The Ouroboros Model Embraces Its Sensory-Motoric Foundations And Learns To Talk

• Authors: Knud Thomsen
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The Ouroboros Model proposes a brain inspired cognitive architecture including detailed suggestions for the main processing steps in an overall conceptualization of cognition as embodied and embedded computing. All memories are structured into schemata, which are firmly grounded in the body of an actor. A cyclic and iterative data-acquisition and -processing loop forms the backbone of all cognitive activity. Ever more sophisticated schemata are built up incrementally from the wide combination of neural activity, concurrent at the point in time when the memory is established; i.e., distinct representations are accrued. Later on, an entire schema can be reinstated from diverse subsets of its constituent features. In order to decode or compile ever more elaborate constructions, extant building blocks are concatenated. They are serially linked via common or “connection-attributes” of different representations and symbols, and they are employed for serial perception, processing and action, in particular, also for language production. At various levels, commonalities between different schemata lead to a similar preferred use of their respective tokens and subsequently shared categorizations. Rules, for the concatenation of words, akin to the ones governing chemical reactions, can be abstracted. As special kinds of symbols, words and word-classes along with the whole grammar of a language can thus be seen as a direct consequence of the processes outlined in the Ouroboros Model. Strong emphasis is put on the dimension of time over short intervals during active experience and performance, and, in particular, during interactions with other agents.

Keywords

EN

schemata; serial iterative processing; anticipations; consistency; communication

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 41
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 105-125

Dates

published

2015-06-01

online

2015-07-24

Contributors

author

Knud Thomsen

• Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland

References

• Andone, C. (2014). Maneuvering with the burden of proof: confrontational strategies in dealing with political accountability. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36, 59–78.
• Arunachalam, S., & Waxman, S. R. (2014). Let’s see a boy and a balloon: Argument labels and syntactic frame in verb learning. Learning and Development, in press.
• Bałaj, B. (2013). Visual scanning of figurative and abstract painting. Research on naïve in the field of art. Paper presented at Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies, 1st International Avant Conference, Toruń, Poland.
• Boyd, J. R. (1976). Destruction and creation. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Retrieved from
• Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Clark, E. V. (1973). What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65–110). New York: Academic Press.
• Cotterill, R. (2001). Cooperation of the basal ganglia, cerebellum, sensory cerebrum and hippocampus: possible implications for cognition, consciousness, intelligence and creativity. Progress in Neurobiology, 64, 1–33.[PubMed]
• Citron, F. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, in press.[WoS]
• Ferstl, E. C., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2001). The role of coherence and cohesion in text comprehension: an event-related fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 325–340.
• Genter, D. (1978). On relational meaning: The acquisition of verb meaning, Child Development, 49, 988–998.
• Gómez, D. M., Berent, I., Benavides-Varela, S., Bion, R. A. H., Catarossi, L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2014). Language universals at birth. Proc. Nat Acad. Sc., 111, 5837–5841.[Crossref]
• Guthrie, L. (2013). The hands that do the thinking: Interactivity in mental arithmetic. Paper presented at Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies, 1st International Avant Conference, Toruń, Poland.
• Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain and binding: a new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 416–423.
• Haidarian H. S, Dinalankara, W., Fults, S., Wilson, S., Perlis, D., Schmill, M., Oates, T., Josyula, D. S., & Anderson, M. L. (2010). The metacognitive loop: An architecture for building robust intelligent systems. AAAI Fall Symposium: Commonsense Knowledge, Vol. FS-10-02 of AAAI Technical Report. AAAI.
• Haken, H. (1977). Synergetics: an introduction; nonequilibrium phase transitions and self-organization in physics, chemistry and biology. Berlin: Springer.
• Hartmann, N. (1935–1950). Ontologie. 4 Bände. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335–346.[Crossref]
• Jacquette, D. (2014). Collective referential intentionality in the semantics of dialogue. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36, 143–159.
• Keidel, J. L., Davis, P. M., Gonzalez-Diaz, V. Martin, C. D., & Thierry, G. (2013). How Shekespeare tempests the brain: Neuroimaging insights. Cortex, 49, 913–919.[WoS][Crossref][PubMed]
• Kibrik, A. A. (2012, June). Non-discrete effects in language, or the critique of pure reason 2. Paper presented at The Fifth International Conference in Cognitive Science, Kaliningrad.
• Kupferberg, G. R., & Caplan, D (2003). Language dysfunctioon in schizophrenia. In R. B. Schiffer, S. M. Rao, & B. S. Fogel (Eds.): Neuropsychiatry, 2nd ed. (pp. 444–466). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
• Ledoux, K., Traxler, M. J., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 18, 135–143.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Lewis, A. G., Wang, L., & Bastiaansen, M. (2015). Fast oscillatory dynamics during language comprehension: Unification versus maintenance and prediction? Brain & Language, in press. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.003[Crossref]
• Lind, A., Hall, L., Breidegard, B., Balkenius, C., & Johansson, P. (2014). Speaker’s acceptance of real-time speech exchange indicates that we use auditory feedback to specify the meaning of what we say. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1198–1205. doi: 10.1177/0956797614529797[WoS][Crossref]
• Lucero, C., Zaharchuk, H., & Casasanto, D. (2014). Beat gestures facilitate speech production. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane, & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 898–903). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
• Mackenzie, J. (2014). From speech acts to semantics. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36, 121–142.
• Moen, R., & Norman, C. (2009). Evolution of the PDCA cycle. Retrieved on 4 April 2014 from
• Moore, J. W., & Fletcher, P. C. (2012). Sense of agency in health and disease: A review of cue integration approaches. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 59–68.[WoS]
• Noton, D., & Stark, L. (1971). Eye movements and visual perception. Scientific American, 224, 35–43.
• O’Regan, J. K. (2013). Why things feel the way they do: The sensorimotor approach to understanding phenomenal consciousness. Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies, 1st International Avant-Conference, Torun, Poland.
• Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen eighty-four. London: Secker & Warburg.
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 1–64.[WoS]
• Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2013). Thinking with Hands, Eyes, Things and Others. Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies, 1st International Avant Conference, Toruń, Poland.
• Reitter, D., Keller, F., & Moore, J. D. (2011). A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 35, 587–637.[WoS][PubMed][Crossref]
• Schneider, S., Rapp, M. A., Haeußinger, F. B., Ernst, L. H., Hamm, F. Fallgatter, A. J., & Ehlis, A.-C. (2014). Beyond the N400: Complementary access to early neural correlates of novel metaphor comprehension using combined electrophysiological and haemodynamic measurements. Cortex, 53, 45–59.[Crossref][WoS]
• Searle, J. H. (2014). The Structure and functions of language. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36, 27–40.
• Selz, O. (1913). Über die Gesetze des geordneten Denkverlaufs, erster Teil. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Speemann.
• Selz, O. (1922). Über die Gesetze des geordneten Denkverlaufs, zweiter Teil. Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens und des Irrtums. Bonn: Cohen.
• Shewhart, W. A. (1939). Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. Washington, DC, The Graduate School, the Department of Agriculture, pp. 155.
• Thomsen, K. (2010a). The Ouroboros Model in the light of venerable criteria. Neurocomputing, 74, 121–128.[Crossref][WoS]
• Thomsen, K. (2010b). Concept formation in the Ouroboros Model. Third Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, AGI 2010, Lugano, Switzerland.
• Thomsen, K. (2011a). Consciousness for the Ouroboros Model. Journal for Machine Consciousness, 3, 163–175.
• Thomsen, K. (2011b). The Ouroboros Model, selected facets. In C. Hernández et al. (Eds.), From brains to systems (pp. 239–250). New York: Springer.
• Thomsen, K. (2013). The Ouroboros Model embraces its sensory-motoric foundations. Paper presented at Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies, 1st International Avant Conference, Toruń, Poland.
• Thomsen, K. (2014). The cerebellum according to the Ouroboros Model, the “interpolator hypothesis”. Journal of Communication and Computer, 11, 239–254.
• Tydgat, I., Diepedaele, K., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2012). How lingering representations of abandoned context words affect speech production. Acta Psychologica, 140, 218–239.[Crossref][PubMed][WoS]
• Willems, R. M., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture and action: A review. Brain & Language, 101, 278–289.
• Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophische Untersuchungen. Kritisch-genetische Edition (J. Schulte, Hrsg.). Frankfurt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/slgr-2015-0023