Home > Meeting Topics and Material > Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics, 9/16

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics, 9/16

Topics and News document

QUEST topics, Sept 16, 2011

1.) Topic one is a continuation of our discussion – Dr. Tsou will stimulate the discussion by providing his understanding of the relationship between what we know about physiology and our ongoing discussions on the role of qualia / sys1 – that will take us back to the question – ‘can you make objective measurements of emotions or pain or even ‘redness’?’ – related to our cloud diagram that we were using as a homework assignment. Specifically accounting for relationships between external observables and aspects (both sys1 {subconscious} and sys2 {conscious}) of our internal representation of the world is our goal.
a. For example, when we say the word ‘red’ to describe some spectral aspect of some part of our visual sensory data that we’ve incorporated into our illusory cartesean theater what is the source of that articulated label and what is its relationship to the visual quale {the actual experience of what is seen} and to the sensory data {what is captured at the retina and encoded in pulses}.
A1. Based on that relationship, can we begin to estimate the form for “information” bandwidth calculation in sys1 & sys2, respectively?
b. We want to have the same discussion with respect to more complicated qualia like emotions and pain. We would like to account for the relationships between ‘frustration’ or ‘confusion’ to external observables like electro-dermal activity (EDA) and the internal qualia and also the internal sys1 states that we don’t have available to introspect over.
c. The focus of the discussion is to establish a position on how we can design an engineering experiment to allow quest agents to capture an accurate representation of the humans they are collaborating with in order to better estimate what context to provide that human to improve decision making.
C1. Finally, where and how could the calculated human “information” bandwidth be widened or supplemented by the quest agents? (where can the quest agents make the greatest impact?)
2.) Topic two is a recent article on impact of processing of scenes. Specifically the impact of object recognition integrated within the context of the general outline of the scene information. The researchers presented to 28 people four scenes (bathroom, kitchen, intersection, and a playground). They then were presented objects associated with entities in those environments and the neural signatures for those objects representations were recorded (specifically in the lateral occipital cortex – LOC). The combination of the simple object representations was then compared to the scene presentation. The combination of the stove and the fridge responses matched the response to the kitchen. The implication is that within the LOC the representation of the scene is a simple combination of parts.
3.) That brings us back to topic three – to continue the brainstorming session on the BURKA lab experiment and its potential use as the sys2 cognition engine for a quest agent. We’ve suggested emphasizing a Knowledge engineering video analysis (KEVA) / 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]
4.) Capt Amerika proposed an experiment to investigate the application of QUEST concepts to solve the problem of what bits to exploit and at what resolution in a layered sensing environment. The idea is that we don’t have the option of processing all bits sensed for all possible meanings so we need an approach to decide what we look at and how we look at it. The 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 will be discussed. We specifically want to add the details for ATRs and Trackers. We would also like to discuss the potential integration of human analyst in this discussion using technology to measure their sys1 response to a given set of data at a given resolution. We will examine the devices offered by the company Affectiva for this purpose.
5.) Someday we will get to the other topic – 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.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: