\n ## Textual Document: Cognitive Architectures & Theories ### Overview The image presents a table outlining several cognitive architectures and theories, along with their relationships and supporting arguments. The table is structured with theories listed in the left column, followed by specific indicators or components of those theories, and finally, notes on their relationships to other theories. The document appears to be a comparative analysis of different approaches to understanding cognition. ### Components/Axes The document is a table with the following sections: * **Theories:** Recurrent processing theory, Global workspace theory, Computational higher-order theories, Attention schema theory, Predictive processing, Agency and embodiment. * **Indicators/Components:** Specific aspects or modules within each theory (e.g., RPT-1, GWT-1, HOT-1, AST-1, PP-1, AE-1). * **Relationships/Notes:** Textual descriptions of how the indicators relate to each other and to other theories. ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details Here's a transcription of the table's content, organized by theory: **Recurrent processing theory** * RPT-1: Input modules using algorithmic recurrence * RPT-2: Input modules generating organised, integrated perceptual representations * Note: RPT-1 and RPT-2 are largely independent indicators. RPT-1 is also supported by temporal integration arguments. **Global workspace theory** * GWT-1: Multiple specialised systems capable of operating in parallel (modules) * GWT-2: Limited capacity workspace, entailing a bottleneck in information flow and a selective attention mechanism * GWT-3: Global broadcast: availability of information in the workspace to all modules * GWT-4: State-dependent attention, giving rise to the capacity to use the workspace to query modules in succession to perform complex tasks * Note: GWT claims that these are necessary and jointly sufficient. GWT-1 through GWT-4 build on one another. GWT-3 and GWT-4 entail RPT-1. **Computational higher-order theories** * HOT-1: Generative, top-down or noisy perception modules * HOT-2: Metacognition monitoring distinguishing reliable representations from noise * HOT-3: Agency guided by a general belief-formation and action selection system, and a strong disposition to update beliefs in accordance with the outputs of metacognition monitoring * HOT-4: Sparse and smooth coding generating a “quality space” * Note: PRM claims that these are necessary and jointly sufficient. HOT-1 through HOT-3 build on one another; HOT-4 is independent. The first clause of HOT-3 is also supported by arguments concerning intentional/flexible agency, and entails AE-1. **Attention schema theory** * AST-1: A predictive model representing and enabling control over the current state of attention **Predictive processing** * PP-1: Input modules using predictive coding * Note: Entails RPT-1 and HOT-1. **Agency and embodiment** * AE-1: Agency: Learning from feedback and selecting outputs so as to pursue goals, especially where this involves flexible responsiveness to competing goals * AE-2: Embodiment: Modeling output-input contingencies, including some systematic effects, and using this model in perception or control * Note: Both indicators are also supported by midbrain and UAL theories, and to some extent by GWT, PRM and PP, especially AE-1. Systems meeting AE-2 are likely, but not guaranteed, to also meet AE-1. ### Key Observations * The document focuses on identifying core components of different cognitive theories. * Relationships between theories are explicitly stated, indicating a comparative framework. * Some theories are presented as building upon each other (e.g., GWT-1 through GWT-4). * The notes often mention which theories support or entail others, creating a network of interconnected ideas. * The use of numbered indicators (RPT-1, GWT-2, etc.) suggests a structured and systematic analysis. ### Interpretation This document serves as a concise overview and comparison of several prominent cognitive architectures and theories. It doesn't present empirical data but rather a theoretical mapping of concepts. The relationships highlighted (e.g., entailment, support) suggest the author is attempting to identify a hierarchy or integration of these different approaches. The notes provide valuable insights into the theoretical underpinnings and potential connections between these complex ideas. The document is likely intended for researchers or students familiar with cognitive science, providing a quick reference guide to the core components and relationships within these theories. The emphasis on necessary and jointly sufficient conditions suggests a formal, logical approach to evaluating these theories. The document is a high-level conceptual map, not a data-driven analysis.