Four Problems Solved by the Probabilistic Language of Thought

We argue for the advantages of the probabilistic language of thought (pLOT), a recently emerging approach to modeling human cognition. Work using this framework demonstrates how the pLOT (a) refines the debate between symbols and statistics in cognitive modeling, (b) permits theories that draw on insights from both nativist and empiricist approaches, (c) explains the origins of novel and complex computational concepts, and (d) provides a framework for abstraction that can link sensation and conception. In each of these areas, the pLOT provides a productive middle ground between historical divides in cognitive psychology, pointing to a promising way forward for the field.

[1]  S. Laurence,et al.  The Conceptual Mind: New Directions in the Study of Concepts , 2015 .

[2]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning , 2000, Nature.

[3]  J. Roger Hindley,et al.  Introduction to combinators and λ-calculus , 1986, Acta Applicandae Mathematicae.

[4]  R. Jacobs,et al.  Transfer of object category knowledge across visual and haptic modalities: Experimental and computational studies , 2013, Cognition.

[5]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Modeling the acquisition of quantifier semantics: a case study in function word learnability , 2012 .

[6]  J. Fodor Lot 2: The Language of Thought Revisited , 2008 .

[7]  J. Siskind A computational study of cross-situational techniques for learning word-to-meaning mappings , 1996, Cognition.

[8]  S. Carey The Origin of Concepts , 2000 .

[9]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Church: a language for generative models , 2008, UAI.

[10]  Robert A. Jacobs,et al.  From Sensory Signals to Modality-Independent Conceptual Representations: A Probabilistic Language of Thought Approach , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[11]  Alan M. Turing,et al.  Computability and λ-definability , 1937, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[12]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  The eyes grasp, the hands see: Metric category knowledge transfers between vision and touch , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[13]  Philip J. Stone,et al.  Experiments in induction , 1966 .

[14]  Katherine D. Kinzler,et al.  Core knowledge. , 2007, Developmental science.

[15]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  A Rational Analysis of Rule-Based Concept Learning , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  A. Church An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory , 1936 .

[17]  William M. Smith,et al.  A Study of Thinking , 1956 .

[18]  S. Pinker,et al.  Combination and structure, not gradedness, is the issue , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  James L. McClelland,et al.  ‘Words or Rules’ cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  G. Boole An Investigation of the Laws of Thought: On which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities , 2007 .

[21]  Matthew Richardson,et al.  Markov logic networks , 2006, Machine Learning.

[22]  Fei Xu,et al.  Infants Are Rational Constructivist Learners , 2013 .

[23]  D. McDermott LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT , 2012 .

[24]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Probabilistic Semantics and Pragmatics: Uncertainty in Language and Thought , 2015 .

[25]  Luc De Raedt,et al.  Logical and relational learning , 2008, Cognitive Technologies.

[26]  John R. Anderson ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. , 1996 .

[27]  Susan Goldin-Meadow,et al.  What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language , 2003 .

[28]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[29]  S. Levinson,et al.  The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. , 2009, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[30]  Kent Johnson Gold’s Theorem and Cognitive Science* , 2004, Philosophy of Science.

[31]  W. Geisler Ideal Observer Analysis , 2002 .

[32]  C. Wallraven Touching on face space: Comparing visual and haptic processing of face shapes , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[33]  E. Mark Gold,et al.  Language Identification in the Limit , 1967, Inf. Control..

[34]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out? , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[35]  S. Pinker,et al.  The past and future of the past tense , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  William M. Smith,et al.  A Study of Thinking , 1956 .

[37]  J. Tenenbaum A Bayesian framework for concept learning , 1999 .

[38]  J. Feldman Symbolic representation of probabilistic worlds , 2012, Cognition.

[39]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis , 1988, Cognition.

[40]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Concepts in a Probabilistic Language of Thought , 2014 .

[41]  Robert A Jacobs,et al.  Learning multisensory representations for auditory-visual transfer of sequence category knowledge: a probabilistic language of thought approach , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[42]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Bootstrapping in a language of thought: A formal model of numerical concept learning , 2012, Cognition.