Cognitive architecture: Encyclopedia II - Cognitive architecture - Distinctions

Cognitive architecture - Distinctions

Cognitive architectures can be symbolic, connectionist, or hybrid. Some cognitive architecures or models base on a set of generic rules, as, e.g., the Information Processing Language (such as e.g. SOAR based on the unified theory of cognition, or similarly ACT). Many of these architectures base on a the-mind-is-like-a-computer analogy. In contrast subsymbolic processing specifies no such rules a priori and relies on emergent properties of processing units (e.g. nodes). A further distinction is whether the architecture is centralized with a neural correlate of a processor at its core, or decentralized (distributed). The decentralized flavor, has become popular under the name of parallel distributed processing in mid-1980s and connectionism, a prime example being neural networks. A further design issue is additionally a decision between holistic and atomism, or (more concrete) modular in structure. By analogy, this extends to issues of knowledge representation.

In traditional AI, intelligence is often programmed from above: the programmer is the creator, and makes something and imbues it with its intelligence. Biologically-inspired computing, on the other hand, takes sometimes a more bottom-up, decentralised approach; bio-inspired techniques often involve the method of specifying a set of simple generic rules or a set of simple nodes, from the interaction of which emerges the overall behavior. It is hoped to build up complexity until the end result is something markedly complex (see complex systems).

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Distinctions", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki