Neurocognitive science:

mind from brain?

Wodzisaw Duch
Department of Informatics,
Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toru, PL
Dept. of Comp. Science, School of Comp.
Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore
Google: Duch

Cognitive Science
The Central Paradox of Cognition: how can the structure and
meaning, expressed in symbols and ideas at the mental
level, result from numerical processing at the brain level?

Very few general laws in psychology (mostly

psychophysical).
Psycho-logy lost the soul (psyche)?
Cognitive science: mixture (syntopy?) of cognitive
psychology, neurosciences, AI, linguistics, philosophy of
mind, psychophysics, anthropology ... but ...
There is no central model of mind in cognitive science
& foundations of cognitive sciences are full of
philosophical problems (Searle, Chalmers, Nagel, Jacson ...)

Mind the Gap

Gap between neuroscience and psychology: cognitive
science is at best incoherent mixture of various branches.
Is a satisfactory understanding of the mind possible ?
Roger Shepard, Toward a universal law of generalization
for psychological science (Science, Sept. 1987):
What is required is not more data or more refined data
but a different conception of the problem.

Mind is what the brain does, a potentially conscious

subset of brain processes.
How to approximate the dynamics of the brain
to get satisfactory (geometric?) picture of the mind?

From molecules ...

10-10 m, molecular level: ion channels, synapses, membrane
properties, neurochemistry, biophysics, psychopharmacology,
mind from molecular perspective (Ira Black)?
10-6 m, single neurons: biophysics, computational neuroscience (CS),
compartmental models, spikes, LTP, LTD, neurochemistry &
neurophysiology.
10-4 m, small networks: neurodynamics, recurrence, spiking neurons,
synchronization, neural code (liquid?), memory effects,
multielectrode recordings, neurophysiology, CS.
10-3 m, neural assemblies: cortical columns, multielectrode & large
electrode recordings, microcircuits, neurodynamics,
neuroscience, CS.

 to behavior.
10-2 m, mesoscopic networks: self-organization, sensory and motor
maps, population coding, continuous activity models,
mean field theories, brain imaging, EEG, MEG, fMRI.
10-1 m, transcortical networks, large brain structures: simplified
models of cortex, limbic structures, subcortical nuclei,
integration of
functions, concept formation, sensorimotor
integration,
neuropsychology, computational psychiatry ...

And then a miracle happens

1 m, CNS, brain level: intentional behavior, psychology,
thinking, reasoning, language, problem solving, symbolic
processing, goal oriented knowledge-based systems, AI.
Where is psyche, the inner perspective?
Lost in translation: networks => finite state automata => behavior
Alternative: Platonic model => mental events.

Brain-like computing
Brain states are physical, spatio-temporal states of neural tissue.

I can see, hear and feel only my brain states! Ex: change blindness.
Cognitive processes operate on highly processed sensory data.
Redness, sweetness, itching, pain ... are all physical states of brain
tissue.
In contrast to computer registers,
brain states are dynamical, and
thus contain in themselves many
associations, relations.
Inner world is real! Mind is based
on relations of brains states.
Computers and robots do not
have an equivalent of such WM.

Static Platonic model: motivation

Plato believed in reality of mind, ideal forms
recognized by intellect.

A useful metaphor: perceived

mind content is like a shadow of
ideal, real world of objects
projected on the wall of a cave.
(drawing: Marc Cohen)

Real mind objects: shadows of neurodynamics?

Neurocognitive science: show how to do it!

Physics and psychology

R. Shepard (BBS, 2001):
psychological laws should be formulated
in appropriate psychological abstract spaces.
Physics - macroscopic properties results from microscopic interactions.
Description of movement - invariant in appropriate spaces:

Euclidean 3D => Galileo transformations;

(3+1) pseudo-Euclidean space => Lorentz x-t transformations;
Riemannian curved space => laws invariant in accelerating frames.
Psychology - behavior, categorization, results from neurodynamics.
Neural networks: microscopic description, too difficult to use.
Find psychological spaces that result from neural dynamics and allow to
formulate general behavioral laws.

P-spaces
Psychological spaces:
K. Lewin, The conceptual representation and the
measurement of psychological forces (1938), cognitive
dynamic movement in phenomenological space.

George Kelly (1955), personal

construct psychology (PCP),
geometry of psychological
spaces as alternative to logic.
A complete theory of cognition,
action, learning and intention.
PCP network, society, journal,
software

P-space definition
P-space: region in which we may place and classify
elements of our experience, constructed and evolving,
a space without distance, divided by dichotomies.
P-spaces should have (Shepard 1957-2001):

minimal dimensionality;
distances that monotonically decrease with
increasing similarity.
This may be achieved using multi-dimensional non-metric scaling
(MDS), reproducing similarity relations in low-dimensional spaces.
Can one describe the state of mind in similar way?

Laws of generalization
Shepard (1987), Universal law of generalization.
Tenenbaum, Griffith (2001), Bayesian framework unifying settheoretic approach (introduced by Tversky 1977) with Shepard ideas.
Generalization gradients tend to fall off approximately exponentially
with distance in an appropriately scaled psychological space.

Distance - from MDS maps of perceived similarity of stimuli.

G(D) = probability of response learned to stimulus for D=0, for
many visual/auditory tasks, falls exponentially with the distance.

Minds work in low D!

Mind uses only those features that are useful to act/decide.
The structure of the world is internalized in the brain.
3 examples of elegant low-D mental principles in vision:

In a 3-D vector space, in which each variation in natural

illumination is cancelled by application of its inverse from the
three-dimensional linear group of terrestrial transformations of
the invariant solar source, color constancy is achieved.

Positions and motions of objects represented as points and

connecting geodesic paths in the 6-D manifold (3-D Euclidean
group of positions and 3-D rotation of each object) conserve
their shapes in the geometrically fullest and simplest way.

Kinds of objects support optimal generalization/categorization

when represented as connected regions with shapes
determined by Bayesian revision of maximum-entropy priors.

Object recognition
Natural object recognition (S. Edelman, 1997)
Second-order similarity in low-dimensional (<300) space is sufficient.
Population of columns as weak classifiers working in chorus - stacking.

Static Platonic model

Newton introduced space-time, arena for physical events.
Mind events need psychological spaces.
Goal: integrate neural and behavioral information in one model,
create model of mental processes at intermediate level between
psychology and neuroscience.
Static version: short-term response properties of the brain,
behavioral (sensomotoric) or memory-based (cognitive).
Approach:
simplify neural dynamics, find invariants (attractors), characterize
them in psychological spaces;
use behavioral data, represent them in psychological space.
Applications: object recognition, psychophysics, category
formation in low-D psychological spaces, case-based reasoning.

How to make static model?

From neural responses to stimulus spaces.
Bayesian analysis of multielectrode responses (Fldiak).
P(ri|s), i=1..N computed from multi-electrode measurements
The posterior probability P(s|r) = P(stimulus | response)
Bayes law:
N

P s | r P s | r1 , r2 ..rN

P( s ) P ri | s
i 1
N

P(s ') P r | s '

i

s'

i 1

Population analysis: visual object represented

as population of column activities.
Same for words and abstract objects
(evidence from brain imaging).

Semantic memory
Autoassociative network, developing internal
representations (McClleland-Naughton-OReilly, 1995).
After training distance relations between different
categories are displayed in a dendrogram, showing
natural similarities/ clusters.
MDS mappings: min (Rij rij)2
from internal neural activations;
from original data in the P-space - hypercube,
dimensions
for predicates, ex. robin(x) {0, 1};
from psychological experiments, similarity matrices;
show similar configurations.

Neural distances
Activations of groups of neurons presented in activation space
define similarity relations in geometrical model.

Similarity between concepts

Left: MDS on vectors from neural network.
Right: MDS on data from psychological experiments with perceived
similarity between animals.

From neurodynamics
neurodynamics to
to P-spaces
P-spaces
Modeling input/output relations with some internal parameters.
Walter Freeman: model of olfaction in rabbits, 5 types of odors, 5
types of behavior, very complex model in between.
Simplified models: H. Liljestrm.

Attractors of dynamics in high-dimensional space => via fuzzy symbolic

dynamics allow to define probability densities (PDF) in feature spaces.
Mind objects - created from fuzzy prototypes/exemplars.

More neurodynamics
Amit group, 1997-2001,
simplified spiking neuron
models of column activity
during learning.
Stage 1: single columns
respond to some feature.
Stage 2: several columns
respond to different features.
Stage 3: correlated activity
of many columns appears.
Formation of new attractors
=>formation of mind objects.
PDF: p(activity of columns|
given presented features)

Category learning
Large field, many models.
Classical experiments: Shepard, Hovland and Jenkins (1961),
replicated by Nosofsky et al. (1994)
Problems of increasing complexity; results determined by logical rules.
3 binary-valued dimensions:
shape (square/triangle), color (black/white), size (large/small).
4 objects in each of the two categories presented during learning.
Type I - categorization using one dimension only.
Type II - two dim. are relevant (XOR problem).
Types III, IV, and V - intermediate complexity between Type II - VI.
All 3 dimensions relevant, "single dimension plus exception" type.
Type VI - most complex, 3 dimensions relevant,
logic = enumerate stimuli in each of the categories.
Difficulty (number of errors made): Type I < II < III ~ IV ~ V < VI

Canonical neurodynamics.
What happens in the brain during category learning?
Complex neurodynamics <=> simplest, canonical dynamics.
For all logical functions one may write corresponding equations.
For XOR (type II problems) equations are:
V x, y, z 3xyz

1 2
2
2 2
x

V
3 yz x 2 y 2 z 2 x
x
V
y&
3xz x 2 y 2 z 2 y
y
V
z&
3xy x 2 y 2 z 2 z
z
x&

Corresponding feature space for relevant

dimensions A, B

Inverse based rates

Relative frequencies (base rates) of categories are used for classification:
if on a list of disease and symptoms disease C associated with (PC, I)
symptoms is 3 times more common as R,
then symptoms PC => C, I => C (base rate effect).
Predictions contrary to the base:
inverse base rate effects (Medin, Edelson 1988).
Although PC + I + PR => C (60% answers)
PC + PR => R (60% answers)

Why such answers?

Psychological explanations are not convincing.
Effects due to the neurodynamics of learning?
I am not aware of any dynamical models of such effects.

IBR neurocognitive explanation

Psychological explanation:
J. Kruschke, Base Rates in Category Learning (1996).
PR is attended to because it is a distinct symptom, although PC is more
common.
Basins of attractors - neurodynamics;
PDFs in P-space {C, R, I, PC, PR}.
PR + PC activation leads more frequently
to R because the basin of attractor for R is
deeper.
Construct neurodynamics, get PDFs.
Unfortunately these processes are in 5D.
Prediction: weak effects due to order and timing of presentation
(PC, PR) and (PR, PC), due to trapping of the mind state by different
attractors.

Learning
Point of view

Neurocognitive

Psychology

I+PC more frequent => stronger

synaptic connections, larger and
deeper basins of attractors.

Symptoms I, PC are typical for C

because they appear more often.

To avoid attractor around I+PC

leading to C, deeper, more
localized attractor around I+PR
is created.

Rare disease R - symptom I is

misleading, attention shifted to
PR associated with R.

Probing
Point of view

Neurocognitive

Psychology

Activation by I leads to C because

longer training on I+PC creates
larger common basin than I+PR.

I => C, in agreement with base

rates, more frequent stimuli I+PC
are recalled more often.

Activation by I+PC+PR leads

frequently to C, because I+PC
puts the system in the middle of
the large C basin and even for PR
geadients still lead to C.

I+PC+PR => C because all

symptoms are present and C is
more frequent (base rates again).

Activation by PR+PC leads more

frequently to R because the basin
of attractor for R is deeper, and
the gradient at (PR,PC) leads to
R.

PC+PR => R because R is distinct

symptom, although PC is more
common.

Automatization of actions
Learning: initially conscious involvement (large
brain areas active) in the end becomes automatic,
subconscious, intuitive (well-localized activity).
Formation of new resonant states - attractors in
brain dynamics during learning => neural models.
Reinforcement learning requires observing and evaluating how
successful are the actions that the brain has planned and is executing.
Relating current performance to memorized episodes of performance
requires evaluation + comparison (Gray subiculum), followed by
emotional reactions that provide reinforcement via dopamine release,
facilitating rapid learning of specialized neural modules.
Working memory is essential to perform such complex task.
Errors are painfully conscious, and should be remembered.
Conscious experiences provide reinforcement (is this main function of
consciousness?); there is no transfer from conscious to subconscious.

Feature Space Mapping

Platonic Model: inspiration for FSM (Duch 1994) - neurofuzzy system for
modeling PDFs using separable transfer (fuzzy membership) functions.
Classification, extraction of logical rules, decision support.

Set up (fuzzy) facts explicitly as dense regions in the feature space;

Initialize by clusterization - creates rough PDF landscape.
Train by tuning adaptive parameters P;
novelty criteria allow for creation of new nodes as required.
Self-organization of G(X;P) = prototypes of objects in the feature space.
N

g p ( X; P ) g p , i xi ; Pi p
p

i 1

F ( X; P ) W p g p X; P p
p 1

Recognition: find local maximum

of the F(X;P) function.

Intuitive thinking
Question in qualitative physics:
if R2 increases, R1 and Vt are constant,
what will happen with current and V1, V2 ?
Geometric representation of facts:
+ increasing, 0 constant, - decreasing.
Ohms law V=IR; Kirhoffs V=V1+V2.
True (I-,V-,R0), (I+,V+,R0), false (I+,V-,R0).
5 laws: 3 Ohms & 2 Kirhoffs laws.
All laws A=B+C, A=BC , A-1=B-1+C-1,
have identical geometric interpretation!
13 true, 14 false facts; simple P-space,
complex neurodynamics.

Intuitive reasoning
5 laws are simultaneously fulfilled, all have the same representation:
5

F (Vt , R, I ,V1 ,V2 , R1 , R2 ) Fi ( Ai , Bi , Ci )

i 1

Question: If R2=+, R1=0 and V =0, what can be said about I, V1, V2 ?
Find missing value giving F(V=0, R, I,V1, V2, R1=0, R2=+) >0
Suppose that variable X = +, is it possible?
Not, if F(V=0, R, I,V1, V2, R1=0, R2=+) =0, i.e. one law is not fulfilled.
If nothing is known 111 consistent combinations out of 2187 (5%) exist.
Intuitive reasoning, no manipulation
of symbols; heuristics: select
variable giving unique answer.
Soft constraints or semi-quantitative
=> small |FSM(X)| values.

Platonic mind model

Feature detectors/effectors: topographic maps.
Objects in long-term memory (parietal, temporal, frontal): local P-spaces.
Mind space (working memory, prefrontal, parietal): construction of mind
space features/objects using attention mechanisms.
Feelings: gradients in the global space.

Language for psychology

Precise language, replacing folk psychology,
reducible to neurodynamics.
Mind state dynamics modeled by gradient
dynamics in mind space, sticking to PDF
maxima, for example:

S (0) X inp ;

S&(t ) S M ( S ; t ) 1 g M S ; t (t )
where g(x) controls the sticking and
(t) is a noise + external forces term.
Mind state has inertia and momentum;
transition probabilities between mind objects
should be fitted to transition prob. between
corresponding attractors of neurodynamics
(QM-like formalism).
Primary mind objects - from sensory data.
Secondary mind objects - abstract categories.

Some connections
Geometric/dynamical ideas related to mind may be found in many fields:

Neuroscience:
D. Marr (1970) probabilistic landscape.
C.H. Anderson, D.C. van Essen (1994): Superior Colliculus PDF maps
S. Edelman: neural spaces, object recognition, global representation space
approximates the Cartesian product of spaces that code object fragments,
representation of similarities is sufficient.
Psychology:
K. Levin, psychological forces.
G. Kelly, Personal Construct Psychology.
R. Shepard, universal invariant laws.
P. Johnson-Laird, mind models.
Folk psychology: to put in mind, to have in mind, to keep in mind
(mindmap), to make up one's mind, be of one mind ... (space).

More connections
AI: problem spaces - reasoning, problem solving, SOAR, ACT-R,
little work on continuous mappings (MacLennan) instead of symbols.
Engineering: system identification, internal models inferred from input/output
observations this may be done without any parametric assumptions if a
number of identical neural modules are used!

Philosophy:
P. Grdenfors, conceptual spaces
R.F. Port, T.van Gelder, ed. Mind as motion (MIT Press 1995)
Linguistics:
G. Fauconnier, Mental Spaces (Cambridge U.P. 1994).
Mental spaces and non-classical feature spaces.
J. Elman, Language as a dynamical system; J. Feldman neural basis;
Stream of thoughts, sentence as a trajectory in P-space.
Psycholinguistics: T. Landauer, S. Dumais, Latent Semantic Analysis,
Psych. Rev. (1997) Semantic for 60 k words corpus requires about 300 dim.

Conclusions
Complex neurodynamics => dynamics in P-spaces.
Low-dimensional representation of mental events.
Is this a good bridge between mind and brain?
Psychological interpretations may be illusory!
Useful applications of the static Platonic model.

Open questions:
High-dimensional P-spaces with Finsler geometry needed for visualization
of mind events - will such model be still understandable?
Mathematical characterization of mind space? Many choices.
Challenges: simulations of brains may lead to mind functions, but without
conceptual understanding;
neurodynamical models => P-spaces for monkey categorization.
At the end of the road: physics-like theory of events in mental spaces?

Papers (Google: Duch)

W. Duch, Geometryczny model umysu.

Kognitywistyka i Media w Edukacji 6 (2002) 199-230

Fizyka umysu. Postpy Fizyki 53D (2002), 92-103
Brain-inspired conscious computing architecture.
Journal of Mind and Behavior 26 (2005) 1-22
Platonic model of mind as an approximation to
neurodynamics. In: Brain-like computing and intelligent
information systems (Springer, Singapore 1997), chap. 20,
pp. 491-512
Computational physics of the mind.
Computer Physics Communication 97 (1996) 136-153
From cognitive models to neurofuzzy systems - the mind
space approach. Systems Analysis-Modeling-Simulation 24
(1996) 53-65
From brain to mind to consciousness without hard problems,
Sympozjum Kognitywne wiadomo a Percepcja. UAM 1996
Mind space approach to neurofuzzy systems. In: Proc. of the
Japanese Neural Networks Soc. 1994, Tsukuba, Japan, pp.
173-174