Bradford Books

I have read some excellent books and survey papers describing particular domains of the evolutionary computation field, but this book try to give us a "Unified Approach" of this field.
I find very interesting the author's idea to model the evolutionary process with a dynamic (nonlinear!)system so that "...given particular initial conditions the system follows a trajectory over time through a complex evolutionary state space. One can than study various aspects of these processes such as their convergence properties, their sensitivity to initial conditions, their transient behavior and so on."[pg. 2 of the book]. And, I can add, why not "chaotically behaviors".

Prof. Alexandru Serbanescu, Ph.D.,
IEEE Senior Member of CAS and Computational Intelligence Societies

This book shows a unified view of genetic algorithms, genetic programming, and related fields. It includes some discussion of the historical development of the disciplines and presents the theory behind them.

However, while it does fit an undergrad course, it is not a book for practitioners, since most algorithms are not explained in detail.

De Jong shows how to apply the metaphor of biological evolution to many problems outside biology. He shows that in some other context, there are a few crucial issues to be determined. Firstly, what is an individual? Perhaps a particular algorithm, with certain parameter values. Then, what does it mean to have competing individuals? What is the system within which you are determining the "fitness" of an individual. Finally, how to successful individuals pass on their traits, and can these be mixed between such individuals? The latter is of course the analog of sexual reproduction.

The text describes evolutionary algorithms can be deployed as problem solvers, if you can settle the issues in the previous paragraph. These set the stage for the bulk of your computations.

This collection begins with an essay by David Chalmers defending the view that no reductive, materialistic account of consciousness can ever be successful.

The rest of the book is made up of over two dozen responses to Chalmers's essay--some supportive, some critical, and some derisive. These responses are written by some of the biggest names in the field, and are followed by a concluding essay, again by Chalmers, in which he tries to defend his own views against what has gone before.

Because of the variety of viewpoints (materialism, dualism, mysterianism) and approaches (neurophysiology, analytical philosophy, quantum mechanics), this collection provides a wonderful introduction to some of the most important aspects of recent work in consciounsess studies. Just check out the table of contents.

As a reductionist myself, I found Patricia Churchland's argument particularly hard to counter, and I think that anyone, regardless of their perspective, will find food for thought in Mark C. Price's wonderful piece.

All in all, the best introduction I have ever encountered to the philosophical study of consciousness.

Daniel Dennett's physicalist model of the mind (having its basis in Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Neural Networks) claims to explain everything about the working of the mind. Can everything mental be explained by this model? i.e, can all mental properties be reduced to the four entities that constitute the physical: (1) Mass (2) Space (3) Time (4) Electric Charge ?

Not everything has been explained by this model, sayeth David Chalmers. In a famous paper published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies in 1995, Chalmers argued that the "Hard" problem of consciousness remains untouched by physicalist models of the mind --

"Why does the performance of [brain] functions result in experience?"

In other words, why do experiences such as the "sweetness of sugar", or "smell of mothballs", or "blueness of the sky" arise out of the firing of neurons? Why should "experience" arise out of a physical system at all?

Chalmers got 26 responses for his paper, and he even responded to all the responses in a subsequent paper. This book contains all these papers on the subject.

The "Hard" problem of consciousness has been around for a long time. Frank Jackson, Sydney Shoemaker, Joseph Levine have all pointed this out before, and Chalmers has merely highlighted the problem. But he has done a pretty good job of it, for even Daniel Dennett is having a "hard" problem being able to sleep nowadays!

I dropped a star because Chalmers' idea of including "experience" as a fundamental entity is not covered well or convincingly.

This book was just about my first taste of the consciousness wars. Or no. I’ve been reading about consciousness for about ten years. But it made too much sense to me. My retinas see you, my visual cortex sees my retinas, but who sees my visual cortex? Where does the buck stop? Because the buck does stop. Once it hit me that vision is vision, something you wouldn’t expect from a brain of mere structure and function, electrons moving around, drugs being administered, I embraced magic, and demanded that we are souls, things beyond law. A point-of-view can be such an amazing thing to have that I can even slip into the thought, ‘Only one POV can exist, they’re so unbelievable.’ But as Smith said, ‘There’s no such thing as a leaf, there are only leaves.’

This book is a delightful bunch of mental flowerings. David Chalmers is the nuclear furnace sun around which the rest of these characters orbit. Although it can seem like some are in different galaxies altogether. His explanation is ‘Information is phenomenal.’ He deftly eludes every attack the others come up with, although this book is not the final round. He admits that his theory is probably wrong, but says this type of speculation is just what we need. My problem is, ‘Info is phenomenal, but where does the subject come from, you need a subject for anything phenomenal to be noticed.’

(...)Chalmers is a true scholar and looks like he reads everything written about the subject. If you can’t afford the book, there are hundreds of online papers he’s collected. My final line to you is ‘The war is not just in your head.’

This is the second book about Kat in the Stardust Classics series. The Kat books are about a ten-year-old girl and her aunt who have adventures traveling through time.

Kat and her Aunt Jessie are on another time travel adventure. This time, they have arrived in 13th century China, and have met Marco Polo, who is living there at the court of Kublai Khan, ruler of the land. Marco Polo takes Kat and Jessie, whom he believes to be travelers from Europe, to the court of the Khan, who has an interest in foreign visitors. However, a mistake leads the Khan to believe Kat and her aunt have magical powers. Because of this, the Khan's two favorite astrologers having bitter feelings towards the Kat and Jessie. Kat does make a friend at court - Chin, a teenaged princess. Chin was to marry the ruler of Persia. However, the astrologers interfere, and to gain power, one of them convinces the Khan to have Chin marry a governor of one of China's provinces instead, a man who is known to be cruel. And now the Khan is preventing Marco Polo and his two relatives from leaving China, but Kat knows from history books they were supposed to leave at this time. Can Kat and her aunt fix the problems they have caused for Chin and the Polos and prevent history from being changed?

This is a charming book that is sure to be enjoyed by young girls who like to read time travel adventures or historical fiction. This book teaches a lot about what life was like in 13th century China, and also a bit about the travels of Marco Polo. Kat is an appealing character, and I look forward to reading the two remaining books about her time travel adventures.

I really enjoyed this book. It showed a nice, loving relationship between aunt and niece. I liked the way the author stayed true to the time period and was conscious of not changing history. The author presents all female characters in positve manner. I feel this important to the young girls who will be reading these books.

I have recommended this series of books to my nieces and so far they have enjoyed the ones they have read.

I have included them in my children's book collection right next to the American Girl series and the Magic Attic Club.

I bought this book for my 7 year old daughter while on vacation in California. Once we started reading it together we could not put it down. It has really interested her in the history of the period-13th century China- and the book has a very useful appendix called "The story behind the story" which explains what is known about Marco Polo. This stimulated a discussion about how much was real and how much was fiction in the book itself. Not many books have provoked such insights! The other big plus is that it is not overly sentimental or soppy but still managed to engage my daughter with its combination of suspense and magic. We've ordered all the other books by this author.

This is the first book about Kat in the Stardust Classics series. The Kat books are about a ten-year-old girl and her aunt who have adventures travelling through time.

Ten-year-old Kat Thompson is living with her Aunt Jessie while her parents, who are college professors, spend a year researching in the Amazon rainforest. Jessie is a scientist, and she is working on an invention she found in her house -- a time machine. When Kat learns what Aunt Jessie is working on, she is very excited. But while helping Jessie figure out how to make it work, she accidentally activates the time machine, and she and her aunt are sent back in time. They arrive in London just in time for the Great Exhibition of 1851. Aunt Jessie agrees they can stay a couple of days to see the Exhibition. But then they lose their time machine. If they don't get it back, they will be trapped in the past forever.

This is a charming book that is sure to be enjoyed by young girls who like to read time travel adventures or historical fiction. This book teaches quite a bit about the Great Exhibition and what life was like for people of various social classes in Victorian London. Kat is an appealing character, and I look forward to reading the other three books about her time travel adventures.

This book is about a girl who travels in time to the world fair in England. They lose their time machine. Will they get back to the future?

This book is about a girl who travels in time to the world fair in England. They lose their time machine. Will they get back to the future?

This book provides a simple, self-contained and coherent framework for belief revision. The ability to model how an intelligent entity should revise its beliefs as it learns more about its environment is a fundamental goal of Artifical Intelligence.

This book provides a simple, self-contained and coherent framework for belief revision. The ability to model how an intelligent entity should revise its beliefs as it learns more about its environment is a fundamental goal of Artifical Intelligence.

This ambitious book attempts to model belief dynamics. It is largely formal in character and includes sections devoted to applying the modeling to specific kinds of beliefs and is thus quite complete in that sense. However, the modelling is at best a (to speak metaphorically) a 'zero-order' approximation. In particular, the notions of minimality discussed seem to suffer from vagueness.

Drew McDermott's book draws on everything from Nietzche to the latest work in robotics to give us a startingly creative theory of how the purely mechanical brain gives rise to a conscious mind that has an experience of itself as a spiritual being. Once he states his prime insight, it seems so simple and straightforward that it's hard to remember what a revolutionary idea he is putting forward. His thoughts about God and the possibility of eternal life for the "soul" in a mechanical universe are provocative. His use of examples always works to make his complex ideas clearer. A very important book which takes a lot of fear out of the idea that human thought and feeling is a mechanical process.

This is simply the least inspiring book on AI that I have seen. The title is a misnomer (there is very little about mechanism), most of the ideas are not new, and his main points are that minds are computational machines and that people will make intelligent machines at some point. To quote his second to last page, "Those who worry about long-term phenomena such as the sun using up all its fuel and the ability of the human race to genetically reengineer itself might want to know exactly what time scale I have in mind for the creation of truly intelligent robots. The answer is that I don't have one. I doubt that anything like intelligent robots will exist in my lifetime, but I'm not that young and my health isn't that good." Poor guy. Perhaps he wanted to spit out his ideas before dieing, but they are poorly organized, not very well developed, and add very little to an understanding of AI that couldn't be gained from Dennet (who I disagree with most of the time, but still think is brilliant and is much more provocative) or a text on AI. OK, some of his ideas on computation are interesting. Be very skeptical of a book that starts talking about God as though... well let me give another quote: "I find the world to be morally incomprehensible without being able to adopt God's view of it, and physically inexplicable unless there is something outside of it that explains why it exists... The only way to reconcile God's silence with his existence is to assume that he poured himself into the world when he created it..." He is writing this in his Consequences part of the book. This stance, which is maintained throughout the book, is one of incredible hubris (as though he can adopt God's view of the world, as though God exists, as though the Western religious stance is the correct stance on spirituality), and for those interested in learning about mind and mechanism, keep looking.

Mind and Mechanism is an excellent look at the mind-body problem from the viewpoint of a computer scientist. McDermott does a very good job not just explaining his hypotheses, but also showing how they compete with well know philosophical points of view as well. In Mind and Mechanism, McDermott makes the bold, yet not so far fetched, assumption that the brain is simply an enormous computational machine. Thus, all the things that people regard as stemming from their internal "mind" are simply by-products of a self-modeling of the world within our computational structure, the brain. McDermott does an amazing job supporting his thesis with thorough and exhaustive examples, without falling into the pit trap of overextending metaphors. McDermott even includes a section in his book titled "Objections and Replies". This section is brilliant in its placement and content in that it addresses many of my early concerns with his reasoning, allowing me to continue with the second half of the book without dwelling on my objections to the first half of the book. Though the book gets off to a fairly slow start and some material might be a bit too technical for people not familiar with formal computer models to immediately grasp, this is a great read for anyone interested in another point of view on the mind-body problem.

For me, the most interesting thing about this book was the attempt to establish a dialog between neuroscience and philosopy, wherein philosophy is able to sharpen questions posed by neuroscientists, and in turn the findings of neuroscience help shape philosophical questions. One of the more successful examples of this dialog is in "theory of mind," really first brought to the fore by philosophers, then turned into empirical questions that have been addressed experimentally by both developmental psychologists and neuroscientists. However, I have to say I found some of the philosophical contributions in this book rather heavy going, though I imagine those with more of a philosophy background would have the same to say about the neuroscientific chapters! I agree that the contributors are top-notch, with two of them (Edelman and Crick) Nobelists. Several of them have more expansive versions of their theories presented elsewhere...e.g. Damasio in his "The Feeling of What Happens" and Edelman in "A Universe of Consciousness", though the chapters here are nice, brief summaries of their ideas.

This book is really great - it is a tour de force through all disciplines related to consciousness research, including philosophy of science and of mind, neuroscience, cognitive and neuropsychology. It is safe to say that it is written not only by some of the most important researchers in the field (which is true of many books), but also by MOST of them. The list of contributors is really remarkable, and a number of chapters are important updates of their current theories. There are also some chapters including new research data of high quality, some citable as important original work available nowhere else! I think this book should grace any library on consciousness research, not only for its interdisciplinary architecture but also as reflecting the state of art in this area.

I absolutely loved this book. Nowhere else had I read such an interesting and complete review of where the field of consciousness studies presently stands. The first part of the book, mostly by philosophers, shows that fruitfull interactions are possible betwween science and philosophy. The part on visual consciousness is impressive, shedding much light on new theories and possibilities. In part 2, Damasio, Crick, Edelman and Singer introduce their candidates for the NCC masterfully. The last and more philosophically inclined part of the book, reviews some usually overlooked issues, but unfortunately ends up being mostly speculative. Overall, however,in my opinion this book is the most important contribution to consciousness literature to date.

This book is not for the faint of heart, and if you believe that reading is an intellectual investment rather than just a casual pastime you will certainly benefit from this book. Once you get past Smith's academic language you realize that he has a very important message - that all computational systems are based upon a fundamental philosophical foundation, or ontology as he puts it. Every computational system we design and use is based upon our perceptions(subject) of objects - and the objects and models that arise from the subject-object no-man's land. There is no true platonic ideal, but rather a fuzzy metaphysical boundarys and objects that kinda work sometimes. If you are looking for a book that makes you take a big step in your day to day thinking and how you apply it, this is the book

Fascinating!, Riveting!, Exquisite!. But. This is not an easy book. This is not an easy reading. From the first page, B. Smith throws at the reader the whole apparatus of the philosophical jargon. And it does not ease up towards the end. So, if you are not a philosopher but merely a computer scientist you could be lost. The difficulty of the topic (more about it later) is magnified by the writing style: Smith's style does not have a clarity of Gallileo letters. Nor does it have the brilliance and illuminating simplicity of Russell's essays. It is more like a style of someone who is struggling with his topic and with the language. You have an impression that the author is trying to shake the shackles of the language to express some deep thoughts that are intuitively understandable but are impossible to express, that those ideas he is trying to tell us about, are beyond the normal grasp of the language, beyond its expressive powers. And he makes us fully participate in this struggle. So what is the topic of the book? Smith attempts to answer the oldest of questions man/woman dared to ask- the question of what is out there. And while the question for a long time remained mainly of interest to philosophers, with the advent of computers and computer models it entered the mainstream of the human thought. Anyone who has been struggling with the computer (or computerized) representations and computer models of any system or any process (in fact of anything), will appreciate Smith's discourse.

Smith's thesis is that there is nothing out there such as a box, a house, a river, a cloud, etc.(examples are a bit simplistic and Smith goes beyond them). What is out there is a " constant flux" and we, through our participation in the flux, by our intentional stance "make things" out of it. We segment the reality into what make sense to us because of our intentions (intention in a larger, than everyday, sense) Thus, every struggle to nail down the models of reality using Yes/No abstract logic, will fail because the One reality has multiple realizations, each of them is true and the key to them (and what is missing in our Yes/No models) is the "participation" or the intentional stance. Smith asks questions that strike at the very heart of our understanding of the world and at the very essence of what we think computers are, do, or can do, and how they do. If you are brave enough to probe the same depths of human experience this book is for you.

The argumentation is uneven, but the good stretches contain
enough new ideas to make it a good read. The core of
the book is the notion that referential links have to
be *maintained*. A subsidiary theme is that your metaphysics
should satisfy two constraints: it should make sense of
computer science, and it should allow for the world being
intrinsically very, very messy. If you like Bruno Latour,
and you're interested in metaphysics and epistemology, you'll probably like this. (If you dislike Latour, you'll probably dislike this.)

~Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution~ by M.E. Bradford, is an insightful look at the historical dynamics of the constitutional ratification process as it transpired between 1788-1790, as the thirteen states were admitted to the Union.

It is no accident that Bradford chose the title "Original Intentions" as opposed to "Original Intent," for his book begins an effort to elucidate a partial understanding of the respective ratifiers in the thirteen ratifying conventions.

The biggest problem I have encountered with contemporary historiography regarding the United States Constitution, is there is so much nationalist revisionism about the nature of the constitutional framing and ratification process. The reason Originalism is in such tatters intellectually as a constitutional hermeneutic, is that some professed Originalists are not really cognizant of original intent, or at best, they craftily misrepresent or selectively recollect it. Moreover, the role and purpose of the Philadelphia Convention which deliberated and framed that noble document is misunderstood (or in some cases just plain misrepresented.) In Federalist #40, Madison accurately stated that the Philadelphia Convention had no authority but to draft a Constitution and its powers were "merely advisory and recommendatory." It was the thirteen respective states assembled in convention to whom ratification was submitted. Madison also disclaimed the value of his notes from the Philadelphia Convention to draft the Constitution. Madison contended that we should look for original intent not in the deliberations and proceedings of the convention to draft the Constitution, but in the text itself and in the proceedings of the state ratifying conventions to ascertain the intentions animating the Constitution. Madison observed, "...the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses." In point of emphasis, "all the authority which it possesses."

Though, many consolidationist proposals were made and rejected by such schemers as Alexander Hamilton, James McClurg, Gouverneur Morris, and James Wilson at Philadelphia. Amongst constitutional scholars, their nationalist heirs act as though the mere mention of something that was rejected at Philadelphia gives constitutionality to the nationalist schemes, just because the ambition was there in Philadelphia. The first nationalist subterfuge was to misname their opponents as Anti-Federalists, when the mild Federalists and Anti-Federalists all contended for the federal character of the Union.

Following the adoption of the Constitution, the nationalists (i.e, consolidators) later sought to transform that document by another subterfuge, namely loose construction or re-interpretation of the supreme law. It was a specious attack upon the Constitution and residual state sovereignty.

Justice Joseph Story once said of the commerce power and his understanding that original intent gave credence to protectionist measures: "If the constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a injustice upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" So, how much more of a injustice is it to trampled upon the reserved rights and powers of the states, and claim powers that were explicitly rejected by the ratifiers of the Constitution? The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution from the Wisconsin Historical Society opens our eyes to the representations made to the ratifiers. Among other radical ideas held by the ratifiers was that the ratifying states reserved the right to bolt and secede from the Union, if it ever subverted the ends for which it was created.

Forget Republicans and Democrats. Forget even liberals and conservatives. What we truly need, and will likely never have, are politicians who understand the principles of which M.E. Bradford chronicles here in ORIGINAL INTENTIONS: ON THE MAKING AND RATIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The crux of that principle is a simple one. The purpose of the origination and ratification of the United States Constitution was to provide a method of governing the government, not to govern the people.

The classic work of Bradford's provides indepth study and unequivocal evidence of the original intentions (plural) of the Constitutional framers and the state conventions that ratified it. To be certain, each state differed from the next and, as such, interpreted differently the documents exact meaning.

Bradford also makes case on the unconstitutionality, if you will, of the post-civil war "reconstruction amendments" and how, but subjecting the states to the will of the Bill of Rights, post-bellum politicians completely bastardized the Constitution. Certainly it was NEVER the intention of any of the thirteen ratifying bodies to subjugate states' rights.

Bradford's work here presents an undeniable case that the constitution was set more as a federal limitation standard rather than the omnipotent body we find today.

In the forward of this fine book, Forrest MacDonald quotes Webster with a remark that we are to, "defend the Constitution of the United States. For without it, the world would surely fall into a state of anarchy." Sadly, as Bradford illustrated to us in 1993, we're growing dangerously close to that point.

This is, an indepth study. This is not intended for the casual reader of constitutional law or its origins. Be prepared for deep reflection and tons of note taking.

Bradford approaches the subject of Constitutional interpretation from a perspective that differs from conventional wisdom. James Madison said the constitution should be interpreted in light of the spirit and intent of the state ratifying conventions, and it is in this vein that Bradford offers his analysis. By focusing on the debates in the various states, he shows that today's courts are virtually ignoring the original intentions of the founders, as well as the intent of the authors of the "Reconstruction" amendments. This book is not thick, but it is heavy. Not easy reading, but well worth the effort - keep notes!

This book has deeply effected my life, his propheticly haunting words are poetry in motion. His insights have guided me and his life inspired me. I cannot recommend this book to enough people. My advice is too buy this book as soon as possible, you will never be the same. On the philosophcal side it is enlightening and heartning, forging deep into the matters of the heart and spirit. Five stars is not enough for this masterpiece.

God is building faith into my daily life. And by writing PRAYER THAT SHAPES THE FUTURE Brad Long and Doug McMurray have been great architects and general contractors. I read the third section of the book first--"How To Gain God's Vision and Bring It To Birth." These seven chapters helped me to see that it is in prayer that God births his visions for a new ministry or a way for us to simply care for another person or persons. And then Long and McMurray offer a step-by-step process path to help us make concrete the received vision: write it down, share it with others, form a prayer group, observe relevant models, refine the vision, and then start. This book is a wonderful faith-building resource with sound biblical direction and practical advice for helping believers live by faith and express faith through love in tangible life-giving ways.

Holy Spirit directed prayer is the vehicle through which God's vision(s) for his world become realities . . . first by our careful listening to the Spirit's direction for the vision; secondly by our discerning and confirming the vision with other Holy Spirit filled believers; and finally by praying the vision into reality. Long and McMurry carefully lead one through each of these steps and empower the believer to a fuller and deeper relationship with Christ.