DOCSLIB.ORG

COGNITIVE 2018 Proceedings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COGNITIVE 2018 Proceedings COGNTIVE 2018 The Tenth International Conference on Advanced Cognitive Technologies and Applications ISBN: 978-1-61208-609-5 February 18 - 22, 2018 Barcelona, Spain COGNITIVE 2018 Editors Olga Chernavskaya, Lebeved Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia Kazuhisa Miwa, Nagoya University, Japan 1 / 96 COGNITIVE 2018 Forward The Tenth International Conference on Advanced Cognitive Technologies and Applications (COGNITIVE 2018), held between February 18 - 22, 2018 - Barcelona, Spain, targeted advanced concepts, solutions and applications of artificial intelligence, knowledge processing, agents, as key-players, and autonomy as manifestation of self-organized entities and systems. The advances in applying ontology and semantics concepts, web-oriented agents, ambient intelligence, and coordination between autonomous entities led to different solutions on knowledge discovery, learning, and social solutions. The conference had the following tracks: Brain information processing and informatics Artificial intelligence and cognition Agent-based adaptive systems Applications Similar to the previous edition, this event attracted excellent contributions and active participation from all over the world. We were very pleased to receive top quality contributions. We take here the opportunity to warmly thank all the members of the COGNITIVE 2018 technical program committee, as well as the numerous reviewers. The creation of such a high quality conference program would not have been possible without their involvement. We also kindly thank all the authors that dedicated much of their time and effort to contribute to COGNITIVE 2018. We truly believe that, thanks to all these efforts, the final conference program consisted of top quality contributions. Also, this event could not have been a reality without the support of many individuals, organizations and sponsors. We also gratefully thank the members of the COGNITIVE 2018 organizing committee for their help in handling the logistics and for their work that made this professional meeting a success. We hope COGNITIVE 2018 was a successful international forum for the exchange of ideas and results between academia and industry and to promote further progress in the area of cognitive technologies and applications. We also hope that Barcelona provided a pleasant environment during the conference and everyone saved some time for exploring this beautiful city. 2 / 96 COGNITIVE 2018 Chairs COGNITIVE 2018 Steering Committee Po-Hsun Cheng, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan Jose Alfredo F. Costa, Federal University - UFRN, Brazil Om Prakash Rishi, University of Kota, India Kazuhisa Miwa, Nagoya University, Japan Olga Chernavskaya, Lebeved Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia Paul Smart, University of Southampton, UK Ryotaro Kamimura, Tokai University, Japan Olivier Chator, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Cognitique, France COGNITIVE 2018 Industry/Research Advisory Committee Jayfus Tucker Doswell, The Juxtopia Group, Inc., USA Tiago Thompsen Primo, Samsung Research Institute, Brazil Galit Fuhrmann Alpert, computational neuroscientist, Israel 3 / 96 COGNITIVE 2018 Committee COGNITIVE 2018 Steering Committee Po-Hsun Cheng, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan Jose Alfredo F. Costa, Federal University - UFRN, Brazil Om Prakash Rishi, University of Kota, India Kazuhisa Miwa, Nagoya University, Japan Olga Chernavskaya, Lebeved Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia Paul Smart, University of Southampton, UK Ryotaro Kamimura, Tokai University, Japan Olivier Chator, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Cognitique, France COGNITIVE 2018 Industry/Research Advisory Committee Jayfus Tucker Doswell, The Juxtopia Group, Inc., USA Tiago Thompsen Primo, Samsung Research Institute, Brazil Galit Fuhrmann Alpert, computational neuroscientist, Israel COGNITIVE 2018 Technical Program Committee Mohammad Abido, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi Arabia Witold Abramowicz, University of Economics and Business, Poland Thomas Agotnes, University of Bergen, Norway Jose Alfredo F. Costa, Federal University - UFRN, Brazil Piotr Artiemjew, University of Warmia and Masuria, Poland Petr Berka, University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic Gilberto Bernardes, INESC TEC, Portugal Ateet Bhalla, Independent Consultant, India Peter Brida, University of Zilina, Slovak Republic Dilyana Budakova, Technical University of Sofia - Branch Plovdiv, Bulgaria Albertas Caplinskas, Vilnius University, Lithuania Facundo Carrillo, Laboratorio de Inteligencia Artificial Aplicada | ICC (UBA/CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina Francesco Carlo Morabito, University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria, Italy Yaser Chaaban, Leibniz University of Hanover, Germany Olivier Chator, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Cognitique, France Po-Hsun Cheng, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan Olga Chernavskaya, Lebeved Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia Sunil Choenni, Dutch Ministry of Security & Justice / Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands Helder Coelho, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal 4 / 96 Leonardo Dagui de Oliveira, University of São Paulo, Brazil Darryl N. Davis, University of Hull, UK Jayfus Tucker Doswell, The Juxtopia Group, Inc., USA António Dourado, University of Coimbra, Portugal Birgitta Dresp-Langley, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) | ICube Lab, CNRS - University of Strasbourg, France Wlodzislaw Duch, Nicolaus Copernicus University (UMK), Torun, Poland Mounîm A. El Yacoubi, Telecom SudParis, France Diego Fernandez Slezak, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Galit Fuhrmann Alpert, computational neuroscientist, Israel Mauro Gaggero, National Research Council of Italy, Italy Franck Gechter, Université de Technologie de Belfort Montbéliard - UBFC, France Alessandro Giuliani, University of Cagliari, Italy Vincent Gripon, Institut Mines-Télécom, France Foteini Grivokostopoulou, University of Patras, Greece Fikret Gürgen, Bogazici University, Turkey Jianye Hao, Tianjin University, China Ioannis Hatzilygeroudis, University of Patras, Greece Marion Hersh, University of Glasgow, UK Koen Hindriks, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Tzung-Pei Hong, National University of Kaohsiung, Taiwan Gongping Huang, Northwestern Polytechical University, China Zhisheng Huang, Vrije University, Netherlands Xinghua Jia, ULC Robotics, USA Jianmin Jiang, Shenzhen University, China Ryotaro Kamimura, Tokai University, Japan Zhao Kang, University of Electronic Science and Technology, China Jozef Kelemen, Institute of Computer Science - Silesian University, Opava, Czech Republic Peter Kieseberg, SBA Research, Austria Jonghwa Kim, University of Science & Technology (UST), Korea Raşit Köker, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Turkey Tom Krajnik, Artificial Intelligence Centre - Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic Miroslav Kulich, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic Ruggero Donida Labati, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Minho Lee, Kyungpook National University, Republic of Korea Hai (Helen) Li, University of Pittsburgh, USA Sheng Li, Northeastern University, Boston, USA Yaliang Li, SUNY Buffalo, USA Hakim Lounis, Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM), Canada Prabhat Mahanti, University of New Brunswick, Canada Angel Alejandro Maldonado-Ramírez, CINVESTAV Campus Saltillo, Mexico Giuseppe Mangioni, DIEEI - University of Catania, Italy Francesco Marcelloni, University of Pisa, Italy Franova Marta, CNRS, LRI & INRIA, France Kathryn Merrick, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia John-Jules Charles Meyer, Utrecht University, Netherlands Toshiro Minami, KIIS, Japan Kazuhisa Miwa, Nagoya University, Japan 5 / 96 Carlos Alberto Ochoa Ortiz, Juarez City University, Mexico Yoshimasa Ohmoto, Kyoto University, Japan Yiannis Papadopoulos, University of Hull, UK Andrew Parkes, University of Nottingham, UK Alfredo Pereira Jr., São Paulo State University, Brazil Andrii Ponomarenko, Odessa National Medical University, Ukraine Enrico Pontelli, New Mexico State University, USA Mengyu Qiao, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, USA J. Javier Rainer Granados, Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, Spain Julia Taylor Rayz, Purdue University, USA Yehezkel Resheff, 3P Labs, Israel Om Prakash Rishi, University of Kota, India Armando F. Rocha, RANI / Medical School of Sao Paulo, Brazil Loris Roveda, Institute of Industrial Automation and Technologies - ITIA | National Research Council - CNR, Italy Alexandr Ryjov, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia Fariba Sadri, Imperial College London, UK Vandana Sakhre, Madhav Institute of Technology & Science, Gwalior, India Abdel-Badeeh M. Salem, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt Nazha Selmaoui-Folcher, PPME University of New Caledonia, New Caledonia Paulo Jorge Sequeira Gonçalves, Instituto Politecnico de Castelo Branco, Portugal Anupam Shukla, ABV-IIITM - Gwalior, India Marius Silaghi, Florida Institute of Technology, USA Paul Smart, University of Southampton, UK Andrea Soltoggio, Loughborough University, UK Cristian Stanciu, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania Stanimir Stoyanov, University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria Ryszard Tadeusiewicz, AGH University of Science and Technology, Poland Tiago Thompsen Primo, Samsung Research Institute, Brazil Knud Thomsen, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland Luca Tonin, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland Torsten Ullrich, Fraunhofer Austria Research GmbH & TU Graz, Austria Gary Ushaw, Newcastle University, UK C. Natalie van der Wal, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands Feng Wan, University
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modularity As a Concept Modern Ideas About Mental Modularity Typically Use Fodor (1983) As a Key Touchstone
    COGNITIVE PROCESSING International Quarterly of Cognitive Science Mental modularity, metaphors, and the marriage of evolutionary and cognitive sciences GARY L. BRASE University of Missouri – Columbia Abstract - As evolutionary approaches in the behavioral sciences become increasingly prominent, issues arising from the proposition that the mind is a collection of modular adaptations (the multi-modular mind thesis) become even more pressing. One purpose of this paper is to help clarify some valid issues raised by this thesis and clarify why other issues are not as critical. An aspect of the cognitive sciences that appears to both promote and impair progress on this issue (in different ways) is the use of metaphors for understand- ing the mind. Utilizing different metaphors can yield different perspectives and advancement in our understanding of the nature of the human mind. A second purpose of this paper is to outline the kindred natures of cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, both of which cut across traditional academic divisions and engage in functional analyses of problems. Key words: Evolutionary Theory, Cognitive Science, Modularity, Metaphors Evolutionary approaches in the behavioral sciences have begun to influence a wide range of fields, from cognitive neuroscience (e.g., Gazzaniga, 1998), to clini- cal psychology (e.g., Baron-Cohen, 1997; McGuire and Troisi, 1998), to literary theory (e.g., Carroll, 1999). At the same time, however, there are ongoing debates about the details of what exactly an evolutionary approach – often called evolu- tionary psychology— entails (Holcomb, 2001). Some of these debates are based on confusions of terminology, implicit arguments, or misunderstandings – things that can in principle be resolved by clarifying current ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerald Jrit Jrit628638 164..182
    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/2397-7604.htm JRIT&L 12,2 Facilitating success for people with mental health issues in a college through cognitive 164 remediation therapy and social Received 19 January 2019 Revised 22 April 2019 and emotional learning Accepted 6 May 2019 Jaswant Kaur Bajwa CPLS, George Brown College – Saint James Campus, Toronto, Canada Bobby Bajwa Department of Medical Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, and Taras Gula CPLS, George Brown College – Saint James Campus, Toronto, Canada Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the components, structure and theoretical underpinnings of a cognitive remediation intervention that was delivered within a supported education program for mental health survivors. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 21 participants enrolled in the course Strengthening Memory, Concentration and Learning (PREP 1033 at George Brown College (GBC)) with the diagnosis of depression, anxiety, PTSD, ED and substance use disorder were included in the research. After a baseline assessment, participants completed 14 week cognitive remediation training (CRT) protocol that included six essential components that were integrated and implemented within the course structure of the supported education program at GBC. This was followed by a post-training assessment. Findings – Analysis of the participants’ performance on CRT protocol using computerized games showed little significant progress. However, the research found a positive change in the self-esteem of the participants that was statistically significant and the findings also aligned with the social and emotional learning framework. Research limitations/implications – One of the limitations in the research was the use of computer- assisted cognitive remediation in the form of the HappyNeuron software.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Theory of Mind As a Mediator in The
    THE ROLE OF THEORY OF MIND AS A MEDIATOR IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL FUNCTIONING AND SCHIZOTYPY A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts by Marielle Divilbiss December 2009 Thesis written by Marielle Divilbiss B.A., DePaul University, 2007 M.A., Kent State University, 2009 Approved by Nancy Docherty, Ph.D.,_______________________ Advisor Douglas Delahanty, Ph.D.,_____________________ Chair, Department of Psychology Timothy Moerland, Ph.D.,_____________________ Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii Table of Contents List of figures…………………………………………………………………………… v List of tables……………………………………………………………………………. vi Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………… vii Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………….......... 11 Method…………………………………………………………………………………. 13 Results………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Table 1………………………………………………………………………………….. 22 Table 2………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 Table 3………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 Table 4………………………………………………………………………………….. 25 Table 6…………………………………………………………………………………. 26 Table 7…………………………………………………………………………………. 27 Table 8…………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Table 9…………………………………………………………………………………. 32 Table 10……………………………………………………………………………….. 33 Table 11……………………………………………………………………………….. 37 Figure 1………………………………………………………………………………... 38 Table 12………………………………………………………………………………. 40 iii Figure 2………………………………………………………………………………… 41 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 42 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Emergence Discussion
    23/10/2011 IAJS Discussion Seminar with George Hogenson – Introduction by Warren Colman NB: To access and download two papers by George Hogenson which will form the basis for the discussion, please go to the following links: ‘What are symbols symbols of’: http://bit.ly/gxKn6T ‘The self, the symbolic and synchronicity’ http://bit.ly/gj13OQ It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce George Hogenson who will be leading a seminar for the IAJS list on the theme of ‘emergence’. He has been well known in the Jungian world long before he became an analyst as the author of Jung’s Struggle with Freud (1983), an impressive and scholarly work that analysed Jung’s break from Freud in terms of the creation of a different mythological understanding of time, death and authority. At that time, George was a philosophy PhD and a teacher of political philosophy, specialising in the field of international peace and security. From this strong academic background, George became interested in pursuing the practice of psychotherapy as well as its theory and qualified as a Jungian analyst in Chicago in 1998. In 2001, George gave a plenary presentation at the IAAP Congress in Cambridge, England, debating with Anthony Stevens on the nature and origins of archetypes. This was my first introduction both to George and to the dynamic systems theory he proposed as a way of reconceptualising archetypal theory and challenging Stevens’ use of evolutionary psychology as a way of bolstering the classical ‘blueprint’ model of archetypes as a priori structures. George’s presentation of a short video from the field of robotics, illustrating the principles of self-organisation was a revelation to me: I well remember the feeling that I was seeing a vision of the future, an entirely new way of thinking that had the potential to revision and revitalise analytical psychology.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Evolutionary Psychology Without Representational Nativism
    J.Expt.Theor.Artif.Intell.15(2003)143–159 Cognitive evolutionary psychology without representational nativism DENISE CUMMINS1, ROBERT CUMMINS1 and PIERRE POIRIER2 1 Department of Philosophy, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA 2 University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada e-mail: [email protected];[email protected] Abstract. A viable evolutionary cognitive psychology requires that specific cognitive capacities be (a) heritable and (b) ‘quasi-independent’ from other heritable traits. They must be heritable because there can be no selection for traits that are not. They must be quasi-independent from other heritable traits, since adaptive variations in a specific cognitive capacity could have no distinctive consequences for fitness if effecting those variations required widespread changes in other unrelated traits and capacities as well. These requirements would be satisfied by innate cognitive modules, as the dominant paradigm in evolutionary cognitive psychology assumes. However, those requirements would also be satisfied by heritable learning biases, perhaps in the form of architec- tural or chronotopic constraints, that operated to increase the canalization of specific cognitive capacities in the ancestral environment (Cummins and Cummins 1999). As an organism develops, cognitive capacities that are highly canalized as the result of heritable learning biases might result in an organism that is behaviourally quite similar to an organism whose innate modules come on line as the result of various environ- mental triggers. Taking this possibility seriously is increasingly important as the case against innate cognitive modules becomes increasingly strong. Keywords: cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, canalization, learning biases, innate modules, modularity Received July 2002; accepted December 2002 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture
    The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations Dan Sperber Ten years ago, Jerry Fodor published The Modularity of Mind, a book that received much well-deserved attention. His target was the then-dominant view according to which there are no important discontinuities between per- ceptual processes and conceptual processes. Information flows freely, "up" and "down," between these two kinds of processes, and beliefs inform per- ception as much as they are informed by it. Against this view, Fodor argued that perceptual processes (and also linguistic decoding) are carried out by specialized, rather rigid mechanisms. These "modules" each have their own proprietary data base, and do not draw on information produced by concep- tual processes. Although this was probably not intended and has not been much noticed, "modularity of mind" was a paradoxical title, for, according to Fodor, modu- larity is to be found only at the periphery of the mind, in its input systems.1 In its center and bulk, Fodor's mind is decidedly nonmodular. Conceptual processes - that is, thought proper - are presented as a big holistic lump lacking joints at which to carve. Controversies have focused on the thesis that perceptual and linguistic decoding processes are modular, much more than on the alleged nonmodularity of thought.2 In this chapter, I have two aims. The first is to defend the view that thought processes might be modular too (what Fodor [1987: 27] calls "modularity theory gone mad" - oh well!). Let me however echo Fodor and say that, "when I speak of a cognitive system as modular, I shall..
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Massively Modular Models of Mind
    CDIC01 11/25/05 2:37 PM Page 1 JUST HOW MODULAR IS THE MIND? CDIC01 11/25/05 2:37 PM Page 2 CDIC01 11/25/05 2:37 PM Page 3 CHAPTER ONE The Case for Massively Modular Models of Mind Peter Carruthers My charge in this chapter is to set out the positive case supporting massively modular models of the human mind.1 Unfortunately, there is no generally accepted under- standing of what a massively modular model of the mind is. So at least some of our discussion will have to be terminological. I shall begin by laying out the range of things that can be meant by “modularity.” I shall then adopt a pair of strategies. One will be to distinguish some things that “modularity” definitely can’t mean, if the thesis of massive modularity is to be even remotely plausible. The other will be to look at some of the arguments that have been offered in support of massive modularity, discussing what notion of “module” they might warrant. It will turn out that there is, indeed, a strong case in support of massively modular models of the mind on one reasonably natural understanding of “module.” But what really matters in the end, of course, is the substantive question of what sorts of structure are adequate to account for the organization and operations of the human mind, not whether or not the com- ponents appealed to in that account get described as “modules.” So the more inter- esting question before us is what the arguments that have been offered in support of massive modularity can succeed in showing us about those structures, whatever they get called.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Acquisition of New Behavior Through Conditioning
    1 www.onlineeducation.bharatsevaksamaj.net www.bssskillmission.in SOCIAL PHYCHOLOGY OF ADULT LEARNING Topic Objective: At the end of this topic student would be able to: Introduce learning theory. Give the importance of operant conditioning. Discuss the terminology related to psychology. Definition/Overview: Learning Theory: In psychology and education, a learning theory is an attempt to describe how people and animals learn, thereby helping us understand the inherently complex process of learning. There are three main categories or philosophical frameworks under which learning theories fall: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Behaviorism focuses only on the objectively observable aspects of learning. Cognitive theories look beyond behavior to explain brain-based learning. And constructivism views learning as a process in which the learner actively constructs or builds new ideas or concepts. It is also important to take account of informal learning theories, and to consider the philosophical anthropology implied by any theory. Behaviorism focuses only on the objectively observable aspects of learning, and discounts the internal processing that might be associated with the activity. For behaviorism, learningWWW.BSSVE.IN is the acquisition of new behavior through conditioning. Key Points: 1. Problem Conditioning There are two types of possible conditioning: www.bsscommunitycollege.in www.bssnewgeneration.in www.bsslifeskillscollege.in 2 www.onlineeducation.bharatsevaksamaj.net www.bssskillmission.in SOCIAL PHYCHOLOGY OF ADULT LEARNING Classical conditioning, where the behavior becomes a reflex response to stimulus as in the case of Pavlov's Dogs Operant conditioning where there is reinforcement of the behavior by a reward or a punishment. The theory of operant conditioning was developed by B.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Modularity, Development and 'Theory of Mind'
    Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Mind & Language, ISSN: 0268-1064 Vol. 14. No. 1 March 1999, pp 131–153. Modularity, Development and ‘Theory of Mind’ BRIAN J. SCHOLL AND ALAN M. LESLIE Abstract: Psychologists and philosophers have recently been exploring whether the mechanisms which underlie the acquisition of ‘theory of mind’ (ToM) are best charac- terized as cognitive modules or as developing theories. In this paper, we attempt to clarify what a modular account of ToM entails, and why it is an attractive type of explanation. Intuitions and arguments in this debate often turn on the role of develop- ment: traditional research on ToM focuses on various developmental sequences, whereas cognitive modules are thought to be static and ‘anti-developmental’. We suggest that this mistaken view relies on an overly limited notion of modularity, and we explore how ToM might be grounded in a cognitive module and yet still afford development. Modules must ‘come on-line’, and even fully developed modules may still develop internally, based on their constrained input. We make these points con- crete by focusing on a recent proposal to capture the development of ToM in a module via parameterization. 1. Introduction The currency of our mental lives consists largely of propositional attitudes, even when we are interpreting the behaviours of others. If you see a person running to catch up with a just-departing train, for example, you interpret the person as an intentional agent, who believes that there is a just-departing train, and who wants to get on it.
    [Show full text]
  • Developmental Psychology
    Developmental psychology Psychology History · Subfields Basic science Abnormal · Biological Cognitive · Comparative Cultural · Developmental Evolutionary · Experimental Mathematical · Personality Positive · Social Applied science Clinical · Consumer Educational · Health Industrial and organizational Law · Military Occupational health · Political Religion · School · Sport Lists Disciplines · Organizations Outline · Psychologists Psychotherapies · Publications Research methods · Theories Timeline · Topics Portal v · d · e Developmental psychology, also known as human development, is the scientific study of systematic psychological changes that occur in human beings over the course of their life span. Originally concerned with infants and children, the field has expanded to include adolescence, adult development, aging, and the entire life span. This field examines change across a broad range of topics including motor skills and other psycho-physiological processes; cognitive development involving areas such as problem solving, moral understanding, and conceptual understanding; language acquisition; social, personality, and emotional development; and self-concept and identity formation. Developmental psychology includes issues such as the extent to which development occurs through the gradual accumulation of knowledge versus stage-like development, or the extent to which children are born with innate mental structures versus learning through experience. Many researchers are interested in the interaction between personal characteristics, the
    [Show full text]
  • Darwinian Domain-Generality: the Role of Evolutionary Psychology in the Modularity Debate
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy 5-3-2017 Darwinian Domain-Generality: The Role of Evolutionary Psychology in the Modularity Debate Michael Lundie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Recommended Citation Lundie, Michael, "Darwinian Domain-Generality: The Role of Evolutionary Psychology in the Modularity Debate." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2017. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/205 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DARWINIAN DOMAIN-GENERALITY: THE ROLE OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IN THE MODULARITY DEBATE by MICHAEL LUNDIE Under the Direction of Daniel A. Weiskopf, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Evolutionary Psychology (EP) tends to be associated with a Massively Modular (MM) cognitive architecture. I argue that EP favors a non-MM cognitive architecture. The main point of dispute is whether central cognition, such as abstract reasoning, exhibits domain-general properties. Partisans of EP argue that domain-specific modules govern central cognition, for it is unclear how the cognitive mind could have evolved domain-generality. In response, I defend a distinction between exogenous and endogenous selection pressures, according to which exogenous pressures tend to select for domain-specificity, whereas the latter, endogenous pressures, select in favor of domain-generality. I draw on models from brain network theory to motivate this distinction, and also to establish that a domain-general, non-MM cognitive architecture is the more parsimonious adaptive solution to endogenous pressures.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Naturalness and the Ability to Predict Generosity in a Give-Some – Get-Some Interaction1
    Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2017 Media Naturalness and the Ability to Predict Generosity in a Give-Some – Get-Some Interaction1 Roderick E. White Derrick J. Neufeld Mahdi Roghanizad Western University Western University University of Waterloo [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract to greatly facilitate exchange by reducing transaction costs, thus enhancing the performance of both organizations and markets. Although the origin and role Evolutionary psychologists believe the human mind of generosity, cooperation, sharing and trust is a widely evolved to solve adaptive problems present in our studied and much debated topic [8,25,42,45], ancestral environment. Our hominid ancestors survived researchers generally agree that the ability to reliably in face-to-face groups by assessing the cooperative detect, ex post, how partners have behaved is essential intentions of other group members. Media naturalness for cooperation to have evolved [13,39,40,31]. theory postulates face-to-face is the most ‘natural’ Establishing exchange relationships with novel partners communication medium. This paper reports results from can be highly advantageous, but the absence of prior a laboratory experiment examining the ability of student experience with, or reputational information about these subjects to predict the generosity of a counter-party partners also makes these relationships especially risky. under two media conditions: Face-to-Face (FtF), the The risk is that the prospective partner will not be more natural condition; and Video-to-Video (VtV), the cooperative, and will act opportunistically to their own less natural, technology-mediated condition. After a advantage.
    [Show full text]