From owner-cse575-fa07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Oct 3 19:06:14 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 l93N6DvS015104 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:06:13 -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 l93N66Zg003570 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:06:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 22429 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2007 23:06:01 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Oct 2007 23:06:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 11311 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2007 23:05:55 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Oct 2007 23:05:55 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2922375 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:05:55 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 27838 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2007 23:05:55 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Oct 2007 23:05:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 560 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Oct 2007 23:05:54 -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: 128.205.63.169 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: XX: 27% Message-ID: <1191452754.47042052c67dd@mail4.buffalo.edu> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:05:54 -0400 Reply-To: "Youngjin 'Sung' Kang" Sender: Introduction to Cognitive Science From: "Youngjin 'Sung' Kang" Subject: A few people can perform 'strong view of thinking' To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 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 0.90.2/4461/Wed Oct 3 04:50:48 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: RO Content-Length: 1795 "I suggest that on a strong view of thinking, mere calculating is not thinking (and pocket calculators don't think), but on a weak, but unexciting, sense of thinking, pocket calculators do think." - W.J. Rapaport, from the abstract of "Because Mere Calculating Isn't Thinking: Comments on Hauser's `Why Isn't My Pocket Calculator a Thinking Thing?'", Minds and Machines 3 Something is getting clear in my mind. It is that there are two types of people. There are people of one type, who usually do so-called 'a weak thinking'. Their process is following the rule and finding the concept formerly established to new things and environments. The process is almost automatic. The conclusion is instantly derived when the similar example in the past is found. It makes consensus. It makes collective behaviors. It makes cultures. It makes mass and crowds. These kind of thinkers are actually most of us. There are people of the other type, who usually do so-called 'a strong thinking'. Their process is autonomous process of finding answer and creating the new concept when the right answer is derived. The process is slow and gradual. The conclusion is made only when causal plausibility can be found. It makes different idea. It makes unique characters. It makes cultural changes. It makes philosophers and scientists. These kinds of thinkers are actually a few of us. Youngjin 'Sung' Kang Cultural Anthropology yjkang@buffalo.edu 716-310-9692 Academic Interrest : Psycholocial, mental cognitive aspect of culture, symbol, perception, representation. visual image, films, memories, reflection, projection. comparartive analysis of cultures. Buddhism culture. life cycle, various concepts of life and death etc.. From owner-cse575-fa07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Oct 4 13:03:52 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 l94H3q5T001089 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:03:52 -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 l94Gxq0g014860 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 5066 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2007 16:59:47 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 4 Oct 2007 16:59:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 29331 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2007 16:59:44 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 4 Oct 2007 16:59:44 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2949688 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:44 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 21667 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2007 16:59:44 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 4 Oct 2007 16:59:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 20508 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2007 16:59:43 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 4 Oct 2007 16:59:43 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l94GxhgM000855 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l94GxhcZ000854 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:43 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200710041659.l94GxhcZ000854@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:43 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: Introduction to Cognitive Science From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: A few people can perform 'strong view of thinking' To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.2/4472/Thu Oct 4 10:45:39 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 3191 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: A few people can perform 'strong view of thinking' ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:05:54 -0400 | From: "Youngjin 'Sung' Kang" | | "I suggest that on a strong view of thinking, mere | calculating is not thinking (and pocket calculators don't think), but | on a weak, but unexciting, sense of thinking, pocket calculators do | think." | - W.J. Rapaport, from the abstract of "Because Mere Calculating Isn't | Thinking: Comments on Hauser's `Why Isn't My Pocket Calculator a | Thinking Thing?'", Minds and Machines 3 You quote me on this, but I'm not sure that you read my paper. In my paper, I define "minimal" or "weak" thinking as exhibiting at least one mental ability, and I define "maximal" or "strong" thinking as exhibiting all or most mental abilities. Now, whether or not I still believe this is one issue (I wrote this over 15 years ago). But I'm not sure how your comments below are relevant to these definitions (as opposed to some other that you might have in mind). | There are people of one type, who usually do so-called 'a weak | thinking'. Their process is following the rule and finding the concept | formerly established to new things and environments. Are you saying that rule-following is a kind of thinking? | The process is | almost automatic. Rule-following by machine might be automatic, but rule-following by humans isn't necessarily so. | The conclusion is instantly derived when the | similar example in the past is found. It makes consensus. It makes | collective behaviors. It makes cultures. It makes mass and crowds. | These kind of thinkers are actually most of us. This is a very large leap. How does rule-following "make consensus" (what does that even mean?)? How does that, in turn, "make collective behavior" (and what does *that* mean?)? And how does "culture" arise from that? And what do you mean by "makes mass and crowds"? Gathering a lot of people together makes a crowd. What does that have to do with rule-following? What evidence do you have that, for "most of us", thinking is (nothing but?) rule-following? (And what does any of this have to do with my old notion of minimal/weak thinking?) | There are people of the other type, who usually do so-called 'a strong | thinking'. Their process is autonomous process of finding answer and | creating the new concept when the right answer is derived. How does this differ from your notion of rule-following? "Autonomous" sounds like it could me "automatic, i.e., unthinking" rule-following. Or did you mean something more like "independent" thought, in the sense of making decisions for oneself as opposed to following rules? If so, how do you know that what *seems* like such independent thought isn't the result of "following rules"? What do you mean by "creating the new concept"? Or "right answer"? (Is there always a "right" answer?) | The conclusion is made only when causal | plausibility can be found. I don't know what you mean by "causal plausibility".