Subject: AIList Digest V4 #86

From: vtcs1::in% ([email-masked])
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 86 00:51:37 est

AIList Digest            Monday, 14 Apr 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:
  Queries - String Reduction & Imagen Support,
  Logic & Linguistics - Michael Moss Collection,
  Speech - Expert Conversationalist,
  Brain Theory - Comments on Kort's Article

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 22:04:26 GMT
From: [email-masked]
      (S.J.Leviseur)
Subject: String reduction

Does anybody have any references to articles on string reduction
as a reduction technique for applicative languages (or anything
else)? They seem to be almost impossible to find! Anything welcome.

        Thanks

                sean

                [email-masked]
                [email-masked]
                [email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 86 17:28:25 EST
From: "Srinivasan Krishnamurthy" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Vendor Support: SYMBOLICS

I need vendor support information for IMAGEN Laser Printer on
SYMBOLICS 3640. Any pointers will be greatly appreciated.
 Please send mail to the address given below:

     Net: [email-masked]
 Thanks.
 Srini.

------------------------------

Date: 10 April 1986 2355-EST
From: Es [email-masked]
Subject: E&S Library news

           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

** The CMU Library system has purchased the science library of the late
Michael Moss in England.  The collection consists of over 11 thousand
volumes, mostly in Logic, Linguistics and Philosophy of Science and of
Language.  After many months of efforts on the part of a number of
people in the administration and in the CS and Philosophy departments,
the collection will be shipped from England later this week.

The Moss Collection will substantially strengthen the library services
to the newly created Philosophy Department and Program in Computational
Linguistics, and will complete, and go beyond, the rebuilding of the
Logic collection, of which much was vandalized a few years ago.

[...]

-- Daniel Leivant

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 86 00:06:36 GMT
From: [email-masked]
       (michael maxwell)
Subject: Expert conversationalist :-)

One of the problems in AI, specifically in the field of natural language, has
been the problem of endowing an artificially intelligent program with the
ability to converse in an intelligent manner, observing such principals of
conversation as turn taking, empathy with the conversational partner, etc.

The problem has been solved!  I recently saw in action an expert
conversationalist at a local store.  The AI program was cleverly disguised as
a stuffed bird.  However, when you talk to it, it talks back (in a bird
language; doubtless an English language program will soon be out, as the
chances for making large profits would seem to be much greater.)

Before you dismiss this as a simple case of an electronic box that beeps
when it detects a sound, let me tell you about some of its capabilities.

First, it demonstrates true turn-taking abilities.  It does *not* simply
listen for sounds and beep back; rather, it waits until you are done talking,
and then responds.

Second, it does *not* simply beep back; rather, it tailors its response to you.
If you talk in an excited voice, it responds in an excited voice; if you
talk calmly, it uses a much more subdued response.  It tailors both its pitch
and speed of speech to your mood as well.  Genuine empathy!

Think of the possibilities; you could hook it up in place of your phone
answering machine to respond to all the carpet cleaning, chimney sweeping,
and donate-to-charity-X calls that you get!  More relevant to this net, you
could hook up your favorite implementation of Eliza + a speech generation
device, and have a true Rogerian psychologist at your beck and call.  I think
I'll buy some stock in this company...
--
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 03:08:09 GMT
From: [email-masked]  (Michael Sellers)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue and *bigtime misinformation* (kind of long)

> Joseph Mankoski writes a thought provoking article on whether
> survival logic in NASA computers has any connection to human
> survival instincts wired into to our brains from birth.

  I would have to agree there is *some* connection, but I would put it
on the level of the survival instincts of planaria or hydra, not (even
infant) humans. We are much, much more complex than that.

> I have been pondering this question myself. [...]
>
> Joseph asks for a theory of feelings.  As it happens, I just wrote
> a brief article on the subject, which may or may not be suitable
> for publication after editorial comment and revision.  Just for
> the hell of it, let me append the article and solicit comments
> from netters interested in this topic.

  Okay, here goes.  Its real difficult for me to keep this from becoming a
big flame-out (this is the second time I've tried to respond; this time I
won't kill it before it posts).  While I'm sure Barry meant well (unless this
is just badly written satire -- which I would find hard to believe), the
following article is basically a big pile of misinformation and what seems
to be idle conjecture.  The "acknowledgements" at the end only serve to give
this article a legitimacy it does not deserve by claiming nonspecific sources
and thanking PhD types (what are these folks doctors *of*, Barry?).  This isn't
meant as a personal flame; its just that I've seen so much hype/misinformation/
crapola about the brain/mind/AI recently that when I saw this I couldn't keep
quiet.  It is possible, I suppose, that a large part of neuroscience has
completely turned around in the last six months or so...but I doubt it.  If
this is true, please excuse my comments as the ravings of an old-worlder.
Of course, I'd have to see your sources before believing you.  I'd be *glad*
to refer you to mine.

  For brevity (ha!), I haven't re-posted Barry's entire article; nor have I
noted/flamed all the things I found objectionable.  Some of the assertions
in this article, however, could not be ignored.

> ==================== Article on Feelings ========================
>
>        A Simplified Model of the Effects of Perceived Aggression
>                       in the Work Environment
>
>                                 Barry Kort
>
>                             Copyright 1986
>
>        Introduction
>
>          [...]
>
>        The effects that I wish to investigate are not the
>        behavioral responses, but the more fundamental internal body
>        sensations or somatic reactions which lie behind the
>        subsequent behavioral response. [...]
>
>        A Model of Nature of Aggressive Behavior
>
>        It has been said that civilization is a thin veneer.
>        Underneath our legacy of some 5000 years of civilization
>        lies our evolutionary past.  Deep within the human brain one
>        can find the vestiges of our animal nature-the old mammalian
>        brain, the old reptilian brain.  Of principal interest here
>        are two groups of structures responsible for much of our
>        "wired-in" instincts.

  Not quite instincts.  The basal ganglia, which make up most of what is
sometimes called the old mammalian brain (itself enclosing what some call
the R-complex, or reptilian brain) mainly govern biological drives and needs
such as hunger, thirst, sex, etc.  The main governor of these is the
hypothalamus, working in tandem with the pituitary.  The thalamus, amygdala,
and several other nuclei also contribute to these drives, and have some part
in our emotional responses including fear, anger, happiness, nervousness, etc.
But these are not insticts nor instinctive.

>        The cerebellum is responsible for much of our risk-taking,
>        self-gratifying drives, including the aggressive sex drives.
>        It is the cerebellum that says, "Go for it!  This could be
>        exciting!  Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."

  I couldn't believe this when I first read it.  I would still like to believe
that Barry mistyped or misread this.  The cerebellum (the wrinkled-looking
thing that hangs under the back of the cerebrum) play *ABSOLUTELY NO PART* in
our rational, cognitive, or emotive behavior!!!  What it does do is play a
major role in coordinating complex motor actions, such as tying your shoes or
dancing the foxtrot (especially, it seems, learned and often repeated actions
such as these, as opposed to one-time actions like climbing a tree).  I can't
imagine where you got this piece of information, Barry.  It sounds like it came
out of Nat'l Enquirer University.  The aforementioned hypothalamus does play
a large part in assertive or aggressive action, though this is mediated by the
frontal and parietal portions of the cortex and the amygdala and caudate nuclei
(in case you wanted to know :-).

>        The limbic system, on the other hand, is responsible for
>        self-protective behaviors.  The limbic system perceives the
>        threats to one's safety or well-being, and initiates
>        protective or counter measures.  The limbic system says,
>        "Hold it!  This could be dangerous!  We'd better go slow and
>        avoid those torpedoes."

  This rates most of my paragraph above.  I've never seen anything about
cautious behaviors arising in the limbic system, though I know of no reason
why some components of such behavior couldn't begin there.  The level of
behavior suggested here is way to complex for this stage of the processing.
Cognitive overlays of our internal biochemical states make up the majority of
what we perceive as emotional states/responses.

>        Rising above it all resides the neocortex or cerebrum.  This
>        is the "new brain" of homo sapiens which is the seat of
>        learning and intelligence.  It is the part that gains
>        knowledge of cause and effect patterns, and overrules the
>        myopic attitude of the cerebellum and limbic system.
>   ->   Occasionally, the cerebral cortex is faced with a novel
>   |    situation, where past experience and learning fail to
>   |    provide adequate instruction in how to proceed.  In that
>   |    case, the usual patterns of regulation are ineffective,
>   |    and the behavioral response may revert back to the more
>   |    primitive instincts.
    |
  This is an interesting piece of conjecture, and one I've not seen recently.
It doesn't seem to likely, however, since we have (evolutionarily) paid dearly
for our enlarged cortices.  Why would we throw out all our observational &
computational power just because a situation doesn't match any previously
encountered?  This would seem to be a marvelous lack of a very valuable
resource.  It is likely that when the perceived danger or novelty of a
situation is *too* great that all our finely-tuned observational and learning
powers are thrown out the window in favor of old tired-and-true methods, but
this is not as general as is stated here.

>          [...]
>
>        Somatic Reactions to Stress
>
>        When an individual is presented with an unusual situation,
>        the lack of an immediately obvious method of dealing with it
>        may lead to an accumulation of stress which manifests itself
>        somatically.  For instance, first-time jitters may show up
>        as a knotting of the stomach (butterflies), signaling fear
>        (of failure).  A perceived threat may cause increased heart
>        rate, sweating, or a tightening of the skin on the back of
>        the neck.  (This latter phenomenon is commonly known as
>        "raising of one's hackles," which in birds, causes the
>        feathers to stand up in display mode, warning off the
>        threatening invader.) Teeth clenching, which comes from
>        repressing the urge to express anger, leads to a common
>        affliction among adult males-temporal mandibular joint
>        (TMJ).  Leg shaking and pacing indicate a subliminal urge to
>        flee, while cold feet corresponds to frozen terror (playing
>        'possum).  All of these are variations on the
>        fight/flight/freeze instincts mediated by the limbic system.
>        They often occur without our conscious awareness.

  These are also manifestations of the activation of the sympathetic nervous
system, probably by the release of epinephrine (adrenalin) into the blood-
stream.  This can occur with a variety of different emotions, and is much
less specific than we are led to believe here.  (The use of analogies from
biology and the use of an acronym also bug me in this context, since they
also seem to lend legitimacy to what is a not very well thought out
supposition.)  All of these are the result of bloodflow being directed away
from non-vital areas (digestive tract, extremities -- butterflies and cold
feet) and toward more vital areas (head and muscles -- facial flush, leg
shaking, etc) in addition to other secondary effects of the adrenaline
(increased heart/respiration rate, sweating, skin tightening).

>       [...]  A person's awareness of and
>        sensitivity to such somatic feelings may affect his mode of
>        expression.  The somasthetic cortex is the portion of the
>        brain where the body stresses are registered, and this
>        sensation may be the primary indication that a stressor is
>        present in the environment.  A challenge for every
>        individual is to accurately identify which environmental
>        stimulus is linked to which somatic response.

  The somasthetic [portion of the] cortex does more than register body
stresses.  This is the area where *all* sensory input for the body surfaces
is perceived.  While stressors in the environment can have somatic effects,
these do not have a one-to-one (or even a few-to-a few) correspondence with
the area of the body or the type of response given.  *ALL* stress, if it is
bad enough, will effect your body (I sometimes get the "runs" when things get
REAL bad), but this effect is not likely to be consistently manifested in one
part of your body or with one single reaction.

>        Somatic responses such as those outlined above are
>        intimately connected with our expressed feelings, which
>        usually are translated into some behavioral response along
>        the axis from aggressive to assertive to politic to
>        nonassertive to nonaggresive.

  This is incomplete at best.  It is unrealistic to limit the translation of
somatic effects into one spectrum of behavioral states/effects, and vastly
oversimplifying the situation as well (some oversimplification is inevitable,
but not to the extent that you lose all informational content of the thought!).

>        The challenge is to find and
>        effectuate the middle ground between too much communication
>        and too little.  The goal of the communication is to
>        identify the cause and effect link between the environmental
>        stressor and the somatic reaction, and from the somatic
>        reaction to the behavioral response.  The challenge is all
>        the more difficult because the most effective mode and
>        intensity of the communication depends on the maturity of
>        the other party.

  This sounds to me for all the world like a paragraph off of the back of a
badly researched pop-psych book.  I'm somewhat of theoretic conservative; I
don't like to see new and wild theories/models thrown around without proper
thought and research behind them.  While the sentiment here seems to be good,
the assumptions and assertions are a mishmash of misinformation, hopeful
conjecture, and psych 101.

>        Acknowledgements
>
>        The original sources for the ideas assembled in this paper
>        are too diffuse to pinpoint with completeness or precision.
>        However, I would like to acknowledge the influence of so
>        many of my colleagues who took the time to contribute their
>        ideas and experiences on the subject matter.  I especially
>        would like to thank Dr. John Karlin, Dr. R. Isaac Evan, and
>        Dr. Laura Rogers who helped me shape and test the models
>        presented here.

  Like I said, who are these folks, and what sort of feedback did they
give you?  While I'm at it, is this article being published? If so, where,
and what editor let it pass by?!

> Comments are invited.
>
> --Barry Kort   ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort

  Well, you asked.  I'd be more than happy to hear any comments to my comments,
and/or to view any sources anyone has.  I have them in abundance myself.
None of this has been intended as a personal flame.  I am just speaking out
against what is a glaring example of some of the half-baked theories being
slung around today.  If you want to attack *my* assertions, go ahead (I'm
sure there's room for everybody :-).  All personal flames will be sent directly
to /dev/uranus without comment.

My address is ...ihnp4(etc)!tektronix!tekecs!mikes

        Mike Sellers

"The strength and weakness of youth is that
 it cannot see its own strength and weakness."

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************