Reading Psycoloquy with WWW, Gopher or FTP:
There are many ftp, gopher and www mirror archives for Psycoloquy , but not all are up-to-date. A completely current ftp archive is always available from:
Reliable Psycoloquy gopher archives with full-text searchable WAIS indices include:
Target article length should normally not exceed 500 lines [c. 4500 words]. Commentaries and responses should not exceed 200 lines [c. 1800 words]. All target articles, commentaries and responses must have:
Psycoloquy also publishes multiple reviews of books in any of the above fields; these should normally be the same length as commentaries, but longer reviews will be considered as well. Book authors should submit a 500-line self-contained Precis of their book, in the format of a target article; if accepted, this will be published in Psycoloquy together with a formal Call for Reviews (of the book, not the Precis). The author's publisher must agree in advance to furnish review copies to the reviewers selected.
Authors of accepted manuscripts assign to Psycoloquy the right to publish and distribute their text electronically and to archive and make it permanently retrievable electronically, but they retain the copyright, and after it has appeared in Psycoloquy authors may republish their text in any way they wish -- electronic or print -- as long as they clearly acknowledge Psycoloquy as its original locus of publication. However, except in very special cases, agreed upon in advance, contributions that have already been published or are being considered for publication elsewhere are not eligible to be considered for publication in Psycoloquy ,
Please submit all material to psyc@pucc.bitnet
or
psyc@pucc.princeton.edu
sub psyc Firstname Lastname
(substituting your First and Last name, of course). These instructions do work, so please follow them faithfully! If for some reason you still do not succeed, send email to psyc@pucc.bitnet or pscy@pucc.princeton.edu and we will subscribe you by hand.
To un subscribe, send (again to listserv@pucc.bitnet , not to psyc@pucc.bitnet, which is only for submissions) the message:
unsub psyc
USENET:
Psycoloquy can also be accessed on Usenet as the moderated
newsgroup sci.psychology.journals.psycoloquy
,
but then you will regularly have to check Usenet for new issues, because
they are not automatically emailed to you as they are in the Bitnet version
(the Listserv access model is individual subscription, the Usenet access
model is an institutional library). The Usenet edition is sent to your
institution's Usenet archive, and kept there for a few weeks. After that,
it must be retrieved from the permanent Psycoloquy archives by ftp,
archie, gopher, or www.
ABSTRACT: Electronic networks have made it possible for scholarly periodical publishing to shift from a trade model, in which the author sells his words through the mediation of the expensive and inefficient technology of paper, to a collaborative model, in which the much lower real costs and much broader reach of purely electronic publication are subsidized in advance, by universities, libraries, research publication grants, and the scholarly societies in each specialty. To take advantage of this, paper publishing's traditional quality control mechanism, peer review, will have to be implemented on the Net, thereby recreating the hierarchies of journals that allow authors, readers, and promotion committees to calibrate their judgments rationally -- or as rationally as traditional peer review ever allowed them to do it. The Net also offers the possibility of implementing peer review more efficiently and equitably, and of supplementing it with what is the Net's real revolutionary dimension: interactive publication in the form of open peer commentary on published and ongoing work. Most of this "scholarly skywriting" likewise needs to be constrained by peer review, but there is room on the Net for unrefereed discussion too, both in high-level peer discussion forums to which only qualified specialists in a given field have read/write access, and in the general electronic vanity press.
ABSTRACT: When certain formal symbol systems ( e.g. , computer programs) are implemented as dynamic physical symbol systems ( e.g. , when they are run on a computer) their activity can be interpreted at higher levels ( e.g. , binary code can be interpreted as LISP, LISP code can be interpreted as English, and English can be interpreted as a meaningful conversation). These higher levels of interpretability are called "virtual" systems. If such a virtual system is interpretable as if it had a mind, is such a "virtual mind" real? This is the question addressed in this "virtual" symposium, originally conducted electronically among four cognitive scientists: Donald Perlis, a computer scientist, argues that according to the computationalist thesis, virtual minds are real and hence John Searle 's Chinese Room Argument fails, because if Searle memorized and executed a program that could pass the Turing Test in Chinese he would have a second, virtual, Chinese-understanding mind of which he was unaware (as in multiple personality). Stevan Harnad , a psychologist, argues that Searle's Argument is valid, virtual minds are just hermeneutic overinterpretations, and symbols must be grounded in the real world of objects, not just the virtual world of interpretations. Computer scientist Patrick Hayes argues that Searle's Argument fails, but because Searle does not really implement the program: A real implementation must not be homuncular but mindless and mechanical, like a computer. Only then can it give rise to a mind at the virtual level. Philosopher Ned Block suggests that there is no reason a mindful implementation would not be a real one.
esoteric 213 aj .es-*-'ter-ik
LL [italic esotericus], fr. Gk [italic es{o-}terikos], fr. [italic
es{o-}ter{o-}], compar. of [italic eis{o-}], [italic es{o-}] within,
fr. [italic eis] into, fr. [italic en] in -- more at [mini IN]
1 a aj designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone
1 b aj of or relating to knowledge that is restricted to a small group
2 a aj limited to a small circle
<~ pursuits>
2 b aj [mini PRIVATE], [mini CONFIDENTIAL]
esoterically 21313 av -i-k(*-)l{e-}
ABSTRACT: We have heard many sanguine predictions about the demise of paper publishing, but life is short and the inevitable day still seems a long way off. This is a subversive proposal that could radically hasten that day. It is applicable only to esoteric (non-trade, no-market) scientific and scholarly publication (but that is the lion's share of the academic corpus anyway), namely, that body of work for which the author does not and never has expected to sell his words. He wants only to publish them, that is, to reach the eyes and minds of his peers, his fellow esoteric scientists and scholars the world over, so that they can build on one another's contributions in that cumulative, collaborative enterprise called learned inquiry.For centuries, it was only out of reluctant necessity that authors of esoteric publications entered into the Faustian bargain of allowing a price-tag to be erected as a barrier between their work and its (tiny) intended readership, for that was the only way they could make their work public at all during the age when paper publication (and its substantial real expenses) was their only option. But today there is another way, and that is public ftp : If every esoteric author in the world this very day established a globally accessible local ftp archive for every piece of esoteric writing he did from this day forward, the long-heralded transition from paper publication to purely electronic publication (of esoteric research) would follow suit almost immediately. This is already beginning to happen in the physics community, thanks to Paul Ginsparg's HEP preprint archive , with 20,000 users worldwide and 35,000 "hits" per day, and Paul Southworth's CICnet is ready to help follow suit in other disciplines.
The only two factors standing in the way of this outcome at this
moment are (1) quality control ( i.e. , peer review and editing), which
today happens to be implemented almost exclusively by paper publishers,
and (2) the patina of paper publishing, which results from this monopoly
on quality control. If all scholars' preprints were universally available
to all scholars by anonymous ftp (and gopher, and World Wide Web, and the
search/retrieval wonders of the future), no scholar would ever consent
to withdraw any preprint of his from the public eye after the refereed
version was accepted for paper " public ation." Instead, everyone would,
quite naturally, substitute the refereed, published reprint for the unrefereed
preprint. Paper publishers will then either restructure themselves (with
the cooperation of the scholarly community) so as to arrange for the much-reduced
electronic-only page costs (which I estimate to be less than 25% of paper-page
costs, contrary to the 75% figure that appears in most current publishers'
estimates) to be paid out of advance subsidies (from authors' page charges,
learned society dues, university publication budgets and/or governmental
publication subsidies) or they will have to watch as the peer community
spawns a brand new generation of electronic-only publishers who will. The
subversion will be complete, because the (esoteric -- no-market) peer-reviewed
literature will have taken to the airwaves, where it always belonged, and
those airwaves will be free (to the benefit of us all) because their true
minimal expenses will be covered the optimal way for the unimpeded flow
of esoteric knowledge to all: In advance. See the book
edited by Okerson & O'Donnell for a hard copy of the full discussion.
See also the Psycoloquy US Archive at Princeton University Please e-mail comments or problems concerning this page to: harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk
This UK page has been accessed times.