Reductive and Representational Explanation in Synthetic Neuroethology - Presentation Transcript
Reductive and Representational Explanation in Synthetic Neuroethology Pete Mandik Assistant Professor of Philosophy Coordinator, Cognitive Science Laboratory William Paterson University, New Jersey
Collaborators
Michael Collins, City University of New York Graduate Center
Alex Vereschagin, William Paterson University
My Thesis
Even for the simplest cases of intelligent behavior, the best explanations are both reductive and representational
Overview
Mental representation in folk-psychological explanation
Mental representation in non-humans
The problem of chemotaxis
Modeling the neural control of chemotaxis
What the representations are
Mental reps in folk-psych
George is opening the fridge because:
George desires that he drinks some beer
George sees that the fridge is in front of him
George remembers that he put some beer in the fridge
George’s psychological states cause his behavior
George’s psychological states have representational content
Mental reps in non-human animals
Rats and maze learning
After finding the platform the first time, rats remember its location and can swim straight to it on subsequent trial from novel starting positions.
Rats not only represent the location, but compute the shortest path.
Mental reps in non-human animals
Ducks’ representation of rate of return
Every day two naturalists go out to a pond where some ducks are overwintering and station themselves about 30 yards apart. Each carries a sack of bread chunks. Each day a randomly chosen one of the naturalists throws a chunk every 5 seconds; the other throws every 10 seconds. After a few days experience with this drill, the ducks divide themselves in proportion to the throwing rates; within 1 minute after the onset of throwing, there are twice as many ducks in front of the naturalist that throws at twice the rate of the other. One day, however, the slower thrower throws chunks twice as big. At first the ducks distribute themselves two to one in favor of the faster thrower, but within 5 minutes they are divided fifty-fifty between the two “foraging patches.” … Ducks and other foraging animals can represent rates of return, the number of items per unit time multiplied by the average size of an item.
(Gallistel 1990; emphasis mine)
Positive Chemotaxis
Movement toward the source of a chemical stimulus
2-D food finding
2-Sensor Chemophile:
Steering muscles orient creature toward stimulus
Perception of stimulus being to the right fully determined by differential sensor activity
Sensors Brain Steering Muscles
1-D food finding
1- Sensor “Lost” Creature
left/right stimulus location underdetermined by sensor activity
only proximity perceived
Adding memory can help
Sensor Brain Steering Muscles
Things to Note:
Note that single-sensor gradient navigation is a “representation hungry” problem
Note the folk-psychological explanation of how a human would solve the problem
Note, in what follows, the resemblance to the explanation of the worm’s solution
C. Elegans
Caenorhabditis Elegans
C. Elegans
C. Elegans
Feree and Lockery (1999). “Computational Rules for Chemotaxis in the Nematode C. Elegans .” Journal of Computational Neuroscience 6, 263-277
C. Elegans
C. Elegans
C. Elegans
The Extracted Rule:
Zeroth Order
The simulations were run keeping only the terms up to the zeroth order:
This rule failed to produce chemotaxis for any initial position.
First Order
Next the simulations were run keeping all terms up to the first order:
This rule accurately reproduced the successful chemotaxis performed by the network model.
Problems
Remains open. . .
How the network controllers are working
What the networks themselves are representing and computing
Whether the networks are utilizing memory
Framsticks
3-D Artificial Life simulator By Maciej Komosinski
and Szymon Ulatowski
Poznan University of Technology, Poland
http://www.frams.poznan.pl/
Framsticks
Framsticks nematodes
Memory in Chemotaxis
Experimental Set Up
3 orientation networks: Feed-forward, Recurrent, and Blind
five runs each, for 240 million steps
mutations allowed only for neural weights
fitness defined as lifetime distance
Initial weights: Evolved CPGs with un-evolved (zero weights) orienting networks
Results
What the representations are
States of neural activation isomorphic to and causally correlated with environmental states
Sensory states
Memory states
Motor-command states
Representation and Isomorphism
Isomorphism
One to one mapping between structures
structure = set of elements plus set of relations on those elements
Representation and Isomorphism
Representation
Primarily: a relation between isomorphic structures
Secondarily: a relation between elements and/or relations in one structure and those in another
Isomorphisms between multiple structures
Which of the many structures a given structure is isomorphic to, does a given structure represent?
The range of choices will be narrowed by the causal networks the structure is embedded in
For further investigation
States of desire/motivation
Clearer in models of action selection, not intrinsic to the stimulus orientation networks
Modeling representational error and falsity
Error and falsity are distinct, but this is clearer in non assertoric attitudes
Summing up
Single-sensor chemotaxis is a “representation hungry” problem
Even explanations of adaptive behaviors as simple as chemotaxis benefit from psychological state ascriptions
Summing up
The psychological states in question are identical to neural states
The neural states in question are causally explanatory of intelligent behavior in virtue of isomorphisms between structures of neural activations and structures of environmental features
Summing up
Therefore…
Even for the simplest cases of intelligent behavior, the best explanations are both reductive and representational
0 comments
Post a comment