SUBCONSCIOUS INTERACTION WITH
CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH TASK SETTING (3)
Human mind could be a precious resource to assist us in
designing , understanding and performing autonomous systems. Subconscious is an autonomous system. Carl Gustav Jung’s Psychology and Religion
book ponders on the autonomy of the Unconscious Mind.
The brain determines our thoughts and behaviors through
tasksets.
A task set is a configuration of
cognitive processes that is actively maintained for subsequent task performance[1] . A task is the
representation of a set of instructions required to perform an activity
accurately; a task set is the set of representations and processes that enable
execution of the task [2] .
Subconscious
interacts with consciousnes through tasksets.
We set goals to our subconscious by deciding what to do when.
Prospective
memory (PM) is defined as remembering to perform an action in the future. There
are two
main types of PM according to their different cues: event-based prospective
memory (EBPM) and
time-based prospective memory (TBPM) (Einstein
and McDaniel, 1990). Both EBPM and TBPM
are necessary for daily life. EBPM is the remembering what one does when a
certain target event
occurs. For example, one remembers to buy milk when one passes by the
supermarket. TBPM is
involved when one has to perform an action in relation to time, such as
returning a library book before a due date [3]
.
We use tasks and tasksets to live our daily lives. In the case of two individuals this is why it
is important to set common goals to come to a shared understanding. You can always hit or shout at a small child
but you cannot do so to an automatic system the size of a football field like a
large airplane.
Performing on a large autonomous system requires not only the
‘informed consent’, namely the actual command to execute but also a through
understanding of the TASKSET that lies behind it.
Autonomy
[4,5] —the capability of an agent to properly act by itself
in a changing, uncertain world— seems to requiere consciousness.
An autonomous system [6]
is one that can achieve a given set of goals in a changing
environment—gathering information about the environment and working for an
extended period of time without human control or intervention.
Autonomy requires that the system be able to do the
following:
1-
Sense the environment and keep track of the system’s current state and
location.
2-
Perceive and understand disparate data sources.
3-
Determine what action to take next and make a plan.
4-
Act only when it is safe to do so, avoiding situations that pose a risk to
human safety, property or the autonomous system itself.
Flybywire vs
mechanical control
In the future [5]
, developers will interact with autonomous systems via a software platform that
abstracts the hardware, abstracts the sensors and pushes the interface to a
higher-level set of software services via an application programming interface
(API). This will free developers from having to interact with a specific type
of LiDAR, radar or camera in use—and enable them to simply request information
via high-level services provisioned with APIs. Connectivity will be similarly
abstracted, so the communications within the car, with other vehicles and with
the cloud will be simpler for a developer to implement without requiring a deep
understanding of a specific communication technology.
What is FlyByWire A320?
Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a computer controlled system that in
the A320 series and A330 / A340 and now the new A350 aircraft replaces the
conventional flight controls of an aircraft (like those found in the 737) with
an electronic system
Traditional
flight control systems in most small aircraft are either a web of pulleys and
cables or metal rods and joints. Larger aircraft often use hydraulics to make
the controls easy to move at high speeds. Newer fly-by-wire control systems
pull out all that hardware and replace it with sensors, actuators, and wires.
Instead of a direct line of control from aircraft yoke to control surface, the
aircraft is left with a yoke, sensors, a computer to process the inputs, wires,
and an actuator at the aileron, rudder, or elevator.
REFERENCES:
[1] Katsuyuki Sakai; Task set and prefrontal cortex,
Annu Rev Neurosci, 2008;31:219-45.
Department of Cognitive
Neuroscience, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1
Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; email: ksakai@m.u-tokyo.ac.jp
[2] D. W. Schneider, G.
Logan; 2 Tasks,
Task Sets, and the Mapping Between Them ;Pages
27–44, June 2014
[3] Hongxia Zhang, Weihai Tang2† and Xiping Liu; The Effect of
Task Duration on Event-Based Prospective Memory: Front. Psychol. 8:1895.
[4] GRANT GILLETT, INTENTION, AUTONOMY,
AND BRAIN EVENTS, Bioethics, 2009
[5] Ultimate Guide to Autonomous Systems; Autonomous
Systems | Ultimate Guides | BlackBerry QNX
[6] Ricardo
Sanz1, inter alia, Consciousness and Understanding in Autonomous Systems https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2287/paper23.pdf
,-Alonso2 1 Autonomous Systems Laboratory Universidad Polit´ecnica de Madrid,
28006 Madrid,
