<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19400">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear John,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Talking about scientific/computational modelling, I
would like to raise the following questions:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>1) Can the mind be modelled directly or only
indirectly (via the brain)? If the latter, why? </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>3) In the ongoing mind-body debate, to which camp do
you belong? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>6) In the sentence 'the mind models the mind' subject
equals object, right? How can?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </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 title=weng@cse.msu.edu href="mailto:weng@cse.msu.edu">Juyang Weng</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A 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
title="Newton's laws of motion"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion">laws of
motion</A> and <A 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
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></BODY></HTML>