Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Minsky's views on education
In the Cognitive Science class, we often talked about Design. A different thing that I wanted to touch upon is Education. We talked about education when we discussed Piaget and Vygotsky. I think there is enough stuff out there to discuss more about it. Having taken the Education Technologies (CS 6460) course by Mark Guzdial, I have some insight about the research that goes into "making children learn". It is so vital that our education leverage the best of the ideas of Cognitive Science to make children learn more, understand more and not feel scared towards a particular subject.
I read a couple of essays of Minsky that I would like to mention here. These are basically his memos for the OLPC idea and also contains his rants about the current education system.
Talking about Mathematics (which is a very good topic to discuss since we all know its important for the child to understand it and we also are cognizant of how many students dislike the subject), Minsky makes this statement - "instead of promoting inventiveness, we focus on preventing mistakes". I think this is a strong and unfortunately true statement. Many countries have their education system committing the same mistake.
He also points out that not all students are able to create "cognitive maps" of the subject/concept. He supports the introduction of computers to teach the subject concepts in a little different way. Using a nice simulation software, one can teach students concepts of acceleration, momentum etc. Like one of the research projects at GTRI here, plans to build a mobile phone app for teaching physics (utilizing the accelerometers in the phone) to students.The students can have an interactive way of learning difficult concepts. This will build better mental maps for these concepts. Minsky is a strong supporter for introducing computers early so that the learning of other subjects will be affected in a positive manner.
In another essay Minsky, suggests a particularly bold idea. Schools do not explicitly teach the students how the human mind learns and reasons. So as a solution towards this - a different approach: to provide our children with ideas they could use to invent their own theories about themselves! This is the idea of meta-cognition - thinking about thinking. And the way he suggests is by doing interesting computer-related student projects.
The way we can go about implementing the above idea is not by teaching Psychology to children,
but Cybernetics.
This essay is recent (January 2009), and Minsky recounts the past efforts - idea of teaching LOGO to children. This did not really take off, but Minsky feels that we have come a long way and these are really feasible now. He suggests robotic projects (LEGO Mindstorms NXT, I believe does this in a super cool way), Cognitive Projects (reasoning by analogy) , optimization projects, puzzle solvers and lots more.
My favorite quote from the essay is-
However, Computer Science is not only about computers themselves; more generally, it provides us with a whole new world of ways to understand complex processes—including the ones that go on in own mind.
Minsky concludes the essay by suggesting how it helps to think like a machine and hence supporting his claim of metacognition being improved by computers
I read a couple of essays of Minsky that I would like to mention here. These are basically his memos for the OLPC idea and also contains his rants about the current education system.
Talking about Mathematics (which is a very good topic to discuss since we all know its important for the child to understand it and we also are cognizant of how many students dislike the subject), Minsky makes this statement - "instead of promoting inventiveness, we focus on preventing mistakes". I think this is a strong and unfortunately true statement. Many countries have their education system committing the same mistake.
He also points out that not all students are able to create "cognitive maps" of the subject/concept. He supports the introduction of computers to teach the subject concepts in a little different way. Using a nice simulation software, one can teach students concepts of acceleration, momentum etc. Like one of the research projects at GTRI here, plans to build a mobile phone app for teaching physics (utilizing the accelerometers in the phone) to students.The students can have an interactive way of learning difficult concepts. This will build better mental maps for these concepts. Minsky is a strong supporter for introducing computers early so that the learning of other subjects will be affected in a positive manner.
In another essay Minsky, suggests a particularly bold idea. Schools do not explicitly teach the students how the human mind learns and reasons. So as a solution towards this - a different approach: to provide our children with ideas they could use to invent their own theories about themselves! This is the idea of meta-cognition - thinking about thinking. And the way he suggests is by doing interesting computer-related student projects.
The way we can go about implementing the above idea is not by teaching Psychology to children,
but Cybernetics.
This essay is recent (January 2009), and Minsky recounts the past efforts - idea of teaching LOGO to children. This did not really take off, but Minsky feels that we have come a long way and these are really feasible now. He suggests robotic projects (LEGO Mindstorms NXT, I believe does this in a super cool way), Cognitive Projects (reasoning by analogy) , optimization projects, puzzle solvers and lots more.
My favorite quote from the essay is-
However, Computer Science is not only about computers themselves; more generally, it provides us with a whole new world of ways to understand complex processes—including the ones that go on in own mind.
Minsky concludes the essay by suggesting how it helps to think like a machine and hence supporting his claim of metacognition being improved by computers
I’m not good at math. ---There are some bugs in my symbolic processes.
I’m just not very smart ------ Some of my programs need improvements.
I don’t like this subject. ---------- My current goals need better priorities.
I am confused. -----------Some of my processes may conflict with others.
The jury is out !
I’m just not very smart ------ Some of my programs need improvements.
I don’t like this subject. ---------- My current goals need better priorities.
I am confused. -----------Some of my processes may conflict with others.
And how one can be more efficient !-
Time-management. ----- Organizing Searches. -------Splitting problems into parts.
Selecting good ways to represent things. -----Making appropriate cognitive maps.
Allocating short-term memory. ---------- Making appropriate Credit Assignments.
Selecting good ways to represent things. -----Making appropriate cognitive maps.
Allocating short-term memory. ---------- Making appropriate Credit Assignments.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Chimpanzees Mourn Their Dead
There is some cognition there?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Fall 2010 classes
Hi,
About more courses in cognition, maybe you wanna check
| PSYC 6011 - Cognitive Psychology | ||
Course on human cognition including pattern recognition, attention, memory, categorization, problem solving, consciousness, decision making, intention, and the relation between mind and brain.
|
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Society of Mind versus Mind of Society
We recently ended the class (Tuesday) with discussion concerning the existence of a "cognition of the United States" or any other nation. This seemed to get the class somewhat 'riled up' so it might be a good blog topic.
I think what the professor was speaking to was the notion that cognitive science allows us to consider the input-output (percepts to behavior; stimulus to response) system of nations just as easily as it does individuals. I recall from the beginning classes, hearing the course outlined as starting from the microscopic (neural) level and then traveling outward, resting for a period at the level of the individual (as would be expected) but then continuing outward and ending up looking at the cognition of cultures, societies, nations, families, etc. No mention was made of cockpits at the time, but the scenario was interesting nonetheless.
To me, the best way to consider the "cognition of a nation" is to take an example that is familiar. In class, the prof used an example that involved "us" but then asked us to put ourselves "outside" and look back at the United States. That's somewhat tough to do, I would think. Why not take "us" and just look at Russia? Or China? Or Canada? Some comments were made relating this as close (or related) to stereotyping, but the prof was quick to point out the distinction. Again, to me (and I could be wrong, but more on the 'wrong' idea later) it seems the cognition of the aggregate can best be viewed from the perspective of the decisions made and overall behavior. When that aggregate is a nation, the decisions and behavior (the responses to stimuli; output resulting from particular input; using the 'black-box' framework from class) are all based largely on whatever political and/or social process employed. The US democratic process dictates that the people vote for laws and politicians and then the laws and politicians go and do our 'dirty work' internationally. So, now, when other countries see the US as "bullying" or a nation with misplaced values, they are not saying that the average citizen displays these characteristics, but that the aggregate does. Stimulus: display or show that you (random nation) have some resource that the US considers valuable (like oil). Response: US "bullies" their way into getting some of that resource. A more complimentary example involves Input: earthquake in Haiti; billions in damages. Output: US sends humanitarian aid. I was going to continue with my example using Russia, but did not want to offend anyone who might happen to be from Russia.
In this way, we can see and analyze the cognition of nations understanding understand that, while the individual citizens are at the root of the decision making, the resultant behavior might be very different from any demonstrated by the "stereotypical" national. I might be wrong but, as the prof always says: there are no wrong answers when it comes to cognition... just varied ways of thinking about it. I'll be sure to reference this notion on my final paper...
I think what the professor was speaking to was the notion that cognitive science allows us to consider the input-output (percepts to behavior; stimulus to response) system of nations just as easily as it does individuals. I recall from the beginning classes, hearing the course outlined as starting from the microscopic (neural) level and then traveling outward, resting for a period at the level of the individual (as would be expected) but then continuing outward and ending up looking at the cognition of cultures, societies, nations, families, etc. No mention was made of cockpits at the time, but the scenario was interesting nonetheless.
To me, the best way to consider the "cognition of a nation" is to take an example that is familiar. In class, the prof used an example that involved "us" but then asked us to put ourselves "outside" and look back at the United States. That's somewhat tough to do, I would think. Why not take "us" and just look at Russia? Or China? Or Canada? Some comments were made relating this as close (or related) to stereotyping, but the prof was quick to point out the distinction. Again, to me (and I could be wrong, but more on the 'wrong' idea later) it seems the cognition of the aggregate can best be viewed from the perspective of the decisions made and overall behavior. When that aggregate is a nation, the decisions and behavior (the responses to stimuli; output resulting from particular input; using the 'black-box' framework from class) are all based largely on whatever political and/or social process employed. The US democratic process dictates that the people vote for laws and politicians and then the laws and politicians go and do our 'dirty work' internationally. So, now, when other countries see the US as "bullying" or a nation with misplaced values, they are not saying that the average citizen displays these characteristics, but that the aggregate does. Stimulus: display or show that you (random nation) have some resource that the US considers valuable (like oil). Response: US "bullies" their way into getting some of that resource. A more complimentary example involves Input: earthquake in Haiti; billions in damages. Output: US sends humanitarian aid. I was going to continue with my example using Russia, but did not want to offend anyone who might happen to be from Russia.
In this way, we can see and analyze the cognition of nations understanding understand that, while the individual citizens are at the root of the decision making, the resultant behavior might be very different from any demonstrated by the "stereotypical" national. I might be wrong but, as the prof always says: there are no wrong answers when it comes to cognition... just varied ways of thinking about it. I'll be sure to reference this notion on my final paper...
Friday, April 16, 2010
Translate for Animals
Google comes up with a new translate system to improve communication between animals and humans.
http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/landing/translateforanimals/
http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/landing/translateforanimals/
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Reading in the brain
http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Reviews-Essays/Reading-in-the-Brain/ba-p/1776
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Learning happens over time
Follow the link to a review of the topics covered today in class
http://swiki.cc.gatech.edu/cs6795-sp10/uploads/30/Francesco_RoccaCirasa-20100408_ClassCritique.pdf
Francesco
http://swiki.cc.gatech.edu/cs6795-sp10/uploads/30/Francesco_RoccaCirasa-20100408_ClassCritique.pdf
Francesco
The State of the Internet Operating System
By Tim O'Reilly
http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/03/state-of-internet-operating-system.html
Learning by copying
This research just came out showing the l"earning by copying" habit in other species like birds:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8603849.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8603849.stm
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Tappers and Listeners
Very interesting psychology experiment:
http://www.enotalone.com/article/11673.html
Design
Interesting survey for defining the designer for 2015:
Vote: http://designerof2015.aiga.org
Results: http://designerof2015.aiga.org/results/
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
A great source of amazing designs
We just discussed Design in the class and I want to share this very interesting website where you find lots of creative designs. Some of them are unbelievably simple and genius:
http://www.yankodesign.com/
http://www.yankodesign.com/
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Philosophy in the Flesh (Lakoff/Johnson)
One of my favorite quotes from this Lakoff/Johnson book (Philosophy in the Flesh) is as follows:
"The mind is inherently embodied. Thought is mostly unconscious. Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical."
In retrospection and introspection, many of the concepts we are studying in this class somewhat revolve around these ideas!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Shape Perception in Brain Develops by Itself
African nomads and Westerners show the same ability to discriminate between shapes, a new study in Psychological Science reports. Authors suggest that the brain's shape perception develops without deliberate training.
Full story
Full story
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
when a simple problem gets really hard!
After today's class when we were walking back to our department, Vinod and me were talking about some puzzles he used to post for PhD students at ISyE. he then asked me "what is a hard puzzle?" or better to say "is a problem hard because the solution is complicated or maybe something else is involved?"
I answered Vinod's question by bringing this example that we all know:
suppose we are training a child to learn the mathematical sum operation. To help him understand the "relationship" better we present him a story: suppose there are 3 birds sitting on a tree and 2 birds just come and sit next to them. how many birds are now on the tree? the child hopefully will answer 5. we repeat this problem with different numbers until he learns the whole concept of sum. now we switch the gear and try to teach him "subtraction" we ask him what will happen if we have 3 birds on the tree and 1 of them flies away. he will say 2 birds will remain on the tree. we repeat this experiment over and over until he learns this operation as well. now we test him on a "slightly" different problem. we tell him to suppose that there are 3 birds on the tree, we have a gun to shoot them, so we shoot and hit one of them. how many birds are now on the tree?
the first time I encountered this problem I immediately answered 2. I used the fact that since 2 problems are slightly different (actually they are exactly the same but some features are different. it's like we use 2 different kind of birds in 2 problems), the answer should be the same. but as we all know the answer is 0 since if you shoot one bird, other birds will fly away before you find a chance to shoot them.
I would call this problem "hard" and why so? before giving my reasons I would like to hear what you think.
I answered Vinod's question by bringing this example that we all know:
suppose we are training a child to learn the mathematical sum operation. To help him understand the "relationship" better we present him a story: suppose there are 3 birds sitting on a tree and 2 birds just come and sit next to them. how many birds are now on the tree? the child hopefully will answer 5. we repeat this problem with different numbers until he learns the whole concept of sum. now we switch the gear and try to teach him "subtraction" we ask him what will happen if we have 3 birds on the tree and 1 of them flies away. he will say 2 birds will remain on the tree. we repeat this experiment over and over until he learns this operation as well. now we test him on a "slightly" different problem. we tell him to suppose that there are 3 birds on the tree, we have a gun to shoot them, so we shoot and hit one of them. how many birds are now on the tree?
the first time I encountered this problem I immediately answered 2. I used the fact that since 2 problems are slightly different (actually they are exactly the same but some features are different. it's like we use 2 different kind of birds in 2 problems), the answer should be the same. but as we all know the answer is 0 since if you shoot one bird, other birds will fly away before you find a chance to shoot them.
I would call this problem "hard" and why so? before giving my reasons I would like to hear what you think.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Scientists extract images directly from brain
For your amusement, check this one
http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/
Discussed in class on 3-2
The Prof discussed the experiment whereby humans neural activity was charted by a computer as they were exposed to different 'artifacts.' In the example given, one person's perception of a knife was recorded by the computer and it was shown that the computer could tell what the person was looking at simply by the neural patterns. Researchers had discovered that different people's brains exhibited the same characteristics when processing the knife. The class seemed very interested in this and discussed this for several minutes. Some questions I had were:
1. Was the person asked to 'say' the word representing the object they saw, or just to look at it?
2. Did everybody look at the exact same knife? From the same perspective?
3. How would/should people's experience with knives play into their neuro-biological 'output'? For instance, would a chef who used knives like the one displayed on a daily basis have the same 'reaction' as a person who had little familiarity?
4. How would adults' perception of the knife differ from that of children?
In the end, the Prof explained the 'magic' behind the computer's ability to read minds, but it seemed that some of the class was still unsatisfied. (Note that the answer to number 1 is NO; I must have misunderstood.) What I gathered from his explanation was the following:
The computer detected neural activity, but the portion of the activity which actually spoke directly to the object in view was the portion connected to the visual center. That is, the computer looked for (and discerned) whatever happens in the brain when the eye falls on a particular color, depth, pattern, shape, blah, blah, blah. The information picked up by the eyes is somehow mapped and the device read and interpreted that mapping. That doesn't however, answer all of the questions. Would not a person looking at the knife from a different perspective (or angle) have a different resultant mapping? (the answer might be that the mapping is different but similar enough for the machine to detect the pattern)
What about the question of familiarity? Wouldn't the chef 'perceive' the knife a bit differently? (perhaps there were no chefs in the study)
Are not children's perceptual-cognitive representations of knives different than that of adults? That question raises the next question: is there a perceptual 'cutoff'? I guess (answering my own question) that a human is a human and if the eye captures the image, the mapping would be the same. What about a chimp's representation of the knife?
Just some quick notes so that I could say I participated in the blog and not be lying. Really, though, this class is thoroughly enjoyable to me and I love to listen to the discussions raised by the students from time to time. This blog should be a great tool. See you guys in class.
1. Was the person asked to 'say' the word representing the object they saw, or just to look at it?
2. Did everybody look at the exact same knife? From the same perspective?
3. How would/should people's experience with knives play into their neuro-biological 'output'? For instance, would a chef who used knives like the one displayed on a daily basis have the same 'reaction' as a person who had little familiarity?
4. How would adults' perception of the knife differ from that of children?
In the end, the Prof explained the 'magic' behind the computer's ability to read minds, but it seemed that some of the class was still unsatisfied. (Note that the answer to number 1 is NO; I must have misunderstood.) What I gathered from his explanation was the following:
The computer detected neural activity, but the portion of the activity which actually spoke directly to the object in view was the portion connected to the visual center. That is, the computer looked for (and discerned) whatever happens in the brain when the eye falls on a particular color, depth, pattern, shape, blah, blah, blah. The information picked up by the eyes is somehow mapped and the device read and interpreted that mapping. That doesn't however, answer all of the questions. Would not a person looking at the knife from a different perspective (or angle) have a different resultant mapping? (the answer might be that the mapping is different but similar enough for the machine to detect the pattern)
What about the question of familiarity? Wouldn't the chef 'perceive' the knife a bit differently? (perhaps there were no chefs in the study)
Are not children's perceptual-cognitive representations of knives different than that of adults? That question raises the next question: is there a perceptual 'cutoff'? I guess (answering my own question) that a human is a human and if the eye captures the image, the mapping would be the same. What about a chimp's representation of the knife?
Just some quick notes so that I could say I participated in the blog and not be lying. Really, though, this class is thoroughly enjoyable to me and I love to listen to the discussions raised by the students from time to time. This blog should be a great tool. See you guys in class.
Cognitive Science course blog
Cognitive Science is an interdisciplinary study of mind and intelligence. It lies at the intersection of computer science (specially artificial intelligence), psychology, linguistics, biology (specially neurobiology), anthropology and philosophy.
This blog is for students taking Cognitive Science course to express their views and opinions, to reflect, verbalize, share and discuss to collectively make sense of the course together.
The course webpage for this class is: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2010/cs6795_spring/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)