Archive

Archive for September, 2013

Capt Amerika slides from QUEST presentation

September 27, 2013 Leave a comment

QUEST_Qualia_PA#88ABW-2013-1836

Advertisements

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News, 27 Sept 2013

September 27, 2013 Leave a comment

QUEST topics for Sept 27, 2013

1.) We have recently discussed the article by Evans and Stanovich – “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate” : their approach is one in which rapid autonomous processes (Type 1) are assumed to yield default responses unless intervened on by distinctive higher order reasoning processes (Type 2). What defines the difference is that Type 2 processing supports hypothetical thinking and loads heavily on working memory — this has led us to search out an engineering definition of working memory with respect to impacts on engineering solutions that are consistent with Type 1 / Type 2 processing as decision aids for better human-computer symbiotic tasks –discuss the QUEST position that all Type 2 processes are done with hypothetical thinking (imagined present, imagined past and imagined future). This has led us to read the article by Cowan – The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration
of mental storage capacity – Nelson Cowan.

2.) Cowan article: Miller (1956) summarized evidence that people can remember about seven chunks in short-term memory (STM) tasks. However, that number was meant more as a rough estimate and a rhetorical device than as a real capacity limit. Others have since suggested that there is a more precise capacity limit, but that it is only three to five chunks. The present target article brings together a wide variety of data on capacity limits suggesting that the smaller capacity limit is real. Capacity limits will be useful in analyses of information processing only if the boundary conditions for observing them can be carefully described. Two specific points I would like to discuss are the relationship between chunks and situations and qualia — then second the idea of attention being the capacity limited aspect of short term memory ~ this might become our working definition of working memory for our defining characteristic for type 2 processing.

3.) This discussion led us to our second point on how we can take the ideas of Vernon Mountcastle — He discovered and characterized the columnar organization of the cerebral cortex in the 1950s. This discovery was a turning point in investigations of the cerebral cortex, as nearly all cortical studies of sensory function after Mountcastle’s 1957 paper[1] on the somatosensory cortex used columnar organization as their basis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Mountcastle ) — specifically his position that – “In 1978 Mountcastle proposed that all parts of the neocortex operate based on a common principle, with the cortical column being the unit of computation” often termed as ‘cortex is cortex’ – so the question on the floor is how to take an approach to implementing Type 1 processing and with the same engineering approach be able to implement Type 2 processing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Mountcastle

QUEST Weekly Discussion Topics 27 Sept

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics, Sept 20

September 20, 2013 Leave a comment

QUEST topics for Sept 20, 2013

1.) The recent article by Evans and Stanovich – “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate” : Dual-process and dual-system theories in both cognitive and social psychology have been subjected to a number of recently published criticisms. However, they have been attacked as a category, incorrectly assuming there is a generic version that applies to all. We identify and respond to 5 main lines of argument made by such critics. We agree that some of these arguments have force against some of the theories in the literature but believe them to be overstated. We argue that the dual-processing distinction is supported by much recent evidence in cognitive science. Our preferred theoretical approach is one in which rapid autonomous processes (Type 1) are assumed to yield default responses unless intervened on by distinctive higher order reasoning processes (Type 2). What defines the difference is that Type 2 processing supports hypothetical thinking and load heavily on working memory — will be discussed with respect to impacts on engineering solutions that are consistent with Type 1 / Type 2 processing as decision aids for better human-computer symbiotic tasks – and discuss the QUEST position that all Type 2 processes are done with hypothetical thinking (imagined present, imagined past and imagined future).

2.) The second point we would like to discuss is how we can take the ideas of Vernon Mountcastle — He discovered and characterized the columnar organization of the cerebral cortex in the 1950s. This discovery was a turning point in investigations of the cerebral cortex, as nearly all cortical studies of sensory function after Mountcastle’s 1957 paper[1] on the somatosensory cortex used columnar organization as their basis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Mountcastle ) — specifically his position that – “In 1978 Mountcastle proposed that all parts of the neocortex operate based on a common principle, with the cortical column being the unit of computation” often termed as ‘cortex is cortex’ – so the question on the floor is how to take an approach to implementing Type 1 processing and with the same engineering approach be able to implement Type 2 processing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Mountcastle

NO QUEST meeting this week – 14 Sept, 2013

September 12, 2013 Leave a comment

Just a reminder that there will not be a QUEST meeting this week, due to Capt Amerika’s travel schedule. Normal meetings will resume next week. Have a great weekend

News summary 13:9:2013

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News, 6 Sept 13

September 5, 2013 Leave a comment

We finished last week talking about the Cambridge Declaration –due to the their conclusion that there was convergent evidence that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states … – it has been our (Capt Amerika) position that to really answer questions like this we need a theory of consciousness – it is also our (Capt Amerika) position that (similar to the Cambridge Declaration) that the answer does NOT lie in the cortex or no cortex and we (Capt Amerika) don’t worry about neurological correlates of consciousness but on a set of processing principles that potentially define the representational characteristics and the deliberation approaches for the systems of systems that make up natures cognition solutions that include consciousness. We will have a discussion on these positions this week centered around our recent compilation of tenets associated with those fundamental laws (tenets) that will be the common framework that will be the backbone of our Theory of Consciousness.

On a related topic there is an article provided to us by our colleague Robert Patterson – ‘dual process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate’ by Evans and Stanovich – from association for psychological sci 8(3) 223-241, 2013, Dual-process and dual-system theories in both cognitive and social psychology have been subjected to a number of recently published criticisms. However, they have been attacked as a category, incorrectly assuming there is a generic
version that applies to all. We identify and respond to 5 main lines of argument made by such critics. We agree that some of these arguments have force against some of the theories in the literature but believe them to be overstated. We argue that the dual-processing distinction is supported by much recent evidence in cognitive science. Our preferred theoretical approach is one in which rapid autonomous processes (Type 1) are assumed to yield default responses unless intervened on by distinctive higher order reasoning processes (Type 2). What defines the difference is that Type 2 processing supports hypothetical thinking and load heavily on working memory.

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News 6 Sept 2013