-Caveat Lector-
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [MACHINE-PSYCHOLOGY] Golden Age of Mankind or Head-On Collision
with Roboticus Rex?
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Martin Spencer wrote:
> Yes, we are
> looking straight at the <gasp> Golden Age of Mankind.
>
> hmmmm..... but is it the headlights of a vehicle coming at us at
> 100mph? :-) Ha!
Well put ... and I'd like more feedback from discussants on any of the
lists I moderate. Bill Joy said we should put a moratorium on GNR
(Genetic-Naonotechnology-Robotics) technology. I see that as IMPOSSIBLE in
any practical sense. The best we can do is stay in control. Experts like
Warwick and Moravec have said we will not be able to do that. If they are
right then we are doomed...on a head-on course toward Roboticus Rex.
But what about straight forward market considerations? If a contractor
were selling MAXIMALLY AUTOMATED homes in a maximally automated
development here in the Fraser Valley of BC, I would buy in tomorrow.
Maybe Robo-Dave Ingram can pass that on to his many real estate friends
and clients. Imagine a development with robotized vacuum cleaners. Robotic
lawn mowers. Robotic security system, which I gather is one duty your
Geckosystems Carebot can perform (Robocop?) etc. In fact it has a vacuum
attachment doesn't it? Could it not vacuum floors at night while serving
sentry duty at the same time?
FWP
> > Thank you for the URL, Martin. I think my approach via "Machine
> > Psychology" has something in common with RLB's approach. I agree
> > that there is a composite of mental abilities which go into
> > machine intelligence; and I agree that we could come up with a
> > very impressive generally intelligent machine now if we were to
> > remove the budgetary restrictions. I also don't see it as a
> > distant futuristic thing to have an advanced machine
> > intelligence. One reason I say this is because I have
> > administered thousands of intelligence tests to people and I
> > have used my own introspections to consider what intelligence
> > is. Human intelligence is often VERY MECHANISTIC. We use rote
> > methods to memorize but are credited with points toward
> > intelligence. We use memorized algorithms for tasks like mental
> > arithmetic and we are again credited with points toward
> > intelligence. Do you know why the rules you use for mental
> > arithmetic work? I don't. But I can get a fairly high score on a
> > test of mental arithmetic.
> >
> > After I had "Machine Psychology" posted for a year or so on a
> > Uniserve web site to receive critical feedback, I took it down
> > but I advanced the notion of "Superhuman AI, Now" on various
> > lists which I moderate. Perhaps I can improve on the arguments
> > made. These hot summer nights have induced me to spend time on
> > the pier at Harbour Centre, Vancouver. From that vantage point I
> > can see several miles to the east and west and north, where a
> > mountain chain stretches inland from the Pacific Ocean. I can
> > see about one half a mile to the south over the skyline of
> > Vancouver. I am surrounded by the sights and sounds of planes
> > and boats and trains.
> >
> > If I imagine myself as limited to the capabilities of a mobile
> > robot like your Geckosystems Carebot, I can put myself in the
> > shoes of the machine, so to speak. Now let's say Carebot has
> > been given state-of-the-art software and hardware for present
> > purposes.. Let me use your article from
> >
> > <http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/feb01/articles/spencer/spencer.
> > htm>
> >
> > to lead into this "I, Robot" exercise. You note that machine
> > "artificial sensors" surpass human sensing ability. Indeed they
> > do. A Carebot on the Pier has superhuman sensing ability. It has
> > also become an "extrobot" by venturing into the world out there,
> > beyond the machine "introbot" capabilities of manipulating
> > symbols intelligently within its electro-mechanical system. The
> > extrobot model makes it easier to convince the layman that
> > Carebot has superhuman intelligence in many ways because we tend
> > to PERCEIVE some kinds of intellectual activities as more
> > intelligent than others, however irrational that may be.
> > Extrobot capabilities include FIGURE-GROUND or
> > object-recognition capability. You will remember my notes the
> > other day about how I got expert opinions on what JPL had come
> > up with in this respect. Now Minsky is correct that it doesn't
> > take great intelligence to "see things". People who are not very
> > smart and animals can see all kinds of objects and differentiate
> > them from their surroundings. But object-recognition is used in
> > intelligence testing, particularly for younger subjects. And it
> > is important for the development of "If...Then" logic in the
> > real world, "out there".
> >
> > Wyatt writes in "Writing Your First Computer Program" (IDG
> > Books, 2000) that "The If...Then structure is perhaps the most
> > used of any programming structure." (p. 103). In phil-psych we
> > are more likely to call this "empiricism" rather than
> > "rationalism". An introbot can make all kinds of rational
> > connections in the abstract (with symbols) using the math,
> > relational and logic operators (of my cpp compiler, for
> > example). You could easily program it to run through these very
> > rational statements 24/7 and without error. What human has
> > abstract logic to match that? If you wanted to do so, you could
> > easily use Carebot's VIVO (voice in-voice out) capabilities to
> > have it express all of this logic in grammatically correct
> > standard English. But what about empiricism? What about the
> > logic of ge-ology? Or bi-ology? Or entymology? The introbot
> > cannot do anything with these because they are "out there". Even
> > the extrobot cannot do much unless its sensing abilities, as you
> > refer to in your article, go beyond basic sensing. On the pier,
> > I immediately make figure-ground detections in visual and
> > auditory modalities. Those figure-ground perceptions give me a
> > starting point for acquiring knowledge, ie LEARNING, about the
> > If...Then relationships in the natural or empirical world.
> >
> > That, Martin, is why I placed such emphasis on obj. rec. when I
> > exchanged emails with Minsky and then asked other experts about
> > the JPL technology. It is kind of a "missing link" in the
> > machine intelligence puzzle. If those experts are correct, the
> > technology may well exist outside current public offerings to
> > enable machines to make VISUAL FIGURE-GROUND detections beyond
> > human capability. Others have said the same for AUDITORY
> > FIGURE-GROUND detections. And even if those experts are in
> > error, this capability is coming.
> >
> > But go on with "Carebot on the Pier". Let's say it has a
> > connection to a powerful mainframe computer. It has MEMORY
> > abilities beyond any human. It has those math/logic/relational
> > operators above and can such forms of LOGIC better than any
> > human (faster and error free). Using range detection technology
> > it can surpass any human's depth and spatial perception. What
> > human can precisely say how distant that mountain range is? Or
> > how fast that sea gull is flying? MOTION, DEPTH, SPATIAL
> > abilities all surpass any human. It can easily be programmed to
> > give monologues on these capabilities in perfect grammar so its
> > VERBAL capabilities, when it comes to vocabulary and
> > monologues-in-perfect-grammar surpass any human. I grant you an
> > extrobot waxing eloquent on all that it has in its machine brain
> > in this manner is not a conversationalist. It may even be seen
> > as a machine ego-centrist, but give it credit for a PROFILE of
> > mental abilities to this point which surpasses any human.
> >
> > Now can you grasp the "gestalt" of encountering your Carebot on
> > the pier fully equipped with such state-of-the-art machine
> > intelligence? That may be difficult for non-psychology people
> > but Dr. Engelhart is trained to grasp it at once as a phenomenon
> > and a functional unity. If he encountered a human on the pier
> > giving monologues about what it sees and hears in thatFrom
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 16
>15:13:42 2002
Received: from n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.79])
by vcn.bc.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA14827
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-eGroups-Return:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Aug 2002
22:13:36 -0000
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Apparently-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 16 Aug 2002 22:13:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 61985 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 22:13:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2002 22:13:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vcn.bc.ca) (207.102.64.2)
by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 22:13:35 -0000
Received: from localhost (culturex@localhost)
by vcn.bc.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14699;
Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-X-Sender: culturex@earth
To: Martin Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <3D5D0C4E.23566.1B8EA6C@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0208161458580.9143-100000@earth>
From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Yahoo-Profile: culturex2001
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [FUTURE-CITIES] Golden Age of Mankind or Head-On Collision with Roboticus Rex?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Martin Spencer wrote:
> Yes, we are
> looking straight at the <gasp> Golden Age of Mankind.
>
> hmmmm..... but is it the headlights of a vehicle coming at us at
> 100mph? :-) Ha!
Well put ... and I'd like more feedback from discussants on any of the
lists I moderate. Bill Joy said we should put a moratorium on GNR
(Genetic-Naonotechnology-Robotics) technology. I see that as IMPOSSIBLE in
any practical sense. The best we can do is stay in control. Experts like
Warwick and Moravec have said we will not be able to do that. If they are
right then we are doomed...on a head-on course toward Roboticus Rex.
But what about straight forward market considerations? If a contractor
were selling MAXIMALLY AUTOMATED homes in a maximally automated
development here in the Fraser Valley of BC, I would buy in tomorrow.
Maybe Robo-Dave Ingram can pass that on to his many real estate friends
and clients. Imagine a development with robotized vacuum cleaners. Robotic
lawn mowers. Robotic security system, which I gather is one duty your
Geckosystems Carebot can perform (Robocop?) etc. In fact it has a vacuum
attachment doesn't it? Could it not vacuum floors at night while serving
sentry duty at the same time?
FWP
> > Thank you for the URL, Martin. I think my approach via "Machine
> > Psychology" has something in common with RLB's approach. I agree
> > that there is a composite of mental abilities which go into
> > machine intelligence; and I agree that we could come up with a
> > very impressive generally intelligent machine now if we were to
> > remove the budgetary restrictions. I also don't see it as a
> > distant futuristic thing to have an advanced machine
> > intelligence. One reason I say this is because I have
> > administered thousands of intelligence tests to people and I
> > have used my own introspections to consider what intelligence
> > is. Human intelligence is often VERY MECHANISTIC. We use rote
> > methods to memorize but are credited with points toward
> > intelligence. We use memorized algorithms for tasks like mental
> > arithmetic and we are again credited with points toward
> > intelligence. Do you know why the rules you use for mental
> > arithmetic work? I don't. But I can get a fairly high score on a
> > test of menFrom
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 16
>15:13:43 2002
Received: from n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.84])
by vcn.bc.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA14862
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-eGroups-Return:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Aug 2002
22:13:37 -0000
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Apparently-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 16 Aug 2002 22:13:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 61985 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 22:13:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2002 22:13:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vcn.bc.ca) (207.102.64.2)
by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 22:13:35 -0000
Received: from localhost (culturex@localhost)
by vcn.bc.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14699;
Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-X-Sender: culturex@earth
To: Martin Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <3D5D0C4E.23566.1B8EA6C@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0208161458580.9143-100000@earth>
From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [EDTV-Robotics-State-Of-The-Art] Golden Age of Mankind or Head-On Collision
with Roboticus Rex?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Martin Spencer wrote:
> Yes, we are
> looking straight at the <gasp> Golden Age of Mankind.
>
> hmmmm..... but is it the headlights of a vehicle coming at us at
> 100mph? :-) Ha!
Well put ... and I'd like more feedback from discussants on any of the
lists I moderate. Bill Joy said we should put a moratorium on GNR
(Genetic-Naonotechnology-Robotics) technology. I see that as IMPOSSIBLE in
any practical sense. The best we can do is stay in control. Experts like
Warwick and Moravec have said we will not be able to do that. If they are
right then we are doomed...on a head-on course toward Roboticus Rex.
But what about straight forward market considerations? If a contractor
were selling MAXIMALLY AUTOMATED homes in a maximally automated
development here in the Fraser Valley of BC, I would buy in tomorrow.
Maybe Robo-Dave Ingram can pass that on to his many real estate friends
and clients. Imagine a development with robotized vacuum cleaners. Robotic
lawn mowers. Robotic security system, which I gather is one duty your
Geckosystems Carebot can perform (Robocop?) etc. In fact it has a vacuum
attachment doesn't it? Could it not vacuum floors at night while serving
sentry duty at the same time?
FWP
> > Thank you for the URL, Martin. I think my approach via "Machine
> > Psychology" has something in common with RLB's approach. I agree
> > that there is a composite of mental abilities which go into
> > machine intelligence; and I agree that we could come up with a
> > very impressive generally intelligent machine now if we were to
> > remove the budgetary restrictions. I also don't see it as a
> > distant futuristic thing to have an advanced machine
> > intelligence. One reason I say this is because I have
> > administered thousands of intelligence tests to people and I
> > have used my own introspections to consider what intelligence
> > is. Human intelligence is often VERY MECHANISTIC. We use rote
> > methods to memorize but are credited with points toward
> > intelligence. We use memorized algorithms for tasks like mental
> > arithmetic and we are again credited with points toward
> > intelligence. Do you know why the rules you use for mental
> > arithmetic work? I don't. But I can get a fairly high score on a
> > test of mental arithmetic.
> >
> > After I had "Machine Psychology" posted for a year or so on a
> > Uniserve web site to receive critical feedback, I took it down
> > but I advanced the notion of "Superhuman AI, Now" on various
> > lists which I moderate. Perhaps I can improve on the arguments
> > made. These hot summer nights have induced me to spend time on
> > the pier at Harbour Centre, Vancouver. From that vantage point I
> > can see several miles to the east and west and north, where a
> > mountain chain stretches inland from the Pacific Ocean. I can
> > see about one half a mile to the south over the skyline of
> > Vancouver. I am surrounded by the sights and sounds of planes
> > and boats and trains.
> >
> > If I imagine myself as limited to the capabilities of a mobile
> > robot like your Geckosystems Carebot, I can put myself in the
> > shoes of the machine, so to speak. Now let's say Carebot has
> > been given state-of-the-art software and hardware for present
> > purposes.. Let me use your article from
> >
> > <http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/feb01/articles/spencer/spencer.
> > htm>
> >
> > to lead into this "I, Robot" exercise. You note that machine
> > "artificial sensors" surpass human sensing ability. Indeed they
> > do. A Carebot on the Pier has superhuman sensing ability. It has
> > also become an "extrobot" by venturing into the world out there,
> > beyond the machine "introbot" capabilities of manipulating
> > symbols intelligently within its electro-mechanical system. The
> > extrobot model makes it easier to convince the layman that
> > Carebot has superhuman intelligence in many ways because we tend
> > to PERCEIVE some kinds of intellectual activities as more
> > intelligent than others, however irrational that may be.
> > Extrobot capabilities include FIGURE-GROUND or
> > object-recognition capability. You will remember my notes the
> > other day about how I got expert opinions on what JPL had come
> > up with in this respect. Now Minsky is correct that it doesn't
> > take great intelligence to "see things". People who are not very
> > smart and animals can see all kinds of objects and differentiate
> > them from their surroundings. But object-recognition is used in
> > intelligence testing, particularly for younger subjects. And it
> > is important for the development of "If...Then" logic in the
> > real world, "out there".
> >
> > Wyatt writes in "Writing Your First Computer Program" (IDG
> > Books, 2000) that "The If...Then structure is perhaps the most
> > used of any programming structure." (p. 103). In phil-psych we
> > are more likely to call this "empiricism" rather than
> > "rationalism". An introbot can make all kinds of rational
> > connections in the abstract (with symbols) using the math,
> > relational and logic operators (of my cpp compiler, for
> > example). You could easily program it to run through these very
> > rational statements 24/7 and without error. What human has
> > abstract logic to match that? If you wanted to do so, you could
> > easily use Carebot's VIVO (voice in-voice out) capabilities to
> > have it express all of this logic in grammatically correct
> > standard English. But what about empiricism? What about the
> > logic of ge-ology? Or bi-ology? Or entymology? The introbot
> > cannot do anything with these because they are "out there". Even
> > the extrobot cannot do much unless its sensing abilities, as you
> > refer to in your article, go beyond basic sensing. On the pier,
> > I immediately make figure-ground detections in visual and
> > auditory modalities. Those figure-ground perceptions give me a
> > starting point for acquiring knowledge, ie LEARNING, about the
> > If...Then relationships in the natural or empirical world.
> >
> > That, Martin, is why I placed such emphasis on obj. rec. when I
> > exchanged emails with Minsky and then asked other experts about
> > the JPL technology. It is kind of a "missing link" in the
> > machine intelligence puzzle. If those experts are correct, the
> > technology may well exist outside current public offerings to
> > enable machines to make VISUAL FIGURE-GROUND detections beyond
> > human capability. Others have said the same for AUDITORY
> > FIGURE-GROUND detections. And even if those experts are in
> > error, this capability is coming.
> >
> > But go on with "Carebot on the Pier". Let's say it has a
> > connection to a powerful mainframe computer. It has MEMORY
> > abilities beyond any human. It has those math/logic/relational
> > operators above and can such forms of LOGIC better than any
> > human (faster and error free). Using range detection technology
> > it can surpass any human's depth and spatial perception. What
> > human can precisely say how distant that mountain range is? Or
> > how fast that sea gull is flying? MOTION, DEPTH, SPATIAL
> > abilities all surpass any human. It can easily be programmed to
> > give monologues on these capabilities in perfect grammar so its
> > VERBAL capabilities, when it comes to vocabulary and
> > monologues-in-perfect-grammar surpass any human. I grant you an
> > extrobot waxing eloquent on all that it has in its machine brain
> > in this manner is not a conversationalist. It may even be seen
> > as a machine ego-centrist, but give it credit for a PROFILE of
> > mental abilities to this point which surpasses any human.
> >
> > Now can you grasp the "gestalt" of encountering your Carebot on
> > the pier fully equipped with such state-of-the-art machine
> > intelligence? That may be difficult for non-psychology people
> > but Dr. Engelhart is trained to grasp it at once as a phenomenon
> > and a functional unity. If he encountered a human on the pier
> > giving monologues about what it sees and hears in that great
> > volume of space stretching miles to the north, south, east and
> > west, he would recognize a human intellectual genius. Maybe a
> > very strange genius, he would think; but a genius nontheless.
> > Remember that the Carebot on the Pier surpasses any human in
> > describing what it sees and hears from that vantage point.
> > Superior MEMORY, LOGIC, MOTION-SPATIAL-DEPTH perception,
> > FIGURE-GROUND (object recognition) capability, VERBAL ability
> > (in monologues). Where does it fall short of a human? In
> > conversational ability. But do you hold that against it? Why
> > should Carebot learn this confusing dialect we call "natural
> > language"? Even humans cannot yet articulate its rules. Why not
> > have humans learn Carebot's dialect of language which is, I
> > remind you, also perfecly correct grammatically?
> >
> > Next, Carebot is mobile so it moves from the pier to one of the
> > Vancouver towers to the south. Let's say there it has better
> > access to that mainframe connection. Now it switches to introbot
> > mode. It connects to MIT's Open Courseware and let's say OCW is
> > 10 years and $100,000,000 further down the road (as planned by
> > MIT). All 2,000 OCW courses have been converted to expert
> > systems programs with Question-Answer sets in plain language. If
> > I then talk to Carebot, logged on to MIT, I can ask it any of
> > those questions and expect a perfect answer. This is like being
> > able to walk into MIT and knock any of 2,000 doors and expect a
> > plain language answer to any plain language question on any
> > relevant subject. What human scholar has such breadth and depth
> > of knowledge? Scholarly knowledge is another fair way to assess
> > intelligence is it not?
> >
> > As for practical, consumer robotics, let me add this. Yes, I
> > could use hand-held machines on the pier to accomplish the same
> > things and I could log in to MIT through a computer back at the
> > office tower. But we are on the threshold of SOCIAL ROBOTS and I
> > think those ubiquitous Honda-Asimo ads are hinting at that. I
> > might well prefer to travel to the pier with a sociable Carebot.
> > And I might well prefer to ask my questions of a sociable
> > Carebot rather than a box on a desk. And that takes us back to
> > our earlier discussion on how to give a machine a "personality"
> > (Chapter 5 of Machine Psychology).
> >
> > In summary, the above tells you why I put forward the thesis of
> > "Superhuman AI Now". Why hasn't it been recognized that machines
> > are smarter than humans already? IMO it is because computer
> > scientists have a near-monopoly on claiming expertise on machine
> > psychology issues...despite the fact that Schildt tells us in
> > his "C and AI" book that most computing students don't take even
> > one course in AI, let alone all of the other aspects of
> > intelligence studies which phil-psych students are immersed in
> > daily, for years, before graduating. Thus we must describe the
> > profiles of homo sapiens vs. robo sapiens as I have done briefly
> > above. Look at the complete picture of such capabilities, the
> > "gestalt" if you will. With no disrespect at all, I have to say
> > that few computer scientists are trained to do so. Thus at this
> > point I welcome critical feedback from Dr. Engelhart and other
> > psychologists who can apply their knowledge of human
> > intelligence to machine intelligence.
> >
> > Sincerely-FWP
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:56:08 -0400
> > From: Martin Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: (Fwd) Computer Minds-
> >
> > Frank, check out his website at:
> > http://www.TheComputerMind.com :-)
> >
> > take care,
> > Martin
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/2OlolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
tive Act enables CITIZENS to recall even the Premier.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
