Yes, it is expressed in Psychological terms: Observation, Coordination, Regulation, Compensation. Those are the terms that Jean Piaget often used to describe his theory. Now you see how theycan be mapped to specific engineering constructs, which helps to disambiguate his writings. With these patterns in mind, if you read "The Development of Thought" or "The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures" the reading becomes much more sensible and concrete. For example, in "The Origins of Intelligence in Children", Piaget talks about reflexes--and thediscussion is quite interesting. For example he says that endowed reflexes still have to be adaptedto the environment by the cognitive System in order to be of use. This means, that although youdefine a reflex rule (e.g., if stimulus A then action B) the subject (cognitive system) still needs to apply the rule in context and differentiate the rule, to make it practical. The initial hereditary reflex rule is just a seed, which will grow into a fully differentiated plant (e.g. If stimulus A1 & A2 & A4 thenaction B). Other useful works are "Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood" and "The Construction of Realityin the Child." Cheers!
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: How the Brain Works -- new H+ magazine article, by me From: [email protected] Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:07:23 +0200 To: [email protected] Thanks, your matrix is a psychological one. It would be interesting to find out if those alive agree with your placement, and of course there will be more features, especially if we start making progress and learning new stuff about cognitive systems. AT Sent from my iPad On 23/07/2012, at 03.56, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: I have an Architecture comparison matrix in my paper, Patterns for Cognitive Systems. Perhaps you can use that one. Cheers! PM. ------------------------- > From: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:14:52 +0200 > Subject: Re: [agi] Re: How the Brain Works -- new H+ magazine article, by me > To: [email protected] > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This again is an excellent question. > > I am not sure I've earned my Nobel prize yet. What I do think is that > we need a kind of comparison matrix or quadrant analysis for these > different architectures that will give a quick conceptual overview of > their differences and pros and cons. Two axes of most recent relevance > for me have been "abstract" and "artificial life-ish", the most > historic one is "symbolic-connectionist" and I am not sure what to do > with Sergio's work, "mathematical vs practical" perhaps? It will take > some time to figure out... > > AT > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-5cfde295 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
