Home > Uncategorized > Weekly QuEST Discussion Topics and News, 29 Aug

Weekly QuEST Discussion Topics and News, 29 Aug

QuEST 29 Aug 2014:

1.)  The first topic has to do with the current debate on ISIS / ISIL.  It reminded me of a set of discussions that have happened over the last couple of years in the QuEST meetings and resulted in us putting together a ‘think piece’ on Fighting an Adaptable foe.  Specifically the common issues in fighting in cyber, fighting the war on cancer and the fight against terrorism.  In the area of the fight against cancer the basic idea — still in the experimental stages — is that cancer cells cannot turn into a lethal tumor without the cooperation of other cells nearby. That may be why autopsies repeatedly find that most people who die of causes other than cancer have at least some tiny tumors in their bodies that had gone unnoticed.  *** in fact confirms matt’s brothers observation – and the lung cancer observation – that found as many lung cancers in nonsmokers although clearly more smokers die from lung cancer ***According to current thinking, the tumors were kept in check, causing no harm. … It also may mean that cancers grow in part because normal cells surrounding them allowed them to escape. It also means that there might be a new way to think about treatment: cancer might be kept under control by preventing healthy cells around it from crumbling*** this is the provide security and safety strategy approach to asymmetric war ***…“Think of it as this kid in a bad neighborhood,” said Dr. Susan Love, a breast cancer surgeon and president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation. “You can take the kid out of the neighborhood and put him in a different environment and he will behave totally differently.” … if there is interest we can revisit this ‘think piece’ to see if our newer QuEST ideas can impact differently now.

2.)   The second topic has to do with the discussion last week on how we do NOT think the solution to a general purpose artificial intelligence that can respond acceptably to the unexpected query is to learn the representation it is to learn/adapt the parameters of a simulation.  We are reminded in our interactions with Prof Geman – We have these quotes from his presentations he gave us:

The mind’s eye

  • The brain simulates
  • Representations must be nearly literal
  • We don’t learn representations; we learn the parameters of simulation (“strong priors”)



  • Nonparametric learning may have little or nothing to do with biological learning (ontogenetic & phylogenetic)
  • The advantages of simulation would explain the striking growth of the neocortex
  • The homogeneity of the cortex suggests repeatable and scalable rules of composition
  • Image understanding might be more a matter of constructing a scene model than of computing a classification


And with the work we discussed last week at QuEST that is all about classification / localization being where the big boys (google / facebook) are focused I think we are on an interesting path with QuEST … what I would like to discuss is finding relevant publications that attempt to attack the issue of the difference in learning the parameters for a simulation versus learning a representation?  How does this solve the Biederman problem?  And the answer to the Jared question – what are the parameters of the simulation? (to me they are the qualia – the vocabulary of conscious thought)


3.)  That brings us to the third topic – another Prof we’ve interacted with that inspired us to continue down the path of the conscious representation is a simulation versus a projection of sensory data – Prof Barsalou – a key attribute of simulation is the pattern completion inferencing – I would like to present his work that provides an interesting explanation of mirror neurons related to simulation – Mirroring as Pattern Completion Inferences within Situated Conceptualizations – … The classic account of mirroring is that it results from mirror neurons, namely, neurons that have both motor and perceptual tunings. Mirror neurons not only become active when an action is performed, but also when it is perceived.  Because these neurons become active during the perception of an action, they ground the perception in action simulation. An alternative account constitutes the thesis developed here: Mirroring is a special case of a basic cognitive process common across species, namely, Pattern Completion Inferences …  within Situated Conceptualizations (PCIwSC). According to PCIwSC, the brain is a situation processing architecture (Barsalou, 2003, 2009; Barsalou et al., 2003; Wilson-Mendenhall et al., 2011; Yeh and Barsalou, 2006).

Weekly QuEST Discussion Topics and News 29 Aug

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: