Find all nearest neighbours for yi =1. These solutions will need to be clustered - this is a key step, without which you will get garbage. You should expect to find four such clusters, so if using k-means, you will have to take k=4. Let us take a 3-point clustered nbrhood C = , with y-coordinates y0,y1,y2, where y1-1 ~ 0. Then solve for weights w0,w1,w2 s.t. 1 = SUM(wi yi) + e, and e is minimized. Now obtain x=SUM(wi xi) and similarly z. There will be one solution for each cluster C.

PCA will compute the covariance SIGMA over all sample points X = {x,y,z}. Then it will find the eigenvalues, and expect to see a few dominant ones. However, the eigenvalues here will be roughly 2,2,0.4 (major axes of an ellipse that fits the data). Thus, there will be no good reason to reject any dimension, and the dimensionality found will be 3. Even if a dimension is to be removed, it will be the third (z) dimension, which would result in a dimensionality of 2 (and a lot of residual error).

In the isomap model, for every point p, we would find the three closest neigbours p0,p1,p2. We would then compute the distance between any pi and pj using distances among the nearest neighbourhood graphs. Then we would map these to a given dimension d (d =‹ 3), by using a distance preserving transform (multidimensionality scaling MDS).

We would expect to find a good match using d=1, since distances between points along the curve are well captured by the points' immediate neighbourhood.

The mind was a completely different substance from matter, which made up the body. Hence this version of dualism is called substance dualism (as opp to property dualism). Descartes believed that there were two kinds of substances in the universe - matter - everything we see - and mind, a special substance that can think. The mind was connected to the body through the pineal gland.

If the mind is separate from the body, how does the body respond so immediately to situations in the mind, and how do material changes affect mental phenomena (e.g. sensory perception). This connection between mind and body is most difficult for substance dualists to explain. Some early cartesian philosophers felt this was done by God.

The dualist problem arises because one is conscious and cannot doubt that one is thinking. But what if everything outside us was in fact, not there (an illusion)? This leads to a coherent position, in which only mental states are real.
Such a position has difficulty in determining how different perceivers of the same scene happen to agree on what they see.

Functionalism states that any device that functions in the same manner as the mind has the same capabilities. Thus, Searle, sitting in a room and responding to chinese, has the same properties as a chinese speaker, who understands chinese, whereas Searle doesn't. Thus, this leads to a conflict in the functionalist position.

Fechner determined that for human perception of weight pW - the just noticeable difference dpW, increases linearly with weight. Thus, dpW = k dW/W, i.e. pW = k.lnW.
The logarithmic nature of perception to stimulus has been observed in some other sensory phenomena, but not for very large changes of magnitude.

Behaviourists were concerned with change of behaviour due to either involuntary (classical) or voluntary (operant / instrumental) processes. Learning is, after all, related to behaviour. Thus, processes of animal and human learning, e.g. the work of Edward Thorndike, were very central to the behaviourist view.
In the Chomskyan cognitivist view, formal processing as in the rules for grammar, were central. For example, there was a syntax of perception,

In the Chomskyan cognitivist view, many things that couldn't be explained by present theory were taken to be inborn or genetically inherited. This included a form of grammar that was universal and got tuned to real languages based on parameters that were learned based on input. The role of learning was much less. The relationship to semantics was also supposed to be inborn, which led to many difficulties in the theory.

In many skilled activity, such as tying a shoelace or playing a computer game, the skills are known implicitly, and the expert finds it hard to state them as rules.

However, the expert may often give rule-based explanation for their actions - e.g. while driving, they may say "I changed lanes because the car in front was slowing down". This may be because a) while acquiring the skill, initially, there is considerable awareness about rules, and b) the mind seeks to create an united reality, in which their own actions are seen as rational.

This is even more apparent in rule-driven games such as chess. Here an expert often "sees" (considers) only a small set of moves, and does not look at many other moves. This substantially prunes their search. The expert may not be able to explain initially why they did not consider some of the other moves - but these moves predominantly turn out to be worse, and the expert can later analyze them and show them to be such.

"Today Ram wants to dress differently. He wants to dress up like his sister. Will he?" If the q. was "Can he" it would be more of a physical possibility; "will he" tests more of the free will.
I am not quite convinced that this is completely foolproof, though.

Over generations, societies will respect better male hunters / female gatherers more, and give them benefits that permit them to have more children that survive. Now if a male genome (Y) is accidentally encoded with characteristics of better hunter, the phenotypes (people) who carry such genes may be more likely to have better children, and the gene will propagate. In this way, cultural mores may get encoded in the genome.

A not B or the perseverative error is one in which the infant, who has several times found a toy (or other answer) in A, perseveres to seek the toy in A, although in front of her, the experimenter has kept the toy in B.

The earlier theory was that hand motions were the result of deliberations; now we know that they occur along with planning process, and in fact, can tell us about how our planning process works.

Fading is where the learner is given fully worked out solutions first, and gradually less and less detail is given.
A more effective tool is to adapt the degree of fading based on the individual learning, which may be assessed through "self-explanation" - e.g. by having the student state the principle on which the answer was obtained.

In the experiment reported in [Neth/Payne 2011], the summation takes about the same time in both. Here of course, the manipulation is virtual (by mouse). The answer may vary for real manipulation - but this is the relevant answer in this context.

In the experiment reported in [Neth/Payne 2011], the summation takes about the same time in both. However, accuracy is higher with the manipulation. Here of course, the manipulation is virtual (by mouse). The answer may vary for real manipulation - but this is the relevant answer in this context.

Blind people have similar differences in their L / R occipetal-temporal areas. This suggests that the domain encodings (social vs artifact) is independent of sensory modality.

Another factor affecting the perception of causality is the angle in which the second ball moves w.r.t. the trajectory of ball 1. If it starts moving at 90 degrees, most people do not see any causality. The interesting point is that the perception of causality in different individuals is different; thus each of us have differing models of causality.
My personal feeling on this is more in line with Hume - it is clear that we perceive associations - but whether these are causal (directed, perhaps irreversible) or not, is not clear.

In Coventry etal 2011, they use gaze trackers to study where a user is looking when pictures are shown - e.g. of corn flakes falling from a box. The degree to which a bowl is "underneath" the box of cereal depends on whether the falling stream is centered on the bowl or not - i.e. it is functional, and function is based on simulation. .

When shown an action that has to be communicated through informal gestures, subjects tend to prefer SOV syntax rather than other models, even if their native language is SVO (eg english).

Phonological cues include suffixes. e.g. in Hindi more fem words end in bari I are mostly female. Even in other english, where gender is not marked, *-ina would often be female. This association is quickly learned by subjects even for artificial languages.

Intransitive. Transitive sentence would be "The meemor blebbed the golb".

If the feature relevant to the metaphor is not a primary property of either the vehicle or a target. For example, if I say "that surgeon is a butcher", the dominant attribute of the metaphor is low skill, incompetence. However, a butcher is normally associated with meat, maybe bloodi-ness, but perhaps not with low skill. So the low-skill aspects are emergent; by putting the butcher and the surgeon on the same scale of cutting living tissue - compared to the surgeon, the butcher is coarse and ineffective. This makes the meaning emerge. Similarly, in "stars are diamonds", whiteness or brightness may be an emergent property.

Liars would rather provide information that is true but peripheral to the main objectives of the questioner. Thus, a non-co-operator in the rectangle search game would provide points that are far from the boundary.
Preponderance of such non-lies would indicate the possibility that in other matters, the respondent may be lying.

An affective stimulus is one with strong emotional connotations, such as seeing a long slithering motion on the ground, which may be a snake.

It would go with a perceptual assessment, which permits more graded assessment.

e.g. if I showed the room as it looks to an ant, the view from under the desks. Even a view from the very top may be non-prototypical. Also non-prototypical would be if all the students were clumped together instead of being distributed, etc.

Optical eye tracking typically involves tracking the pupil, which is the center of the dark area (the iris) seen inside the white area (the sclera). In IR light, the pupil appears as a dark circle, esp if IR filters are used. The pupil opens up to the inside of the eye, and if the IR led is not exactly coaxial with the camera, then its light will reach the retina inside the eye at some angle and will not be seen by the camera, making it dark. The cornea is the layer covering the whole front area of the eyeball.