https://wiki.santafe.edu/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Gomezlopezam 2026-04-26T06:40:40Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.40.1 https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-After_Hours&diff=55143 2014-06-25T14:53:43Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* JP&#039;s Adventures in Gastronomy */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==JP's Adventures in Gastronomy==<br /> <br /> St. John's College dining got you down? Realized that yesterday's baked potatoes are tomorrow's potatoes au gratin? Then you, my friend, need to get off campus.<br /> <br /> On Wednesday, let's go off campus for drinks at Santa Fe Brewing Company after Geoffrey's evening lecture. Meet in the coffee shop at 8:00 to determine who wants to go. My car has limited seats, but maybe someone else can volunteer a car?<br /> <br /> Thursday night, let's get out and go somewhere nice. I'm thinking either Epazote or Pink Adobe, but I reserve the right to go other places as decided. Add your name here and I'll set up some reservations. We'll leave at 6:30pm on Thursday.<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> '''Wednesday Santa Fe Brewing Company'''<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's Car&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (go DGT group!)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's OTHER car&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1.Beth &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Cecilia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Still needs a ride&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Thursday dinner'''<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's Car&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Anna&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Morgan&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Jose&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's OTHER car&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1.Jenn (driver)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Catherine &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Renske&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Cole&lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. Ana Maria&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Saturday June 28, 2014 9:00 am Santa Fe Botanical Garden ==<br /> <br /> This month the feature is Origami in the Garden. The gardens are open 7 days a week 9-5. I plan to leave from the circle at 9 am. It's less than a mile walk to the gardens. Entrace fee is $7.<br /> <br /> 1. James &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Anna &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey==<br /> <br /> I (Anna) have all of Cosmos (new version) downloaded on my iPad. If we get the right adapter and an HDMI cable (and find the right TV) would anyone be interested in watching with me? It looks like we still need an A/V-&gt;HDMI adapter for an iPad 2.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Hi Anna. I (Bernardo) have an adapter (HDMI) if you want to give it a try. And there is a TV on the lower common room. Let me know.&lt;br&gt;<br /> I'm a big fan of the Carl Sagan series so I'd be curious to see what they did with it. I'm in too! - ''Nicolas'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> I'd be interested! - Diana<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, it turns out that the format that Cosmos is in - in Amazon Instant Video - can't be viewed using HDMI. Does anyone else have any other ways of viewing it? -Anna<br /> <br /> ==Watch Orange is the New Black: Season Two, with Nix!==<br /> One of my partners gave in and started watching it without me, so I need to catch up with her! After my lectures next week, of course. -Nix<br /> <br /> Possibly Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Nix &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Cole &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==June 25, 5:30am - Sunrise hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> <br /> We'll meet at 5:30 am at the circle then hike as far as we can go to be back by 8:00 am.<br /> <br /> Equipment: <br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots <br /> - Backpack <br /> - Liquids: about 1.5 liters <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) <br /> <br /> This is running every M, W, and F.<br /> <br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact James Holdener<br /> <br /> Participants: <br /> 1. James Holdener <br /> 2.<br /> <br /> ==June 26, 6:30am - Kung Fu Training==<br /> <br /> For all of you who want to get seriously active before breakfast; we'll do an hour of kung fu training. Most of this will be general workout - running, pushups, etc. Then I will show you the most basic positions in kung fu, and their transitions in one of the basic forms. Disclaimer: I am not by any measure qualified to teach (only been doing it for 2 years). If you can take what I say with a grain of salt, if you know the limits of your own body and want to get active, feel free to join! If you cannot make it today, there will be opportunities next week too :).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> You'll need:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - comfy clothes, layers you can throw off &lt;br&gt;<br /> - flexible shoes (can also go barefoot, but the grass is wet and cold...)&lt;br&gt;<br /> - water&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> We'll meet at the parking circle closest to the dorms, and then walk down to the sports field.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Participants:&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Renske &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.<br /> <br /> ==June 27, 6:00-9:00pm Todd and the Fox==<br /> <br /> See Juniper's brother's band [https://www.facebook.com/events/306176446198443/ Todd and the Fox] play on the Plaza at the Santa Fe Band Stand. For full line up of the Santa Fe Bandstand (June 23-August 28) visit [http://santafebandstand.org/ here]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Matthew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 4. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 5. Morgan Edwards<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Leo<br /> <br /> 8. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 9. Cecilia<br /> <br /> 10. Emília<br /> <br /> 11. Sanja<br /> <br /> 12. Renske<br /> <br /> 13. Nicolas Scholtes<br /> <br /> 14. José Aguilar-Rodríguez<br /> <br /> 15. Francesca<br /> <br /> 16. Marcus Levine<br /> <br /> 17. Diego<br /> <br /> ==World Cup==<br /> All times are Santa Fe (MST)<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Thursday, June 12&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Brazil vs. Croatia - 1400 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Friday, June 13&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Mexico vs. Cameroon - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Spain vs. Netherlands - 1300 (MST) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Chile vs. Australia - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Saturday, June 14&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Colombia vs. Greece - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Uruguay vs. Costa Rica - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) England vs. Italy - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Côte d'Ivoire vs. Japan - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sunday, June 15&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Switzerland vs. Ecuador - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) France vs. Honduras - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Argentina vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Sports Bars in Santa Fe: '''&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://junctionsantafe.com/ Junction]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.yelp.com/biz/el-paseo-bar-and-grill-santa-fe El Paseo Bar]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/business/on-tap-craft-beers-from-around-state-at-downtown-s/article_de6b6182-fdcd-58ef-9f2e-6e9cc5bf5a85.html Santa Fe Tap Room]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.cowgirlsantafe.com/ Cowgirl Cafe] &lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.riochamasteakhouse.com/ Rio Chama Steak House]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''On campus viewing opportunities:''' Lower Campus Common's Room has a TV that can air the games, and on some occasions we can project the games after-hours in the Great Hall<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe Railyard Events==<br /> <br /> There are a ton of really fun and cool events happening all summer at the Santa Fe Railyard, check the calendar out [http://www.railyardsantafe.com/ here]<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> == '''PREVIOUS EVENTS'''==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==June 20, 6:30am - Kung Fu training==<br /> <br /> For all of you who want to sleep a bit longer, but then get seriously active before breakfast, we'll do some kung fu training. Most of this will be general workout - running, pushups, etc.<br /> Then I will show you the most basic positions in kung fu, and their transitions in one of the basic forms. Disclaimer: I am not by any measure qualified to teach (only been doing it for 2 years). <br /> If you can take what I say with a grain of salt, if you know the limits of your own body and want to get active, feel free to join! If you cannot make it today, there will be opportunities next week too :).<br /> <br /> You'll need: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - comfy clothes, layers you can throw off &lt;br&gt;<br /> - flexible shoes (can also go barefoot, but the grass is wet and cold...) &lt;br&gt;<br /> - water &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> We'll meet at the parking circle closest to the dorms, and then walk down to the sports field. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Renske &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Diana (Renske - I have some legit physical limitations, but I can handle them, and I'd like to try!)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. James &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sunday June 22, 6:00-9:00pm Santa Fe Fuego Baseball Game==<br /> <br /> Come heckle and drink beer while watching some minor league baseball - [http://www.santafe.com/calendar/event/santa-fe-fuego-vs.-trinidad-triggers1 Fuego v. Trinidad Triggers]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Mathew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Lin Li<br /> <br /> 4. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 5. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 8. Alberto Antonioni<br /> <br /> 9. Diego Barneche<br /> <br /> 10. Nicolas Scholtes<br /> <br /> 11. Massimo Stella<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==June 22, El Rancho de las Golondrinas==<br /> <br /> [[JP]] is going to the lavender festival at Golondrinas Museum (www.golondrinas.org) on Sunday. Let's meet up at 12:30 in the cafeteria and then head out?<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's Car&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Catherine&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Hiroshi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Still wants to go&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 22, 7:00am - Hike the mountain!==<br /> <br /> Meet Diana in the parking lot near the dorms at 7am this Sunday to hike up to the top of the mountain before brunch!<br /> <br /> <br /> ==June 21, 10:00am - Bandelier Field Trip==<br /> <br /> We're taking a trip to [http://www.nps.gov/band/index.htm Bandelier National Monument] on Saturday June 21th. Please visit the &lt;b&gt;[[Bandelier 2014 | Bandelier Field Trip]]&lt;/b&gt; Page to sign up!<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == The Game. ==<br /> A few of us have talked about a game we would like to play during the summer school. Let me know via email (cole.mathis@asu.edu) by Wednesday (6/18) morning if you would like to play the game. <br /> <br /> <br /> ''The Rules:''<br /> <br /> You will be randomly assigned the name of another player (your target) and an object (your weapon). <br /> <br /> Your job is to get your target to accept your weapon from you. <br /> <br /> If/when your target accepts your weapon from you, your target it out (you killed them), and you are now given his target and weapon.<br /> <br /> You cannot tell anyone who your target is or what your weapon is. <br /> <br /> For example, Suppose I (Cole) am assigned Leto as my target and a pen as my weapon. I need to somehow offer Leto a pen and he must accept it from me. When Leto accepts the weapon he is out, and I inherit his target and weapon, and the game continues.<br /> <br /> To win the game you must be the last person left. <br /> <br /> Once the game starts it will be constantly played, you can get killed at any time and you can kill at anytime until the game is over.<br /> <br /> We will not publish a list of all participants.... Anyone may be playing. We will not publish a list of people who have been killed in the game although deaths may happen in public.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> When you are out (killed) you should email me (cole.mathis@asu.edu) to let me know and forward your target and weapon to your murderer, please include the situation that led to your death (particularly if it was interesting, clever, or most importantly funny!<br /> <br /> <br /> We think this would be a lot of fun and easy to play with this many people so please email me before wednesday if you are interested!<br /> <br /> cole.mathis@asu.edu<br /> <br /> DO NOT PUBLISH YOUR INTENT TO PLAY HERE!<br /> <br /> ==Jessica Birthday celebration! - June 16, some bar/restaurant downtown, leaving from Saint Johns at 7:30pm==<br /> <br /> We are going to celebrate at Cowgirl (http://www.cowgirlsantafe.com/)<br /> <br /> The map is here: http://goo.gl/maps/lEFxd<br /> <br /> We can meet at the parking lot close to the dorms, 7:15pm. There are some people with their own cars. We can fit some people on these cars, and call taxis (or we can go walking, if you prefer).<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 6:30pm - Sunset hike to Atalaya mountain ('''pictures''')==<br /> <br /> Pictures: https://picasaweb.google.com/104772005161459586991/AtalayaSantaFeNM11062014<br /> <br /> Track: http://es.wikiloc.com/wikiloc/view.do?id=7069532<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 10:00pm Full Moon Walk==<br /> <br /> It's FULL MOON!!! And Friday 13th! I think this deserves a FULL moon walk with a few drinks on the top of that hill near the campus and a FULL appreciation of the FULL moon. Maybe also a good opportunity to bring the banjo and whatever fits!!<br /> <br /> Stock up on drinks and leave at 10pm outside of the Peterson Student Center after the others return from Tomasitas...<br /> <br /> Joining:&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Leo&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Brais (maybe)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Pooya &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 6:00pm Tomasita's==<br /> <br /> Come experience some down home New Mexican cooking at Tomasita's. Margaritas and enchiladas! Yum!<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Catherine&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 7:00pm Santa Fe Bite==<br /> <br /> Green chile cheeseburger time. Meet at the parking circle in front of the coffee shop.<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Ana Maria&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Diana L-G&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Morgan Edwards&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Juni's car<br /> <br /> 1. Juni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June &lt;strike&gt; 10&lt;/strike&gt;11, 5:00pm - Supplies Run==<br /> <br /> JP is going down to buy the stuff everyone needs. He'll take you if you would like.<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's GTI (5 seats)&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Anna Olson&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Bernardo Furtado&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Ali Kharrazi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Ana Maria Gomez Lopez &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Common Supplies:<br /> <br /> What kinds of supplies can we all split? Make a list here and JP will buy a big box or two for everyone.<br /> <br /> 1). Laundry Soap &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2). Bottles of water (for the hikes) ? Otherwise, please buy a big one (or multiple small ones) for Renske :) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) 3 Flashlights and batteries for James &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Earplugs. If nobody needs them, please buy a pack for Pooya. Thanks!&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5) Beer (I second this request - ''Nicolas'')&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Individual Supplies:<br /> <br /> 1) Olive oil-- 1 liter bottle---Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Downy Dryer Sheet -- a small box enough for ~6-8 loads--- Nhat Nguyen<br /> 3) Please buy converter for power plug (Europe- US) for Sanja<br /> 4) Another converter for power plug (Europe-US), toothpaste, sun protection, Brais.<br /> <br /> ==June 13, 5:30am - Sunrise hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> Update: I've modifed to be back a half hour earlier to an hour to frehen up and eat before taking the bus to SFI.<br /> <br /> We'll meet at 5:30 am at the circle then hike as far as we can go to be back by 7:30 am. <br /> <br /> Equipment: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Backpack &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Liquids: at least 1.5 litres &lt;br&gt; <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> I have two flashlights but they weren't needed on Wednesday.<br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact James Holdener<br /> <br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 14, 10am- Farmer's Market==<br /> <br /> We are going to walk down to Santa Fe to go to the Saturday morning farmers market, as well as explore Santa Fe. Meet at 10am in the circle by the dorms.<br /> <br /> ==June 15, 10am- Yoga class==<br /> <br /> Yoga has been postponed, maybe later on today.<br /> <br /> ==June 15, 3pm - Playing soccer/futbol==<br /> <br /> Meet at 3:00pm at the parking lot. If you're late, just come find us at the field. It's #48 on this map of St. John's campus: http://www.sjc.edu/files/3713/9568/3101/stjohns3D.pdf<br /> <br /> ==June 19 Rodeo de Santa Fe==<br /> <br /> &lt;strike&gt;Wednesday&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;b&gt;Thursday&lt;/b&gt;, June 19!<br /> <br /> Come on down for the 65th annual Rodeo de Santa Fe! Watch real-life cowboys get thrown off of various species of raging livestock for their competition and your entertainment. Starts at 7:00pm, we should leave SJC about 6:00. http://rodeodesantafe.org/<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's GTI&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. JP &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Alireza Goudarzi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Nhat Nguyen&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's 4runner&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1.Stefan Pfenninger &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Leto Peel&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Claire Lagesse&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Juni's Car&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1.Alberto Antonioni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Luis Martinez Vaquero&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Jennifer Hellmann &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Laurent &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Sander's Car&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1.José Aguilar-Rodríguez &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Ernest Yu Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Pooya Rezaei &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Qiao Zhi (George)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Jessica's Car&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Renske Vroomans &lt;br&gt; <br /> 2. Emília Garcia Casademont &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Degang Wu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Sanja Selakovic &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; James G's Rental &lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. James G. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Catherine &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Heath &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Nicolas K. Scholtes&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Josh Garland's Awesome Mobile&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1.Francesca Lipari &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Leo&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Nicolas Scholtes &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Still Needs a Ride&lt;/b&gt;&lt;Br&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=File:20140624_AMGLConsciousnessDraft.pdf&diff=55129 2014-06-25T05:38:53Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=55128 2014-06-25T05:38:14Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* &quot;Models&quot; summaries in preparation of Thursday 26 June meeting */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> One comic = 1000 words. [http://xkcd.com/1037/ UMWELT]<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> '''Post-workshop updates'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Luckily, I found a review paper that describes what the most prominent AI researchers think about consciousness. Here's the paper[http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/papers/conscioushb.pdf]. Summary: &quot;The idea in a nutshell is that ''phenomenal consciousness'' is the property a computational system X has if X models itself as experiencing things.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''My Thoughts'''<br /> <br /> '''The &quot;Mind -- Software&quot; analogy:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> ''Hypothesis:'' Mind emerges from the Brain, i.e., the interactions between neurons and glia. We know that a neural network is a universal computer, and the assumption here is that the computation is expressed as a neural network. So we look only at this level, and assume that the underlying molecular mechanisms provide the medium for computation.<br /> ''Explanation:'' Think of the brain as hardware made out of Neurons, Glia, and other stuff. Essentially, the brain is a ''network''. The network ''structure'' is how the components are interconnected. ''Dynamics'' on this network are defined as the interactions between the massive number of components. Mind (and as a result consciousness) is a ''function'' of this network. So the brain is a network that does computation.<br /> <br /> In a computer, the hardware is the microprocessor, memory, etc. All the high-level software output that we see as, e.g., animated Minions, is an emergent phenomenon of the programmed interaction between hardware components.<br /> <br /> Brain &lt;--&gt; Hardware :: Mind &lt;--&gt; Software<br /> <br /> ''Simulation of Consciousness:''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As mentioned in the earlier Wiki post, simulation of consciousness can be achieved by using Minsky's breakdown. Tentative plan: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Implement the various properties of consciousness in agents &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Use a simplified model of language, which can be used by the agents to express their thoughts, ideas, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - It seems like there are lots of things about consciousness which we only perceive because we can either observe them expressed in language, or facial expression, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - If we really want to see whether the agents are thinking or not, and what emotions they have, we have to have multiple agents that learn different things and should therefore have different sorts of emotions; even for similar situations perhaps. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - We can then compare the different situations and emotions to see if there is enough evidence for consciousness. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Try to come up with a model that is as simple as possible<br /> <br /> ''Potential Issues:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Natural language processing is a hard computational problem. It may not be possible to get as much out of a simulation as we'd like, simply because we run into issues of compute power.<br /> - Gödel's incompleteness Theorems. There are truths that we cannot prove mathematically. Perhaps there is something about consciousness that is inherently quantum mechanical, and cannot be expressed using classical computation.<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information in order to span biological and artificial contexts alike, an idea also facilitated by other sections of this article. <br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:20140622_Consciousness.pdf]]<br /> <br /> = Consciousness Workshop Summary 18th Jun 2014 =<br /> This report outlines the key questions we wish to answer and some basic framing of how consciousness may be considered . . . . &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:consciousness V1.0.pdf]]<br /> <br /> = &quot;Models&quot; summaries in preparation of Thursday 26 June meeting =<br /> ==Sean==<br /> I'm still working through what seems to be an increasing list of fascinating literature, but for the time being here's a list of the various problems with describing consciousness as a property emerging from some physical basis. If these problems cannot be overcome in a model of consciousness, then it stands that consciousness cannot be described as a collective function of the brain (or another set of interacting things) but rather is a property of something singular.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Due to the challenges of uploading papers to this site and the large number of things I've been reading on the subject, I'll distribute references by request/upload them when a dropbox is available (*done, Sean - you should have received an invitation, as well as the others. Let me know if not. Sarah*).&lt;br&gt;<br /> '''1. The Binding Problem, or the Phenomenal Unity of Consciousness:''' Consciousness is a singular, integrated experience. We can point to a single observer/experiencer (ourselves) which in many ways forms the basis for our conception of our identities and the singularness of our self. An emergent property, however, is not singular, and cannot be meaningfully described except as a distributed property of some multitude of interacting agents. This can be described both as a mechanical (easy) problem inquiring how the brain integrates sensory information, and also as the hard problem of why, if consciousness emerges from the brain, we can experience the many distributed processes of our brain as a singular phenomenon.&lt;br&gt; <br /> '''2. Free Will, Agency, or Volition:''' If consciousness is an emergent property, it cannot be said to have causal effect on the brain, either in whole or in part. An emergent property arises from the collective activity of a set of actors, and any activity therein is a reflection of preceding activity on the part of those actors. In other words, if consciousness is emergent we are not capable of affecting action from the level of our consciousness. Rather we experience consciousness only and any change therein is the result of changes in neurons. This contrasts sharply with the fundamental experience most people seem to share of having and acting upon desires which are only meaningful at the level of consciousness. It is difficult to conceive of what an individual neuron might want; love, hate, or other motivations arising from an individual identity at a level it does not possess seem nonsensical. Therefore it is challenging to explain the behavior of human beings if consciousness-level casual ability does not exist, let alone our own subjective experience.&lt;br&gt; <br /> '''3. What is it like to be a Bat?:''' This is the title of a highly-cited historical paper in which the author contends that, no matter how well we study the brain of a bat, we will not be able to construct therefrom the subjective experience of a bat. Essentially, the subjective experience conscious beings have of sensations such as 'qualia' (for instance: the property of something having 'redness' or feeling 'happy') is of a different kind to things we can measure, describe, or explain objectively. Therefore, consciousness could not arise from a purely physical reality, as it is of a different 'kind.'&lt;br&gt;<br /> '''3b. Multiple Realizability:''' Expanding on the idea of consciousness being a different kind of thing to physical things is the problem of multiple realizability. This is the observation that many subjective experiences (pain, for example) are shared across a tremendous range of physically different organisms. If such experiences arose only from the physical, changes in their physical structure/dynamics would be reflected by changes in the subjective experience. As they are not, subjective experiences must be realizable in a number of physically distinct ways and therefore be a different kind. Honestly I'm a lot more skeptical of this one than the others and I'm not sure how well it holds, but it was an interesting idea that was presented in this way.&lt;br&gt;<br /> '''Disclaimer:''' These things have all been hotly debated in various literatures for quite a long time, and all of them are really more like hypotheses about the way it seems like consciousness and reality functions than anything else. I'm doing this because it's necessary to see how well these objections hold up next to various models of the emergence of consciousness.<br /> <br /> ==Beth and Sarah==<br /> <br /> A preliminary &quot;model&quot; (eeek) from Beth and Sarah: [[File:Beth and Sarah - V1.pdf]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Emília==<br /> [[File:Emilia-notes.pdf]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María==<br /> [[File:20140624_AMGLConsciousnessDraft.pdf]]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=55007 2014-06-23T02:43:55Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> One comic = 1000 words. [http://xkcd.com/1037/ UMWELT]<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> '''Post-workshop updates'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Luckily, I found a review paper that describes what the most prominent AI researchers think about consciousness. Here's the paper[http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/papers/conscioushb.pdf]. Summary: &quot;The idea in a nutshell is that ''phenomenal consciousness'' is the property a computational system X has if X models itself as experiencing things.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''My Thoughts'''<br /> <br /> '''The &quot;Mind -- Software&quot; analogy:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> ''Hypothesis:'' Mind emerges from the Brain, i.e., the interactions between neurons and glia. We know that a neural network is a universal computer, and the assumption here is that the computation is expressed as a neural network. So we look only at this level, and assume that the underlying molecular mechanisms provide the medium for computation.<br /> ''Explanation:'' Think of the brain as hardware made out of Neurons, Glia, and other stuff. Essentially, the brain is a ''network''. The network ''structure'' is how the components are interconnected. ''Dynamics'' on this network are defined as the interactions between the massive number of components. Mind (and as a result consciousness) is a ''function'' of this network. So the brain is a network that does computation.<br /> <br /> In a computer, the hardware is the microprocessor, memory, etc. All the high-level software output that we see as, e.g., animated Minions, is an emergent phenomenon of the programmed interaction between hardware components.<br /> <br /> Brain &lt;--&gt; Hardware :: Mind &lt;--&gt; Software<br /> <br /> ''Simulation of Consciousness:''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As mentioned in the earlier Wiki post, simulation of consciousness can be achieved by using Minsky's breakdown. Tentative plan: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Implement the various properties of consciousness in agents &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Use a simplified model of language, which can be used by the agents to express their thoughts, ideas, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - It seems like there are lots of things about consciousness which we only perceive because we can either observe them expressed in language, or facial expression, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - If we really want to see whether the agents are thinking or not, and what emotions they have, we have to have multiple agents that learn different things and should therefore have different sorts of emotions; even for similar situations perhaps. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - We can then compare the different situations and emotions to see if there is enough evidence for consciousness. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Try to come up with a model that is as simple as possible<br /> <br /> ''Potential Issues:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Natural language processing is a hard computational problem. It may not be possible to get as much out of a simulation as we'd like, simply because we run into issues of compute power.<br /> - Gödel's incompleteness Theorems. There are truths that we cannot prove mathematically. Perhaps there is something about consciousness that is inherently quantum mechanical, and cannot be expressed using classical computation.<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information in order to span biological and artificial contexts alike, an idea also facilitated by other sections of this article. <br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:20140622_Consciousness.pdf]]<br /> <br /> = Consciousness Workshop Summary 18th Jun 2014 =<br /> This report outlines the key questions we wish to answer and some basic framing of how consciousness may be considered . . . . &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:consciousness V1.0.pdf]]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=55006 2014-06-23T02:33:41Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> One comic = 1000 words. [http://xkcd.com/1037/ UMWELT]<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> '''Post-workshop updates'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Luckily, I found a review paper that describes what the most prominent AI researchers think about consciousness. Here's the paper[http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/papers/conscioushb.pdf]. Summary: &quot;The idea in a nutshell is that ''phenomenal consciousness'' is the property a computational system X has if X models itself as experiencing things.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''My Thoughts'''<br /> <br /> '''The &quot;Mind -- Software&quot; analogy:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> ''Hypothesis:'' Mind emerges from the Brain, i.e., the interactions between neurons and glia. We know that a neural network is a universal computer, and the assumption here is that the computation is expressed as a neural network. So we look only at this level, and assume that the underlying molecular mechanisms provide the medium for computation.<br /> ''Explanation:'' Think of the brain as hardware made out of Neurons, Glia, and other stuff. Essentially, the brain is a ''network''. The network ''structure'' is how the components are interconnected. ''Dynamics'' on this network are defined as the interactions between the massive number of components. Mind (and as a result consciousness) is a ''function'' of this network. So the brain is a network that does computation.<br /> <br /> In a computer, the hardware is the microprocessor, memory, etc. All the high-level software output that we see as, e.g., animated Minions, is an emergent phenomenon of the programmed interaction between hardware components.<br /> <br /> Brain &lt;--&gt; Hardware :: Mind &lt;--&gt; Software<br /> <br /> ''Simulation of Consciousness:''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As mentioned in the earlier Wiki post, simulation of consciousness can be achieved by using Minsky's breakdown. Tentative plan: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Implement the various properties of consciousness in agents &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Use a simplified model of language, which can be used by the agents to express their thoughts, ideas, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - It seems like there are lots of things about consciousness which we only perceive because we can either observe them expressed in language, or facial expression, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - If we really want to see whether the agents are thinking or not, and what emotions they have, we have to have multiple agents that learn different things and should therefore have different sorts of emotions; even for similar situations perhaps. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - We can then compare the different situations and emotions to see if there is enough evidence for consciousness. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Try to come up with a model that is as simple as possible<br /> <br /> ''Potential Issues:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Natural language processing is a hard computational problem. It may not be possible to get as much out of a simulation as we'd like, simply because we run into issues of compute power.<br /> - Gödel's incompleteness Theorems. There are truths that we cannot prove mathematically. Perhaps there is something about consciousness that is inherently quantum mechanical, and cannot be expressed using classical computation.<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information in order to span biological and artificial contexts alike, an idea also facilitated by other sections of this article. <br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:20140622_Consciousness_Draft.pdf]]<br /> <br /> = Consciousness Workshop Summary 18th Jun 2014 =<br /> This report outlines the key questions we wish to answer and some basic framing of how consciousness may be considered . . . . &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:consciousness V1.0.pdf]]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=File:20140622_Consciousness_Draft.pdf&diff=55004 2014-06-23T02:24:26Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=55003 2014-06-23T02:23:35Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> One comic = 1000 words. [http://xkcd.com/1037/ UMWELT]<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> '''Post-workshop updates'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Luckily, I found a review paper that describes what the most prominent AI researchers think about consciousness. Here's the paper[http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/papers/conscioushb.pdf]. Summary: &quot;The idea in a nutshell is that ''phenomenal consciousness'' is the property a computational system X has if X models itself as experiencing things.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''My Thoughts'''<br /> <br /> '''The &quot;Mind -- Software&quot; analogy:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> ''Hypothesis:'' Mind emerges from the Brain, i.e., the interactions between neurons and glia. We know that a neural network is a universal computer, and the assumption here is that the computation is expressed as a neural network. So we look only at this level, and assume that the underlying molecular mechanisms provide the medium for computation.<br /> ''Explanation:'' Think of the brain as hardware made out of Neurons, Glia, and other stuff. Essentially, the brain is a ''network''. The network ''structure'' is how the components are interconnected. ''Dynamics'' on this network are defined as the interactions between the massive number of components. Mind (and as a result consciousness) is a ''function'' of this network. So the brain is a network that does computation.<br /> <br /> In a computer, the hardware is the microprocessor, memory, etc. All the high-level software output that we see as, e.g., animated Minions, is an emergent phenomenon of the programmed interaction between hardware components.<br /> <br /> Brain &lt;--&gt; Hardware :: Mind &lt;--&gt; Software<br /> <br /> ''Simulation of Consciousness:''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As mentioned in the earlier Wiki post, simulation of consciousness can be achieved by using Minsky's breakdown. Tentative plan: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Implement the various properties of consciousness in agents &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Use a simplified model of language, which can be used by the agents to express their thoughts, ideas, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - It seems like there are lots of things about consciousness which we only perceive because we can either observe them expressed in language, or facial expression, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - If we really want to see whether the agents are thinking or not, and what emotions they have, we have to have multiple agents that learn different things and should therefore have different sorts of emotions; even for similar situations perhaps. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - We can then compare the different situations and emotions to see if there is enough evidence for consciousness. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Try to come up with a model that is as simple as possible<br /> <br /> ''Potential Issues:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Natural language processing is a hard computational problem. It may not be possible to get as much out of a simulation as we'd like, simply because we run into issues of compute power.<br /> - Gödel's incompleteness Theorems. There are truths that we cannot prove mathematically. Perhaps there is something about consciousness that is inherently quantum mechanical, and cannot be expressed using classical computation.<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information in order to span biological and artificial contexts alike, an idea also facilitated by other sections of this article. <br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:20140622_Consciousness_Draft.pdf]]<br /> <br /> = Consciousness Workshop Summary 18th Jun 2014 =<br /> This report outlines the key questions we wish to answer and some basic framing of how consciousness may be considered . . . . &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:consciousness V1.0.pdf]]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=File:20140622_Consciousness.pdf&diff=55002 2014-06-23T02:22:05Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=55001 2014-06-23T02:21:55Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> One comic = 1000 words. [http://xkcd.com/1037/ UMWELT]<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> '''Post-workshop updates'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Luckily, I found a review paper that describes what the most prominent AI researchers think about consciousness. Here's the paper[http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/papers/conscioushb.pdf]. Summary: &quot;The idea in a nutshell is that ''phenomenal consciousness'' is the property a computational system X has if X models itself as experiencing things.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''My Thoughts'''<br /> <br /> '''The &quot;Mind -- Software&quot; analogy:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> ''Hypothesis:'' Mind emerges from the Brain, i.e., the interactions between neurons and glia. We know that a neural network is a universal computer, and the assumption here is that the computation is expressed as a neural network. So we look only at this level, and assume that the underlying molecular mechanisms provide the medium for computation.<br /> ''Explanation:'' Think of the brain as hardware made out of Neurons, Glia, and other stuff. Essentially, the brain is a ''network''. The network ''structure'' is how the components are interconnected. ''Dynamics'' on this network are defined as the interactions between the massive number of components. Mind (and as a result consciousness) is a ''function'' of this network. So the brain is a network that does computation.<br /> <br /> In a computer, the hardware is the microprocessor, memory, etc. All the high-level software output that we see as, e.g., animated Minions, is an emergent phenomenon of the programmed interaction between hardware components.<br /> <br /> Brain &lt;--&gt; Hardware :: Mind &lt;--&gt; Software<br /> <br /> ''Simulation of Consciousness:''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As mentioned in the earlier Wiki post, simulation of consciousness can be achieved by using Minsky's breakdown. Tentative plan: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Implement the various properties of consciousness in agents &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Use a simplified model of language, which can be used by the agents to express their thoughts, ideas, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - It seems like there are lots of things about consciousness which we only perceive because we can either observe them expressed in language, or facial expression, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - If we really want to see whether the agents are thinking or not, and what emotions they have, we have to have multiple agents that learn different things and should therefore have different sorts of emotions; even for similar situations perhaps. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - We can then compare the different situations and emotions to see if there is enough evidence for consciousness. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Try to come up with a model that is as simple as possible<br /> <br /> ''Potential Issues:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Natural language processing is a hard computational problem. It may not be possible to get as much out of a simulation as we'd like, simply because we run into issues of compute power.<br /> - Gödel's incompleteness Theorems. There are truths that we cannot prove mathematically. Perhaps there is something about consciousness that is inherently quantum mechanical, and cannot be expressed using classical computation.<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information in order to span biological and artificial contexts alike, an idea also facilitated by other sections of this article. <br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:20140622_Consciousness.pdf]]<br /> <br /> = Consciousness Workshop Summary 18th Jun 2014 =<br /> This report outlines the key questions we wish to answer and some basic framing of how consciousness may be considered . . . . &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:consciousness V1.0.pdf]]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=55000 2014-06-23T02:20:54Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> One comic = 1000 words. [http://xkcd.com/1037/ UMWELT]<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> '''Post-workshop updates'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Luckily, I found a review paper that describes what the most prominent AI researchers think about consciousness. Here's the paper[http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/papers/conscioushb.pdf]. Summary: &quot;The idea in a nutshell is that ''phenomenal consciousness'' is the property a computational system X has if X models itself as experiencing things.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''My Thoughts'''<br /> <br /> '''The &quot;Mind -- Software&quot; analogy:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> ''Hypothesis:'' Mind emerges from the Brain, i.e., the interactions between neurons and glia. We know that a neural network is a universal computer, and the assumption here is that the computation is expressed as a neural network. So we look only at this level, and assume that the underlying molecular mechanisms provide the medium for computation.<br /> ''Explanation:'' Think of the brain as hardware made out of Neurons, Glia, and other stuff. Essentially, the brain is a ''network''. The network ''structure'' is how the components are interconnected. ''Dynamics'' on this network are defined as the interactions between the massive number of components. Mind (and as a result consciousness) is a ''function'' of this network. So the brain is a network that does computation.<br /> <br /> In a computer, the hardware is the microprocessor, memory, etc. All the high-level software output that we see as, e.g., animated Minions, is an emergent phenomenon of the programmed interaction between hardware components.<br /> <br /> Brain &lt;--&gt; Hardware :: Mind &lt;--&gt; Software<br /> <br /> ''Simulation of Consciousness:''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As mentioned in the earlier Wiki post, simulation of consciousness can be achieved by using Minsky's breakdown. Tentative plan: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Implement the various properties of consciousness in agents &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Use a simplified model of language, which can be used by the agents to express their thoughts, ideas, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - It seems like there are lots of things about consciousness which we only perceive because we can either observe them expressed in language, or facial expression, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - If we really want to see whether the agents are thinking or not, and what emotions they have, we have to have multiple agents that learn different things and should therefore have different sorts of emotions; even for similar situations perhaps. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - We can then compare the different situations and emotions to see if there is enough evidence for consciousness. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Try to come up with a model that is as simple as possible<br /> <br /> ''Potential Issues:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Natural language processing is a hard computational problem. It may not be possible to get as much out of a simulation as we'd like, simply because we run into issues of compute power.<br /> - Gödel's incompleteness Theorems. There are truths that we cannot prove mathematically. Perhaps there is something about consciousness that is inherently quantum mechanical, and cannot be expressed using classical computation.<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information in order to span biological and artificial contexts alike, an idea also facilitated by other sections of this article. <br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:20140622_Consciousness.docx]]<br /> <br /> = Consciousness Workshop Summary 18th Jun 2014 =<br /> This report outlines the key questions we wish to answer and some basic framing of how consciousness may be considered . . . . &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:consciousness V1.0.pdf]]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54999 2014-06-23T02:19:52Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> One comic = 1000 words. [http://xkcd.com/1037/ UMWELT]<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> '''Post-workshop updates'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Luckily, I found a review paper that describes what the most prominent AI researchers think about consciousness. Here's the paper[http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/papers/conscioushb.pdf]. Summary: &quot;The idea in a nutshell is that ''phenomenal consciousness'' is the property a computational system X has if X models itself as experiencing things.&quot;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''My Thoughts'''<br /> <br /> '''The &quot;Mind -- Software&quot; analogy:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> ''Hypothesis:'' Mind emerges from the Brain, i.e., the interactions between neurons and glia. We know that a neural network is a universal computer, and the assumption here is that the computation is expressed as a neural network. So we look only at this level, and assume that the underlying molecular mechanisms provide the medium for computation.<br /> ''Explanation:'' Think of the brain as hardware made out of Neurons, Glia, and other stuff. Essentially, the brain is a ''network''. The network ''structure'' is how the components are interconnected. ''Dynamics'' on this network are defined as the interactions between the massive number of components. Mind (and as a result consciousness) is a ''function'' of this network. So the brain is a network that does computation.<br /> <br /> In a computer, the hardware is the microprocessor, memory, etc. All the high-level software output that we see as, e.g., animated Minions, is an emergent phenomenon of the programmed interaction between hardware components.<br /> <br /> Brain &lt;--&gt; Hardware :: Mind &lt;--&gt; Software<br /> <br /> ''Simulation of Consciousness:''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As mentioned in the earlier Wiki post, simulation of consciousness can be achieved by using Minsky's breakdown. Tentative plan: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Implement the various properties of consciousness in agents &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Use a simplified model of language, which can be used by the agents to express their thoughts, ideas, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - It seems like there are lots of things about consciousness which we only perceive because we can either observe them expressed in language, or facial expression, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - If we really want to see whether the agents are thinking or not, and what emotions they have, we have to have multiple agents that learn different things and should therefore have different sorts of emotions; even for similar situations perhaps. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - We can then compare the different situations and emotions to see if there is enough evidence for consciousness. &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Try to come up with a model that is as simple as possible<br /> <br /> ''Potential Issues:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Natural language processing is a hard computational problem. It may not be possible to get as much out of a simulation as we'd like, simply because we run into issues of compute power.<br /> - Gödel's incompleteness Theorems. There are truths that we cannot prove mathematically. Perhaps there is something about consciousness that is inherently quantum mechanical, and cannot be expressed using classical computation.<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> [[File:20140622_Consciousness.docx]]<br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information in order to span biological and artificial contexts alike, an idea also facilitated by other sections of this article. <br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> = Consciousness Workshop Summary 18th Jun 2014 =<br /> This report outlines the key questions we wish to answer and some basic framing of how consciousness may be considered . . . . &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:consciousness V1.0.pdf]]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-TShirts&diff=54823 2014-06-19T14:24:22Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Shirt 6 */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> Every year we have a T-shirt design contest, where CSSS Students create designs (relevant to the summer school) and during the end of the second week we vote on the one we will print and distribute to the cohort. Please post your T-shirt design below. The design will be printed on a single colored T-shirt (keep in mind which color T-shirt you would like to print on while planning your design). The print that will go on the T-shirt is limited to a two color back and a one color front. <br /> <br /> '''Designs will be voted on June 19'''<br /> <br /> Have fun and be creative! '''Do note that T-shirts need to be limited to two solid colors, so things like color scaling will not work well because of the screen printing process. If you would like a high-resolution .PSD file, please see JP'''<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 1==<br /> <br /> Yellow Shirt&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blue and Red Colors -- just scale my faulty artwork to the full colors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Front&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:Frontforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Back&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:backforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 2==<br /> <br /> I'm not a designer...<br /> <br /> But I propose a TShirt with the &quot;I love complexity&quot; of last year in the front (with 'love' as a fractal part)<br /> <br /> And in the back a huge network where each one of us is a node and the links could be the group projects collaborations... or the countries we are from... or something else... :)<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 3==<br /> <br /> By Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:quaozhifront.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 4==<br /> <br /> By Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This presentation shows a front of shirt &quot;message&quot; and three options for the back of the t-shirt.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Complexity_T_Shirt2.ppt]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 5==<br /> <br /> By Massimo, Francesca, Leto, Jose, Sanja and Flavia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The front is a motto with a network version of the SFI logo. The back contains a tag cloud with our interests from the 1 min presentation (the bigger the words the more frequent our interests).<br /> Further improvements and suggestions are more than welcome!<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Fronte.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Retro.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Could we add the word 'city' ? :D Otherwise it's perfect ! ;) Claire<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Shirt 6==<br /> <br /> The front of this proposed t-shirt is an image of a Lorenz Attractor, while the upperback reads &quot;Santa Fe Institute -- 2014 Complex Systems Summer School&quot;.<br /> Alternatively, this could also be placed in small font on the front side of the t-shirt, and we could be leave the back blank. <br /> <br /> There are two options for the t-shirt color--grey and green, as seen below.<br /> <br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (front)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (back)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (front)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (back)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 7==<br /> <br /> It is inspired by the circular gene tree in Professor Wagner's lecture:&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Lecturefigure.jpg|150px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This is just a draft drawn by hand, and it has not finished yet, but I have to upload it before the deadline.&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:TshirtFront.png|450px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> The dark lines and dots look like letters &quot;C&quot; and &quot;S&quot; (if you take off your glasses and look at a distance :) ). With the &quot;S&quot; in &quot;Summer&quot; and the &quot;S&quot; in &quot;School&quot; (backside), they show &quot;CSSS&quot;.&lt;br&gt;<br /> The gray torus should be the names of the universities from where all of us and teachers come from. They should be displayed in the same way as the circular gene tree. I've not finished, so just use the gray torus to represent.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The back is obvious.&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Tshirtback.png|450px]]&lt;br&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-TShirts&diff=54808 2014-06-19T06:08:39Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Shirt 6 */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> Every year we have a T-shirt design contest, where CSSS Students create designs (relevant to the summer school) and during the end of the second week we vote on the one we will print and distribute to the cohort. Please post your T-shirt design below. The design will be printed on a single colored T-shirt (keep in mind which color T-shirt you would like to print on while planning your design). The print that will go on the T-shirt is limited to a two color back and a one color front. <br /> <br /> '''Designs will be voted on June 19'''<br /> <br /> Have fun and be creative! '''Do note that T-shirts need to be limited to two solid colors, so things like color scaling will not work well because of the screen printing process. If you would like a high-resolution .PSD file, please see JP'''<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 1==<br /> <br /> Yellow Shirt&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blue and Red Colors -- just scale my faulty artwork to the full colors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Front&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:Frontforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Back&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:backforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 2==<br /> <br /> I'm not a designer...<br /> <br /> But I propose a TShirt with the &quot;I love complexity&quot; of last year in the front (with 'love' as a fractal part)<br /> <br /> And in the back a huge network where each one of us is a node and the links could be the group projects collaborations... or the countries we are from... or something else... :)<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 3==<br /> <br /> By Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:quaozhifront.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 4==<br /> <br /> By Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This presentation shows a front of shirt &quot;message&quot; and three options for the back of the t-shirt.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Complexity_T_Shirt2.ppt]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 5==<br /> <br /> By Massimo, Francesca, Leto, Jose, Sanja and Flavia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The front is a motto with a network version of the SFI logo. The back contains a tag cloud with our interests from the 1 min presentation (the bigger the words the more frequent our interests).<br /> Further improvements and suggestions are more than welcome!<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Fronte.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Retro.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Could we add the word 'city' ? :D Otherwise it's perfect ! ;) Claire<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Shirt 6==<br /> <br /> The front of this proposed t-shirt is an image of a Lorenz Attractor, while the upperback reads &quot;Santa Fe Institute -- 2014 Complex Systems Summer School&quot;.<br /> There are two options for the t-shirt color--grey and green, as seen below.<br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (front)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (back)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (front)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (back)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-TShirts&diff=54807 2014-06-19T05:46:38Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Shirt 6 */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> Every year we have a T-shirt design contest, where CSSS Students create designs (relevant to the summer school) and during the end of the second week we vote on the one we will print and distribute to the cohort. Please post your T-shirt design below. The design will be printed on a single colored T-shirt (keep in mind which color T-shirt you would like to print on while planning your design). The print that will go on the T-shirt is limited to a two color back and a one color front. <br /> <br /> '''Designs will be voted on June 19'''<br /> <br /> Have fun and be creative! '''Do note that T-shirts need to be limited to two solid colors, so things like color scaling will not work well because of the screen printing process. If you would like a high-resolution .PSD file, please see JP'''<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 1==<br /> <br /> Yellow Shirt&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blue and Red Colors -- just scale my faulty artwork to the full colors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Front&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:Frontforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Back&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:backforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 2==<br /> <br /> I'm not a designer...<br /> <br /> But I propose a TShirt with the &quot;I love complexity&quot; of last year in the front (with 'love' as a fractal part)<br /> <br /> And in the back a huge network where each one of us is a node and the links could be the group projects collaborations... or the countries we are from... or something else... :)<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 3==<br /> <br /> By Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:quaozhifront.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 4==<br /> <br /> By Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This presentation shows a front of shirt &quot;message&quot; and three options for the back of the t-shirt.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Complexity_T_Shirt2.ppt]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 5==<br /> <br /> By Massimo, Francesca, Leto, Jose, Sanja and Flavia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The front is a motto with a network version of the SFI logo. The back contains a tag cloud with our interests from the 1 min presentation (the bigger the words the more frequent our interests).<br /> Further improvements and suggestions are more than welcome!<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Fronte.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Retro.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Could we add the word 'city' ? :D Otherwise it's perfect ! ;) Claire<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Shirt 6==<br /> <br /> The front of this proposed t-shirt is an image of a Lorenz Attractor, while the upperback reads &quot;Santa Fe Institute -- 2014 Complex Systems Summer School&quot;.<br /> The shirt would come in two colors (if possible)--grey and green, as seen here.<br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (front)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (back)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (front)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (back)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-TShirts&diff=54806 2014-06-19T05:46:02Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Shirt 6 */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> Every year we have a T-shirt design contest, where CSSS Students create designs (relevant to the summer school) and during the end of the second week we vote on the one we will print and distribute to the cohort. Please post your T-shirt design below. The design will be printed on a single colored T-shirt (keep in mind which color T-shirt you would like to print on while planning your design). The print that will go on the T-shirt is limited to a two color back and a one color front. <br /> <br /> '''Designs will be voted on June 19'''<br /> <br /> Have fun and be creative! '''Do note that T-shirts need to be limited to two solid colors, so things like color scaling will not work well because of the screen printing process. If you would like a high-resolution .PSD file, please see JP'''<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 1==<br /> <br /> Yellow Shirt&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blue and Red Colors -- just scale my faulty artwork to the full colors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Front&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:Frontforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Back&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:backforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 2==<br /> <br /> I'm not a designer...<br /> <br /> But I propose a TShirt with the &quot;I love complexity&quot; of last year in the front (with 'love' as a fractal part)<br /> <br /> And in the back a huge network where each one of us is a node and the links could be the group projects collaborations... or the countries we are from... or something else... :)<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 3==<br /> <br /> By Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:quaozhifront.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 4==<br /> <br /> By Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This presentation shows a front of shirt &quot;message&quot; and three options for the back of the t-shirt.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Complexity_T_Shirt2.ppt]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 5==<br /> <br /> By Massimo, Francesca, Leto, Jose, Sanja and Flavia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The front is a motto with a network version of the SFI logo. The back contains a tag cloud with our interests from the 1 min presentation (the bigger the words the more frequent our interests).<br /> Further improvements and suggestions are more than welcome!<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Fronte.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Retro.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Could we add the word 'city' ? :D Otherwise it's perfect ! ;) Claire<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Shirt 6==<br /> <br /> The front is the Lorenz Attractor Image, while the upperback reads &quot;Santa Fe Institute -- 2014 Complex Systems Summer School&quot;.<br /> The shirt would come in two colors (if possible)--gray and green, as seen here.<br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (front)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (back)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (front)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (back)&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-TShirts&diff=54805 2014-06-19T05:43:46Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Shirt 6 */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> Every year we have a T-shirt design contest, where CSSS Students create designs (relevant to the summer school) and during the end of the second week we vote on the one we will print and distribute to the cohort. Please post your T-shirt design below. The design will be printed on a single colored T-shirt (keep in mind which color T-shirt you would like to print on while planning your design). The print that will go on the T-shirt is limited to a two color back and a one color front. <br /> <br /> '''Designs will be voted on June 19'''<br /> <br /> Have fun and be creative! '''Do note that T-shirts need to be limited to two solid colors, so things like color scaling will not work well because of the screen printing process. If you would like a high-resolution .PSD file, please see JP'''<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 1==<br /> <br /> Yellow Shirt&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blue and Red Colors -- just scale my faulty artwork to the full colors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Front&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:Frontforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Back&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:backforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 2==<br /> <br /> I'm not a designer...<br /> <br /> But I propose a TShirt with the &quot;I love complexity&quot; of last year in the front (with 'love' as a fractal part)<br /> <br /> And in the back a huge network where each one of us is a node and the links could be the group projects collaborations... or the countries we are from... or something else... :)<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 3==<br /> <br /> By Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:quaozhifront.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 4==<br /> <br /> By Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This presentation shows a front of shirt &quot;message&quot; and three options for the back of the t-shirt.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Complexity_T_Shirt2.ppt]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 5==<br /> <br /> By Massimo, Francesca, Leto, Jose, Sanja and Flavia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The front is a motto with a network version of the SFI logo. The back contains a tag cloud with our interests from the 1 min presentation (the bigger the words the more frequent our interests).<br /> Further improvements and suggestions are more than welcome!<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Fronte.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Retro.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Could we add the word 'city' ? :D Otherwise it's perfect ! ;) Claire<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Shirt 6==<br /> <br /> The front is the Lorenz Attractor Image, while the upperback reads &quot;Santa Fe Institute -- 2014 Complex Systems Summer School&quot;.<br /> The shirt would come in two colors (if possible)--gray and green, as seen here.<br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (front)<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Grey T-shirt (back)<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (front)<br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Green T-shirt (back)<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-TShirts&diff=54804 2014-06-19T05:41:39Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Shirt 6 */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> Every year we have a T-shirt design contest, where CSSS Students create designs (relevant to the summer school) and during the end of the second week we vote on the one we will print and distribute to the cohort. Please post your T-shirt design below. The design will be printed on a single colored T-shirt (keep in mind which color T-shirt you would like to print on while planning your design). The print that will go on the T-shirt is limited to a two color back and a one color front. <br /> <br /> '''Designs will be voted on June 19'''<br /> <br /> Have fun and be creative! '''Do note that T-shirts need to be limited to two solid colors, so things like color scaling will not work well because of the screen printing process. If you would like a high-resolution .PSD file, please see JP'''<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 1==<br /> <br /> Yellow Shirt&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blue and Red Colors -- just scale my faulty artwork to the full colors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Front&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:Frontforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Back&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:backforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 2==<br /> <br /> I'm not a designer...<br /> <br /> But I propose a TShirt with the &quot;I love complexity&quot; of last year in the front (with 'love' as a fractal part)<br /> <br /> And in the back a huge network where each one of us is a node and the links could be the group projects collaborations... or the countries we are from... or something else... :)<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 3==<br /> <br /> By Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:quaozhifront.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 4==<br /> <br /> By Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This presentation shows a front of shirt &quot;message&quot; and three options for the back of the t-shirt.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Complexity_T_Shirt2.ppt]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 5==<br /> <br /> By Massimo, Francesca, Leto, Jose, Sanja and Flavia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The front is a motto with a network version of the SFI logo. The back contains a tag cloud with our interests from the 1 min presentation (the bigger the words the more frequent our interests).<br /> Further improvements and suggestions are more than welcome!<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Fronte.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Retro.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Could we add the word 'city' ? :D Otherwise it's perfect ! ;) Claire<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Shirt 6==<br /> <br /> The front is the Lorenz Attractor Image, while the upperback reads &quot;Santa Fe Institute -- 2014 Complex Systems Summer School&quot;.<br /> The shirt would come in two colors (if possible)--gray and green, as seen here.<br /> <br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Green.jpg&diff=54803 2014-06-19T05:39:28Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Grey.jpg&diff=54802 2014-06-19T05:38:58Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-TShirts&diff=54801 2014-06-19T05:36:24Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> Every year we have a T-shirt design contest, where CSSS Students create designs (relevant to the summer school) and during the end of the second week we vote on the one we will print and distribute to the cohort. Please post your T-shirt design below. The design will be printed on a single colored T-shirt (keep in mind which color T-shirt you would like to print on while planning your design). The print that will go on the T-shirt is limited to a two color back and a one color front. <br /> <br /> '''Designs will be voted on June 19'''<br /> <br /> Have fun and be creative! '''Do note that T-shirts need to be limited to two solid colors, so things like color scaling will not work well because of the screen printing process. If you would like a high-resolution .PSD file, please see JP'''<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 1==<br /> <br /> Yellow Shirt&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blue and Red Colors -- just scale my faulty artwork to the full colors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Front&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:Frontforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Back&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:backforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 2==<br /> <br /> I'm not a designer...<br /> <br /> But I propose a TShirt with the &quot;I love complexity&quot; of last year in the front (with 'love' as a fractal part)<br /> <br /> And in the back a huge network where each one of us is a node and the links could be the group projects collaborations... or the countries we are from... or something else... :)<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 3==<br /> <br /> By Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:quaozhifront.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 4==<br /> <br /> By Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This presentation shows a front of shirt &quot;message&quot; and three options for the back of the t-shirt.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Complexity_T_Shirt2.ppt]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 5==<br /> <br /> By Massimo, Francesca, Leto, Jose, Sanja and Flavia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The front is a motto with a network version of the SFI logo. The back contains a tag cloud with our interests from the 1 min presentation (the bigger the words the more frequent our interests).<br /> Further improvements and suggestions are more than welcome!<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Fronte.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Retro.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Could we add the word 'city' ? :D Otherwise it's perfect ! ;) Claire<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Shirt 6==<br /> <br /> The front is the Lorenz Attractor Image, while the upperback reads &quot;Santa Fe Institute -- 2014 Complex Systems Summer School&quot;.<br /> The shirt would come in two colors (if possible)--gray and green, as seen here.<br /> <br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-TShirts&diff=54800 2014-06-19T05:34:43Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Shirt 6 */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> Every year we have a T-shirt design contest, where CSSS Students create designs (relevant to the summer school) and during the end of the second week we vote on the one we will print and distribute to the cohort. Please post your T-shirt design below. The design will be printed on a single colored T-shirt (keep in mind which color T-shirt you would like to print on while planning your design). The print that will go on the T-shirt is limited to a two color back and a one color front. <br /> <br /> '''Designs will be voted on June 19'''<br /> <br /> Have fun and be creative! '''Do note that T-shirts need to be limited to two solid colors, so things like color scaling will not work well because of the screen printing process. If you would like a high-resolution .PSD file, please see JP'''<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 1==<br /> <br /> Yellow Shirt&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blue and Red Colors -- just scale my faulty artwork to the full colors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Front&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:Frontforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Back&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:backforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 2==<br /> <br /> I'm not a designer...<br /> <br /> But I propose a TShirt with the &quot;I love complexity&quot; of last year in the front (with 'love' as a fractal part)<br /> <br /> And in the back a huge network where each one of us is a node and the links could be the group projects collaborations... or the countries we are from... or something else... :)<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 3==<br /> <br /> By Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:quaozhifront.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 4==<br /> <br /> By Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This presentation shows a front of shirt &quot;message&quot; and three options for the back of the t-shirt.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Complexity_T_Shirt2.ppt]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 5==<br /> <br /> By Massimo, Francesca, Leto, Jose, Sanja and Flavia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The front is a motto with a network version of the SFI logo. The back contains a tag cloud with our interests from the 1 min presentation (the bigger the words the more frequent our interests).<br /> Further improvements and suggestions are more than welcome!<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Fronte.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Retro.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Could we add the word 'city' ? :D Otherwise it's perfect ! ;) Claire</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-TShirts&diff=54799 2014-06-19T05:32:05Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> Every year we have a T-shirt design contest, where CSSS Students create designs (relevant to the summer school) and during the end of the second week we vote on the one we will print and distribute to the cohort. Please post your T-shirt design below. The design will be printed on a single colored T-shirt (keep in mind which color T-shirt you would like to print on while planning your design). The print that will go on the T-shirt is limited to a two color back and a one color front. <br /> <br /> '''Designs will be voted on June 19'''<br /> <br /> Have fun and be creative! '''Do note that T-shirts need to be limited to two solid colors, so things like color scaling will not work well because of the screen printing process. If you would like a high-resolution .PSD file, please see JP'''<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 1==<br /> <br /> Yellow Shirt&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blue and Red Colors -- just scale my faulty artwork to the full colors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Front&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:Frontforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Back&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:backforholdener.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 2==<br /> <br /> I'm not a designer...<br /> <br /> But I propose a TShirt with the &quot;I love complexity&quot; of last year in the front (with 'love' as a fractal part)<br /> <br /> And in the back a huge network where each one of us is a node and the links could be the group projects collaborations... or the countries we are from... or something else... :)<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 3==<br /> <br /> By Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[Image:quaozhifront.jpg|450px|{border}]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 4==<br /> <br /> By Matthew Ayres&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> This presentation shows a front of shirt &quot;message&quot; and three options for the back of the t-shirt.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Complexity_T_Shirt2.ppt]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Shirt 5==<br /> <br /> By Massimo, Francesca, Leto, Jose, Sanja and Flavia&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The front is a motto with a network version of the SFI logo. The back contains a tag cloud with our interests from the 1 min presentation (the bigger the words the more frequent our interests).<br /> Further improvements and suggestions are more than welcome!<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Fronte.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:Retro.jpg|600px]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Could we add the word 'city' ? :D Otherwise it's perfect ! ;) Claire<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Shirt 6==<br /> <br /> The front is the Lorenz Attractor Image, while the upperback reads &quot;Santa Fe Institute -- 2014 Complex Systems Summer School&quot;.<br /> The shirt would come in two colors (if possible)--gray and green, as seen here.<br /> <br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Grey.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [[File:CSSS_Title_UpperBack_Green.jpg]]&lt;br&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Green.jpg&diff=54798 2014-06-19T05:30:53Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=File:CSSS_LorenzAttractor_Front_Grey.jpg&diff=54797 2014-06-19T05:25:27Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54535 2014-06-17T07:24:44Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness.'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information in order to span biological and artificial contexts alike, an idea also facilitated by other sections of this article.</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54534 2014-06-17T07:24:32Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information in order to span biological and artificial contexts alike, an idea also facilitated by other sections of this article.</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54533 2014-06-17T07:23:26Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information to span biological and artificial contexts alike, along with other aspects of his article.</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54532 2014-06-17T07:21:52Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this, I am not limiting my understanding of life to a strictly bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information to think about consciousness in biological and artificial contexts alike, along with other aspects of his article.</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54531 2014-06-17T07:21:32Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. By stating this I am not strictly limiting my understanding of life to a bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information to think about consciousness in biological and artificial contexts alike, along with other aspects of his article.</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54530 2014-06-17T07:21:12Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. I am not limiting my understanding of life to a bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information to think about consciousness in biological and artificial contexts alike, along with other aspects of his article.</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54529 2014-06-17T07:21:04Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. I am not limiting my understanding of life to a limiting bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information to think about consciousness in biological and artificial contexts alike, along with other aspects of his article.</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54528 2014-06-17T07:20:35Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Ana María Gómez López */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> As I mentioned in our last disccusion, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. I do not understand life as a limiting bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information to think about consciousness in biological and artificial contexts alike, along with other aspects of his article.</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Emergence_of_Consciousness_Page&diff=54527 2014-06-17T07:16:39Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Perspective Summaries */</p> <hr /> <div>I created this page to share and discuss our models for the emergence of consciousness from matter. Please share your models and add discussion so we can all see and think about it. We will use this page in the end to write up a summary and hopefully compare and contrast the models and discuss what properties of consciousness can be explained by what model.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Alireza<br /> <br /> <br /> =Working Ideas=<br /> <br /> == (1) Consciousness as Hyper Attractors of Brain (Alireza)==<br /> In this schema states of our mind/consciousness as attractors of the dynamics that arise from our brain. We receive sensory information that act as perturbations pushing the trajectory out of a basin of attractor and into a new basin.<br /> <br /> [[File:photo.png | 500px|center]]<br /> <br /> == (2) Reference! Tegmark - The fourth state of matter =<br /> This can be an interesting starting point... at least one perspective on the topic http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf Sarah<br /> <br /> =Perspective Summaries=<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> ==Consciousness Table==<br /> I thought that it might be useful to attempt to organize our understandings of consciousness in a table—perhaps to make clear where and whether a consensus emerges on the nature of the phenomena that we are investigating. <br /> <br /> I offer here an idiosyncratic table that I find useful to organize my thoughts on this topic. Feel free to add/reorganize categories and qualify entries in the notes below.<br /> Or better yet...can we come up with a simpler table that captures the typical properties that consciousness is thought to have or not have. <br /> &lt;br&gt;--john balwit<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Property&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Yes &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;No&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;NA &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires matter&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Exclusive property of biological systems&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; Has parts &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Admits of gradations or degree&lt;BR&gt; (continuous or discrete) <br /> &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Likely to be artificial created in the AI lab &lt;td&gt; x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Intrinsically paradoxical research area.<br /> (involves strange loopy-ness Gödel, Turing) &lt;td&gt; ? ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with external environment (perception?) &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Requires interaction with internal environment (reflection?) &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; x x &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embodied (result of sensor interactions, hormonal environment etc.) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt; <br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Necessarily Embedded (result of large scale system interactions) &lt;td&gt; x x&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Deterministic system with stochastic inputs. &lt;td&gt; x ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;Relies on quantum things that I do/do not understand &lt;td&gt; ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;?&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Defined by its ineffability, will always recede from scientific apprehension. &lt;td&gt; ? ? &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt; Encodes history (requires memory, genes) &lt;td&gt; x ?&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt; &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;<br /> &lt;/table&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt; Notes: &lt;/b&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;I've added some ticks.. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Sean Hayes==<br /> <br /> [http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html The Hard Problem of Consciousness]<br /> :This paper makes the important distinction between the 'easy' and 'hard' problems of consciousness in relative terms. I think it would be useful to use this framework to focus the precise problems we're investigating around consciousness.&lt;br&gt;<br /> My definition for consciousness at it's simplest form is just having subjective experience. While some of the discussion this afternoon touched on integrative brain problems (which falls under 'easy' problems of consciousness in the above, as a way to describe issues of cognition), my question is whether this property of consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. While this is difficult to address objectively, I think it can be approached from our perspectives by comparing consciousness with other emergent phenomena.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The big question that I've been trying to resolve myself along this line of thinking is related to the 'binding problem' ([http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/8/8d/Revonsuo_and_Newman_1999_-_Binding_and_Consciousness.pdf 1],[http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/images/3/37/Revonsuo_1999_-_Binding_and_the_Phenomenal_Unity_of_Consciousness.pdf 2]). I'm probably bastardizing the definition a bit, but essentially the issue is conscious experience is not a distributed phenomenon but rather that experience is inherently singular - to me this is entirely distinct from emergence, which is inherently a distributed feature of a complex system. Moreover, our conscious experience not only receives input from the complex, distributed network of our brain, but itself can cause changes in brain behavior and function. Is this actually an emergent phenomenon, or the concentration of information into a centralized control (our subjective experience)? Are there characteristics of subjective experience which do act the way we expect emergent phenomena to behave?<br /> <br /> ==Cole Mathis==<br /> I think that consciousness is an Emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions occurring in my brain. The difficulty in understanding the dynamics and/or the origin of consciousness is (in my opinion) the hard problem in emergence: how can macroscopic features of the system have causal control of the microscopic degrees of freedom? One of the canonical examples of emergent phenomena is the emergence of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics. Here the behavior of a system with many degrees of freedom (an ideal gas) can be effectively represented using bulk (emergent) variables (temperature, pressure, volume, etc.) This example is great but it says nothing about the flow of information in the system or the casual direction. For example consider a box of an ideal gas, if I hold the volume constant and heat this box, the pressure will go up. An increase in pressure on the macro scale corresponds to an increase in the average speed of the particles on the microscopic scale, however we do not say that the increased pressure caused the increase in the average speed (although we might say that the increase of the average translational kinetic energy caused the increase in pressure). In this system the causal arrow points only from the micro-scale to the macro-scale. With consciousness we have exactly the opposite situation. If the state of my neurons are the microscopic state variables and my conscious thoughts are the macroscopic variables, then when I think about typing, the macroscopic variables configure the microscopic variables in just the right way to send signals down to fingers, my fingers didn’t start typing and then cause my brain to think about typing (I hope.) So here the causal direction is reversed. How did this reversal/ asymmetry arise and how can we generalize this notion?<br /> [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1314922110.full.pdf Quantifying Casual Emergence shows macro can beat micro]<br /> <br /> ==Claire Lagesse==<br /> <br /> Here are some ideas about my personal experiment of what consciousness could be...<br /> There is no reference but just some thinking from what I learned. I don't deal with consciousness in my every day work but as a conscious human being I experiment it every day ! :)<br /> I'm really sorry for my french-english !<br /> <br /> What is consciousness ? Where does it starts ? Where does it ends ? Are we conscious of the sun on our skin, of the wind, of our breathe, of our position, of the temperature, of all the elements surrounding us ? Does the consciousness start with a 'me' ? A dissociation of the external world from our body ? Then, what are the limits of our body ? Is the hair just fallen a part of 'me' ? What about my legs ? They are a part of my body, but if one is cut of it won't be 'me' any more. So maybe we could define our 'me' as the living part of our body. So, for people with a Locked Inside Syndrome their 'me' can be the minimal part of their body alive : their brain. That's maybe why the analogy is often made between the brain and consciousness : it is considered as the minimal part of our body which has to be alive for a 'me' still existing. Even our heart can be replace by a machine.<br /> <br /> If we define consciousness with a 'me' apart from the surrounding world, it could be problematic for some persons with mental disease. What about autism ? In some cases, persons with a major autistic trouble cannot make the difference between their own body and the world surrounding them. Can we say they are not conscious ? That sounds a little extreme.<br /> <br /> Could we extend consciousness to each living organism ? Is a plant conscious ? Plants are moving all day long, but at a different time scale than ours. They are moving with the sun, with the wind... Does it means they are conscious of them or could we just see it as a action / reaction mechanism ? It goes the same way for some animals. Is the jellyfish conscious of its moves with waves ? Is the shell conscious ? Is the frog conscious ? Each animal is responding to its physiological needs : feed, security and reproduction. Feed goes with a body, security goes with a surrounding (potentially dangerous) and reproduction goes with finding and interacting with another animal of my own specie.<br /> <br /> Could we consider those behaviors as conscious ? What are the limits of this hypothesis ? It is possible to program a robot to find food, make itself secure and make sure to reproduce the sooner it can. But it won't be conscious those behaviors are for its own survival and its specie one. But can we say that animals are conscious of it ?<br /> <br /> Thinking about artificial intelligence, one could say that consciousness begin with feelings, and a computer is not able to feel anything. Happiness, sadness, love, hate, if we look closely they all have a chemical reaction as an origin. The mystery could be what produce this chemical reaction.<br /> <br /> Ants or bees have great collective behavior. They form a fascinating system with some extremely complex emerging properties. But it is not sure that each ant, each bee, is conscious it is taking part in a complex system. It is more about a robust collective intelligence than about consciousness. However, in an anthill 20% of ants are not doing anything. What is this 'useless' time for ? Are the ants conscious of this free time ? Is this demonstrating something about a system we are judging as hyper efficient ?<br /> <br /> A third idea could be the knowledge that our consciousness is limited in the time. As human beings, we are conscious that we will die some day. So we develop some cults and funeral rite. Could it be a 'proof' of consciousness ? This way of thinking may exclude a lot of animals of consciousness.<br /> <br /> One could ask the difference between consciousness and intelligence. Can an artificial intelligence be conscious ? Is consciousness recognizable by feelings, non efficient time or the simple fact to name it ? Could we say that consciousness is the amount of things linked to our body that we are not able to scientifically explain ? Does the consciousness define the 'me' out of my body limits ? And so what about all the unconscious things I do every day ? Breathe, blink, dream... Is it about the will of doing something more than in the fact of doing it ? Are we defined by our body, our will or our acts ? Is the consciousness the fact to ask ourselves about consciousness ?<br /> <br /> <br /> ==John Balwit ==<br /> <br /> Definitions matter. Definitions create boundaries around elements of a system that we attempt to model and understand. Definitions also create a background of implicit assumptions that are necessarily less well examined. Definitions of consciousness are perhaps inherent circular, the definitions “import” themselves into their own definition. For example, let’s start to build a definition of consciousness It makes sense to reflect for a moment on the ever present phenomena of consciousness and begin with “I feel the warm sun on my cheek. … etc. “ Already we have made assumptions which may prove to be missteps. There is clearly some connection between consciousness and the personal pronouns that we use to label our identity—the locus of our perception. This may be one of the key things that we hope to understand as we attempt to understand consciousness. In this respect, It appears that even Descartes choose a starting point that was well down the road—got ahead of himself. “I think therefore I am” is no philosophical atom. * A second problem in the “reflective” exercise above is the implicit assumption that “pausing to reflect” give clearer access to the phenomena of consciousness. It might be the case (and I happen to believe that it is the case) that this particular kind of introspection obscures a more general apprehension of the phenomena that we are interested in understanding.<br /> <br /> Disciplines matter too. Our understandings are necessarily informed by our experience. Our disciplines provide us with tools and models of various systems that build our intuitions in different ways. I study evolutionary biology, systems, models and have affinities for the philosophical position in cognitive science called Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The ECC theoretical position is critical of the classical cognitivist approach which relies on a mechanistic “internal representation”. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;&lt;p&gt;My definition of consciousness is something like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Some (perhaps all) evolved systems perceive and respond to an environment. This is a property of matter, energy, and the properties of the systems as they are arranged in space. Slowly driven systems far from equilibrium (biological systems, perhaps others) have an opportunity to create “perceptual, modeling subsystems” that generate models of the world that may “run faster” than the physical system in which they are embedded and therefore serve adaptive, predictive functions. The chemical systems of plants have these property, language systems used by humans also have this property. My discipline suggests that the models that these subsystems generate are instances of consciousness. <br /> <br /> Now consider the parts of these models? These models are not strictly localized within the modeling subsystem, rather they involve relationships between the environment and the modeling subsystem and can be thought to “hover” immaterially between the subsystem. Practitioners of various meditation practices frequently observe this “untethered” property of consciousness. In the philosophical literature there are colorful “brain in a vat” and “philosophical zombie” thought experiments which make a compelling case that consciousness is property of not just the matter in our modeling subsystems but of all matter that participates in those relationships. This “embedded” aspect of consciousness holds that the interplay between the world and the modeling system introduce important constraints that influence the content or character of consciousness-i.e. there is no general consciousness.<br /> <br /> The “embodied” aspect of consciousness refers to the observation that modeling subsystems have an “internal milieu” which deeply “colors” the behavior or characteristics of consciousness <br /> <br /> My discipline (and my temperament) value precision and rigor. There are established ways to bring rigor to various domains of study. However, it is not immediately clear to me how to make falsifiable claims; to generate testable hypotheses in the area of consciousness. I would like to be able to do this. Using AI and a generative science is an interesting but not, I would say, promising approach. As we create ever more sensitive, and responsive technology we will almost certainly encounter more cases that we are likely to consider as “marginal cases” of consciousness In the event that we do create the “paradigm case” of consciousness – an AI like to one in the movie “Her”-- it is still not clear that we will gain understanding into the nature of consciousness from this system. Our success will ironically be revealed in the inaccessibility of the states that the AI will claim to have. <br /> <br /> Finally, a few words on mystery and the ineffable: Part of the motivation for research in the area of consciousness lies in the surprising observation that electro-chemical systems like ourselves give rise to the beautiful, vivid, textured, emotionally-tinged, riddled-with-longing, plagued-with-ambition, haunted-by-death and, oh yes, “is that sunshine on my cheek” kind of experiences that characterize one’s own experience. <br /> There is a striking incongruity between the processes that we imagine are taking place at the “lowest levels”. My intuitive reaction to this is that we just don’t understand physics and chemical reactions very well. Our theories and our mathematics are cartoon sketches. We are justifiably impressed with ourselves for the progress made but the notion that “all is known” stands now, as always, as the principle barrier to greater understanding. For most of human history animism has been taken for granted. The Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the western scientific world view that these modes of thought gave rise to (and in which we happily participate) changed all that by creating zero order approximations that made certain things evident but obscured others. I am persuaded by some of Stuart Kaufmann’s work in this area and feel that as our understanding of the properties that are inherent in matter, energy and the long histories that are encoded in their arrangement in time and space –as our understanding of these things grow we will increasing come to feel “at home in the universe.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *Cogito ergo sum seems to work for many folks, but, personally, I rarely think. I spend most of my time reacting and as much time as possible mountain biking. Furthermore, I also participate in many relationships with family, with my colleagues and with my larger community that make it unclear were my “locus of self” or “locus of control” resides. Maybe it is just “me”. I don’t think so.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Matthew Ayres ==<br /> <br /> Defining Consciousness<br /> <br /> What is it to be conscious? The debate has been running for a long time and is fundamentally tied to our existence, search for order, search for self-understanding and the wider connection to the universe in which we find ourselves. <br /> <br /> 1. Questions to consider<br /> • Are their differing types or forms of consciousness?<br /> • Does consciousness evolve over time?<br /> • Is consciousness actually definable?<br /> • Can consciousness be deconstructed?<br /> • Can consciousness be observed or measured?<br /> <br /> I’m sure there are many more questions and by asking these questions, I’m developing a set of assumptions I’m making in order to offer some form of draft view of consciousness.<br /> <br /> 2. Assumptions<br /> At this stage and by default, to define consciousness, one must believe it is definable and measurable. Ill start with this assumption. Secondly, I will assume there is a universal consciousness, that may be bespoke or have a series of elements in which it comes into being. The time dimension is rather hard so for this stage, ill remain neutral until the work is further developed.<br /> <br /> 3. What may be elements of consciousness?<br /> • Awareness – the understanding of self as an entity<br /> • Intelligence - the ability to make highly complex decisions <br /> • Self-determination - the ability to make choices that may or many not be self-interested <br /> • Thought – the conceptual development of framing that helps interpret life<br /> • Feelings – the rich experiences that inform, influence and integrate with rational thought <br /> • Emergence – the ability to learn and create new thought based on both experience as well as non-learned unique thought.<br /> Clearly this list is too short!<br /> <br /> 4. What is consciousness ‘not’?<br /> In asking this question, I’m attempting to reduce the overall size of the problem by restricting its scope. While this is best used at a collective group level, I’ll offer some initial thoughts:<br /> <br /> Rocks; passive / unaware<br /> Computer software; follows predefined instructions<br /> Plants; limited / [no?] self determinism<br /> <br /> 5. Definition V1.0<br /> Based on the initial thoughts above, a draft definition has been attempted.<br /> <br /> “Consciousness is an adaptive self-awareness that self-determines thoughts and actions in an evolving environment.” <br /> <br /> It already seems clumsy, however is thrown on the cutting room floor for discussion.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Beth Lusczek ==<br /> <br /> I've had some interesting discussions with folks in this group about what could be termed altered states of consciousness. This might be as simple as looking at the world through &quot;baby eyes&quot;, as being in a meditative state, or having flashes of ego death. These experiences could be described as feeling more connected to the world, feeling able to access more information, to integrate thought and emotion, and to see connections instead of walls and divisions. Sometimes this involves altered senses of space and time. These &quot;altered states&quot; are fleeting and can be difficult to recreate in memory. Are these states some inherent property of consciousness? Do they serve a purpose or are they merely part of the human experience? What functional structures are engaged in these states? Are there different signaling patterns? fMRI studies on Buddhist monks can address these last questions.<br /> <br /> ==Stefan Pfenninger==<br /> <br /> I have just three thoughts.<br /> <br /> First, I'm interested in whether consciousness is uniquely human or not. To what extent is it linked to a sense of self? There is lots of evidence that a whole range of animals have a sense of self. We also know that some primates use tools. But there seems to be evidence that some primates come eerily close to &quot;being human&quot;, for example in that they have some sort of understanding of mortality (e.g. see the book, The Bonobo and the Atheist by Frans de Waal [1]). Also worth reading, Michael Pollan has a recent piece in the New Yorker that explores whether plants could be considered intelligent or even conscious [2].<br /> <br /> Second, although it may not help arriving at a fundamental explanation of consciousness, examining how meditation alters consciousness is interesting to me because it is something we can investigate ourselves without needing a lab (although of course you can also try to peak into meditators brains using modern brain imaging).<br /> <br /> Finally, I probably consider myself a materialist, but I wonder whether it will ever be possible to explain consciousness as an emergent property of matter. Even assuming that this is possible in theory, my guess is that we are a very long way from understanding the physical universe well enough to actually do so. Hypotheses like this guy Penrose claiming that quantum vibrations inside neurons have something to do with consciousness [3] don't seem anywhere close to being testable at the moment, but I admit I have no idea what quantum vibrations in neurons mean in the first place (and would be very happy to let somebody explain this to me).<br /> <br /> [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Bonobo-Atheist-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796/<br /> <br /> [2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all<br /> <br /> [3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002<br /> <br /> == Fahad Khalid ==<br /> <br /> &quot;It is not worth asking how to define consciousness, how to explain it, how it evolved, what its function is, etc., because there's not one thing for which all the answers would be the same. Instead, we have many sub-capabilities, for which the answers are different: e.g., different kinds of perception, learning, knowledge, attention, control, self-monitoring, self-control, etc.&quot; --Aaron Sloman (1994)[http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/#whoiam] &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> I'd like to look at this project through the lens of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, i.e., how would one imbue an artificial agent (software agent, robot, etc.) with consciousness? My primary source of information is Marvin Minsky's book &quot;The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind.&quot; [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emotion-Machine-Commonsense-Intelligence/dp/0743276647]. In reference to consciousness, the most important message in this book is that we should realize that consciousness is not just one thing (as is the message in Sloman's quote above). It is a &quot;suitcase word&quot; (as Minsky calls it) that is used to describe several different things. The breakup of consciousness into many parts is available here [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E4/eb4.html].<br /> <br /> The most important aspects of conscious experience to me are Emotions (especially Compassion, Empathy, etc), Self-Awareness, Reflection and Self-Reflection (possibly a few more). I find these phenomena particularly interesting because unlike learning and planning (which we know how to program), how to design the previously mentioned phenomena for artificial agents is not commonly known outside the field of AI. The idea is to think of each of these phenomena as emerging from interactions between micro-agents (e.g., Neurons, Glia, etc.) through various layers of hierarchy. The hierarchical system structure is a fairly common design for intelligent software agents (e.g., simulated ice hockey players) and robots. Such a hierarchical framework, I believe, simplifies design and simplifies our perspective on these complex phenomena.<br /> <br /> Think about how a robot would know where it is, i.e., imagine a robot asking itself, &quot;where am I?&quot;. This is the problem of &quot;Mobile Robot Localization&quot;. We don't even think about having that problem. But for a robot, it is indeed quite a challenging problem. Nevertheless, we now have algorithms that make it possible for mobile robots to navigate rough terrains. But now imagine the robot asking, &quot;who am I&quot;? &quot;why do I exist?&quot; ... those are the questions, in my opinion, the answers to which require the phenomena we aggregate under the wide umbrella of consciousness. Oh, by the way, don't forget how important a role language and expression plays in our conscious experiences as humans.<br /> <br /> To summarize, I'd like to look into the following question: &quot;How does one program a software agent that wonders about its identity, and why it exists? ...&quot;. It would be interesting to see what small modules/tasks (analogous to Neurons/Glia) need to be integrated together to make that happen. Perhaps that will provide us with some insight into the emergence of consciousness?<br /> <br /> == Renske Vroomans ==<br /> Disclaimer: I have no background in philosophy or anything like it. My take on consciousness is probably imprecise at best, incoherent at worst. I decided to restrict myself to my biologically biased view, also without reading the other statements beforehand, so apologies for any redundancy. Here goes...<br /> <br /> Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon, or maybe a sliding scale. The first level is awareness of the environment, being able to take inputs (also from internal stimuli, e.g. neurons reporting injury). At this point, I don't think the system even needs to be able to react to them; it is the awareness that counts. Simple computer programs are already able to do so. The second level is awareness of the fact that you are aware. This layer observes the reception of the stimuli and makes complex calculations as to the correct reaction, taking into account internal state variables and external ones. The next level is the ability of the “brain” to create stimuli/fire without external inputs from peripheral nerves. This self- maintaining system (which may need to be a chaotic attractor?) might be considered consciousness, or perhaps it is just a requirement for consciousness: The ability to maintain a flow of information without having to receive a push from outside of the machine/brain/software.<br /> <br /> Some questions: When you put people in a room where they receive no external stimuli, they go crazy within the hour. What happens to consciousness at this point? Does this imply that the system requires continuous recalibration to maintain consciousness? And brains on drugs (the ones that make the waves go periodic), can they still generate consciousness?<br /> <br /> I am not sure I even answered what consciousness is at this point.<br /> <br /> == Sarah Laborde ==<br /> <br /> I added a couple of tentative crosses to John's table - thanks john!<br /> <br /> When I think of consciousness I think of several levels (and I see those levels reflected in other people's paragraphs, although I hope we can settle on one), the first one being &lt;b&gt;subjective experience&lt;/b&gt;. To me consciousness in this sense is directly connected to physical sensations, or their memory. These sensations represent information, emerging not from the body or the brain in isolation but from the engagement and 'navigation' of the individual through its environment.. so some kind of individual (not distinguishing here between body and brain - sorry for my coarseness dear biologists and AI researchers, but I think there is some valus in considering them together) / environment nexus as the origin of information and therefore consciousness.. in that regard I join - I think! - Chalmers' argument on the connection information / consciousness. Thanks Sean for posting a link to the article). <br /> A couple of extra thoughts: I think the notion of temporality is important too, and - drawing on a laundry conversation with Diego on the topic - how it relates to death. Could consciousness, if contingent to life, be related to the notion of the organism's future death being somehow embodied (&quot;consciously&quot; or not), and leading to for example the process of reproduction?<br /> <br /> I apologize for my probably obvious lack of knowledge in biology, and I frankly don't properly understand the physicists' discussions of consciousness (be it Tegmark or Penrose.. Cole..help..? :) ). I am more grounded in cognitive anthropology and to some extent philosophy, although I don't claim any breadth of philosophical knowledge on the topic. My thoughts about consciousness come from a research interest in the production of knowledge: how and where it emerges in various contexts, and discussions of embodied and reflexive knowledge. <br /> <br /> A couple of scholars/books that I find inspiring on the topic (themselves drawing on long traditions on which I will pass) are below:<br /> <br /> Tim Ingold (Perception of the Environment, 2000), and his discussion for example of Von Uexkull's notion of the &quot;Umwelt&quot;<br /> <br /> Francisco Varela (any of you biologists want to discuss his work?)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Ana María Gómez López==<br /> <br /> The two main perspectives I would like to add to our discussion of consciousness are:<br /> <br /> '''1. Consciousness is life-contingent'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Without excluding the possibility of another definition, I consider that an understanding of consciousness can only be approached through understanding life. I do not understand life as a limiting bio-centric view, but also comprising AI and forms of non-cellular life. Under this broad understanding, I posit the question to the group: can consciousness be separate from life? <br /> <br /> I respond strongly to Max Tegmark's paper on the physical origin of consciousness [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf] when I pair it with Jeremy England's article on the origin of life from matter [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/]. Both pave the question of origin, but the latter opens the possibility of life in inanimate matter subjected to physics, in the same way that Tegmark applies physics to understand consciousness.<br /> <br /> '''2. Consciousness does not require self-awareness'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> In human neuroscientific assessments, a person is classified as having a minimally conscious state when he/she goes back and forth between wakeful awareness and non-responsive behavior. In individuals who manage to remain minimally conscious and avoid a persistent vegetative state, is consciousness only limited to moments of recognizable &quot;meaningful behavior&quot;? Or does consciousness exist somehow beyond the periods when these individuals are not aware of themselves? <br /> If we recognize self-awareness as a &quot;gold-standard&quot; measure to understand consciousness, we have to recognize that existing methodologies to measure self-awareness are rather limited. Self-recognition tests used in human and some animals may be considered as markers of self-awareness; however, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of consciousness on organisms and entities that do not share this capacity. Indeed, while humans understand themselves as conscious beings, we often perform daily activities without ever stopping to think that we are doing these &quot;consciously&quot;. <br /> <br /> An additional concept which I find useful for this conversation is that of consciousness as integrated information [http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.long]. Although I do not fully follow all of Tononi's paper (particularly his discussion of qualia), I borrow the idea of consciousness as integrated information to think about consciousness in biological and artificial contexts alike, along with other aspects of his article.</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53871 2014-06-13T07:48:35Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;[[Bitcoin | Bitcoin Page]]&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia (flamarquitti@gmail.com) &lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brais (brais.alvarez@eui.eu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> James (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> George(qiaozhi827@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Meeting today (Jun 12) 6pm in the main conference room.<br /> <br /> Resources: https://bitcoin.org/en/resources &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://blockchain.info/charts &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://blockexplorer.com/ &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://bitcoincharts.com/ &lt;br&gt;<br /> Web of trust: http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> <br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Emilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> == When do free-riders benefit the system? A pollination problem with some game theory ==<br /> <br /> The old title was: &quot;Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?&quot;<br /> <br /> Pollination systems are amazing. The expected from a flower visitor , like a bee, is that it enters the flower looking for its resource (nectar) and when gets out, it is carrying many pollen grains in its body. Then, in the next visiting flower looking for more resource, it eventually pollinates this second flower with pollen bind on the body. But what happens is that this system can face up some free-riders, interested in getting their nectar quickly and easily. Yes, they exist! The nectar robbers (or cheaters) can rob nectar in different ways. One of the most amazing techniques is making a hole in the basal part of the flower and getting the nectar without touching the reproductive parts of the flower. <br /> <br /> However, if you think that plants always evolve to avoid this cheaters, maybe you are very mistaken. The presence of the cheaters reduces the amount of nectar inside the flower, and when a pollinator visits this flower after the cheater, it must look for more flowers to get the necessary amount of nectar. It potentially increases the outcrossing reproduction, very necessary for some plant species (and it can also produce a higher fitness than the autopollination system in many other plants which can reproduce via both systems)<br /> <br /> We plan to model this unexpected history using a game theory approach, with some flavor of Public Goods game, incorporating memory in the path made by the plant visitors.<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia (flamarquitti@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martinez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;[[Multiplex Networks | Multiplex Networks Page]]&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> PS: Here [https://www.dropbox.com/s/bpjf9mc1qhknkee/ResearchReview.pdf link 1] is a short review of multiplexes that I put up together. It is not exhaustive but the references can give us an idea of the field. If you find any error please let me know (Massimo).<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail do com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja (sanjakojasanja@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brais (brais.alvarez@eui.eu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> =&gt; It may be interesting to at least discuss (if not merge) this with the project we're proposing (not yet on here but it involves the optimal design of the isolation approach as a function of a measure comprising the network topology, node properties, node-saving attributes of a regulator etc.). There's also the last project on this page dealing with topology and resilience which could also be incorporated. - ''Nicolas'' <br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas K. Scholtes&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan (stojand@mpib-berlin.mpg.de) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja (sanjakojasanja@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hey people can you please update your e-mails so we can be easier in contact?<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta (rsmehta at stanford dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch)&lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny (michael.kalyuzhny at mail.huji.ac.il)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alex Brummer &lt;br&gt;<br /> James Holdener (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> * &quot;Cities&quot; group<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)<br /> <br /> * &quot;Foraging&quot; group<br /> Diana (dianalg11@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny (michael.kalyuzhny at mail.huji.ac.il)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &gt;&gt;&gt; Next Meeting : Monday, 2:30 p.m. (?)<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado (diego.barneche@mq.edu.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig (cornelia.metzig@hotmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny (michael.kalyuzhny at mail.huji.ac.il) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María Gómez López (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek &lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen Otero &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Please fill the doodle &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://doodle.com/m99hkws4k46icx8b<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan (stojand@mpib-berlin.mpg.de) (sounds perfect for a beer discussion)&lt;br&gt;<br /> José Aguilar-Rodríguez (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado (bernardo.furtado@ipea.gov.br)(Happy to learn. Consciously on subconsciously.) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas K. Scholtes (nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) [The science fiction aficionado in me is jumping up and down in his chair!]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske Vroomans (R.M.A.Vroomans@uu.nl) [I'd love to join the conversation, I love big topics!]<br /> Tom McAndrew [Thomas.McAndrew@uvm.edu]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *An after hour catch-up on Friday evening or this week-end? Here's a basic doodle poll to work out times: http://doodle.com/yi5wp3brbd2z8u5n&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There is a published paper written by a MIT researcher &quot;Consciousness as a State of Matter&quot;, just in case if you do not know this... Ernest<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested! Also, please include your contact info alongside your name. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''NEXT MEETING: TBA - Rohan will send out an poll to decide on a time''' &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *Thoughts:<br /> <br /> Vipin: I believe that this mechanism may have much to do with why &quot;business cycle&quot; occur.<br /> <br /> Luis: Maybe this could be also related with the structure and complexity of institutions and its stability. Successful societies increase their size and develop more complex institutions (with higher level of bureaucracy for example) and that can make them less &quot;flexible&quot; and susceptible to get destroyed under not predicted crisis. I think this is related with &quot;social entropy&quot;... <br /> <br /> Ali: This paper might be of interest: http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Zorach.pdf They use Shannon's entropy to calculate &quot;number of roles&quot; or division of labor in a network. It is related to trade-off of division of labor and robustness.<br /> <br /> *Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta (rsmehta at stanford dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan (stojand@mpib-berlin.mpib.de) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília (emilia.garcia.casademont at gmail dot com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi ali[at}pp dot u-tokyo dot ac dot jp&lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> José Aguilar-Rodríguez (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske Vroomans (R.M.A.Vroomans@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia (flamarquitti@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado &lt;br&gt;<br /> José Aguilar-Rodríguez (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana (dianalg11@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang (dwuab@ust.hk) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> George (qiaozhi827@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen Otero &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Meeting:&lt;/b&gt; June 12, 4:20, balcony outside Great Hall.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Catherine Bale<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> comment: are you familiar with holland's &quot;echo&quot; stuff ..stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> COMBINED with project 17 &quot;Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> James Holdener (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Anna Olson (olsona at cs dot uchicago dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas K. Scholtes (nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske Vroomans (R.M.A.Vroomans@uu.nl) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Multi-scalar approaches to understand regime shifts in a socio-ecological system ==<br /> <br /> Field-based research, be it qualitative or quantitative, often yields fragmentary and limited data sets when collected in settings with political instability, economic disparity, and rapidly changing environmental conditions. Using the Logone river floodplain in Cameroon as a case study, this project aims to carry out multi-scalar analysis of fragmentary data sets to understand larger social dynamics and ecological regime shifts in this region. Our goal is to address the challenges of network analysis, agent-based modeling, and game theory in this context by examining multiple units of analysis at different scales.&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Some of the possible issues to study are: common pool resources problems, influence of (corrupt) institutions, influence of the internal structure of these societies, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> We will attempt to meet at '''6:30pm today Thursday''' in the lecture room. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca Lipari &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == The architecture of an empirical genotype-phenotype mapping ==<br /> <br /> One of the central open questions in biology is to understand how genotypes map onto phenotypes. While system and developmental biologists are <br /> interested in the physical, biochemical and physiological basis of genotype-phenotype maps, evolutionary biologists try to comprehend their evolutionary causes <br /> and consequences. Our current knowledge on this question comes from computational models that allow us to rapidly map genotypes to phenotypes for some biological <br /> systems, facilitating the systematic exploration of their vast genotype spaces. These models have shown that many genotypes usually map onto the same phenotype. <br /> These genotypes form genotype networks, or neutral networks, that spread into genotype space. These networks contain as vertices all the genotypes that share a <br /> same phenotype, where genotypes are connected by edges if they differ by a single mutation. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Thanks to several computational models, the formalism of genotype networks has been very successful at providing new insights about the evolution of systems as <br /> diverse as RNA, proteins, regulatory networks and metabolism. Payne &amp; Wagner have recently pioneered the application of this formalism to transcription factor (TF) <br /> binding sites. TFs are DNA-binding proteins that regulate gene expression by binding to short sequences on DNA — TF binding sites — that <br /> are in close physical proximity to the genes’ coding sequence, thus inducing or repressing gene transcription. The set of DNA sites bound by a particular TF <br /> can be viewed as a genotype network. This mapping from TF binding sites onto their cognate TFs constitutes the first exhaustive genotype-phenotype map entirely <br /> based on experimental data. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Research questions that can be asked in this system: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. What is the geometry of empirical genotype networks in genotype space and how that geometry affects evolutionary exploration? &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. What is the community structure of these empirical genotype networks? Is this structure determined by the biophysics of TF-DNA binding? &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. How accesible is one phenotype from any other phenotype in this system and how that accessibility defines phenotype space as a topological space? &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> If you are interested please contact José (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch). &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> References: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Stadler, B.M., Stadler, P.F., Wagner, G.P., and Fontana, W. (2001). The topology of the possible: formal spaces underlying patterns of evolutionary change. J. Theor. Biol. 213, 241–74. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Payne, J.L., and Wagner, A. (2014). The robustness and evolvability of transcription factor binding sites. Science 343, 875–7. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole &lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen &lt;br&gt;<br /> José &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network warping via Chaotic Dynamics==<br /> <br /> There has been an explosion of research in temporal networks, and in Chaos Theory separately. Why not combined them? The idea is this: Generate different network structures (Erdos-Renyi etc.) whos probability of connections depends on a Chaotic attractor. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are there topological invariants on these networks?<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean G. (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson (olsona at cs dot uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian Thompson (bthompso8784 at gmail dot com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network robustness as a function of nodes' resilience==<br /> <br /> Are there characteristics of a network's nodes that make the network more or less robust to failure? Perhaps degree assortativity, or nodes' positions relative to the demands made on them? Given that network failure can affect every node in a network, nodes might, as it were, gain an advantage from being positioned far away from nodes that could catastrophically fail. <br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson (olsona at cs.uchicago.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Jenn Hellmann &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo Horstmeyer &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Optimal Quarantine Strategies in Financial Networks==<br /> We are interested in borrowing and adapting concepts from epidemiology to provide policy guidelines that minimize the damage to the global financial system when defaults cascade between financial institutions. <br /> <br /> From a network perspective, we would like to identify optimal quarantine strategies (selective edge pruning, node isolation, community isolation, etc) by simulating default cascades of variable intensity on an idealized financial network. A key component of this analysis would focus on the temporal delay between the identification of a cascade threat and implementation of a control measure.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Brais &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == The Energy Oracle ==<br /> <br /> How much energy have you used today? 5 Minutes ago? How much energy will you use tomorrow? While there are great tools to analyze aggregate energy data, there is yet confident techniques forecasting residential energy load. We have a yearly residential energy usage data that can be used to test our methods. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Lets forecast:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested&lt;br&gt;<br /> Thomas McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> Pooya Rezaei &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cough cough ==<br /> This project will investigate if signal analysis of a person's cough coupled with collection of other data (such as: age, height, weight, ''etc.'') can be used to distinguish between a healthy and an unhealthy lung. Our idea is that humans have evolved a specific sound/frequency of coughing so as to break up mucus in the lungs and that diseased lungs will have different sounds/frequencies than a healthy lung. Using the collected data, we will be able to determine if coughs are specific to individuals or if there are qualities about them that span a population. If there are qualities that span a population, then the data can lead to answering deeper questions about how to care for individuals with cystic fibrosis. For instance, treatment of this disease state could lead to adjusting their cough—through external means—to help move stagnant mucus in their lungs.<br /> <br /> === Project goals ===<br /> * Create a website that allows users to submit cough sound files and enter appropriate metadata to.<br /> * Determine relevant signal analysis techniques that can be used to analyze coughs.<br /> * Create a classifier that can separate coughs into different categories.<br /> * Display any analysis on the website.<br /> <br /> We will be using standard techniques to create the website (Ruby on Rails), host the data (Postgres and Amazon S3), generate a classifier (Mahout), and display the data (D3). If you are interested in learning some of the standard technologies that companies use, you are welcome to join the group. The project is engineering heavy, however, the scientific goal is to determine if a cough is either specific to a person or if there are principles about it that are similar within a population. If there are similarities, then this can lead to interesting biological questions such as how did the cough evolve.<br /> <br /> === Interested ===<br /> * [http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/index.php/Andy_Maloney Andy] [[Special:Emailuser/Maloneya|Email Andy using the wiki if you are interested.]]<br /> * [http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/index.php/Ellsworth_Campbell Ells]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53870 2014-06-13T07:46:25Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;[[Bitcoin | Bitcoin Page]]&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia (flamarquitti@gmail.com) &lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brais (brais.alvarez@eui.eu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> James (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> George(qiaozhi827@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Meeting today (Jun 12) 6pm in the main conference room.<br /> <br /> Resources: https://bitcoin.org/en/resources &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://blockchain.info/charts &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://blockexplorer.com/ &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://bitcoincharts.com/ &lt;br&gt;<br /> Web of trust: http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> <br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Emilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> == When do free-riders benefit the system? A pollination problem with some game theory ==<br /> <br /> The old title was: &quot;Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?&quot;<br /> <br /> Pollination systems are amazing. The expected from a flower visitor , like a bee, is that it enters the flower looking for its resource (nectar) and when gets out, it is carrying many pollen grains in its body. Then, in the next visiting flower looking for more resource, it eventually pollinates this second flower with pollen bind on the body. But what happens is that this system can face up some free-riders, interested in getting their nectar quickly and easily. Yes, they exist! The nectar robbers (or cheaters) can rob nectar in different ways. One of the most amazing techniques is making a hole in the basal part of the flower and getting the nectar without touching the reproductive parts of the flower. <br /> <br /> However, if you think that plants always evolve to avoid this cheaters, maybe you are very mistaken. The presence of the cheaters reduces the amount of nectar inside the flower, and when a pollinator visits this flower after the cheater, it must look for more flowers to get the necessary amount of nectar. It potentially increases the outcrossing reproduction, very necessary for some plant species (and it can also produce a higher fitness than the autopollination system in many other plants which can reproduce via both systems)<br /> <br /> We plan to model this unexpected history using a game theory approach, with some flavor of Public Goods game, incorporating memory in the path made by the plant visitors.<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia (flamarquitti@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martinez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;[[Multiplex Networks | Multiplex Networks Page]]&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> PS: Here [https://www.dropbox.com/s/bpjf9mc1qhknkee/ResearchReview.pdf link 1] is a short review of multiplexes that I put up together. It is not exhaustive but the references can give us an idea of the field. If you find any error please let me know (Massimo).<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail do com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja (sanjakojasanja@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brais (brais.alvarez@eui.eu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> =&gt; It may be interesting to at least discuss (if not merge) this with the project we're proposing (not yet on here but it involves the optimal design of the isolation approach as a function of a measure comprising the network topology, node properties, node-saving attributes of a regulator etc.). There's also the last project on this page dealing with topology and resilience which could also be incorporated. - ''Nicolas'' <br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas K. Scholtes&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan (stojand@mpib-berlin.mpg.de) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja (sanjakojasanja@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hey people can you please update your e-mails so we can be easier in contact?<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta (rsmehta at stanford dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch)&lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny (michael.kalyuzhny at mail.huji.ac.il)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alex Brummer &lt;br&gt;<br /> James Holdener (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> * &quot;Cities&quot; group<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)<br /> <br /> * &quot;Foraging&quot; group<br /> Diana (dianalg11@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny (michael.kalyuzhny at mail.huji.ac.il)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &gt;&gt;&gt; Next Meeting : Monday, 2:30 p.m. (?)<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado (diego.barneche@mq.edu.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig (cornelia.metzig@hotmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny (michael.kalyuzhny at mail.huji.ac.il) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María Gómez López (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek &lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen Otero &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Please fill the doodle &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://doodle.com/m99hkws4k46icx8b<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan (stojand@mpib-berlin.mpg.de) (sounds perfect for a beer discussion)&lt;br&gt;<br /> José Aguilar-Rodríguez (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado (bernardo.furtado@ipea.gov.br)(Happy to learn. Consciously on subconsciously.) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas K. Scholtes (nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) [The science fiction aficionado in me is jumping up and down in his chair!]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske Vroomans (R.M.A.Vroomans@uu.nl) [I'd love to join the conversation, I love big topics!]<br /> Tom McAndrew [Thomas.McAndrew@uvm.edu]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *An after hour catch-up on Friday evening or this week-end? Here's a basic doodle poll to work out times: http://doodle.com/yi5wp3brbd2z8u5n&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There is a published paper written by a MIT researcher &quot;Consciousness as a State of Matter&quot;, just in case if you do not know this... Ernest<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested! Also, please include your contact info alongside your name. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''NEXT MEETING: TBA - Rohan will send out an poll to decide on a time''' &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *Thoughts:<br /> <br /> Vipin: I believe that this mechanism may have much to do with why &quot;business cycle&quot; occur.<br /> <br /> Luis: Maybe this could be also related with the structure and complexity of institutions and its stability. Successful societies increase their size and develop more complex institutions (with higher level of bureaucracy for example) and that can make them less &quot;flexible&quot; and susceptible to get destroyed under not predicted crisis. I think this is related with &quot;social entropy&quot;... <br /> <br /> Ali: This paper might be of interest: http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Zorach.pdf They use Shannon's entropy to calculate &quot;number of roles&quot; or division of labor in a network. It is related to trade-off of division of labor and robustness.<br /> <br /> *Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta (rsmehta at stanford dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan (stojand@mpib-berlin.mpib.de) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília (emilia.garcia.casademont at gmail dot com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi ali[at}pp dot u-tokyo dot ac dot jp&lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> José Aguilar-Rodríguez (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske Vroomans (R.M.A.Vroomans@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia (flamarquitti@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado &lt;br&gt;<br /> José Aguilar-Rodríguez (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana (dianalg11@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang (dwuab@ust.hk) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> George (qiaozhi827@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen Otero &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Meeting:&lt;/b&gt; June 12, 4:20, balcony outside Great Hall.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Catherine Bale<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> comment: are you familiar with holland's &quot;echo&quot; stuff ..stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> COMBINED with project 17 &quot;Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> James Holdener (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Anna Olson (olsona at cs dot uchicago dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas K. Scholtes (nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske Vroomans (R.M.A.Vroomans@uu.nl) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Multi-scalar approaches to understand regime shifts in a socio-ecological system ==<br /> <br /> Field-based research, be it qualitative or quantitative, often yields fragmentary and limited data sets when collected in settings with political instability, economic disparity, and rapidly changing environmental conditions. Using the Logone river floodplain in Cameroon as a case study, this project aims to carry out multi-scalar analysis of fragmentary data sets to understand larger social dynamics and ecological regime shifts in this region. Our goal is to address the challenges of network analysis, agent-based modeling, and game theory in this context by examining multiple units of analysis at different scales.&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Some of the possible issues to study are: common pool resources problems, influence of (corrupt) institutions, influence of the internal structure of these societies, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> We will attempt to meet at '''6:30pm today Thursday''' in the lecture room. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca Lipari &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == The architecture of an empirical genotype-phenotype mapping ==<br /> <br /> One of the central open questions in biology is to understand how genotypes map onto phenotypes. While system and developmental biologists are <br /> interested in the physical, biochemical and physiological basis of genotype-phenotype maps, evolutionary biologists try to comprehend their evolutionary causes <br /> and consequences. Our current knowledge on this question comes from computational models that allow us to rapidly map genotypes to phenotypes for some biological <br /> systems, facilitating the systematic exploration of their vast genotype spaces. These models have shown that many genotypes usually map onto the same phenotype. <br /> These genotypes form genotype networks, or neutral networks, that spread into genotype space. These networks contain as vertices all the genotypes that share a <br /> same phenotype, where genotypes are connected by edges if they differ by a single mutation. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Thanks to several computational models, the formalism of genotype networks has been very successful at providing new insights about the evolution of systems as <br /> diverse as RNA, proteins, regulatory networks and metabolism. Payne &amp; Wagner have recently pioneered the application of this formalism to transcription factor (TF) <br /> binding sites. TFs are DNA-binding proteins that regulate gene expression by binding to short sequences on DNA — TF binding sites — that <br /> are in close physical proximity to the genes’ coding sequence, thus inducing or repressing gene transcription. The set of DNA sites bound by a particular TF <br /> can be viewed as a genotype network. This mapping from TF binding sites onto their cognate TFs constitutes the first exhaustive genotype-phenotype map entirely <br /> based on experimental data. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Research questions that can be asked in this system: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. What is the geometry of empirical genotype networks in genotype space and how that geometry affects evolutionary exploration? &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. What is the community structure of these empirical genotype networks? Is this structure determined by the biophysics of TF-DNA binding? &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. How accesible is one phenotype from any other phenotype in this system and how that accessibility defines phenotype space as a topological space? &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> If you are interested please contact José (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch). &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> References: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Stadler, B.M., Stadler, P.F., Wagner, G.P., and Fontana, W. (2001). The topology of the possible: formal spaces underlying patterns of evolutionary change. J. Theor. Biol. 213, 241–74. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Payne, J.L., and Wagner, A. (2014). The robustness and evolvability of transcription factor binding sites. Science 343, 875–7. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole &lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen &lt;br&gt;<br /> José &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network warping via Chaotic Dynamics==<br /> <br /> There has been an explosion of research in temporal networks, and in Chaos Theory separately. Why not combined them? The idea is this: Generate different network structures (Erdos-Renyi etc.) whos probability of connections depends on a Chaotic attractor. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are there topological invariants on these networks?<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean G. (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson (olsona at cs dot uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian Thompson (bthompso8784 at gmail dot com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network robustness as a function of nodes' resilience==<br /> <br /> Are there characteristics of a network's nodes that make the network more or less robust to failure? Perhaps degree assortativity, or nodes' positions relative to the demands made on them? Given that network failure can affect every node in a network, nodes might, as it were, gain an advantage from being positioned far away from nodes that could catastrophically fail. <br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson (olsona at cs.uchicago.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Jenn Hellmann &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo Horstmeyer &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Optimal Quarantine Strategies in Financial Networks==<br /> We are interested in borrowing and adapting concepts from epidemiology to provide policy guidelines that minimize the damage to the global financial system when defaults cascade between financial institutions. <br /> <br /> From a network perspective, we would like to identify optimal quarantine strategies (selective edge pruning, node isolation, community isolation, etc) by simulating default cascades of variable intensity on an idealized financial network. A key component of this analysis would focus on the temporal delay between the identification of a cascade threat and implementation of a control measure.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Brais &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == The Energy Oracle ==<br /> <br /> How much energy have you used today? 5 Minutes ago? How much energy will you use tomorrow? While there are great tools to analyze aggregate energy data, there is yet confident techniques forecasting residential energy load. We have a yearly residential energy usage data that can be used to test our methods. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Lets forecast:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested&lt;br&gt;<br /> Thomas McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> Pooya Rezaei &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cough cough ==<br /> This project will investigate if signal analysis of a person's cough coupled with collection of other data (such as: age, height, weight, ''etc.'') can be used to distinguish between a healthy and an unhealthy lung. Our idea is that humans have evolved a specific sound/frequency of coughing so as to break up mucus in the lungs and that diseased lungs will have different sounds/frequencies than a healthy lung. Using the collected data, we will be able to determine if coughs are specific to individuals or if there are qualities about them that span a population. If there are qualities that span a population, then the data can lead to answering deeper questions about how to care for individuals with cystic fibrosis. For instance, treatment of this disease state could lead to adjusting their cough—through external means—to help move stagnant mucus in their lungs.<br /> <br /> === Project goals ===<br /> * Create a website that allows users to submit cough sound files and enter appropriate metadata to.<br /> * Determine relevant signal analysis techniques that can be used to analyze coughs.<br /> * Create a classifier that can separate coughs into different categories.<br /> * Display any analysis on the website.<br /> <br /> We will be using standard techniques to create the website (Ruby on Rails), host the data (Postgres and Amazon S3), generate a classifier (Mahout), and display the data (D3). If you are interested in learning some of the standard technologies that companies use, you are welcome to join the group. The project is engineering heavy, however, the scientific goal is to determine if a cough is either specific to a person or if there are principles about it that are similar within a population. If there are similarities, then this can lead to interesting biological questions such as how did the cough evolve.<br /> <br /> === Interested ===<br /> * [http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/index.php/Andy_Maloney Andy] [[Special:Emailuser/Maloneya|Email Andy using the wiki if you are interested.]]<br /> * [http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/index.php/Ellsworth_Campbell Ells]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53869 2014-06-13T07:45:50Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Death in physical, biological and social systems */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;[[Bitcoin | Bitcoin Page]]&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia (flamarquitti@gmail.com) &lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brais (brais.alvarez@eui.eu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> James (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> George(qiaozhi827@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Meeting today (Jun 12) 6pm in the main conference room.<br /> <br /> Resources: https://bitcoin.org/en/resources &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://blockchain.info/charts &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://blockexplorer.com/ &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://bitcoincharts.com/ &lt;br&gt;<br /> Web of trust: http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> <br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Emilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> == When do free-riders benefit the system? A pollination problem with some game theory ==<br /> <br /> The old title was: &quot;Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?&quot;<br /> <br /> Pollination systems are amazing. The expected from a flower visitor , like a bee, is that it enters the flower looking for its resource (nectar) and when gets out, it is carrying many pollen grains in its body. Then, in the next visiting flower looking for more resource, it eventually pollinates this second flower with pollen bind on the body. But what happens is that this system can face up some free-riders, interested in getting their nectar quickly and easily. Yes, they exist! The nectar robbers (or cheaters) can rob nectar in different ways. One of the most amazing techniques is making a hole in the basal part of the flower and getting the nectar without touching the reproductive parts of the flower. <br /> <br /> However, if you think that plants always evolve to avoid this cheaters, maybe you are very mistaken. The presence of the cheaters reduces the amount of nectar inside the flower, and when a pollinator visits this flower after the cheater, it must look for more flowers to get the necessary amount of nectar. It potentially increases the outcrossing reproduction, very necessary for some plant species (and it can also produce a higher fitness than the autopollination system in many other plants which can reproduce via both systems)<br /> <br /> We plan to model this unexpected history using a game theory approach, with some flavor of Public Goods game, incorporating memory in the path made by the plant visitors.<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia (flamarquitti@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martinez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;[[Multiplex Networks | Multiplex Networks Page]]&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> PS: Here [https://www.dropbox.com/s/bpjf9mc1qhknkee/ResearchReview.pdf link 1] is a short review of multiplexes that I put up together. It is not exhaustive but the references can give us an idea of the field. If you find any error please let me know (Massimo).<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail do com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja (sanjakojasanja@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brais (brais.alvarez@eui.eu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> =&gt; It may be interesting to at least discuss (if not merge) this with the project we're proposing (not yet on here but it involves the optimal design of the isolation approach as a function of a measure comprising the network topology, node properties, node-saving attributes of a regulator etc.). There's also the last project on this page dealing with topology and resilience which could also be incorporated. - ''Nicolas'' <br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas K. Scholtes&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan (stojand@mpib-berlin.mpg.de) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja (sanjakojasanja@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hey people can you please update your e-mails so we can be easier in contact?<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta (rsmehta at stanford dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch)&lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny (michael.kalyuzhny at mail.huji.ac.il)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alex Brummer &lt;br&gt;<br /> James Holdener (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> * &quot;Cities&quot; group<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)<br /> <br /> * &quot;Foraging&quot; group<br /> Diana (dianalg11@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny (michael.kalyuzhny at mail.huji.ac.il)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &gt;&gt;&gt; Next Meeting : Monday, 2:30 p.m. (?)<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado (diego.barneche@mq.edu.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig (cornelia.metzig@hotmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny (michael.kalyuzhny at mail.huji.ac.il) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek &lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen Otero &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Please fill the doodle &lt;br&gt;<br /> http://doodle.com/m99hkws4k46icx8b<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto (alberto.antonioni@unil.ch)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia (ci.andreazzi@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan (stojand@mpib-berlin.mpg.de) (sounds perfect for a beer discussion)&lt;br&gt;<br /> José Aguilar-Rodríguez (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado (bernardo.furtado@ipea.gov.br)(Happy to learn. Consciously on subconsciously.) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas K. Scholtes (nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) [The science fiction aficionado in me is jumping up and down in his chair!]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske Vroomans (R.M.A.Vroomans@uu.nl) [I'd love to join the conversation, I love big topics!]<br /> Tom McAndrew [Thomas.McAndrew@uvm.edu]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *An after hour catch-up on Friday evening or this week-end? Here's a basic doodle poll to work out times: http://doodle.com/yi5wp3brbd2z8u5n&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There is a published paper written by a MIT researcher &quot;Consciousness as a State of Matter&quot;, just in case if you do not know this... Ernest<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested! Also, please include your contact info alongside your name. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''NEXT MEETING: TBA - Rohan will send out an poll to decide on a time''' &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *Thoughts:<br /> <br /> Vipin: I believe that this mechanism may have much to do with why &quot;business cycle&quot; occur.<br /> <br /> Luis: Maybe this could be also related with the structure and complexity of institutions and its stability. Successful societies increase their size and develop more complex institutions (with higher level of bureaucracy for example) and that can make them less &quot;flexible&quot; and susceptible to get destroyed under not predicted crisis. I think this is related with &quot;social entropy&quot;... <br /> <br /> Ali: This paper might be of interest: http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Zorach.pdf They use Shannon's entropy to calculate &quot;number of roles&quot; or division of labor in a network. It is related to trade-off of division of labor and robustness.<br /> <br /> *Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta (rsmehta at stanford dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan (stojand@mpib-berlin.mpib.de) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília (emilia.garcia.casademont at gmail dot com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi ali[at}pp dot u-tokyo dot ac dot jp&lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> José Aguilar-Rodríguez (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske Vroomans (R.M.A.Vroomans@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia (flamarquitti@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado &lt;br&gt;<br /> José Aguilar-Rodríguez (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana (dianalg11@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang (dwuab@ust.hk) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> George (qiaozhi827@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen Otero &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;Meeting:&lt;/b&gt; June 12, 4:20, balcony outside Great Hall.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Catherine Bale<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> comment: are you familiar with holland's &quot;echo&quot; stuff ..stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> COMBINED with project 17 &quot;Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> James Holdener (jholdener@mitre.org) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Anna Olson (olsona at cs dot uchicago dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas K. Scholtes (nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske Vroomans (R.M.A.Vroomans@uu.nl) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Multi-scalar approaches to understand regime shifts in a socio-ecological system ==<br /> <br /> Field-based research, be it qualitative or quantitative, often yields fragmentary and limited data sets when collected in settings with political instability, economic disparity, and rapidly changing environmental conditions. Using the Logone river floodplain in Cameroon as a case study, this project aims to carry out multi-scalar analysis of fragmentary data sets to understand larger social dynamics and ecological regime shifts in this region. Our goal is to address the challenges of network analysis, agent-based modeling, and game theory in this context by examining multiple units of analysis at different scales.&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Some of the possible issues to study are: common pool resources problems, influence of (corrupt) institutions, influence of the internal structure of these societies, etc. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> We will attempt to meet at '''6:30pm today Thursday''' in the lecture room. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca Lipari &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == The architecture of an empirical genotype-phenotype mapping ==<br /> <br /> One of the central open questions in biology is to understand how genotypes map onto phenotypes. While system and developmental biologists are <br /> interested in the physical, biochemical and physiological basis of genotype-phenotype maps, evolutionary biologists try to comprehend their evolutionary causes <br /> and consequences. Our current knowledge on this question comes from computational models that allow us to rapidly map genotypes to phenotypes for some biological <br /> systems, facilitating the systematic exploration of their vast genotype spaces. These models have shown that many genotypes usually map onto the same phenotype. <br /> These genotypes form genotype networks, or neutral networks, that spread into genotype space. These networks contain as vertices all the genotypes that share a <br /> same phenotype, where genotypes are connected by edges if they differ by a single mutation. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Thanks to several computational models, the formalism of genotype networks has been very successful at providing new insights about the evolution of systems as <br /> diverse as RNA, proteins, regulatory networks and metabolism. Payne &amp; Wagner have recently pioneered the application of this formalism to transcription factor (TF) <br /> binding sites. TFs are DNA-binding proteins that regulate gene expression by binding to short sequences on DNA — TF binding sites — that <br /> are in close physical proximity to the genes’ coding sequence, thus inducing or repressing gene transcription. The set of DNA sites bound by a particular TF <br /> can be viewed as a genotype network. This mapping from TF binding sites onto their cognate TFs constitutes the first exhaustive genotype-phenotype map entirely <br /> based on experimental data. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Research questions that can be asked in this system: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. What is the geometry of empirical genotype networks in genotype space and how that geometry affects evolutionary exploration? &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. What is the community structure of these empirical genotype networks? Is this structure determined by the biophysics of TF-DNA binding? &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. How accesible is one phenotype from any other phenotype in this system and how that accessibility defines phenotype space as a topological space? &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> If you are interested please contact José (jose.aguilar@ieu.uzh.ch). &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> References: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Stadler, B.M., Stadler, P.F., Wagner, G.P., and Fontana, W. (2001). The topology of the possible: formal spaces underlying patterns of evolutionary change. J. Theor. Biol. 213, 241–74. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Payne, J.L., and Wagner, A. (2014). The robustness and evolvability of transcription factor binding sites. Science 343, 875–7. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole &lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen &lt;br&gt;<br /> José &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Renske &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network warping via Chaotic Dynamics==<br /> <br /> There has been an explosion of research in temporal networks, and in Chaos Theory separately. Why not combined them? The idea is this: Generate different network structures (Erdos-Renyi etc.) whos probability of connections depends on a Chaotic attractor. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are there topological invariants on these networks?<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean G. (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson (olsona at cs dot uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian Thompson (bthompso8784 at gmail dot com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network robustness as a function of nodes' resilience==<br /> <br /> Are there characteristics of a network's nodes that make the network more or less robust to failure? Perhaps degree assortativity, or nodes' positions relative to the demands made on them? Given that network failure can affect every node in a network, nodes might, as it were, gain an advantage from being positioned far away from nodes that could catastrophically fail. <br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson (olsona at cs.uchicago.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Jenn Hellmann &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo Horstmeyer &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Optimal Quarantine Strategies in Financial Networks==<br /> We are interested in borrowing and adapting concepts from epidemiology to provide policy guidelines that minimize the damage to the global financial system when defaults cascade between financial institutions. <br /> <br /> From a network perspective, we would like to identify optimal quarantine strategies (selective edge pruning, node isolation, community isolation, etc) by simulating default cascades of variable intensity on an idealized financial network. A key component of this analysis would focus on the temporal delay between the identification of a cascade threat and implementation of a control measure.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Brais &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == The Energy Oracle ==<br /> <br /> How much energy have you used today? 5 Minutes ago? How much energy will you use tomorrow? While there are great tools to analyze aggregate energy data, there is yet confident techniques forecasting residential energy load. We have a yearly residential energy usage data that can be used to test our methods. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Lets forecast:&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested&lt;br&gt;<br /> Thomas McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> Pooya Rezaei &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cough cough ==<br /> This project will investigate if signal analysis of a person's cough coupled with collection of other data (such as: age, height, weight, ''etc.'') can be used to distinguish between a healthy and an unhealthy lung. Our idea is that humans have evolved a specific sound/frequency of coughing so as to break up mucus in the lungs and that diseased lungs will have different sounds/frequencies than a healthy lung. Using the collected data, we will be able to determine if coughs are specific to individuals or if there are qualities about them that span a population. If there are qualities that span a population, then the data can lead to answering deeper questions about how to care for individuals with cystic fibrosis. For instance, treatment of this disease state could lead to adjusting their cough—through external means—to help move stagnant mucus in their lungs.<br /> <br /> === Project goals ===<br /> * Create a website that allows users to submit cough sound files and enter appropriate metadata to.<br /> * Determine relevant signal analysis techniques that can be used to analyze coughs.<br /> * Create a classifier that can separate coughs into different categories.<br /> * Display any analysis on the website.<br /> <br /> We will be using standard techniques to create the website (Ruby on Rails), host the data (Postgres and Amazon S3), generate a classifier (Mahout), and display the data (D3). If you are interested in learning some of the standard technologies that companies use, you are welcome to join the group. The project is engineering heavy, however, the scientific goal is to determine if a cough is either specific to a person or if there are principles about it that are similar within a population. If there are similarities, then this can lead to interesting biological questions such as how did the cough evolve.<br /> <br /> === Interested ===<br /> * [http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/index.php/Andy_Maloney Andy] [[Special:Emailuser/Maloneya|Email Andy using the wiki if you are interested.]]<br /> * [http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/events/workshops/index.php/Ellsworth_Campbell Ells]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-After_Hours&diff=53847 2014-06-13T03:17:56Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* World Cup */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Movie Night?==<br /> <br /> Here's a &lt;b&gt;[[Movie Night | Movie Night]]&lt;/b&gt; page to gauge interest/organize some movie viewing time at any point in the coming weeks.<br /> <br /> How about something in town?<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 10:00pm Full Moon Walk==<br /> <br /> It's FULL MOON!!! And Friday 13th! I think this deserves a FULL moon walk with a few drinks on the top of that hill near the campus and a FULL appreciation of the FULL moon. Maybe also a good opportunity to bring the banjo and whatever fits!!<br /> <br /> Stock up on drinks and leave at 10pm outside of the Peterson Student Center after the others return from Tomasitas...<br /> <br /> Joining:&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Leo&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Brais (maybe)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Pooya &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 6:00pm Tomasita's==<br /> <br /> Come experience some down home New Mexican cooking at Tomasita's. Margaritas and enchiladas! Yum!<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Catherine&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 7:00pm Santa Fe Bite==<br /> <br /> Green chile cheeseburger time. Meet at the parking circle in front of the coffee shop.<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Ana Maria&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Diana L-G&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Morgan Edwards&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Juni's car<br /> <br /> 1. Juni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June &lt;strike&gt; 10&lt;/strike&gt;11, 5:00pm - Supplies Run==<br /> <br /> JP is going down to buy the stuff everyone needs. He'll take you if you would like.<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's GTI (5 seats)&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Anna Olson&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Bernardo Furtado&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Ali Kharrazi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Ana Maria Gomez Lopez &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Common Supplies:<br /> <br /> What kinds of supplies can we all split? Make a list here and JP will buy a big box or two for everyone.<br /> <br /> 1). Laundry Soap &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2). Bottles of water (for the hikes) ? Otherwise, please buy a big one (or multiple small ones) for Renske :) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) 3 Flashlights and batteries for James &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Earplugs. If nobody needs them, please buy a pack for Pooya. Thanks!&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5) Beer (I second this request - ''Nicolas'')&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Individual Supplies:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1) Olive oil-- 1 liter bottle---Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Downy Dryer Sheet -- a small box enough for ~6-8 loads--- Nhat Nguyen<br /> 3) Please buy converter for power plug (Europe- US) for Sanja<br /> 4) Another converter for power plug (Europe-US), toothpaste, sun protection, Brais.<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 6:30pm - Sunset hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> UPDATE: meeting point - parking close to lower dorms and Winiarski center.<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The plan is to meet at 6:30 pm (to give enough time to the suppliers to go back ;) ) and hike up to the summit. Then we decide if we wait for the sunset there and go back with last lights or just do it faster.<br /> <br /> Route data:<br /> http://www.summitpost.org/atalaya-mountain/625480 &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Distance: 8 miles (14km) &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Elevation Gain: 1,800 feet (600m) &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Type of route: circular &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Forecast:<br /> http://www.meteoblue.com/en/united-states/weather-atalaya-mountain?day=2<br /> <br /> Equipment: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Backpack &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Liquids: at least 1.5 litres &lt;br&gt; <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you have a torch, please bring it. It would not be necessary, but just in case... ;)<br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact Luis Martínez<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Luis Martinez &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. José Aguilar-Rodríguez&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. &lt;br&gt;<br /> ... &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 13, 5:30am - Sunrise hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> Update: I've modifed to be back a half hour earlier to an hour to frehen up and eat before taking the bus to SFI.<br /> <br /> We'll meet at 5:30 am at the circle then hike as far as we can go to be back by 7:30 am. <br /> <br /> Equipment: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Backpack &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Liquids: at least 1.5 litres &lt;br&gt; <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> I have two flashlights but they weren't needed on Wednesday.<br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact James Holdener<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 14, 10:00am - Bandelier Field Trip==<br /> <br /> We're taking a trip to [http://www.nps.gov/band/index.htm Bandelier National Monument] on Saturday June 14th. Please visit the &lt;b&gt;[[Bandelier 2014 | Bandelier Field Trip]]&lt;/b&gt; Page to sign up!<br /> <br /> ==June 21, 6:00-9:00pm Santa Fe Fuego Baseball Game==<br /> <br /> Come heckle and drink beer while watching some minor league baseball - [http://www.santafe.com/calendar/event/santa-fe-fuego-vs.-trinidad-triggers1 Fuego v. Trinidad Triggers]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Mathew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Lin Li<br /> <br /> 4. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 5. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 8. Alberto Antonioni<br /> <br /> ==June 27, 6:00-9:00pm Todd and the Fox==<br /> <br /> See Juniper's brother's band [https://www.facebook.com/events/306176446198443/ Todd and the Fox] play on the Plaza at the Santa Fe Band Stand. For full line up of the Santa Fe Bandstand (June 23-August 28) visit [http://santafebandstand.org/ here]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Matthew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 4. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 5. Morgan Edwards<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Leo<br /> <br /> 8. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 9. Cecilia<br /> <br /> 10. Emília<br /> <br /> 11. Sanja<br /> <br /> 12. Renske<br /> <br /> ==Rodeo de Santa Fe==<br /> <br /> Wednesday, June 18!<br /> <br /> Come on down for the 65th annual Rodeo de Santa Fe! Watch real-life cowboys get thrown off of various species of raging livestock for their competition and your entertainment. Starts at 7:00pm, we should leave SJC about 6:00. http://rodeodesantafe.org/<br /> <br /> ===JP's GTI===<br /> 1. JP &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Alireza Goudarzi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Matthew Ayres<br /> <br /> 4.Nhat Nguyen&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Juniper's Car===<br /> 1. Juni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Catherine Bale&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Leto Peel&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Claire Lagesse&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Still Needs a Ride===<br /> <br /> 1. Alberto Antonioni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Luis Martinez Vaquero&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Jennifer Hellmann &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. José Aguilar-Rodríguez &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Ernest Yu Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. Pooya Rezaei &lt;br&gt;<br /> 7. Stefan Pfenninger &lt;br&gt;<br /> 8. Sean Hayes &lt;br&gt;<br /> 9. Renske Vroomans &lt;br&gt;<br /> 10. Emília Garcia Casademont &lt;br&gt;<br /> 11. Degang Wu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 12. Sanja Selakovic &lt;br&gt;<br /> 13. Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> 14. Francesca Lipari<br /> <br /> ==World Cup==<br /> All times are Santa Fe (MST)<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Thursday, June 12&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Brazil vs. Croatia - 1400 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Friday, June 13&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Mexico vs. Cameroon - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Spain vs. Netherlands - 1300 (MST) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Chile vs. Australia - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Saturday, June 14&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Colombia vs. Greece - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Uruguay vs. Costa Rica - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) England vs. Italy - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Côte d'Ivoire vs. Japan - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sunday, June 15&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Switzerland vs. Ecuador - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) France vs. Honduras - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Argentina vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Sports Bars in Santa Fe: '''&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://junctionsantafe.com/ Junction]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.yelp.com/biz/el-paseo-bar-and-grill-santa-fe El Paseo Bar]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/business/on-tap-craft-beers-from-around-state-at-downtown-s/article_de6b6182-fdcd-58ef-9f2e-6e9cc5bf5a85.html Santa Fe Tap Room]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.cowgirlsantafe.com/ Cowgirl Cafe] &lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.riochamasteakhouse.com/ Rio Chama Steak House]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''On campus viewing opportunities:''' Lower Campus Common's Room has a TV that can air the games, and on some occasions we can project the games after-hours in the Great Hall<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe Railyard Events==<br /> <br /> There are a ton of really fun and cool events happening all summer at the Santa Fe Railyard, check the calendar out [http://www.railyardsantafe.com/ here]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-After_Hours&diff=53845 2014-06-13T03:16:50Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* June 12, 10:00pm Full Moon Walk */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Movie Night?==<br /> <br /> Here's a &lt;b&gt;[[Movie Night | Movie Night]]&lt;/b&gt; page to gauge interest/organize some movie viewing time at any point in the coming weeks.<br /> <br /> How about something in town?<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 10:00pm Full Moon Walk==<br /> <br /> It's FULL MOON!!! And Friday 13th! I think this deserves a FULL moon walk with a few drinks on the top of that hill near the campus and a FULL appreciation of the FULL moon. Maybe also a good opportunity to bring the banjo and whatever fits!!<br /> <br /> Stock up on drinks and leave at 10pm outside of the Peterson Student Center after the others return from Tomasitas...<br /> <br /> Joining:&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Leo&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Brais (maybe)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Pooya &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 6:00pm Tomasita's==<br /> <br /> Come experience some down home New Mexican cooking at Tomasita's. Margaritas and enchiladas! Yum!<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Catherine&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 7:00pm Santa Fe Bite==<br /> <br /> Green chile cheeseburger time. Meet at the parking circle in front of the coffee shop.<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Ana Maria&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Diana L-G&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Morgan Edwards&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Juni's car<br /> <br /> 1. Juni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June &lt;strike&gt; 10&lt;/strike&gt;11, 5:00pm - Supplies Run==<br /> <br /> JP is going down to buy the stuff everyone needs. He'll take you if you would like.<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's GTI (5 seats)&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Anna Olson&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Bernardo Furtado&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Ali Kharrazi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Ana Maria Gomez Lopez &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Common Supplies:<br /> <br /> What kinds of supplies can we all split? Make a list here and JP will buy a big box or two for everyone.<br /> <br /> 1). Laundry Soap &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2). Bottles of water (for the hikes) ? Otherwise, please buy a big one (or multiple small ones) for Renske :) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) 3 Flashlights and batteries for James &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Earplugs. If nobody needs them, please buy a pack for Pooya. Thanks!&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5) Beer (I second this request - ''Nicolas'')&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Individual Supplies:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1) Olive oil-- 1 liter bottle---Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Downy Dryer Sheet -- a small box enough for ~6-8 loads--- Nhat Nguyen<br /> 3) Please buy converter for power plug (Europe- US) for Sanja<br /> 4) Another converter for power plug (Europe-US), toothpaste, sun protection, Brais.<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 6:30pm - Sunset hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> UPDATE: meeting point - parking close to lower dorms and Winiarski center.<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The plan is to meet at 6:30 pm (to give enough time to the suppliers to go back ;) ) and hike up to the summit. Then we decide if we wait for the sunset there and go back with last lights or just do it faster.<br /> <br /> Route data:<br /> http://www.summitpost.org/atalaya-mountain/625480 &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Distance: 8 miles (14km) &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Elevation Gain: 1,800 feet (600m) &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Type of route: circular &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Forecast:<br /> http://www.meteoblue.com/en/united-states/weather-atalaya-mountain?day=2<br /> <br /> Equipment: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Backpack &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Liquids: at least 1.5 litres &lt;br&gt; <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you have a torch, please bring it. It would not be necessary, but just in case... ;)<br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact Luis Martínez<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Luis Martinez &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. José Aguilar-Rodríguez&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. &lt;br&gt;<br /> ... &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 13, 5:30am - Sunrise hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> Update: I've modifed to be back a half hour earlier to an hour to frehen up and eat before taking the bus to SFI.<br /> <br /> We'll meet at 5:30 am at the circle then hike as far as we can go to be back by 7:30 am. <br /> <br /> Equipment: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Backpack &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Liquids: at least 1.5 litres &lt;br&gt; <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> I have two flashlights but they weren't needed on Wednesday.<br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact James Holdener<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 14, 10:00am - Bandelier Field Trip==<br /> <br /> We're taking a trip to [http://www.nps.gov/band/index.htm Bandelier National Monument] on Saturday June 14th. Please visit the &lt;b&gt;[[Bandelier 2014 | Bandelier Field Trip]]&lt;/b&gt; Page to sign up!<br /> <br /> ==June 21, 6:00-9:00pm Santa Fe Fuego Baseball Game==<br /> <br /> Come heckle and drink beer while watching some minor league baseball - [http://www.santafe.com/calendar/event/santa-fe-fuego-vs.-trinidad-triggers1 Fuego v. Trinidad Triggers]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Mathew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Lin Li<br /> <br /> 4. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 5. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 8. Alberto Antonioni<br /> <br /> ==June 27, 6:00-9:00pm Todd and the Fox==<br /> <br /> See Juniper's brother's band [https://www.facebook.com/events/306176446198443/ Todd and the Fox] play on the Plaza at the Santa Fe Band Stand. For full line up of the Santa Fe Bandstand (June 23-August 28) visit [http://santafebandstand.org/ here]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Matthew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 4. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 5. Morgan Edwards<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Leo<br /> <br /> 8. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 9. Cecilia<br /> <br /> 10. Emília<br /> <br /> 11. Sanja<br /> <br /> 12. Renske<br /> <br /> ==Rodeo de Santa Fe==<br /> <br /> Wednesday, June 18!<br /> <br /> Come on down for the 65th annual Rodeo de Santa Fe! Watch real-life cowboys get thrown off of various species of raging livestock for their competition and your entertainment. Starts at 7:00pm, we should leave SJC about 6:00. http://rodeodesantafe.org/<br /> <br /> ===JP's GTI===<br /> 1. JP &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Alireza Goudarzi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Matthew Ayres<br /> <br /> 4.Nhat Nguyen&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Juniper's Car===<br /> 1. Juni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Catherine Bale&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Leto Peel&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Claire Lagesse&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Still Needs a Ride===<br /> <br /> 1. Alberto Antonioni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Luis Martinez Vaquero&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Jennifer Hellmann &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. José Aguilar-Rodríguez &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Ernest Yu Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. Pooya Rezaei &lt;br&gt;<br /> 7. Stefan Pfenninger &lt;br&gt;<br /> 8. Sean Hayes &lt;br&gt;<br /> 9. Renske Vroomans &lt;br&gt;<br /> 10. Emília Garcia Casademont &lt;br&gt;<br /> 11. Degang Wu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 12. Sanja Selakovic &lt;br&gt;<br /> 13. Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> 14. Francesca Lipari<br /> <br /> ==World Cup==<br /> All times are Santa Fe (MST)<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Thursday, June 12&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Brazil vs. Croatia - 1400 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Friday, June 13&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Mexico vs. Cameroon - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Spain vs. Netherlands - 1300 (MST) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Chile vs. Australia - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Saturday, June 14&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Columbia vs. Greece - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Uruguay vs. Costa Rica - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) England vs. Italy - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Côte d'Ivoire vs. Japan - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sunday, June 15&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Switzerland vs. Ecuador - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) France vs. Honduras - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Argentina vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Sports Bars in Santa Fe: '''&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://junctionsantafe.com/ Junction]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.yelp.com/biz/el-paseo-bar-and-grill-santa-fe El Paseo Bar]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/business/on-tap-craft-beers-from-around-state-at-downtown-s/article_de6b6182-fdcd-58ef-9f2e-6e9cc5bf5a85.html Santa Fe Tap Room]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.cowgirlsantafe.com/ Cowgirl Cafe] &lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.riochamasteakhouse.com/ Rio Chama Steak House]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''On campus viewing opportunities:''' Lower Campus Common's Room has a TV that can air the games, and on some occasions we can project the games after-hours in the Great Hall<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe Railyard Events==<br /> <br /> There are a ton of really fun and cool events happening all summer at the Santa Fe Railyard, check the calendar out [http://www.railyardsantafe.com/ here]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-After_Hours&diff=53843 2014-06-13T03:16:10Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Movie Night? */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Movie Night?==<br /> <br /> Here's a &lt;b&gt;[[Movie Night | Movie Night]]&lt;/b&gt; page to gauge interest/organize some movie viewing time at any point in the coming weeks.<br /> <br /> How about something in town?<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 10:00pm Full Moon Walk==<br /> <br /> It's FULL MOON!!! And Friday 13th! I think this deserves a FULL moon walk with a few drinks on the top of that hill near the campus and a FULL appreciation of the FULL moon. Maybe also a good opportunity to bring the banjo and whatever fits!!<br /> <br /> Stock up on drinks and leave at 10pm outside of the Peterson Student Center after the others return from Tomasitas...<br /> <br /> Joining:&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Leo&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Brais (maybe)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Pooya<br /> 6. Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 6:00pm Tomasita's==<br /> <br /> Come experience some down home New Mexican cooking at Tomasita's. Margaritas and enchiladas! Yum!<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Catherine&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 7:00pm Santa Fe Bite==<br /> <br /> Green chile cheeseburger time. Meet at the parking circle in front of the coffee shop.<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Ana Maria&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Diana L-G&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Morgan Edwards&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Juni's car<br /> <br /> 1. Juni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June &lt;strike&gt; 10&lt;/strike&gt;11, 5:00pm - Supplies Run==<br /> <br /> JP is going down to buy the stuff everyone needs. He'll take you if you would like.<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's GTI (5 seats)&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Anna Olson&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Bernardo Furtado&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Ali Kharrazi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Ana Maria Gomez Lopez &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Common Supplies:<br /> <br /> What kinds of supplies can we all split? Make a list here and JP will buy a big box or two for everyone.<br /> <br /> 1). Laundry Soap &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2). Bottles of water (for the hikes) ? Otherwise, please buy a big one (or multiple small ones) for Renske :) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) 3 Flashlights and batteries for James &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Earplugs. If nobody needs them, please buy a pack for Pooya. Thanks!&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5) Beer (I second this request - ''Nicolas'')&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Individual Supplies:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1) Olive oil-- 1 liter bottle---Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Downy Dryer Sheet -- a small box enough for ~6-8 loads--- Nhat Nguyen<br /> 3) Please buy converter for power plug (Europe- US) for Sanja<br /> 4) Another converter for power plug (Europe-US), toothpaste, sun protection, Brais.<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 6:30pm - Sunset hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> UPDATE: meeting point - parking close to lower dorms and Winiarski center.<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The plan is to meet at 6:30 pm (to give enough time to the suppliers to go back ;) ) and hike up to the summit. Then we decide if we wait for the sunset there and go back with last lights or just do it faster.<br /> <br /> Route data:<br /> http://www.summitpost.org/atalaya-mountain/625480 &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Distance: 8 miles (14km) &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Elevation Gain: 1,800 feet (600m) &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Type of route: circular &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Forecast:<br /> http://www.meteoblue.com/en/united-states/weather-atalaya-mountain?day=2<br /> <br /> Equipment: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Backpack &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Liquids: at least 1.5 litres &lt;br&gt; <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you have a torch, please bring it. It would not be necessary, but just in case... ;)<br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact Luis Martínez<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Luis Martinez &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. José Aguilar-Rodríguez&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. &lt;br&gt;<br /> ... &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 13, 5:30am - Sunrise hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> Update: I've modifed to be back a half hour earlier to an hour to frehen up and eat before taking the bus to SFI.<br /> <br /> We'll meet at 5:30 am at the circle then hike as far as we can go to be back by 7:30 am. <br /> <br /> Equipment: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Backpack &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Liquids: at least 1.5 litres &lt;br&gt; <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> I have two flashlights but they weren't needed on Wednesday.<br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact James Holdener<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 14, 10:00am - Bandelier Field Trip==<br /> <br /> We're taking a trip to [http://www.nps.gov/band/index.htm Bandelier National Monument] on Saturday June 14th. Please visit the &lt;b&gt;[[Bandelier 2014 | Bandelier Field Trip]]&lt;/b&gt; Page to sign up!<br /> <br /> ==June 21, 6:00-9:00pm Santa Fe Fuego Baseball Game==<br /> <br /> Come heckle and drink beer while watching some minor league baseball - [http://www.santafe.com/calendar/event/santa-fe-fuego-vs.-trinidad-triggers1 Fuego v. Trinidad Triggers]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Mathew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Lin Li<br /> <br /> 4. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 5. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 8. Alberto Antonioni<br /> <br /> ==June 27, 6:00-9:00pm Todd and the Fox==<br /> <br /> See Juniper's brother's band [https://www.facebook.com/events/306176446198443/ Todd and the Fox] play on the Plaza at the Santa Fe Band Stand. For full line up of the Santa Fe Bandstand (June 23-August 28) visit [http://santafebandstand.org/ here]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Matthew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 4. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 5. Morgan Edwards<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Leo<br /> <br /> 8. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 9. Cecilia<br /> <br /> 10. Emília<br /> <br /> 11. Sanja<br /> <br /> 12. Renske<br /> <br /> ==Rodeo de Santa Fe==<br /> <br /> Wednesday, June 18!<br /> <br /> Come on down for the 65th annual Rodeo de Santa Fe! Watch real-life cowboys get thrown off of various species of raging livestock for their competition and your entertainment. Starts at 7:00pm, we should leave SJC about 6:00. http://rodeodesantafe.org/<br /> <br /> ===JP's GTI===<br /> 1. JP &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Alireza Goudarzi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Matthew Ayres<br /> <br /> 4.Nhat Nguyen&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Juniper's Car===<br /> 1. Juni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Catherine Bale&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Leto Peel&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Claire Lagesse&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Still Needs a Ride===<br /> <br /> 1. Alberto Antonioni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Luis Martinez Vaquero&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Jennifer Hellmann &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. José Aguilar-Rodríguez &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Ernest Yu Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. Pooya Rezaei &lt;br&gt;<br /> 7. Stefan Pfenninger &lt;br&gt;<br /> 8. Sean Hayes &lt;br&gt;<br /> 9. Renske Vroomans &lt;br&gt;<br /> 10. Emília Garcia Casademont &lt;br&gt;<br /> 11. Degang Wu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 12. Sanja Selakovic &lt;br&gt;<br /> 13. Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> 14. Francesca Lipari<br /> <br /> ==World Cup==<br /> All times are Santa Fe (MST)<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Thursday, June 12&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Brazil vs. Croatia - 1400 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Friday, June 13&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Mexico vs. Cameroon - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Spain vs. Netherlands - 1300 (MST) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Chile vs. Australia - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Saturday, June 14&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Columbia vs. Greece - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Uruguay vs. Costa Rica - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) England vs. Italy - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Côte d'Ivoire vs. Japan - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sunday, June 15&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Switzerland vs. Ecuador - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) France vs. Honduras - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Argentina vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Sports Bars in Santa Fe: '''&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://junctionsantafe.com/ Junction]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.yelp.com/biz/el-paseo-bar-and-grill-santa-fe El Paseo Bar]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/business/on-tap-craft-beers-from-around-state-at-downtown-s/article_de6b6182-fdcd-58ef-9f2e-6e9cc5bf5a85.html Santa Fe Tap Room]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.cowgirlsantafe.com/ Cowgirl Cafe] &lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.riochamasteakhouse.com/ Rio Chama Steak House]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''On campus viewing opportunities:''' Lower Campus Common's Room has a TV that can air the games, and on some occasions we can project the games after-hours in the Great Hall<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe Railyard Events==<br /> <br /> There are a ton of really fun and cool events happening all summer at the Santa Fe Railyard, check the calendar out [http://www.railyardsantafe.com/ here]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-After_Hours&diff=53841 2014-06-13T03:14:05Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* June 12, 10:00pm Full Moon Walk */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Movie Night?==<br /> <br /> Here's a &lt;b&gt;[[Movie Night | Movie Night]]&lt;/b&gt; page to gauge interest/organize some movie viewing time at any point in the coming weeks.<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 10:00pm Full Moon Walk==<br /> <br /> It's FULL MOON!!! And Friday 13th! I think this deserves a FULL moon walk with a few drinks on the top of that hill near the campus and a FULL appreciation of the FULL moon. Maybe also a good opportunity to bring the banjo and whatever fits!!<br /> <br /> Stock up on drinks and leave at 10pm outside of the Peterson Student Center after the others return from Tomasitas...<br /> <br /> Joining:&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Leo&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Brais (maybe)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Pooya<br /> 6. Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 12, 6:00pm Tomasita's==<br /> <br /> Come experience some down home New Mexican cooking at Tomasita's. Margaritas and enchiladas! Yum!<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Catherine&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 7:00pm Santa Fe Bite==<br /> <br /> Green chile cheeseburger time. Meet at the parking circle in front of the coffee shop.<br /> <br /> JP's car<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Nix&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Ana Maria&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Diana L-G&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Morgan Edwards&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Juni's car<br /> <br /> 1. Juni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Sanja&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Nicolas&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June &lt;strike&gt; 10&lt;/strike&gt;11, 5:00pm - Supplies Run==<br /> <br /> JP is going down to buy the stuff everyone needs. He'll take you if you would like.<br /> <br /> &lt;b&gt;JP's GTI (5 seats)&lt;/b&gt;<br /> <br /> 1.JP&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2.Anna Olson&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Bernardo Furtado&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4.Ali Kharrazi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Ana Maria Gomez Lopez &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Common Supplies:<br /> <br /> What kinds of supplies can we all split? Make a list here and JP will buy a big box or two for everyone.<br /> <br /> 1). Laundry Soap &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2). Bottles of water (for the hikes) ? Otherwise, please buy a big one (or multiple small ones) for Renske :) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) 3 Flashlights and batteries for James &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Earplugs. If nobody needs them, please buy a pack for Pooya. Thanks!&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5) Beer (I second this request - ''Nicolas'')&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Individual Supplies:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1) Olive oil-- 1 liter bottle---Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Downy Dryer Sheet -- a small box enough for ~6-8 loads--- Nhat Nguyen<br /> 3) Please buy converter for power plug (Europe- US) for Sanja<br /> 4) Another converter for power plug (Europe-US), toothpaste, sun protection, Brais.<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 11, 6:30pm - Sunset hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> UPDATE: meeting point - parking close to lower dorms and Winiarski center.<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The plan is to meet at 6:30 pm (to give enough time to the suppliers to go back ;) ) and hike up to the summit. Then we decide if we wait for the sunset there and go back with last lights or just do it faster.<br /> <br /> Route data:<br /> http://www.summitpost.org/atalaya-mountain/625480 &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Distance: 8 miles (14km) &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Elevation Gain: 1,800 feet (600m) &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Type of route: circular &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Forecast:<br /> http://www.meteoblue.com/en/united-states/weather-atalaya-mountain?day=2<br /> <br /> Equipment: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Backpack &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Liquids: at least 1.5 litres &lt;br&gt; <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you have a torch, please bring it. It would not be necessary, but just in case... ;)<br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact Luis Martínez<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. Luis Martinez &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. José Aguilar-Rodríguez&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. &lt;br&gt;<br /> ... &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 13, 5:30am - Sunrise hike to Atalaya mountain==<br /> <br /> Update: I've modifed to be back a half hour earlier to an hour to frehen up and eat before taking the bus to SFI.<br /> <br /> We'll meet at 5:30 am at the circle then hike as far as we can go to be back by 7:30 am. <br /> <br /> Equipment: &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Walking sneakers or mountain boots &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Backpack &lt;br&gt;<br /> - Liquids: at least 1.5 litres &lt;br&gt; <br /> - Different warm layers (it could be windy and chilly) &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> I have two flashlights but they weren't needed on Wednesday.<br /> <br /> If you do not have something or you have any question just contact James Holdener<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Participants: &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> 1. James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 14, 10:00am - Bandelier Field Trip==<br /> <br /> We're taking a trip to [http://www.nps.gov/band/index.htm Bandelier National Monument] on Saturday June 14th. Please visit the &lt;b&gt;[[Bandelier 2014 | Bandelier Field Trip]]&lt;/b&gt; Page to sign up!<br /> <br /> ==June 21, 6:00-9:00pm Santa Fe Fuego Baseball Game==<br /> <br /> Come heckle and drink beer while watching some minor league baseball - [http://www.santafe.com/calendar/event/santa-fe-fuego-vs.-trinidad-triggers1 Fuego v. Trinidad Triggers]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Mathew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Lin Li<br /> <br /> 4. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 5. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 8. Alberto Antonioni<br /> <br /> ==June 27, 6:00-9:00pm Todd and the Fox==<br /> <br /> See Juniper's brother's band [https://www.facebook.com/events/306176446198443/ Todd and the Fox] play on the Plaza at the Santa Fe Band Stand. For full line up of the Santa Fe Bandstand (June 23-August 28) visit [http://santafebandstand.org/ here]<br /> <br /> 1. Juniper<br /> <br /> 2. Matthew Ayres<br /> <br /> 3. Flavia Marquitti<br /> <br /> 4. Leto Peel<br /> <br /> 5. Morgan Edwards<br /> <br /> 6. Claire Lagesse<br /> <br /> 7. Leo<br /> <br /> 8. Ernest Yu Liu<br /> <br /> 9. Cecilia<br /> <br /> 10. Emília<br /> <br /> 11. Sanja<br /> <br /> 12. Renske<br /> <br /> ==Rodeo de Santa Fe==<br /> <br /> Wednesday, June 18!<br /> <br /> Come on down for the 65th annual Rodeo de Santa Fe! Watch real-life cowboys get thrown off of various species of raging livestock for their competition and your entertainment. Starts at 7:00pm, we should leave SJC about 6:00. http://rodeodesantafe.org/<br /> <br /> ===JP's GTI===<br /> 1. JP &lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Alireza Goudarzi&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3.Matthew Ayres<br /> <br /> 4.Nhat Nguyen&lt;br&gt;<br /> 5.Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Juniper's Car===<br /> 1. Juni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Catherine Bale&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Leto Peel&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Claire Lagesse&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Still Needs a Ride===<br /> <br /> 1. Alberto Antonioni&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2. Luis Martinez Vaquero&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. Jennifer Hellmann &lt;br&gt;<br /> 4. José Aguilar-Rodríguez &lt;br&gt;<br /> 5. Ernest Yu Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 6. Pooya Rezaei &lt;br&gt;<br /> 7. Stefan Pfenninger &lt;br&gt;<br /> 8. Sean Hayes &lt;br&gt;<br /> 9. Renske Vroomans &lt;br&gt;<br /> 10. Emília Garcia Casademont &lt;br&gt;<br /> 11. Degang Wu &lt;br&gt;<br /> 12. Sanja Selakovic &lt;br&gt;<br /> 13. Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> 14. Francesca Lipari<br /> <br /> ==World Cup==<br /> All times are Santa Fe (MST)<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Thursday, June 12&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Brazil vs. Croatia - 1400 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Friday, June 13&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Mexico vs. Cameroon - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Spain vs. Netherlands - 1300 (MST) &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Chile vs. Australia - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Saturday, June 14&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Columbia vs. Greece - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) Uruguay vs. Costa Rica - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) England vs. Italy - 1600 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 4) Côte d'Ivoire vs. Japan - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sunday, June 15&lt;br&gt;<br /> 1) Switzerland vs. Ecuador - 1000 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 2) France vs. Honduras - 1300 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> 3) Argentina vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina - 1900 (MST)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Sports Bars in Santa Fe: '''&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://junctionsantafe.com/ Junction]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.yelp.com/biz/el-paseo-bar-and-grill-santa-fe El Paseo Bar]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/business/on-tap-craft-beers-from-around-state-at-downtown-s/article_de6b6182-fdcd-58ef-9f2e-6e9cc5bf5a85.html Santa Fe Tap Room]&lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.cowgirlsantafe.com/ Cowgirl Cafe] &lt;br&gt;<br /> [http://www.riochamasteakhouse.com/ Rio Chama Steak House]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''On campus viewing opportunities:''' Lower Campus Common's Room has a TV that can air the games, and on some occasions we can project the games after-hours in the Great Hall<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe Railyard Events==<br /> <br /> There are a ton of really fun and cool events happening all summer at the Santa Fe Railyard, check the calendar out [http://www.railyardsantafe.com/ here]</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53637 2014-06-12T16:03:23Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Death in physical, biological and social systems */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Meeting today (Jun 12) indicate your availability here:http://doodle.com/w5bys3zfmpeamf32<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> <br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com)<br /> <br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin: I believe that this mechanism may have much to do with why &quot;business cycle&quot; occur.<br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53635 2014-06-12T16:03:00Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Death in physical, biological and social systems */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Meeting today (Jun 12) indicate your availability here:http://doodle.com/w5bys3zfmpeamf32<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com)<br /> <br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin: I believe that this mechanism may have much to do with why &quot;business cycle&quot; occur.<br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53634 2014-06-12T16:01:06Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Death in physical, biological and social systems */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Meeting today (Jun 12) indicate your availability here:http://doodle.com/w5bys3zfmpeamf32<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com)<br /> <br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin: I believe that this mechanism may have much to do with why &quot;business cycle&quot; occur.<br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53632 2014-06-12T16:00:26Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Meeting today (Jun 12) indicate your availability here:http://doodle.com/w5bys3zfmpeamf32<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> <br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com)<br /> <br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin: I believe that this mechanism may have much to do with why &quot;business cycle&quot; occur.<br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53631 2014-06-12T15:59:54Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Death in physical, biological and social systems */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Meeting today (Jun 12) indicate your availability here:http://doodle.com/w5bys3zfmpeamf32<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> <br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com)<br /> <br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin: I believe that this mechanism may have much to do with why &quot;business cycle&quot; occur.<br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53628 2014-06-12T15:59:14Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Bitcoin */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Meeting today (Jun 12) indicate your availability here:http://doodle.com/w5bys3zfmpeamf32<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> <br /> Ana María (I really find this topic interesting)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt; <br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Matthew Ayres (matthew.ayres@growthandinnovation.com.au) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com)<br /> <br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin: I believe that this mechanism may have much to do with why &quot;business cycle&quot; occur.<br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Vipin (vipin.veetil at gmail dot com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Luis Martínez (fnxabraxas@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53612 2014-06-12T15:34:11Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think? */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (I really find this topic interesting)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> *For those interested in this project, we will be meeting at 1 pm in the cafeteria with a related project to determine how to split up the groups. Cheers, Jessica*&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Bernardo Furtado bernardo.furtado at ipea.gov.br &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species coupled with an environmental network.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Co-evolution of Anti-vaccination Sentiment and Flu Infections==<br /> <br /> People's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Previous work has separately studied (1) how beliefs propagate and change over time, (2) how diseases spread through a population over time, and (3) the (static) correlation between beliefs about vaccination and infection rates; but possibly not all three simultaneously.<br /> <br /> This project has some similarities to the project on &quot;Coupling Different Types of Networks,&quot; and it may make sense for the two groups to be in communication with each other, or even to merge the two projects. This can be discussed later as the projects develop.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat&lt;br&gt;<br /> Glen&lt;br&gt;<br /> Andy&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (anamaria.gomezlopez@yale.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian (bthompso8784@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu) [Definitely interested in joining the conversation]<br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ali Kharrazi &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger [other angles include: citation networks/academic generations and how they change through time (Diego's idea); citations between subfields to quantify interdisciplinarity and how it changes over time]&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53596 2014-06-12T13:18:45Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Death in physical, biological and social systems */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María (I really find this topic interesting)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species, and environmental factors affecting the natural resources in the system.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenniger&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53595 2014-06-12T13:18:28Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Death in physical, biological and social systems */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin<br /> Ana María (I really find this topic interesting)<br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species, and environmental factors affecting the natural resources in the system.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenniger&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php?title=Complex_Systems_Summer_School_2014-Projects_%26_Working_Groups&diff=53594 2014-06-12T13:16:22Z

<p>Gomezlopezam: /* Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think? */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Complex Systems Summer School 2014}}<br /> <br /> ==Bitcoin==<br /> <br /> Bitcoin is an online peer-to-peer currency which has gained popularity in recent years. With increased general interest and now more and more companies accepting transactions in Bitcoin, so to has its value and is currently priced at $633 for 1 Bitcoin!<br /> <br /> '''So what is Bitcoin?''' <br /> <br /> The idea behind Bitcoin was to remove the need for a centralised banking system. The way this works is to have all transactions made public and then have the Bitcoin community validate transactions by donating computational power (and rewarded in Bitcoins). For further details see this blog:<br /> <br /> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/<br /> <br /> '''So why is it interesting?'''<br /> <br /> Usually companies and individuals keep all of their financial records private, but ALL transaction in Bitcoin are publicly available, so this provides a unique opportunity to study financial transactions. While the transactions are public, the owners of Bitcoin remain (relatively) anonymous, and so this has led to associations with criminal activities (e.g. on the silk road) from illegal drugs to hired hit-men. In addition to illegal activities using the currency, there have also been a number of illegal activities against the currency, such as high valued heists of the order of $100 million. <br /> <br /> ''Oh, and of course its a big temporally evolving network.''<br /> <br /> If you're interested in working on this then add your name below. If there is interest, then we can have a &quot;Bitcoin, beers and blackboard&quot; session to throw some ideas around.<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> Leto&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai&lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==MITRE Data Sets==<br /> <br /> To access the data please contact Juniper she has it on a hard drive. Here is a PDF that explains the datasets and gives some sample challenge questions. <br /> [[Media:mitredata.pdf |MITRE DATA PDF]] If you have any specific questions about the data you can contact Matt Koehler at mkoehler@mitre.org<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Death in physical, biological and social systems== <br /> <br /> Firms, nation states, human beings and stars all die. Do the causes of &quot;death&quot; in physical, biological and social systems have something in common? If yes, what is it?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Fractal-like structures in economic data== <br /> <br /> In the 1960-70s Mandelbrot showed that some economic time series have fractal-like structures, i.e. they look the same at many time scales. The existence of these structures has been debated since. Do economic time series like S&amp;P 500 index have fractal-like structures? If yes, how fractal-like are they?<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Vipin&lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> Qiao Zhi&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Microbial Community Data Sets== <br /> <br /> The Earth Microbiome Project [http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/ EMP] is a massively multidisciplinary effort to analyze microbial communities across the globe. The general premise is to characterize the Earth by environmental parameter space into different biomes and then explore these using samples currently available from researchers across the globe. All data sets are processed in the same way (DNA extraction, PCR primers, sequencing, bioinformatics), making them inter-comparable. You can explore these data sets (including some time series, and a bunch of spatial samplings) at the following link [http://microbio.me/emp EMP Data] (no need to create a login ID, just scroll down to 'Download Public Data'). If you have questions, please contact Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Does Larger Memory Capacity Brings about Evolutionary Advantage?==<br /> <br /> Evolutionary game theory modeling. Agents/players on lattice or networks. A player with n-step memory has responses to all 4^n past game outcomes. Intuitively, a player with longer memory can have more sophisticated strategy, which might be used to exploit player with smaller memory capacity. Yet according to the Prisoner's Dilemma tournament organized by Axelrod, Tit-for-Tat, which can be modeled using only one-step memory, fares better than a number of sophisticated strategies invented by experts in the field of game theory. From the game theory perspective, does smaller memory capacity actually have evolutionary benefits?<br /> Please contact Degang Wu (dwuab@ust.hk).<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Blaz &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==North American Breeding Birds Survey and tropical trees==<br /> <br /> This dataset contains ~4500 sites where populations of birds (~600 species overall, ~60 species on average in every site) were sampled over the past 44 years. This gives numerous time series of both population sizes and the overall number of species. Some problems with this dataset include large observational errors. A dataset of tropical trees with the exact diameter, identity (from among 300 species) and location of ~250000 trees over 6 censuses is also available. Please contact Michael Kalyuzhny for these.<br /> <br /> ==Santa Fe tournament of time series analysis!==<br /> <br /> Do fluctuations in timeseries arise from nonlinear dynamics or from stochasticity? Specifically, there are several examples of ecological time series where chaos/complex periodicity were found (and published in Science and other leading journals). But usually such analyses didn't examine alternative models of stochastic dynamics. I propose making some meta-analysis and trying to compare the predictive power of both kinds of models. This can also be done in other fields were such timeseries are available. If you want to talk about this - contact Michael Kalyuzhny<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Multiplex Networks==<br /> <br /> How does the structure of social networks affect the emergence and persistence of norms? Why are some norms (like fashion styles) less persistent than others (like religious beliefs)? Is this because different kinds of norms live on different social networks (with same individual participating in different networks)? If yes, how do these social networks interact? <br /> <br /> And finally, what do the answers to the above questions tell us about policy interventions? Can certain critical properties of network structures be exploited to change norms, like going to the moon without much fuel? If two networks interact, say religious belief and fashion styles, can interventions in one be used to bring about changes in another?<br /> <br /> ''Interested''<br /> <br /> Vipin &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sarah L &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Francesca &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Massimo &lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes (shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> ==Network Tolerance of Failure==<br /> <br /> How might a network endure non-catastrophic failure without isolating the failing components? Most network failure models consider resilience against failure as a result of isolating failing components. In contrast, is it possible for the network to be robust through &quot;tolerance&quot; of failure? Perhaps, for example, a symbiotic relationship sustains a weakened node until it has recovered its prior performance. Or perhaps a transmitting network retains a connection to an offline node to reduce an anticipated memory load of re-establishing the connection when it comes back online. What are some of the ways in which networks are able to maintain connection to a failing node without failing themselves in the process - how is the cascade halted without isolation? This is meant to be a broad question to generate more specific ideas. Importantly, this question refers to &quot;tolerance of&quot; failure in contrast to &quot;resilience against&quot; failure.<br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: Jessica Santana jsant@stanford.edu<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> <br /> James Holdener &lt;br&gt;<br /> Junjian Qi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ells Campbell&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leto&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)<br /> <br /> ==Influence of different types of parasites and pathogens in networks on dynamics and stability of food webs==<br /> <br /> In nature there is a number of infectious agents which have different evolutionary approaches in way how they influence their hosts. We want to built artificial ecological network and to compare how these evolutionary solutions affect stability of food webs. <br /> &lt;br&gt;Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Interested: <br /> <br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt; <br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cecilia: Are we going to discuss today at 9? &lt;br&gt; No probably, but tomorrow, today is a free day! Relax!:D<br /> <br /> ==Growth of Cities==<br /> <br /> Do foraging animals and growing cities utilize resources in the same way? We're interested in building an agent-based model which generates a road network on a map of varying resources by following a set of simple, probabilistic rules. How do the properties of this network evolve through time? How much of city growth can be explained by resource constraints? Do simple rules of growth parallel simple rules of animal foraging behavior? This project will explore agent-based modeling, but will also present opportunities to examine the limits of modeling. Contacts: Diana LaScala-Gruenewald (dianalg11 at gmail.com) and Claire Lagesse (lagesse.claire at gmail.com).<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Morgan Edwards &lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta &lt;br&gt;<br /> Alberto Antonioni &lt;br&gt; <br /> Ernest Liu &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi Ashikaga (hashika1@jhmi.edu) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Towards a Unified Theory of Biodiversity==<br /> <br /> The idea is to build on the Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and create a realistic unified theory that incorporates important scaling phenomena following power laws, energetic constraints, and stochasticity that have been previously neglected. Basically, we want to modify the unrealistic assumptions that birth, death, speciation rates are stochastic uniform functions across all species within a given meta-community. In fact, these processes have recently been shown to scale with body size following power laws of the form Y= C * M^alpha, where C is a constant independent of body mass, M, and alpha is the scaling exponent. These constraints will also dictate how much energy is required at different trophic levels and body sizes, ultimately constraining abundance of organisms in natural systems. Stochasticity will still play a role, but it should be first bounded by energetic constraints. We also plan to incorporate environmental noise, that is to say, incorporate in the model the realistic assumption that the environment changes through time and therefore so will the fitness of different species in the meta-community.<br /> The ultimate goal is to provide a Unified Theory that can make clear predictions about size-abundance-distributions in natural systems, and, perhaps, also make predictions about speciation-extinction dynamics. We currently hold data to test predictions on an 'ecological' time scale. At this point we are uncertain on whether we could obtain good fossil/contemporary data to calibrate/test models.<br /> <br /> Interested: &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diego Barneche Rosado &lt;br&gt;<br /> Cornelia Metzig &lt;br&gt;<br /> Michael Kalyuzhny &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Coupling of different types of networks==<br /> <br /> We want to develop a concept of how to work with networks of qualitatively different types of relationships or interactions that can influence each other (eg. natural and social). Sign up and come to brainstorm with us :) Contact: sanjakojasanja@gmail.com<br /> <br /> For example, people's beliefs about the health benefits/risks of vaccination can be influenced by their social network, and may be studied using belief propagation models. Simultaneously, diseases may spread through a population, which can be studied using diffusion or other epidemiological models. Furthermore, people's beliefs about vaccination may affect their probability of getting infected by a disease, and in turn, getting infected may cause them to re-evaluate their beliefs.<br /> <br /> Another example could involve an ecological network expressing predation and competition among species, and environmental factors affecting the natural resources in the system.<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sanja &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Brian &lt;br&gt;<br /> Nhat (nhattdnguyen@gmail.com) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Consciousness as an emergent state of matter – what do you think?==<br /> <br /> You’re conscious right now, reading this. How does subjective experience emerge out of the bundles of particles that we all are?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Scholars of many fields have been deconstructing the mind/body dualism for a while, but consciousness remains a big, hard question. I’m no expert and by proposing this as a topic I’m not expecting that any of us will solve it, but I would be very interested in exchanging on the issue with the smart individuals that you are, grounded in so many backgrounds and unafraid of complex problems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> So... physicians and physicists, social scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists and others… what do you think? Don’t hold back – if beer is necessary for you to address this issue, it can be arranged.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Contact Sarah L (laborde.7@osu.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Alireza (alireza.goudarzi at gmail.com)[totally agree with writing down something to figure out what are plausible ways to think about and study this]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de) [love the topic ... I'm glad someone brought it up ... I might have some ideas to contribute]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Claire (lagesse.claire at gmail.com) [it sounds fascinating... :) ]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu) [Happy to contribute from a medical and personal point of view]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Hayes(shaye004@ucr.edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Cole Mathis (cole.mathis@asu.edu) [The origin and consciousness and the origin of life (my main research interest) have a lot in common, I'm always down to talk about consciousness with some beers, if something novel emerges that's great.]&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília [happy to contribute from various points of view, but I advance that, to me, it has a lot to do with memory] &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Note: this doesn’t have to become a formal project, although it could. Let me know if you’re interested in a chat, writing an interdisciplinary dialogue piece, or anything related to this question.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tradeoffs between division of labor and stability in networks==<br /> <br /> The Black Queen Hypothesis [http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/2/e00036-12.abstract BQH] describes the evolution of functional dependencies in microbial ecosystems. This process results in a subset of a community providing necessary services for the rest of the community (see link). Organisms that can outsource essential functions escape the cost performing these functions and have more resources for growth and reproduction. However, this process makes the ecosystem more delicate, as the destruction of key species can eliminate their crucial service(s) and lead to system collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between the stability of a network (in the face of perturbations), and the degree of cooperation (how many tasks can be outsourced). As a result of this tradeoff, we could expect different community types to arise in stable vs. variable environments. There is likely some critical range between these two modes (high vs. low environmental variability), where some mixed strategy is optimal. &lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> This process may have an analogue in the development of multicellular life (vs. free-living single-celled organisms), where each cell type expresses a subset of the genome and provide a specific set of services to the whole (division of labor). This might also be reflected in social or economic networks (higher stability = more cooperative?). A connection could potentially be made to life-history tradeoffs for individual organisms (r vs. k selection - oligotrophs vs. copiotrophs), or in dissipative chemical systems (e.g. [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/139/12/10.1063/1.4818538 Stat-Mech of Self Replication]).&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> Definitely a work in progress, please add your thoughts if you are interested!<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Sean Gibbons (sgibbons at uchicago dot edu)&lt;br&gt;<br /> Rohan Mehta&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan&lt;br&gt;<br /> Emília &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==How can evolutionary game theory be applied to electricity trading==<br /> <br /> The interest of this project is the following: how can evolutionary game theory be used to find optimal strategies for consumers and/or producers that bid in the electricity market. Also some real data can be considered.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Contact Blaz&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang Wu&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Information Theory of the Heart ==<br /> <br /> The heart is a complex system with simple rules of operation and minimal central control. Under normal conditions, it orchestrates a self-organized, emergent behavior of 2 to 3 billion heart cells to perform sophisticated, well-timed pumping of the blood. Under abnormal conditions, it can lead to sudden cardiac death due to cardiac arrhythmias, which are also emergent, collective behaviors of a large number of heart cells, where each heart cell doesn't necessarily need to be abnormal.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Each heart cell is a dynamic information processing system, which transmits digital information (0 – resting, 1 – excited) in the form of electrical wave. We aim to establish a theoretical basis to quantify information transmission within the heart using information theory and network theory. Our hypothesis is that arrhythmias following heart attack result from an adaptive mechanism to optimize information transmission in abnormal hearts.&lt;br&gt; <br /> <br /> If you want to discuss more please contact Hiroshi (hashika1@jhmi.edu).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Hiroshi &lt;br&gt;<br /> Flavia &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> == Cells and Software: Is Evolution a Software Engineer? ==<br /> <br /> There appear to be striking similarities between how we design software, and how evolution designed cells. Some of the analogies are:&lt;br&gt;<br /> - The concept of &quot;Encapsulation&quot;. In object oriented programs, data inside an object is protected by an interface of functions. Similarly, processes within a cell (intra-cellular signaling cascades) are protected from the extra-cellular messaging activities through membrane-bound receptors acting as the interface.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is similar to proper memory deallocation in programs, while Necrosis is similar to dangling pointers and memory corruption.&lt;br&gt;<br /> - Proteolysis (breaking down of proteins into constituent amino acids) is similar to automatic garbage collection.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> There are certain constraints (perhaps physical constraints) on the available solutions in biology. Solutions within this constrained solution space eventually result in the emergence of complex behavior. This emergent behavior has enabled humans to engineer solutions to everyday problems. These artificially engineered solutions are very similar in principal to the solutions that already exist in biological systems.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Are our creative processes ultimately bound by the physical constraints that underlie molecular mechanisms? Or, do we just tend to interpret the phenomena at the molecular level according to our own understanding, which is limited by our senses and neurological processes? Is it all about optimization, and everything else is just a side effect?<br /> Can/do “Patterns” transcend disciplines?&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Motifs (biological systems) – Patterns (software). Patterns/motifs transcending biological and software systems could perhaps, fill gaps in our knowledge of biological systems, and help us design better software systems. Deterministic patterns could perhaps indicate what is required for high level functions to emerge from molecular interactions. And perhaps these similarities occur at the interface between low level interaction and emergent phenomena.<br /> <br /> So let's further explore biological and software systems, and try to find answers to these questions.<br /> <br /> For more information, please contact Fahad (fahad.khalid@hpi.uni-potsdam.de).&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Interested:'' &lt;br&gt;<br /> Fahad &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest &lt;br&gt;<br /> Diana &lt;br&gt;<br /> Degang &lt;br&gt;<br /> Stojan &lt;br&gt;<br /> Ana María&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Susceptibility of Fields of Research to Interdisciplinary Influences (network perspective) ==<br /> <br /> Fields of Research are more often than not isolated from one another in terms of their community, jargon, perspective, research programme (in the sense of Lakatos) and their journals and lots more. <br /> <br /> This isolation stands in the way of a fruitful merging and interaction of fields. One needs to understand the obstructions. Hence an analysis of the determining factors for 'community inbreeding' is sought after. Eventually also a quantitative measure for the susceptibility of a research field could be formulated. <br /> <br /> A clear-cut project could be based on data together with a network type analysis of a precise question around the determining factors. <br /> We could look at citation data or journal based data or maybe there is a chance to get hold of data from Jessica's collegues, who works on the diffusion of knowledge. <br /> <br /> It would be great also to discuss and gather our ideas and experiences. <br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Leo (horstmey@mis.mpg.de ) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Jennifer Hellmann&lt;br&gt;<br /> Anna Olson &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lin Li&lt;br&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenniger&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Simple case for studying about “from single-cell to multi-cell / species collaboration”==<br /> <br /> QUESTION: how single-cell evolves to multi-cell, even they do not have so-called “intelligence”?<br /> <br /> How to do:<br /> Let’s imagine that there is a land where resources A, B, C are located, and a kind of creature which need all of these resources to survive (imagine many creatures live in this land).&lt;br&gt;<br /> One surviving strategy is that every creature gathers A, B and C and eat them on its own. But maybe under some condition, specialization would automatically happen (e.g. one creature gather A and another gather B, and then they share).&lt;br&gt;<br /> The goal is to find the necessary condition if possible (we could think out of many sufficient conditions, but finding necessary conditions seems not so easy).<br /> <br /> Interested:&lt;br&gt;<br /> Ernest Liu (yu.liu@math.uu.se) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==An Analysis of the Hierarchies Present in Modern Economic Theory ==<br /> <br /> The idea of this project is to provide a comprehensive survey of the hierarchical structure of economics (macro -&gt; microeconomics) following the reductionist = constructionist + emergence framework of Anderson (N.B. This equation is my own interpretation of Anderson's paper and is open for discussion). Ideally, we would first investigate the microfoundations literature of macroeconomics and the possibility for ABM to rectify some of the redundancies therein after which we would reverse the direction and see how, given some 'fundamental' laws of economic behaviour, we could couple these with emergent phenomena (whatever they may be) to reconstruct the economy at the macro-level.<br /> <br /> ''Interested''&lt;br&gt;<br /> Nicolas ( nicolas dot scholtes at unamur dot be) &lt;br&gt;<br /> Claudius<br /> <br /> == The Topological Modeling of Infrastructure Networks ==<br /> <br /> There is some disagreement on the topology of power networks in the literature. There are preferential attachment, small-world and random graph models proposed to explain the topology of power networks. There are caveats associated with each of these generative models. For instance, there is the cost of building new transmission lines that may question the validity of preferential models. <br /> <br /> '''The broad question that we attempt to answer here is:'''&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> -Can these previous network models create real-world power networks?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -Can we come up with a better model that can replicate a power network or at least one with similar characteristics?&lt;br&gt;<br /> -What about other infrastructure networks, e.g., natural gas network, water piping networks, etc? &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Interested:<br /> Pooya Rezaei&lt;br&gt;<br /> Tom McAndrew&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Functional Networks and their evolution ==<br /> <br /> <br /> We are interested in researching (possibly hierarchical) networks that have a function which can be quantified. We are interested in understanding how such networks evolve and may continue to deliver all or part of their function when they are damaged. As of now, we do not have a clear conceptualization of these ideas in formal network language, and our immediate task is to think of the formal network structure we wish to explore (e.g. b-partite, multileveled). Possible concrete cases to apply this formal characterization to are trees (i.e. plants), power grids, or financial networks.<br /> <br /> Interested (please contact us to join the debate):<br /> <br /> Alex Brummer (brummera@email.arizona.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Shai Gorsky (shai.gorsky@utah.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Beth Lusczek (lusc0006@umn.edu)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Stefan Pfenninger (s.pfenninger12@imperial.ac.uk)&lt;BR&gt;<br /> Jessica Santana (jsant@stanford.edu)&lt;BR&gt;</div>

Gomezlopezam