Home > Uncategorized > QUEST Discussion Topics Nov 18

QUEST Discussion Topics Nov 18

Quest Discussion Topics Nov 18

Below are the topics that consumed my bandwidth this week:
1.) Topic one is ‘Attention’ – in our new formulation of the dual process theory of cognition we’ve drawn the distinction between the processes that generate the representation that we are conscious of and the qualia itself. We’ve suggested a definition of qualia as those aspects of sys2 that we are attending to. This requires we formulate a working model of ‘attention’.

At this week’s meeting, Dr. Mike Young will begin to present a historical overview of the concept of attention, emphasizing how the concept has changed over the years. We expect that this conversation will cover multiple meetings. Please see the below text from Dr. Young as a primer.

On Barsalou: His simulator is very similar to Bartlett’s original concept
of schema. “An active organization of past reactions or past experiences,
which must always be supposed to be operating in any well adapted organic
response”. Schemas “operate, not simply as individual members coming one
after another, but as a unitary mass”. I am surprised that he does not
reference this concept. It may be that the early models of schemas were
(static) data structures. However, that is not what Bartlett proposed as
evidenced by the above quotes.
2.) Topic two I’ve continued my investigation into ‘situated conceptualization’ – the idea is to capture in our training data ‘situations’ associated with the concepts we are trying to abstract a representation of – then in a cognitive subsequent task exploit the situation to focus on the relevant aspects of the concept’s representation for this situation-task, we will use the article by Barsalou – ‘the situated nature of concepts’ – american journal of psychology, fall 2006, vol 119, no 3 p 349-384, traditional theories of concepts – concept encoding – generally ignore background situations focusing on bottom up stimulus based processing. Barsalou offers a taxonomy of situations: grain size, meaningfulness and tangibility distinguish the situations – this will be the topic of a quest hosted cyber meeting on Tues with our colleagues from the Cyberspace Center for Research – those interested contact capt amerika for details.
3.) Topic three – related to Topic two – ‘situated conceptualization’ to include the idea of a ‘pattern completion inference mechanism’. The article I’m using is ‘Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction’, Lawrence W. Barsalou* Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2009) 364, 1281–1289doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.03. Along these lines I also was investigating the Stanford SCAPE system that does completion inferencing for point cloud information for body types and activities even for types not in the data base. This stimulated a great interaction with our RH Colleagues on pattern completion and inferencing. One main point of departure from the publication is our position that the ‘simulation’ is not just for when the stimuli is not present but is the mechanism for generating the illusory cartesean theater for perception (also for imagination and recollection).

Categories: Uncategorized
  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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: