Writing in the Matrix: Students Tapping the Living Database on the Computer Network

A chapter in:

Galin, Jeff, and Joan Latchaw, eds. The Dialogic Classroom: Teachers Integrating Computer Technology, Pedagogy, and Research. (Urbana, Illinois: NCTE Press, 1998)

Abstract and Introduction:

Students in most writing classes produce papers for which the primary audience is the teacher and the primary purpose is to pass the course. Yet our study of rhetoric tells us that citizens need to be prepared to write for a wide variety of audiences in a wide variety of contexts. Further, students writing researched papers often go no further than the books and journals in their own school library to gather source material. With the proliferation of the Internet, more and more students have access to what Howard Rheingold calls a "living database" of people grouped into virtual communities with similar interests. By first monitoring discussion groups on the network, analyzing the audience and discourse conventions used in these groups, then posting messages to the discussions, students can gain experience writing for real audiences spanning the globe. Using the network in this manner allows them to become better writers in a real-world communication context.
 
 

Beyond automated databases

Like many teachers, I encourage my students to learn to tap the tremendous resources on the Internet through remote library login, gopher, ftp, and world wide web. However, I recognize that there are many limitations to this approach. Because the internet is a largely undocumented and changing collection of resources, students often find it difficult to locate and effectively use the resources they need. Sometimes they need to be able to ask questions in plain English. To allow my students to ask questions on the network that no automated software database could possibly answer, I have developed activities which tap the human element of the network by asking students to use email and usenet discussion groups.

In his book, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Howard Rheingold conceives of the network of interconnected human beings communicating in Cyberspace as a kind of "grassroots groupmind" or "living database" (Rheingold 1993, 111, 115) (as opposed to automated databases which do not understand plain English). The living database is a network-based communication among minds which allows the formation of discourse communities not dependent on a physical place. Rheingold suggests that the network is allowing those connected through the network to reform society into social groupings based more on interest or professional fields than upon geographic proximity. There are many such discourse communities flourishing in cyberspace, available to anyone with a network connection. Aware of the vast potential of the network, more and more educational institutions are making these connections available to students and teachers. I would like to outline a network-based activity that has worked very well to give my students real-world audiences. Although I use this activity primarily with technical communications classes, it can be used in almost any writing class in which the students have some access to the internet.
 
 

The Context and Problem

Many writing courses must meet a variety of needs of a diverse student body. I teach at a state technological university with approximately 2400 students enrolled in degree programs ranging from Electrical, Mechanical, and Civil Engineering to our own Interdisciplinary Sciences program, which prepares students for a variety of careers in business, industry, science and the medical services. Our students are intelligent and highly motivated, but what characterizes them more than anything else is the great variety of their needs in preparation for professional, technical, and business communication tasks. Indeed, neither the students nor their department heads can easily agree on what kinds of assignments will best meet their needs.

Further, we suffer from a rather pronounced geographical isolation. We are an eight hour drive from Denver, and ten hours from Minneapolis; rather distant from major university libraries and large concentrations of scholars. Colleges and universities on or near the coasts can stay up-to-date on the latest developments, but our geographical isolation sometimes results in our seeming provincial and behind the times in comparison to other institutions of higher education. Somehow we need to overcome this isolation, both for ourselves as professionals, and for our students. We need to be in contact with other people, people who either think like us, or whose ideas complement our thinking. Thus, enacting Rheingold's concept of the living database can help us overcome some of the isolation by providing that contact.

Another side effect of geographical isolation is the fact that our students have very few chances to encounter other cultures and the wide diversity of opinions one might find on the coasts or near the big cities. Because we learn to better understand ourselves as writers, speakers, and thinkers with a multitude of audiences if we can interact with people from other cultures and beliefs,those among us who teach a multicultural approach to composition want our students to gain some first hand experience communicating with and gleaning ideas from people from different cultures. Many of our students will end up working in jobs and living in communities with much more diverse populations; thus they need to develop awareness of and sensitivity to other cultures now, as part of their training in communication. Hopefully they will become citizens of the world, better able to survive in an increasingly multicultural society.

Further, as most of us know from our scholarly reading, and as the rest of society is coming to know from reading article after article on the network in popular publications such as Time and Newsweek , the paradigm of communication is changing because of increased dependence on computer mediated communication in business, industry, and even leisure. At many levels, electronic mail, the World Wide Web, and computer conferencing are changing what we define as writing, who we write for, how fast we expect a response, and how we archive our communications. From a pragmatic point of view, we know that more than ever, students need to explore and become accustomed to these new communication technologies because they will probably be using them in their future careers.
 
 

2. The Activity: Writing in the Matrix

To address the above issues, in my writing classes I advocate a kind of network-based information literacy. Of course I encourage my students to learn how to search automated databases along with other library resources, but because I teach communications, I also emphasize our ability to connect to the living database of discussions and individuals conceived of by Howard Rheingold. To situate students in a relevant discourse community, I would like them to be able to write for and glean information from other human beings by communicating on the network through email or real-time discussion. This entrance into a discourse community helps them better understand the range of real world communications situations.

Because I want to help students write for a variety of audiences in a variety of contexts, I do not eliminate the more traditional writing and speaking assignments, but instead endeavor to supplement them. However, in addition to assigning the researched papers and essays, I want to ask what I can add in order to enrich my students' understanding of discourse communities, of the notion of audience, of the range of living databases available to them. Indeed, I ask just how I might teach my students to adapt their communicative strategies for a variety of audiences, including those accessible only on the network.

Many writing classes across the nation have already moved to the computer classroom to do written group brainstorming (ENFI -- See Barker and Kemp 1990, Hawisher 1992, Day and Batson 1995). These activities have much to offer in terms of practice writing for and with others, but involve only a local audience of those in the class. To access a wider audience, they must turn to the network, the internet, that sometimes chaotic, sometimes treasure trove of information on line.

I chose to take my students on line because of the success I have had widening the range of colleagues I can contact and work with on the internet. I have found professional satisfaction and increased my own knowledge and teaching repertoire by joining discussion groups on the internet. Since such a variety of professional conversations take place on the network, I assumed that some of my class members should be able to get involved, especially since all students at my school can get accounts on our internet host. But having access and being able to use it are different issues.

Because the school has no network literacy requirement, I find that I must either train the students myself, using up valuable class time, or ask them to attend library Internet orientations. So either by myself or with the library staff, I give the class two library orientations: a basic session on electronic mail and unix functions for saving and arranging files, and later an advanced session on gopher, ftp, hytelnet, world-wide web and other network utilities. Once they get this far, I ask them to demonstrate their Email capability by sending me a memo evaluating their performance in a class activity.

Second, through their library orientation and our class discussions, my students learn about how to find and join networked discussion groups such as bitnet lists, internet discussion groups, and usenet groups. They then join at least one discussion group relevant to their field or interest. Many of my students are majoring in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and Computer Science. They have joined lists for students and professionals in their respective fields, and developed contacts for jobs and research projects through those lists. Our school has also begun local usenet discussion groups for discussion by the various clubs and engineering societies, and a few classes also have their own usenet groups. Students in my classes can receive credit for posts to class groups as an alternative to journal entries, provided the discussion is sophisticated enough.

I generally illustrate the idea of joining a professional or field-specific discourse community through networked discussion groups by outlining my experiences and involvement with several groups for professionals in the fields of rhetoric, communication, computers and writing, and English. Several years ago friends and colleagues introduced me to groups such as MBU-L (MegaByte University), Purtopoi, CMC (Computer Mediated Communication), and Ortrad-L (Oral Tradition). My students learn how much my professional life has changed since I became part of the discussions in my field. Once an isolated individual with few colleagues with whom to talk, I now feel part of a community of scholars engaged in discussion to enlarge our field of knowledge. Further, I have met new colleagues with whom I have begun a series of collaborations on publications and conference presentations I might never have embarked upon had I not encountered them on the network. I stress to my students that at its best, networked discussion can draw upon the natural heuristic power of minds bumping raw ideas off each other, tweaking them a bit, and developing new thought structures in a synergistic manner. I hope that they too can be drawn into the conversation, writing as I do out of a desire to communicate with real people in a kind of virtual community.

After joining a group, each student begins by monitoring the discussion for a week or more in order to get a sense of the discourse conventions and expectations of the group. For the rhetoricians among us, this is a period of intense audience analysis, in which the students carefully examine every message from the group for evidence of shared discourse conventions, shared items of knowledge, and common rhetorical strategies. The students keep journals on what they find and discuss the conventions and strategies with each other in class. Only when they feel that they know the group and its habits and expectations well can they begin to post messages to its members. Some students elect to use the journal entries as a base from which to write a formal investigative report (directed to a professional in their field) on the value of participating in network discussion groups.

Since I usually make the networked discussion assignment elective (one of a number of choices), students know that they need to take time to investigate the discussion groups available and the quality of discussion on each group. After these preliminary investigations, we can talk about what makes a good source and why. How do we assess the credentials of those who post to groups, and those who advise us? What positions do they hold, what research have they done and what sources do they themselves cite? This can lead to more general discussion of source credibility, such as the difference between an article about extraterrestrial life in Cosmopolitan and and one in Science. In such a way, the students' network investigations help them understand more about the appropriateness of different kinds of evidence, credentials and rhetorical strategies to a variety of discursive communities and occasions.

After the monitoring and analysis period, students then draft a post (generally of less than a page for the brevity required in Email) of a technical nature addressed to the group. It can be any sort of a post, but will usually be related to a technical communications or other class project, and fall into one of the following categories.
 
 

1. Requesting Information

Students might be asking for information for their final projects, which are often proposals, manuals, literature reviews or feasibility reports. One of my students needed government telephone numbers to find out about regulations for coding plastic containers for recycling, and sent a request in to the Recycling list. Within 24 hours he had 4 responses with telephone numbers. A geology major posted questions about a test of deep earthquakes she was researching for her final project. One of the geologists involved in the testing answered her query in some detail. Yet another student had read an article by Marvin Minsky, renowned artificial intelligence expert at MIT's Media Lab. I was able to find the student an Email address for Dr. Minsky so that he could ask questions related to his final literature review. Much to our amazement, Dr. Minsky replied (See Appendix. A) with a very kind and informative message.
 
 

2. Answering Questions and Consulting for Others

Students might wish to answer the questions of other participants in a discussion group. My students were very proud to be able to use their knowledge in their fields to help others with projects. This factor, perhaps more than any other, helped them assume the role of the concerned professional in all their communications. They managed to break out of the tiresome routine of writing memo after memo for "practice" in an English class. They were excited to be in contact with other professionals in their fields.

For example, a geology major in my class was able to refer other geologists in a discussion group to sources and citations for their research, and even set up a mineral sample exchange group with some of his Internet colleagues. He then took the obvious professional step in publishing an explanation of his exchange activities in a mineral newsletter. That article has since been reprinted in a South African mineral newsletter, and requests for help and trades have come from the Netherlands and many other corners of the world. He has said many times over that he feels that his network exchanges have paid off by allowing him to become professionally involved in his field. (See appendix B)

3. Gathering Facts and Opinions

They might wish to gather multiple opinions on the feasibility of a project, or to conduct a survey. One student was writing a proposal on upgrading our school's AutoCad software, and needed information about what version of the software other schools used, and for what purposes they used it. He sent in his question to the AutoCad discussion list and received 6 responses over the next few days. Another student needed local responses to a survey on how the student technology fee should be spent, and arranged to make the questionnaire available on one of the school's usenet newsgroups. Currently, my students routinely collect information for class projects through questionnaires posted on our Internet host machine, where all users who log in can elect to fill them out. (See appendix C)
 
 

4. The Job Search

Students can also make job inquiries and contacts. I have my students investigate the Online Career Center on Gopher or the World Wide Web very early in the semester. Here they can research companies and jobs, and even upload a resume at no charge. Several students have been invited on plant trips and even been offered jobs through this process. But they must also be aware how crucial professional networking is to their potential for getting a job. Some students have been working on the network closely enough with their colleagues in business and industry to be invited to collaborate on conference presentations and publications. Network-based discussion gets them involved in field-specific projects that may lead to jobs and/or professional collaborations anywhere in the world.

Once the students have drafted their posts, they critique each others' posts on the network. First, the author of a message to an individual or discussion group sends his or her message to a classmate, and asks for editing and revision help. The classmate then comments on the grammar, mechanics, tone, style, and technical content of the potential discussion group post, and sends it back in another email message. (See appendix D) The original author revises the message according to the feedback she or he receives, and sends it to the discussion group, with a copy to me. I ask for a copy of all my students' professional discussion group posts, along with other group postings that provide context for the messages, so that I can comment on and evaluate them.

However, the exercise is not yet totally paperless. I ask the author to create a printed discussion group portfolio which includes the original posts, the group messages which provide the context for the posts, and the peer critique. In the best of worlds, had I fewer students and much more time, I would evaluate these portfolios on the computer. I feel that the students would benefit from the neatness of the comments, and the depth of comment I could make on the computer, given that I a compose better on a keyboard. However, I am reluctant to add even more hours to the time I spend with my tiring eyes glued to the computer screen, and I have not yet found an easy way of inserting marks in a student's text. Thus I welcome paper for the ease with which I can move it, sort it, and make notes on it. Times may be changing, but hard copy does add a needed air of finality to what is essentially a snapshot of a work forever in progress.
 
 

The Gift Economy in Virtual Communities

Through the process outlined above, my technical communications students are introduced to, asked to comment upon, and become part of virtual communities. They learn the give and take of idea exchange in the living database, the feature of networked interaction which Howard Rheingold calls a "gift economy" (Rheingold 1993, 59). By participating in networked discussion and helping others, students not only build communication skills, but also build valuable social capital. Rheingold describes a process by which networked collaborators exchange knowledge capital (information) for social capital (good will and respect from others). (Rheingold, 62) What participants contribute to any group at any time may not be returned immediately, or by the same group. But with time they will find others helping them. Conversely, they might be so inspired by the help and feedback they are given that they go out of their way to help others. This may seem no different from the economy of idea exchange within any social grouping, but the network provides an easy way for distant participants with similar interests to share information and experiences. In sharing with others, they become part of the living database, and learn something of the transactional nature of communication.

Sometimes, through reading and discussion, students find that they have questions for the authors of the articles they read, authors who are often recognized experts in their fields. Common sense might tell us that it would be a waste of time for an undergraduate to write to a renowned expert asking for clarification, but luckily not all students share our pessimism. I have frequently been approached by students requesting E-mail addresses for the authors of the articles they were researching. Although I was originally not very hopeful about making contact, I used my network connections and social capital to get addresses for an artificial intelligence pioneer at MIT (See appendix A) and a microbiologist investigating the HIV virus at Berkeley. I was literally flabbergasted to learn a few weeks later that my students had sent Email to and received considerate, informative replies from these busy scholars. Without the possibility of a quick transmission and quick reply afforded by Email, how many of us would even think to write to to the top people in a field to ask for help on a project due at semester's end? And yet, while we might never dream of calling such experts, Email is so unintrusive that many of us are emboldened to make requests of experts from whom we need information. If my students can make intelligent, well-written requests for information, I think that they are learning some very important audience-oriented strategies of communication.

New Directions: Taking Discussion to Real Time Evironments

Participants in networked discussion groups sometimes get to a point in discussion or collaboration via Email when asynchronous communication just isn't enough for the level of sustained interaction they need to pull off a project. Email may seem too tedious or time consuming when some participants want to brainstorm or collaborate intensively. In this case, a subset of an asynchronous networked discussion group may want to move on to real time networked communication such as Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and Multiple User real time (MU*) environments. IRC is like CB or ham radio, except that everyone can talk at once, and everything that is said appears in text. A MU* environment differs in that text may also be used to create descriptions of objects, characters, and rooms to give conversation a "setting" of sorts. These environments and their uses for scholarhip are described elsewhere (Day, Rickly, and Crump, in press), but it should be noted that for some, IRC and MU* are logical extensions of Email and usenet discussion groups; the synchronous, immediate "fast and dirty" conversations of real-time complement the more considered prose of asynchronous discussions.

Because of the reputation IRC and MU* environments have among some faculty and computer systems administrators for being time and resource wasters, I have been reluctant to introduce these environments to my students. Yet, when the students themselves saw the value of working in a MU* environment and asked to try it, I could not refuse. In Fall 1994 I involved my classes in a collaborative workgroup project with technical communications classes in New York City, and in Spring 1995 we extended the project to include classes at the University of Southwestern Louisiana. My students were grouped with students in David Tillyer's classes at CUNY, and John Ferstel's classes at USL, but not just as penpals; they worked together on a collaborative report, negotiating every step of the process through Email. When some of the students expressed frustration at the time it was taking to make decisions via Email, I suggested MU* sessions to quickly get work done. Because MediaMOO is not for students, we were glad for the offer from Daedalus Group Inc. to allow students to work in their MU* environment, Daedalus MOO. The students found communicating on the environment productive, but also discovered that simply planning a time for all 6 of them (two from each school) to get together (especially with the 2 hour time difference between Rapid City and New York City) was much more difficult than the act of getting work done on the MOO, once they had mastered some of the commands and could talk freely.

I am encouraged by the students' productivity in the MU* environment, and would like to give more students the opportunity to practice this synchronous form of writing in the matrix. However, I resist the urge to require my students to use synchronous communication. Just as we all have different personalities and work habits, so too do we adapt better to some writing and communication environments than others. One student may be flustered by the pressure of real time written communication; another, typically silent in oral classroom discussion, may blossom without the social pressure of face-to-face interaction hanging over her. I would like my students to try out these tools and be aware of what they have to offer, but above all I want them to be able to use the tools that they are most comfortable with, and which help them communicate effectively. Further, as Nancy Kaplan reminds us, "No tool can be innocent, free of ideological constructions. . . Each tool brings into the classroom embedded conceptions of what exists, what is good or useful or profitable, and what is possible with its help" (27). We need to be aware that when we bring certain technologies into our classes, we may be unwittingly imposing our own values about how research, writing and communication should take place. And despite all the benefits, there are a host of other reasons not to force students to use networked discussion groups, among them flaming (rude outbursts on the net, often based on misunderstanding), communication anxiety, and sensory overload (Hawisher,93). So I must recommend that these "writing in the matrix" activities be made optional. The activities are mainly for those that with some help can find groups and become comfortable with them. Still, I recommend asking classes of students who have networking capability at least to try tapping the living database once.

Evaluation

Since one of the goals of the activity is to give students the opportunity to write for a variety of audiences outside the university, evaluation is always a thorny issue. If we add the grading hand of the teacher to the equation, the teacher becomes the primary audience, overshadowing, to some degree, the outside discussants. Many writing instructors who use electronic mail have suggested that it is best to leave assignments of this sort ungraded so that students can gain confidence in their abilities and know that they are truly writing to an outside audience. However, many of us have no choice in the matter of grades. Teachers may still be able to comment on Email portfolios but leave them ungraded, or they may be able to compromise with peer critiques, grade contracts, and self-evaluations. In every case, however, we need to place emphasis on the ethos-building evaluative eyes of the outside audience, not the grading hand of the classroom teacher.
 
 

Benefits and Limitations of Writing in the Matrix

What are the benefits and limitations of such an approach, an approach based on interactions between people and not with remote databases? First, this interaction is a kind of natural heuristic which spurs students to explore new ideas, both of their own and of others, and to build on those ideas. Second, in this "tapping of the living database", we have a new model of collaborative work where great distances matter very little and scholars can work very closely with the people who either think just like us, or whose ideas complement ours. In this way, we can form collaborative communities which overcome isolation and provincialism. Third, and very important, the experience gives students the sense of being situated in a field with other colleagues, who become real to them by virtue of the ideas they express. Many of our students would never have dreamed of approaching some of the experts in their fields, but the network affords them an easy way of making contact.

The discussion group activity provides an ideal focus for class discussions of the rhetorical concept of ethos. Students come to understand that if their contributions are to be accepted by the group and answered by its members, they need to make use of rhetorical strategies which give them the persona of a concerned and professional writer. They often do not get responses if they take on the "Gee, I'm just a poor inexperienced student doing a class assignment" attitude. They learn to use the language professionally and correctly to achieve a desired effect for a particular audience.

We recently found out how important that professional attitude can be. A professor of Mechanical Engineering from our school met a colleague at a conference in Florida who mentioned that he had seen our students' postings in some of the discussion groups, and commented on how impressed he was with the content and quality of messages our students were sending out. If the students take pride in their own knowledge and strive to be professional in their communications, it reflects well on the whole school. Thus, through the "writing in the matrix" activity, the students come to understand the importance of professional presentation to the reputations of both individuals and organizations, and that understanding spurs the students to improve their writing.

The possibilities for productive exchange among scholars at all levels, for breaking down traditional hierarchies between "expert" and "student" are limitless, yet we must remember that inevitably, not all expert and Email discussion group investigations pan out. Just because an author has an Email address does not mean that she or he will answer, and just because there is a listserv or usenet group with a certain name does not guarantee that the group will be active or that the discussion will be of any use. In the past, I have had students complain that they subscribed to a discussion group such as IEEE-L and found little or no discussion. Another student seemed outraged that no one in the usenet group alt.cows.moo.moo.moo could answer her technical questions on cattle feed.

The problems we face here are twofold. First, as active participants in networked discussion groups, we teachers may tend to romanticize the possibilities, leading students to develop unrealistic expectations for the quality and quantity of information they will receive. Second, we may talk about all the useful information we may get from others on the net, but how reliable is this information? Who do we trust as a reliable, credible source, and why? To avoid unnecessarily disappointing students and to help them understand the concepts of credibility and reliability of sources, we need to encourage classroom discussion of these potential problems before they even begin participating in networked conversations. Such discussions can help them focus a more critical eye not only on online sources, but also on informants and articles used in offline primary and secondary research. In short, we help them see that online sources, like any others, must be subject to the same scrutiny lawyers give a witness in a court of law.

In the years since I began this project and the early drafts of this chapter, the internet and its discussion groups has been growing at an astronomical pace. Now the would-be participants have a wide array of printed guides to online discussion groups to choose from at the bookstore, along with some handy online tools. For example, the Lists of Lists file is frequently updated, and can be requested by Email from listserv@vm1.nodak.edu with the command "get LISTSOF LISTS" in the message body. But these days by far the most comprehensive searches for discussion groups can be conducted on the World Wide Web, using tools such as Net Search and Net Directory. Many special interest and field-specific groups have Web pages, and you can often get information on how to join discussion groups from those Web pages.

If we claim to be teachers of writing and communication, we owe it to our students to help them get involved in professional and special-interest conversations so that they can gain valuable experience writing for specific audiences. And since more and more professionals will be using the network for primary and secondary research, we are doing our students a service by helping them get accustomed to and involved in these media. Finally, we have a way of allowing students to move on to wider audiences and to recognize their own communicative interdependence by tapping into the living database.
 
 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 
 
 
 

Dear Professor Minsky:
 
 

As I mentioned in my letter last week, I would like to ask a few

technical questions from the article "Will Robots Inherit the Earth?" . I

hope you can find time to give me some answers. You might find that some

of these questions overlap, so just feel free to disregard those you feel

overlap too much, or that you find irrelevant.
 
 

In the article you say "Eventually, using nanotechnology, we will entirely

replace our brains" In this regard I would like to ask three questions:
 
 

(1) By this, do you mean that artificial Intelligence (AI) and

nanotechnology can make our brain useless (that our brain will meet the

same fate in the future as our tonsils meet in some cases today)?

(2) Can you explain how you see the interrelationship, if any, between

our brain and artificial intelligence in the future?

(3) How would this nanotechnology device, interface with the biology of

our bodies? Is it partially biological?
 
 

Your article you mentions about the human life span and estimated its

maximum to be about 115 years.
 
 

(1) Do you think that AI and nanotechnology can help fight autoimmune

blindness and other biological problems that our body can not repair by

itself?

(2)Do you think we can develop equipment that has a life span close to

ours, or don't you think of this (the life span of the equipment) as an

issue?
 
 

Do you think mankind ever can develop a machine(Being / Mind Child) that

"thinks" with the same flexibility our brains do?
 
 

Are there any articles / books on the subject you would like to

recommend to students with interests in this field?
 
 

In the article you discuss many issues concerning of the future use of

nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. What do you feel is the most

important issue you discuss in the article? Why?
 
 

Finally, I would like to ask a question not directly related to the article,

but that is of great importance to me, as a young European (I'm from

Norway). The first step on the moon was a great milestone for humankind

and maybe in particular for American government-sponsored basic research. But it also marks the turning point for this type of research.
 
 

Do you feel that there will ever be a possibility (political climate) to

reestablish something like the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)? What would it take? Would the economic threat from Japan or from a united and stronger Europe (maybe, in the future, including Russia) be enough?
 
 

This concludes my questions. On behalf of my colleagues both at South

Dakota School of Mines & Technology and City College of New York, I would

like to thank you for being willing to correspond with me. I hope these

questions did not take too much of your time, or cause you any

inconvenience.
 
 

Thanks, sincerely

Borge Svardal

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

To: bs6230@silver.sdsmt.edu, mday@silver.sdsmt.edu

From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
 
 

>>In the article you say "Eventually, using nanotechnology, we will entirely

>replace our brains" In this regard I would like to ask three questions:

>

>(1) By this, do you mean that artificial Intelligence (AI) and

>nanotechnology can make our brain useless (that our brain will meet the

>same fate in the future as our tonsils meet in some cases today)?
 
 

I meant "ultimately" in the sense that our brains will turn out to be too

small to be able to solve the problems that we'll eventually want to

understand. So we'll expand them by artificial means until the original

brains are relatively insignificant.
 
 

>(2) Can you explain how you see the interrelationship, if any, between

>our brain and artificial intelligence in the future?
 
 

I would hope that when we build better brains we'll know how they work.

This will need better theories about both human and other kinds of

psychology.
 
 

>(3) How would this nanotechnology device, interface with the biology of

>our bodies? Is it partially biological?
 
 

It could be a long time before we know enough about how the brain works.

In the meantime, we could begin to augment the brain by attaching new

computers, via millions (or billions) of connections to our existing

brains. This would require very small interconnection devices.

>

>Your article you mentions about the human life span and estimated its

>maximum to be about 115 years.

>

>(1) Do you think that AI and nanotechnology can help fight autoimmune

>blindness and other biological problems that our body can not repair by

>itself?
 
 

Ultimately, cell repair and replacement should become feasible, but I see

no way to estimate when.
 
 

>(2)Do you think we can develop equipment that has a life span close to

>ours, or don't you think of this (the life span of the equipment) as an

>issue?
 
 

Yes, not much of an issue. The critical thing is to use technologies that

are easily maintainable--i.e., when something fails or wears out, replace

it.

>

>Do you think mankind ever can develop a machine(Being / Mind Child) that

>"thinks" with the same flexibility our brains do?
 
 

Certainly. I don't think we're very flexible by trans-human standards.

>

>Are there any articles / books on the subject you would like to

>recommend to students with interests in this field?
 
 

Well, my own book, "The Society of Mind," and Hans Moravec's far-out "Mind

Children. He has a new book, but I don't have its title.

Also Nanosystems, by Drexler--for students who want to learn more physics.
 
 

>In the article you discuss many issues concerning of the future use of

>nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. What do you feel is the most

>important issue you discuss in the article? Why?
 
 

I can't rank them. In my mind they form a coherent network
 
 

>Do you feel that there will ever be a possibility (political climate) to

>reestablish something like the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)? What

>would it take? Would the economic threat from Japan or from a united and

>stronger Europe (maybe, in the future, including Russia) be enough?
 
 

Good question--and very close to my heart because the support of AI in the

1960s was inspired by one of my friends and teachers, J.C.R. Licklider who

recently died, and two of my first student friends when I came to teach at

MIT: Larry Roberts and Ivan Sutherland. So the "golden age" was actually,

for me, very much like a family matter!
 
 

I don't know if it could happen now. It's just possible that the "new

American politics" could do something interesting, because that Gingerich

fellow is really interested advanced things, despite his strange

reputation; for example he is a space exploration advocate.
 
 

On the other side, I have a sense of a worldwide decline of critical

thinking. American television is now dominated by all sorts of psychic

pseudo-science;-- fake psychics; bizarre "alternative medicine" ideas,

including homeopaths; kidnapping by flying saucers; and now, amazingly,

visitations by angels! I can't think of how there could be any popular

movement toward rationality in the face of the press-dominated distribution

of garbage.
 
 

>This concludes my questions. On behalf of my colleagues both at South

>Dakota School of Mines & Technology and City College of New York, I would

>like to thank you for being willing to correspond with me. I hope these

>questions did not take too much of your time, or cause you any

>inconvenience.
 
 
 
 

I have fondness for Norway, but not enough contact. Been there twice, and

from time to time I correspond with a former student, Lars Monrad-Krohn,

who started more than one company involved with computers, AI, and

education
 
 

___________________________________________

"Don't pay any attention to the critics. Don't even ignore them."
 
 

--------- Sam Goldwyn
 
 

Subject: re: trading

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:19:13 -0700

From: "Marsha M Hilmes, Hydrologist, Las Vegas, NV "<mmhilmes@usgs.gov>
 
 

Hi David,
 
 

I'd be interested in trading for some South Dakota minerals? What do you

have? I have very nice samples of hanksite and pink halite from Searles Lake, Trona, CA and pyrite dollars from Illinois. Let me know if you are

interested.
 
 

Marsha
 
 
 
 

********************************************************************

*opinions are my own and do not establish endorsement *

* *

*Marsha M. Hilmes | Internet:mmhilmes@usgs.gov *

*Hydrologist | U.S. Geological Survey *

* | 6770 S. Paradise Rd. *

*Phone: (702) 897-4025 | Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 *

********************************************************************
 
 
 
 

To: das6942@silver.sdsmt.edu

References: <199501172027.NAA47260@silver.sdsmt.edu>

Message-Id: <ABInF7luR3@minmuz.msk.su>

Organization: Fersman mineralogical museum

From: dmz <dmz@minmuz.msk.su>

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 14:32:34 +0300

X-Mailer: BML [MS/DOS Beauty Mail v.1.36]

Subject: Re: Trading minerals

Lines: 34
 
 

I am interested in trading some mineral samples with others. I have

numerous extras samples from the pegmatites of the Black Hills of South

Dakota. Such samples include schorl, triphylite, rose quartz, muscovite,

etc.
 
 

If you or a friend would be interested, please contact me at the email

address below for a complete list.
 
 

Good hunting and I look forward to hearing from you.
 
 

David A. Staska

das6942@silver.sdsmt.edu

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
 
 
 
 

Hi, David !
 
 

I am interesting to see your complete list for trading.

We have in our museum had some experience in trading with South Dakota

School of Mines and I think it would be good to continue.

By the way, are you going to Tucson show? We are going to be there

in Executive Inn (room 234)
 
 

Sincerely, Dimitri

_________________________________________________________________________

Dimitri Belakovskiy

Curatorof minerals dmz@minmuz.msk.su

FERSMAN MINERALOGICAL MUSEUM Phone: (095) 952-0067

Russian Academy of Science. Fax: (095) 952-4850

Russia, Moscow 117071

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

We are researching the impact of resumes and personal portfolios on the web.
 
 

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

PLEASE CHECK ONE ANSWER FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
 
 

1. How familiar are you with the web?

___Very __Somewhat __Not At All

2. How well do you know HTML?

__Very Well __Somewhat __Not At All

3. Do you have your own web pages?

__Yes __No

4. If you do not have your own, would you like to?

__Yes __No

__Always __Sometimes __Never

6. How do you or would you use your pages?

__Business __Research/Education

__Job Search/Resume __Entertainment __Other

7. Which do you feel would be more effective in a job search?

__Web Page/Electronic Resumes __Paper Resumes

8. Would it be beneficial to post a resume on the web?

__Yes __No

9. Would you have a more detailed resume on the web than on paper?

them easily?

__Yes __No

12. Would you be interested in information about publicizing web pages?

__Yes __No

13. Would you be interested in a guide on web page portfolios and resumes?

__Yes __No

14. Should personal web pages be reinstated at Tech?

__Yes __No
 
 
 
 

Thank you very much for filling out our survey. :-)
 
 

The results of our survey will be posted at

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 09:38:45 -0700

From: vstoltz (Vi Stoltz)

To: ljr5896

Subject: Peer Evaluation

Cc: Mday
 
 
 
 

Dear Becky,
 
 

I just received your letter for my evaluation. I just have a few suggestions

that might make it easier to read (from my point of view).
 
 

In paragraph 1 you used the phrase "team working exploring". I may flow better if you say "team working to explore." In paragraph 1 and 2 both, you used the phrase "have been unable to find". If you would like to change one to "can not locate", it may sound less repetitious.
 
 

In paragraph 2 in the last sentence you said, "It has either very sophisticated and complicated differential equations or it is . . .". Mechanically, I think it should be written as follows, "It is either very sophisticated and with complicated . . . . or it is . . ." (Incidentally, you need an "s" in sophisticated.) (You may wish to check with Dr. Day.)
 
 

Also, in paragraph 3, I believe there is another mechanical problem you may

wish to check with Dr. Day. It starts "If you have any recommendations . .

. that (referring to recommendations) addresses . . ." If I remember my

grammar correctly, it should read "that address" to keep them both in the

plural tense.
 
 

In the third paragraph, I think a comma after junior-senior level, would stress your point.
 
 

(Sorry for the unusual squiggles at the end of the above line.)
 
 

Becky, I hope this is some help to you, and I am not too critical.