The Claustrum as an area of the brain has been well established as an area of orchestration of various sensory subsystems. It has been studied for over two centuries[1].
These studies clearly demonstrate that the Cl is richly innervated with a wide and diverse array of neurotransmitters and neuromodulators. Lesion, stimulation and recording experiments demonstrate that the functional and physiologic capacity of the Cl is quite robust. A recurring theme of claustral function appears to be its involvement in sensorimotor integration. This may be expected of the Cl, given the degree of heterotopic, heterosensory convergence and its interconnectivity with the key subcortical nuclei and sensory cortical areas. The Cl remains a poorly understood and under investigated nucleus.
It makes sense that a major loss of function is associated with interrupting the Claustrum - but there are several nuclii in the brain - the Hippocampus being one. Claiming it is the 'one true center of consciousness' in the brain doesn't account for the countless studies which reveal just how complex the operation of our neural networks actually are, and may be premature.
Growing up in Holywood, Northern Ireland I went to a very religious independent grammar school.
While atheists and even atheism itself was generally frowned upon I have to say as the first Muslim and non-pink person to attend - I was very glad to have gone there and grown.
Despite what people may think the teaching there is some of the best in the UK and even with the deep and sincere commitment to faith you have an equally deep and sincere commitment to scientific enquiry and truth. We were never taught creationism, and any school or teacher considering it would have been politely but firmly shown the door.
I guess the thinking was us kids would need our wits about us out here to survive.
I woke up this morning and found myself wondering - if I met Snowden what would I ask him?
Then I realized, he's managed to turn the focus of the world back onto the invasion of our selves, social and personal, by governments.
So I'd ask: "why then, is the response so anaemic?"
Who we are used to be about our bodies, our family, our social interactions day to day. Suddenly as technology began to increase our reach - we found all forms of communication first monitored, then censored by governments, and their corporate proxies.
I don't deny them the right to protect themselves, but it seems to me that 'they' are 'us'. We all want status, and security, so we aim for money (counters printed by them), power (positions, and authority rationed out by them), and I don't know a single business leader or politician who doesn't defend themselves by setting up legal structures to deflect blame or absolve themselves.
What we need perhaps is to take the tools of the internet and create something new - looking at BitCoin and its resilience in the face of massive corporate and government opposition I think what worries them is they'll first cede control of the coinage, and then cede control of the courts.
Coins are important - we used to rely on governments to stand by their currency but with BTC and related currencies we can now create unforgeable, and publicly verifiable money. No need for banks, and their associated parasites.
Courts are also vital - well aware that people are tried in public as much as in private - both the etiquette and the frameworks for legal accountability are shifting towards the individual. I'm heartened by the approach of the EU, and glad that Google is moving forward to implementing privacy carefully and thoughtfully.
Sorry for writing so much, please let me know what you think privacy will be like in 5-10 years - and critically - if you think we'll be able to be private citizens again, or is it already too late?
[...]offers up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest of anyone who intentionally aims a laser at an aircraft.
That is precisely my point. The fact of aiming a laser can't be enough - so it comes down to intentions. Those of the person accused - and their accuser.
When I was a kid I burned my right hand at age 5. I couldn't write, and I had recently gotten a rubiks cube. I wondered how to solve it and worked it out in my head. When my bandages came off I solved it in one day. Because I couldn't open it up or play with it I had to think about it, it made me hungry to play with and understand everything. Something I still feel to this day.
Sorry, should have been clearer - I was in a rush.
There isn't some 'magic screen' within the neural net upon which the two or more choices are presented. That's just our folk-psyche way of picturing it. It's just electrical signals in a giant, beautiful switchboard.
So, if your adversarials are in play, then the only way you can know is through expression - the choice - and in real life you have multiple tries in the same context to converge on the correct answer.
Ie, in real life our brains use the massive parallelism inherent in the multiple overlapping neural networks active at any point to make SEVERAL decisions and then the brain as a whole makes a decision on how to act.
Perhaps these deep neural nets are only part of the way there, but it's promising.
In a simulated deep neural net u
Of course the human brain has errors in its pattern matching ability. Who hasn't seen something out of the corner of their eye and thought it was dog when really it was a paper bag blowing in the wind? The brain makes snap judgments, because there's a trade off between correctness and speed. If your brain mistakes a rustle of bushes for a tiger, so what? I'd rather have it misinform me, erring on the side of tiger, than wait for all information to be in before making a 100% accurate decision. This is the basis of intuition.
I don't think a computer ai will be perfect, either, because "thinking" fuzzily enough to develop intuition means it's going to be wrong sometimes. The interesting thing is how quickly we get pissed off at a computer for guessing wrong compared to a human. When you call a business and get one of those automated answering things and it asks you, "Now please, tell me the reason for your call. You can say 'make a payment,' 'inquire about my loan...'" etc etc, we get really pissed off when we say 'make a payment' and it responds "you said, cancel my account, did I get that right?" But when a human operator doesn't hear you correctly and asks you to repeat what you said, we say "Oh, sure," and repeat ourselves without a second thought. There's something about it being a machine that makes us demand perfection in a way we'd never expect from a human.
Think is fuzzy yes, but only for some people. And only operationally.
You're right though - just because it's a machine doesn't mean we should demand perfection from it.
Deep neural networks are implicitly generating dynamic-ontologies.
The 'mis-categorisation' occurs when you only have one functional exit point. The fact is that if you are within the network itself, the adversarial are held in-frame alongside other possibilities, and the network only tilts towards one when the prevailing system requires it through external stimulus.
From the outside it will look like an error, (because we already decided that) but internally each possible interpretation is valid.
Apple is built on older versions of OpenSSL - this looks like it might be because they weren't quick enough to adapt, and someone snuck in under the radar.
Lets hope they get it sorted quickly!
Slashdot Mirror
This would create an oligarchy, not a democracy.
These studies clearly demonstrate that the Cl is richly innervated with a wide and diverse array of neurotransmitters and neuromodulators. Lesion, stimulation and recording experiments demonstrate that the functional and physiologic capacity of the Cl is quite robust. A recurring theme of claustral function appears to be its involvement in sensorimotor integration. This may be expected of the Cl, given the degree of heterotopic, heterosensory convergence and its interconnectivity with the key subcortical nuclei and sensory cortical areas. The Cl remains a poorly understood and under investigated nucleus.
It makes sense that a major loss of function is associated with interrupting the Claustrum - but there are several nuclii in the brain - the Hippocampus being one. Claiming it is the 'one true center of consciousness' in the brain doesn't account for the countless studies which reveal just how complex the operation of our neural networks actually are, and may be premature.
References
[1]The claustrum: a historical review of its anatomy, physiology, cytochemistry and functional significance. Edelstein LR1, Denaro FJ.
It saved me so much time. And hassle.
If a system is insecure a "good" architecture is irrelevant - you're still screwed.
Dear John
Please can you explain how BitCoin is vulnerable to Heartbleed?
I think good architecture is essential to good security. That's why I posted.
Many Thanks
Jawad Yaqub
good architecture => good security
While atheists and even atheism itself was generally frowned upon I have to say as the first Muslim and non-pink person to attend - I was very glad to have gone there and grown.
Despite what people may think the teaching there is some of the best in the UK and even with the deep and sincere commitment to faith you have an equally deep and sincere commitment to scientific enquiry and truth. We were never taught creationism, and any school or teacher considering it would have been politely but firmly shown the door.
I guess the thinking was us kids would need our wits about us out here to survive.
I've always felt stronger after the Holy Month - that surprised me as a kid. Nice Article.
Why does he deserve it? Just because he's "good"?
Good point.
A person without a dream is a tragedy unfolding.
he deserves it. good kid.
Then I realized, he's managed to turn the focus of the world back onto the invasion of our selves, social and personal, by governments.
So I'd ask: "why then, is the response so anaemic?"
Who we are used to be about our bodies, our family, our social interactions day to day. Suddenly as technology began to increase our reach - we found all forms of communication first monitored, then censored by governments, and their corporate proxies.
I don't deny them the right to protect themselves, but it seems to me that 'they' are 'us'. We all want status, and security, so we aim for money (counters printed by them), power (positions, and authority rationed out by them), and I don't know a single business leader or politician who doesn't defend themselves by setting up legal structures to deflect blame or absolve themselves.
What we need perhaps is to take the tools of the internet and create something new - looking at BitCoin and its resilience in the face of massive corporate and government opposition I think what worries them is they'll first cede control of the coinage, and then cede control of the courts.
Coins are important - we used to rely on governments to stand by their currency but with BTC and related currencies we can now create unforgeable, and publicly verifiable money. No need for banks, and their associated parasites.
Courts are also vital - well aware that people are tried in public as much as in private - both the etiquette and the frameworks for legal accountability are shifting towards the individual. I'm heartened by the approach of the EU, and glad that Google is moving forward to implementing privacy carefully and thoughtfully.
Sorry for writing so much, please let me know what you think privacy will be like in 5-10 years - and critically - if you think we'll be able to be private citizens again, or is it already too late?
Thank you.
Thank you! I didn't know this. :-) Much appreciated.
Definitely! Good point.
[...]offers up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest of anyone who intentionally aims a laser at an aircraft.
That is precisely my point. The fact of aiming a laser can't be enough - so it comes down to intentions. Those of the person accused - and their accuser.
Planes get lost, re-routed etc ALL the time. Think a nightclub with laser advertising, plane flies overhead, or helicopter. Can they be punished?
Is privacy requires work.
When I was a kid I burned my right hand at age 5. I couldn't write, and I had recently gotten a rubiks cube. I wondered how to solve it and worked it out in my head. When my bandages came off I solved it in one day. Because I couldn't open it up or play with it I had to think about it, it made me hungry to play with and understand everything. Something I still feel to this day.
or perhaps they just don't care. :-)
i hate it when demagogues start shouting, don't you?
Sorry, should have been clearer - I was in a rush. There isn't some 'magic screen' within the neural net upon which the two or more choices are presented. That's just our folk-psyche way of picturing it. It's just electrical signals in a giant, beautiful switchboard. So, if your adversarials are in play, then the only way you can know is through expression - the choice - and in real life you have multiple tries in the same context to converge on the correct answer. Ie, in real life our brains use the massive parallelism inherent in the multiple overlapping neural networks active at any point to make SEVERAL decisions and then the brain as a whole makes a decision on how to act. Perhaps these deep neural nets are only part of the way there, but it's promising. In a simulated deep neural net u
will get Zuckerberg's attention.
Of course the human brain has errors in its pattern matching ability. Who hasn't seen something out of the corner of their eye and thought it was dog when really it was a paper bag blowing in the wind? The brain makes snap judgments, because there's a trade off between correctness and speed. If your brain mistakes a rustle of bushes for a tiger, so what? I'd rather have it misinform me, erring on the side of tiger, than wait for all information to be in before making a 100% accurate decision. This is the basis of intuition.
I don't think a computer ai will be perfect, either, because "thinking" fuzzily enough to develop intuition means it's going to be wrong sometimes. The interesting thing is how quickly we get pissed off at a computer for guessing wrong compared to a human. When you call a business and get one of those automated answering things and it asks you, "Now please, tell me the reason for your call. You can say 'make a payment,' 'inquire about my loan...'" etc etc, we get really pissed off when we say 'make a payment' and it responds "you said, cancel my account, did I get that right?" But when a human operator doesn't hear you correctly and asks you to repeat what you said, we say "Oh, sure," and repeat ourselves without a second thought. There's something about it being a machine that makes us demand perfection in a way we'd never expect from a human.
Think is fuzzy yes, but only for some people. And only operationally. You're right though - just because it's a machine doesn't mean we should demand perfection from it.
Deep neural networks are implicitly generating dynamic-ontologies. The 'mis-categorisation' occurs when you only have one functional exit point. The fact is that if you are within the network itself, the adversarial are held in-frame alongside other possibilities, and the network only tilts towards one when the prevailing system requires it through external stimulus. From the outside it will look like an error, (because we already decided that) but internally each possible interpretation is valid.
Apple is built on older versions of OpenSSL - this looks like it might be because they weren't quick enough to adapt, and someone snuck in under the radar. Lets hope they get it sorted quickly!
it can make a *decent* cuppa. (Before you know you need one.)
B-52 bombing synced with the B-52 songs! Courtesy of Steve Jobs' iPod..
For every good soul who buys this to strengthen their systems, how many scammers will use this as a guidebook for looting?