Weekly Discussion Topics, Aug 26

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.