Abstract
Systematicity is a property of cognitive architecture whereby having certain cognitive capacities implies having certain other “structurally related” cognitive capacities. The predominant classical explanation for systematicity appeals to a notion of common syntactic/symbolic structure among the systematically related capacities. Although learning is a (second-order) cognitive capacity of central interest to cognitive science, a systematic ability to learn certain cognitive capacities, i.e., second-order systematicity, has been given almost no attention in the literature. In this paper, we introduce learned associations as an instance of second-order systematicity that poses a paradox for classical theory, because this form of systematicity involves the kinds of associative constructions that were explicitly rejected by the classical explanation. Our category theoretic explanation of systematicity resolves this problem, because both first and second-order forms of systematicity are derived from the same categorical construction: universal morphisms, which generalize the notion of compositionality of constituent representations to (categorical) compositionality of constituent processes. We derive a model of systematic associative learning based on (co)recursion, which is an instance of a universal construction. These results provide further support for a category theory foundation for cognitive architecture.
Highlights
In the Spring of 2011, at the seaside town of San Jose, Spain, cognitive scientists gathered for a workshop to reassess the systematicity problem that Fodor and Pylyshyn [1] posed to connectionists more than two decades earlier
We argue that the systematic learning of associations presents a paradox for classical theory, because the learned representations share no structural relations between their constituents; more to the point, because there need not be any constituent representations in such cases
In the two sections that follow, we propose a resolution and corresponding model, which follow from our category theory explanation for systematicity based on universal constructions [10]
Summary
In the Spring of 2011, at the seaside town of San Jose, Spain, cognitive scientists gathered for a workshop to reassess the systematicity problem that Fodor and Pylyshyn [1] posed to connectionists more than two decades earlier. Paired associate learning is a legitimate instance of a second-order systematicity property of human cognition. A systematic capacity for learning associations appears to be problematic for classical compositionality, since it involves simple associative processes, which were rejected as the basis for a theory of cognitive architecture [1].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
