In the first chapter of the book "How to Build a Brain", Chris Eliasmith quickly establishes some criteria which he will use to evaluate Spaun, the cognitive system described in the book. He describes them in great detail in Chapter 8, but below is my attempt at summarizing them.
1. Representational Structure
Systematicity
The system should connect concepts in an inter-connected way and understand there are classes of concepts, since human thought is systematic. For example, given blue ball
and red square
, it should be possible for the system to reason about the concept of blue square
.
Compositionality
Concepts should be created off of the combination of concepts to the degree supported by real cognitive systems. For example, given the concepts of pet
and fish
, it should be possible to reason about the novel concept pet fish
.
Productivity
The system should be able to create many representation based off of a few basic representations to the degree supported by real cognitive systems.
The Massive Binding Problem
The system should identify a binding operation that scales well.
2. Performance Concerns
Syntactic generalization
Ability to exploit the structure of language regardless of content.
Robustness
Losing a few neurons or being exposed to noise shouldn't break the system.
Adaptability
You should be able to use a single system for multiple task.
Memory
The system should be able to show the relation to the various types of memory (working, long-term).
Scalability
Large portions of the brain should be modeled and able to complete a wide variety of tasks.
3. Scientific merit
Triangulation
Contact with the most sources of experimental data as possible.
Compactness
Good theories can be stated compactly and without ad-hoc additions.
He explains in the chapter that this is actually a synthesis of various other criteria proposed by various authors. Although the scientific merit seems rather straightforward to me and has been elaborated upon on great length, the other criteria I am less certain about in terms of completeness and acceptance. Have attempts at unified criteria been made before? Are there more complete criteria? Are these criteria at odds with any other ideas about what a cognitive system should embody?