<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Hans,<br>
<br>
Thank you very much for your points. <br>
<br>
I have a basic disagreement with <font face="Arial">Roger
Penrose. I am now giving him a CC so that he can join our
discussion. Prof. Penrose, please let me know if you like to be
dropped from this discussion. <br>
<br>
I suggest that Prof. </font><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial">Roger
Penrose</font> should learn neuroscience first and then
re-examine his positions.<br>
<br>
In particular, the Godel's incompleteness theory that he cited has
a fundamental problem. Kurt Godel proved his </font><font
face="Arial"><font face="Arial">incompleteness theory in 1931. I
guess that his idea was inspired from a paradox that </font></font><font
face="Arial"><font face="Arial">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell"
title="Bertrand Russell">Bertrand Russell</a> discovered in
1901, now called Russell's paradox:</font></font><br>
<font face="Arial"><font face="Arial">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<img class="tex" alt="\text{let } R = \{ x \mid x \not \in x \}
\text{, then } R \in R \iff R \not \in R"
src="cid:part2.00060800.04040803@cse.msu.edu"><br>
Put in an intuitive way, Russell defined a set so that a
particular logic question cannot be answered as simply yes or
no. </font></font><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font
face="Arial">Kurt Godel did a similarly thing.<br>
<br>
Think about a simpler version of the paradox: I define the
set of my sisters based on the condition that the person is
NOT my sister. Then, "is the person my sister?" cannot be
answered. <br>
<br>
There are many ways to object to </font></font></font><font
face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font
face="Arial">Roger Penrose's position. My first objection
could be: "In the Brain's self-organization principles:
there is no absolutely right or wrong" as I argued in <br>
</font></font></font></font><font face="Arial"><font
face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<a
href="http://www.brain-mind-magazine.org/read.php?file=BMM-V1-N2-paper5-Obama.pdf#view">The
2nd Open Letter to the US President Obama: Why US Should
Be Friendly with Every Government?</a> <br>
In other words, there is no absolute yes or no answer for a
brain. For any natural-world question, two brains can come
up with two different answers: one answers yes and the other
no. Therefore, mathematical logic seems too simple and too
rigid as a tool for studying brain-mind. <br>
<br>
Your questions are great ones. I am afraid that not all my
answers below are correct or agreeably by many experts on
this email list. Just for the purpose of discussion, I try
to give my response. Let me know if I am wrong. You all
are welcome to BMI this summer so that we can further our
interesting discussion. <br>
</font></font></font></font><br>
<font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font
face="Arial"><font face="Arial">1) Can the mind be modelled
directly or only indirectly (via the brain)? If the
latter, why? <br>
</font> <br>
Weng: Yes. Any model of the nature is an approximation,
including more basic phenomena described by Newtonian
physics. I gave a simplified model about the rise of a mind
from a grounded emerging brain in<a
href="http://www.brain-mind-institute.org/press.html">
Natural and Artificial Intelligence<br>
</a></font></font></font></font><br>
<div><font face="Arial">2) Can the the mind (as distinct from the
brain) be modelled wholly or only partly? If the latter, why?<br>
<br>
Weng: Only partially, since we humans can never say that we have
a complete understanding about the nature. </font><font
face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font
face="Arial">Newtonian physics is an example. An
interesting point is then whether we can model to a large
degree so that the difference from the nature is not very
obvious to us. <br>
</font></font></font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">3) In the ongoing mind-body debate, to which
camp do you belong?<br>
<br>
Weng: I think that mind is impossible without the corresponding
body. This does not mean that a robot body has to be developed
(a designed body seems to be more practical for robots at the
current stage of technology). I also belong to an optimistic
camp, since the basic principles to give rise to probably the
first-order mind seem to be relatively simple. Do not laugh at
me at this point. Come to the BMI to convince yourself. <br>
</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">4) Do you think we are (very
complicated) robots? If so, what makes these robots acting
and behaving?<br>
<br>
Weng: Yes, we are "meat robots" in a sense. Five factors made
us: (1) environment, (2) sensors, (3) effectors, (4)
developmental mechanisms such as those of a cell<br>
(I called it developmental program), and (5) how we are taught.
Although those cellular mechanisms in (4) are relatively simple,
many cells work together to give rise to amazing minds. <br>
</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">5) If we are robots, physically
determined, where does our sense of liberty, justice or
compassion come from?<br>
<br>
Weng: Largely from the above 5 factors, but experience played a
critical role. We thought that we have independent minds. But
in fact, we do not really. Each individual mind is heavily
shaped by the environment, including mother, father, brothers
and sisters, and peers. When one says "I want ...", what he
wants is largely determined by the environment from which he is
raised and the current environmental context. <br>
</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">6) In the sentence 'the mind models the
mind' subject equals object, right? How can?<br>
<br>
Weng: Great question! That is why understanding one's own mind
using one's own mind seems to be one of the last scientific
problems facing humanity. Fortunately, humans have spent so
much money and resource in studying the nature including human
nature. Now, we seem to be very close to solving this mystery
"in the first order sense" but in precise computational terms.
Yes, brain-mind phenomena can also be simulated and demonstrated
by developmental robots (not traditional non-developmental
robots). But this demonstration needs resource and time. We
need to "raise" our robots like the way we "raise" our children
in our human environments. <br>
</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">7) If mind and culture are somehow related
(I think they are pretty much the same), what could be the
relationship between nature (brain) and culture? And would it be
(theoretically) possible to formalise this relationship?</font></div>
<font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font
face="Arial"><br>
Weng: a mind is what its corresponding brain does. Culture
seems to be the common knwoledge and common behaviors among
many brains in a society. The physical brains enable the
rise of culture after many generations of brains interact
with the environment in this world (including other brains
and bodies). Like culture, traditions, languages,
politics, sense of right or wrong, all emerge from such
interactions. Yes, it seems possible to rigorously
formalise this relationship theoretically in mathematical
terminology. We all can work together along this line. I
hope that Prof. Roger Penrose can be convinced one day. <br>
<br>
Just my 2 cents of worth.<br>
<br>
-John<br>
</font> </font><br>
</font> <br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/17/13 6:07 PM, hans kuijper wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:85C7BB099696492094C5E6F9FF9F140B@uw313ad20dcb0a"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19400">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial">Dear John,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">I think your point (a science, or
discipline, is immature until its phenomena can be explained
in computational terms) is debatable. In 'On understanding
understanding' (<em>International Studies in the Philosophy of
Science</em>, 11:1 [1997], 7-20), Roger Penrose argues, by
use of specific examples, that 'mathematical understanding is
something which cannot be modelled in terms of entirely
computational procedures'. See also his book <em>The Road to
Reality: A Complete Guide to the Physical World</em>,
BCA, 2004, pp. 7-24, 374-378,1027-1045; and his foreword to
Hector Zenil (ed.), <em>A Computable Universe: Understanding
and Exploring Nature as Computation</em>, World Scientific,
2013. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Talking about
scientific/computational modelling, I would like to raise the
following questions:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">1) Can the mind be modelled directly
or only indirectly (via the brain)? If the latter, why? </font>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">2) Can the the mind (as distinct from
the brain) be modelled wholly or only partly? If the latter,
why?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">3) In the ongoing mind-body debate, to
which camp do you belong? </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">4) Do you think we are (very
complicated) robots? If so, what makes these robots acting
and behaving?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">5) If we are robots, physically
determined, where does our sense of liberty, justice or
compassion come from?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">6) In the sentence 'the mind models the
mind' subject equals object, right? How can?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">7) If mind and culture are
somehow related (I think they are pretty much the same),
what could be the relationship between nature (brain) and
culture? And would it be (theoretically) possible to
formalise this relationship?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">It seems to me that an
unequivocal answer to thrse vexed questions is a
prerequisite for having a sensible discussion about mind's
embodiedness (link with brain) and embeddedness (link with
society/<em>Mitwelt</em>). </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Kind regards, </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Hans Kuijper </font></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT:
5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color:
black"><b>From:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="weng@cse.msu.edu" href="mailto:weng@cse.msu.edu">Juyang
Weng</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="dr.ron.sun@gmail.com"
href="mailto:dr.ron.sun@gmail.com">Professor Ron Sun</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February
16, 2013 11:29 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> computational
terms as a sign of maturity</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Ron, <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Congratulations on your planned
book. I noticed the following claim on the page <a
href="http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/%7Ersun/book-mitp.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">Grounding Social Sciences in
Cognitive Sciences</a>: In particular, this book will not be
limited to computational approaches.<br>
<br>
It is true that we as scientists should be open to all kinds
of account about nature: computational, qualitative,
intuitive, experimental, pure data from observations. Yes,
when a more scientific theory was not available, we humans
resort to religious, traditional, and cultural explanations. <br>
<br>
However, is it true that any disciplines in natural science is
immature till its phenomena, observations, data can be
sufficiently explained in computational terms?<br>
<br>
I guess that any studies on social, cognitive science, and
whatever science are immature till many phenomena in the
discipline can be explained in computations.<br>
<br>
What is computation? Computation is the real-time account
about how elements in the world interact constrained by
principles that are best explained in mathematical terms. Here
are a few examples from a "low-level" discipline to "higher"
disciplines:<br>
<br>
<b>Mathematics</b>: Explanations of quantities and structures
in space and time are immature till they can be explained in
terms of computation. For example, how a value z is computed
from two variables x and y by a function f, in z=f(x, y).
Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, are all
computational functions. When the precise computations have
not been been discovered or available, we have to resort to
less specific properties, such as an existence proof. However,
an existence proof must still use properties of computation,
e.g., algebra. <br>
<br>
<b>Physics</b>: Explanations of the rich and complex
interactions of physical objects (e.g., when your hand let go
of an apple) were immature till we humans discovered the
computational terms. Newton's <i>Principia</i> that
formulated the <a moz-do-not-send="true" title="Newton's laws
of motion"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion">laws
of motion</a> and <a moz-do-not-send="true" title="Newton's
law of universal gravitation"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation">universal
gravitation</a> is an example. <br>
<br>
<b>Chemistry</b>: Explanations of atoms, molecules and their
interactions, and various forms of a mixture of matters are
immature till humans can explain such phenomena through
computational terms, such as the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table">periodic
tables</a> of chemical elements, energy, and
force. Chemistry is also governed by mathematics. <br>
<br>
<b>Biology</b>: Explanations of biological species (e.g.,
plants, and animals) are immature till humans can explain such
phenomena through computational terms. Genome and how genes
regulate development is an example. Biology is also governed
by chemistry and mathematics. <br>
<br>
<b>Brain science</b>: Explanations of brain data (e.g.,
orientation maps, ocular dominance maps, and topographic maps
in the V1 area) are immature till humans can explain such
phenomena through computational terms. For example, how such
maps arise in computational terms, regulated by nature (e.g.,
genes) and nurture (e.g., external environment and brain
activities). Brain science is also governed by biology,
chemistry and mathematics. <br>
<br>
<b>Psychology (cognitive Science as part of it):</b>
Explanations of cognitive phenomena (e.g., vision, audition,
behaviors (including actions), motivation, etc.) are immature
till humans can explain such phenomena through computational
terms. For that, we need computational terms of the brain,
since those psychological phenomena are external phenomena of
the brain. Existing phenomena accounted by models in
psychology and the computational models in artificial
intelligence are all useful, although the gaps between such
studies and those accounted by the brain science are very
wide. Such wide gaps must be bridged. Psychology is also
governed by brain science, biology, chemistry and mathematics.
<br>
<br>
<b>Social sciences: </b>Explanations of multi-human
phenomena (e.g., traditions, religions, culture, labor
relations, laws, political science, international conflicts,
wars, etc.) are immature till humans can explain such
phenomena through computational terms. Social sciences are
also governed by psychology, brain science, biology, chemistry
and mathematics. Our social scientists and politicians must
learn psychology, brain science, biology, chemistry and
mathematics. As far as I can see, filling this wide gap has
started to take place.<br>
<br>
A current major infrastructural limitation in every country,
which is also true in a developed country like US, is that our
academic disciplines are too specialized for anybody to
understand the natural bridges that fill the wide
gap. Therefore, we are partially "blind" by such an
infrastructural limitation. That is why we started the
Brain-Mind Institute, to overcome such a major limitation. <br>
<br>
Just my 2 cents of worth.<br>
<br>
-John<br>
<br>
On 2/14/13 6:29 PM, Professor Ron Sun wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:19AFDC8C-E2CD-496F-9A74-91AA0AC80BEA@rpi.edu"
type="cite"><base href="x-msg://1641/">Hans:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think this is exactly what you are looking for:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<ul style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">
<li>R. Sun (ed.), <a
href="http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/%7Ersun/book-mitp.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">Grounding Social Sciences in
Cognitive Sciences</a>. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
2012. </li>
</ul>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On Feb 14, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "hans kuijper" <<a
href="mailto:j_kuijper@online.nl"
moz-do-not-send="true">j_kuijper@online.nl</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none;
TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: medium Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE:
normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal;
WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" text="#000000"
bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial">Dear BMILISTS,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Over the last three months or
so, I have been following some of your work with
great interest, trying to understand it in the
context of fast developing cognitive science(s?).
I do believe that<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>the
mind is embodied</strong><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and
consequently biologists, particularly brain
scientists, (will) have a lot to say about this
ill-defined 'thing'. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">However, educated in the
humanities (I graduated in sinology from Leyden
University) and becoming increasingly interested
in the science of complexity, I believe that <strong>the
mind is also embedded</strong>. For, as Lev
Vygotsky already argued in his book <em>Mind in
Society</em><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(1930):
'The mind cannot be understood in isolation from
the surrounding society', an original idea
revisited in Andrzej Nowak, Katarzyna
Winkowska-Nowak and David Brée (eds.),<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Complex
Human Dynamics: From Mind to Society</em>,
Springer, 2013.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Culture (that other
notoriously difficult to describe 'thing', about
which many books have been written) seems to be
the missing link between mind and society. So the
conundrum workers in the natural and cultural (<em>i.e.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></em>social
and human) sciences should address collaboratively
is the identification, characterisation and
understanding of<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>the
intimate connection between</strong><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>mind's
embodiedness and embeddedness</strong>.<strong> </strong></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><strong></strong></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Arguably, there is nothing
more complex than a country, or a culture, being
a hypercomplex system of complex systems in
context (its outside world). If 'a revolution is
occurring in the social sciences', as the editors
of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Complex
Human Dynamics<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></em>claim,
that easily overlooked point is to be taken into
account. See the article 'Lifting the study of
China onto a higher plane' that I recently posted
on the website<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
href="http://www.academia.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.academia.edu</a>.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><em> </em></strong></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Since I am currently working
on a book provisionally entitled<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><em>The
Complexity of Countries</em>, I wonder if anyone
of you could suggest what I should definitely read
to be well-informed about the cutting edge
research not only on<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><u>brain</u>,<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><u>mind</u>,<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><u>society</u><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><u>culture</u> but
also (and perhaps in the first place) on the
relationships between these intricately patterned
entities. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Needless to say, I would be
most grateful if you could help me.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Yours sincerely,</font> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Hans Kuijper</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Joliotplaats 5</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">3069 JJ Rotterdam</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">The Netherlands</font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--
Juyang (John) Weng, Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
MSU Cognitive Science Program and MSU Neuroscience Program
3115 Engineering Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
Tel: 517-353-4388
Fax: 517-432-1061
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:weng@cse.msu.edu">weng@cse.msu.edu</a>
URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/">http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weng/</a>
----------------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>