion of them - especially technical discussion.
1. For AI, the key question concerning free will is "What view should
we program a robot to have of its own free will?". I believe my
proposal for this also sheds light on what view we humans should take
of our own free will.
2. We have a problem, because if we put the wrong assertions in our
database of common sense knowledge, a logic-based robot without a
random element might conclude that since it is a deterministic robot,
it doesn't make sense for it to consider alternatives. It might reason:
"Since I'm a robot, what I will do is absolutely determined, so any
consideration of whether one course of action or another would
violate (for example) Asimov's suggestion that robots shouldn't
harm human beings is pointless".
3. Actually (McCarthy and Hayes 1969) considered an even more
deterministic system than a robot in the world - namely a system
of interconnected finite automata and asked the question: "When
should we say that in a given initial situation, automaton 1
can put automaton 7 in state 3 by time 10?"
4. The proposed answer makes this a definite question about
another automaton system, namely a system in which automaton
1 is removed from the original system, and its output lines
are replaced by external inputs to the revised system. We
then say that automaton 1 can put automaton 7 in state 3
by time 10 provided there is a sequence of signals on the
external inputs to the revised system that will do it.
5. I claim this is how we want the robot to reason. We should program it
to decide what it can do, i.e. the variety of results it can achieve, by
reasoning that doesn't involve its internal structure but only its place
in the world. Its program should then decide what to do based on
what will best achieve the goals we have also put in its database.
6. I claim that my own reasoning about what I can do proceeds similarly.
I model the world as a system of interacting parts of which
I am one. However, when deciding what to do, I use a model in
which my outputs are external inputs to the system.
7. This model says that I am free to do those things that suitable
outputs will do in the revised system. I recommend
that any "impressionable students" in the audience take the same
view of their own free will. In fact, I'll claim they already do;
unless mistaken philosophical considerations have given them
theories inferior to the most naive common sense.
8. The above treats "physical ability". An elaboration involving
knowledge, i.e. that distinguishes my physical ability to dial
your phone number from my epistemological ability that requires
knowing the number, is discussed in the paper.
These views are compatible with Dennett's and maybe Minsky's.
In my view, McDermott's discussion would be simplified if he
incorporated discussion of the revised automaton system.
∂22-May-88 0644 JMC the free will discussion
To: ailist@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Here are the meta remarks promised in my previous message
giving my substantive views. I hope the moderator will put
them in an issue subsequent to the one including the substantive
views.
There are three ways of improving the world.
(1) to kill somebody
(2) to forbid something
(3) to invent something new.
During World War II, (1) was appropriate, and it has occasionally
been appropriate since, but, in the main it's not appropriate now,
and few people's ideas for improvement take this form. However,
there may be more people in category (2) than in category (3).
Gilbert Cockton seems to be firmly in category (2), and I can't
help regarding him as a minor menace with his proposals that
institutions suppress AI research. At least the menace is minor
as long as Mrs. Thatcher is around; I wouldn't be surprised if
Cockton could persuade Tony Benn.
I would like to deal substantively with his menacing proposals, but
I find them vague and would prefer to respond to precise criteria
of what should be suppressed, how they are regarded as applying
to AI, and what forms of suppression he considers legitimate.
I find much of the discussion ignorant of considerations and references
that I regard as important, but different people have different ideas of
what information should be taken into account. I have read enough of
the sociological discussion of AI to have formed the opinion that it
is irrelevant to progress and wrong. For example, views that seem
similar to Cockton's inhabit a very bad and ignorant book called "The
Question of Artificial Intelligence" edited by Stephen Bloomfield, which I
will review for "Annals of the History of Computing". The ignorance is
exemplified by the fact the more than 150 references include exactly one
technical paper dated 1950, and the author gets that one wrong.
The discussion of free will has become enormous, and I imagine
that most people, like me, have only skimmed most of the material.
I am not sure that the discussion should progress further, but if
it does, I have a suggestion. Some neutral referee, e.g. the moderator,
should nominate principal discussants. Each principal discussant should
nominate issues and references. The referee should prune the list
of issues and references to a size that the discussants are willing
to deal with. They can accuse each other of ignorance if they
don't take into account the references, however perfunctorily.
Each discussant writes a general statement and a point-by-point
discussion of the issues at a length limited by the referee in
advance. Maybe the total length should be 20,000 words,
although 60,000 would make a book. After that's done we have another
free-for-all. I suggest four as the number of principal discussants
and volunteer to be one, but I believe that up to eight could
be accomodated without making the whole thing too unwieldy.
The principal discussants might like help from their allies.
The proposed topic is "AI and free will".
∂22-May-88 0704 JMC absence
To: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
I'm getting unhappy at your repeated prolonged absences. We have
a crisis with DARPA and you are nowhere to be found. Evidently
you haven't been tracking their state of mind.
∂22-May-88 1544 JMC
To: DC
My keyboard has quit again.
∂22-May-88 1646 JMC
To: MPS
sadler.1
∂22-May-88 1704 JMC letter
To: MPS
Please put my summer schedule, just long absences, in the
letter servan.2. Also include a texed and printed version
of glasno[w88,jmc].
∂22-May-88 2329 JMC re: Call
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 22-May-88 21:31-PT.]
You were right and thanks for the consideration. Someone else woke
me, but I don't think I'm in shape now. I'll call you tomorrow.
∂23-May-88 0032 JMC re: Meeting
To: JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, ullman@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from JSW rcvd 23-May-88 00:08-PT.]
It needs to be before Thursday for me.
∂23-May-88 0136 Mailer re: Jackson's Bush reference
To: L.LARK@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from L.LARK@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Mon 23 May 88 00:28:43-PDT.]
I trust that if evidence verifying the claim that Bush is racist does
not turn up, you will publicize that fact. There is a political
strategy that involves eliciting headlines like "Bush denies racism"
by repeated accusation. A headline of this character can replace
an account of whatever accusations against his opponents' positions
Bush may have made.
∂23-May-88 0139 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 43: Police Practices -- Roadblocks & Missing Information
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 23-May-88 00:48-PT.]
Les writes:
While the goal of keeping drunks off the road is a good one, there appear
to be enough mechanisms available to do that effectively without
roadblocks.
It seems to me more correct to say that there is no known mechanism
to do that effectively - not even road blocks.
I have no opinion on whether road blocks help, and they certainly can
be administered very rudely.
∂23-May-88 1515 JMC re: Input
To: BLUMENTHAL@a.ISI.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 20 May 88 10:03:04-EDT.]
I need to phone Sy and have mislaid his number - also yours.
∂23-May-88 1520 JMC phone number
To: goodman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu
I need to talk to you, because I have just been to the Soviet Union
and have a smidgen of information, but I need to find out what is
relevant to the report. I sent Marjorie a message asking for your
number, but I realize she will have gone for the day, you may not
have. If you get this in time to phone, my numbers are
415 723-0936 (just this afternoon), 723-4430 and 857-0672.
∂24-May-88 0815 Mailer conservative humor, installment 2
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
A few months ago some wrote on bbd that conservative humor
was regrettably lacking. The bastion of conservative humor
is the American Spectator. I suspect the amount of enjoyment
obtained from the following sample is strongly correlated
with one's agreement with the opinions it expresses.
April has passed into the history books, though in America
few even know what a history book might be. Certainly on
college campuses the history book is liber incognitus, even
for historians, and so during the month Secretary of
Education William J. Bennett continued his lonely campaign
to interest college presidents in the mystery and glory
of higher education. He even went to Stanford University,
the Heart of Darkness, to reprove the faculty's bovine
intelligentsia for scrubbing its great books course of such
neo-conservatives as Homer and Plato. The hoofed profs
insist that Western thought includes simply too many white
males. Yet how do they know that Homer and Plato were
white? Based on my researches throughout the Peloponnesus,
the old boys were probably of an olive hue. Thus the
profs can return to their scholarly perusals of comic books
and sex manuals and cease worrying that these old Greeks
and their peers from the Renaissance are a threat to campus
morons.
∂24-May-88 1151 JMC re: conservative humor, installment 2
To: BJORK@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 24 May 88 11:12:59-PDT.]
I confess I don't know who Ralph Steadman is.
∂24-May-88 1222 JMC
To: MPS
mints.1
∂24-May-88 1224 JMC proposal
To: RPG
It starts out with quite general considerations, and it
doesn't cover what we had been planning to do.
∂24-May-88 1232 JMC re: Proposal
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 24-May-88 12:31-PT.]
I'll be there.
∂24-May-88 1426 JMC
To: nilsson@TENAYA.Stanford.EDU
Can I talk to you late Wednesday afternoon?
∂24-May-88 1546 JMC qlisp contract
To: boesch@VAX.DARPA.MIL
CC: scherlis@VAX.DARPA.MIL, pullen@VAX.DARPA.MIL,
CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, bscott@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
I need to talk to you about the qlisp contract, especially about what is
required to complete the objectives of the original contract.
I have to confess some uncertainty about the present contractual
situation.
∂24-May-88 1644 Mailer re: conservative humor, installment 2
To: CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Tue, 24 May 88 15:18:55 PDT.]
Homer Chin writes
"Frankly I find the need for hidebound conservatives to humor
themselves by denigrating others rather nauseating."
In introducing the American Spectator quote, I said that whether one found
it humorous might depend on one's views. If someone had asked me whether
Mr. Chin would find it humorous, I think I would have guessed not. It
seems to me hard to find partisan political humor that doesn't involve
denigrating others, but maybe Mr. Chin can find some. A lot of it, like
this, involves smiting the enemy, where often the enemy is taken in a rather
large sense. How about Doonesbury, Mr. Chin? Better yet, Mr. Chin should
compose a code of ethics for political humorists defining what is ok
or at least not nauseating.
∂25-May-88 0728 JMC lost message
To: nick@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
I sent two messages on free will. The first was a substantive message giving
my views. The second was a meta-level message discussing the discussion.
Unfortunately, the first, which was more important, seems to have gotten
lost. I'll send it again.
∂25-May-88 0732 JMC free will
To: ailist@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
I dealt with meta issues in a previous message that was sent after this
one and included in a recent digest. However, this one, dealing with the
substantive issues, seems to have gotten lost, so I'm sending it again.
The following propositions are elaborated in
{\bf McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969)}: ``Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), {\it Machine
Intelligence 4}, American Elsevier, New York, NY.
I would be grateful for discussion of them - especially technical discussion.
1. For AI, the key question concerning free will is "What view should
we program a robot to have of its own free will?". I believe my
proposal for this also sheds light on what view we humans should take
of our own free will.
2. We have a problem, because if we put the wrong assertions in our
database of common sense knowledge, a logic-based robot without a
random element might conclude that since it is a deterministic robot,
it doesn't make sense for it to consider alternatives. It might reason:
"Since I'm a robot, what I will do is absolutely determined, so any
consideration of whether one course of action or another would
violate (for example) Asimov's suggestion that robots shouldn't
harm human beings is pointless".
3. Actually (McCarthy and Hayes 1969) considered an even more
deterministic system than a robot in the world - namely a system
of interconnected finite automata and asked the question: "When
should we say that in a given initial situation, automaton 1
can put automaton 7 in state 3 by time 10?"
4. The proposed answer makes this a definite question about
another automaton system, namely a system in which automaton
1 is removed from the original system, and its output lines
are replaced by external inputs to the revised system. We
then say that automaton 1 can put automaton 7 in state 3
by time 10 provided there is a sequence of signals on the
external inputs to the revised system that will do it.
5. I claim this is how we want the robot to reason. We should program it
to decide what it can do, i.e. the variety of results it can achieve, by
reasoning that doesn't involve its internal structure but only its place
in the world. Its program should then decide what to do based on
what will best achieve the goals we have also put in its database.
6. I claim that my own reasoning about what I can do proceeds similarly.
I model the world as a system of interacting parts of which
I am one. However, when deciding what to do, I use a model in
which my outputs are external inputs to the system.
7. This model says that I am free to do those things that suitable
outputs will do in the revised system. I recommend
that any "impressionable students" in the audience take the same
view of their own free will. In fact, I'll claim they already do;
unless mistaken philosophical considerations have given them
theories inferior to the most naive common sense.
8. The above treats "physical ability". An elaboration involving
knowledge, i.e. that distinguishes my physical ability to dial
your phone number from my epistemological ability that requires
knowing the number, is discussed in the paper.
These views are compatible with Dennett's and maybe Minsky's.
In my view, McDermott's discussion would be simplified if he
incorporated discussion of the revised automaton system.
∂25-May-88 1014 JMC re: Arrangements for your visit to China.
To: MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 25 May 88 13:15 N.]
Here's the abstract. I'll start on the travel arrangements and
visa next week.
\title{ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, LOGIC, DATABASES AND COMMUNICATION}
\noindent Abstract: Many of the jobs that we would like to automate
primarily involve communication among different organizations. Doing
these jobs involves knowing about other organizations, what information
they have and want, their goals as organizations, and the requirements
for communicating with them. Much of the study of this phenomenon
goes under the heading of the design of distributed systems. However,
this study is often carried out under the assumption that the designer
controls all the organizations involved at least to the extent of
knowing what they will do with the information exchanged. This assumption
is unrealistic. We need to design systems that will work for communication
between organizations without a common boss, with disparate hardware and
which update their systems asynchronously with one another.
\noindent The present lecture concerns several aspects of this matter.
(1) What systems can know about other systems, their goals and the
information available to them.
(2) The problem of developing an open-ended Common Business Communication
Language in which systems can communicate about business topics like what
is available, prices and delivery.
(3) Describing other people's data, what the data is, how it is stored,
and how it can be accessed and modified. It is assumed that the other
people decided how to store their data without your convenience in mind.
(4) The possibility of bridge programs that know about many database
systems and formats of data and ease communication.
∂25-May-88 1015 JMC Your travel arrangement to China.
To: MPS
∂25-May-88 0413 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no Your travel arrangement to China.
Received: from tor.nta.no by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 04:08:41 PDT
Posted-Date: 25 May 88 12:48 +0100
Received: by tor.nta.no (5.54/3.21)
id AA00273; Wed, 25 May 88 12:54:29 +0200
Date: 25 May 88 12:48 +0100
From: Jianhua Yang <yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <261*yang@vax.runit.unit.uninett>
Subject: Your travel arrangement to China.
INVITED SPEAKER TO THE IFIP CONFERENCE IN CHINA, JULY 1988.
Dear Prof. John McCarthy,
May I ask you how you are planning to arrange your
travel to China and back to the states? May I ask you
for the estimated cost figures for your travel to/from China
which will be covered by the conference budget? I have
to look at the conference budget for the last time, I hope.
Thanks for your help!
Sincerely yours
Jianhua Yang.
∂25-May-88 1126 JMC Qlisp
To: JSW
∂25-May-88 1055 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Qlisp
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 10:55:15 PDT
Date: Wed 25 May 88 10:54:50-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Qlisp
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU, RPG@Sail.Stanford.EDU, CLT@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU, Bergman@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12401179731.17.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I just talked with John Pucci, and will request a no-cost extension of the
Qlisp task through 7/31. He told me there would be no problem with this, but
that we may not have the signed extension by May 31, the current end date.
Here is the financial status of this task as of 4/30:
Balance available in the Task $123,615.36
Less Outstanding Commitment to Lucid 93,839.45
-----------
Balance Remaining as of May 1 for Task 8 $ 29,775.91
April expenses, exclusive of Lucid, totaled $45,443.31, so there
are not sufficient funds remaining to cover May expense for Qlisp.
The $199,924 requested for a three-month extension of Qlisp will be written
as a separate Task, and as I told Dick yesterday, there are no Lucid funds
in this extension request. So as of now, the end of the Lucid subcontract
will be upon payment of the $93,8939.45 mentioned above, by July 31.
More general information: John Pucci also told me that the Secretary of
Defense has just frozen all contract funds until June 30, but he is not
sure when they will actually be released for distribution. He said he will
know more by the end of next week, so I'll call him then and see if a definite
release date has been set.
Betty
-------
∂25-May-88 1641 JMC re: AIList Digest V7 #6 [JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU: free will discussion ]
To: bwk@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Wed, 25 May 88 14:04:59 EDT.]
It was in Machine Intelligence 4. If you send an address to my
secretary mps@sail.stanford.edu, she will send you a copy of the
article.
∂25-May-88 1645 JMC Please phone
To: MPS
Gunnar Liepin 615 576-5238 at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and tell him that I'm no longer in charge of AAAI
workshops and that Peter Hart is.
∂25-May-88 1857 JMC
To: DC
My keyboard now stutters a lot, especially the 1 key.
∂25-May-88 2212 JMC
To: JSW
bio.tex[1,clt]
∂25-May-88 2219 JMC invoice
To: MPS
Please prepare an invoice to Stephen Lawrence for 1 1/2 hours
at $250 per hour for consulting on May 25.
∂25-May-88 2230 JMC re: Bios
To: JSW
[In reply to message rcvd 25-May-88 22:27-PT.]
We can stop at whatever level is convenient. In my 25 years of dealing
with DARPA, I never detected any evidence that any biographies were
read. Bill Scherlis knows Carolyn's interests quite well.
∂31-May-88 2027 JMC article on free will
To: MPS
The article to send is "Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint
of Artificial Intelligence".
∂31-May-88 2032 JMC re: G81
To: Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue, 31 May 88 14:47 PDT.]
ok
∂31-May-88 2033 JMC re: NAE reference letter
To: Irvine@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 31 May 88 17:01:28 PDT.]
ok
∂31-May-88 2036 JMC
To: pat@CCRMA-F4
I don't understand way I received a long message concerning a proposal
by Roger Dannenberg.
∂31-May-88 2053 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 43: Police Practices -- Roadblocks & Missing Information
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES sent Mon, 23 May 88 10:15:38 PDT.]
The arguments about raising the drink age to 21 are all theoretical.
I believe the proponents claim empirical support. The death rate
from drunk driving went up enough when the age was lowered and down
again enough when it was raised to convince various legislatures
that raising it was a good idea. Is there a volunteer to look up
actual statistics?
∂01-Jun-88 1056 JMC re: support letter
To: PAT@CCRMA-F4
[In reply to message sent 01 Jun 88 0932 PDT.]
Patte, thanks for the message about Marathon. However, just before that,
I got another about Dannenberg's proposal. You seem to be sending them
to mar.dis. I suspect that this is a distribution list that needn't
survive its subject for long.
∂01-Jun-88 1215 JMC Prof. McCarthy's Article on Free Will
To: MPS
∂26-May-88 0746 bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA Prof. McCarthy's Article on Free Will
Received: from mitre-bedford.ARPA by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 May 88 07:45:58 PDT
Date: Thu, 26 May 88 10:46:33 EDT
From: bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Kort)
Full-Name: Kort
Message-Id: <8805261446.AA11827@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
To: mps@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Prof. McCarthy's Article on Free Will
Cc: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Please send me a copy of Professor's McCarthy's article on Free Will
which appeared in Machine Intelligence 4.
Thanks kindly.
Barry Kort
M/S K318
MITRE Corp.
Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
∂01-Jun-88 1550 JMC re: Joe Weening
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, ullman@Score.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from RPG rcvd 01-Jun-88 14:56-PT.]
I will also go to Black Friday on Joe's behalf. His present idea is to
just take the summer quarter as a leave. I favor talking to him before the
meeting, say at 2:30. Weening shouldn't come early.
∂01-Jun-88 1705 JMC re: Lunch
To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 1 Jun 88 17:00 PST.]
Please phone me at the office if you get this soon. 3-4430.
I have new info about the possible (or maybe impossible) experiment.
∂01-Jun-88 2216 Mailer re: gender gap in national politics
To: Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, lyn1@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from Crispin@sumex-aim.stanford.edu sent Wed, 1 Jun 88 16:43:27 PDT.]
Indeed the Republicans won't do anything much about the gender gap in national
politics. Neither did the British Conservatives. However, if a woman comes
along in American politics with the views and ability of Mrs. Thatcher,
she will have no more special problem in winning a Republican nomination
than Mrs. Thatcher had in becoming leader of the Conservatives. When
she ran against Heath for the Party leadership, there had been no discussion
of whether it was time for a woman Party Leader. She beat him because she
was more conservative than he was, and the party was in a mood for that.
∂01-Jun-88 2254 JMC with or without Joe
To: RPG
I have nothing in mind to discuss without him, though I'm
willing if you do. It occurs to me that we have more to discuss
than Joe, so how about having lunch at the Faculty Club - say
at one pm? Otherwise two pm.
∂01-Jun-88 2258 Mailer quote for today
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Perhaps it is because their horizons are limited in this way
that some people are able to imagine that the center of the
universe is man. - R. P. Feynman
∂01-Jun-88 2310 JMC reply to message
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 01-Jun-88 22:57-PT.]
OK, at my office.
∂02-Jun-88 0901 JMC re: SPO Advisory Committee
To: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU,
KSL-Exec@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU,
Faculty@SCORE.Stanford.EDU,
BScott@SCORE.Stanford.EDU, Wheaton@SCORE.Stanford.EDU,
Timothy@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, Vian@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
CC: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Thu, 2 Jun 88 07:54:17 PDT.]
Like every bureaucracy, the SPO likes to expand by finding new things
to do and finds its Advisory Committee a useful tool for this purpose.
Remember that every expansion of SPO means an increase in overhead.
Therefore, I would like the SPO to reduce itself as much as possible
to the essential function (at least I suppose they are esssential
for this function) of getting the proposals approved by Stanford
and forwarded to the funding agencies. Perhaps the Advisory Committee
should recommend that in the next year they achieve this goal with
20 percent fewer personnel and that the personnel reduction include
one at the management level.
∂02-Jun-88 1151 Mailer re: The Feynman quote is
To: P.PR@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.PR@othello.stanford.edu sent Thu 2 Jun 88 11:09:18-PDT.]
Here's more of the Feynman quote and the precise citation.
The book is based on nontechnical lectures given at Cornell in 1965.
All the intellectual arguments that you can make will not
communicate to deaf ears what the experience of music really
is. In the same way all the intellectual arguments in the
world will not convey an understanding of nature to those
of `the other culture'. Philsophers may try to teach you by
telling you qualitatively about nature. I am trying to describe
her. But it is not getting across because it is impossible.
Perhaps it is because their horizons are limited in this way
that some people are able to imagine that the center of the
universe is man. - R. P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, p. 58.
∂02-Jun-88 1247 Mailer re: the education-politics relation
To: lyn1@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from lyn1@sierra.stanford.edu sent Thu, 2 Jun 1988 12:23:05 PDT.]
My fear is that for many people the predatory culture of the
drug dealers, pimps, gangs and crime is entirely too attractive.
To the extent that this is true, social policies based on the
idea of overcoming despair will fail.
∂02-Jun-88 1247 JMC keyboard
To: DC
It's stuttering badly, getting wrong characters and inserting characters.
∂02-Jun-88 1553 JMC
To: MPS
pugin.1 (address on letter in out box)
∂02-Jun-88 1606 JMC re: Thesis Proposal
To: Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon, 23 May 88 11:08 PDT.]
I have looked at your thesis proposal, and I would like to
discuss it with you before signing the G81. How about tomorrow,
say a 2pm, although I expect to be in all day, and next week too.
I told Black Friday that I expect to sign it, so I think you
needn't fear administrative action.
∂02-Jun-88 1715 JMC re: meeting
To: rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Jun 88 17:11:31 PDT.]
Let it be 1:30.
∂02-Jun-88 1718 Mailer failed mail returned
To: JMC
In processing the following command:
MAIL/su
The following message was unsent because of a syntax error:
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
02-Jun-88 1718 JMC meeting
Make that 2:30.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂02-Jun-88 1719 JMC meeting
To: kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM
Make that 2:30.
∂02-Jun-88 2326 JMC re: The dam busters
To: ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 2 Jun 88 23:25:18-PDT.]
I heard of it but didn't see it.
∂02-Jun-88 2330 Mailer re: On the Feynman
To: P.PR@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.PR@othello.stanford.edu sent Thu 2 Jun 88 18:53:54-PDT.]
Sorry for confusing Mr. Balasingam. I didn't have any male/female
debate in mind in citing the Feynman quote. Take note that any
future "quote of the day" is not intended to be appropos of any
specific current bboard discussion.
∂03-Jun-88 0050 JMC re: Civil Liberties 52: Police Misconduct
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Jun-88 00:41-PT.]
1. Suggest repeating "police misconduct" instead of "police crimes". Much
misconduct is not a crime but still should be reported.
2. Suggest simplifying language. Some of the legal language can be
replaced by ordinary language without changing the meaning.
3. Some misconduct can be reported to higher police authority rather
than via a lawyer.
∂03-Jun-88 1208 JMC
To: MPS
inamori.1
∂03-Jun-88 1220 Mailer Nicaragua
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
US Criticizes Radio Crackdown in Nicaragua
WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department said Friday the Nicaraguan
government's suspension of two radio news programs is a violation of
its commitment to guarantee freedom of expression.
Spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley said the suspensions, announced
Wednesday, will prevent the programs from being broadcast through the
next round of cease-fire talks with Nicaraguan rebel leaders, set for
next week.
''This is probably not coincidental,'' Mrs. Oakley said, adding that
the suspensions violated commitments to free expression the leftist
government made in one agreement signed last August and another two
months ago.
''Restrictions like this can only damage the process of establishing
peace and democracy in Nicaragua,'' Mrs. Oakley said.
The programs affected by the temporary suspensions are broadcast by
Radio Catolica and Radio Corporacion.
∂03-Jun-88 1402 JMC
To: LES
You must reduce your computer charges to $100 per month - or pay.
∂03-Jun-88 1425 JMC re: computer charges
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Jun-88 14:21-PT.]
That's fine. My info came from CHARGE.
∂05-Jun-88 1114 Mailer aclu question
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Stanford recently threw a freshman out of his housing for allegedly
"homophobic", "racist" and "sexist" remarks made while drunk and
forced some students who protested to apologize on the thin ground
that their candlelight vigil suggested Klu Klux Klan activity. It
seems to me that the Stanford authorities, in their eagerness to
appease opinion accusing them of "homophobia", "racism", et. al
may have abridged the civil rights of this freshman and the students
who protested on his behalf. It may even be that Stanford judicial
procedures violated literally as well as in spirit. Were the
students provided with explicit charges including citations of
the regulations they are asserted to have violated.
At present there is no organization alert to this kind of
oppressive behavior. I imagine the Stanford authorities as being
full of self-righteous anti-racist zeal and in no state to
imagine that they might have abridged anyone's civil rights.
If the issue is raised they will probably do the most perfunctory
kind of intellectual gerrymandering and discover that this matter
is entirely different from the cases in which they have treated
campus radicals so tenderly. If past performance is any guide,
they will instantly absolve themselves, regard any objections
as instances of right wing paranoia, and forget it.
Again judging by past performance, it would take a rather determined
lawsuit or continued protests to get them to pay attention. That's
what it took in the case of leftist civil rights cases.
Could the ACLU be of help? It needs someone with experience
with past civil rights cases in order to make comparisons
with previously established criteria.
Unfortunately, I will be travelling for much of the summer and
haven't time to take it up myself.
∂05-Jun-88 1145 Mailer Reagan gets the main thing right again
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
quotation from an article by NYT Moscow correspondent Bill Keller in
Sunday June 5 NYT, section 4, p.1. Please note where quotes
begin and end.
"Startling as it was to watch President Reagan stand before students
at Moscow State University last week and deliver a heartfelt plea for
freedom and democracy,
THE REAL REVALATION was the reaction of his Soviet listeners.
What once would have been taken as a show of American chauvinism
was in this heady time the American President called `Moscow spring'
widely regarded as a sort of campaign speech for Mikhail S. Gorbachev.
`Your generation is living in one of the most exciting, hopeful times
in Soviet history,' Mr. Reagan said to rows of glowing faces. `It
is a time wehn the first breath of freedom stirs the air and the heart
beats to the accelerated rhythm of hope, when the accumulated
spiritual energies of a long silence yearn to breath free.'
The Soviet Union is a good distance yet from turning those hopes and
yearnings into a way of life. But ... "
Reagan, when prepared, often says the right thing better than almost
anyone else. He was right about "evil empire" and he was right about
this.
∂05-Jun-88 1335 Mailer re: aclu question
To: C.CPHOENIX@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from C.CPHOENIX@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Sun 5 Jun 88 12:21:26-PDT.]
That was brisk on the part of Chris Phoenix.
The student did make those remarks. What hearing was there at which
this was established, and did the student have legal or quasi-legal
advice. What precise regulation was violated? Was the regulation
precise or over-general?
"And as far as I know, Stanford has a right to kick people
out of their housing for being assholes."
I'm 60 and out of touch with student life and also with the Stanford
Administration that regulates it to some extent. Therefore, Mr.
Phoenix will forgive me for not having realized that the offense
of "being assholes" has a precise definition. Otherwise, I might
suppose that if the religious right ever got control of Stanford,
they could equally well include in "being an asshole", failing
to attend church, being a homosexual, or taking part in the
BSU or any demonstration it sponsored.
What is Mr. Phoenix's definition of "being an asshole" or is it
simply that those in authority can kick anyone out in order to
brown-nose any group whose trouble-making potential they fear.
∂05-Jun-88 1405 Mailer aclu
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Is it true that "Stanford has a right to kick people
out of their housing for being assholes."
∂05-Jun-88 2052 JMC re: pocket computer with LISP
To: masahiko@NUESUN.NTT.JP
[In reply to message sent Mon, 6 Jun 88 10:47:35 JST.]
My work telephone number is 415 723-4430.
∂05-Jun-88 2345 JMC
To: MPS
Please put my reservations in my calendar.
∂06-Jun-88 1006 JMC re: Free will
To: mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon, 6 Jun 88 12:51:37 EDT.]
Drew, did this one flash by you? I didn't see it appear in the digest.
The following propositions are elaborated in
{\bf McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969)}: ``Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), {\it Machine
Intelligence 4}, American Elsevier, New York, NY.
I would be grateful for discussion of them - especially technical discussion.
1. For AI, the key question concerning free will is "What view should
we program a robot to have of its own free will?". I believe my
proposal for this also sheds light on what view we humans should take
of our own free will.
2. We have a problem, because if we put the wrong assertions in our
database of common sense knowledge, a logic-based robot without a
random element might conclude that since it is a deterministic robot,
it doesn't make sense for it to consider alternatives. It might reason:
"Since I'm a robot, what I will do is absolutely determined, so any
consideration of whether one course of action or another would
violate (for example) Asimov's suggestion that robots shouldn't
harm human beings is pointless".
3. Actually (McCarthy and Hayes 1969) considered an even more
deterministic system than a robot in the world - namely a system
of interconnected finite automata and asked the question: "When
should we say that in a given initial situation, automaton 1
can put automaton 7 in state 3 by time 10?"
4. The proposed answer makes this a definite question about
another automaton system, namely a system in which automaton
1 is removed from the original system, and its output lines
are replaced by external inputs to the revised system. We
then say that automaton 1 can put automaton 7 in state 3
by time 10 provided there is a sequence of signals on the
external inputs to the revised system that will do it.
5. I claim this is how we want the robot to reason. We should program it
to decide what it can do, i.e. the variety of results it can achieve, by
reasoning that doesn't involve its internal structure but only its place
in the world. Its program should then decide what to do based on
what will best achieve the goals we have also put in its database.
6. I claim that my own reasoning about what I can do proceeds similarly.
I model the world as a system of interacting parts of which
I am one. However, when deciding what to do, I use a model in
which my outputs are external inputs to the system.
7. This model says that I am free to do those things that suitable
outputs will do in the revised system. I recommend
that any "impressionable students" in the audience take the same
view of their own free will. In fact, I'll claim they already do;
unless mistaken philosophical considerations have given them
theories inferior to the most naive common sense.
8. The above treats "physical ability". An elaboration involving
knowledge, i.e. that distinguishes my physical ability to dial
your phone number from my epistemological ability that requires
knowing the number, is discussed in the paper.
These views are compatible with Dennett's and maybe Minsky's.
In my view, McDermott's discussion would be simplified if he
incorporated discussion of the revised automaton system.
∂06-Jun-88 1155 JMC re: Free will
To: mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA
[In reply to message sent Mon, 6 Jun 88 13:54:53 EDT.]
With regard to whether "one would be tempted to mentally decouple a
thermostat", in my view the decision depends on how the task of
formalization comes out. People argued for centuries about whether
to count zero as a natural number. Only formalization decided the
matter. Formalizations including zero are shorter and more
comprehensible than those that start with one.
I agree that regarding the world as a set of interacting finite automata
is oversimplified, but I think common sense reasoning often makes use of
essentially this simplification. I regard interacting-automata theories
as "approximate theories" in the sense of my paper Ascribing Mental
Qualities to Machines". Let me refer you to the example of the ski
instructors in that paper.
What do you think of the idea of taking on Gilbert Cockton? et al
in a moderated discussion of free will?
∂06-Jun-88 1451 Mailer re: aclu questions
To: siegman@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from siegman@sierra.stanford.edu sent Mon, 6 Jun 1988 12:34:55 PDT.]
Anthony Siegman has good questions about what activities might be
termed offensive. I believe the University will find it convenient
to avoid answering them, and I believe the rest of us have good reason
to insist that they do. Administratively, it is convenient to make
the offensiveness of an activity subject to the administrator's judgment.
Thus he can make his decisions take into account the capability of people
who might claim offense to actually make trouble. The BSU has shown
recent capability to make trouble and air force officers have not.
Therefore, offending a black RA is offensive and showing Dr. Strangelove
is not. Of course, it is not merely administrators afraid of the political
left that welcome the ability to make offensiveness depend on circumstances.
50 years ago, offending the religious would have been worse than offending
blacks. The extreme of making offensivenes political was in China
during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Then there was explicitly
no law. Everything was up to the authorities. They are still trying to
re-establish a rule of law.
As for Stanford, I believe the Administration should be required to
give explicit criteria for what constitutes offense. It is irrelevant
whether campus residence is regarded as a right or a privilege. It has
long been established that customary privileges cannot be revoked for
reasons that violate protections analogous to those provided by the
Bill of Rights. Moreover, one of these protections is that against
ex post facto laws. Therefore, unless the university can show that
the student violated previously published rules, which were not
"unconstitutionally vague" and didn't give "excessive" administrative
discretion, they should reinstate him in his housing.
By "unconstitutionally vague", I refer to the questions raised by
Anthony Siegman. Who has the right to claim offense and for what.
I'm also dubious about Kennedy's reference to "education". I'm not
sure he could "educate" me to the correct attitude to lots of questions,
and even students who turn out to be recalcitrant to his "education"
also have rights to free speech, peacable assembly and petition for
redress of grievances, all of which seem to have been abridged in
this case.
To summarize: you can only punish people for violation of previously
published definite rules.
All my remarks above have been legalistic in tone. One should not totally
ignore the politics. I don't believe the actual events took the form of
the student making remarks, someone's feelings being hurt, and
administrative action resulting from the hurt feelings. Instead, we have
Administration fear of the BSU and liberals generally, who have already
shown their ability and willingness to make trouble for the University
when it doesn't join their crusades.
∂06-Jun-88 1915 Mailer re: aclu questions
To: jackk@SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from jackk@shasta.stanford.edu sent Mon, 6 Jun 88 17:15:08 PDT.]
Mr. Kouloheris's information counts as unsubstantiated rumor. I forgot
to mention that public trials are another feature of our Constitution.
∂06-Jun-88 2017 Mailer re: aclu question
To: paulf@SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from paulf@shasta.stanford.edu sent Mon, 6 Jun 88 19:32:01 PDT.]
The original request for a precise definition of "precise definition"
didn't make it to the SAIL bulletin board, and I only have Paul
Flaherty's citation of it. (By the way, the American spelling
is "judgment"; "judgement" is British or Canadian).
It is part of all Western systems of law (something you are no longer
expected to know about) that criminal punishment can only based on
violation of law and not just because a judge decides that you are an
asshole. Lesser institutions are allowed to proceed more informally,
but in connection with offenses for which First Amendment protection
might be claimed a tradition arose in connection with acts by lefists
that charges had to be explicit. It appears that Stanford acts as
though this tradition applies only to acts by leftists.
The proposed "certificate of respectability" doesn't need formal
criteria. Organizations giving certificates promise
to a pay a specified large sum of money if you hijack an airplane.
They may use whatever criteria they please for deciding you are
a good risk.
∂06-Jun-88 2121 JMC dialnet
To: LES
1. Dialnet is now a trademark of somebody. The article should distinguish.
2. One of the reasons for dialnet being dropped is that nsf,
Fred Weingarten, turned down the renewal proposal. I never
asked for the reviews (they had to be requested then), and it
might be interesting to ask for them now.
∂06-Jun-88 2123 JMC
To: LES
p.s. rumor was that it was because we didn't offer to study social impact.
∂06-Jun-88 2231 JMC re: dialnet
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Jun-88 21:35-PT.]
I think it's Dialog. I was a subscriber to Dialog for a while.
∂06-Jun-88 2353 JMC Can you figure out
To: paulf@SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU
an address suitable for replying to the following?
∂06-Jun-88 2115 siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de Failed mail (msg.aa21130)
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jun 88 21:15:14 PDT
Received: from germany.csnet by RELAY.CS.NET id ab19648; 7 Jun 88 0:04 EDT
Received: from uklirb by iraun1.ira.uka.de id aa10612; 6 Jun 88 22:33 MET DST
Received: from ira.uka.de by uklirb.uucp id aa11487; 5 Jun 88 6:09 MET DST
Received: from relay.cs.net by iraun1.ira.uka.de id al08750;
5 Jun 88 5:57 MET DST
Received: from relay.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ae04020; 4 Jun 88 23:40 EDT
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 88 23:42:18 EDT
From: RELAY Mail System (MMDF) <mmdf@RELAY.CS.NET>
Sender: mmdf@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: Failed mail (msg.aa21130)
To: siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de
Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 22:26:26 MET DST
Resent-From: siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de
Resent-To: jmc%sail.stanford.edu@ira.uka.de
Your message could not be delivered to
'jmc.@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (host: sail.stanford.edu) (queue: smtpmx)' for the following
reason: ' I don't know anybody named jmc.'
Your message follows:
Received: from germany.csnet by RELAY.CS.NET id aa21130; 4 Jun 88 23:34 EDT
Received: from uklirb by iraun1.ira.uka.de id aa07991; 4 Jun 88 22:32 MET DST
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 88 22:32:48 MET DST
From: Joerg Siekmann <siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de>
To: jmc.%sail.stanford.edu@ira.uka.de
Subject: visit
Dear John,
Michael Reinfrank phoned yesterday,that you are coming again
next friday to gemany and that you are potentially interested in a
visit?
Unfortunately we had to cancel your last talk :would you be willing to
come this time? As we had to take off all posters and announcements I
hate to advertise your visit this time unless you have given your
personal ok.
As I am off to Paris tomorrow and only back by tuesday I shall leave a
messge with the secretary to call you for an ok (or no).
Thanks a lot anyway for your interest and all the best
Joerg Siekmann
∂07-Jun-88 0856 Mailer Actually he has some regrets.
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
This contains as much apology as we are likely to get for his
support of tyranny and genocide.
Books and Authors: Tom Hayden Has No Regrets About Decade of Defiance
By LINDA DEUTSCH
Associated Press Writer
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) - When Tom Hayden talks about the 1960s,
vivid images flash in the mind's eye as they once did on TV screens
decades ago.
Civil rights sit-ins. Anti-war protests. The Chicago riots. Napalm.
Tear gas.
The '60s.
Hayden speaks with nostalgia, some sadness but no regret about the
decade that planted his name in the public consciousness as a radical
firebrand, anti-war protester and defendant in the Chicago 8
conspiracy trial.
He is 48 now, a man whose middle-aged life surprises no one more
than himself. He once thought it might never come. ''I thought I
would wind up dead or in jail. An internal exile was my expectation
until 1971,'' says Hayden.
But here he is today, a California state assemblyman with a strong
constituency. A husband and father whose 15-year marriage to actress
Jane Fonda survived the critics. And now an author, telling what he
knows best - the story of the '60s.
His newly published memoir, ''Reunion'' (Random House, $22.50),
explains his role in that fiery time to a new generation including
his teen-age son, Troy, and Fonda's daughter, Vanessa.
''I'm not writing it to set history straight. I'm writing it to set
my life straight,'' Hayden said at his Santa Monica headquarters
where posters of Fonda and his lost hero, Robert F. Kennedy, decorate
the walls.
He wants to put the past in order, he said, so he can get on with
the future.
The assassination of Kennedy in 1968 was a turning point for Hayden.
He said it precipitated his plunge into deep cyncism about America
and determination to go forward with the Chicago anti-war protests at
the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
''I went from Robert Kennedy's coffin into a very bleak and bitter
political view,'' said Hayden. ''I think it confirmed for me that
there was no future and brought out a lurking belief that this was a
really violent country and that I was headed into apocalyptic
times.''
Police assaults on student demonstrators in Chicago confirmed his
belief.
''In 1968 I thought it was reasonable to anticipate a police
state,'' he recalled. ''But in 1972 the people who were running the
Democratic Party four years before were out and the people who were
in the streets were in. In the next year the people who wanted to put
me in jail began the road to jail themselves with Watergate.
''The radical pressure caused the reforms,'' Hayden says. ''But it's
fair to say the system reformed itself.''
In his book, Hayden writes: ''Rarely, if ever, in American history
has a generation begun with higher ideals and experienced greater
trauma than those who lived fully the short time from 1960 to 1968.''
Hayden was there at the start. In 1960, while a student at the
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, he was involved in formation of
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), then dedicated to
desegregating the South. By 1962, when Hayden began drafting the
landmark Port Huron Statement, SDS was dedicated to changing the
world.
''We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort,
housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably at the world we
inherit,'' began the statement which outlined a plan for a campus
social movement which was revolutionary.
Hayden is fond of analogizing the student movement that followed to
the American Revolution and the Civil War and believes it changed
America for the better. But he knows that antagonisms linger.
''The subject of Vietnam and the '60s is a very prickly issue,'' he
concedes, and said he wrote ''carefully'' about his two trips to
North Vietnam and his wife's later visit to the enemy territory.
''I tried to convey that the Vietnam War was the catastrophe for
Americans of our generation,'' Hayden said, ''and in pursuit of an
end of the war I was driven to certain extremes that in retrospect
I'm not proud of.''
However, Hayden says his detractors went overboard and he's
perplexed by their continuing attacks on him and Fonda. But those
attacks from a vocal few have not hurt him politically, he says. He's
been elected to his assembly seat three times and plans to seek a
fourth term.
What led him back to the mainstream?
First, he says, there was his realizaton that the movement was
turning violent and was ''a dead-end, an enclosed hothouse of
revolutionary politics where you become ever more obscure in the
pursuit of purity. ... If anything jolted me out of my revolutionary
politics it was when the Weathermen (a faction of SDS) supported
(Charles) Manson.''
The second motivation was his relationship with a woman who had a
child.
''I found myself in love with parenting. So I couldn't go along with
the policy that chidren were a counter-revolutionary drag on your
commitment,'' he said. ''The third thing was that the system was
reformed and did work.''
In retrospect, Hayden sees his path as circular.
''I feel I'm back to 1960,'' he says. ''I'm working on the reform of
colleges and universities, problems of poverty and housing, trying to
inspire apathetic people to register and vote ... and trying to
reform the Democratic Party.
''It's very similar to 1960, and I'm wearing the same clothes. I've
picked up my life where I most enjoyed it before I took another
way.''
End Adv for Weekend Editions, June 17-19
AP-NY-06-07-88 0920EDT
***************
∂07-Jun-88 1602 JMC re: your sterilization example
To: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@UCSCC.UCSC.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 7 Jun 88 15:38:16 PDT.]
It was mentioned in my Generality in Artificial Intelligence article in CACM,
I believe December 1987.
∂08-Jun-88 0158 JMC reservations
To: MPS
I'm going to revise my German trip. Instead of going to Munich after
the meeting, I will go to Kaiserslautern Wednesday night by train,
arrangements to be made by the Germans. From there I will go home
Friday. I think the best way to go home from Kaiserslautern is
via Frankfurt. There may be a message on my answering machine
about the arrangements the Germans have made. Franklin Hersch
will know about how to come home from Kaiserslautern.
∂08-Jun-88 1322 JMC re: benchmarks
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 08-Jun-88 13:12-PT.]
I was also going to suggest a preamble. Yours is fine as far as it goes.
I would suggest adding a list of goals for the formalism. Here's a try,
although I'm not quite satisfied with its clarity.
1. Generality. The formal expression of general facts should be suitable
for inclusion in a general common sense database. They should
not be ad hoc to the particular example.
2. Elaboration tolerance. When additional facts are added that shouldn't
affect the conclusion, then the conclusion should not be affected. Ideally
the length of the reasoning process shouldn't grow much.
3. Locality of reasoning. As much of the reasoning as possible should
involve small numbers of facts, even though in general nonmonotonic reasoning
requires taking into account the whole set of facts.
∂08-Jun-88 1619 JMC consensual reality
To: ailist@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
The trouble with a consensual or any other subjective concept of reality
is that it is scientifically implausible. That the world evolved, that
life evolved, that humanity evolved, that civilization evolved and that
science evolved is rather well accepted, and the advocates of subjective
concepts of reality don't usually challenge it.
However, if evolution of all these things is a fact, then it would
be an additional fact about evolution if humans and human society evolved
any privileged access to facts about the world. There isn't even any
guarantee from evolution that all the facts of the world or even of
mathematics are in any way conclusively decidable by such creatures as may
evolve intelligence. What we can observe directly is an accident of the
sense organs we happen to have evolved. Had we evolved as good
echolocation as bats, we might be able to observe each other's innards
directly. Likewise there is no mathematical theorem that the truth about
any mathematical question fits within axiomatic systems with nice
properties.
Indeed science is a social activity and all information comes in
through the senses. A cautious view of what we can learn would like to
keep science close to observation and would pay attention to the consensus
aspects of what we believe. However, our world is not constructed in
a way that co-operates with such desires. Its basic aspects are far
from observation, the truth about it is often hard to formulate in
our languages, and some aspects of the truth may even be impossible to
formulate. The consensus is often muddled or wrong.
To deal with this matter I advocate a new branch of philosophy I call
metaepistemology. It studies abstractly the relation between the
structure of a world and what an intelligent system within the world
can learn about it. This will depend on how the system is connected
to the rest of the world and what the system regards as meaningful
propositions about the world and what it accepts as evidence for these
propositions.
Curiously, there is a relevant paper - "Gedanken Experiments with Sequential
Machines" by E. Moore. The paper is in "Automata Studies" edited
by C. E. Shannon and J. McCarthy, Princeton University Press 1956.
Moore only deals with finite automata observed from the outside
and doesn't deal with criteria for meaningfulness, but it's a start.
The issue is relevant for AI. Machines programmed to find out about
the environment we put them in won't work very well if we provide
them with only the ability to formulate hypotheses about the relations
among their inputs and outputs. They need also to be able to hypothesize
theoretical entities and conjecture about their existence and properties.
It will be even worse if we try to program to regard reality as
consensual, since such a view is worse than false; it's incoherent.
∂08-Jun-88 2137 JMC re: vacation
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 08-Jun-88 16:17-PT.]
Have a good vacation.
∂08-Jun-88 2145 Mailer re: Otero incident
To: bothner@PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from bothner@pescadero.stanford.edu sent Wed, 08 Jun 88 18:32:57 PDT.]
In the first place, it isn't true that one can always find a lawyer
willing to represent one on a contingency basis. Lawyers have their
customary areas of practice, and students suing universities isn't
anyone's specialty.
Second, the university has a moral, if not legal, obligation to
exercise some form of due process in its disciplinary relations
with students.
Third, I regard the Dean's statement in the Campus Report about
educating the protesters as arrogant in the extreme, not admitting
the possibility that the protest might have had any basis whatsoever,
and hiding all discussion of its content in the nonsense about
whether the candles were reminiscent of the KKK.
Fourth, no Stanford dean would dare mention the need to educate
BSU members no matter how outrageous their actions. An immediate
charge of racism would probably cost the dean his or her job.
∂09-Jun-88 1525 JMC
To: CLT
Franklin Hersch 329-0950 asks you to call about rescheduling flight.
∂09-Jun-88 1531 JMC
To: CLT
(45000000/125.3)(1 - .28(fed) -.093(Calif ) from Okner) = 225,179.57
∂09-Jun-88 1532 JMC
To: CLT
Okner's office says our returns are ready.
∂09-Jun-88 1533 JMC another example
To: VAL
Elaborate Missionaries and Cannibals by postulating that there is one
oar on each bank and that with one oar, the boat can carry one person.
Of course, no-one has even derived the original missionaries and
cannibals problem from plausible common sense axioms + the data of the
problem.
∂09-Jun-88 1622 JMC phone message
To: JJW
Olivia Sims? called from Thinking machines 617 876-1111
to say that Rolf? Seebrik? was trying to
reach Joe Weening.
∂09-Jun-88 1632 JMC re: Consensus and Reality
To: hayes.pa@XEROX.COM
[In reply to message sent 9 Jun 88 16:14 PDT.]
People have been sending me references to things I haven't read. I have
read Winograd and consider them indeed weirdos. 20 years ago I considered
Gordon Pask a weirdo, don't remember what he was talking about, and have
no reason to change my opinion. Do you know of recent activity by Pask
on a substantially different line from his old stuff? Someone else (Nevins)
referred me to Kant, but although all I know about Kant is secondary, I
doubt there's any resemblance there either. Can you enlighten me?
∂09-Jun-88 1659 JMC
To: CLT
I'll get it tomorrow AM.
∂10-Jun-88 1126 JMC re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
To: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
pallas@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
facil@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
CC: nethax@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Fri, 10 Jun 88 10:56:47 PDT.]
This is just another example of the mess that networks have got us into.
Direct communication among computers using the dial-up telephone network
is still a better solution, and will remain so until the telephone
companies provide us with worldwide digital communication with the
same simple telephone number addressing protocol. I would welcome
interest in a project to update the ancient Dialnet protocols and
implement direct computer-to-computer communication. If anyone needs
it, an explanation of why UUCP isn't what's needed will be provided.
∂10-Jun-88 1145 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 60: Two views of Death
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 10-Jun-88 01:52-PT.]
Years ago, I favored abolishing the death penalty, and I still believe
it should eventually be abolished - when we can afford to do so. Actually,
I think we could afford it in 1960 but not now. One of the contributors
to our not being able to afford abolition and to the renewed
support for the death penalty is the ACLU. It has helped increase the
probability that a murderer will escape punishment entirely or will
get out of sentenced to life imprisonment. The solution, in my opinion,
involves more technology to increase the probability of real criminals
being convicted. However, it probably also requires a real attack
on the predatory culture dominant in certain "ghetto" areas.
∂10-Jun-88 1455 JMC reply to message
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Jun-88 11:54-PT.]
yes
∂10-Jun-88 1514 JMC re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
To: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
pallas@POLYA.Stanford.EDU,
facil@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
CC: nethax@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Fri, 10 Jun 88 13:58:33 PDT.]
Maybe nobody but me loses while attempting to send electronic mail
to Europe, Japan and institutions in the U.S. not on ARPAnet and
resorts to phone calls with a nine hour time difference in frustration.
Ninety-five percent of what I do doesn't require hundreds of KBytes/sec,
and I wish the people whose specialty is communications wouldn't scorn
providing reasonable facilities for ordinary electronic mail without
graphics.
∂10-Jun-88 1538 JMC
To: MPS
tang.2[let,jmc] is the telegram.
∂10-Jun-88 1625 JMC re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
To: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 10 Jun 88 16:15:40 PDT.]
OK, that wasn't clear to me, and besides, I'm taking every chance I
can get to try to prod someone into reviving something like Dialnet.
∂11-Jun-88 0043 JMC re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
To: cheriton@PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU,
facil@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, pallas@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
CC: nethax@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu sent Fri, 10 Jun 88 22:47:21 PDT.]
Cheriton's message reminds me of a classic line of Marvin Minsky's.
"What you say is not entirely unmeaningless."
∂11-Jun-88 1340 JMC re: Problems with UUCP
To: andy@CARCOAR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 11 Jun 88 12:52:30 PDT.]
Perhaps my complaint is about what you refer to as connectivity.
UUCP involves sites that poll other sites for messages and relay
them. This produces addressing problems, often insuperable for
most users. Dialnet involved direct telephone communication from the
sending to the receiving machine using ordinary telephone numbers,
as is done with fax today. It is also a misfeature that uucp assumes
a particular operating system.
∂18-Jun-88 1624 Mailer Reagan achievement?
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Is Reagan right in claiming credit - or is there even
credit to be claimed?
Reagan: Summit Opening Against Backdrop Of World Economic Freedom
By W. DALE NELSON
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Reagan said today that the ''shackles of
state economic domination are beginning to loosen'' in the world as
the seven industrialized democracies meet for their economic summit
beginning Sunday.
In his weekly radio address, delivered from the Oval Office, Reagan
said that when he attended his first such summit seven years ago in
Montebello, Quebec, interest rates were soaring, unemployment was
high and ''the economic mess we faced was clear.''
''The question was what to do,'' he said. ''That was when we
presented a bold new program of cutting tax rates and excessive
regulation, opening markets and letting the private sector lead the
way to economic recovery.''
Since then, the president said, the American economy has grown so
that it has created more than 17 million jobs in the last five years,
twice as many jobs as the six other summit countries.
''Our own prosperity, however, is only part of our achievement,'' he
said. ''We have led the world to a remarkable consensus that economic
freedom, not state planning and intervention, holds the key to growth
and development.''
''From India to Argentina, from Africa to China and even in the
Soviet Union, the shackles of state economic domination are beginning
to loosen,'' the president said.
∂18-Jun-88 2312 JMC cataleptics
To: CLT
Tonight Timothy asked me what "cataleptics" means.
∂20-Jun-88 0322 JMC Ding an sich
To: ailist@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
I want to defend the extreme point of view that it is both
meaningful and possible that the basic structure of the
world is unknowable. It is also possible that it is
knowable. It just depends on how much of the structure
of the world happens to interact with us. This is like
Kant's "Ding an sich" (the thing in itself) except that
I gather that Kant considered "Ding an sich" as unknowable
in principle, whereas I only consider that it might be
unknowable.
The basis of this position is the notion of evolution
of intelligent beings in a world not created for their
scientific convenience. There is no mathematical theorem
requiring that if a world evolves intelligent beings,
these beings must be in a position to discover all its
laws.
To illustrate this idea, consider the Life cellular
automaton proposed by John Horton Conway and studied
by him and various M.I.T. hackers and others. It's
described in Winning Ways by Berlekamp, Conway and
Guy.
Associated with each point of the two dimensional
integer lattice is a state that takes values 0 and
1. The state of a point at time t+1 is determined
by its state at time t and the states at time t of
its eight neighbors. Namely, if the number of
neigbors in state 1 is less than two or more than
4, its state at time t+1 is 0. If it has exactly two
neighbors in state 1, its state remains as it was.
If it has exactly 3 neighbors in state 1, its
new state is 1.
There is a configuration of five cells in state 1 (with neighbors
in state 0) called a glider, which reproduces itself displaced
in two units of time. There is a configuration called a glider
gun that emits gliders. There are configurations that thin out
streams of gliders from a glider gun. There are configurations
that take two streams of gliders as inputs and perform logical
operations (regarding the presence of a glider
at a given time in the stream as 1 and its absence
as 0) on them producing a new stream. Thinned streams can
cross each other and serve as wires conducting signals.
This permits the construction of general purpose computers
in the Life plane.
The Life automaton wasn't designed to admit computers. The
discovery that it did was made by hacking. Configurations
that can serve as general purpose computers can be made
in a variety of ways. The way indicated above and more
fully described in Berlekamp, et. al. is only one.
Now suppose that one or more interacting Life computers are
programmed to be physicists, i.e. to attempt to discover
the fundamental physics of their world. There is no reason
to expect a mathematical theorem about cellular automata
in general or the Life cellular automaton in particular
that says that a physicist program will be able to discover
that the fundamental physics of its world is the Life
cellular automaton.
It requires some extra attention in the design of the computer to make
sure that it has any capability to observe at all, and some that can
observe will be unable to observe enough detail. Of course, we could
program a Life computer to simulate some other "second level" cellular
automaton that admits computers, and give the "second level computer" only
the ability to observe the "second level world". In that case, it surely
couldn't find any evidence for the its world being the Life cellular
automaton. Indeed the Life automaton could simulate exceedingly slowly
any theory we like of our 3+1 dimensional world.
If a Life world physicist is provided with too narrow a philosophy
of science, and some of the consensual reality theories may indeed
be that narrow, it might not regard the hypothesis that its physics
is the Life world as meaningful. There may be Life world physicists who
regard it as meaningful and Life world philosophers of science
interacting with them who try to forbid it.
This illustrates what I mean by metaepistemology. Metaepistemology must
study what knowledge is possible for intelligent beings in a world to the
structure of the world and the physical structures and computational
programs that support scientific activity.
The traditional methods of philosophy of science are too weak to discuss
these matters, because they don't take into account how the structure of
the world and the structure of its intelligences affect what science is
possible. There is no more guarantee that the structure of our
world is observable than that Fermat's last theorem is decidable
in Peano arithmetic. Physicists are always proposing theories
of fundamental physics whose testability depends on the correctness
of other theories and the development of new apparatus. For example,
some of the current GUTS theories predict unification of the
force laws at energies of 10↑15 Mev, and there is no current
idea of how an accelerator producing such an energy might
be physically possible.
I have received messages asking me if the metaepistemology I propose
is like what has been proposed by Kant and other philosophers
or even by Winograd and Flores. As far as I can tell it's not,
and all those mentioned are subject to the criticism of the
previous paragraph.
∂20-Jun-88 1223 JMC Your travel arrangement to China?
To: MPS
∂15-Jun-88 0109 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no Your travel arrangement to China?
Received: from tor.nta.no by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jun 88 01:05:09 PDT
Posted-Date: 15 Jun 88 10:02 +0100
Received: by tor.nta.no (5.54/3.21)
id AA14465; Wed, 15 Jun 88 10:06:39 +0200
Date: 15 Jun 88 10:02 +0100
From: Jianhua Yang <yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <300*yang@vax.runit.unit.uninett>
Subject: Your travel arrangement to China?
Dear Prof. John McCarthy,
I sent you the enclosed message for a time ago.
It might be lost somewhere on the way to you.
However, would you please give me the cost figures
for your travel to China which is to be covered by
the conference, as soon as possible? I need the figures
to prepare/review the conference budget, before
we (I and Prof. Arne Solvberg) leave Norway in
the end of next week (24, 25 June).
Thanks in advance for your help!
Sincerely yours,
Jianhua Yang
Encl.: the previous message:
-----
Send-date: Wed, 25 May 1988 12:48:28 UTC+0100
From: Jianhua Yang <yang@vax.runit.unit.uninett>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Your travel arrangement to China.
INVITED SPEAKER TO THE IFIP CONFERENCE IN CHINA, JULY 1988.
Dear Prof. John McCarthy,
May I ask you how you are planning to arrange your
travel to China and back to the states? May I ask you
for the estimated cost figures for your travel to/from China
which will be covered by the conference budget? I have
to look at the conference budget for the last time, I hope.
Thanks for your help!
Sincerely yours
Jianhua Yang.
--------
∂21-Jun-88 1044 JMC Alex Gorbis
To: VAL
∂21-Jun-88 1005 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Alex Gorbis
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jun 88 10:05:31 PDT
Date: Tue 21 Jun 88 10:00:52-PDT
From: Sharon Hemenway <HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Alex Gorbis
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12408247795.12.HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy:
I'm writing to you to express some concerns I have about Alex and
to alert you to his current situation. Alex has yet to pass any
portion of the Comprehensive Exam and, in fact, did quite poorly on
all 3 parts of the Spring Exam. I worry about what next year might
bring for him.
As I said above, I really just wanted to alert you to his situation
and hope that you might be able to offer him some good counsel.
Sharon
-------
∂21-Jun-88 1234 JMC re: nmr-proceedings
To: reinfra@ZTIVAX.SIEMENS.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue, 21 Jun 88 12:04:34 -0200.]
I expect to have time to complete a paper based on my remarks at
the conference.
∂21-Jun-88 2015 JMC re: visit
To: bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@EAN.UBC.CA
[In reply to message sent 21 Jun 88 16:34 -0700.]
Unfortunately, I will be in China on July 5.
∂21-Jun-88 2347 JMC re: mailpaths
To: paulf@SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 21 Jun 88 23:20:35 PDT.]
Thanks for the path, and I'll find out if SAIL supports mx records.
∂21-Jun-88 2348 JMC
To: ME
Try uklirb!siekmann@ira.uka.de; relay.cs.net should pick this up automatically,
unless sail doesn't support mx records.
Does SAIL support mx records?
∂22-Jun-88 1516 JMC Thanks
To: uklirb!siekmann@IRA.UKA.DE
for your hospitality in Kaiserslautern. Actually this message is
mainly a test to see if the address works.
∂23-Jun-88 0835 JMC
To: paulf@SHASTA.Stanford.EDU
Thanks, the Siekmann address worked.
∂23-Jun-88 0906 Mailer Franklin
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
There's much more to the Franklin phenomenon than his promotion of
riotous activities on the Stanford campus. I'll mention only what
is relevant to a particular murder.
Franklin headed an organization
called Venceremos for some years. It called itself a communist
organization, with heroes Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, although
it almost certainly had no connection with the American Communist
Party, may well have had little connection with the Communist
Parties of China or the Soviet Union. Perhaps it had some connection
with Cuba; that's where its ideological affinities seemed to lie.
I remember an article of Franklin's, and I may have a copy in my
files somewhere. In this article, he wrote that Marx was mistaken
in saying that the lumpenproletariat had no revolutionary
potential. Why should we be interested in such an ancient
Marxist dogmatic disagreement?
"Like Marcuse?", asked one of my Soviet exile friends. "No this
was serious", said his brother, "people were killed". The serious
form it took was for student and ex-student radicals to visit
prisons and recruit violent criminals. Probably, most of the
murders associated with the radicalism of the late 1960s and
early 1970s involved the association of intellectual radicals
with ordinary violent criminals. The one's I know about are
a Boston bank robbery, the Symbionese Liberation Army's
murder of the Oakland School Superintendent (they later kidnapped
and brain-washed Patty Hearst), the Brinks robbery and its associated
murders and the event I am about to recount.
A school classmate of my older daughter and the daughter
of a Stanford Medical School professor spent four years in prison
for murder. Four (I think) of them including two radicals and
two professional criminals stopped a car with two unarmed prison
guards transferring a prisoner from one prison to another. They
shot both guards, but one, who was left for dead, survived. Since
my daughter's classmate had a read Afro hairdo, identification was
immediate. She, and I believe the others, was a member of Venceremos.
The prisoner who was rescued wasn't grateful. He was in
for something much less serious, and didn't like being involved
in a murder. He became demanding and insisted on talking to
Franklin. According to his statement, he spoke to Franklin on
the telephone, but this couldn't be introduced as evidence,
because he couldn't guarantee that it was Franklin to whom he
spoke.
They were all caught along with some of the people who
helped them evade capture and spent varying times in prison.
Franklin was not bothered. All I know of this event came from the
newspapers.
The 1930s communist movement in America is the
object of a minor academic industry producing several books
a year, and generating tenure for its workers. However, the
violent radical movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s
are not yet subject to any academic study. Of course, study
is more difficult, because the 1930s communist were not
systematically involved in murder or arson. Their legal
difficulties are all subject to various statutes of limitations.
Nevertheless, the study of Venceremos and Bruce Franklin's
role in it represents an academic opportunity, admittedly one
that might require courage as well as diligence.
So far as I know, at Rutgers Franklin has been an
ordinary left-wing professor along with many others there.
Some other time, I'll tell you about the hand grenade
sale at the gate of the Faculty Club and about the radical,
(Venceremos, I think) who threatened to kill me for making a
motion at a meeting that the Mid-Peninsula Free University
reaffirm its policy of non-violence. He's now the political
editor of a major Bay Area newspaper.
∂24-Jun-88 1150 JMC
To: CLT
a205 1033 24 Jun 88
AM-BRF--Japan-Prize,0152
Two Americans, West German Receive Kyoto Prize
TOKYO (AP) - Two Americans and a West German each will receive the
Kyoto Prize for pioneering research in a ceremony scheduled for
November, Japan's Kyodo News Service said Friday.
Kyocera Corp. Chairman Kazuo Inamori set up the Kyoto Prize,
administered under his Inamori Foundation, four years ago to honor
research in the fields of basic science, frontier science and
philosophy.
Stanford University Professor John McCarthy was selected in the
field of frontier science for his work on artificial intelligence.
Noam Avram Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology took
the basic science award for his work in linquistics.
West German scholar Paul Thieme was chosen for his research on
Indian philosophy, the report said.
Each of the prize recipients will receive $350,000 in the Nov. 10
ceremony in Kyoto, 230 miles southwest of Tokyo, Kyodo said.
AP-NY-06-24-88 1330EDT
***************
∂24-Jun-88 1151 JMC
To: CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, bscott@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
a215 1134 24 Jun 88
AM-Pentagon Spending,0551
Pentagon Eases Spending Freeze for Supplies, Services
By NORMAN BLACK
AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon said Friday it would relax a freeze
on outside contracting for supplies and services during the last
three months of the fiscal year.
Deputy Defense Secretary William H. Taft IV, in a memo to all
Pentagon offices, said he would begin allowing some new contracts to
be awarded for research, development and evaluation work and for
consultant services on July 1.
But all other restrictions imposed last May in a money-saving move
will remain in effect through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30,
including a ban on purchases of office supplies, an end to overtime
pay and limits on civilian hiring, Taft wrote.
Active-duty personnel and civilian employees also can forget
collecting their Oct. 1 paychecks a day early just because Oct. 1
falls on a Saturday, Taft declared. The Pentagon doesn't want any
extra outlays before the current fiscal year ends, he wrote.
''Managers throughout the department must take every available step,
within the provisions of law, to hold fiscal 1988 outlays to the
minimum achievable level and at the same time meet mission
requirements and maintain a strong defense posture,'' Taft wrote.
In authorizing a resumption of spending on research and development
contracts and consultant services, Taft said he wanted ''special
consideration'' to be given to small and minority business
contractors and to companies that had been waiting since May for
payments.
The Pentagon's No. 2 executive said he still wanted some controls on
the research and consultant contracts, however, specifying that
''total obligations during any month of the fourth quarter may not
exceed 75 percent of the average monthly obligations incurred to
date.''
The ban on new purchases of office supplies and other equipment will
continue to cover everything from magazine and newspaper
subscriptions to TV sets, library materials, recreation equipment,
lawnmowers and furniture, tools, paint, lumber, air conditioners and
fork lifts, he said.
Also still prohibited is any spending on new leases for cars, office
space or computer equipment.
The spending restrictions originally were promulgated by Taft to
comply with a deficit-reduction compromise reached last November.
That compromise was crafted to control government outlays - the
amount of money actually paid out during the fiscal year.
That approach causes problems for the Defense Department, because it
conducts most of its business based on what is known as budget
authority - the amount of money that can be obligated, regardless of
when it's going to be spent.
For example, if Congress authorizes $100 million for the Navy to
build a new ship, the Navy has $100 million in budget authority but
might pay out only $10 million in outlays for work performed the
first year.
That makes it difficult for the Pentagon to project precisely how
much it will pay out in a fiscal year; a contractor might get more or
less work done than originally expected.
Based on spending reports compiled in March and April, the Pentagon
was paying out dollars that outlays by the end of the year would have
totaled $2.5 billion more than the authorized $277.3 billion. The May
restrictions were designed to slow that spending rate.
AP-NY-06-24-88 1423EDT
***************
∂24-Jun-88 1151 JMC
To: nilsson@TENAYA.Stanford.EDU
a205 1033 24 Jun 88
AM-BRF--Japan-Prize,0152
Two Americans, West German Receive Kyoto Prize
TOKYO (AP) - Two Americans and a West German each will receive the
Kyoto Prize for pioneering research in a ceremony scheduled for
November, Japan's Kyodo News Service said Friday.
Kyocera Corp. Chairman Kazuo Inamori set up the Kyoto Prize,
administered under his Inamori Foundation, four years ago to honor
research in the fields of basic science, frontier science and
philosophy.
Stanford University Professor John McCarthy was selected in the
field of frontier science for his work on artificial intelligence.
Noam Avram Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology took
the basic science award for his work in linquistics.
West German scholar Paul Thieme was chosen for his research on
Indian philosophy, the report said.
Each of the prize recipients will receive $350,000 in the Nov. 10
ceremony in Kyoto, 230 miles southwest of Tokyo, Kyodo said.
AP-NY-06-24-88 1330EDT
***************
∂24-Jun-88 1152 JMC
To: crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Thanks.
∂24-Jun-88 1347 JMC reply to message
To: wheaton@ATHENA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 24 Jun 88 13:36:34 PDT.]
Thanks.
∂24-Jun-88 1412 JMC
To: MPS
Please decorate bukovs.2. Also tex glasno[w88,jmc] and enclose a copy.
∂24-Jun-88 1542 Mailer re: bad news re: Dukakis
To: Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Fri, 24 Jun 88 11:52:19 PDT.]
Crispin sees theocracy where some other atheists see only democracy.
Most Israelis aren't religious, although the religious parties occupy
a balance of power position that often gets them concessions that a
majority of Israelis would oppose. However, that's democracy for you.
Incidentally, it's mathematically impossible to have a system of government
in which the majority on every issue gets its way. This is because
majorities can give rise to circular preferences, e.g. there can be a majority
for B over A, a majority for C over B and a majority for A over C (different
voters in each majority). We don't aid the Vatican; we merely recognize
it diplomatically as controlling Vatican City. There isn't a Tibetan
exile government - only the Dalai Lama and his supporters who don't
claim to be a government.
As for Dukakis's promises to the president's of Jewish organizations,
if he kept all of them, he would be the first President who did.
∂24-Jun-88 1625 JMC re: Kyoto Prize
To: FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:21:28 PDT.]
Many thanks. I'm speculating against the dollar these days.
By the way, is it particularly worthwhile to visit Fujitsu
when I go to Kyoto in November.
∂24-Jun-88 1641 JMC nmr-conference and testing
To: reinfrank@SIEMENS.COM, reinfra@SIEMENS.COM
This is a renewed attempt to reach you using
reinfrank@siemens.com and reinfra@siemens.com as
addresses. The actual message is that I expect
to be able to finish a paper based on my remarks
by the deadline.
∂25-Jun-88 0129 Mailer medical supplies for Nicaragua
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The veteran's group with supplies for Nicaragua was stopped crossing the
border because they wouldn't agree to bring the trucks back - trucks being
a prohibited export to Nicaragua. They then drove their trucks to
Washington, D.C. Clearly delivering the supplies to Nicaragua is less
important to them than their demonstration. Let them and the Feds play
games. I propose that they get 2 points for being stopped at the border
but lose 3 for driving to Washington. I await the continuation. Does
anyone propose a different scoring system.
∂25-Jun-88 0908 JMC re: Kyoto Prize
To: ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
[In reply to message sent Sat, 25 Jun 88 10:02:22 jst.]
Many thanks for your message and also for your efforts on my behalf.
I will be at Stanford this summer and will probably also go to the
LISP conference. At present Carolyn is undecided whether to go, but
she will be here also.
∂25-Jun-88 0911 JMC
To: JSW
∂25-Jun-88 0908 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to the address(es) below
because the destination Host Name(s) are Unknown:
ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
∂25-Jun-88 1213 JMC re: Two Americans, West German Receive Kyoto Prize
To: larrabee@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 25 Jun 88 10:30:13 PDT.]
Thank you.
∂25-Jun-88 1507 JMC re: Kyocera Prize
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 25 Jun 88 13:04:44 PDT.]
Thank you.
∂25-Jun-88 1643 JMC reply to message
To: GLB
[In reply to message rcvd 25-Jun-88 16:02-PT.]
Thank you.
∂25-Jun-88 1713 JMC re: congratulations
To: jbn@GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 25 Jun 88 17:12:35 PDT.]
Thanks.
∂25-Jun-88 1828 Mailer re: Drugs
To: ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from ilan@gang-of-four.stanford.edu sent Sat, 25 Jun 88 18:04:45 PDT.]
Ilan says:
Drugs are a favorite target of disinformation. For example
LSD was supposed to cause DNA damage (the fastest genetic
study of all time). I even heard this in a news report about
LSD last year! A cursory examination of a Grateful Dead
concert seems to discount this.
I believe the usual preliminary test for whether a substance causes
DNA damage involves testing whether it does so in bacteria. I would
supppose an answer is obtained in a few days or even a few hours. Of
course this doesn't guarantee that it will or won't in humans. I also
think I heard that damage to human DNA can be tested with blood or
sperm, but I'm less sure of that. Whether a substance causes increased
birth defects might be apparent in a few years, but it is hard to get
suitable comparison populations, since birth defects are also affected
by prenatal care, age of mother, and the use of other substances.
I don't understand the part about "A cursory examination of a Grateful
Dead concert ...". Does Ilan have some information, e.g. a reference,
to some scientific report refuting the genetic damage claims about LSD.
I don't have one supporting it.
If marijuana suppresses the immune system, that's a disadvantage, and
if training suppresses the immune system, that's a disadvantage too.
An unreliable cause of sterility isn't of much use to rational people.
∂25-Jun-88 2326 Mailer re: Bruce Franklin's account of his dismissal
To: A.Eric@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from A.Eric@GSB-HOW.Stanford.EDU sent Sat 25 Jun 88 22:12:07-PDT.]
I'm a bit puzzled by Eric Berg's
a book which is essentially his "political autobiography".
Interestingly, the book is mostly concerned with his early
political activities, and doesn't discuss his later
involvement with the Bay Area Revolutionary Union or
Venceremos organizations.
Franklin's leadership of Venceremos, a split-off from the Bay Area
Revolutionary Union was well before his dismissal proceedings.
As I recall it Venceremos was dissolved before Franklin was
dismissed. Omitting Venceremos in Franklin's autobiography
is like omitting artificial intelligence in mine. I can think
of several reasons. (1) Connecting any other person definitely
with Venceremos might get them in legal trouble, since Venceremos
might be connected with many serious crimes. (2) Franklin wishes
to give the impression that he was dismissed for his views and
their peaceful expression. (3) He doesn't wish to give any
coherent exposition of either Venceremos's doctrines or its
activities. Readers might realize the murderous character of
both.
∂26-Jun-88 1645 JMC phone calls
To: MPS
I expect some phone call from news organizations today. I'll call you
with a number at the Hyatt Palo Alto Hotel where I can be reached.
The room will be booked under the name Steve Lawrence.
∂26-Jun-88 2321 JMC reply to message
To: RDZ@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 26 Jun 1988 19:57 PDT.]
Sure, bring it.
∂26-Jun-88 2322 JMC re: Congratulations on your Kyoto Prize
To: rick@HANAUMA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 26 Jun 88 22:45:54 pdt.]
Thanks.
∂27-Jun-88 0805 JMC re: another congratulation
To: BHAYES-ROTH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 27 Jun 88 07:03:56 PDT.]
Thank you.
∂27-Jun-88 0916 JMC re: Congratulations.
To: BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 27 Jun 88 08:42:51 PDT.]
Thank you very much.
∂27-Jun-88 1428 JMC re: Kyoto prize
To: fagin@IBM.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon, 27 Jun 88 13:01:35 PDT.]
Thanks.
∂27-Jun-88 1601 JMC
To: schwartz@VAX.DARPA.MIL, simpson@VAX.DARPA.MIL
a205 1033 24 Jun 88
AM-BRF--Japan-Prize,0152
Two Americans, West German Receive Kyoto Prize
TOKYO (AP) - Two Americans and a West German each will receive the
Kyoto Prize for pioneering research in a ceremony scheduled for
November, Japan's Kyodo News Service said Friday.
Kyocera Corp. Chairman Kazuo Inamori set up the Kyoto Prize,
administered under his Inamori Foundation, four years ago to honor
research in the fields of basic science, frontier science and
philosophy.
Stanford University Professor John McCarthy was selected in the
field of frontier science for his work on artificial intelligence.
Noam Avram Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology took
the basic science award for his work in linquistics.
West German scholar Paul Thieme was chosen for his research on
Indian philosophy, the report said.
Each of the prize recipients will receive $350,000 in the Nov. 10
ceremony in Kyoto, 230 miles southwest of Tokyo, Kyodo said.
AP-NY-06-24-88 1330EDT
***************
∂28-Jun-88 1304 JMC friday
To: wheaton@ATHENA.Stanford.EDU
I have lunch with someone at the Faculty Club at 1145. Otherwise,
I'm available Friday morning. Please send me a message when you
can propose a definite time.
∂28-Jun-88 1330 JMC re: prospective Ph.D. student
To: HAILPERIN@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:22:43 PDT.]
Today would be best. As soon as possible would be best.
∂28-Jun-88 1430 JMC June 1 start date
To: simpson@VAX.DARPA.MIL
CC: CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Carolyn has been talking to Pucci and tells me that he says
that he can't do anything to give the AI part of the contract,
hopefully to be unfrozen July 1, a June 1 start date. Pucci
say that the Program Manager, namely you, might be able to
accomplish that. We will have difficulty with salaries unless
that can be done.
∂28-Jun-88 1450 JMC re: Congratulations!
To: CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 28 Jun 88 17:05:34-EDT.]
Thanks, Corby. Saturday was it? I guess I missed it - or it was omitted
from the West Coast edition.
∂28-Jun-88 1500 JMC
To: MPS
inamor.2
∂28-Jun-88 1554 JMC re: friday
To: wheaton@ATHENA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:40:56 PDT.]
In about a week and a half. The day of return isn't fixed yet.
∂29-Jun-88 1026 JMC
To: MPS
back at 1:30
∂29-Jun-88 1431 JMC Simpson on travel
To: CLT
Back Monday
∂29-Jun-88 1437 JMC
To: NSH
Please phone 723-4430.
∂29-Jun-88 1439 JMC re: Simpson on travel
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 29-Jun-88 14:37-PT.]
I'll try Schwartz.
∂29-Jun-88 1803 JMC
To: d.ddaniel@HAMLET.Stanford.EDU
(212) 962-0390
∂30-Jun-88 1238 JMC BAA
To: CLT
∂30-Jun-88 0621 boesch@vax.darpa.mil BAA
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 88 06:21:06 PDT
Received: from sun46.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA19080; Thu, 30 Jun 88 09:06:29 EDT
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 09:08:07 EDT
From: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
Posted-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 09:08:07 EDT
Message-Id: <8806301308.AA03370@sun46.darpa.mil>
Received: by sun46.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA03370; Thu, 30 Jun 88 09:08:07 EDT
To: noone-special@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: BAA
The BAA was finally in the 20 Jun CBD.
Please get white papers in ASAP. To help with rapid eval.
Brian
∂30-Jun-88 1634 JMC re: Historians
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Jun-88 15:11-PT.]
Nathaniel Rosenberg of the Department of Economics would know who does
scientific history. Also Cuthbert Hurd 854-1901 might know. I would tend
to disrecommend Barton Bernstein who tends to be against technology.
Actually it might be interesting to know what his reaction to the problem
might be.
∂30-Jun-88 1636 JMC re: CPL
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Jun-88 16:03-PT.]
I'd prefer to wait till Betty Scott comes back from vacation. Yvette
Sloan is in charge of such matters, but my impression is that she's
rather bureaucratic and might have a stroke at the proposed salary.
∂30-Jun-88 1644 JMC re: CPL
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Jun-88 16:40-PT.]
Betty has survived many salary proposals at previously unimagined
levels. I am going to put through the "does anyone object to
appointing this guy form" right away, since it doesn't involve
the salary.
∂30-Jun-88 1646 JMC re: CPL
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Jun-88 16:40-PT.]
Come to think of it you are already a consulting professor. I wonder
if that means we can just start paying you at some rate or do we
also have to appoint you Senior Research Associate.
∂30-Jun-88 2155 JMC
To: MPS
irex.1
∂30-Jun-88 2312 JMC
To: CLT
When I read to him tonight, he said, "I want to learn to
read". When I told him he would have to learn the alphabet, he
said, "I want to learn the alphabet". We'll see if this means
he is actually ready for these. I'll ask him again tomorrow.