Scribd
Upload
31 views

Carlos

This document discusses related work to the presented hybrid conceptual architecture solution. It describes approaches that consider concepts as semantic pointers attached to a unifying concept identifier. While related, these approaches focus on different modalities of stimuli rather than the type of conceptual information. The document also discusses dual process theory computational models like mReasoner that integrate symbolic and sub-symbolic systems at the concept representation level.

Uploaded by

Kevan Ednoc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views

Carlos

This document discusses related work to the presented hybrid conceptual architecture solution. It describes approaches that consider concepts as semantic pointers attached to a unifying concept identifier. While related, these approaches focus on different modalities of stimuli rather than the type of conceptual information. The document also discusses dual process theory computational models like mReasoner that integrate symbolic and sub-symbolic systems at the concept representation level.

Uploaded by

Kevan Ednoc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

October 1, 2014 lieto14hybrid˙˙final

14

erroneously represents Dolphin as a subclass of Fish, rather than a subclass of


Mammal. Therefore, one of the weaknesses of the overall architecture can be due
to ontological misclassifications in the S2 component.

4. Related work

The presented solution has some analogies with the approach that considers con-
cepts as “semantic pointers” [8, 39], proposed in the field of the computational
modeling of brain. In such approach, different informational components are sup-
posed to be attached to a unifying concept identifier. The similarity with their
approach is limited to the idea that concepts consist of different types of informa-
tion. However, the mentioned authors specifically focus on the different modalities
of the stimuli contributing to conceptual knowledge, and therefore they identify
the different components of concepts according to the different information car-
riers used to provide the information. Their conceptual components are divided
in: sensory, motor, emotional and verbal stimuli, and for each type of carriers a
mapping function to a brain area is supposed to be activated. On the other side,
our focus is on the type of conceptual information (e.g., classical vs. typical in-
formation): we do not consider the modality associated to the various sources of
information (e.g., visual or verbal, etc.).1 Rather, we are concerned with the type
of information combined in the hybrid conceptual architecture embedded in our
S1-S2 computational system.
In the context of a different field of application, a solution similar to the one
adopted here has been proposed in [7]. The main difference with their proposal
concerns the underlying assumption on which the integration between symbolic
and sub-symbolic system is based. In our system the conceptual spaces and the
classical component are integrated at the level of the representation of concepts,
and such components are assumed to convey different –though complementary-
conceptual information. On the other hand, the previous proposal is mainly used
to interpret and ground raw data coming from sensors in a high level symbolic
system through the mediation of conceptual spaces.
In other respects, our system is also akin to the ones developed in the field of
the computational approach to the above mentioned dual process theories. A first
example of such “dual-based systems” is the mReasoner model [23], developed with
the aim of providing a computational architecture of reasoning based on the mental
models theory proposed by Philip Johnson-Laird [20]. The mReasoner architecture
is based on three components: a system 0, a system 1 and a system 2. The last two
systems correspond to those hypothesized by the dual process approach. System 0
operates at the level of linguistic pre-processing. It parses the premises of an argu-
ment by using natural language processing techniques, and it then creates an initial
intensional model of them. System 1 uses this intensional representation to build
an extensional model, and uses heuristics to provide rapid reasoning conclusions;
finally, system 2 carries out more demanding processes to searches for alternative
models, if the initial conclusion does not hold or if it is not satisfactory. A second
system has been proposed by Larue et al., [24]. The authors adopt an extended
version of the dual process approach, which has been described in [37]; it is based
on the hypothesis that the system 2 is divided in two further levels, respectively
called “algorithmic” and “reflective”. The goal of Laure and colleagues is to build

1 In our view the distinction classical vs. prototypical is ‘a-modal’ per se, for example both a typical and a
classical conceptual information can be accessed and processed through different modalities (that is visual
vs. auditory, etc.).

You might also like