Page 363 - Deep Learning

346 Conversion

Arthur B. Markman. A structure mapping process constructs a correspondence
between the conceptual structure of one knowledge system or representation
and the conceptual structure of another in such a way that it is clear which
component of one corresponds to which component of the other. Structure
mapping can create an analogy between two concrete objects, two situations,
two problems and so on, but it can also apply an abstract schema to a concrete
situation. Although the bisociation process was an unexplained black box at
the time Koestler proposed it, extensive theoretical work on analogical map-
ping since then has opened that box and shown us multiple views of the cog-
wheels inside. Researchers have proposed a variety of different computational
models of the mapping process, but their details are not needed here.
The discovery that theory Th(A) can subsume domain B causes a link to
be created in memory between Th(A) and objects and events in B. Once such
a connection has been established, the contender theory Th(A) is no longer
semantically remote from events and objects in B. Future encounters with
such objects and events will evoke both Th(B) and Th(A), although perhaps
not with equal probability or equal activation levels. But once the relevant
memory link is formed, Th(A) is evoked by the ordinary process of memory
retrieval and the person is in a mental state in which he can think about B
in two mutually contradictory ways: in terms of Th(A), which is now better
rendered as Th(A+B) to symbolize the extension of its domain of application,
and in terms of Th(B). The cognitive conflict between Th(A+B) and Th(B)
has become manifest and the person experiences a theory-theory conflict (as
opposed to a theory-evidence conflict).

Competitive Evaluation
Once the relevance of the contender theory Th(A+B) for some target domain
B has been discovered, the person has a choice as to which theory should
determine his behavior or discourse in that domain. The resubsumption
theory claims that this choice is not a deliberate act of choosing. Instead, the
preference for one theory over the other emerges in a process of competitive
evaluation that extends over some period of time. In logic-inspired accounts
of theory change, the operative question is, does the evidence imply that one of
these theories is more veridical than the other? In contrast, the resubsumption
principle claims that the operative question is, which view of the relevant
domain has higher cognitive utility?
Whenever the contender theory Th(A+B) is retrieved and applied to domain
B, the person’s implicit or intuitive estimate of its utility is updated: Feedback from