From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Feb 27 19:48:04 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 l1S0m4VI018601 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:48:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1S0lv0n008989 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:47:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 19216 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 00:47:57 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 00:47:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 12338 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 00:47:57 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 00:47:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 18551 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 00:47:48 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 00:47:48 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3567674 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:47:48 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 21065 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 00:47:44 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 00:47:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 29477 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 00:47:43 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 00:47:43 -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 l1S0lhRo018598 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:47:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l1S0lhfk018597 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:47:43 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200702280047.l1S0lhfk018597@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:47:43 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: EXTENDED COGNITION To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2666/Tue Feb 27 18:37:37 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: RO Content-Length: 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: EXTENDED COGNITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Kandefer writes: | Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:47:55 -0500 | From: Michael W Kandefer | To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU | | I wouldn't go so far as to claim extended cognition refutes the position | that cognition is limited to our bodies as one must still visualize the | phone number before starting a procedure that involves the number in | question. I agree. I'd go further: All of our experience of the external world is "internalized" in our minds. I've written about this at length. Take a look at: Rapaport, William J. (2000), "How to Pass a Turing Test: Syntactic Semantics, Natural-Language Understanding, and First-Person Cognition", Special Issue on Alan Turing and Artificial Intelligence, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 9(4): 467-490. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/TURING.pdf | ... My thoughts expressed as | English words in this email are read and interpreted by you (and the rest | of our audience). The keyword is ' interpreted'. My sense of a word's | meaning may differ from yours [2] | [2] - Frege, Gottlob. 1892. On Sense and Reference. I agree, but I don't think that Frege is the best person to cite. For Frege, the "sense" of a word is belongs to the word, and no two people can disagree about what it is. They can, however, disagree about their individual "psychological" meaning for the word. | ... and a standard assumption by the | receiver of these words is that I'm using the same meaning, until there | is some form of communication breakdown... For my take on communication breakdowns, look at: Rapaport, William J. (2003), "What Did You Mean by That? Misunderstanding, Negotiation, and Syntactic Semantics", Minds and Machines 13(3): 397-427. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/negotiation-mandm.pdf