Advertisement

Towards a model of creative understanding: deconstructing and recreating conceptual blends using image schemas and qualitative spatial descriptors

  • Zoe Falomir
  • Enric PlazaEmail author
Article

Abstract

Computational models of novel concept understanding and creativity are addressed in this paper from the viewpoint of conceptual blending theory (CBT). In our approach, a novel, unknown concept is addressed in a communication setting, where this novel concept, created as a blend by an emitter agent, sends a communicative object (words, or in this paper, a visual representation of that concept) to another agent. When received by a computational agent, a novel concept for that communicative object can only be understood by blending concepts already known by that agent. In this paper, we first posit that understanding new concepts via blending is also a creative process. Albeit different from generating conceptual blends, understanding a novel concept via blending involves the disintegration and decompression of that novel concept, in such a way that the receiver of that concept is able to re-create the conceptual network supposedly intended by the emitter of the novel concept. Secondly, we also propose image schemas as a tool that agents can use to interpret the spatial information obtained when disintegrating/unpacking novel concepts and then re-create the new blend. This process is studied in a communication setting where semiotics and meaning are conveyed by visual and spatial signs (instead of the usual setting of natural language or text). In this case study, qualitative spatial descriptors are applied for obtaining a formal description of an icon or pictogram, which is later assigned a meaning by a process of conceptual blending using image schemas.

Keywords

Computational creativity Concept blending Qualitative spatial descriptors Image schemas Concept understanding Novel concepts 

Mathematics Subject Classification 2010

68T01 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been partially supported by Cognitive Qualitative Descriptions and Applications (CogQDA) of the Central Research Development Fund (CRDF) at University of Bremen through the 04-Independent Projects for Postdocs action and project DIVERSIS (CSIC Intramural 201750E064).

References

  1. 1.
    Clementini, E., Felice, P.D., Hernandez, D.: Qualitative representation of positional information. Artif. Intell. 95(2), 317–356 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohn, A.G., Renz, J.: Qualitative spatial reasoning, handbook of knowledge representation. Elsevier, Wiley-ISTE, London (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Confalonieri, R., Corneli, J., Pease, A., Plaza, E., Schorlemmer, M.: Using argumentation to evaluate concept blends in combinatorial creativity. In: Toivonen, H., Colton, S., Cook, M., Ventura, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th international conference on computational creativity, pp. 174–181, Park City (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Confalonieri, R., Pease, A., Schorlemmer, M., Besold, T., Kutz, O., Maclean, E., Kaliakatsos-Papakostas, M. (eds.): Concept invention: Foundations, implementation, social aspects and applications. Springer, Berlin (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Confalonieri, R., Eppe, M., Schorlemmer, M., Kutz, O., Pe naloza, R., Plaza, E.: Upward refinement operators for conceptual blending in the description logic EL++. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-016-9524-8 (2016)
  6. 6.
    Confalonieri, R., Plaza, E., Schorlemmer, M.: A process model for concept invention. In: Pachet, F., Cardoso, A., Corruble, V., Ghedini, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th international conference on computational creativity, pp. 338–345, Paris (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cui, Z., Cohn, A.G., Randell, D.A.: Qualitative and topological relationships in spatial databases. In: Abel, D.J., Ooi, B.C. (eds.) Advances in spatial databases, 3rd international symposium, SSD’93, June 23-25, 1993 Proceedings, volume 692 of lecture notes in computer science, pp. 296–315. Springer, Singapore (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cunha, J.M., Gonċalves, J., Martins, P., Machado, P., Cardoso, A.: A pig, an angel and a cactus walk into a blender: A descriptive approach to visual blending. arXiv:1706.09076 (2017)
  9. 9.
    Davis, E., Marcus, G., Chen, A.: Reasoning from radically incomplete information: The case of containers. Advances in Cognitive Systems 2, 1–18 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Egenhofer, M., Herring, J.: Categorizing binary topological relationships between regions, lines, and points in geographic databases. Department of Surveying Engineering, University of Maine, Orono ME (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Egenhofer, M.A.X.J., Franzosa, R.: Point-set topological spatial relations. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 5(2), 161–174 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eppe, M., Maclean, E., Confalonieri, R., Kutz, O., Schorlemmer, M., Plaza, E., Kühnberger, K.-U.: A computational framework for conceptual blending. Artif. Intell. 256, 105–129 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falomir, Z.: Towards a qualitative descriptor for paper folding reasoning. In: Proc. of the 29th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, 2016. Co-located with IJCAI’2016 in New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falomir, Z., Gonzalez-Abril, L., Museros, L., Ortega, J.: Measures of similarity between objects from a qualitative shape description. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 13, 181–218 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2012.700463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falomir, Z., Museros, L., Castelló, V., Gonzalez-Abril, L.: Qualitative distances and qualitative image descriptions for representing indoor scenes in robotics. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 38, 731–743 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2012.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falomir, Z., Olteţeanu, A.-M.: Logics based on qualitative descriptors for scene understanding. Neurocomputing 161, 3–16 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2015.01.074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falomir, Z., Pich, A., Costa, V.: Spatial reasoning about qualitative shape compositions: Composing qualitative lengths and angles. Annals of mathematics and artificial intelligence, page submitted (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Falomir, Z.: A qualitative model for reasoning about 3d objects using depth and different perspectives. In: Lechowski, T., Wałȩga, P., Zawidzki, M. (eds.) LQMR 2015 Workshop, volume 7 of annals of computer science and information systems, pp. 3–11, PTI.  https://doi.org/10.15439/2015F370. (2015)
  19. 19.
    Falomir, Z., Rahman, S.: From qualitative descriptors of movement towards spatial logics for videos. In: Azzopardi, G et al. (eds.) Proc. 3rd Workshop on Recognition and Action for Scene Understanding (REACTS), co-located at 16th Int. Conf. Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns (CAIP), ISBN 978-84-606-9592-9, pp. 119–128 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fauconnier, G., Turner, M.: The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Forbus, K.D.: Qualitative modeling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognit. Sci. 2(4), 374–391 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frank, A.U.: Qualitative spatial reasoning with cardinal directions. In: Kaindl, H. (ed.) 7. Österreichische artificial intelligence tagung. Springer, Berlin (1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goguen, J.: An introduction to algebraic semiotics, with applications to user interface design. In: Nehaniv, C.L. (ed.) Computation for metaphors, analogy, and agents, volume 1562 of lecture notes in computer science, pp. 242–291. Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gonċalves, J., Martins, P., Cardoso, A.: Blend city, blendville. In: Goel, A., Jordanous, A., Peas, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Creativity, pp. 112–119 (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grice, P.: Meaning. Philos. Rev. 66, 377–88 (1957). Reprinted in [26] pages 213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grice, P.: Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Harvard (1989)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hedblom, M.M., Kutz, O., Neuhaus, F.: Choosing the right path Image schema theory as a foundation for concept invention. J. Artificial General Intelligence 6(1), 21–54 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hernández, D.: Relative representation of spatial knowledge: The 2-D case. In: Mark, D.M., Frank, A.U. (eds.) Cognitive and linguistic aspects of geographic Space, pp. 373–385. NATO Advanced Studies Institute, Kluwer (1991)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnson, M.: The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnson, M.: The philosophical significance of image schemas. In: Hampe, B., Grady, J.E. (eds.) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018311-5, pp. 15–33. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin & New York (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kurata, Y., Egenhofer, M.J.: The arrow-semantics interpreter. Spatial Cognition & Computation: An Interdisciplinary Journal 8(4), 306–332 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lakoff, G., Núñez, R.E.: Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being basic books (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lakoff, G.: Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ligozat, G.: Qualitative spatial and temporal reasoning. MIT Press, Wiley-ISTE, London (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lovett, A., Forbus, K.: Modeling visual problem solving as analogical reasoning. Psychol. Rev. 124(1), 60–90 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moratz, R., Dylla, F., Frommberger, L.: A relative orientation algebra with adjustable granularity. In: Proceedings of the workshop on agents in real-time and dynamic environments (IJCAI 05) (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Olteteanu, A.-M., Falomir, Z.: Object replacement and object composition in a creative cognitive system. A computational counterpart of the alternative use test. Cogn. Syst. Res. 39, 15–32 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ontañón, S., Plaza, E.: Amalgams: A formal approach for combining multiple case solutions. In: ICCBR’10: 18th international conference on case-based reasoning, volume 6176 of lecture notes in artificial intelligence, pp. 257–271. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pereira, F.C., Cardoso, A.: Experiments with free concept generation in divago. Knowl.-Based Syst. 19(7), 459–470 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pich, A., Falomir, Z.: Logical composition of qualitative shapes applied to solve spatial reasoning tests. Cogn. Syst. Res. 52, 82–102 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stock, O: Spatial and temporal reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bremen Spatial Cognition Centre (BSCC)University of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.IIIA, Artificial Intelligence Research Institute CSICSpanish Council for Scientific ResearchCataloniaSpain

Personalised recommendations