From owner-cse575-fa07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Sep 6 16:41:08 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 l86Kf8CH003592 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id l86Kf10H062050 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:41:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 17455 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2007 20:41:01 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 6 Sep 2007 20:41:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 2767 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2007 20:40:56 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 6 Sep 2007 20:40:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 10720 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2007 20:40:53 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 6 Sep 2007 20:40:53 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2102714 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:40:53 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 25658 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2007 20:40:52 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 6 Sep 2007 20:40:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 20214 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Sep 2007 20:40:52 -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: 128.205.107.26 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1189111252.46e065d445949@mail4.buffalo.edu> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:40:52 -0400 Reply-To: yjkang@BUFFALO.EDU Sender: Introduction to Cognitive Science From: "Kang, Jin Young" Subject: Youngjin 'Sung' Kang : 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 1336; 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 0.90.2/4173/Thu Sep 6 14:35:28 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: NotJunk X-UID: 15911 Content-Length: 2669 “What aspects of human thinking are most difficult for computers to perform or model? What would it take to convince you that a computer is intelligent?"(Q.4, p21, Thagard) One such a aspect involves any tasks concerning human's biological reproduction (sex, marriage etc..). How can computer find perfect partner for you. You really can believe the decision the computer have granted? I watched one documentary on human sexual behavior on 'Discovery Channel'. The documentary showed certain inference about how human found the partner of opposite sex through one simple experiment. An Woman was represented pictures of five males and she selected one picture from which she feel most attractive. The next, she was assigned to smell the sent on the anonymous T-shirts put on these five guys for a couple days (so, virtually dirty) and she again select one T-shirt with most comfortable sent felt by her. Surprisingly, the picture and the T- shirts were exactly matched into one single guy and the documentary concluded that biologically determined natural instinct worked on the search for his/her perfect partner of opposite sex. Who you should get along, date with and marry involve infinite thinking process (more simply speaking many 'sleepless nights'!!) and you eventually conclude who is yours. This thinking involves very complex and variable factors which can be widely dispersed one way to reasonable evaluation and the other to irresistible emotional yearning. In the computer, the personal data can be input to be analyzed, but it is not so convincing to determine to be possible for other factors which are biologically and genetically associated. Also the aspects of moral decision will be seemingly something which is hardly defined as mere reasons set up by computational explanation. Moral standard closely associated to personal life is often proposition already set up even BEFORE cognizing something and also these propositions (so-called moral mind-set) exist with such a variety along with cultures, religions, family backgrounds and individual's personalities. Is computational view of human cognition actually exaggerating reasonable part of human mind? Reason and emotion often make conflicting dilemma, and emotion often win (among human, but not in computer), that could be called 'humanity'. The reminder is heart- moving anecdote pictured in 'Les Misérables' in which the Catholic priest lied and gave his additional properties to the one by whom he had already been stolen his properties. This is nothing reasonable. Isn't it? Youngjin 'Sung' Kang Cultural Anthropology