arvix | Broadly speaking, twistor theory is a framework for encoding physical information on space-time as geometric data on a complex projective space, known as a twistor space. The relationship between space-time and twistor space is non-local and has some surprising consequences, which we explore in these lectures. Starting with a review of the twistor correspondence for four-dimensional Minkowski space, we describe some of twistor theory’s historic successes (e.g., describing free fields and integrable systems) as well as some of its historic shortcomings. We then discuss how in recent years many of these problems have been overcome, with a view to understanding how twistor theory is applied to the study of perturbative QFT today.
These lectures were given in 2017 at the XIII Modave Summer School in mathematical physics.
WaPo | But
Massie — an engineer who graduated with several degrees from M.I.T. and
became an inventor who still holds a number of patents — has devoted
time and energy to honing his America First views during five terms in
the House.
“I’m
further, I think, than he is on the issue of NATO. He demanded that the
partners pay their share. I would withdraw us from NATO,” Massie
explained of his and Trump’s views toward the critical alliance. “It’s a
Cold War relic. Our involvement should have ceased when the [Berlin]
wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed.”
He
would have preemptively surrendered portions of eastern Ukraine to
Russia in a manner that would have “avoided tens of thousands of people
dying,” because this is how he sees the war ending anyway.
“A
fractured Ukraine, with the Eastern portion of it being a satellite or
more government, more deferential to Putin, and the Western part of it
more deferential to Europe or the United States,” Massie said.
These
views are anathema to traditional Republican hawks as well as Democrats
in line with Biden, who push for a vigorous foreign policy that works
to unify allies, particularly in Europe.
“Both
Democrats and Republicans have at different times in history had a more
isolationist, nativist wing,” said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chairman
of the House Armed Services Committee. “Right now, it’s the Republicans
who are highest on that. They’re playing a very isolationist card.”
“Honestly
there is an isolationist wing within the party that’s traditionally
been there,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), ranking member of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Smith
takes a more optimistic outlook, focusing on how more than 70 percent
of House Republicans supported the latest Ukraine aid package and that
on other votes, Massie and Greene have had few allies.
“Pretty
much everybody else understands that this isn’t just about Ukraine. It
is about our security and peace and stability in the world. So thus far
the Republican Party is still there,” Smith said.
McCaul
has actually been pleasantly surprised that the anti-Ukraine faction
has not grown larger, something he attributes to the success on the
ground of Ukrainian troops and the atrocities committed by Putin’s
troops.
“I was really worried, interestingly, earlier on about how this was going to trend,” McCaul said Friday.
NYTimes | For the second time in less than a decade, Elvira Nabiullina is steering Russia’s economy through treacherous waters.
In
2014, facing a collapsing ruble and soaring inflation after barely a
year as head of the Central Bank of Russia, Ms. Nabiullina forced the
institution into the modern era of economic policymaking by sharply
raising interest rates. The politically risky move slowed the economy,
tamed soaring prices and won her an international reputation as a tough
decision maker.
In the world of
central bankers, among technocrats tasked with keeping prices under
control and financial systems stable, Ms. Nabiullina became a rising
star for using orthodox policies to manage an unruly economy often
tethered to the price of oil. In 2015, she was named Central Bank
Governor of the Year by Euromoney magazine. Three years later, Christine
Lagarde, then the head of the International Monetary Fund, effused that
Ms. Nabiullina could make “central banking sing.”
Now
it falls to Ms. Nabiullina to steer Russia’s economy through a deep
recession, and to keep its financial system, cut off from much of the
rest of the world, intact. The challenge follows years she spent
strengthening Russia’s financial defenses against the kind of powerful
sanctions that have been wielded in response to President Vladimir V.
Putin’s geopolitical aggression.
She has guided the extraordinary rebound of Russia’s currency,
which lost a quarter of its value within days of the Feb. 24 invasion
of Ukraine. The central bank took aggressive measures to stop large sums
of money from leaving the country, arresting a panic in markets and
halting a potential run on the banking system.
In
late April, Russia’s Parliament confirmed Ms. Nabiullina, 58, for five
more years as chairwoman after Mr. Putin nominated her to serve a third
term.
“She’s an important beacon of stability for Russia’s financial system,” said
Elina Ribakova, the deputy chief economist of the Institute of
International Finance, an industry group in Washington. “Her
reappointment has symbolic value.”
Cleaning up the banks
Besides
her record on monetary policy, Ms. Nabiullina has drawn praise for
pursuing a thorough cleanup of the banking industry. In her first five
years at the bank, she revoked about 400 banking licenses — essentially
closing a third of Russia’s banks — in an effort to cull weak
institutions that were making what she termed “dubious transactions.”
It
was considered a brave crusade: In 2006, a central bank official who
had started a vigorous campaign to close banks suspected of money
laundering was assassinated.
“Fighting
corruption in the banking sector is a job for very courageous people,”
said Sergei Guriev, a Russian economist who left the country in 2013 and
is now a professor at Sciences Po in Paris. He called her program
flawed, though, because it was largely limited to private banks. This
created a moral hazard problem that left state-owned banks feeling
comfortable taking on lots of risk with the protection of the
government, he said.
Ms. Nabiullina’s
integrity has never been questioned, added Mr. Guriev, who said he had
known her for 15 years. “She’s never been suspected of any corruption.”
bbc | At the start of the 2010s, one of the world leaders in AI, DeepMind,
often referred to something called AGI, or "artificial general
intelligence" being developed at some point in the future.
Machines
that possess AGI - widely thought of as the holy grail in AI - would be
just as smart as humans across the board, it promised.
DeepMind's
lofty AGI ambitions caught the attention of Google, who paid around
£400m for the London-based AI lab in 2014 when it had the following
mission statement splashed across its website: "Solve intelligence, and
then use that to solve everything else."
Several others started to
talk about AGI becoming a reality, including Elon Musk's $1bn AI lab,
OpenAI, and academics like MIT professor Max Tegmark.
In 2014,
Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, went one step further
with his book Superintelligence. It predicts a world where machines are
firmly in control.
But those conversations were taken less and
less seriously as the decade went on. At the end of 2019, the smartest
computers could still only excel at a "narrow" selection of tasks.
Gary
Marcus, an AI researcher at New York University, said: "By the end of
the decade there was a growing realisation that current techniques can
only carry us so far."
He thinks the industry needs some "real innovation" to go further.
"There
is a general feeling of plateau," said Verena Rieser, a professor in
conversational AI at Edinburgh's Herriot Watt University.
One AI researcher who wishes to remain anonymous said we're entering a period where we are especially sceptical about AGI.
"The public perception of AI is increasingly dark: the public believes AI is a sinister technology," they said.
For
its part, DeepMind has a more optimistic view of AI's potential,
suggesting that as yet "we're only just scratching the surface of what
might be possible".
"As the community solves and discovers more,
further challenging problems open up," explained Koray Kavukcuoglu, its
vice president of research.
"This is why AI is a long-term scientific research journey.
"We
believe AI will be one of the most powerful enabling technologies ever
created - a single invention that could unlock solutions to thousands of
problems. The next decade will see renewed efforts to generalise the
capabilities of AI systems to help achieve that potential - both
building on methods that have already been successful and researching
how to build general-purpose AI that can tackle a wide range of tasks."
aeon | A paper published in Nature Genetics
in 2017 reported that, after analysing tens of thousands of genomes,
scientists had tied 52 genes to human intelligence, though no single
variant contributed more than a tiny fraction of a single percentage
point to intelligence. As the senior author of the study Danielle
Posthuma, a statistical geneticist at the Vrije Universiteit (VU)
Amsterdam and VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, told The New York Times,
‘there’s a long way to go’ before scientists can actually predict
intelligence using genetics. Even so, it is easy to imagine social
impacts that are unsettling: students stapling their genome sequencing
results to their college applications; potential employers mining
genetic data for candidates; in-vitro fertilisation clinics promising IQ
boosts using powerful new tools such as the genome-editing system
CRISPR-Cas9.
Some people are already signing on for this new
world. Philosophers such as John Harris of the University of Manchester
and Julian Savulescu of the University of Oxford have argued that we
will have a duty to manipulate the genetic code of our future children, a
concept Savulescu termed ‘procreative beneficence’. The field has extended
the term ‘parental neglect’ to ‘genetic neglect’, suggesting that if we
don’t use genetic engineering or cognitive enhancement to improve our
children when we can, it’s a form of abuse. Others, like David Correia,
who teaches American Studies at the University of New Mexico, envisions
dystopian outcomes, where the wealthy use genetic engineering to
translate power from the social sphere into the enduring code of the
genome itself.
Such concerns are longstanding; the public has been
on guard about altering the genetics of intelligence at least since
scientists invented recombinant DNA. As long ago as the 1970s, David
Baltimore, who won a Nobel Prize, questioned whether his pioneering work
might show that ‘the differences between people are genetic
differences, not environmental differences’.
I say, dream on. As it turns out, genes contribute to intelligence, but
only broadly, and with subtle effect. Genes interact in complex
relationships to create neural systems that might be impossible to
reverse-engineer. In fact, computational scientists who want to
understand how genes interact to create optimal networks have come up
against the kind of hard limits suggested by the so-called travelling
salesperson problem. In the words of the theoretical biologist Stuart
Kauffman in The Origins of Order (1993): ‘The task is to begin at one of N
cities, travel in turn to each city, and return to the initial city by
the shortest total route. This problem, so remarkably simple to state,
is extremely difficult.’ Evolution locks in, early on, some models of
what works, and hammers out refining solutions over millennia, but the
best computer junkies can do to draw up an optimal biological network,
given some input, is to use heuristics, which are shorthand solutions.
The complexity rises to a new level, especially since proteins and cells
interact at higher dimensions. Importantly, genetics research is not
about to diagnose, treat or eradicate mental disorders, or be used to
explain the complex interactions that give rise to intelligence. We
won’t engineer superhumans any time soon.
IQ.MIT | We are setting out to answer two big questions: How does human
intelligence work, in engineering terms? And how can we use that deep
grasp of human intelligence to build wiser and more useful machines, to
the benefit of society?
Drawing on MIT’s deep strengths and
signature values, culture, and history, MIT IQ promises to make
important contributions to understanding the nature of intelligence, and
to harnessing it to make a better world.
This is our quest.
Sixty
years ago, at MIT and elsewhere, big minds lit the fuse on a big
question: What is intelligence, and how does it work? The result was an
explosion of new fields — artificial intelligence, cognitive science,
neuroscience, linguistics, and more. They all took off at MIT and have
produced remarkable offshoots, from computational neuroscience, to
neural nets, to empathetic robots.
And today, by tapping the
united strength of these and other interlocking fields and capitalizing
on what they can teach each other, we seek to answer the deepest
questions about intelligence — and to deliver transformative new gifts
for humankind.
Some of these advances may be foundational in
nature, involving new insight into human intelligence, and new methods
to allow machines to learn effectively. Others may be practical tools
for use in a wide array of research endeavors, such as disease
diagnosis, drug discovery, materials and manufacturing design, automated
systems, synthetic biology, and finance.
Along with developing
and advancing the technologies of intelligence, MIT IQ researchers will
also investigate the societal and ethical implications of advanced
analytical and predictive tools. There are already active projects and
groups at the Institute investigating autonomous systems, media and
information quality, labor markets and the work of the future,
innovation and the digital economy, and the role of AI in the legal
system.
In all its activities, MIT IQ is intended to take
advantage of — and strengthen — the Institute’s culture of
collaboration. MIT IQ will connect and amplify existing excellence
across labs and centers already engaged in intelligence research.
medium | Lately I’ve
been getting a lot more accusations of being a Kremlin agent and
questions about my motives and agendas in response to my writings and
far fewer actual arguments against the content of my writing, as well as
demands that I stop arguing with this Russiagate thing and move on to
writing about other matters. I’ll tell you what: I’ll stop writing about
the Russiagate lies when they stop happening, how’s that sound? If
you foam-brained pussyhat-wearing cultists are going to keep using lies
to inadvertently manufacture support for America’s new cold war
escalations, the least I can do is try to throw a monkey wrench in it.
If
Russiagate was legit, the people responsible for selling it to us
wouldn’t have to come up with new lies about it constantly. There are many very real dangers of the Trump administration that we can focus on without fanning the flames of world-threatening tensions
between two nuclear superpowers based on lies, and the longer we spend
fighting over this crap the more of those dangers manifest unnoticed.
Russiagaters are the very worst kind of conspiracy theorist, and as long
as they’re imperiling my world with their complicity in the
manipulations of the US power establishment I’m going to keep fighting
them. Get used to it.
theintercept |CIA Director Mike
Pompeo met late last month with a former U.S. intelligence official who
has become an advocate for a disputed theory that the theft of the
Democratic National Committee’s emails during the 2016 presidential
campaign was an inside job, rather than a hack by Russian intelligence.
Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis
published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges
the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian
intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers.
Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was
“leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s
computer system.
In an interview with The Intercept, Binney said Pompeo told him that
President Donald Trump had urged the CIA director to meet with Binney to
discuss his assessment that the DNC data theft was an inside job.
During their hour-long meeting at CIA headquarters, Pompeo said Trump
told him that if Pompeo “want[ed] to know the facts, he should talk to
me,” Binney said.
A senior intelligence source confirmed that Pompeo met with Binney to
discuss his analysis, and that the CIA director held the meeting at
Trump’s urging. The Intercept’s account of the meeting is based on
interviews with Binney, the senior intelligence source, a colleague who
accompanied Binney to CIA headquarters, and others who Binney told about
the meeting. A CIA spokesperson declined to comment. “As a general
matter, we do not comment on the Director’s schedule,” said Dean Boyd,
director of the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs.
Binney said that Pompeo asked whether he would be willing to meet
with NSA and FBI officials to further discuss his analysis of the DNC
data theft. Binney agreed and said Pompeo said he would contact him when
he had arranged the meetings.
It is highly unorthodox for the CIA director to reach out to someone
like Binney, a 74-year-old ex-government employee who rose to prominence
as an NSA whistleblower wrongfully persecuted by the government, for
help with fact-finding related to the theft of the DNC emails. It is
particularly stunning that Pompeo would meet with Binney at Trump’s
apparent urging, in what could be seen as an effort to discredit the
U.S. intelligence community’s own assessment that an alleged Russian
hack of the DNC servers was part of an effort to help Trump win the
presidency.
NationalGeographic | Great news! [Princeton University professor] Joe Taylor talked to
Angel Vazquez, who made contact with the observatory via ham radio.
Everybody there is safe and sound,” reported Arecibo deputy director Joan Schmelz.
However, it’s not yet clear how staff who weathered the storm in town
are doing, or what conditions are like for local communities. Reports
suggest that the road up to the facility is covered in debris and is
largely inaccessible.
Still, according to the National Science Foundation,
which funds the majority of the telescope’s operations, the observatory
is well stocked with food, well water, and fuel for generators. As of
Thursday night, there are enough supplies for the staff hunkered down
there to survive for at least a week, although Vazquez reports that it’s
not clear how long the generators will be working.
“As soon as the roads are physically passable, a team will try to get up to the observatory,” the NSF statement says.
Because of its deep water well and generator, the observatory has
been a place for those in nearby towns to gather, shower, and cook after
past hurricanes. It also has an on-site helicopter landing pad, so
making sure the facility is safe in general is not just of scientific
importance, but is also relevant for local relief efforts.
Built in 1963, the Arecibo Observatory has become a cultural icon,
known both for its size and for its science. For most of its 54-year
existence, Arecibo was the largest radio telescope in the world, but in
2016, a Chinese telescope called FAST—with a dish measuring 1,600 feet across—surpassed Arecibo in size, although it’s not yet fully operational.
The observatory was originally designed for national defense during
the Cold War, when the U.S. wanted to see if it could detect Soviet
satellites (and maybe missiles and bombs) based on how they alter the
portion of Earth’s atmosphere called the ionosphere. Later, the
telescope became instrumental in the search for extraterrestrial
intelligence (SETI) programs and in other aspects of radio astronomy.
space |Space.com: So, intelligence can be considered on a planetary scale?
Grinspoon: The basic ability to not wipe oneself out,
to endure, to use your technological interaction with the world in such a
way that has the possibility of the likelihood of lasting and not being
temporary — that seems like a pretty good definition of intelligence. I
talk about true intelligence, planetary intelligence. It's part and
parcel of this notion of thinking of us as an element of a planet. And
when we think in that way, then you can discriminate between one type of
interaction with the planet that we would have that would not be
sustainable, that would mark us as a temporary kind of entity, and
another type in which we use our knowledge to integrate into planetary
systems [in]some kind of long-term graceful way. That distinction seems
to me a worthwhile definition of a kind of intelligence
Especially then going back to the SETI [search for extraterrestrial
intelligence] question, because longevity is so important in the logic
and the math of SETI. There may be a bifurcation or subshell [of life]
that don't make this leap to this type of intelligence. The ones that do
make that leap have a very long lifetime. And they're the ones that in
my view are intelligent. Using your knowledge of the universe to prolong
your lifetime seems like an obviously reasonable criterion [of
intelligence]. If you use that criteria, then it's not obvious that we
have intelligence on Earth yet, but we can certainly glimpse it.
Space.com: You also wrote that sustainable alien populations could be harder to detect. What would that mean?
Grinspoon: One possible answer to the Fermi Paradox,
which asks "Where are they?" is that they're all over the place, but
they're not obviously detectable in ways that we imagine they would be.
Truly intelligent life may not be wasteful and profligate and highly
physical. Arthur C. Clarke said that the best technology would be
indistinguishable from magic. What if really highly advanced technology
is indistinguishable from nature? Or is hard to distinguish.
There's the set of assumptions embedded in [the search for extraterrestrial intelligence] that the more advanced a civilization is the more energy they'll use, the more they'll expand.
It's funny to think about that and realize that we're talking about
this while realizing things about our own future, that there is no
future in this thoughtless, cancerous expansion of material energy use.
That's a dead end. So why would an advanced civilization value that? You
can understand why a primitive organization would value that — there's a
biological imperative that makes sense for Darwinian purposes for us to
multiply as much as possible, that's how you avoid becoming extinct.
But in a finite container, that's a trap. I assume that truly
intelligent species would not be bound by that primitive biological
imperative. Maybe intelligent life actually questions its value and
realizes that quality is more important than quantity.
I'm not claiming to know that this is true about advanced aliens
because I don't think anybody can know anything about advanced aliens,
but I think it's an interesting possibility. That could be why the
universe isn't full of obviously advanced civilizations: there's
something in their nature that makes them not obvious.
If we think the rest of the universe is without awareness we have to invent a disembodied "God" to replace what is missing.
And then we treat the planet as if it were a mindless object - resources to strip (as if that caused no harm or pain) .... and a place to dump our toxic chemicals and trash.
Imagine what our thought would be like, Dogen says, if we had no separate words for "mind" and "nature."
WaPo | “The two of you
look at each other. This one is small, about the size of a tennis ball.
You reach forward a hand and stretch out one finger, and one octopus arm
slowly uncoils and comes out to touch you. The suckers grab your skin,
and the hold is disconcertingly tight. Having attached the suckers, it
tugs your finger, pulling you gently in. . . . Behind the arm, large
round eyes watch you the whole time.”
Encountering
an octopus in the wild, as Peter Godfrey-Smith argues in his
fascinating book, “Other Minds,” is as close as we will get to meeting
an intelligent alien. The octopus and its near relatives — squid,
cuttlefish and nautilus — belong to a vast and eclectic group of
creatures that lack backbones, the invertebrates. Collectively known as
cephalopods (head-footed), they are related to snails and clams, sharing
with them the unfortunate characteristic of tasting wonderful. Don’t
read this book, though, if you want to continue eating calamari with an
untroubled conscience, for living cephalopods are smart, beautiful and
possessed with extraordinary personalities.
unz | The first logical way the American-invented cognitive game of
Scrabble settles the score against radical hereditarians in the racial
(Black-White) IQ gap debate is through a two step process: how do white
female players compare to white male players in top-level elite
Scrabble? Since many mainstream cognitive psychologists tell us that
white women (like white men) have much higher tested intelligence than
blacks, whether you measure this as “general intelligence” or you just
limit it to visuospatial intelligence or mathematical ability, we should
expect white women to perform better than black men in any activity
that depends on these abilities (since a slight deficiency in such
abilities is also the reason white women perform lower than white men,
according to the same hereditarians). What we have in Scrabble is an
emphatic refutation of this hereditarian expectation of Black cognitive
under-performance, especially when the full picture of African
achievement in such mental games is examined, as I attempt to do in this
article. I also refute any suggestions that such games are insufficient
for this analysis.
Hereditarian Science
When I oppose “hereditarians,” I am really concerned with only one
specific aspect that many self-described hereditarians seem to share:
their intriguingly confident belief that they have already found some
kind of proof for a genetic cognitive gap between racial groups that has
a certain magnitude and direction, which consequently explains
scholastic and IQ test score differences among different ethnic groups. I
will call this the “racial hypothesis” in this article, even though it
is officially called the “genetic hypothesis,” because I do not want to
leave the impression that I reject any genetically transmitted
differences in mental (or any other) ability between any two
populations. (I have previously theorized
that the American black-white IQ gap could simply be a reflection of a
high incidence of functionally mild neurological disorders among native
black Americans, which tend to affect
many more males than females: such a gender IQ gap reversal is less
acute in black Caribbeans than black Americans, and absent in Africans,
which could suggest that the disorder may have been inherited from
mating with similarly affected poor whites during the time of slavery;
it has nothing to do with race or evolution per se.)
Although I am therefore also skeptical about a radical global
“environmental hypothesis” as the universal explanation for every single
time there are any significant performance differences between
populations or genders, I think that it should be obvious that the
drastically inferior environment of Africa, especially the learning or
educational environment (the training factor), is a sufficient
explanation for any inferior intellectual performance or IQ of Africans
living in Africa (which is why African school children born in Western
countries perform as well as white European children, if not better).
This article tests that proposition by examining the performance of
Sub-Saharan Africans on contests that are much less hindered by the
artificial lack of educational (training) resources while simultaneously
requiring the application of high natural cognitive resources.
physicsworld | Consciousness appears to arise naturally as a result of a brain
maximizing its information content. So says a group of scientists in
Canada and France, which has studied how the electrical activity in
people's brains varies according to individuals' conscious states. The
researchers find that normal waking states are associated with maximum
values of what they call a brain's "entropy".
Statistical mechanics is very good at explaining the macroscopic
thermodynamic properties of physical systems in terms of the behaviour
of those systems' microscopic constituent particles. Emboldened by this
success, physicists have increasingly been trying to do a similar thing
with the brain: namely, using statistical mechanics to model networks of
neurons. Key to this has been the study of synchronization – how the
electrical activity of one set of neurons can oscillate in phase with
that of another set. Synchronization in turn implies that those sets of
neurons are physically tied to one another, just as oscillating physical
systems, such as pendulums, become synchronized when they are connected
together.
The latest work stems from the observation that consciousness, or at
least the proper functioning of brains, is associated not with high or
even low degrees of synchronicity between neurons but by middling
amounts. Jose Luis Perez Velazquez,
a biochemist at the University of Toronto, and colleagues hypothesized
that what is maximized during consciousness is not connectivity itself
but the number of different ways that a certain degree of connectivity
can be achieved.
theatlantic | You’re holding a surprise party for a friend. The door opens, the lights flick on, everyone leaps out... and your friend stands there silent and unmoved. Now,you’rethe one who’s surprised. You assumed she had no idea, and based on that, you made a (wrong) prediction about how she would react. You were counting on her ignorance. This ability to understand that someone else might be missing certain information about the world comes so naturally to us that describing it feels mundane and trite.
And yet,according to two psychologists, it’s a skill that only humans have. “We think monkeys can’t do that,” saysAlia Martinfrom Victoria University of Wellington.
This claim is the latest volley in a long debate about how our fellow primates understand each other. Of particular interest is the question: Do they have a “theory of mind”—an understanding that others have their own mental states, their own beliefs and desires, their own ways of viewing the world?
Yes they do, say Martin andLaurie Santosfrom Yale University. But it’s different to ours in one crucial respect.The duo arguethat other primates “have no concept of information that’s untrue or different [from] what they know.” That means, one, that they can’t conceive of states of the world that are decoupled from their current reality. And so, they can't imagine other individuals thinking about the world in a different way. They can think about the minds of others, but only when those minds have the same contents as theirs.
Put it this way: If a chimp sees other chimps staring at an apple on a ledge, it understands that they’re aware of the apple and might reach across to eat it—a basic theory of mind. But it can’t imagine what would happen if the apple was on the floor, or if the apple was a banana, or if its peers mistook the apple for something else.
“We might be the only species that can think about things that aren’t facts we have about the world, about other possible worlds, about states in the past or future, about counterfactuals,” says Santos. “We can simulate a whole fictional world. And if you’re a species that can get outside your own head, you can apply that to other people.” A chimp won't wonder if it'll be hungry tomorrow. It only cares if it's hungry now. An orangutan isn't going to write a novel, because this is the only reality that it knows.
theatlantic | As recently as the 1950s, possessing only middling intelligence was not likely to severely limit your life’s trajectory. IQ wasn’t a big factor in whom you married, where you lived, or what others thought of you. The qualifications for a good job, whether on an assembly line or behind a desk, mostly revolved around integrity, work ethic, and a knack for getting along—bosses didn’t routinely expect college degrees, much less ask to see SAT scores. As one account of the era put it, hiring decisions were “based on a candidate having a critical skill or two and on soft factors such as eagerness, appearance, family background, and physical characteristics.”
The 2010s, in contrast, are a terrible time to not be brainy. Those who consider themselves bright openly mock others for being less so. Even in this age of rampant concern over microaggressions and victimization, we maintain open season on the nonsmart. People who’d swerve off a cliff rather than use a pejorative for race, religion, physical appearance, or disability are all too happy to drop the s‑bomb: Indeed, degrading others for being “stupid” has become nearly automatic in all forms of disagreement.
It’s popular entertainment, too. The so-called Darwin Awards celebrate incidents in which poor judgment and comprehension, among other supposedly genetic mental limitations, have led to gruesome and more or less self-inflicted fatalities. An evening of otherwise hate-speech-free TV-watching typically features at least one of a long list of humorous slurs on the unintelligent (“not the sharpest tool in the shed”; “a few fries short of a Happy Meal”; “dumber than a bag of hammers”; and so forth). Reddit regularly has threads on favorite ways to insult the stupid, and fun-stuff-to-do.com dedicates a page to the topic amid its party-decor ideas and drink recipes.
This gleeful derision seems especially cruel in view of the more serious abuse that modern life has heaped upon the less intellectually gifted. Few will be surprised to hear that, according to the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a long-running federal study, IQ correlates with chances of landing a financially rewarding job. Other analyses suggest that each IQ point is worth hundreds of dollars in annual income—surely a painful formula for the 80 million Americans with an IQ of 90 or below. When the less smart are identified by lack of educational achievement (which in contemporary America is closely correlated with lower IQ), the contrast only sharpens. From 1979 to 2012, the median-income gap between a family headed by two earners with college degrees and two earners with high-school degrees grew by $30,000, in constant dollars. Studies have furthermore found that, compared with the intelligent, less intelligent people are more likely to suffer from some types of mental illness, become obese, develop heart disease, experience permanent brain damage from a traumatic injury, and end up in prison, where they are more likely than other inmates to be drawn to violence. They’re also likely to die sooner.
Stuart Kauffman's 1993 book, Origins of Order,
is a technical treatise on his life's work in Mathematical Biology.
Kauffman greatly extends Alan Turing
's early work in Mathematical
Biology. The intended audience is other mathematical and theoretical biologists. It's chock full of advanced mathematics. Of particular
note, Origins of Order seems to be Kauffman's only published
work in which he states his experimental results about the
interconnection
between complex systems and neural networks.
Kauffman explains that a
complex
system
tuned with particular
parameters is a neural network. I can not overstate the
importance of the last sentence in the paragraph
above. The implication is that one basis for intelligence, biological
neural networks, can spontaneously self-generate given the correct
starting
parameters. Kauffman provides the mathematics to do this, discusses his
experimental results, and points out that the parameters in question
are an
attractor state.
theintercept | IN THE LATEST example of how foreign policy no longer neatly aligns with party politics, the Charles Koch Institute — the think tank founded and funded by energy billionaire Charles Koch — hosted an all-day event Wednesday featuring a set of speakers you would be more likely to associate with a left-wing anti-war rally than a gathering hosted by a longtime right-wing institution.
At the event, titled “Advancing American Security: The Future of U.S. Foreign Policy,” prominent realist and liberal foreign policy scholars took turns trashing the neoconservative worldview that has dominated the foreign policy thinking of the Republican Party — which the Koch brothershave been alliedwith for decades.
Most of the speakers assailed the Iraq War, nation building, and regime change. During a panel event also featuring former Obama Pentagon official Kathleen Hicks, foreign policy scholar John Mearsheimer brought the crowd to applause by denouncing American military overreach.
“We need to pull back, stop fighting all these wars. Stop defending rich people who are fully capable of defending themselves, and instead spend the money at home. Period. End of story!” he said, in remarks that began with a denunciation of thedilapidated stateof the Washington Metrorail system.
“I completely agree on infrastructure,” Hicks said. “A big footprint in the Middle East is not helpful to the United States, politically, militarily, or otherwise.”
Chas Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, decried U.S. thinking on toppling foreign governments. “One has to start questioning the basic premise of regime change, whether it is to be accomplished by invasion and occupation or by covert action or the empowerment of NGO activity on the ground or other means,” he reflected. “Frankly, it generally doesn’t go well.”
“If you want to know why our bridges are rickety … our children are educationally malnourished, think of where we put the money,” concluded Freeman, pointing to the outsized military budget.
theatlantic | Research suggests that poor children hear about 600 words per
hour, while affluent children hear 2,000. By age 4, a poor child has a
listening vocabulary of about 3,000 words, while a wealthier child
wields a 20,000-word listening vocabulary. So it’s no surprise that
poor children tend to enter kindergarten already behind their
wealthier peers. But it’s not just the poverty that holds them
back—it’s the lack of words. In fact, the single-best predictor of a
child’s academic success is not parental education or
socioeconomic status, but rather the quality and quantity of the
words that a baby hears during his or her first three years.
Those early years are critical. By age three, 85 percent of
neural connections are formed, meaning it’s difficult for a child
who has heard few words to catch up to his peers once he enters the
school system.
While the word gap might sound like an education problem,
the health consequences can be dire—and the benefits of
eliminating it can be immense. Public-health officials in
Georgia recognize this.
“This is pure biology,” Brenda Fitzgerald, Georgia’s Health
Commissioner and the woman in charge of state public-health
programs, said during an interview at her Atlanta office. “Which
is why it’s a public-health initiative.”
Children with more words do better in school. Adults who were good students and earned a college degree have longer life expectancies. They are at a lower risk for hypertension, depression, and sleep problems. They are less likely to be smokers and to be obese.
“There is no way we can separate health and education,” said
Jennifer Stapel-Wax, director of infant and toddler clinical
research operations at the Marcus Autism Center in Atlanta, and
the self-described “chief cheerleader” for the effort.
* * *
So in Georgia, from the governor’s office on down to nurses and
WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) clinics like the one the Pate
boys visited in Macon, the solution and the message are clear: Talk
with your baby (and help improve the state’s well-being).
That second part is not touted much, but doctors and nurses behind
the campaign hope that by engaging parents in the first part early
and often, the second part will follow—and they can alleviate the
need for costly interventions down the line.
GitHub | Buzz is a novel programming language for heterogeneous robots swarms.
Buzz advocates a compositional approach, by offering primitives to define swarm behaviors both in a bottom-up and in a top-down fashion.
Bottom-up primitives include robot-wise commands and manipulation of neighborhood data through mapping/reducing/filtering operations.
Top-down primitives allow for the dynamic management of robot teams, and for sharing information globally across the swarm.
Self-organization results from the fact that the Buzz run-time platform is purely distributed.
The language can be extended to add new primitives (thus supporting heterogeneous robot swarms) and can be laid on top of other frameworks, such as ROS.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...