Home > Meeting Topics and Material, News Stories > Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News, 4 Oct

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News, 4 Oct

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News
4th October, 2013

I spent the week considering working memory and the models of Baddeley / Hitch and the information from the Cowan article on his model/insights. I’m not sure if there is anything additional I gained out of the reviews that we haven’t discussed but I suspect we will start with those discussions.

I then went back to consider the challenge of bringing some structure to the concept of ‘meaning’. We’ve had this discussion recently but I wanted to reconsider it in terms of our recent views of type 1 and type 2 and the implications to ‘meaning’. This reminded me of a driver problem we recommended some time ago that makes a great testbed application for engineering solutions consistent with our ‘Theory of Consciousness’. The driver problem was to capture our weekly news stories in a representation that could be aligned to by each of us.

Another topic that has consumed some bandwidth is the effort under PCPADx spiral 1 on defining events. This has direct correlation to our recent discussions on situations/chunks/qualia = events. So I want to expose the group to that discussion so we can brainstorm and provide feedback to the pcpadx team.

The most exciting topic for the week is a research article ‘Hypothetical-thinking based on cognitive decoupling and thinking dispositions in a dual cognitive agent’, by Larue et al, Biologically inspired cognitive architectures (2013) 6, 67-75. They present an implementation of the hypothetical-thinking capacities, based on Stanovich’s tripartite framework (Stanovich, 2009). They simulated the Wason card selection task with four different cognitive styles (strongly reactive, purely executive, weakly reflective, purely reflective) and were able to reproduce the results and types of errors found in studies of human reasoning abilities. The first three profiles account for the results of 90% of human subjects (all those who provide answers that are not acceptable by logical standards). The strongly reactive profile gave a plausible account of the way humans provide the logically incorrect answer to the task. The purely executive and weakly reflective gave an account of how subjects can provide part of the correct answer. The last profile (purely reflective), a much a much slower process, produces a complete and correct answer by logical standards. While the purely reflective process was the only one able to do this, it is to be noted that the purely executive system was able to provide a correct (but incomplete) answer using less computational resources (time).

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News 4 Oct

Advertisements
  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: