Download
1 / 12
120 likes | 270 Views
Plan. Introducing the SINTELNET white paper The background: agent-based models, social simulations, logical analysis, and mirror-neuron system... Where do wide cognition explanations excel?. SINTELNET.
E N D
Plan • Introducing the SINTELNET white paper • The background: agent-based models, social simulations, logical analysis, and mirror-neuron system... • Where do wide cognition explanations excel?
SINTELNET • The aim of the network is to understand the radically new forms of Information Technology-enabled social environments • by critically examining the basic concepts used to described them, • and to propose new approaches to understand future IT-enabled social situations.
SINTELNET • The manifesto of the network is CristianoCastelfranchi’s position paper “Minds as social institutions” (Phenomenology & Cognitive Science 2013) • social interactions as requiring mind reading and mental content ascription • “Our social minds for social interactions are coordination artifacts and social institutions.” • I proposed to review what new approaches in cognitive science have to say about social phenomena such as this.
SINTELNET • Structure of the white paper: • Introduce five different approaches, jointly dubbed ‘wide cognition’: • extended, • embodied, • enacted, • situated, • and distributed cognition. • Describe case studies that give more insight than agent-based modeling into social intelligence • (in particular, but not limited to, in IT-enabled contexts).
The background • Some relevant research for SINTELNET is based on agent-based models, various social simulations, game-theoretic things, and mirror neuron speculations... • But there are interesting wide approaches as well...
Game-theoretic models and mirror-neurons • With mirror-neuron speculations, it’s obvious that they are usually empirically underdetermined • But neural basis of sociality does not screen off the wide cognition models. • Game-theoretic explanations are usually heavily idealized but might screen off wide cognition. • More details is not always better. If we only understand why a game-theoretic model applies, it may be treated as an abstract mechanistic model.
Why not agent-based models? • ABMs are ‘computational method that enables a researcher to create, analyze, and experiment with models composed of agents that interact within an environment’ • The models are not just equation-based but mimic agents • Artificial societies, non-linear interactions • Not explanatory in themselves but help run virtual experiments
Challenge! • Is there anything that these virtual models cannot cover? • If not: Do they omit something essential for social intelligence that wide cognition does account for?
Where, exactly, is wide cognition relevant? • Embodied joint action • Mind-reading • Social memory and social knowledge • Social emotions • Self • Embodied semantics and distributed language studies • Pretence play, virtual identities • Collective intentionality • Non-individual aspects of cultural background
Dangers Duplication of effort • Social intelligence can be explained and modeled in various approaches. There is a danger of duplicating effort. Isolation • Empirical evidence in various theories may rather constrain other theories rather than screen them off. We should strive for integration (via truth-constraints).
What next? • I want to include selected case studies in the white paper. We will discuss this on Friday. • Dangers and challenges are important. • Thank you!
