“We invented phonetic writing so we could put our sounds down on paper and, by glancing at a page, hear someone speaking in our head—an invention that became so widespread in the last few thousand years that we hardly ever stop to consider how astonishing it is.”
— Carl Sagan, Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium
Research from the University of Washington, Facebook and Google can reproduce a 3D representation of a football match from the footage from a single camera:
We present a system that transforms a monocular video of a soccer game into a moving 3D reconstruction, in which the players and field can be rendered interactively with a 3D viewer or through an Augmented Reality device. At the heart of our paper is an approach to estimate the depth map of each player, using a CNN that is trained on 3D player data extracted from soccer video games. We compare with state of the art body pose and depth estimation techniques, and show results on both synthetic ground truth benchmarks, and real YouTube soccer footage.
The official project page can be found here
Also, the code for this project has been made available on Github and can be run via Unity ond Hololens. Developer Ash_Yin presents a short demo using the Hololens headset [source]
When I tell my friends that all the fuss about integrating factors basically comes down to this they don’t believe me! Sure, you can arrive at the same result in so many different ways but, this,my dear friends is the essence of it.
EDIT: There is a mistake in the sign for C_{1} on the fourth image.
What I found absolutely impressive and stunning about this comic is the way the artist explained the identification and elimination of the confounding factors in the Rat Park study. This is one of the hardest parts of experiments to explain to the public, and I think it was just brilliantly done.
Tied to one another by the bonds of the earth, by intelligence, heart and flesh, nothing, I know, can surprise or separate us.
Albert Camus to Maria Casarès, February 1950.
We met, we recognised each other, we abandoned ourselves one to the other. We have lived a love of burning, pure crystal. Do you realise what happiness we have, and what has been given to us?
Maria Casarès to Albert Camus, June 1950.
The concern for the future of humanity is becoming more imperative as exponential technology brings us to the brink of the most fragile time in human history. Existential risk is a matter that is necessary to contemplate proactively rather than in a reactionary state, especially if intentions are to ensure continuance into the far future; a sort of insurance for humanity. However, what is mankind really trying to do? It is commonly advised to begin with the end in mind, however, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate end goal besides a desperate cling to survival. Living without a purpose is simply existing, which seems to be the current state of our species. What are we existing for?
If we are referring to the whole of mankind rather than the specific individual, it can be commonly agreed upon that we simply have no concrete conclusion for why we are even here; or why anything should exist at all. This is in part due to the fact that we don’t even seem to have a complete understanding of what the universe actually is; why things behave the way they do. The fact that this is unknown would, by definition, imply that the relevance of everything that we do is also currently unknown. Thus, the logical progression would begin with acquiring the information necessary to discover what this nature is that existence seems to abide by. Then we can assemble the right question pertaining to the reason behind this phenomenon that we refer to as the “universe.”
By starting with this end question in mind, we can identify to the best of our current knowledge, the information that would be necessary to know before answering it. Regardless if it seems possible or not, we must consider it necessary for the time being. This would likely result in a series of questions, pushing the boundaries of our scientific and philosophical capabilities. This process would certainly be subject to change as new breakthroughs advance our understanding of the universe. However, the fact of the matter remains; it would be the most efficient direction relative to our maximum capability.
The next step of the progression would be to identify how we would theoretically be able to acquire the information to answer these questions. What would mankind need to build, explore, or expand to, in order to acquire this information? Even if the prediction involves seemingly impossible endeavors, the fact remains, that this is the most accurate direction and prediction that we have to go off of, thus, anything else would be, by definition, acting out of ignorance. The inevitable truth is that we are deciding our path right now. Everything that we are currently doing is moving us down a path toward a future, whether we like it or not. If we have to travel one, it might as well be the most efficient, relative to our capability and knowledge. Anything else would be deliberately wasting precious time and resources, thus, the only sensible option is to act in accordance to the best of our knowledge.
Once we have identified mankind’s necessary future endeavors, we will gain an understanding of the type of world that we need to build. The general idealistic future has been established, thus, we can establish a path that will most efficiently lead us there. All aspects and necessary advancements should be made to coincide with present day practicality. Our current way of existing requires certain necessities (energy, food, transportation, etc.). Advancing these general categories of human living should be done in accordance to what we will inevitably rely upon in the future. This end goal should be made priority right after taking into consideration what is necessary for our current state. Nothing extreme should be sacrificed for this theoretical future, because its accuracy is unknown. However, if we are going to advance, let us do it in accordance to what will most efficiently bring us to our end goal.
Choosing a random path (random future) may still advance us, but it will not be in the ideal manner regarding what we are trying to achieve. For example, it may seem easier to maximize the usage of fossil fuels in the modern age, however, it may be made apparent that solar energy is all that will matter in the future. So, within practicality, maximum efforts should be made to further the advancement and implication of complete solar energy usage as fast as possible. This would be the most efficient path for mankind to travel on towards the ideal future. Anything else would be a waste of time and resources in the long run. This idea should be applied to all aspects of humanity, allowing for us to get to our destination as efficiently as possible. We will save waste that is naturally associated with having to change systems of operation down the road. All of the research and progression that we are making today and onward will build upon itself allowing for long term compounding. Eliminating irrelevant endeavors now, allows for more focus and advancement to be made in areas that are relevant to the necessary future.
The ideal situation would be to eliminate all unnecessary progress and, by default, leaving only that which is necessary. This would in fact be the most efficient path, relative to the accuracy of our predicted ideal future, which is all that we can do. Of course, this must all be done in accordance to what will ensure the survival of mankind’s current situation, so practicality will certainly bottleneck the process, however, it is still maximum efficiency relative to what’s realistic. It would be exponentially more effective than our current method of progression, which seems to be solving problems only as they arise with no general direction. We certainly want to ensure the progression of a quality life for humans, but ideals are not being prioritized to shape the future that will be the most beneficial for the accomplishment of our end goal. The path should be that which encompasses both aspects of these ideals. Once the general direction, relative to our knowledge, is considered and put in to practice secondary to our immediate necessities, we are on the most efficient path.
The progressive thinking of this institute will inspire and ensure the masses that they are a part of something bigger than they could literally imagine. Ambition and motivation would skyrocket, as there is now a collaborative approach toward a common end goal. The uncertainty regarding the meaning of life has been removed, as it can be commonly understood what mankind is trying to accomplish and how we are going to do it. Although we cannot directly pursue the actual end goal, we can pursue the first practical endeavor that lies on the path of maximum efficiency. Which, by definition, is all that’s possible.
A broader outlook on our direction would establish a collaborative approach toward a common goal, instilling an unbounded level of dedication through the reorientation of human motive. Selfish instincts lose their appeal when the irrelevance of their function becomes understood logically in the grand scheme of things. This would excel our rate of progress significantly, as it is the selfish nature of man that currently bottlenecks efficiency. The understanding of a common direction would encourage one to act in accordance to the long term goal of mankind. Currently there is no legitimate direction, as it is assumed that our future is simply unknown. The common outlook is to simply adhere to one’s personal end goal, because there is simply nothing else to adhere to. This results in minimal regard for humanity’s long term future. Beginning with a common end in mind will allow for the logical deduction of a general direction for practical action. Until then, mankind remains enslaved to its instinctual nature of survival, rather than directing fate with the foresight of thoughtful action.
The default goal is that which evolution has decided. When one lacks logical understanding for the reason behind their instincts, they become enslaved to satisfying it with no rational limitation. This results in a very selfish path in line with our biological intentions of reproduction. Though instinct is necessary for the continuation of the human species, it should not be the sole determinant of our decisions. The utilization of abstract thought is what allows us to advance in more efficient manners.
The problem we face as humans is that we are capable of understanding the inefficient nature of our instincts, however, we are still bound to their urges. The selfish gene remains, and we can’t escape it, however, we have learned to understand it from a logical perspective. There is no longer a need to kill each other off to force natural selection. We have established a civilized way of life, in which everyone can contribute somehow toward the common progression of mankind.
Humanity’s ‘Final Institute’ (Part 1) was originally published on transhumanity.net
speak2002 asked:
mathblab answered:
Great question! Here are some fun ones that are still informative and that really opened up my eyes to what math truly is:
How to Solve It by George Polya. This is a classic and the title speaks for itself: it is about how to reason mathematically.
Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. This one is mathy and sciencey. It is very geometrical and shows how our view of geometry has changed throughout history and how it has influenced science. Kaku is my favorite author.
Proof and Refutations by Imre Lakatos. Another classic. This one has to do with how mathematical proof advances our mathematical knowledge, in other words what professional mathematicians do. It is also surprisingly funny.
Other recommendations?
Dendritic Spines Prevent Synaptic
Voltage Clamp.
Beaulieu-Laroche,
L., & Harnett, M. T. (2018).
Neuron, 97(1), 75–82.e3.
Toward a unified theory of
efficient, predictive, and sparse coding.
Chalk,
M., Marre, O., & Tkačik, G. (2018).
Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
115(1), 186–191.
Ventral Midline Thalamus Is Necessary for Hippocampal Place Field
Stability and Cell Firing Modulation.
Cholvin,
T., Hok, V., Giorgi, L., Chaillan, F. A., & Poucet, B. (2018).
Journal of Neuroscience,
38(1), 158–172.
Fast intensity
adaptation enhances the encoding of sound in Drosophila.
Clemens,
J., Ozeri-Engelhard, N., & Murthy, M. (2018).
Nature
Communications, 9, 134.
A Role for the Superior
Colliculus in Decision Criteria.
Crapse,
T. B., Lau, H., & Basso, M. A. (2018).
Neuron, 97(1),
181–194.e6.
Very young infants
learn abstract rules in the visual modality.
Ferguson,
B., Franconeri, S. L., & Waxman, S. R. (2018).
PLOS ONE, 13(1),
e0190185.
Spatial
Information in a Non-retinotopic Visual Cortex.
Fournier,
J., Müller, C. M., Schneider, I., & Laurent, G. (2018).
Neuron, 97(1),
164–180.e7.
Feature-Specific Organization of Feedback Pathways in Mouse
Visual Cortex.
Huh,
C. Y. L., Peach, J. P., Bennett, C., Vega, R. M., & Hestrin, S.
(2018).
Current Biology, 28(1), 114–120.e5.
Direct electrical stimulation of the
amygdala enhances declarative memory in humans.
Inman,
C. S., Manns, J. R., Bijanki, K. R., Bass, D. I., Hamann, S., Drane,
D. L., … Willie, J. T. (2018).
Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
115(1), 98–103.
Coordinated Plasticity of Synapses and Astrocytes Underlies
Practice-Driven Functional Vicariation in Peri-Infarct Motor Cortex.
Kim,
S. Y., Hsu, J. E., Husbands, L. C., Kleim, J. A., & Jones, T. A.
(2018).
Journal of Neuroscience, 38(1), 93–107.
Reward-Based Learning
Drives Rapid Sensory Signals in Medial Prefrontal Cortex and Dorsal
Hippocampus Necessary for Goal-Directed Behavior.
Le
Merre, P., Esmaeili, V., Charrière, E., Galan, K., Salin, P.-A.,
Petersen, C. C. H., & Crochet, S. (2018).
Neuron,
97(1), 83–91.e5.
Generation of a whole-brain atlas for the cholinergic system
and mesoscopic projectome analysis of basal forebrain cholinergic
neurons.
Li,
X., Yu, B., Sun, Q., Zhang, Y., Ren, M., Zhang, X., … Qiu, Z.
(2018).
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 115(2), 415–420.
Dynamical response
properties of neocortical neurons to conductance-driven time-varying
inputs.
Linaro,
D., Biró, I., & Giugliano, M. (2018).
European Journal of Neuroscience, 47(1), 17–32.
Genetic variation interacts with
experience to determine interindividual differences in learned song.
Mets,
D. G., & Brainard, M. S. (2018).
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 115(2), 421–426.
Single-Neuron Representation of Memory Strength and
Recognition Confidence in Left Human Posterior Parietal Cortex.
Rutishauser,
U., Aflalo, T., Rosario, E. R., Pouratian, N., & Andersen, R. A.
(2018).
Neuron, 97(1), 209–220.e3.
Links between temporal acuity and multisensory integration
across life span.
Stevenson,
R. A., Baum, S. H., Krueger, J., Newhouse, P. A., & Wallace, M.
T. (2018).
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 44(1), 106–116.
Behavioral state modulates the
ON visual motion pathway of Drosophila.
Strother,
J. A., Wu, S.-T., Rogers, E. M., Eliason, J. L. M., Wong, A. M.,
Nern, A., & Reiser, M. B. (2018).
Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(1),
E102–E111.
Locus coeruleus input to hippocampal CA3 drives single-trial
learning of a novel context.
Wagatsuma,
A., Okuyama, T., Sun, C., Smith, L. M., Abe, K., & Tonegawa, S.
(2018).
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(2),
E310–E316.
Functional
Organization and Dynamic Activity in the Superior Colliculus of the
Echolocating Bat,Eptesicus fuscus.
Wohlgemuth,
M. J., Kothari, N. B., & Moss, C. F. (2018).
Journal of Neuroscience,
38(1), 245–256.
Closing the loop on
impulsivity via nucleus accumbens delta-band activity in mice and
man.
Wu,
H., Miller, K. J., Blumenfeld, Z., Williams, N. R., Ravikumar, V. K.,
Lee, K. E., … Halpern, C. H. (2018).
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 115(1), 192–197.
Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.06959.pdf
Abstract:
Despite their ability to memorize large datasets, deep neural networks often
achieve good generalization performance. However, the differences between the
learned solutions of networks which generalize and those which do not remain
unclear. Additionally, the tuning properties of single directions (defined as the
activation of a single unit or some linear combination of units in response to some
input) have been highlighted, but their importance has not been evaluated. Here,
we connect these lines of inquiry to demonstrate that a network’s reliance on single
directions is a good predictor of its generalization performance, across networks
trained on datasets with different fractions of corrupted labels, across ensembles
of networks trained on datasets with unmodified labels, across different hyperparameters,
and over the course of training. While dropout only regularizes this
quantity up to a point, batch normalization implicitly discourages single direction
reliance, in part by decreasing the class selectivity of individual units. Finally,
we find that class selectivity is a poor predictor of task importance, suggesting
not only that networks which generalize well minimize their dependence on individual
units by reducing their selectivity, but also that individually selective units
may not be necessary for strong network performance.
3/25/2018
