Category: Ecological Approch

  • Fundamental Limits on Artificial General Intelligence.

    This new work “How Organisms Come to Know the World: Fundamental Limits on Artificial General Intelligence(GI)”, co-authored by Andrea Roli, Johannes Jaeger and Stuart A. Kauffman, discusses several significant obstacles on this path of General Artificial Intelligence.

    They points out that general intelligence involves situational reasoning, taking perspectives, choosing goals, and an ability to deal with ambiguous information which basically involves the ability of identifying and exploiting new affordances on the path of an agent to achieve its goals.

    Problem is that it is impossible to predefine features and limitations of affordances in context. This makes it difficult to develop algorithmic solutions.

    Quote:

    “the prospective uses of an object (and hence the decomposition we choose to analyze it) depend on the goals of the agent using it, which, in turn, depend on the agent’s repertoire of actions and the affordances available to it, which change constantly and irreversibly over time. It is exactly because all of these are constantly evolving through their co-emergent dialectic interactions that the number of uses of an object remains indefinite and, in fact, unknowable “

    They also take a devastating dig into Bayesian and other sophisticated models

    Read further here

  • World-Centered Education with Gert Biesta: Video playlist

    1) A World Centered Education: A View for the Present’ by Professor Gert Biesta(University of South Australia)

    2) World-Centered Education with Gert Biesta(Podcast: Life From Plato’s Cave)

  • Factor markets, actors, and affordances.

    This article, “Factor markets, actors, and affordances” by Teppo Felin, Stuart Kauffman, Antonio Mastrogiorgio, Mariano Mastrogiorgio covers a lot of complexity/evolution based ideas that are useful in entrepreneurship and general learning.

  • Fundamental Limits on Artificial General Intelligence.

    This new work “How Organisms Come to Know the World: Fundamental Limits on Artificial General Intelligence(GI)”, co-authored by Andrea Roli, Johannes Jaeger and Stuart A. Kauffman, discusses several significant obstacles on this path of General Artificial Intelligence.

    They points out that general intelligence involves situational reasoning, taking perspectives, choosing goals, and an ability to deal with ambiguous information which basically involves the ability of identifying and exploiting new affordances on the path of an agent to achieve its goals.

    Problem is that it is impossible to predefine features and limitations of affordances in context. This makes it difficult to develop algorithmic solutions.

    Quote:

    “the prospective uses of an object (and hence the decomposition we choose to analyze it) depend on the goals of the agent using it, which, in turn, depend on the agent’s repertoire of actions and the affordances available to it, which change constantly and irreversibly over time. It is exactly because all of these are constantly evolving through their co-emergent dialectic interactions that the number of uses of an object remains indefinite and, in fact, unknowable “

    They also take a devastating dig into Bayesian and other sophisticated models

    Read further here

  • A Complex Ecological Worldview Of Entrepreneurship

    The right worldview is a necessary precondition for sustainable and effective design. If the world view is reductionist or simplistic, ignoring important unknowns, the design will reflect this weakness. As entrepreneurship is a naturally complex system, it is necessary to study entrepreneurial phenomena by applying the frame of complexity science. Despite this reality, most entrepreneurship models and perspectives are reductionist in their origin, prescription, or omission. To solve this weakness it is necessary to adopt an ecological worldview, i.e a complex, dynamic, connected, and evolving ecology.

    In order to understand the ecological view, let’s first go through some of the possible world views or alternatives. After that, I will try to highlight how an ecological view is different from other world views.

    1. Single Model world view: 

    This is the world view based on a single model, tool, or method which assumes superiority over all others. This can be equated to what Charlie Munger calls, “Man with a Hammer” syndrome, which is the idea that if an individual has only one tool or model(e.g. hammer), he’ll approach all of his problems with the same solution, i.e. a hammer. For a man with a hammer, everything around him will seem like a nail. Most models in entrepreneurship come under this category. They are proposed as solutions for the problems of the existing one and are pitched as better than the previous one. E.g. Lean startup Vs Business planning or any other model that is proposed as vastly superior to others. 

    2. Multiple-Model Ensembles: 

    This worldview suggests the complementary use of multiple models or methods. This is the same idea as suggested by Scott Page(2018) and the ensemble forecasting model (Leutbecher and Palmer, 2008) used in weather prediction. In entrepreneurship, multiple model worldview can be found in many scholarly works. For e.g. Sarasvathy(2001) stressed the importance of both effectuation and causation. Mansoori and Lackéus(2019) and Grichnik et al. 2017 suggested using multiple methods complementing each other. This worldview is by default inclusive of the previous one. A very commonplace in which multiple models are used in this way is the university curriculum. 

    3. Cognitive-Diversity world view: 

    This world view suggests using not only formal models or methods but all kinds of cognitive diversity. E.g. Models, methods, theories, heuristics, etc. Scott Page defines Cognitive Diversity as “Differences in information, knowledge, representations, mental models, and heuristic, to better outcomes on specific tasks such as problem-solving, predicting, and innovating (Page, 2017,14-15)“. To me, the weakness of this view is in its cognitive reductionism. Even though this world view is by default inclusive of all the previous ones, any cognitive alone worldview can be criticized for lack of ecological basis (Gibson, 1979; Varela et al., 1991; Clark, 1997).

    4. Holistic Diversity worldview:

     Apart from cognitive diversity, Page(2017) also talks about identity diversity, i.e. the differences in race, gender, age, physical capabilities, and sexual orientation. There are other frames to view diversities like; Biodiversity, which can be defined as variety in all forms of life—from genes to species to ecosystems; Cultural diversity, which can be defined as differences, such as in language, religion, dress and moral codes that exist between people according to race and ethnicity. Tool diversity suggesting for the use of multiple tools for the same task to increase output accuracy by reducing systematic errors. Artifact diversity refers to the number of different classes of artifacts and their relative proportions. In short, this world view suggests the existence of not only Cognitive-Diversity but also, all other kinds of diversity, i.e. diversity in people, biology, identity, networks, information sources, relational-expertise, institutions, culture, location, specialization, artifacts, tools, etc. This world view is by default inclusive of all the previous ones.

    What is Ecological Worldview

    Ecological View to me includes a continuous effort to capture the true ecological reality in its dynamics. In addition to the previously listed holistic diversity, this view is inclusive of realities like complexity, dynamics, evolution, connectedness, interaction, etc. Complexity involves features and interactive dynamics as in a complex adaptive system. The idea of evolution suggests that existing elements interact, evolve, co-evolve into new diversities, variations, etc. It must also involve cumulative cultural evolution(and intelligence) as proposed by human cultural evolution studies (Tennie et al, 2009; Mesoudi and Thornton, 2018). In addition, an ecology is connected, hence no clear local-global separation is possible. This is particularly significant in human social ecology. Finally, the ecological view involves the use of contextualized sense-making that suggests that every human context is an emergent property and hence each context has unique types of characters.

    This ecological worldview is by default inclusive of all the previous ones.

    Part of ESOLoop: An Entrepreneurship Self-Organization Framework

  • A Problem for Cognitive Load Theory: Jan Derry and Brandom’s Inferentialism

    Previously I have written a critical review post(Link: Constructivism vs Direct Instruction) on the article “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching BY Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller & Richard E. Clark.

    I have also posted a Guy Claxton playlist in which Claxton questioned the core ideas over which the Neo-Traditionalist view(Cognitive-load, Direct instruction, Knowledge rich curriculum) is built-on. This includes fundamental assumptions about Computer analogy(+boxology), Evidence(evidence in health Vs education), False binaries, Contextually divorced ideas, etc.

    This post is about a 2020 article titled “A Problem for Cognitive Load Theory—the Distinctively Human Life-form”, by Professor Jan Derry of UCL. She used Philosopher Robert Brandom’s Inferentialism to directly question the representationalist world view presented by Cognitive load theory, and to some extent Constructivist thinking. “She challenges the presuppositions involved not only in arguments for guided instruction by those supporting cognitive load theory, but also in opposed pedagogic approaches involving discovery and inquiry learning”. According to her, Both approaches are in danger of presupposing what C.B. Macpherson criticised as ‘possessive individualism’—i.e. capacities, beliefs and desires viewed as possessions of an individual. As a result, they fail to pay attention to mediation and normativity, both of which are distinctive aspects of human action.

    In the Cognitive view, mind is distinct from world, and representations depict states of affairs; in the Inferential view, mind and world are not separated, and inferential connections, arising through human activity, constitute representations in the first place. Thus the role of representations has gone down one level. She adds, “the forging of the connection between word and object involves reversing the conceptual framework of much conventional pedagogical practice and placing the emphasis on bringing the learner into the inferential relations that constitute a concept prior to its acquisition.”

    My comments

    This is an amazing perspective to have. Since I am in a quest to explore the maximum of diversities of ideas in education and learning, what I really like to further explore is–How does inferentialism fit with ecological and enactive perspectives, which also may stress the need to have a purpose, intention, and meaning, etc.

    Video: Knowledge in education: Why philosophy matters

    (Jan Derry talks about the core themes mentioned in the paper)

    One key experiment noted in the paper

    One of the highlights of the article is the example of an experiment conducted by Martin Hughes and Margaret Donaldson, in order to put the original findings of Piaget and Inhelder’s mountain task experiment (Piaget and Inhelder, 1967) to the test(Donaldson, 1978).

    It demonstrated the importance of the purposes and intentions behind human action, which very much relates to inferential thinking than just a representation of one mental item to another in the brain.

  • Neuro-reductionism?But What about cognitive reductionism?

    It is very interesting to watch twitter debates between various academic communities. The problem is that if you are already part of a cult, you will never get to enjoy the big picture birds eye view of the show.

    When it comes to education and learning, two of the prominent communities use the science tag, often to trash constructivism and progressive models. They are Neuroscience and Cognitive science or fusion; Cognitive Neuroscience. Recently I have been watching both Cognitive Neuroscience people and Cognitive science people exposing the neuro-reductionism and the uselessness so called Neuro speak. There is a lot of valuable insights in this critic.

    I have already tweeted about it and blogged about it last year. But still, here is the original link to the tweet : Neuroscience of education

    1. The first tweet is by Daniel Ansari, Cognitive Neuroscientist. He made the observation that Neuroscience can’t suggest what is and what isn’t effective pedagogy. Adds that, neural data cannot directly speak to the effectiveness of the instructional approach but can be an informative correlate of the behavioural outcomes (e.g intervention specific gains in reading)

    2. The second one is by Daniel Willingham and David Daniel. They talks about this issue in their YouTube vlog; discusses the application of neuroscience in education

    3. Third one is an article/ blogpost: In this, Mirjam Neelen & Paul A. Kirschner observes that “In general, brain imaging techniques in and of themselves don’t have any real practical implications. At best, for learning, it can be used in combination with behavioural research to try to understand processes underlying learning” Link to blog post: “STOP ABUSING NEUROSCIENCE FOR LEARNING!”

    4. The recent one(order in which I found) is from “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (Penguin Press Science S.)” by Steven Pinker. He observed: “Neural plasticity is just another name for learning and development, described at a different level of analysis. All this should be obvious, but nowadays any banality about learning can be dressed up in neurospeak and treated like a great revelation of science.


    What about Cognitive reductionism


    All of these observations are agreeable. Absolutely significant. But a persistent question in my mind is about the reductionism of cognitive science and the blindness of people who are committed to the cult. And can we call it a science when most of complexity and interactive dynamics are ignored. Isn’t it based on streetlight effect, that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look.

    What is the validity of’—for example, standardized tests, when it is absolutely clear that the tests are not measuring any skills of life success, but the socially constructed metric. An example of Pisa: Paper

    Isn’t educational cognitive science mostly about social construction than about real science? I argue that most of the cognitive science driven assessments and assumptions are in a way shaping the society, constructing its values, engineering the social systems to make it easier for some people to climb the ladder, and difficult for others .

    To Conclude

    I like cognitive science and Neuroscience. I acknowledge the value of the tools and insights generated from neuroscience and cognitive science. I am huge fan of genuine works like that from expertise researchers and people like Herbert Simon(with his bounded rationality) who transformed the way I think. But borrowing from Dave Snowden, I am also a believer of bounded applicability of ideas, tools, theories, methods, etc. I have a tendency to question the one size fits all. E.g. , I believe Cognitive load theory is useful and good, but I also think it shouldn’t be used to dictate or sanction the validity of Direct( rote) instruction perspective. Or worst it shouldn’t be used to trash all other methods because all of them doesn’t fit a certain criteria( computer analogy).

    Blog post link

    Thus, I must say, I am hugely skeptical of many dimensions of educational cognitive science, particularly those works that has a tendency to influence policy and that part which is directly connected to money making industry, testing, assessments, etc.

    Read about possible side effects of various cognitive science informed metrics : Goodhart’s law, Campbell’s law, Metric fixation

  • Difference between Ecological Psychology and Ecological rationality

    This is a twitter thread on the difference between Ecological Psychology, which is often identified with Gibson, and Ecological rationality approach, which is developed primarily by people like Gerd Gigerenzer as a response to Heuristics and Bias perspective on human decision making.

    https://twitter.com/RoopeKaaronen/status/1325767951971196928?s=20
    https://twitter.com/RoopeKaaronen/status/1325768212953313280?s=20
  • The dynamics of Athletic(player) Affordances and my thoughts

    A question from @EMERGENTMVMT What should we do when an athlete is not accepting an affordance we believe exists for him/her within a particular contextual movement problem?

    Other great comments
  • Reading list on Sports Learning: Constraints-Led Approach, Ecological approchs

    Constraints-Led Approach : A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy Ian Renshaw &J-Y Chow

    Ecological Dynamics : The ecological dynamics of decision making in sport
    (Duarte Araújo, KeithDavids, Robert Hristovski)

    Chow’s Nonlinear Pedagogy: Nonlinear Pedagogy in Skill Acquisition

    Wolfgang Schöllhorn’s differential learning: Differential Learning @ dls-sports.com/

    These reading list was curated from my twitter interaction with Sports twitter.