Conceptual Spaces in Object-Oriented Framework

The aim of this paper is to show that the middle level of mental representations in a conceptual spaces framework is consistent with the OOP paradigm. We argue that conceptual spaces framework together with vague prototype theory of categorization appears to be the most suitable solution for modeling the cognitive apparatus of humans, and that the OOP paradigm can be easily and intuitively reconciled with this framework. First, we show that the prototypebased OOP approach is consistent with Gärdenfors’ model in terms of structural coherence. Second, we argue that the product of cloning process in a prototype-based model is in line with the structure of categories in Gärdenfors’ proposal. Finally, in order to make the fuzzy object-oriented model consistent with conceptual space, we demonstrate how to define membership function in a more cognitive manner, i.e. in terms of similarity to prototype

A theory of structural model validity in simulation.

During the last decennia, the practice of simulation has become increasingly popular among many system analysts, model builders and general scientists for the purpose of studying complex systems that surpass the operability of analytical solution techniques. As a consequence of the pragmatic orientation of simulation, a vital stage for a successful application is the issue of validating a constructed simulation model. Employing the model as an effective instrument for assessing the benefit of structural changes or for predicting future observations makes validation an essential part of any productive simulation study. The diversity of the employment field of simulation however brings about that there exists an irrefutable level of ambiguity concerning the principal subject of this validation process. Further, the literature has come up with a plethora of ad hoc validation techniques that have mostly been inherited from standard statistical analysis. It lies within the aim of this paper to reflect on the issue of validation in simulation and to present the reader with a topological parallelism of the classical philosophical polarity of objectivism versus relativism. First, we will position validation in relation to verification and accreditation and elaborate on the prime actors in validation, i.e. a conceptual model, a formal model and behaviour. Next, we will formally derive a topological interpretation of structural validation for both objectivists and relativists. As will be seen, recent advances in the domain of fuzzy topology allow for a valuable metaphor of a relativistic attitude towards modelling and structural validation. Finally, we will discuss several general types of modelling errors that may occur and examine their repercussion on the natural topological spaces of objectivists and relativists. We end this paper with a formal, topological oriented definition of structural model validity for both objectivists and relativists. The paper is concluded with summarising the most important findings and giving a direction for future research.Model; Simulation; Theory; Scientists; Processes; Statistical analysis;

Platonic model of mind as an approximation to neurodynamics

Hierarchy of approximations involved in simplification of microscopic theories, from sub-cellural to the whole brain level, is presented. A new approximation to neural dynamics is described, leading to a Platonic-like model of mind based on psychological spaces. Objects and events in these spaces correspond to quasi-stable states of brain dynamics and may be interpreted from psychological point of view. Platonic model bridges the gap between neurosciences and psychological sciences. Static and dynamic versions of this model are outlined and Feature Space Mapping, a neurofuzzy realization of the static version of Platonic model, described. Categorization experiments with human subjects are analyzed from the neurodynamical and Platonic model points of view

Spatial groundings for meaningful symbols

The increasing availability of ontologies raises the need to establish relationships and make inferences across heterogeneous knowledge models. The approach proposed and supported by knowledge representation standards consists in establishing formal symbolic descriptions of a conceptualisation, which, it has been argued, lack grounding and are not expressive enough to allow to identify relations across separate ontologies. Ontology mapping approaches address this issue by exploiting structural or linguistic similarities between symbolic entities, which is costly, error-prone, and in most cases lack cognitive soundness. We argue that knowledge representation paradigms should have a better support for similarity and propose two distinct approaches to achieve it. We first present a representational approach which allows to ground symbolic ontologies by using Conceptual Spaces (CS), allowing for automated computation of similarities between instances across ontologies. An alternative approach is presented, which considers symbolic entities as contextual interpretations of processes in spacetime or Differences. By becoming a process of interpretation, symbols acquire the same status as other processes in the world and can be described (tagged) as well, which allows the bottom-up production of meaning

Fuzzy Bigraphs: An Exercise in Fuzzy Communicating Agents

Bigraphs and their algebra is a model of concurrency. Fuzzy bigraphs are a generalization of birgraphs intended to be a model of concurrency that incorporates vagueness. More specifically, this model assumes that agents are similar, communication is not perfect, and, in general, everything is or happens to some degree.Comment: 11 pages, 3 figure