Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Four Routes of Cognitive Evolution Cecilia Heyes ELSE / UCL Joint ELSE / ABC Workshop “Exploring the Boundaries of Rationality”, London, 19-20 June 2003 Extension Natural selection changes rules and representations Source Locus or or Developmental selection Input processes Labels LOCUS Rules & reps Input process Natural selection Phylogenetic construction Phylogenetic inflection Developmental selection Ontogenetic construction Ontogenetic inflection SOURCE Heyes (in press) Four routes of cognitive evolution. Psychological Review. Stomach example Foods = input process Enzymes = rules & reps Natural selection New jaw > higher fitness Natural selection New enzymes > higher fitness (Phylogenetic inflection) (Phylogenetic construction) Developmental selection Ingestion > strength > more & better food Developmental selection Proliferation with use, loss with disuse (Ontogenetic inflection) (Ontogenetic construction) Types of Evidence Natural selection Developmental selection • Poverty of the stimulus • Wealth of the stimulus • Genetically heritable • Not genetically heritable Adaptive character Neural localisation Examples of ‘other’ routes • Face processing • Theory of mind • Imitation Face processing Distinctive rules / reps - configural processing Neonatal face preference Farah et al (1998) Psych Rev, 105, 482-498 BUT Neonatal effect subcortical Configural processing of other stimuli Ontogenetic construction Gautier et al (2000) Nat. Neuro., 2, 568-573 Theory of mind Distinctive rules / representations - reps of mental reps Invariant development BUT • Hearing-impaired / siblings • Nonhuman primates Autism is heritable BUT • Problems more general • Earliest in joint attention Karin-D’Arcy & Povinelli (2002) IJCP, 15, 21-54 Phylogenetic or Ontogenetic Construction Imitation Innate mechanism with distinctive rules / reps ? • Neonatal evidence in question • Learning models now available Ontogenetic inflection Anisfeld (1996) Dev. Rev, 16, 149-161 Can learning counteract automatic imitation ? Heyes, Bird & Haggard (in prep) 450 18 ms 440 TEST Open Close Open Open C I RT ms 430 420 410 400 390 Open Close Close Close I C 380 370 C I GROUP TRAINING Incompatible Compatible Open Close Close Open Open Close Open Close TEST 24 hrs 432 trials (6 x 72) 440 RT ms 420 34 ms 9 ms 400 380 360 340 320 C I Comp C I Incomp Open Close Open Open C I Open Close Close Close I C Conclusion • There are at least two sources and two loci of evolutionary change affecting cognitive processes • It is possible that few adaptive characteristics of cognition are ‘adaptations’ Why describe developmental selection as ‘evolutionary’ ? • Optional • Historical accident that VSR first identified at genetic level • Doesn’t make all cognitive change evolutionary Information acquisition without systematic change to input or mechanisms (e.g. fact learning) Changes to input and/or mechanism that are neutral or delecterious wrt fitness Why not ascribe all adaptive effects of LD&C to natural selection ? • Some not ‘foreseen’ by natural selection when LDC mechanism phylogenetically constructed e.g. serrated finger nails • In these cases ascription to natural selection nondiscriminative / non-explanatory, like appeal to ‘laws of physics’