3 ms·

There are several of these (cognitive architectures) e.g. the ACT-R model[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT-R https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT-R

The_rationalist 7y ago
Which ones aren't BS?
- JoeSmithson 7y ago
  I'm not an expert at all. I read the book How Can The Human Mind Occur In The Physical Universe? a few years ago and was basically left with the impression that actually cognitive science is way more advanced than I had realised. I was very struck with the amount of definite results and falsifiable experiments (i.e. "actual science"). I think it's one of those things like global poverty where if you are 30 or older, what you learnt at school, and your whole rule of thumb intuition, is totally wrong. https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195324259.001.0001/acprof-9780195324259 https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/acprof...
- abrax3141 7y ago
  None of them as BS, or, put more positively, none of these are complete, but each offers different complexly interlocking partial models, at different levels of description. This is how we understand any complex system. Indeed, this is how we understand anything. Indeed, this is what it means to “understand”, that is, to use models to reason about something. Each of these, and all brain and cognitive science, provides different complexly inTeracting models that we use to reason about the system.
starpilot 7y ago
I've noticed a trend of software engineers proposing that other fields create some abstraction that already exists. Last week someone avowed that a citizen regulatory body for aviation be created. Of course, that is the FAA.
dr_dshiv 7y ago
Yes, in "you can't play 20 questions with nature", Alan newell advocated for computational "unified models" of cognition. But they were heavily symbolic. While useful, they don't really make it more understandable. (That's my experience with act-r, anyway! It's useful, but doesn't give big picture synthesis, like a Newtonian model might. It's a lot of little models.)
- asdfgftheaef 7y ago
  Here's a different perspective: https://aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2744 https://aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2744 "A Standard Model of the Mind: Toward a Common Computational Framework across Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and Robotics"

The_rationalist 7y ago

Which ones aren't BS?

JoeSmithson 7y ago
I'm not an expert at all. I read the book How Can The Human Mind Occur In The Physical Universe? a few years ago and was basically left with the impression that actually cognitive science is way more advanced than I had realised. I was very struck with the amount of definite results and falsifiable experiments (i.e. "actual science"). I think it's one of those things like global poverty where if you are 30 or older, what you learnt at school, and your whole rule of thumb intuition, is totally wrong. https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195324259.001.0001/acprof-9780195324259 https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/acprof...
abrax3141 7y ago
None of them as BS, or, put more positively, none of these are complete, but each offers different complexly interlocking partial models, at different levels of description. This is how we understand any complex system. Indeed, this is how we understand anything. Indeed, this is what it means to “understand”, that is, to use models to reason about something. Each of these, and all brain and cognitive science, provides different complexly inTeracting models that we use to reason about the system.

starpilot 7y ago

I've noticed a trend of software engineers proposing that other fields create some abstraction that already exists. Last week someone avowed that a citizen regulatory body for aviation be created. Of course, that is the FAA.

dr_dshiv 7y ago

Yes, in "you can't play 20 questions with nature", Alan newell advocated for computational "unified models" of cognition. But they were heavily symbolic. While useful, they don't really make it more understandable. (That's my experience with act-r, anyway! It's useful, but doesn't give big picture synthesis, like a Newtonian model might. It's a lot of little models.)

asdfgftheaef 7y ago
Here's a different perspective: https://aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2744 https://aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2744 "A Standard Model of the Mind: Toward a Common Computational Framework across Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and Robotics"