Archive

Archive for August, 2011

Issues with D2D

August 27, 2011 Leave a comment

Issues with current approaches to D2D
Capt Amerika
Aug 2011

In all of the approaches to computational intelligence (specifically those associated with D2D) the first step is to create an objective representation, behavioral and intent independent, of the environment. This is common in all staged models of data processing. It has become one of the major tenets of the QUEST group that a subjective representation has to be created for deliberation and that is a key component of the dual process theory of cognition. One of the key attributes of the subjective sys2 representation is its focus on the actions that the human can take (behavior) and the intent of the humans making the decision. These are unique to the subject (agent) making the decision from the data (also agent specific). In the words of one of our heroes R. L. Gregory ‘We see what we believe’. Our behavior / intent (experiences) lead to our construction of a unique subjective aspect of our internal representation of the world that we use as part of a dual process approach to cognition.

Weekly Discussion Topics, Aug 26

August 25, 2011 Leave a comment

QUEST Discussion Topics and News Aug 26

QUEST topics Aug 26, 2011
1.) Topic one is to continue the brainstorming session on the BURKA lab experiment and its potential use as the sys2 cognition engine for a quest agent. Last week we suggested emphasizing a Knowledge engineering video analysis / Video Image Retrieval and Analysis Tool (VIRAT) program application twist:
a. Modify Current KEVA/virat Capability:
i. Index, track, relocate objects of interest in stored and new still and streaming imagery
ii. VIRAT – The purpose of the VIRAT program was to create a database that could store large quantities of video, and make it easily searchable by intelligence agents to find “video content of interest” (e.g. “find all of the footage where three or more people are standing together in a group”) — this is known as “content-based searching”. [1] The other primary purpose was to create software that could provide “alerts” to intelligence operatives during live operations (e.g. “a person just entered the building”).[1]
2.) This discussion led us down the path of why generate the simulation (except when needed for the humans involved in the quest solution to get insight into the computer quest agent’s representation). There were a series of emails that we reviewed on opinions on generation of the simulation. Capt Amerika presented his view of how the sys2 ‘simulation’ provides the context to construct situations. The Capt Amerika view included a short discussion on ‘filling in’ and philosophical issues and implications on ‘simulations’. As a reminder we are using the word simulation in a unique way – we are not talking strictly about running in the background a program to compare alternative outcomes based on proposed action. We are suggesting that an internal representation that is composed of both measured and inferred data is used, that is what we call the sys2 illusory representation = qualia = simulation, is used to reason with to deliberate with. The word simulation is used to emphasize the point that we aren’t creating a sensor data blackboard and then reasoning off of that. The implication of the inferred data to provide context is key and thus the word simulation. Capt Amerika proposed a multiresolution Burka experiment where conflicts between the simulation and the observations at coarse resolutions can drive exploitation resources and when those conflicts don’t exists we can avoid expending those exploitation resources and potentially not drown in that data. We also want to extend our discussion to issues associated with D2D. In all of the approaches to computational intelligence (specifically those associated with D2D) the first step is to create an objective representation, behavioral and intent independent, of the environment. This is common in all staged models of data processing. It has become one of the major tenets of the QUEST group that a subjective representation has to be created for deliberation and that is a key component of the dual process theory of cognition. One of the key attributes of the subjective sys2 representation is its focus on the actions that the human can take (behavior) and the intent of the humans making the decision. These are unique to the subject (agent) making the decision from the data (also agent specific). In the words of one of our heroes R. L. Gregory ‘We see what we believe’. Our behavior / intent (experiences) lead to our construction of a unique subjective aspect of our internal representation of the world that we use as part of a dual process approach to cognition.
3.) Also we would like to return to our prior discussions on blindsight – the reason being is it provides us insight into sys1 and sys2 representation of visual data – similarly there is the analogous issue of ‘numbsense’ in the somatosensory channel.
4.) Another topic when we get to it is the recent Sci Amer ‘Mind’ issue July 2011, a word doc with some snippets from some of the articles can be provided to stimulate discussion.

Categories: Uncategorized

Concentric circle illusion

August 19, 2011 Leave a comment

QUEST Discussion Topics and News, Aug 19 2011

August 18, 2011 Leave a comment

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics Aug 19

1.) Topic one is to continue the brainstorming session on the open source layered sensing simulation model (BURKA lab experiment) and its potential use as the sys2 cognition engine for a quest agent. Last week we suggested emphasizing a Knowledge engineering video analysis application twist:
a. Modify Current KEVA / VIRAT Capability:
i. Index, track, relocate objects of interest in stored and new still and streaming imagery
We want to extend the discussion to a potential to investigate the use of a VIRAT like technology (activity recognition in streaming or stored video). The sorts of questions we would want the BURKA lab QUEST agent solution to answer: Finding an OOI at various size and aspect angles – once an OOI has been chosen you can start a series of link generations (what frames is it in, what entities is it associated with – situation based analysis, on multiple soda straws simultaneously…) What road is it on – how did it get there – are there other cars ‘associated’ with it – did it stop anywhere? Find it where ever it is in a stored data set – also extract the ‘situations’ that define those located data sets. In a VIRAT like environment how can we take a relatively fragile description of an activity and make it a more robust representation. This discussion led us down the path of why generate the simulation (except when needed for the humans involved in the quest solution to get insight into the computer quest agent’s representation). There were a series of emails that we would like to review on opinions on generation of the simulation – why or why not generate it and how to use it? Hopefully Mike Young, Brian Tsou and Scott Weir will provide their views and Capt Amerika will then present his view of how the sys2 ‘simulation’ provides the context to construct situations. The Capt Amerika view will include a short discussion on ‘filling in’ and philosophical issues and implications on ‘simulations’. As a reminder we are using the word simulation in a unique way – we are not talking strictly about running in the background a program to compare alternative outcomes based on proposed action. We are suggesting that an internal representation that is composed of both measured and inferred data is used, that is what we call the sys2 illusory representation = qualia = simulation, is used to reason with to deliberate with. The word simulation is used to emphasize the point that we aren’t creating a sensor data blackboard and then reasoning off of that. The implication of the inferred data to provide context is key and thus the word simulation. Capt Amerika will propose a multiresolution Burka experiment where conflicts between the simulation and the observations at coarse resolutions can drive exploitation resources and when those conflicts don’t exists we can avoid expending those exploitation resources and potentially not drown in that data. A simple WAMI test case will be discussed. Also we would like to return to our prior discussions on blindsight – the reason being is it provides us insight into sys1 and sys2 representation of visual data – similarly there is the analogous issue of ‘numbsense’ in the somatosensory channel.

2.) Topic two when we eventually get to it is the recent Sci Amer ‘Mind’ issue July 2011, a word doc with some snippets from some of the articles can be provided to stimulate discussion.

Call for papers for Computational Models of Narrative (CMN) workshop series

August 18, 2011 Leave a comment

CFP: 3rd Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative

Dear Steven,

I write to let you know about the call for papers for the next
installment of the Computational Models of Narrative (CMN) workshop
series. We corresponded last year about your being interested in the
2nd workshop, which was held as a AAAI Fall Symposium last November, so
I thought you would be interested in this seeing this.

The CMN’12 workshop is an appropriate venue for fundamental cognitive,
neurobiological, and computational work on narrative. The paper deadline

is in seven months – so there is plenty of time to prepare something.

Also, please note two items that are in the works: (1) we will likely be

able to provide travel grants to authors who need them, and (2) the best

papers will be selected for expansion and publication in a reputed
international journal.

Please write if you have any questions. Best regards,

Mark

First Call for Papers:
———————-

International Workshop on
=================================
Computational Models of Narrative
=================================
May 20-22, 2012, Istanbul, Turkey

———————————————–
Submissions Due: *Friday, February 24, 2012*
———————————————–

http://narrative.csail.mit.edu/ws12

Workshop Aims
————-

Narratives are ubiquitous in human experience. It is clear
that, to fully understand and explain human intelligence,
beliefs, and behaviors, we will have to understand why
narrative is universal and explain the function it serves.

The aim of this workshop series is to address key, fundamental
questions about narrative, using computational techniques, so
to advance our understanding of cognition, culture, and
society.

Special Focus: Shared Resources
——————————-

The computational study narrative does not yet have carefully
constructed shared resources and corpora that can catalyze the
way forward. This meeting will not only be an appropriate
venue for papers addressing fundamental topics and questions
regarding narrative, but also those papers which focus on the
identification, collection, and construction of *shared
resources and corpora* that facilitate the computational
modeling of narrative.

Papers should focus on issues fundamental to computational
modeling and scientific understanding, or issues related to
building shared resources to advance the field. A
technological application or motivation is not required.

Illustrative Topics and Questions
———————————

* What kinds of shared resources are required for the
computational study of narrative?

* What content and modalities should be put in a “Story Bank”
at formal representations should be used?

* What shared resources are available, or how can
already-extant resources be adapted to common needs?

* What makes narrative different from a list of events or
facts? What is special that makes something a narrative?

* What are the details of the relationship between narrative
and common sense?

* How are narratives indexed and retrieved? Is there a
“universal” scheme for encoding episodes?

* What impact do the purpose, function, and genre of a
narrative have on its form and content?

* What comprises the set of possible narrative arcs? Is there
such a set? How many possible story lines are there?

* Are there systematic differences in the formal properties of
narratives from different cultures?

* What are appropriate representations for narrative? What
representations underlie the extraction of narrative schemas?

* How should we evaluate computational models of narrative?

Additional Information
———————-

We will likely have funding available to award travel grants
to authors who have papers at the workshop, but would
otherwise be unable to attend because of financial
constraints.

Also in preparation is an arrangement with a noted
international journal for a special issue featuring expanded
versions of the best papers from the workshop.

Organizing Committee
——————–

Mark A. Finlayson, MIT, USA
Pablo Gervas, UCM, Spain
Deniz Yuret, Koc University, Turkey
Floris Bex, Dundee, UK

Questions should be directed to:

narrative-ws12@csail.mit.edu

Categories: Uncategorized

Blindsight scholarpedia article

August 18, 2011 Leave a comment
Categories: Uncategorized

Links from Janet Peasant

August 18, 2011 Leave a comment

(Dr. Tsao’s presentation at the 2010 Symposium regarding the neural basis of face recognition posted on Paul Allen’s brain-map.org is great; Doris Tsao:
2010 Allen Institute for Brain Science Symposium,

Also some announcements
http://www.brain-map.org/announcements/index?id=Upcoming%20Conferences%20and
%20Events

one is for the annual symposium and
another is for Neuroscience 2011, both in the Fall

Categories: Uncategorized