Today's dynamical systems are too simple

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 643-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert Jaeger

Cognitive systems are wilder than today's dynamical systems theory can handle. Cognitive systems might be tamed in principle, but the very notion of a dynamical system will change in the process.

2021 ◽  
pp. 102986492098831
Author(s):  
Andrea Schiavio ◽  
Pieter-Jan Maes ◽  
Dylan van der Schyff

In this paper we argue that our comprehension of musical participation—the complex network of interactive dynamics involved in collaborative musical experience—can benefit from an analysis inspired by the existing frameworks of dynamical systems theory and coordination dynamics. These approaches can offer novel theoretical tools to help music researchers describe a number of central aspects of joint musical experience in greater detail, such as prediction, adaptivity, social cohesion, reciprocity, and reward. While most musicians involved in collective forms of musicking already have some familiarity with these terms and their associated experiences, we currently lack an analytical vocabulary to approach them in a more targeted way. To fill this gap, we adopt insights from these frameworks to suggest that musical participation may be advantageously characterized as an open, non-equilibrium, dynamical system. In particular, we suggest that research informed by dynamical systems theory might stimulate new interdisciplinary scholarship at the crossroads of musicology, psychology, philosophy, and cognitive (neuro)science, pointing toward new understandings of the core features of musical participation.


2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 634-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Myin ◽  
Sonja Smets

Although we applaud the interactivist approach to language and communication taken in the target article, we notice that Shanker & King (S&K) give little attention to the theoretical frameworks developed by dynamical system theorists. We point out how the dynamical idea of causality, viewed as multidirectional across multiple scales of organization, could further strengthen the position taken in the target article.


Author(s):  
Marco Giunti

A cognitive system is any real system that has some cognitive property. Therefore, cognitive systems are a special type of K-systems (see chapter 3, section 3). Note that this definition includes both natural systems such as humans and other animals, and artificial devices such as robots, implementations of AI (artificial intelligence) programs, some implementations of neural networks, etc. Focusing on what all cognitive systems have in common, we can state a very general but nonetheless interesting thesis: All cognitive systems are dynamical systems. Section 2 explains what this thesis means and why it is (relatively) uncontroversial. It will become clear that this thesis is a basic methodological assumption that underlies practically all current research in cognitive science. The goal of section 3 is to contrast two styles of scientific explanation of cognition: computational and dynamical. Computational explanations are characterized by the use of concepts drawn from computation theory, while dynamical explanations employ the conceptual apparatus of dynamical systems theory. Further, I will suggest that all scientific explanations of cognition might end up sharing the same dynamical style, for dynamical systems theory may well turn out to be useful in the study of all types of models currently employed in cognitive science. In particular, a dynamical viewpoint might even benefit those scientific explanations of cognition which are based on symbolic models. Computational explanations of cognition, by contrast, can only be based on symbolic models or, more generally, on any other type of computational model. In particular, those scientific explanations of cognition which are based on an important class of connectionist models cannot be computational, for this class of models falls beyond the scope of computation theory. Arguing for this negative conclusion requires the formal explication of the concept of a computational system that I gave in chapter 1 (see definition 3). Finally, section 4 explores the possibility that scientific explanations of cognition might be based on Galilean models of cognitive systems (see chapter 3, section 5). Most cognitive scientists have not yet considered this possibility. The goals of this section are to contrast this proposal with the current modeling practice in cognitive science, to make clear its potential benefits, and to indicate possible ways to implement it.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 053110
Author(s):  
Christophe Letellier ◽  
Ralph Abraham ◽  
Dima L. Shepelyansky ◽  
Otto E. Rössler ◽  
Philip Holmes ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Daniel Seligson ◽  
Anne E. C. McCants

Abstract We can all agree that institutions matter, though as to which institutions matter most, and how much any of them matter, the matter is, paraphrasing Douglass North's words at the Nobel podium, unresolved after seven decades of immense effort. We suggest that the obstacle to progress is the paradigm of the New Institutional Economics itself. In this paper, we propose a new theory that is: grounded in institutions as coevolving sources of economic growth rather than as rules constraining growth; and deployed in dynamical systems theory rather than game theory. We show that with our approach some long-standing problems are resolved, in particular, the paradoxical and perplexingly pervasive influence of informal constraints on the long-run character of economies.


2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 364-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciprian Preda

AbstractLet S := {S(t)}t≥0 be a C0-semigroup of quasinilpotent operators (i.e., σ(S(t)) = {0} for eacht> 0). In dynamical systems theory the above quasinilpotency property is equivalent to a very strong concept of stability for the solutions of autonomous systems. This concept is frequently called superstability and weakens the classical ûnite time extinction property (roughly speaking, disappearing solutions). We show that under some assumptions, the quasinilpotency, or equivalently, the superstability property of a C0-semigroup is preserved under the perturbations of its infinitesimal generator.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document