On Mental Imagery and Its Relevance for AI
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
On Mental Imagery and its Relevance for AI Benjamin F. Maier∗ Final paper in the course “Philosophy of AI”, Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University (Dated: June 29, 2012) During the last fifty years there has been a lively debate on the topic of mental imagery, where this term relates colloquially to “thinking in mind’s pictures”. In this work, the positions of the major parties in this debate are briefly presented, an existing model of mental imagery for symbol manipulators is recapitulated and a slightly new model for mental imagery processing is proposed. Working out the meaning of mental imagery for de- velopments in artificial intelligence (AI) based on the existing positions, we will come to the conclusion that a theory of visual perception may propose advantages for weak AI, while mental imagery itself might be a trick of nature helping humans to solve problems and hence would be unnecessary for computers. I. INTRODUCTION view on the whole subject, mainly referring to mental im- agery as a method to solve problems and give ideas on fur- Before any statements on mental imagery can be made, we ther experiments to analyze the potential for such. have to present a first indication of the definition of the Afterwards, in section III, the whole topic will be con- term. Roughly spoken, the term “mental imagery” how it nected to actual and hypothetical developments in weak will mostly be used in this article relates to an eyes-closed and strong AI and a conclusion for the value of the mental picture one has in mind when thinking of a certain object or imagery debate for AI will be drawn. scenery, without the actual object or scenery being present for the senses to perceive [1, 2]. It is therefore often de- scribed as “quasi-perceptual” [3]. For example, given the II. DIFFERENT VIEWS ON MENTAL IMAGERY question “How many windows does your house have?”, a subject may first picture her house in the mind and then proceed to count the windows in order to answer the ques- A. The Structural Descriptive View tion, which would be some kind of a perceptual experience without the house being present. Although the literature Defenders of the structural descriptive view claim that im- mostly describes images rather vague as sensual experi- ages are of an abstract nature. The main defender of ences without being specific of the kind of interpretation, this view is Z. Pylyshyn. According to them, mental im- images will mainly be referred to pictures in this article. ages have to be interpreted as complex representations of The question whether or not humans think in images arose smaller parts, called “propositions”, where propositions in ancient philosophy already, being discussed until and are informations with truth value, object information and throughout early modern philosophy. Using the method of spatial relation and carry semantic as well syntactic infor- introspection, philosophers tended to declare images as lit- mation (i.e. a set of propositions connected in two different eral pictures in the head, sometimes even more substantial ways delivers two different representations) [5]. It is un- than thinking in language. Later, in the early 20th century, necessary for the mind to process visual information, since philosophers could not agree on certain positions, until the all the information is present in form of propositions. Any debate had generally been declared meaningless since the occurrence of picturesque perception in the head is epiphe- method of introspection did not provide enough empirical nomenal. Pictorial data is not as fundamental as proposi- insight [4]. tional. However, during the last 50 years, cognitive scientists/psy- To dispute that mental images are induced from something chologists started the debate again, forming mainly two like a visual memory (even a propositional), Pylyshyn per- views, 1) the pictorial and 2) the structural descriptive, formed experiments, such as the “inclined beaker” experi- where the first view is mainly supported by S. Kosslyn and ment [6]. He showed an inclined fluid-filled beaker to chil- the second by Z. Pylyshyn. They worked out their views in dren of the age of 4, where naturally the fluid’s surface great detail and supported and disputed them by empirical was not perpendicular to the beaker’s sides. Afterwards he experiments. asked the children to draw a sketch of the beaker, which In section II, their views will be summarized briefly, while resulted in drawings where the fluid’s surface was actually indications of experiments and explanations of some of drawn perpendicular to the sides. He concludes that the the implications will be given. Afterwards a third model children were just not familiar enough with the proposi- of mental imagery is introduced, developed bye M. Tye, tional concept of a constant angle of fluid’s surfaces, yield- which is also a model of pictorial kind, but concentrates ing the next close concept of “perpendicular to the side”. more on a connection between pictures and symbol repre- On the other hand, assuming there would be something sentations. Based on these models I will present my own like a visual memory, the children would have been able to memorize the actual picture of the inclined beaker and would have drawn it right. Mental image indeterminacy is also explained, using the model of “lack of concepts”. ∗Electronic address: [email protected] A similar view by G.E. Hinton and L.M. Parsons pro- 2 Image generation THE VISUAL LONG-TERM BUFFER Information arriving from VISUAL Quasi-pictorial the visual system (after MEMORY patterns of acti- preprocessing, e.g., vation detection of edges) Image inspection Image transformation FIG. 1: Chart including the basic components of Kosslyn’s theory, recreated from [9] poses a hierarchical structure for propositional memory (iii) for any three represented O parts, X, Y and Z, if X [7]. Given a question for a detail of a whole, the mind has appears at a greater surface distance from Y than from to start with a mind-map-like representation of the whole, Z, then this fact is represented in R if and only if there working its way through the branches to find detailed infor- are more R parts representing apparently adjacent O mation, connected to the epiphenomenal activation of pic- parts that are connected by the shortest apparent path turesque perception. E.g., asked “Do horses have toes?”, on the surface of O between X and Y and that are the mind would start with the whole representational net- each of the same length L as measured along that path work of a horse, go to the branch “leg” and would eventu- than there are R parts representing the corresponding ally find the information “hoof” enabling it to answer the O parts of apparent length L between X and Z.” [11] question with “no”. Using this view he explains the pic- turesque perception one encounters through introspection when asked a question of this kind, stating that proposi- tional content is directly used, rather than visual. Using this view, a quasi-pictorial is attached with spatial The propositional or descriptive view of mental imagery is properties, which is a main difference to the descriptive described very well by J.-P. Sartre, who states “I can keep view. To support this view, various experiments have been looking at an image for as long as I wish: I will never find performed of which I want to introduce two. The first is anything but what I put there” [8]. the rotation experiment [12]. Subjects were asked to look at two pictures of three-dimensional objects, which looked similar, most of them equal but rotated. Then, they were B. The Pictorial View asked whether one of the objects can be transformed into the other. They discovered that the relation between the The pictorialists claim that mental images do have a pic- angle of a rotation and the time it took the subjects to give torial representation in the head which is as fundamental an answer was linear, indicating that a processing of the as propositions. While some even propose a strict distinc- image had occurred in order to give an answer. tion between verbal and picture-like processing, S. Koss- Some other experiments investigated the scanning of men- lyn, as the main defender of this view, sees mental imagery tal images [13]. E.g., subjects were asked to build a mental as both, processing propositions and picture-like informa- image of a map with certain objects on it they have been tion. He introduces so called “surface representations” of shown before. Then, they had to put a mental marker on information using visual propositional long-term memory one of the map’s objects and to push a button. Afterwards, with information about spatial relations, which is not avail- they scanned the shortest path between two objects with able for the mind per se. These representations are con- the inner marker and pushed the button again, the button structed in a visual buffer and can be seen and interpreted responsible for a time measurement. The experimenters by a functional mind’s eye (see figure 1) [10]. Furthermore observed that the time needed to scan the mental image they may be transformed inside the visual buffer. Asked a was linear with respect to the seperation of the objects. question which is connected to a picture, the mind uses that Again, they conclude that mental images apparently have procedure to actually work with the surface representation spatial properties and are processed by a visual perception in order to obtain answers for the problem. The surface system. representations are described as quasi-pictorial, where M.