Advertisement

A Kantian Cognitive Architecture

  • Richard EvansEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 134)

Abstract

In this paper, I reinterpret Kant’s Transcendental Analytic as a description of a cognitive architecture. I describe a computer implementation of this architecture, and show how it has been applied to two unsupervised learning tasks. The resulting program is very data efficient, able to learn from a tiny handful of examples. I show how the program achieves data-efficiency: the constraints described in the Analytic of Principles are reinterpreted as strong prior knowledge, constraining the set of possible solutions.

Keywords

Kant Critique of pure reason Rule induction Unsupervised learning Data efficiency Cognitive architecture Computational modeling Original intentionality Cognitive agency 

References

  1. Chalmers, D.J., R.M. French, and D.R. Hofstadter. 1992. High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial intelligence methodology. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 4(3): 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corapi, D., A. Russo, and E. Lupu. 2010. Inductive logic programming as abductive search. In: ICLP (Technical Communications), 54–63.Google Scholar
  3. Corapi, D., A. Russo, and E. Lupu. 2012. Inductive logic programming in answer set programming. In: Inductive Logic Programming, 91–97. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Frege, G., P. Geach, and M. Black. 1980. ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’, in Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, Translated as ‘On Sense and Reference’ by M. Black in Translations from the Philosophical Writings, 100: 25–50. Oxford: Blackwell, third edition.Google Scholar
  5. Gelfond, M., and V. Lifschitz. 1988. International Conference on Logic Programming. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: ICLP/SLP, vol. 88, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
  6. Goodman, N.D., J.B. Tenenbaum, J. Feldman, and T.L. Griffiths. 2008. A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science 32(1): 108–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graves, A., et al. 2012. Supervised sequence labelling with recurrent neural networks, vol. 385. University of Toronto, Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Haugeland, J. 1990. The intentionality all-stars. Philosophical Perspectives 4: 383–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hernandez-Orallo, J., and N. Minaya-Collado. 1998. Engineering of Intelligent Systems, A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of algorithmic complexity. In: Proceedings of International Symposium of Engineering of Intelligent Systems (EIS98), February 11–13, 146–163.Google Scholar
  10. Hofstadter, D.R. 2008. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Hofstadter, D.R., M. Mitchell, et al. 1994. The copycat project: A model of mental fluidity and analogy-making. Advances in Connectionist and Neural Computation Theory 2(31–112): 29–30.Google Scholar
  12. Hutter, M. 2007. On universal prediction and Bayesian confirmation. Theoretical Computer Science 384(1): 33–48.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jordan, C., and L. Kaiser. 2013. Learning programs as logical queries. In: The ICALP 2013 Satellite Workshop on Learning Theory and Complexity, (ICALP is the “International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming”).Google Scholar
  14. Kant, I. 1781. Critique of Pure Reason, Trans. P Guyer. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kowalski, R., and M. Sergot. 1989. A logic-based calculus of events. In: Foundations of Knowledge Base Management, 23–55. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Lake, B.M., R. Salakhutdinov, and J.B. Tenenbaum. 2015. Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science 350(6266): 1332–1338.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Law, M., A. Russo, and K. Broda. 2014. Inductive learning of answer set programs. In: Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 311–325. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Longuenesse, B. 1998. Kant and the Capacity to Judge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. McCarthy, J. 1963. Situations, actions, and causal laws. Technical Report, DTIC Document.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meredith, M.J.E. 1986. Seek-whence: A model of pattern perception. Technical Report, Indiana University, Bloomington (USA).Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, M. 1993. Analogy-making as perception: A computer model. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Muggleton, S.H., D. Lin, and A. Tamaddoni-Nezhad. 2015. Meta-interpretive learning of higher-order dyadic datalog: Predicate invention revisited. Machine Learning 100(1): 49–73.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reiter, R. 1980. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13(1): 81–132.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sellars, W. 1968. Science and metaphysics: Variations on Kantian themes. Ridgeview Publishing Company, Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Shanahan, M. 2005. Perception as abduction: Turning sensor data into meaningful representation. Cognitive Science 29(1): 103–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sloman, A. 2008. Kantian philosophy of mathematics and young robots. In: International Conference on Intelligent Computer Mathematics, 558–573. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Tenenbaum, J.B. 2000. Rules and similarity in concept learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 12: 59–65.Google Scholar
  28. Waxman, W. 2013. Kant’s Anatomy of the Intelligent Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wittgenstein, L. 1958. The Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.DeepMindLondonUK

Personalised recommendations