April 7, 2012
Psychology World originally shared this post: Does the brain’s wiring make us who we are? Neuroscientists Sebastian Seung and Anothony Movshon debate minds, maps, and the future of their field.
April 7, 2012
neurovisualization originally shared this post: this is a really interesting interview with prof. olaf sporn about computational neuroscience. also check out the other great podcasts at brainscience. NETWORKS OF THE BRAIN – OLAF SPORN Interview with Dr. Olaf Sporns, author of Networks of the Brain, which is a comprehensive introduction to the application of Network Theory to Neuroscience. Network Theory is an important tool for dealing with the massive amounts of data being generated by our current technology. We discuss basic concepts and also explore some of the interesting discoveries that are being generated by this approach.For detailed show notes, including links and episode transcripts go to http://brainsciencepodcast.com. h/t +Brain Science Podcast Home – Brain Science Podcast Brain Science Podcast show notes and blog
April 7, 2012
This is an important social innovation, because, unlike classic non-profits or non-governmental institutions, they do not operate from the point of view of scarcity. Classic NGOs still operate much like other industrial institutions, such as the corporation and the market state, as they believe that resources need to marshalled and managed. By contrast, the new for-benefits have only an active role in enabling and empowering the community to co-operate – by provisioning its infrastructure, not by commanding its production processes. These associations exist for the sole purpose of benefitting the community of which they are the expression. This is good news, as they are generally managed in democratic ways. And they have to be, because an undemocratic institution would discourage contributions by the community of participants. Here is the kicker. What would you call an institution that is responsible for the common good of all the participants? I would argue that this type for for-benefit institution has a very similar function to what we commonly assign to the state. h/t +David Guthrie http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/20123111423139193.html The ‘welfare state’ is dead – long live the ‘partner state’? As the welfare state declines, what’s needed are democratically-run, civic institutions that protect the common good.
April 6, 2012
Bruno Gonçalves originally shared this post: Complex systems: Spotlight on mobility Complex systems: Spotlight on mobility Nature 484, 7392 (2012). doi:10.1038/484040a Authors: Dirk Brockmann The complexity in patterns of human mobility, migration and communication has been difficult to unpack. Researchers have now come up with a simple theory that captures the intricacy of such phenomena. See Letter p.96
April 6, 2012
In America we have a motivation problem : money. I’m not a communist. I love capitalism (I even love money), but here’s a simple fact we’ve known since 1962: using money as a motivator makes us less capable at problem-solving. It actually makes us dumber. When your employees have to do something straightforward, like pressing a button or manning one stage in an assembly line, financial incentives work. It’s a small effect, but they do work. Simple jobs are like the simple candle problem. However, if your people must do something that requires any creative or critical thinking, financial incentives hurt. The In-Box Candle Problem is the stereotypical problem that requires you to think “Out of the Box,” (you knew that was coming, didn’t you?). Whenever people must think out of the box, offering them a monetary carrot will keep them in that box. A monetary reward will help your employees focus. That’s the point. ^When you’re focused you are less able to think laterally. You become dumber*. This is not the kind of thing we want if we expect to solve the problems that face us in the 21st century. Is your job like that of a button pusher? or do you have to think creatively? What about a CEO? The results above apply more to a CEO than almost anybody, yet CEOs receive greater financial incentives than anyone. This practice is self-destructive. Now I understand why the CEO of Company X killed his golden goose. I understand why he decimated R&D. I understand why he upped the number of spurious lawsuits against competitors instead of investing in long term growth. He was incentivized. He was focused. The stock price was the most important metric of judgment. The same is true for many other companies. http://blogs.nature.com/a_mad_hemorrhage/2012/04/02/ceos-and-the-candle-problem CEOs and the […]
April 6, 2012
Gerd Moe-Behrens originally shared this post: Leukippos Institute Evolutionary Synthetic Biology by Sergio G. Peisajovich “Signaling networks process vast amounts of environmental information to generate specific cellular responses. As cellular environments change, signaling networks adapt accordingly. Here, I will discuss how the integration of synthetic biology and directed evolution approaches is shedding light on the molecular mechanisms that guide the evolution of signaling networks. In particular, I will review studies that demonstrate how different types of mutations, from the replacement of individual amino acids to the shuffling of modular domains, lead to markedly different evolutionary trajectories, and consequently to diverse network rewiring. Moreover, I will argue that intrinsic evolutionary properties of signaling proteins, such as the robustness of wild type functions, the promiscuous nature of evolutionary intermediates, and the modular decoupling between binding and catalysis, play important roles in the evolution of signaling networks. Finally, I will argue that rapid advances in our ability to synthesize DNA will radically alter how we study signaling network evolution at the genome-wide level.” http://bit.ly/Hd65fd #syntheticbiology #synbio #syntheticbio Evolutionary Synthetic Biology – ACS Synthetic Biology (ACS Publications) Signaling networks process vast amounts of environmental information to generate specific cellular responses. As cellular environments change, signaling networks adapt accordingly. Here, I will discus…
April 5, 2012
Matt Uebel originally shared this post: #RaceAgainstTheMachine . Robots will steal your job, but that’s OK | how to survive the economic collapse and be happy You are about to become obsolete. You think you are special, unique, and that whatever it is that you are doing is impossible to replace. You are wrong. As we speak, millions of algorithms created by …
April 5, 2012
This is a very reasonable and careful essay that reflects a lot of the organizational issues I’ve also been thinking about as a result of my work with Occupy. I can say with a bit of confidence that many of these thoughts are shared (if not always explicitly) by many of the protesters I’ve worked with as well. It is an excellent case study for looking at how the organizers are approaching the #attentioneconomy . “The second important instrumental limitation of protest is also pretty obvious, and has to do with the scarcity of the most important resource that voice requires to be effective: time (or, more specifically, coordinated time). Protest works to focus attention; it concentrates the diffuse and uncoordinated dissatisfaction of many into a unified chorus, and amplifies this dissatisfaction in ways that attract the attention of publics that might share some of these dissatisfactions, and of political coalitions that can act to change the circumstances giving rise to them. But in the short run, the attention budget for all issues of interest is limited; attention can be shifted, but not created, since we are a finite number of human beings who live only a finite amount of time. So protesting X means not protesting Y; and protesting X means not doing A, B, and C, at least for the duration of the protest. There is always some other pressing issue that loses out in the competition for attention, some other problem that could be plausibly argued to be more important: to protest is to make a claim about the proper priorities of an institution. (But how could we know?).” Xavier Marquez originally shared this post: I was invited by a student club here at VUW to talk about protest. Not entirely satisfied with these thoughts I jotted […]
April 5, 2012
Read closely, because this is a brilliant application of the #attentioneconomy . This is an example of how we will start preferring attention-based models to other sorts of models and explanations for deciding difficult problems. Wondeful! The de?nitions [of life, IF] are more than often in con?ict with one another. Undeniably, however, most of them do have a point, one or another or several, and common sense suggests that, probably, one could arrive to a consensus, if only the authors, some two centuries apart from one another, could be brought together. One thing, however, can be done – sort of voting in absentia – asking which terms in the de?nitions are the most frequent and, thus, perhaps, re?ecting the most important points shared by many. Such analysis is offered below, revealing those most frequent terms that may be used for tentative formulation of the consensus. Olav Smørholm originally shared this post: Brilliant! Life is short | Byte Size Biology Note that I am diving straight into the subject, and not prefacing this post with a review of the various definitions of life. I assume that this blog’s readers have been exposed to some aspects o…
April 4, 2012
Rebecca Searles originally shared this post: I think this is adorable Ants Vaccinate One Another To Prevent Epidemics, Colony Study Suggests By: Jennifer Welsh, LiveScience Staff Writer Published: 04/03/2012 05:05 PM EDT on LiveScience Like crowded megacities, busy ant colonies face a high risk of disease outbreaks. New research indicates …
April 4, 2012
#augmentedreality #attentioneconomy #googlex #fanboy Project Glass originally shared this post: We think technology should work for you—to be there when you need it and get out of your way when you don’t. A group of us from Google[x] started Project Glass to build this kind of technology, one that helps you explore and share your world, putting you back in the moment. We’re sharing this information now because we want to start a conversation and learn from your valuable input. So we took a few design photos to show what this technology could look like and created a video to demonstrate what it might enable you to do. Please follow along as we share some of our ideas and stories. We’d love to hear yours, too. What would you like to see from Project Glass? +Babak Parviz +Steve Lee +Sebastian Thrun
- All
- (author unknown)
- Adam Frucci
- Brian Barrett
- casey.johnston@arstechnica.com (Casey Johnston)
- Charlie White
- Christina Bonnington
- Daniel Estrada
- Darren Murph
- Donald Melanson
- editors@arstechnica.com (Ars Staff)
- Eripsa
- Evan Ackerman
- Jack Loftus
- jacqui@arstechnica.com (Jacqui Cheng)
- Jennifer Van Grove
- Jesus Diaz
- Joanna Stern
- Joseph L. Flatley
- jtimmer@arstechnica.com (John Timmer)
- Kat Hannaford
- kate.shaw@arstechnica.com (Kate Shaw)
- Kevin Hall
- Laura June
- Lauren Indvik
- Mark Wilson
- matthew.lasar@arstechnica.com (Matthew Lasar)
- Michael Trei
- nate@arstechnica.com (Nate Anderson)
- New Scientist
- Paul Miller
- Peter Pachal
- Richard Lai
- Rosa Golijan
- Sean Hollister
- Thomas Ricker
- Tim Stevens
- Trent Wolbe