Specifying and analysing networks of processes in CSPt (or in search of associativity)

In proposing theories of how we should design and specify networks of processes it is necessary to show that the semantics of any language we use to write down the intended behaviours of a system has several qualities. First in that the meaning of what is written on the page reflects the intention of the designer; second that there are no unexpected behaviours that might arise in a specified system that are hidden from the unsuspecting specifier; and third that the intention for the design of the behaviour of a network of processes can be communicated clearly and intuitively to others. In order to achieve this we have developed a variant of CSP, called CSPt, designed to solve the problems of termination of parallel processes present in the original formulation of CSP. In CSPt we introduced three parallel operators, each with a different kind of termination semantics, which we call synchronous, asynchronous and race. These operators provide specifiers with an expressive and flexible tool kit to define the intended behaviour of a system in such a way that unexpected or unwanted behaviours are guaranteed not to take place. In this paper we extend out analysis of CSPt and introduce the notion of an alphabet diagram that illustrates the different categories of events that can arise in the parallel composition of processes. These alphabet diagrams are then used to analyse networks of three processes in parallel with the aim of identifying sufficient constraints to ensure associativity of their parallel composition. Having achieved this we then proceed to prove associativity laws for the three parallel operators of CSPt. Next, we illustrate how to design and construct a network of three processes that satisfy the associativity law, using the associativity theorem and alphabet diagrams. Finally, we outline how this could be achieved for more general networks of processes.

Successful termination in timed CSP

In proposing theories of how we should design and specify networks of processes it is necessary to show that the semantics of any language we use to write down the intended behaviours of a system has several qualities. First in that the meaning of what is written on the page reflects the intention of the designer; second that there are no unexpected behaviours that might arise in a specified system that are hidden from the unsuspecting specifier; and third that the intention for the design of the behaviour of a network of processes can be communicated clearly and intuitively to others. In order to achieve this we have developed a variant of CSP, called CSPt, designed to solve the problems of termination of parallel processes present in the original formulation of CSP. In CSPt we introduced three parallel operators, each with a different kind of termination semantics, which we call synchronous, asynchronous and race. These operators provide specifiers with an expressive and flexible tool kit to define the intended behaviour of a system in such a way that unexpected or unwanted behaviours are guaranteed not to take place. In this paper we extend out analysis of CSPt and introduce the notion of an alphabet diagram that illustrates the different categories of events that can arise in the parallel composition of processes. These alphabet diagrams are then used to analyse networks of three processes in parallel with the aim of identifying sufficient constraints to ensure associativity of their parallel composition. Having achieved this we then proceed to prove associativity laws for the three parallel operators of CSPt. Next, we illustrate how to design and construct a network of three processes that satisfy the associativity law, using the associativity theorem and alphabet diagrams. Finally, we outline how this could be achieved for more general networks of processes.

Why is “blindsight” blind? A new perspective on primary visual cortex, recurrent activity and visual awareness

The neuropsychological phenomenon of blindsight has been taken to suggest that the primary visual cortex (V1) plays a unique role in visual awareness, and that extrastriate activation needs to be fed back to V1 in order for the content of that activation to be consciously perceived. The aim of this review is to evaluate this theoretical framework and to revisit its key tenets. Firstly, is blindsight truly a dissociation of awareness and visual detection? Secondly, is there sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility that the loss of awareness resulting from a V1 lesion simply reflects reduced extrastriate responsiveness, rather than a unique role of V1 in conscious experience? Evaluation of these arguments and the empirical evidence leads to the conclusion that the loss of phenomenal awareness in blindsight may not be due to feedback activity in V1 being the hallmark awareness. On the basis of existing literature, an alternative explanation of blindsight is proposed. In this view, visual awareness is a “global” cognitive function as its hallmark is the availability of information to a large number of perceptual and cognitive systems; this requires inter-areal long-range synchronous oscillatory activity. For these oscillations to arise, a specific temporal profile of neuronal activity is required, which is established through recurrent feedback activity involving V1 and the extrastriate cortex. When V1 is lesioned, the loss of recurrent activity prevents inter-areal networks on the basis of oscillatory activity. However, as limited amount of input can reach extrastriate cortex and some extrastriate neuronal selectivity is preserved, computations involving comparison of neural firing rates within a cortical area remain possible. This enables “local” read-out from specific brain regions, allowing for the detection and discrimination of basic visual attributes. Thus blindsight is blind due to lack of “global” long-range synchrony, and it functions via “local” neural readout from extrastriate areas.