1. 1 Representational Content in terms of Dynamics for Meta-Cognition Jan Treur Jan Treur Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Department of Artificial Intelligence Utrecht University Department of Philosophy

2. 2 Meta-Cognition one of the principles used to obtain cognitive architectures for self-consciousness e.g., Zalla in TSC’00: the phenomenal character of experience is conscious due to the fact that it is introspectively accessible

3. 3 Meta-Level Architecture has been investigated in some depth within Artifical Intelligence has been investigated in some depth within Artifical Intelligence problem: what is the representational content of meta-level representations ? problem: what is the representational content of meta-level representations ? dynamics and interaction between the levels are essential  problematic to define semantics only in terms of the state of the object level dynamics and interaction between the levels are essential  problematic to define semantics only in terms of the state of the object level

4. 4 Dynamics Perspective dynamics of a meta-level architecture: transitions over time of combined (object level and meta-level) states dynamics of a meta-level architecture: transitions over time of combined (object level and meta-level) states semantics of a meta-level representation: temporal property of traces of the object level process semantics of a meta-level representation: temporal property of traces of the object level process

5. 5 Interactivist Perspective on Mental States (1) Dynamics of mental states and their interaction with the environment are central: ‘When interaction is completed, the system will end in some one of its internal states - some of its possible final states. Some environments will leave the system in that same final state, when interactions with this system are complete, and some environments will leave the system in different possible final states.’ (Bickhard, 1993)

6. 6 Past Interaction Histories and Present Internal States present internal states past interaction

7. 7 ‘The overall system, with its possible final states, therefore, functions as a differentiator of environments, with the final states implictly defining the differentiation categories. (..) Representational content is constituted as indications of potential further interactions. (..) The claim is that such differentiated functional indications in the context of a goal-directed system constitute representation - emergent representation.’ (Bickhard, 1993) Interactivist Perspective on Mental States (2)

8. 8 Present Internal States and Future Interaction Traces present internal states past interaction future interaction

9. 9 present present past future past future world interaction trace time Object Level Representational Content as a Dynamic Interaction Property object level representation object level representation 

10. 10 In summary, representational content of mental states need to be grounded in interaction histories grounded in interaction histories related to future interaction possibilities related to future interaction possibilities Formalisations are needed that cover this Interactivist Perspective on Mental States (3)

11. 11 tissue damage causes pain tissue damage causes pain heat causes pain heat causes pain pain causes ouch! pain causes ouch! pain causes future avoidance behaviour for possible sources; e.g., wasps pain causes future avoidance behaviour for possible sources; e.g., wasps Note: occurrence of this avoidance behaviour depends on events in the world Pain Example: Mediating Role

12. 12 the set of histories of mental property pain PTRACES(InOnt, pain) an example member is the following interaction trace: Pain Example: Past Traces t1. input:tissue damage,no heat t2. input:tissue damage,no heat t0. input:no tissue damage,no heat

13. 13 the set of future traces for mental property pain the set of future traces for mental property pain FTRACES(InterfaceOnt, pain) an example member of this set: Pain Example: Future Traces t0. input:wasp present output:ouch! output:ouch! t3. input:wasp present output:move output:move t2. input:wasp present t1. input:no wasp present

14. 14 Formalisation: Temporal Trace Language expressive language to specify dynamics: traces M as first class citizens: explicit reference to, comparison of and quantification over interaction histories and interaction futures traces M as first class citizens: explicit reference to, comparison of and quantification over interaction histories and interaction futures state properties p as first class citizens: explicit reference to and quantification over p state properties p as first class citizens: explicit reference to and quantification over p explicit reference to, comparison of and quantification over time points t and durations d explicit reference to, comparison of and quantification over time points t and durations d discrete, dense or real time frame possible discrete, dense or real time frame possible

15. 15 Pain Example: Past Formula M a trace t a time point a past formula representing the set of histories of the mental property pain  P (M, t):  t1 ≤ t state(M, t1, input) |= injury   t2 ≤ t state(M, t2, input) |= heat

16. 16 Pain Example: Future Formula M a trace t a time point a future formula representing the set of future traces of the mental property pain  F (M, t) :  t1 ≥ t state(M, t1, output) |= ouch! &  t2 ≥ t [ state(M, t2, input) |= wasp_present   t3 ≥ t2 state(M, t3, output) |= move ]

17. 17 Dynamics as Three-Level Traces a combined three-level state: where where N a meta-state M an object state I an interaction state a three-level trace: a sequence of combined three-level states

18. 18 present present past future past future object process trace time Meta-Level Representational Content as a Dynamic Object Process Property meta-level representation meta-level representation 

19. 19 meta-level process trace object level process trace world interaction trace time Three Levels of Representational Content and Dynamics  

20. 20 Possible Transitions within a Combined Trace meta-state  meta-state (meta-processing) meta-state  object state (control effectuation) object state  meta-state (introspection) object state  object state (object processing) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- object state  interaction state (effectuation of action) interaction state  object state (conceptualisation of sensory state) interaction state  interaction state (sensory or motor event) (sensory or motor event)

21. 21 An Architecture for Meta-Cognition semantic content of object-representations: past and future interaction processes semantic content of object-representations: past and future interaction processes semantic content of meta-representations: past and future mental processes semantic content of meta-representations: past and future mental processes introspective capabilities in self-monitoring; e.g., monitoring of the sensory processes by which information is acquired, and, in particular, of the modality (cf. Zalla, TSC’00) introspective capabilities in self-monitoring; e.g., monitoring of the sensory processes by which information is acquired, and, in particular, of the modality (cf. Zalla, TSC’00) meta-representations have control impact on the agent’s own future mental processes, focusing of sensory activities, and action selection meta-representations have control impact on the agent’s own future mental processes, focusing of sensory activities, and action selection

22. 22 Related Approaches Zalla in TSC’00 (nr. 278) on source modelling difference: no formalized architecture proposed Zalla in TSC’00 (nr. 278) on source modelling difference: no formalized architecture proposed Cunningham in TSC’00 (nr. 272) on axiomatic theory difference: no explicit reference to traces within language Cunningham in TSC’00 (nr. 272) on axiomatic theory difference: no explicit reference to traces within language

23. 23 interactivist perspective on grounding of mental states; relation between: mental state and - interaction with the environment in the past - potential further interactions in the future interactivist perspective on grounding of mental states; relation between: mental state and - interaction with the environment in the past - potential further interactions in the future Conclusion (1)

24. 24 application of interactivist perspective on grounding of meta-cognitive states as well; relation between: meta-cognitive state and - mental processes in the past - potential mental processes in the future application of interactivist perspective on grounding of meta-cognitive states as well; relation between: meta-cognitive state and - mental processes in the past - potential mental processes in the future Conclusion (2)

25. 25 result: three-level architecture for meta-cognition that supports introspective capabilities and self- awareness result: three-level architecture for meta-cognition that supports introspective capabilities and self- awareness Conclusion (3)