From owner-cse575-fa07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Sep 2 18:08:52 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l82M8qhG029375 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2007 18:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id l82M8kq6018497 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2007 18:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 242 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2007 22:08:46 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Sep 2007 22:08:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 131 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2007 22:08:46 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Sep 2007 22:08:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 15050 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2007 22:08:44 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Sep 2007 22:08:44 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 1956930 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 2 Sep 2007 18:08:43 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 9882 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2007 22:08:43 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Sep 2007 22:08:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 12206 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Sep 2007 22:08:42 -0000 X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 128.205.63.116 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1188770922.46db346a6cf00@mail4.buffalo.edu> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 18:08:42 -0400 Reply-To: yjkang@BUFFALO.EDU Sender: Introduction to Cognitive Science From: "Kang, Jin Young" Subject: Youngjin 'Sung' Kang : The Experience Not To Do Comments: cc: tedlockb@buffalo.edu, neofotis@buffalo.edu, frake@buffalo.edu, dpollock@buffalo.edu, ezhang@buffalo.edu, tlanz@buffalo.edu, kmglaser@buffalo.edu, mergenov@buffalo.edu, aylward2@buffalo.edu To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.2/4133/Sun Sep 2 12:44:55 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1786 "When people solve a problem, they are usually able to learn from experience and thereby solve it much more easily the next time. For example, the first time.....(continued)" (p17 on Thagard's 'MIND') The more you have learned and done something, the less you get involved. What happen in this case? >From input and output prospective, surely accompanying computational algorithm embedded in between of those as computational view, even same data structure or mental representation often cause different cognitive reactions on different individuals. Apart from any others, your increasing experience could make less interested, become lazy, eventually abandon the task. If same input lead different reaction, in this case, the data reached to another algorithm, hence different computational task has occurred. but it is worth putting on a question what kind of cognitive sources of human make this shift from one algorithm to another. If you are urged to help someone in the fire, as fireman/woman, you would stop being involved before crossing the threshold over which you risk your life. There may be someone obsessively attempting to find most intelligible answer only to save the victim at the expense of his/her life. Already different cognitions are working, two algorithms are working with same data structure. Computational prospective seems to achieve very close look at explicable human cognition but of small part of it, I humbly suspect. If there one way to go, human variations never occur, the variations occur, is that just different intelligent capacity for finding right answer? Isn't this tradition still webbed from conventional european tradition, "human are naturally reasonable being"? Youngjin 'Sung' Kang Cultural Anthropology