“To believe in progress does not mean believing that progress has already taken place. This would not be belief.” — Franz Kafka, Reflections on Sin, Suffering & Hope

The groovi and gyri of your cerebral cortex identify you like your fingerprint.

“If — as some physical theories speculate — there is only one possible initial state of the universe and only one self-consistent set of physical laws, then the initial state required no bits of information to describe.” — Seth Lloyd

Goldbach’s conjecture: Every even number greater or equal to 4 is the sum of two prime numbers.

Doogie mice are mice that have been genetically altered to be smarter. Enrichment of the environment improves the cognitive performance of control animals but not of Doogie mice.

A state of a multiplayer game is Pareto optimal if there is no solution which is better for ALL participants. A state is a Nash equilibrium if NO player can improve his situation by changing only his own strategy.

Subliminal (16ms) unconscious stimuli have a measurable influence on your consumption behavior IF you are thirsty. And you will not be aware of the fact that such stimuli were shown to you.

Thermodynamic depth, a complexity measure for physical systems, relates the entropy of a system to the number of possible historical paths that led to their state.

If the same odor is present during slow-wave sleep that is present during learning new things, this improves performance. Induced slow oscillations by electric stimulation also improve declarative learning.

Distinguish horizontal from vertical explanations. Horizontal explanations correlate events on the same level of detail, they tell us why a certain event happened. Vertical explanations are explanations in terms of the level(s) below. They tell us why a certain generalization holds. If you get a horizontal explanation and still feel the need to ask “why?”, look for vertical explanations.

“We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time.” — discovermagazine.com

Epistemic actions are actions that are intended not to change the world but to minimize the computational load on your brain. For example, walking around a chessboard, reshuffling your cards. Actions that could have taken place in your mind, were your mind not extended into the world.

The majority of the connections from the prefrontal cortex to other brain areas is inhibitory. Is what we perceive as conscious control not so much involved in the creation and execution of plans but mostly in their inhibition?

Is the distinction between autopilot and deep thought not a distinction between planning vs. not planning, but a distinction between attention vs. no attention?

Duality: Map your problem to another space, find a solution there and map it back to get the solution you need. Think Category theory.

Patients with brain damage that prevents REM sleep do not appear to have a memory deficit.

Children below the age of four do not have a concept of what other people know. They believe that their knowledge is equal to other people’s knowledge. As soon as they learn something, they suppose that others know it, too.

Apes seem to understand basic intentions, but not cooperative intentions.

A brain area could respond to a stimulus by not responding while most other areas are active.

Use machine learning to create thousands hypotheses for lots of small patches of a brain in parallel, test the predictive value of each of them and discard all but those that work.

Four challenges to mind reading based on machine learning: The temporal and spatial resolution of current scanners; the potentially “unlimited” number of thoughts vs training on specific patterns; some types of brain activity have stereotypical patterns across people (e.g. lying), others seem not to; individuals change over time.

1 is not a prime number because factorization needs to be unique.

Perfect numbers are numbers that are equal to the sum of their proper divisors. 6 = 3 + 2 +1. Are there any odd perfect numbers?

Goal-directedness means equifinality: Different initial states lead to the same final state. Goal-directedness implies a reduction in entropy.

We know no good reasons why neurons have dendritic trees beyond increasing the surface area for synapses from other neurons.

Four different types of answers to the question why a certain animal behaves in a certain way: Proximate cause; current survival value; ontogeny (development of the individual); phylogeny (development of the species).

Humans were linguistic 100.000 years ago.

All of your mitochondrial DNA is from your mother.

Acheulean hand axes have been produced practically unchanged for over a million years. Many have been found in a state of not having been used at all. Social artefacts?

We are the only species vulnerable to ideas. Think religion. Freedom. Democracy. Justice.

Language digitizes.

In an experiment, children and chimpanzees try to get food out of a box after being shown a technique with an unnecessary additional step. Chimpanzees leave out the unnecessary step. Children copy the whole procedure.

Be precise.

Wie beeinflusst es unser Denken, wenn wir auf mehr unerwartete Informationen stoßen als gewohnt? Angenommen, auf dem Desktop erscheint jede Minute ein anderes, zufällig aus den 2,3 Millionen englischen Wikipedia-Artikeln ausgewähltes Thema und dazu eine kurze Beschreibung. Ist die einzige Auswirkung davon, dass wir uns noch leichter von dem ablenken lassen, was wir erreichen wollen?

Oder gibt es Tätigkeiten, auf die es sich positiv auswirkt, eine Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Erinnerungen kurz zu aktivieren (Priming), so dass mit diesen verbundene Konzepte in der darauf folgenden Zeit für Assoziationen zur Verfügung stehen, bei denen sie sonst möglicherweise nicht aufgerufen worden wären?

Mac-User können das selbst ausprobieren:

1. GeekTool installieren.

2. random_wiki.py herunterladen.

3. python /path/to/random_wiki.py

   als Shell-Kommando zu GeekTool hinzufügen.

4. cat /tmp/random_word

   als Shell-Kommando zu GeekTool hinzufügen.

Es kommt vor, dass man bei Go all die kleinen Kämpfe gewinnt und am Ende das Spiel verliert, weil das Gesamtbild nicht passt. Keine der lokalen Plänkeleien ist eine Herausforderung — zwei, drei Steine, nichts Großartiges. Ein wenig schränkt man so ein, wie man sich auf dem Spielfeld weiter entwickeln kann, aber das ist kaum spürbar. Außerdem ist jeder der Züge dringend notwendig!

Mit jedem gesetzten Stein füllt sich das Spielfeld weiter, immer mehr wird dringend notwendig und wir machen weiter, weil die kleinen Siege befriedigen. Erst dann, wenn schon fast alles zugebaut ist, wird klar, dass das, was man gewonnen hat, ein erstaunlich kleiner Teil des Spielfelds ist.

Irgendwo hier liegen die Grenzen des Mustererkennungsapparats in unserem Kopf. Das, was wir verstehen können, ist keine obere Schranke für die Komplexität unserer Welt. Aber ich wiederhole mich.

Wirklich Neues gibt es nicht. Es gibt lediglich Ideen, zu deren Erreichen wir eine größere Zahl an Inferenzschritten benötigen als für andere. Das Lösen einer Mathe-Aufgabe für Drittklässler unterscheidet sich nur quantitativ von der Erkenntnis, dass Ort und Impuls eines Teilchens niemals gleichzeitig exakt bestimmt werden können.

Das, was uns durchgedacht und zugeschnürt vorgesetzt wird, mögen wir akzeptieren, aber wir werden es niemals verteidigen. Null Inferenzschritte. Nur das, was wir selbst entdecken, machen wir uns zu eigen. Wenn wir bereits Ideen absorbieren, für die wir uns ohne Überzeugung und von der Endidee ausgehend Argumente ausdenken, wie viel stärker fühlen wir uns dann zu Ideen hingezogen, die wir selbst erdacht haben?

Wissenschaft funktioniert, weil jede Veröffentlichung (hoffentlich) Daten enthält, von denen aus wir den letzten Inferenzschritt selbst vollziehen können. Kunst funktioniert, weil sie Ideen nimmt und von dort aus einige Inferenzschritte rückwärts geht.

In einer Welt idealer Rationalisten macht es keinen* Unterschied, ob die letzten gedanklichen Schritte selbst ausgeführt oder fertig präsentiert werden. In unserer Welt dagegen ist es leicht, mich von einer Idee zu überzeugen. Ich muss die Idee dazu nur als meine eigene ansehen.

Ist die Art, wie wir über Träume reden, fundamental irreführend?

Wir wachen auf und erzählen davon, wie wir eine zeitlich und räumlich zusammenhängende Geschichte erlebt haben. Wir erinnern uns an das, was uns und den Menschen, die wir tagsüber oder vor 10 Jahren gesehen haben, in unserer lila-weißen Traumwelt passiert ist. Erinnerung impliziert, dass da etwas ist, was vor dem Moment des Erinnerns da war.

Wenn wir uns daran erinnern, dass die letzten 10 Traumminuten auf das perfekt in den Traum integrierte Weckerklingeln ausgerichtet waren — ist die räumliche und zeitliche Struktur unseres Traumes dann mehr als eine im Moment des Aufwachens erdachte Erklärung für die Aktivität der Nervenzellen, die wir durch unser Erwachen beim Reorganisieren ertappt haben?

(Wenn ja: Wie lässt sich das experimentell für “normale” Träume zeigen? Wenn nein: Wie passen luzide Träume in dieses Bild?)

If you have always wondered why everyone says that your pancakes taste interesting, why women tend to be better at cooking (hint: they think in relations) and what your friends really mean when they rave about heuristic search planning for first-order Markov decision processes, wonder no more. Few answers but lots of pretty pictures, fresh from today’s relational reinforcement learning seminar:

Wann wurdet ihr so gut darin, professionell und automatisch jeden Tag ein Stück vergangenes Leben zu produzieren? Kennt ihr euren Weg? Manchmal meine ich, meinen zu kennen, zumindest die Richtung. Dann höre ich Manuels Vortrag beim Poetry Slam, lese, was Aaron schreibt, und bin zurück beim Ausstrecken meiner Fühler und beim Vermeiden von Einschränkungen, auf dass mein zukünftiges Ich mir dankbar sei. Wirken Lebensläufe erst im Nachhinein so eindeutig — und so beliebig?

I just wrote my first letter in ten years and it felt strange. The blue liquid flowing out of my pen and onto the thin sheet of cellulose in front of me. The cell walls of a dead tree, now functioning as a kind of disposable monitor. The paper soaked with watery circles and lines, clearly one of the most wasteful ways to store one kilobyte of plain text. In a few minutes, on my way to the Christmas market, I will put this unlikely storage medium in a yellow box next to the sidewalk, knowing that tomorrow, someone will pick it up, drive it across Germany and bring it not to the addressee, but to yet another box where she will show up, sooner or later. This takes roughly 100.000 times as long as an e-mail.

E-mail is less awkward, but not by far. Part of me enjoys typing really fast, probably due to having seen too many hacker movies in my teenage years. The rest of me snickers at the idea of moving muscles and bones, pushing fingertips on black plastic, in order to transmit information from one system using electrical signals to another one. For each bit that makes its way from my head into my computer, I move a billion billion billion electrons when one would suffice.

Each intermediate step in the process of information transmission creates borders between us and makes our conversations less intimate. Bandwidth is growing, delays and barriers are going away (the final barrier being the conversion from semantics to syntax and back).

In 2007, writing a letter is like playing with mud and electricity because you are hungry and it can’t take that long until something akin to an apple tree evolves.
 
Like taking money out of your bank account and giving it away minutes later in exchange for the thing you really wanted even if you could have paid with your EC card, because you always did it this way.
 
Like taking pictures with your old analog camera and scanning them later on, because style is not defined in pixels per cm².
 
Like writing a letter, because the textual content was little more than an envelope, because what you actually said was “I care”, and because the most efficient way would have been the least effective.

What appears to be context may be information, what appears to be information may be context. The failure or refusal to accept the unspoken social contract that defines which is which is one of the main reasons why nerds are socially inept. Think small talk.

“Half of the meaningful things philosophy has said about artificial intelligence have already been said by Turing 50 years ago.” I do not remember who said this, and it is probably an overstatement, but it is not far from the truth. Even the AI textbook by Russell and Norvig claims that Turing’s paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence contains “virtually all objections [against the possibility of thinking machines] that have been raised in the half century since his paper appeared.”

Here are the slides for the presentation I held in Tuesday’s philosophy class, in the hope that they may be of some use, even if part of it is incomprehensible for anyone who did not read the paper or listen to the talk: