I'm not sure but I have the impression there is an "ontology" (in the  
sense used in computer science) problem in this debate. It seems some  
are using the term "norm" to refer to rules that are socially  
determined (or as Rosaria rightly pointed out, determined by socio- 
cognitive processes) and specifically formulated as social rules that  
people understand they are expected to comply with (for example,  
driving in the right - or left - side of the road). Others are  
referring to it simply as regular patterns of behaviour. Humans do  
similar things at similar circumstances, so we can form stereotypes  
and expect certain behaviours, but not that they have been prescribed  
by "norms" in the sense above. But then again, it's probably me  
having too narrow a notion of norm, possibly due to its most common  
use in multi-agent systems.

Rafael


On 18 Jan 2007, at 21:02, Alan Penn wrote:

> I don’t think its only the double contingency of ‘entertaining  
> expectations… like herself’  - often we have expectations built on  
> experience of those we would class as ‘unlike ourselves’, these are  
> also norms.
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> It seems to me that norms are not generated by individuals, but by  
> social processes and then reflected at the psychological level by  
> individuals. The crucial concept is "double contingency" in social  
> interactions: Ego expectsAlter to entertain expectations,  
> reflexivity and intentionality like herself. This generates a  
> problem/puzzle which can be solved partially by codifying  
> expectations. The solution remains error-prone because it is based  
> on expectations (over time) and uncertainty (at each moment of  
> time). Furthermore, people can also deviate from norms for other  
> reasons and their can be conflicting norms.
>
>
>
> With best wishes,
>
>
>
>
>
> Loet
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
> [log in to unmask] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>
>
>
> Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured,  
> Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95
> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge  
> of Scientometrics
>
>
>
>
>
> From: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social  
> sciences [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Rosaria Conte
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:09 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SIMSOC] Newbie on the list - working on emergence of  
> norms and beliefs
>
>
> But, then, what does the statement mean? Can you give some examples  
> of the use of cognitive agents that are not based on a cognitive  
> architecture?
>
> There is a misunderstanding here:  I said that a theory of norm  
> emergence based on cognitive agents does not imply that a cognitive  
> model (and the underlying architecture) is a model of large  
> scalesocietal behavior: in other words, although cognitive agents  
> contribute to societal processes, the latter should not be modeled  
> as cognitively designed (a great deal of social dynamics is extra- 
> mental).
>
> My personal view is that norms and practice are closely related.
>
> This is a conventionalist view of norms. In any attempt to  
> distinguish them from conventions, norms are accounted as something  
> rather different from practices.
>
> How can it be that entities reason upon representations of norms,  
> but don't issue or understand these norms?
>
> Very simple. Lets start from legal norms: agents need to form a  
> mental representation of the  norms impinging on them in order to  
> autonomously decide whether to comply with them or not. However,  
> agents usually emanate no norm: often, they don’t even have the  
> faintest idea how norms are issued, by whom and through which  
> processes. The same a fortiori is true for social norms.
>
>
> I am not aware of any cognitive agents that are not, in some way  
> shape or form, based on a theory of human cognition.
>
> GPS is no theory of human cognition but it is meant to be a General  
> theory of intelligent, planning systems. Miller, Galanter and  
> Pribram’s work (from the early 60s) is a general theory of  
> intelligent, goal-driven systems which has poor relation with any  
> pre-existing theory of human cognition.
>
> It is probably my lack of knowledge about those who define a theory  
> of cognition for animals, other than human, that I can't say much  
> about this. But, I would say that the theory of artificial minds is  
> very much related to that of the theory of human cognition.
>
> Perhaps  unfortunately,, this is not the case. The hegemonial,  
> although no more so recent, trend in cognitive psychology is the  
> modular view of the mind, that so far to my knowledge no-one took  
> as a reference for computational modeling and agent architecture.  
> As to symbolic theories of animal intelligence, in cognitive  
> primatology, lots of people (Tommasello, Visalberghi etc.) are  
> working on primates’ and children’s social imitation and  
> cooperation with experimental and observational approaches, trying  
> to understand related cognitive determinants of these behaviors.
>
> Cheers
> ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  (...)
>  More so, many scientist (e.g. neuroscience, anthropology,  
> cognitive science) have in recent years developed counter theories  
> to the theory of the human mind as a "symbolic copy machine."
>
>
>
> Although it is not entirely clear to me what a symbolic copy  
> machine is, I do believe instead that cognitive science in general  
> has no much to say against the theory of human mind as a symbolic  
> system.
>
>
> To claim that cognition is based on symbolic processing, it means  
> that that there is a copy function within the process, and symbolic  
> structures are copied from one place to another in order to store  
> and recall the symbolic structures.
>
> However, this by no means implies a particular commitment to a view  
> of agents as necessarily conscious, ratiomorphic, and deliberative.
>
>
> Yes it does, at least deliberative, which I would posit needs  
> consciousness. I am not sure what ratiomorphic is.
>
> A cognitive (based upon symbolic representations) view of the mind  
> should not be equalized with a strictly deliberative view of  
> agenthood.
>
>
> Maybe not in the field where you operate, but I would claim that in  
> philosophy and cognitive psychology it does. Maybe you can give  
> some examples that make your claim explicit.
>
>
>
>
> ... (but, alas, not every human activity is goal-driven).
>
>
>
> Of course. However, a cognitive theory of goals defines them as  
> symbolic internal representations triggering and guiding actions;  
> by no means, again, this implies that goals are also attributed the  
> property of being rational, consistent, conscious and necessarily  
> chosen for action (and therefore planned).
>
>
> But that is not what the goal-based theories say. More importantly,  
> if one uses a BDI agent architecture (or an expert system based  
> architecture, such as Jess) to model reasoning in your agents, then  
> you are either implicitly or explicitly claiming that "goals are  
> also attributed the property of being rational ..." Simply because  
> these architectures are based on the theory that rational,  
> consistent, conscious choosing of actions is planned and goal- 
> based. In other words, imho, you cannot use these architectures to  
> implement your agent system and then claim that your model does not  
> rely on these theories. That is why we developed our own BDI-like  
> architecture that is not based on these theories, but on theories  
> of situated action and activity theory, which do not use the  
> concept of a goal to model reasoning, and does not use goal-based  
> planning to simulate perception-action and deliberation.
>
>
>  Cheers
>  ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>