Carlos Gershenson's homepage

COGS The University of Sussex

Knowledge Emerging from Behaviour


As an approach to study the evolution of cognition, and the relationships between behaviour and cognition, we have developed a virtual laboratory with two aims: First, to implement and to test our model of recursive concept development in virtual animats as they survive in a simple environment. Second, to contrast characteristic models of different paradigms of cognition (rule-based systems, behaviour-based systems, concept-based systems, nerual networks, Braiteberg architectures) giving us a philosophical aid to argue that different paradigms study different aspects of cognition, but in theory they are equivalent to any desired level of detail. Therefore, no architecture or paradigm is "better" than other outside a specific context, and we should try to study cognition from as many perspectives as possible, in order to have a broader understanding of it.

Download KEBA 3.01 (27-july-2003) (source code included, Java, Java3D). Readme. If you are interested in the source code, you might also want its documentation. Implementation details can be found on my MSc thesis Appendixes

  • Gershenson, C. (2002d). A Comparison of Different Cognitive Paradigms Using Simple Animats in a Virtual Laboratory, with Implications to the Notion of Cognition. Unpublished MSc Thesis. University of Sussex. [html] [pdf]

  • Abstract: In this thesis I present a virtual laboratory which implements five different models for controlling animats: a rule-based system, a behaviour-based system, a concept-based system, a neural network, and a Braitenberg architecture. Through different experiments, I compare the performance of the models and conclude that there is no “best” model, since different models are better for different things in different contexts. The models I chose, although quite simple, represent different approaches for studying cognition. Using the results as an empirical philosophical aid, I note that there is no “best” approach for studying cognition, since different approaches have all advantages and disadvantages, because they study different aspects of cognition from different contexts. This has implications for current debates on “proper” approaches for cognition: all approaches are a bit proper, but none will be “proper enough”. I draw remarks on the notion of cognition abstracting from all the approaches used to study it, and propose a simple classification for different types of cognition.

  • Gershenson, C. (2002c). Behaviour-based Knowledge Systems: An Epigenetic Path from Behaviour to Knowledge. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics. Edinburgh.

  • Abstract: In this paper we expose the theoretical background underlying our current research. This consists in the development of behaviour-based knowledge systems, for closing the gaps between behaviour-based and knowledge-based systems, and also between the understandings of the phenomena they model. We expose the requirements and stages for developing behaviour-based knowledge systems and discuss their limits. We believe that these are necessary conditions for the development of higher order cognitive capacities, in artificial and natural cognitive systems.

  • Implementation (in "progress" (i.e. stand-by)): "Adaptive Grounding of Koncepts...".