arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv subjects

Gualtiero Piccinini

Publications and source records attributed to Gualtiero Piccinini.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Allocentric Navigation Is Computationally Universal

I present three proofs that idealized neurocomputational architectures capable of navigation guided by allocentric maps with landmark structure can be computationally universal. Navigation may occur online, in the environment, or offline, in the animal's head. The first proof encodes the counters of a two-counter machine as positions of movable markers on orthogonal axes. The second directly simulates a one-tape Turing machine using a writable tape-path embedded in the map. The third replaces the globally designated path with a two-dimensional field of landmarks carrying only local predecessor/successor information. I establish universality in two senses: each class of navigation models is Turing-complete, and each contains a single machine that simulates every machine in its class. These constructions are mathematically close to classical graph-based models, including Kolmogorov-Uspensky machines, storage-modification machines, and graph Turing machines, so the bare computability results are unsurprising. My contribution is to reconstruct them explicitly within an allocentric cognitive-map architecture whose representational and computational primitives are drawn from empirical and theoretical work on spatial navigation and cognitive control. This shows that an allocentric navigation-based architecture can be computationally universal and opens the possibility of reconstructing aspects of biological cognition, including symbolic processing, in map-based terms.

q-bio.NC

Neural Hardware for the Language of Thought: New Rules for an Old Game

The Language of Thought (LOT) hypothesis posits that at least some important cognitive processes involve language-like representations. These representations must be processed by appropriate hardware. Since the organ of biological cognition is the nervous system, whether biological cognition relies on a LOT depends on how neural hardware works. I distinguish between different versions of LOT, articulate their hardware requirements, and consider which versions of LOT are supported by empirical evidence. I argue that the Classical LOT hypothesis (Fodor 1975) is ruled out; the version of LOT that is best supported by empirical evidence is the Nonclassical LOT thesis that some neural representations mirror some of the structure of natural language and represent in a language-like way, yet they encode information nondigitally and are processed by ordinary (nondigital, and hence Nonclassical) neural computations that rely not only on syntactic structure but many other features.

q-bio.NC