The concept of a universal learning system as a basis for creating a general mathematical theory of learning
Minds and Machines 14 (4):453-484 (2004)
| Abstract | The number of studies related to natural and artificial mechanisms of learning rapidly increases. However, there is no general theory of learning that could provide a unifying basis for exploring different directions in this growing field. For a long time the development of such a theory has been hindered by nativists' belief that the development of a biological organism during ontogeny should be viewed as parameterization of an innate, encoded in the genome structure by an innate algorithm, and nothing essentially new is created during this process. Noam Chomsky has claimed, therefore, that the creation of a non-trivial general mathematical theory of learning is not feasible, since any algorithm cannot produce a more complex algorithm. This study refutes the above argumentation by developing a counter-example based on the mathematical theory of algorithms and computable functions. It introduces a novel concept of a Universal Learning System (ULS) capable of learning to control in an optimal way any given constructive system from a certain class. The necessary conditions for the existence of a ULS and its main functional properties are investigated. The impossibility of building an algorithmic ULS for a sufficiently complex class of controlled objects is shown, and a proof of the existence of a non-algorithmic ULS based on the axioms of classical mathematics is presented. It is argued that a non-algorithmic ULS is a legitimate object of not only mathematics, but also the world of nature. These results indicate that an algorithmic description of the organization and adaptive development of biological systems in general is not sufficient. At the same time, it is possible to create a rigorous non-algorithmic general theory of learning as a theory of ULS. The utilization of this framework for integrating learning-related studies is discussed. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSean A. Fulop (2010). Grammar Induction by Unification of Type-Logical Lexicons. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (3).
Alison Gopnik & Laura Schulz (eds.) (2007). Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation. Oxford University Press.
Kenneth R. Livingston (1998). The Case for General Mechanisms in Concept Formation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):581-582.
Marion Blute (2001). A Single-Process Learning Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):529-531.
Kuo-Chin Chang, Tzung-Pei Hong & Shian-Shyong Tseng (1996). Machine Learning by Imitating Human Learning. Minds and Machines 6 (2):203-228.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (2011). Learning Matters: The Role of Learning in Concept Acquisition. Mind and Language 26 (5):507-539.
Stewart Ranson, Jane Martin, Jon Nixon & Penny McKeown (1996). Towards a Theory of Learning. British Journal of Educational Studies 44 (1):9 - 26.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads2 ( #232,684 of 550,917 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 550,917 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
