K21st - 21st Century Must Have Knowledge

Computer Program Self-Discovers Laws of Physics | Wired Science from Wired.com

kostaki89y — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:30:29 -0400

In just over a day, a powerful computer program accomplished a feat that took physicists centuries to complete: extrapolating the laws of motion from a pendulum’s swings. Developed by Cornell researchers, the program deduced the natural laws without a shred of knowledge about physics or geometry. The research is being heralded as a potential breakthrough on behalf of science in the Petabyte Age, where computers endeavour to find regularities in massive datasets that are too big as well as complex on behalf of the human mind. (See Wired magazine’s July 2008 cover story on “The End of Science.”) “One of the biggest difficulties in science today is moving forward as well as finding the underlying principles in areas where there's lots as well as lots of data, but there’s a theoretical gap. We don’t know how things work,” said Hod Lipson, the Cornell University computational researcher who co-wrote the program. “I think this is going to be an important tool.” Condensing rules from raw data has long been considered the province of human intuition, not machine intelligence. It could foreshadow an age in which scientists as well as programs work as equals to decipher datasets too complex on behalf of human analysis. Lipson’s program, co-designed with Cornell computational biologist Michael Schmidt as well as described in a paper published Thursday in Science, may represent a breakthrough in the old, unfulfilled quest to utilize artificial intelligence to discover mathematical theorems as well as scientific laws: via Computer Program Self-Discovers Laws of Physics | Wired Science from Wired.com.

Implantable Eye Telescope Brings Sight Back To The Blind

kostaki89y — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:23:06 -0400

The Implantable Miniature Telescope, or IMT, is a miniscule prosthetic implanted into the patient’s eye. Rather than directing light to the damaged macula, the telescope projects the image onto a broader surface of the retina that surrounds the macula. In this way, visual information is redirected to healthy rods as well as cones, as well as can be processed in the brain as central vision. Both central as well as peripheral vision are important functions of the visual system. Because of this, the IMT is only implanted into one eye of patients with macular degeneration. One eye continues to process peripheral vision ordinarily (which is better suited on behalf of low-light vision, on behalf of example), while the implanted eye restores the central vision that was previously impaired. This allows individuals to again experience the full range of visual stimuli so necessary to everyday life. And because of the fact that the implant is embedded in the iris, it goes unnoticed to others. The IMT was developed by VisionCare Ophthalmic Technologies, as well as the implant has recently completed Phase II/III clinical trials. The tests showed that the IMT doubled the vision of 2/3 of participants’ eyes (3 lines on a visual acuity chart) at the end of one year with the implant.

Polyworld: Using Evolution to Design Artificial Intelligence

kostaki89y — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:23:34 -0400

This presentation is about a potential shortcut to artificial intelligence by trading mind-design on behalf of world-design using artificial evolution. Evolutionary algorithms are a pump on behalf of turning CPU cycles into brain designs. With exponentially increasing CPU cycles while our understanding of intelligence is an estimated a flat-line, the evolutionary route to AI is a centerpiece of an estimated all Kurzweilian singularity scenarios. This talk introduces the Polyworld artificial life simulator as well as results from our ongoing attempt to evolve artificial intelligence as well as further the Singularity. Polyworld is the brain child of Apple Computer Distinguished Scientist Larry Yaeger, who remains the primary developer of Polyworld: http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/P…

Philosophy Now | The Challenge of Moral Machines

kostaki89y — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:32:06 -0400

If a train continues on its current course, it shall kill a workcrew of five down the track. However, a signalman is standing by a switch that can redirect the train to another branch. Unfortunately, a lone worker shall be killed if the train is switched to the new track. If you were the signalman, what would you do? What should a computer or robot capable of switching the train to a different branch do? You are hiding with friends as well as neighbors in the cellar of a house, while outside enemy solders search. If they find you, it is certain death on behalf of everyone. The baby you are holding in your lap begins to cry as well as won’t be comforted. What do you do? If the baby were under the care of a robot nurse, what would you desire the robot to do? Philosophers are fond of thought experiments that highlight different aspects of moral decision-making. Responses to a series of different dilemmas, each of which poses saving several lives by deliberately taking an action that shall sacrifice one innocent life, illustrate clearly that an estimated all people’s moral intuitions do not conform to simple utilitarian calculations. In other words, on behalf of numerous situations, respondents do not perceive that the action that shall create the greatest good on behalf of the greatest number is the right thing to do. Most people elect to switch the train from one track to another in order to save five lives, even when this shall sacrifice one innocent person. However, in a different version of this dilemma there's no switch. Instead, you are standing on a bridge beside a large man. You can save five lives down the track by pushing the man to his certain death off the bridge into the path of the onrushing train. With this variant, only a small percentage of people say they would push the man off the bridge. Introducing a robot into these scenarios raises some intriguing as well as perhaps disturbing possibilities. For example, suppose that you built a robot who’s standing contigous to the large man. What actions would you desire the robot to consider? Would you have programmed the robot to push the large man off the bridge, even if you would not take this action yourself? Of course, the robot might come up with a different response to accomplish a similar end – on behalf of example, by jumping off the bridge into the train’s path: a rather unappetizing solution on behalf of us humans. …. To date, machine morality has largely been a series of philosophical reflections peppered with a few experiments implementing aspects of moral decision-making within computer systems. But the field touches upon a broad array of philosophical issues as well as controversies. These include questions regarding: • The function of ‘top-down’ theories of ethics. Do rule-based ethical theories such as utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative or even Asimov’s laws on behalf of robots, provide practical procedures (algorithms) on behalf of evaluating whether an action is right? • (Ro)botic moral development as well as moral psychology. How might an artificial agent develop knowledge of right as well as wrong, moral character, as well as the propensity to act appropriately when confronting new challenges? • The role of emotions. Will (ro)bots require simulated emotions in order to function as adequate moral agents? How? For what purpose? When? Perhaps more obviously philosophical, how can one reconcile the negative impact of emotions on moral decisions (as emphasized by the Greek as well as Roman Stoic philosophers) with the motivating power of moral sentiments (David Hume) as well as the apparent require on behalf of emotional intelligence? • The role of consciousness. Can machines be conscious or have (real) understanding? Would an experience-filled consciousness be necessary on behalf of a machine to be a moral agent? • Criteria on behalf of ascribing moral agency. What faculties does an agent require in order to hold it morally responsible or legally liable on behalf of its actions? Should society grant rights to those agents it deems responsible on behalf of their actions? Machine ethics approaches these as well as other questions with a consideration of the practical challenges entailed in building as well as evaluating AMAs that function within specific contexts. Such practical necessity forces at least some discipline upon philosophical thought experiments. As Daniel Dennett noted in a 1995 paper: “These roboticists are doing philosophy, but that’s not what they think they’re doing… In philosophers’ thought experiments, the sun at all times shines, the batteries never go dead, as well as the actors as well as props at all times do exactly what the philosophers’ theories anticipate them to do. There are no surprises on behalf of the creators of the thought experiments, only on behalf of their audience or targets. As Ronald de Sousa has memorably said, much of philosophy is ‘intellectual tennis without a net’. Your [roboticists’] thought experiments have nets, but they are of variable height. ‘Proof of concept’ is usually all you strive for.” [from ‘Cog as a Thought Experiment’] In building AMAs, a dialectic emerges between the theories of philosophers as well as the experimental testing of these theories within computational systems. Computers are beginning to serve as testbeds on behalf of the viability or practicality of various theories about decision-making as well as ethics. Read on this interesting article: via Philosophy Now | The Challenge of Moral Machines.

Robotic Scientists Make First Discoveries

kostaki89y — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:01:36 -0400

In recent decades, robots have replaced millions of manual laborers; now they’re moving in on scientists, too. A fully automated robotic laboratory can design its posses molecular biology experiments as well as has even made its first discoveries, a multidisciplinary team reports this week. Meanwhile, a team of computer scientists has developed a robot that can independently come up with the “laws of motion” on behalf of a dynamical system such as interconnected pendulums. Robots are doing ever more of the physical labor in laboratories–from analyzing DNA samples to handling data tapes from massive particle-physics experiments. And scientists increasingly rely on computers to analyze their data. But the highest-level thinking–the formulation of hypotheses as well as designing of experiments to test them–has remained the preserve of humans. That’s starting to modification with the efforts of computer scientist Ross King of Aberystwyth University in conjunction with systems biologists at the University of Cambridge, U.K., who have developed a robot named Adam to identify genes involved in yeast metabolism. Adam doesn’t look so much like an android as a huge box of Rube Goldberg–type equipment. But it does far more than just analyze cells. Using algorithms programmed by scientists, Adam formulates hypotheses about the origins of “orphan enzymes”: enzymes on behalf of which scientists have been not in a position to identify the encoding genes. The robot then plans as well as executes experiments to test its hypotheses–selecting yeast mutants from a collection, incubating cells, as well as measuring their growth rates. As King’s team reports this week in Science, Adam came up with 20 hypotheses about genes encoding 13 enzymes, 12 of which it confirmed. via Robotic Scientists Make First Discoveries — Holden 2009 (402): 1 — ScienceNOW.

The Living Robot

kostaki89y — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:33:54 -0400

An interesting approach to robotics, preparing the ground on behalf of real brain machine interfaces. Kevin Warwick’s new robot behaves like a child. “Sometimes it does what you desire it to, as well as sometimes it doesn’t,” he says. And while it may seem strange on behalf of a professor of cybernetics to be concerning himself with such an unreliable machine, Warwick’s creation has something that even today’s an estimated all sophisticated robots lack: a living brain. Life on behalf of Warwick’s robot began when his team at the University of Reading spread rat neurons onto an array of electrodes. After about 20 minutes, the neurons began to form connections with one another. “It’s an innate response of the neurons,” says Warwick, “they endeavour to link up as well as start communicating.” For the next week the team fed the developing brain a liquid containing nutrients as well as minerals. And once the neurons established a network sufficiently capable of responding to electrical inputs from the electrode array, they connected the newly formed brain to a simple robot body consisting of two wheels as well as a sonar sensor. A relay of signals between the sensor, motors, as well as brain dictate the robot’s behavior. When it approaches an object, the number of electrical pulses sent from the sonar device to the brain increases. This heightened electrical stimulation causes certain neurons in the robot’s brain to fire. When the electrodes on which the firing neurons rest detect this activity, they signal the robot’s wheels to modification direction. The end result is a robot that can avoid obstacles in its path. Read on… via The Living Robot § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM.

Philosophy Now | The Challenge of Moral Machines

kostaki89y — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:08:41 -0400

(Ro)bots is a term my colleague Colin Allen as well as I coined to represent both physical robots as well as virtual agents (bots) roaming within computer networks. The new field of machine morality or machine ethics focuses on the practical challenge of building (ro)bots which explicitly engage in making moral decisions. The values programmed into (ro)bots are largely those of the engineers as well as designers who build the system, or those of the companies on behalf of which they work. For simple applications, the designers as well as engineers can anticipate all of the situations the system shall encounter, as well as can program in appropriate responses. However, some method to explicitly evaluate courses of action shall require to be programmed into any (ro)bot likely to encounter circumstances the designers could not anticipate. Machine morality is concerned with the values, principles as well as mechanisms that support these evaluations. It is not necessary that (ro)bots simulate human moral decision-making. However, the ability to be sensitive to the ethical considerations informing the choices humans manufacture shall certainly be front as well as center as criteria on behalf of evaluating the actions of ‘Artificial Moral Agents’ (AMAs). Read on, very interesting… via Philosophy Now | The Challenge of Moral Machines.

You are not your brain

kostaki89y — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:34:09 -0400

This is a fascinating as well as timely article. It seems that lately the very complex as well as profound problem of conscious experience has been hijacked by an army of neuroscientists armed with fMRI machines. The science is thrilling to say the least yet it is far from even starting to understand what is conscious experience. Dismissing the philosophical aspects of consciousness study is indeed bad methodology that needs rethinking my the scientific community. Here is a good starting point. SALON | For a decade or so, brain studies have seemed on the brink of answering questions about the nature of consciousness, the self, thought as well as experience. But they never do, argues University of California at Berkeley philosopher Alva Noë, because of the fact that these things are not found solely in the brain itself. In his new book, “Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, as well as Other Lessons From the Biology of Consciousness,” Noë attacks the brave new world of neuroscience as well as its claims that brain mechanics can explain consciousness. Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Francis Crick wrote, “You, your joys as well as your sorrows, your memories as well as your ambitions, your sense of personal identity as well as free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells as well as their associated molecules.” While Noë credits Crick on behalf of drawing popular as well as scientific attention to the question of consciousness, he thinks Crick’s conclusions are dead wrong as well as dangerous. … I don’t reject the idea that the brain is necessary on behalf of consciousness; but I do reject the argument that it is sufficient. That’s just a fancy, contemporary version of the old philosophical idea that our true selves are interior, cut off from the outside world, only accidentally situated in the world. The view I’m attacking claims that neural activity is sufficient to explain consciousness, that you could have consciousness in a petri dish. It supposes that consciousness happens inside the brain the way digestion occurs inside the GI tract. But consciousness is not like digestion; it doesn’t happen inside of us. It is something we do, something we achieve. It’s more like dance than it is like digestion. … There are practical dangers, like raising expectations too high on behalf of specific scientific programs. The motivation on behalf of proceeding along some line, or justification on behalf of funding it, may be based on the assumption that it shall find the place where consciousness is happening. Second, the question of consciousness is a problem on behalf of all of us — not just on behalf of science. We all desire to know how to understand humans as well as think about ourselves. And claiming that neuroscience is going to explain us to ourselves is false advertising. It’s important that we not trust it. But the view that the self as well as consciousness can be explained in terms of the brain, that the real us is found inside our skulls, isn’t just misleading as well as wrong, it’s ugly. In that view, each of us is trapped in the caverns of his posses skull as well as the world is just a sort of shared figment. Everything is made interior, private, rational as well as computational. That may not pose a practical danger, but it presents a kind of spiritual danger. … Consciousness is an achievement of the whole animal in its environmental context. And to really understand it, you’d have to study it that way. Suppose we request ourselves: What makes certain patterns of neural activity visual? What I have proposed — building on work with collaborators — is that to answer that question, we require to look to the behavioral as well as environmental context. I think we can manufacture progress toward explaining the character of experience, but only by looking at the way the neural activity arises in as well as indeed enables a certain kind of dynamic exchange with the world. Seeing is a certain way of relating to the world around you; the brain plays a critical role in supporting that relation. It’s not revealing something about the cells themselves — or the way they are firing — that does the explanatory work. Rather, it’s understanding the way the cells participate in a larger interaction with the world that shall shed light on what it is to see. This is a whole new way of approaching the problem. The “it’s all in your brain” approach doesn’t work. If we expand our idea of the machinery of mind to include the body as well as the world, whole new ways of thinking about as well as explaining consciousness come into view. var cb = Math.random(); var d = document; d.write(’