I'm sorry to say, but your understanding of image processing fundamentals is absolutely wrong

The ongoing discussion whether modern vision systems have to be viewed as visually-enabled cognitive systems or cognitively-enabled vision systems is groundless, because perceptual and cognitive faculties of vision are separate components of human (and consequently, artificial) information processing system modeling.Comment: To be published as chapter 5 in "Frontiers in Brain, Vision and AI", I-TECH Publisher, Viena, 200

Machine Learning: When and Where the Horses Went Astray?

Machine Learning is usually defined as a subfield of AI, which is busy with information extraction from raw data sets. Despite of its common acceptance and widespread recognition, this definition is wrong and groundless. Meaningful information does not belong to the data that bear it. It belongs to the observers of the data and it is a shared agreement and a convention among them. Therefore, this private information cannot be extracted from the data by any means. Therefore, all further attempts of Machine Learning apologists to justify their funny business are inappropriate.Comment: The paper is accepted to be published in the Machine Learning serie of the InTec

Does a Plane Imitate a Bird? Does Computer Vision Have to Follow Biological Paradigms?

We posit a new paradigm for image information processing. For the last 25 years, this task was usually approached in the frame of Triesman's twostage paradigm [1]. The latter supposes an unsupervised, bottom-up directed process of preliminary information pieces gathering at the lower processing stages and a supervised, top-down directed process of information pieces binding and grouping at the higher stages. It is acknowledged that these subprocesses interact and intervene between them in a tricky and a complicated manner. Notwithstanding the prevalence of this paradigm in biological and computer vision, we nevertheless propose to replace it with a new one, which we would like to designate as a two-part paradigm. In it, information contained in an image is initially extracted in an independent top-down manner by one part of the system, and then it is examined and interpreted by another, separate system part. We argue that the new paradigm seems to be more plausible than its forerunner. We provide evidence from human attention vision studies and insights of Kolmogorov's complexity theory to support these arguments. We also provide some reasons in favor of separate image interpretation issues