Seminarium 3
Newell (1973)
(17/11/2015)
“You can't play twenty
questions with nature
and win” – Or can you?
• Newell, A. (1973). You can’t play 20 questions with
nature and win. In: W.G. Chase (ed.) Visual
information processing. New York: Academic Press.
•
“I will spend no time arguing that what is needed is to view man as an
information processing system. … [A]ll of the papers in the present
symposium are executed enough within that conceptual view to
demonstrate that the lack of such a metaview is not the culprit.”
•
“… I am worried that our efforts, even the excellent ones I see
occurring here, will not add up. Let me, however, discuss at least three
possible (non-exclusive) courses of action. These might be viewed as
possible paradigms within which to operate experimentally.”
Tom Ziemke – tom.ziemke@liu.se
Kosslyn (2006)
• Kosslyn, S.M. (2006). You can play 20 questions with
nature and win: Categorical versus coordinate
spatial relations. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1519-1523.
o complete processing models
o analyze a complex task
o one program for many tasks
Morse et al (2011)
• Morse A, Herrera C, Clowes R, Montebelli A &
Ziemke T (2011). The role of robotic modeling in
cognitive science. New Ideas in Psychology, 29(3),
312-324.
•
computational theory
• Marr (1982)
representation & algorithms
implementation
O’Reilly et al (2013)
• O’Reilly, R.C., Hazy, T & Herd (2013). The Leabra
Cognitive Architecture: How to play 20 principles
with nature and win. In: Chipman, S. (ed.) Oxford
Handbook of Cognitive Science, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
•
“More than perhaps any other
proposed cognitive architecture,
Leabra is based directly on the
underlying biology of the brain,
with a set of biologically
realistic mechanisms at Its core.”
“From the perspective of cognitive robotics, this paper presents a
modern interpretation of Newell’s (1973) reasoning and suggestions
for why and how cognitive psychologists should develop models of
cognitive phenomena. We argue that the shortcomings of current
cognitive modelling approaches are due in significant part to a lack
of exactly the kind of integration required for the development of
embodied autonomous robotics. Moreover we suggest that
considerations of embodiment, situatedness, and autonomy, intrinsic
to cognitive robotics, provide an appropriate basis for the integration
and theoretic cumulation that Newell argued was necessary for
psychology to mature. …”
OBS! Föredrag imorgon:
• 15.15 (Visionen): Randall O’Reilly, “Visual Object
Recognition via Biologically-based Error Driven
Learning in Thalamocortical Circuits”
• 10.15 (Visionen): Yuko Munakata, “Developing
Inhibitory Control”
Frågor att diskutera
• Håller du med Newell om hans beskrivning?
• Stämmer den (också) idag? Om ändring, har det
blivit bättre eller sämre?
• Hur relevant är Newells forskningsperspektiv för
kognitionsvetare utanför universitetet?
• Håller du med Kosslyn om hans kritik mot Newell?
• Varför är egentligen Kosslyn och Newell inte helt
överens?
o båda betraktar ju kognition som någon slags beräkning/computation
• Vilka är konsekvenserna för kognitonsvetenskapen
som helhet?