1 / 25

Representational Content in terms of Dynamics for Meta-Cognition

Explore the dynamics and interaction between levels in meta-cognition and the representational content of meta-level representations. Formalizations are needed to cover this phenomenon and understand the role of past and future interactions.

contrerasa
Download Presentation

Representational Content in terms of Dynamics for Meta-Cognition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Representational Content in terms of Dynamics for Meta-Cognition Jan Treur Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Department of Artificial Intelligence Utrecht University Department of Philosophy

  2. Meta-Cognition one of the principles used to obtain cognitive architectures for self-consciousness e.g., Zalla in TSC’00: the phenomenal character of experience is conscious due to the fact that it is introspectively accessible

  3. Meta-Level Architecture • has been investigated in some depth within Artifical Intelligence • problem: what is the representational content of meta-level representations ? • dynamics and interaction between the levels are essential problematic to define semantics only in terms of the state of the object level

  4. Dynamics Perspective • dynamics of a meta-level architecture: transitions over time of combined (object level and meta-level) states • semantics of a meta-level representation:temporal property of traces of the object level process

  5. Interactivist Perspective on Mental States (1) Dynamics of mental states and their interaction with the environment are central: ‘When interaction is completed, the system will end in some one of its internal states - some of its possible final states. Some environments will leave the system in that same final state, when interactions with this system are complete, and some environments will leave the system in different possible final states.’ (Bickhard, 1993)

  6. Past Interaction Histories and Present Internal States presentinternal states past interaction

  7. Interactivist Perspective on Mental States (2) ‘The overall system, with its possible final states, therefore, functions as a differentiator of environments, with the final states implictly defining the differentiation categories. (..) Representational content is constituted as indications of potential further interactions. (..) The claim is that such differentiated functional indications in the context of a goal-directed system constitute representation - emergent representation.’ (Bickhard, 1993)

  8. Present Internal States and Future Interaction Traces presentinternal states past interaction future interaction

  9. object level representation Object Level Representational Content as a Dynamic Interaction Property present pastfuture world interaction trace time

  10. Interactivist Perspective on Mental States (3) In summary, representational content of mental states need to be • grounded in interaction histories • related to future interaction possibilities Formalisations are needed that cover this

  11. Pain Example: Mediating Role • tissue damage causes pain • heat causes pain • pain causes ouch! • pain causes future avoidance behaviour for possible sources; e.g., wasps Note: occurrence of this avoidance behaviour depends on events in the world

  12. Pain Example: Past Traces the set of histories of mental property pain PTRACES(InOnt, pain) an example member is the following interaction trace: t0. input: no tissue damage, no heat t1. input: tissue damage, no heat t2. input: tissue damage, no heat

  13. Pain Example: Future Traces the set of future traces for mental property pain FTRACES(InterfaceOnt, pain) an example member of this set: t0. input: wasp present output: ouch! t1. input: no wasp present t2. input: wasp present t3. input: wasp present output: move

  14. Formalisation:Temporal Trace Language expressive language to specify dynamics: • traces M as first class citizens: explicit reference to, comparison of and quantification over interaction histories and interaction futures • state properties p as first class citizens: explicit reference to and quantification over p • explicit reference to, comparison of and quantification over time points t and durations d • discrete, dense or real time frame possible

  15. Pain Example: Past Formula Ma trace t a time point a past formula representing the set of histories of the mental property pain P(M, t): t1 ≤ t state(M, t1, input) |= injury t2 ≤ t state(M, t2, input) |= heat

  16. Pain Example: Future Formula Ma trace t a time point a future formula representing the set of future traces of the mental property pain F(M, t): t1 ≥ t state(M, t1, output) |= ouch! & t2 ≥ t [ state(M, t2, input) |= wasp_present t3 ≥ t2 state(M, t3, output) |= move ]

  17. Dynamics as Three-Level Traces a combinedthree-levelstate: < I, M, N >   where N a meta-state M an object stateI an interaction state a three-level trace: a sequence of combined three-level states

  18. meta-level representation  Meta-Level Representational Content as a Dynamic Object Process Property present pastfuture object process trace time

  19.  Three Levels of Representational Content and Dynamics meta-levelprocess trace object level process traceworldinteraction trace time

  20. Possible Transitions within a Combined Trace meta-state  meta-state (meta-processing) meta-state  object state (control effectuation) object state  meta-state (introspection) object state  object state (object processing)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- object state  interaction state (effectuation of action) interaction state  object state (conceptualisation of sensory state) interaction state  interaction state (sensory or motor event)

  21. An Architecture for Meta-Cognition • semantic content of object-representations:past and future interaction processes • semantic content of meta-representations:past and future mental processes • introspective capabilities in self-monitoring; e.g., monitoring of the sensory processes by which information is acquired, and, in particular, of the modality (cf. Zalla, TSC’00) • meta-representations have control impact on the agent’s own future mental processes, focusing of sensory activities, and action selection

  22. Related Approaches • Zalla in TSC’00 (nr. 278) on source modellingdifference: no formalized architecture proposed • Cunningham in TSC’00 (nr. 272) on axiomatic theorydifference: no explicit reference to traces within language

  23. Conclusion (1) • interactivist perspective on grounding of mental states; relation between:mental stateand - interaction with the environment in the past - potential further interactions in the future

  24. Conclusion (2) • application of interactivist perspective on grounding of meta-cognitive states as well; relation between:meta-cognitive stateand - mental processes in the past - potential mental processes in the future

  25. Conclusion (3) • result: three-level architecture for meta-cognition that supports introspective capabilities and self-awareness

More Related