Switch to: References
Citations of:
Add citations
You mustlogin to add citations.
| |
Human agents draw a variety of inferences effortlessly, spontaneously, and with remarkable efficiency – as though these inferences were a reflexive response of their cognitive apparatus. Furthermore, these inferences are drawn with reference to a large body of background knowledge. This remarkable human ability seems paradoxical given the complexity of reasoning reported by researchers in artificial intelligence. It also poses a challenge for cognitive science and computational neuroscience: How can a system of simple and slow neuronlike elements represent a large (...) body of systemic knowledge and perform a range of inferences with such speed? We describe a computational model that takes a step toward addressing the cognitive science challenge and resolving the artificial intelligence paradox. We show how a connectionist network can encode millions of facts and rules involving n-ary predicates and variables and perform a class of inferences in a few hundred milliseconds. Efficient reasoning requires the rapid representation and propagation of dynamic bindings. Our model (which we refer to as SHRUTI) achieves this by representing (1) dynamic bindings as the synchronous firing of appropriate nodes, (2) rules as interconnection patterns that direct the propagation of rhythmic activity, and (3) long-term facts as temporal pattern-matching subnetworks. The model is consistent with recent neurophysiological evidence that synchronous activity occurs in the brain and may play a representational role in neural information processing. The model also makes specific psychologically significant predictions about the nature of reflexive reasoning. It identifies constraints on the form of rules that may participate in such reasoning and relates the capacity of the working memory underlying reflexive reasoning to biological parameters such as the lowest frequency at which nodes can sustain synchronous oscillations and the coarseness of synchronization. (shrink) | |
Working memory limits are best defined in terms of the complexity of the relations that can be processed in parallel. Complexity is defined as the number of related dimensions or sources of variation. A unary relation has one argument and one source of variation; its argument can be instantiated in only one way at a time. A binary relation has two arguments, two sources of variation, and two instantiations, and so on. Dimensionality is related to the number of chunks, because (...) both attributes on dimensions and chunks are independent units of information of arbitrary size. Studies of working memory limits suggest that there is a soft limit corresponding to the parallel processing of one quaternary relation. More complex concepts are processed by or In segmentation, tasks are broken into components that do not exceed processing capacity and can be processed serially. In conceptual chunking, representations are to reduce their dimensionality and hence their processing load, but at the cost of making some relational information inaccessible. Neural net models of relational representations show that relations with more arguments have a higher computational cost that coincides with experimental findings on higher processing loads in humans. Relational complexity is related to processing load in reasoning and sentence comprehension and can distinguish between the capacities of higher species. The complexity of relations processed by children increases with age. Implications for neural net models and theories of cognition and cognitive development are discussed. (shrink) | |
A comprehensive introduction to the Language of Though Hypothesis (LOTH) accessible to general audiences. LOTH is an empirical thesis about thought and thinking. For their explication, it postulates a physically realized system of representations that have a combinatorial syntax (and semantics) such that operations on representations are causally sensitive only to the syntactic properties of representations. According to LOTH, thought is, roughly, the tokening of a representation that has a syntactic (constituent) structure with an appropriate semantics. Thinking thus consists in (...) syntactic operations defined over representations. Most of the arguments for LOTH derive their strength from their ability to explain certain empirical phenomena like productivity, systematicity of thought and thinking. (shrink) | |
Each of our theories of mental representation provides some insight into how the mind works. However, these insights often seem incompatible, as the debates between symbolic, dynamical, emergentist, sub-symbolic, and grounded approaches to cognition attest. Mental representations—whatever they are—must share many features with each of our theories of representation, and yet there are few hypotheses about how a synthesis could be possible. Here, I develop a theory of the underpinnings of symbolic cognition that shows how sub-symbolic dynamics may give rise (...) to higher-level cognitive representations of structures, systems of knowledge, and algorithmic processes. This theory implements a version of conceptual role semantics by positing an internal universal representation language in which learners may create mental models to capture dynamics they observe in the world. The theory formalizes one account of how truly novel conceptual content may arise, allowing us to explain how even elementary logical and computational operations may be learned from a more primitive basis. I provide an implementation that learns to represent a variety of structures, including logic, number, kinship trees, regular languages, context-free languages, domains of theories like magnetism, dominance hierarchies, list structures, quantification, and computational primitives like repetition, reversal, and recursion. This account is based on simple discrete dynamical processes that could be implemented in a variety of different physical or biological systems. In particular, I describe how the required dynamics can be directly implemented in a connectionist framework. The resulting theory provides an “assembly language” for cognition, where high-level theories of symbolic computation can be implemented in simple dynamics that themselves could be encoded in biologically plausible systems. (shrink) | |
No categories | |
This paper reviews four significant advances on the feedforward architecture that has dominated discussions of connectionism. The first involves introducing modularity into networks by employing procedures whereby different networks learn to perform different components of a task, and a Gating Network determines which network is best equiped to respond to a given input. The second consists in the use of recurrent inputs whereby information from a previous cycle of processing is made available on later cycles. The third development involves developing (...) compressed representations of strings in which there is no longer an explicit encoding of the components but where information about the structure of the original string can be recovered and so is present functionally. The final advance entails using connectionist learning procedures not just to change weights in networks but to change the patterns used as inputs to the network. These advances significantly increase the usefulness of connectionist networks for modeling human cognitive performance by, among other things, providing tools for explaining the productivity and systematicity of some mental activities, and developing representations that are sensitive to the content they are to represent. (shrink) | |
A common method of making a theory more understandable is to compare it to another theory that has been better developed. Radical interpretation is a theory that attempts to explain how communication has meaning. Radical interpretation is treated as another time-dependent theory and compared to the time-dependent theory of biological evolution. The main reason for doing this is to find the nature of the time dependence; producing analogs between the two theories is a necessary prerequisite to this and brings up (...) many problems. When the nature of the time dependence is better known it might allow the underlying mechanism to be uncovered. Several similarities and differences are uncovered, and there appear to be more differences than similarities. (shrink) | |
This paper is a commentary on the target article by Lokendra Shastri & Venkat Ajjanagadde [S&A]: “From simple associations to systematic reasoning: A connectionist representation of rules, variables and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony” in same issue of the journal, pp.417–451. -/- It puts S&A's temporal-synchrony binding method in a broader context, comments on notions of pointing and other ways of associating information - in both computers and connectionist systems - and mentions types of reasoning that are a challenge to (...) S&A's system (amongst many other connectionist systems, recognizing that S&A's is much more capable as regards reasoning than most other contemporary systems). (shrink) | |
Connectionist attention to variables has been too restricted in two ways. First, it has not exploited certain ways of doing without variables in the symbolic arena. One variable-avoidance method, that of logical combinators, is particularly well established there. Secondly, the attention has been largely restricted to variables in long-term rules embodied in connection weight patterns. However, short-lived bodies of information, such as sentence interpretations or inference products, may involve quantification. Therefore short-lived activation patterns may need to achieve the effect of (...) variables. The paper is mainly a theoretical analysis of some benefits and drawbacks of using logical combinators to avoid variables in short-lived connectionist encodings without loss of expressive power. The paper also includes a brief survey of some possible methods for avoiding variables other than by using combinators. (shrink) | |
A common method of improving how well understood a theory is, is by comparing it to another theory which has been better developed. Radical interpretation is a theory which attempts to explain how communication has meaning. Radical interpretation is treated as another time dependent theory and compared to the time dependent theory of biological evolution. Several similarities and differences are uncovered. Biological evolution can be gradual or punctuated. Whether radical interpretation is gradual or punctuated depends on how the question is (...) framed: on the coarse-grained time scale it proceeds gradually, but on the fine-grained time scale it proceeds by punctuated equilibria. Biological evolution proceeds by natural selection, the counterpart to this is the increase in both correspondence and coherence. Exaption, mutations, and spandrels have counterparts metaphor, speech errors, and puns respectively. Homologous and analogs have direct counterparts in specific words. The most important differences originate from the existence of a unit of inheritance occurring in biological evolution - there is no such unit in language. (shrink) | |
Researchers studying complex cognition have grown increasingly interested in mapping symbolic cognitive architectures onto subsymbolic brain models. Such a mapping seems essential for understanding cognition under all but the most extreme viewpoints (namely, that cognition consists exclusively of digitally implemented rules; or instead, involves no rules whatsoever). Making this mapping reduces to specifying an interface between symbolic and subsymbolic descriptions of brain activity. To that end, we propose parameterization techniques for building cognitive models as programmable, structured, recurrent neural networks. Feedback (...) strength in these models determines whether their components implement classically subsymbolic neural network functions (e.g., pattern recognition), or instead, logical rules and digital memory. These techniques support the implementation of limited production systems. Though inherently sequential and symbolic, these neural production systems can exploit principles of parallel, analog processing from decision-making models in psychology and neuroscience to explain the effects of brain damage on problem solving behavior. (shrink) | |
This paper presents work in progress on artificial intelligence in medicine (AIM) within the larger context of cognitive science. It introduces and develops the notion ofemergence both as an inevitable evolution of artificial intelligence towards machine learning programs and as the result of a synergistic co-operation between the physician and the computer. From this perspective, the emergence of knowledge takes placein fine in the expert's mind and is enhanced both by computerised strategies of induction and deduction, and by software abilities (...) to dialogue, co-operate and function as a cognitive extension of the physician's intellectual capabilities. The proposed methodology gives the expert a prominent role which consists, first, of faithfully enunciating the descriptive features of his medical knowledge, thus giving the computer a precise description of his own perception of basic medicine, and secondly, of painstakingly gathering patients into computerised case bases which simulate exhaustive long-term memory. The AI capacities for knowledge elaboration are then triggered, giving rise to mathematically optimal diagnoses, prognoses, or treatment protocols which the physician may then evaluate, accept, reject, or adapt at his convenience, and finally append to a knowledge base. The idea of emergence embraces many issues concerning the purpose and intent of artificial intelligence in medical practice. Particularly, we address the representation problem as it is raised by classical decisional knowledge-based systems, and develop the notions of classifiers and hybrid systems as possible answers to this problem. Finally, since the whole methodology touches the problem of technological investment in health care, now inherent in modern medical practice, some ethical considerations accompany the exposé. (shrink) |
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6fc86d4c58-7rdf4 uwo