Intro to CogSci: Embodiment 1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Intro to CogSci: Embodiment 1

on

  • 277 views

Lecture @ http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/ICS/

Lecture @ http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/ICS/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
277
Views on SlideShare
277
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Intro to CogSci: Embodiment 1 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment Kristína Rebrová Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 2. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Contents 1 Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment 2 Intelligence in action 3 Embodied congition 4 Cognition and Environment 5 Intelligence without representation Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 3. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Physical symbol system hypothesis (Newell & Simon, 1976) Physical symbol system is a necessary and sufficient condition for general intelligent action. Physical symbol system is a machine that produces through time an evolving collection of physical patterns called symbol structures. Arbitrary links from symbolic code to sensori-motor referents Intelligence occurs via reasoning (searching for operators; logical inference) Intelligence = computation - separate from sensors and effectors Intelligence in nature (animals might behave intelligently, but not think so much as humans) Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 4. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation (more) Traditional approaches Symbolism thought is a manipulation of abstract symbol implies process of designing, and an external interpreter Connectionism knowledge is encoded in weights and structure of the network implies learning, but what is learned also has to be interpreted Problems frame problem symbol grounding problem Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 5. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Embodiment having a physical body what does it mean for the agent’s cognition? what does it mean for a cognitive scientist? PSSH type approaches emphasize thinking... what about intelligence based on acting? Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 6. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation William Grey Walter neurophysiologist and robotician (February 19, 1910 – May 6, 1977) Machina speculatrix (1948-49) robots Elmer and Elsie, tortoises capable of phototaxis, by which they could find their way to a recharging station when they ran low on battery power the turtle’s complex physical behavior rests on: simple circuit of two sensors, two vacuum tube "neurons" and some RC components and two relays recursive mechanical feedback loop between the turtle motors, the physical environment (light and obstacles) and the circuit analog processes to simulate brain processes (Turing, Von Neuman: digital processes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLULRlmXkKo Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 7. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Braitenberg vehicles (1984) sensors – light detectors + actuators – wheels behavior depends on connections between sensors and wheels strive to achieve certain situations and avoid others change the course when the situation changes exhibit a complex and dynamic behavior dependent on their “bodies” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJo5HEdq6y0 Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 8. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Intelligence by Mechanics Passive Walkers McGeer (1990) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK8IFEGmiKY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N64KOQkbyiI Theo Jansen - Kinetic Sculptor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcR7U2tuNoY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI90TgmjX4U Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 9. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Intelligence by Material Example: Octopus Project http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW3XMPi_wng Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 10. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Embodied cognition an agent’s embodiment and situatedness is constitutive of its perceiving, knowing and doing Groundedness: cognition grounded (anchored) in the physical world = embodied + embedded embodied: agent has a body that provides direct sensations and allows actions embedded: situated in an environment that provides concrete experience both body and environment constitute, enhance, but also limit agent’s intelligence Situatedness: agent acquires knowledge about its environment only through sensors and in interaction with the world Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 11. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Complete autonomous agents Pfeifer & Scheier, 1999 “Fungus eaters” (Toda, 1982) able to survive in complex environment Complete behaving autonomously Situated view the world from their perspective Embodied physical agents, sensors, actuators Self-sufficient gather food, make energy able to sustain itself over extended periods of timeKristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 12. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Complete autonomous agents Autonomy No control from the outside (from the designer) Increased by: self-sufficiency, situatedness, learning or development, and evolution Action selection problem behavior control & design observer based segmentation of behavior no straightforward mapping of desired behaviors to internal actions Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 13. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Adaptation Evolutionary peppered moth Physiological adaptation to changes in temperature Sensory changes in the diameter of the pupil By learning Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 14. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Frame-of-reference problem from Pfeifer and Scheier (1999) Perspective: observer vs. agent Behavior-vs-mechanism: behavior cannot be explained on the basis of internal mechanisms only Complexity: the complexity we observe != complexity of the underlying mechanisms Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 15. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Ecological niche The range of each environmental variable such as temperature, humidity, and food items, within which a species can exist andreproduce (Wilson, 1975) Environment must be characterized with respect to agent’s complexity But also complexity of the environment is a prerequisite for the complexity of an agent’s behavior Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 16. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Umwelt (1984) self-centered world Biology should study organisms not as objects, but as active subjects. Organisms can have different Umwelten, even though they share the same environment Umwelt = subjective world of an organism individual organism is always actively creating it’s individual Umwelt. is formed by perceptual and effector worlds together this creative process is related to meanings determined by the animal’s internal states, needs, design, etc. Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 17. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Umwelt of a tick Tick has 3 successive reflexes: Butyric acid as perceptual cue – tic let go and drops Tactile cue of hair – move around Skin’s heat – suck Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 18. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Different visual Umwelten (Uexküll, Brock 1927) Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 19. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Wirkwelten (effect worlds) of a human, a dog and a fly (Uexküll, Kriszat 1934: 56–58) Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 20. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Intelligence without representation (Brooks, 1987) Competences – layers added incrementally Situated & embodied the world is its own best model no abstract representation needed Inspiration from evolution . . . “mobility, acute vision and the ability to carry out survivalent tasks in dynamic environment provide a necessary basis for development of true intelligence.” Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 21. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Brooks’ creatures Engineering methodology Creatures cope appropriately and timely with changes in environment are robust maintain multiple goals do something, have purpose in being Decomposition by activity (pattern of interactions with the world) Tested in the real world Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 22. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Levels of activity Run in parallel unaware of any other higher levels and compete Extract only relevant aspects of the world Low-level activities reactions to dangerous/important changes in environment up-to-date idea about the world Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 23. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Subsumption architecture Suppression New layer is connected to the input of the existing layer and suppresses new (incoming) messages Inhibition New layer is connected to output and inhibits outgoing messages on the existing layer Higher levels send information to lower levels Levels are built incrementally and tested at each step Modular architecture (brain modalities similarity) Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 24. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Problems of SA How many layers can be built? How complex behaviors can be made without central processing unit? Can higher-level functions (e.g. learning) occur in fixed topology networks of simple finite state machines? Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 25. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Representing the Body Example: Starfish Self Modeling Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehno85yI-sA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msw267lisow Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 26. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Forward and Iverse model cognition is about anticipation and planning Wolpert and Kawato (1998), Wolpert et al. (2003) forward: to generate predictions about the next state of the world inverse: reversely activating actions that could possibly lead to the observed situation work together Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 27. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation The end Thank you for your attention kristina.rebrova@gmail.com Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment
  • 28. Symbolism & connectionism vs. Embodiment Intelligence in action Embodied congition Cognition and Environment Intelligence without representation Lets have fun... army robot Big Dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww buggy beta version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXJZVZFRFJc Kristína Rebrová Cognitive science paradigms: Embodiment