Survival of the fittest: AI perfectly illustrates Darwinism at a business level – Information Age

At the most basic level, applying AI to certain processes can free up the time of an organisations executives, allowing them to concentrate on higher value tasks. Ultimately, without putting these measures in place, its hard to see much of a future for the professional services industry as the advancing AI revolution continues apace

Darwin may have addressed the natural world, but his insights still offer some valuable lessons in business.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and how businesses are adapt to this new technological development provides a great example of Neo-Darwinism at work in todays corporate landscape.

AI is on the march within the next two years, AI services will have cannibalised revenues for a third of market leaders, according to Gartner. For those that trade in consultancy and relationship-building, its easy to dismiss the impact of AI, and easy to assume that headlines such as, Will a robot take my job? are for manual, blue-collar workers to worry about.

However, this is a dangerous point of view to adopt. Simply because the speed at which information is now consumed and synthesised by AI far surpasses any human capacity, and is becoming more sophisticated every week evidenced recently by the AI that defeated six of the best human poker players to win a 230,000 prize.

>See also:The value of artificial intelligence in business

For professional services firms which proudly guard (and sell) their knowledge and accumulated experience, the democratising effects of AI could theoretically undermine their entire business model; empowering the average consumer with quantifiable research and actionable data that far outweigh any advice a professional adviser could provide. This is particularly true on the lower end of the value curve, where robotic process automation (RPA) is already replacing the work that humans once did on certain processes.

The legal sector provides a great example of this, since much of the work performed revolves around sifting through documents, contracts and cases, which are a prime target for automation. Companies like LawGeex, with their ambition to automate the entire legal industry, offer a vision of the future for all professional services.

LawGeex AI-based service allows users to upload a contract and points out any clauses which dont meet common legal standards. The report also automatically details any vital clauses that could be missing, and where existing clauses might require revision.

>See also:5 ways AI will impact the global business market in 2017

These sorts of tools may not be the preferred option for most legal needs at this point its reasonable to assume that customers wouldnt rely on it for expensive contracts yet the technology that underpins it is rapidly maturing. It may not be long until AI can even outperform a human lawyer.

AI has arguably already had its tipping point in the public consciousness, illustrated by our familiarity with having conversations with our phones, computers or in-home assistants like Amazon Alexa.

As examples such as LawGeex demonstrate, AI is silently stealing a march on every industry its exposed to. AI-driven solutions are increasingly commonplace in wealth management, for example, where three of the worlds top five brokerages rely on anAI solution for data analysis. AI is also a natural fit for the data-centric insurance industry, where its capacity for simulation modelling and data analysis from a range of different sources makes it invaluable to underwriters.

Elsewhere, AI can power predictive maintenance and self-monitoring technologies for manufacturers which can save billions. Although real-world examples may still be thin on the ground, the tipping point from theory to practice is fast approaching evidenced by the large investments made by Microsoft, Google, Amazon and IBM, which acquired over 20 AI firms in the last year alone.

>See also:What are the business benefits of artificial intelligence?

Highly empowered and enlightened consumers are more in control of the buying journey than ever before and by 2020, its estimated that customers will manage 85% of their enterprise relationships without interacting with humans.

It might appear at face value that the professional services industry is heading for collapse after all, whats the point of employing humans to do a job that AI can do more accurately, efficiently and quickly? This however, isnt entirely correct, rather were heading towards a point where we as professionals will simply need to become more innovative if were to keep offering value.

A fundamental rethink is required; while were still some way off seeing the real impact of AI, business leaders need to be prepared to implement technology and processes that reengineer the way organisations have traditionally operated. And AI may well unlock new business processes that might not have been available before, inadvertently offering new value to a professional services firm.

>See also:Artificial intelligence: how its transforming financial services today

AI could replace much of the bread-and-butter tasks, providing an opportunity for organisations to offer new services on top of them, such as more informed face-to-face legal counsel.

At the most basic level, applying AI to certain processes can free up the time of an organisations executives, allowing them to concentrate on higher value tasks. Ultimately, without putting these measures in place, its hard to see much of a future for the professional services industry as the advancing AI revolution continues apace.

Sourced byFrank Palermo, global head, Digital Solutions, VirtusaPolaris

The UKs largest conference for tech leadership, TechLeaders Summit, returns on 14 September with 40+ top execs signed up to speak about the challenges and opportunities surrounding the most disruptive innovations facing the enterprise today. Secure your place at this prestigious summit by registeringhere

Original post:

Survival of the fittest: AI perfectly illustrates Darwinism at a business level - Information Age

Black Hawk Robotics celebrates successful season with awards ceremony – Blue Ribbon News

(HEATH, TX June 7, 2017) The Rockwall-Heath High School Black Hawk Robotics team celebrated its state championship-winning season with an awards ceremony recognizing its standout team members on Monday, June 5.

The following students were honored with awards during the celebratory event, held in the cafeteria at Rockwall-Heath High School:

Darius Day Team Spirit Brandon Diaz Humor Under Fire Garrett Short Gracious Professionalism Geovanni Copioli Rookie All Star Katie Layton Outstanding Veteran Madison Drake Outstanding Leadership Kamrey Mantz Team MVP (non robot) Ben Selle Build Team (Robot) MVP

Each of the teams six volunteer mentors also received honorary plaques during the event.

Black Hawk Robotics Coach Leslie Reese said the students put in well over 400 hours after school throughout the season, including Saturdays and some Sundays a testament to their work ethic and dedication.

Reese said the team started the season with one goal in mind qualifying for the Einstein Round Robin of the FIRST Robotics Competition. Not only did they qualify, the team came away victorious at Einstein and eventually went on to win the Texas UIL Robotics State Championship, capping off their most successful season yet.

The students biggest strength was being able to work together as a team, with the drivers telling the pit crew whats wrong with the robot so they can fix it really fast, the scouts being able to pick the right robots that were going to pair with, that type of thing. Since they get along so well, they communicated very well. Its all communication, and it all has to come together to have a successful season like this, Reese said.

Ive seen us grow as a team a lot, said Rockwall-Heath Junior and Team Media Captain Kamrey Mantz. We were kind of shaky at first, but we have our own little groups that we work with so its pretty productive. Its a good system we make sure everyones involved all the time.

Pit Crew Captain Ben Selle said the robot performed at a high level in competition despite going through a number of changes throughout the season.

If you saw the robot at the start of the season, it looks nothing like it does now. Definitely a lot of iteration, we completely changed everything on there. But the robot performed phenomenally. Towards the end of the season it was running just like we wanted it to run, Selle said.

By Austin Wells, Blue Ribbon News. Photos courtesy of Black Hawk Robotics.

Our monthly print edition is delivered free to 19,000+ homes in Rockwall and Heath, TX.

To share your good news and events, email editor@BlueRibbonNews.com.

Subscribe to our email newsletter here.

Advertising: 214-342-8000 or advertising@BlueRibbonNews.com.

Read the original:

Black Hawk Robotics celebrates successful season with awards ceremony - Blue Ribbon News

Students Have Fun, Broaden Skills at Robotics Camp – News Radio 1310 KLIX

TWIN FALLS, Idaho (KLIX) A Lego robot moved to block a goal, sending the ball off the table. A student picked it up and placed it near his teams robot for another shot. His opponents robot once more blocked the ball.

Nobody became angry that goals were missed; the activity was all about having fun.

This was table soccer at the University of Idaho Extension Office on Wednesday morning in Twin Falls. It was the third day of the robotics camp for students. In a room downstairs of the County West building, another team of students prepared their bots to play another form of soccer using plastic donuts.

The students had already participated in several different activities earlier this week, said Extension Educator Suzann Dolecheck, and a few more were planned for Thursday and Friday, including a STEM event focused on literacy.

Braden Mealer, 8, said he enjoyed participating in the table soccer tournament in which his teams robot played the goalkeeper. His favorite activity, however, was making a robotic alligator.

The camp seemed to offer something that attracted each student differently. Eight-year-old Jose Carpenter said she enjoyed the soccer game, while Connor Howard said he liked building an airplane.

Students worked in teams instead of alone. The soccer-playing bots were hooked up to laptops into which the students programmed their movements.

The STEM program science, technology, engineering and math aims to help youthbecome more engaged with tools that will help them be more rounded in an ever-advancing technological world. But the robotics camps also increase students knowledge in language, literacy and social studies.

It shows them a little more of how STEM is applicable, said Alyssa Keyes. The cars we drive are robots, drones are robots.

Later in life, as students become of age to choose a career, they might want to consider something in the scientific or technological field. The camps give them a taste of STEM-related activities and gets them thinking toward a career in technology.

If nothing else, it allows them to have fun with their peers.

This is Keyess second year working as an intern for the university. She said technology has come a long way in just the past few years, as she doesnt remember doing much of what these students were doing on Wednesday.

Classes this week include the WeDo Robotics camp for students in grades K-3, an EV3 and advanced EV3 camp for students in grades 3-6, and a Take to the Skies event for youth in grades 4-9. Dolecheck said another robotics event will be held in July.

Dayton Legg, 11, said he enjoys robotics week because its chance to socialize and work closely with his peers. You dont usually work alone, he said, but instead you are part of a team. He also likes robotics events because they are much broader based than the science camps hes attended.

You get to use more than just science, he said.

View post:

Students Have Fun, Broaden Skills at Robotics Camp - News Radio 1310 KLIX

The Three Laws of Robotics need to be overhauled if AI is to power our homes, cars and lives – Wired.co.uk

When it comes to the future of artificial intelligence "only a joint approach will make us strong" says Audi CEO Rupert Stadler, and this involves rewriting the Three Laws of Robotics.

Speaking to journalists ahead of the UN's AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva, Stadler said it's inevitable that artificial intelligence will become integrated into every aspect of our daily lives, but for it to be accepted the public must first trust it.

Audi has already demonstrated its Audi Q7 driverless technology, created with Nvidia, and Stadler plans to demo its all new 'level three' piloted driving with the new Audi A8 this summer. The goal is level five, where no driver is needed. In terms of technological advancement, Stadler believes we are not that far off and predicts prototypes will be demoed from 2020 onwards if public trust is achieved.

Over the past two years, Audi has brought experts in philosophy, psychology, law, and computer science from MIT Media Lab, Oxford University, Singularity University, along with entrepreneurs, together to join its Beyond Initiative. The initiative's aim is to help develop a framework, debate ethical dilemmas that driverless cars necessitate and "make sure AI will share our values when making decisions". One of the most pressing of these problems, Stadler points out, is that we expect technology to always do the 'right' thing, even when it would be virtually impossible for a human to achieve that.

Subscribe to WIRED

Talking about theoretical dilemmas, such as an autonomous vehicle being faced with the choice of harming an elderly person, a pregnant woman, or the passenger in the car, he said: "In such a situation, human beings like you and me have no time for thoughtful decisions. We simply react. Interestingly, we expect the autonomous car to make the right decision, and, quite understandably, people are emotionally touched when thinking of such a scenario. From a rational perspective, such a situation is very unlikely to happen. Of course we as car manufacturers do everything we can to avoid such a situation. Our cars are equipped with many many sensors to detect dangerous situations and to fully brake autonomously if necessary.

"As soon as a car will make decisions by itself in a certain traffic scenario, such a situation can theoretically happen. How should the autonomous car decide when it is not fully clear what will happen in the direction it steers into? Is it ethically sound to choose for the unknown? As a society, we will have to find ways how to deal with these topics. We need an open discourse, in which the massive chances of automated and autonomous driving are considered in relation to the ethical challenges."

To meet these challenges, Stadler suggests we rewrite sci-fi author Isaac Asimov's infamous Three Laws of Robotics. These dictate that AI cannot harm a human, must obey humans unless it means causing harm, and must protect itself as long as that does not involve contradicting the other two laws. Instead, Stadler believes these laws should be: "Number one: we will always handle artificial intelligence based on our human intelligence. Number two: robots and human beings should not harm each other or allow harm by doing nothing. And number three: they should support each other according to their specific capabilities."

Part of Audi's sell for its own future line of driverless cars is providing people with the '25th hour' giving them time they did not have before. Any driverless car should be able to do that. but he suggests that as the technology becomes commonplace, it will more likely see multiple people travelling together in cars for efficiency's sake. Audi will still differentiate itself as the luxury option.

"Maybe you want to take your car alone or do some business. It will be a premium user experience. Maybe it will have an excellent Bang and Olufsen sound system. You could take an hour for relaxation. We are able to hand back to our drivers the 25th hour. Time will be the most precious gift in the future."

Continuing about the future of driving, Stadler said: "The future car I dream of will be a chauffeur who drives me safely wherever I want to go to, a secretary who reminds me what I need to do where and when a butler who gets my groceries, a post box on wheels where couriers can deliver parcels, a private medical staff that keeps an eye on my vital functions and maybe it even becomes an empathetic companion throughout my day. Or in brief: a personal avatar.

"This companion can detect my mood and change the lighting and music and conversation to cheer me up! In a nutshell: AI will allow us to make our lives easier by collecting and interpreting huge amounts of data and by predicting situations of the future. You will be able to play with your children in the car, while the car pays attention to other children playing on the street."

The topic of the summit is AI for good, and, of course, there is plenty of good to be achieved through driverless vehicles beyond the time to relax. Stadler points out that 90 per cent of accidents are caused by human failure, which AI stands to dramatically reduce.

"AI will fundamentally change your mobility, and it's up to all of us to make sure AI is used for the benefit of society. We must set a mechanism for labour markets [to create the] perfect match of man and machine." That relationship between humans and machines needs to be fostered not just in the consumer markets when robot taxis hit the streets and put drivers out of a job, but in Audi's own factories, Stadler said.

"We should not just see the threat, but the opportunities. How the human-machine interface works in a smart factory is always to the benefit of the employee. There's lots of heavy stuff that has to be moved from a to b so why shouldn't technology safeguard employees. And enrichment of jobs will change - there will be different jobs available."

Software engineers and data analysts will be in high demand, and Stadler suggests a basic income could be "the right answer". Humans will still always be better at certain things than machines, such as creativity and empathy, for example.

Yet Audi is definitely not ready to welcome an AI onto its board, as a VC management firm in Hong Kong has already done. "We have the responsibility for 88,000 humans. Sometimes it is good not to be rational alone."

"We have to make sure technology serves society - and not the other way round. Then machines will follow the pace of people again. We want to use AI to secure jobs and to raise the standard of living. At Audi we know: robots wont buy our cars! We have to make sure that our economic system stays in balance. We need a good employment and wealth for our whole economy."

More:

The Three Laws of Robotics need to be overhauled if AI is to power our homes, cars and lives - Wired.co.uk

Robotics camp teaches children to enjoy S.T.E.M. – KMVT – KMVT

TWIN FALLS, Idaho (KMVT/KSVT) - A robotics camp at the College of Southern Idaho is teaching children to program Lego robots.

High school students who compete in robotics taught kids 6 to 8 years old.

They said the kids may have struggled at the beginning, but it was fun watching them figure it out.

"It's just fun to see how their though process is and how they go about finding the solution to their problem," said Blake Miller, one of the instructors.

This camp is a two-day course where the kids learn to operate Milo the robot.

He has a sensor that interacts with a flower the kids built. He can move, make sounds and light up different colors.

The instructors said the kids, as young as 6, were learning STEM skills that will help them in their futures.

The group is also offering camps for older children and uses the fees to help pay for travel to their robotics competitions.

For more information on the camps you can visit CSI's website linked below in the right-hand column.

Read more here:

Robotics camp teaches children to enjoy S.T.E.M. - KMVT - KMVT

Pinewood hosts inaugural SCISA Robotics Competition – Journalscene.com

The first-ever South Carolina Independent School Association (SCISA) Robotics Competition took place May 13 at Pinewood Preparatory School.

Ten Lower and Middle School teams from across the state competed in the inaugural event. The idea for a private school competition was introduced by Pinewoods Idea Lab (design thinking and engineering) faculty members in conjunction with SCISA, and was planned by a committee of parent volunteers, faculty, and staff.

Teams were judged on their robotics skills in three different stages: a "Meet the Team" interview room in which members explained their role on the team and why they joined robotics, a "Robot Design and Programming" room where members detailed the programming process and design engineering steps needed to create a robot, and a table competition to showcase the tasks their robot can perform, based on the theme of "Mars Robotics."

The judging panel was comprised of volunteers from local cybersecurity, aeronautics, and other technology-based businesses and organizations.

Pinewoods two Lower School teams (Roar-Bots 4 and 5) competed, as did one Middle School team. High School Robotics Coach Jim Brice demonstrated the robot created by Pinewoods High School Robotics program.

Spartanburg Christian Academy received the overall Champion Award for the competition.

All three participating teams from Pinewood received divisional awards. Roar-Bots 4 placed third in Robot Table Games and Meet Our Team, and second in Robot Design and Programming. Roar-Bots 5 placed third in Robot Design and Programming, second in Meet Our Team, and first in Robot Table Games. The Middle School Panthers placed second in Robot Table Games and first in Robot Design and Programming.

The committee behind the 2017 competition hopes to see the event continue and expand in years to come.

Here is the original post:

Pinewood hosts inaugural SCISA Robotics Competition - Journalscene.com

These robots get better at grabbing objects by playing poorly together – Digital Trends

Get today's popular DigitalTrends articles in your inbox:

Why it matters to you

An adversarial approach to training robots could make them more quickly adapt to new tasks and environments.

Whether it was your favorite toy or the last portion of mashed potatoes, anyone who grew up with a sibling knows that you learn to forcefully stake your claim to whats rightfully yours.

It turns out that a similar idea can be applied to robots.

In a new piece of research presented at the recent 2017 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) engineers from Google and Carnegie Mellon University demonstrated that robots learn to grasp objects more robustly if another robot can be made to try and snatch it away from them while theyre doing so.

When one robot is given the task of picking up an object, the researchers made its evil twin (not that they used those words exactly) attemptto grab it from them. If the object isnt properly held, the rival robot would be successful in its snatch-and-grab effort. Over time, the first robot learns to more securely hold onto its object and with a vastly accelerated learning time, compared to working this out on its own.

Robustness is a challenging problem for robotics, Lerrel Pinto, a PhD student at Carnegie Mellons Robotics Institute told Digital Trends. You ideally want a robot to be able to transfer what it has learnt to environments that it hasnt seen before, or even be stable to risks in the environment. Our adversarial formulation allows the robot to learn to adapt to adversaries, and this could allow the robot to work in new environments.

The work uses deep learning technology, as well as insights from game theory: the mathematical study of conflict and cooperation, in which one partys gain can mean the other partys loss. In this case, a successful grab from the rival robot is recorded as a failure for the robot it grabbed the objectfrom which triggersa learning experience for the loser. Over time, therobots tussles make each of them smarter.

That sounds like progress just as long as the robots dont eventually form a truce and target us with their adversarial AI, we guess!

Excerpt from:

These robots get better at grabbing objects by playing poorly together - Digital Trends

Your Obsolete Brain: Life and Death in the Age of Superintelligent Machines – Digital Journal

"Published by The Life Science Institute"

Artificial Intelligence Expert Dennis Lee Foster Reveals the Future of Civilization Entwined with Supercomputers, From Technological Chaos to Uploading a Mind to a Machine

In a revealing new book, Artificial Intelligence expert and best-selling author Dennis Lee Foster chronicles how civilization has entered a period of profound social and technological transition in which developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) are completely transforming life and death. In Your Obsolete Brain: Life and Death in the Age of Superintelligent Machines, the author vividly depicts the future of human society as it inevitably becomes entwined withand possibly molded bysuperintelligent computers.

Advanced technologies that might solve the planet's most dire problems have also spawned autonomous killing machines and nanorobots capable of spreading lethal viruses indiscriminately. As superintelligent machines ascend, will they inherit human drives to compete, exploit, and dominate? Will people someday achieve immortality by uploading their minds into computers? Who will be the real masters of future civilizations: humans or machines?

In Your Obsolete Brain, Foster provides the most likely answers, drawn from recent breakthroughs and groundbreaking research, to these and other questions about the most important human quest of modern timespossibly, of all time. While dispelling many of the myths and misconceptions about AI, the book also reveals how civilization will be impacted by autonomous weapons, planned obsolescence, stock market manipulation, the Internet of Things, and current research aimed at uploading a human mind to a computer.

According to Foster, "One event is certain: ultimately, the quality of life and possibly the entire fate of everyone who lives on Earth will be forever impacted by artificial intelligence from birth to death-and possibly beyond. Of all the traits that contributed to the rise and eventual dominance of humans over the planet, ingenuity was perhaps the most profound. Yet, it is our very rise and dominance that produced the coming clash between civilization and technological chaos. In the end, ingenuity may prove to be either our demise or our salvation."

In Your Obsolete Brain, readers will learn how AI can:

Save lives but also kill; empower but also obsolete Solve planetary crises, or hasten the collapse of civilization Bolster or devastate the global economy Enhance or enslave the human brain

Your Obsolete Brain is published by The Life Science Institute, a global think tank devoted to research, education, and information dissemination on scientific, economic, and social issues affecting the perseverance of civilization.

Dennis Lee Foster is a computer scientist, author, educator, and consultant, known as a pioneer in the development of artificial intelligence in educational technology, medical diagnosis, and robotics. Involved in AI research, development, and deployment since 1974, he is the author of more than 60 published books about computers and programming, behavior science, finance, health care, sociology, and communications.

Related:

Artificial Intelligence Expert: It's Too Late to Prevent Thinking Machine Chaos (http://www.usfinancialnewstoday.com/story/58022/artificial-intelligence-expert-its-too-late-to-prevent-thinking-machine-chaos.html)

The AI Insider (http://www.dennisfoster.com/blog)

Author Bibliography (http://www.dennisfoster.com/bibliog.htm)

Book Excerpt (http://dennisfoster.com/nonfiction.htm)

Media Contact Company Name: Life Science Institute Contact Person: Dennis L. Foster Email: lifescience@mail.com Phone: 8088544938 Country: United States Website: http://lifescienceinstitute.com

More here:

Your Obsolete Brain: Life and Death in the Age of Superintelligent Machines - Digital Journal

Wednesday Web Artist of the Week: Eva Papamargariti – ArtSlant

Originally from Greece and based in London, Eva Papamargariti reflects and analyzes the rapidly transforming relationships between material and immaterial matter in our new digital world. Papamargaritis work contains complex visual (and often audio) collages in which impossible organic forms constantly evolve, mutate, and entwine.

No matter how utterly alien her work can seem, it retains consistent feelings of a deep human familiaritywhich only adds to its uncanny sensibilities. Lurking behind the works gratifying bright colors and psychedelic surrealism lies an unsettling emotional depth that never really allows the viewer to get a firm handle on what exactly it is they are experiencing. Papamargariti reveals, illustrates, and renders a third plane that now exists somewhere between all of our physical and digital realities.

Papamargaritis solo show Precarious Inhabitants, a series of works addressing issues of symbiosis and transformation between human, AI machines, animals and other organic and synthetic bodies, is currently showing at Transfer Gallery through July 8.

Christian Petersen: How has your relationship with computers changed since you started using them?

Eva Papamargariti: I started using computers at the age of 12 and my main activity was to play games on5-inch floppy disks with my brotherso my relationship with them changed a lot since that era. Back thenI could never imagine that they would become the first object I would touch every morning when I wake up and also I could never even remotely think that I would use them as the main tool to create art.

CP: What were your early online experiences like?

EP: It was an exciting era specially because you would feel the mystery and charm of something that was still unknown to a majority of the users. Now most of our online activities seem predictable, or to say it better, I believe the element of surprise is missing a lot.

CP: You studied architecture at one point. What influence has that discipline had on your art?

EP: I graduatedfrom architecture five years ago. The transition was quite natural cause I was already studying at a school that had a quite wide curriculum mixing new media, art, and architecture. We actually had many tutors that were artists themselves. When I was doing my diploma thesis I started uploading some very simple gif animations on Tumblr just because I was really fed up with architecture, to be honest. During this period and after my graduation, gradually I started uploading more and more stuff while I was taking a break from anything that was architecture-related. That helped me understand that maybe my ideas could be better communicated through art.

I wasnt the kid that always wanted to be an architectI was just searching for something, and I considered architecture to be diverse and more open thematically in terms of what the courses provided compared to other studies, so I went for it. The influence that it had on my practice and art is really important and I think I am lucky to have experienced architecture at this specific school where we were encouraged to get out of the normative and stereotypical way of thinking. A recurring theme in my work is an attempt to dissolve, distort, and understand space through embodied experience through the use of digital mediums. Architecture is still present in what I do.

CP: What was the first artwork you made using a computer that you recognized as digital art

EP: I guess it was my first series of animated gifs that I did while playing basically on 3ds Max. They would always be some fragments of space, objects, and bodies moving in frenetic ways. I think it was around 2012 that Lorna Mills somehow saw my work on Google+ and contacted me to create gifs for the Sheroes series in Canada created by Rea McNamara and co-curated with Lorna. I was super excited with this when it happened!

CP: Its interesting looking at your Tumblr archive and seeing your progression from experimental video and photography, to gifs to glitch art,to 3D digital art. How would you describe that journey?

EP: My work now feels so much different than what I was doing five or six years ago. The answer is simple: I was trying things in order to find what was, at that particular moment, the best way to express my state of mind. As I was creating more I felt the need to change the tools and means that I was using, because each of these has their own materiality and rules. Its totally different to talk about a subject through video versus gifs, for example. But I also like to get involved in things and situations that are new to me.

Lately I try to create more sculptural work and I also film in real locations. I feel that right now I can filter, support, and build my work more effectively through a combination of mediums and dynamics instead of using only 3D design. Video, photography, drawing, 3D design, gifs, etc. are tools that I use according to the outcome and intentionI want to achieve each time. I dont feel that I should be bound to one medium in order to create art. I changed a lot through these years personally and creatively, so my art and how I make it would inevitably change along with me.

CP: Your bio says that you explore the relationship between digital space and (im)material reality. What is that relationshipand how is it changing as the digital space expands?

EP: This relationship is mainly defined by the way our body and mind stands and perceives these in-between conditions whose boundaries are continuously amplified but also blurred as the simultaneity of the two states becomes more and more pronounced through the use of digital devices. Our eyes and hands are getting used to existing in a dual situation as digital space expands to objects, surfaces, and interfaces. These days its not only our body parts that start to experience the difference but also our mind has altered in terms of how we read, absorb, and redistribute information through and to our surroundings. This relationship that I am trying to explore through my work is always n-dimensional and palimpsestic. What interests me more is this process of re-writing on this in-between area of material and immaterial, and the traces that both physical and digital actions leave as we move forward.

CP: Theres always a lot of elements to your work, a hyperactive spirit. Is that a reflection of your personality?

EP: Yes and no. It certainly reflects my personality but my body sometimes reacts and gets slow. When I was in architecture school I had an amazing tutor that was telling me that my personality is somehow multifocal. Back then I couldnt understand what he might have seen to say something like that; it just didnt make sense. As years went by I totally realized how right he was. I am somehow dispersed between states, references, ideas, balancing between thought and action; I always do multiple things simultaneously and I get easily bored by situations. When this restlessness becomes a feature of my work it is detached from the personal level andmainly reflectsa state of non-stop, complex procedures that we are facing in the physical and digital realm.

CP: People that work in 3D reference rendering a lot. How would you describe your relationship with rendering?

EP: Intense! I refer to rendering all the time and my friends that are not involved in digital art and 3D design still wonder how it can be so complicated. Its a process that involves time and that factor is enough to understand how problematic but also charming it can be. As technology advances rendering times and processes are becoming shorter. With game engines and specific renderers, you can render in real time.

There is a magic element to it that attracts me though, since we build something and then, in order to actually see this creation, we need to pass through these layers and make the invisible visible somehow. I have cursed many times because of rendering, but I kind of enjoy it also.

CP: Your work has become more organic over the years. What interests you about trying to create biological forms digitally?

EP: I am very much interested in the way technology looks at nature and biological forms and the tense areas that are being created while this gazing takes place. My work the last two years deals a lot with themes that connect human action, natural surfaces, tech biomimicry, and animal behavior. I am really intrigued by the condition of observing and mapping natural ecosystems in order to collect data, information, and knowledge that then come back to us in different forms and procedures.

There are many interesting paradoxical and contradictory situations embedded in these processes from a scientific point of view, but also through a more vernacular lens. For example, I find night camera trail footage fascinating, especially when it isused to pattern movements of animals. I find the particular momentswhere the animalsaccidentally look at the camera extremely intense, almost revealing a relationship built on the action of watching and being watched.

CP: Your work often uses very bright colors, but I feel a sense of discomfort or even darkness behind that.

EP: I agree. As I mentioned before, I am quite challenged by the idea of containing multiple meanings in my work and observing the same in the work of others. Using a bright color palette doesnt mean that the work itself emits happiness or uncontrolled energy. I am very much tempted by intense contradictions in art, and people even. I prefer it when ideas can make themselves visible through a slight process of digging and color certainly dictates a mood, but I will never consider it to have a protagonistic role in what I do. It is always a factor that works in combination with other things. To say it better, color in my work is usuallyused as a concealment factor rather than a revealing factor.

Facticious Imprints (Extract)

CP: Do you think your work is political?

EP: Yes, although most of the time this happens in a more subtle than loud way. I believe work that is being created these days inevitably is political one way or another. There are so many urgent issues around us happening on multiple levels that is impossible not to get affected. Choosing not to get affected is also a political decision, I guess, although dangerous. But still, it is a decision that reflects a certain conscious stance.

I definitely believe that political involvement is quite crucial nowadays. Important parts of my work deal with how we position ourselves toward others and through the constantly altering surfaces and spaces that surround us socially, technologically, and environmentally. So the political aspect is there intentionally for sure. I would never deal with themes that dont trigger a sense of immediacy inside me, but I would also never create work just for the sake of being political. This would be totally dishonest towards myself and whomever would engage with the work.

CP: New media has become a vital home for the expression of feminist and gender ideas. What about the medium makes it a particularly interesting way to explore those issues?

EP: I think new media can be very dynamic and vibrant and its true what you said: we have seen some great new media works related to feminism and gender. In those cases, I believe the medium totally matches the intention, which is a very important factor while exploring issues that need to be communicated in a quite clear and bold way.

Also, new media is characterized by a certain peculiar kind of flexibility and fluidity. It can take different forms and contain multilayered ideas. Plus it is more easily disseminated and adaptedit seems more open, inclusive, and receptive as a condition, while at the same time it can create more effectively a sense of collective perception and action. At the same time, its less male-dominated in comparison with sculpture or painting, though I have seen some really intriguing sculpture, performative, and even spoken word work lately that deal with the same issues. In the end its a matter of how you attempt to express your ideas and the actual content of them, not only the medium through which you are expressing them.

CP: How would you define the current difference between working as a digital artist and a traditional artist?

EP: I would say the most striking difference is the pace at which the tools of digital artists are shifting. It feels almost like the tools sometimes choose and act before us. I dont like very much to distinguish artists and art in general but I would say that the challenges to this medium have to do with the relation between the initial concept and the final execution. When you dont deal with many tangible forms then there is a slight danger of getting lost in a stream of endless probabilities.

Its important to find the right balance and mechanism to link idea and outcome in order to achieve a result that is not just taking superficial advantage of the digital features, but embeds their characteristics and structure giving actual meaning to the work.

Despite that, this process contains much openness; it is quite liberating not to have rigid limitations from the medium, and that is an important element that differentiates digital art from traditional art in my opinion. On the other hand, the sense of corporeality in traditional mediums is sometimes unbeatable, although I believe VR, for instance,gives us the potential to overcome this. Still, the way the majority of VR work is being made somehow leaves this feature out or deals with it in a rather facile way, and this is certainly something that needs to be reconsidered seriously.

Always a body, always a thing - Trailer

CP: Tell us about your new show at Transfer Gallery.

EP:I am very happy to have a solo show at Transfer Gallery. Kelani Nichole is doing great work there all these years. I am showing a three-channel adapted version of my last video work Always a body, always a thing, and a sculptural video piece combining four screens on the floor of the gallery. The space has been transformed to an immersive dark projection cave. The title of the show is Precarious Inhabitants and it deals with a series of interconnected issues surrounding amorphy, liquidity, invasive species, plasticization, biomimetic behavior, body malformations on amphibians based on real cases, and the ontology ofrecording and tracking devices.

The three-channel projections construct a system of three parallel narrations. One is a narration of amorphous amphibians that are trying to define and sense their bodies and limbs; the second is a dialogue between humans and invasive species; and the third is a monologue from the side of the human solely. I have used a mix of techniques and materials for the videos which include 3D-rendered environments, game engine simulations, footage I shot in different natural locations, found archival material, and micro-camera, endoscopic recordings from critters, synthetic, and organic surfaces. I would say it is one of the most complete, if not the most complete, and diverse work I have done so far.

CP: What else do you have coming up?

EP: I have another show running in London, at Assembly Point gallery, Obscene Creatures, Resilient Terrains, a collaboration between me andTheo Triantafyllidis. I am participating in a group show in Milan that starts June 8 called Non Standard, curated by Mattia Giussani,and features new and recent mixed media works by myself, Lea Collet & Marios Stamatis, Anne De Boer, Joey Holder andAnna Mikkola. I am also participating inTRANSFER Download atHeK,taking place during Art Basel, and then I am working on three projects I will announce soon; I am trying things for them I have never done before so they feel very interesting and challenging!

Christian Petersen

We run an online magazine, so of course, we're interested in what's happening with art on the web. We invited online gallerist, founder, and curator ofDigital Sweat Gallery, Christian Petersen, to write a bi-monthly column for us. Every other Wednesday he selects a Web Artist of the Week.

(All images: Courtesy of the artist)

View post:

Wednesday Web Artist of the Week: Eva Papamargariti - ArtSlant

How Vestas Wind Systems used outsourced machine learning to transform contract management – Diginomica

Vestas wind turbines in Australia

Our diginomica inboxes are awash with machine learning PR pitches. But when I got the chance to talk to Vestas Wind Systems A/S about their lessons with machine learning in action via an outsourcing partner that got flagged, in a good way.

Henrik Stefansen, Senior Director, Global IT Sourcing at Vestas Wind Systems A/S, gave me the inside view. Founded in 1945, this Danish manufacturer and servicer of wind turbines has become a global player in wind energy. Now with turbines in more than 70 countries, Vestas bills itself as the only global energy company dedicated exclusively to wind energy.

Five years ago, Vestas Wind Systems was dealing with the complications of declining government subsidies. The global economy was working its way out of a recession. Higher operational costs combined with sluggish energy demand compelled Vestas to push hard for new efficiencies. Stefansen has been an IT leader at Vestas for sixteen years. In the last four years, hes led a drastic change:

Weve gone from being a fully insourced company on the IT side about four years ago, to today being more or less fully outsourced. So thats been quite a journey.

Managing outsourced processes has brought a learning curve:

Ive come to realize that a lot of the other stuff that we need to be able to handle and the processes you need to have in place to manage an outsourced setup is quite different from when you run everything yourself.

That opens up a chance to improve processes:

Thats where really we got into looking at, How can we optimize and automate some of these processes instead of doing everything manually?

Stefansen handles these operations with an internal team of twenty, and about a dozen externals. 27,000 employees count on his teams IT services. If you cant handle the breeze, dont be in the renewable energy business:

We went through a bit of a dip through the financial crisis around 2011, where we cut the company in half. We had to reduce that much. But we recovered from that, and had a record year last year.

How has the wind energy business from Stefansens early days at Vestas?

When I joined the company, we were still sort of an entrepreneurial startup. Over the last five, seven years its been much more industrialized. Now wind is a competitor, and its a subsidy to all of the known coal and gas sources as well.

Today, I would say, wind is more or less on par with coal and gas, also from a cost perspective. And thats of course what weve been working towards the last many years If you want to sustain a business like this, it has to be comparable on a cost level to the other energy sources out there thats roughly where we are now.

Success brings its complications:

Looking at it from a country or global perspective, theres no doubt that renewable energy is high on the agenda in most countries these days. That makes it a nice place to be in a company like this. But its also a highly regulated environment Theres a lot of restrictions from local governments that we need to also work with to promote this kind of energy.

Stefansens approach to outsourcing has changed also. At first, outsourcing was a tactical decision in response to the economic downturn: We had to reduce head count, we had to reduce cost, and we had to do it fast. As Vestas bounced back, Stefansen decided that outsourcing was their future course but now they approach it more strategically.

Outsourcing makes sense for Vestas on several fronts. It solves the challenge of needing to staff up internal IT in Denmark. Stefansen also likes the flexibility on cost and exposure to new technologies:

We also saw the possibilities of joining forces with some of the big outsourcing vendors out there that have thousands of people. They can bring us those new technologies much faster and better than we could develop it ourselves.

And thats where SirionLabs comes in. Stefansen found the downside of outsourcing was managing the services. Ideally, he could automate a big chunk of contract management, and have it delivered as a service. During his research, Stefansen found SirionLabs. He evaluated a range of providers:

I looked a few of the big ones, including IBM and SAP. They had good capabilities in some of the areas that I needed. but none of them really had the view and connectivity between the different parts of the process that I saw with Sirion.

Stefansen also liked SirionLabs cloud emphasis:

Their software as a service comes pre-configured out of the box, so you dont have to do the on-site installations and set up. Basically, I just ship my contracts to Sirion, They upload them in India, and we are live.

Vestas started working with SironLabs in 2015. They spent the first few months uploading contracts, but that wasnt the biggest change:

Once you start working with a tool like this, there is a set of processes that enables you to get the benefit out of the tool. That was the main part of the implementation to get those implementations within our own organization.

The big surprise wasnt process change; it was the people side.

Thats probably one element that surprised me a little bit how much energy I had to put into my own organization to get my own colleagues to work in these new processes.

What changes did Stefansen see after going live with SirionLabs? One big change: tracking of deliveries and obligations. Sirion pulls all of the outsourcing vendors obligations from their contracts, and puts it into a calendar view for tracking:

All of that is alert-based. Alerts tell us that, This is supposed to be delivered now. Did you receive it, or is it still pending? In the past, we would have missed that, because it would have taken a lot of manual effort to track all of this.

On the IT side, SirionLabs is now handling Vestas four main outsourcing partners, comprising 70-80 percent of all outsourced services. Its really a shift to pro-active way to manage outsourcers, Stefansen has already seen cost reductions:

[Another part] of our cost savings is the invoice reconciliation. Basically, matching invoices to what weve agreed in the contract, and making sure that we are paying them correctly. Thats where we see a lot of the direct cost savings.

The savings arent small: Stefansens first year calculations on the SirionLabs investment: a 300 percent ROI.We talked about the machine learning aspect. Stefansen doesnt need to know the inner workings of Sirions machine learning capabilities to see the value on his side.

SirionLabs applies machine learning to areas Vestas would have struggled to monitor on their own, from incorrect invoicing to avoiding SLA penalties that are invoked when a usage threshold is reached. As the SirionLabs PR team put it to me, SirionLabs uses machine learning to cull through the mind-numbing tedium of contracts to ensure everyone is doing their job.

Looking ahead, Stefansen wants to get his outsourcing partners to use SirionLabs to collaborate and address contractual issues. So far, weve seen good benefits from that, where weve managed to convince our outsourcing partners that this is a good idea.

Today, SirionLabs manages contracts valuing $160 million for Vestas. For Stefansen, better control over back office IT means his team can be more strategic, and less caught up in administrivia:

If I hadnt implemented this I would probably of had to hire say four people to manage these things manually. So it gives me a lot of flexibility from an organizational point of view.

Image credit - Image of Vestas wind turbine in Macarthur, Australia from the Vestas.com web site, model number V112-3.0 MW.

See the rest here:

How Vestas Wind Systems used outsourced machine learning to transform contract management - Diginomica

Polygraph for pedophiles: how virtual reality is used to assess sex offenders – The Guardian

A virtual reality headset. Patients are shown computer-generated images of naked children and measured for signs of arousal. Photograph: Eric Risberg/AP

In a maximum security mental health facility in Montreal is a cave-like virtual reality vault thats used to show images of child sexual abuse to sex offenders. Patients sit inside the vault with devices placed around their penises to measure signs of arousal as they are shown computer-generated animations of naked children.

We do develop pornography, but these images and animations are not used for the pleasure of the patient but to assess them, said Patrice Renaud, who heads up the project at the Institut Philippe-Pinel. Its a bit like using a polygraph but with other measurement techniques.

The system, combined with other psychological assessments, is used to build up a profile of the individuals sexual preferences that can be used by the court to determine the risk they pose to society and by mental health professionals to determine treatment.

Not all child molesters are pedophiles (people who are sexually attracted to children) and not all pedophiles molest children, although the terms are often wrongly used interchangeably. In many cases, those who molest children are situational offenders, which means their offense is outside of their typical sexual preference or behavior.

You can have someone who molested a child once but is not a pedophile as such they may have been intoxicated or have another mental health disorder, said Renaud, who also leads the Cyberpsychology Lab at the University of Quebec in Outaouais. We need to know if they have a preferred mode of sexual expression.

Renaud uses virtual reality for two reasons: first, because it does not involve images of real people, but digital ones, and second, because the immersive nature of the medium allows researchers to measure something closer to natural behavior.

The vault itself is a small room with screens on all sides, on to which are projected animations of naked children and adults standing in natural settings. The research team can generate synthetic characters in a range of ages and shapes and can adapt features like facial expression, genital size, and eye and hair color to correspond with the patients victims or sexual fantasies.

The patients sit on a stool inside the chamber wearing stereoscopic glasses which create the three-dimensional effect on the surrounding walls. The glasses are fitted with eye-tracking technology to ensure they arent trying to trick the system by avoiding looking at the critical content.

These guys do not like going through this assessment, said Renaud, pointing out that the results can be shocking for the patient.

Its not easy for someone to discover he is attracted to violently molesting a kid. He may have been using the internet for some masturbatory activities using non-violent images or videos of children which is not a good thing. But being tested in the lab and knowing he is also attracted to violence may be something thats very difficult to understand.

Renaud acknowledges that the use of penile plethysmography, which involves placing a cuff-shaped sensor around the genitals, is controversial. Its not only invasive but there is some disagreement in the scientific community about its reliability in measuring sexual deviancy. Consequently, Renauds team is exploring a less invasive alternative: electroencephalography. This uses a cap that reads activity in the brain related to erectile response and sexual appetites.

Its not easy for someone to discover he is attracted to violently molesting a kid

Renaud believes the same cap could be used to track the persons empathy response to expressions of pain, fear or sadness in the virtual child victim. These inhibit the sexual response of non-deviant individuals.

Some deviant individuals can be attracted to signs of emotional distress.

If we find that the guy is attracted to children and doesnt feel empathy for the fact that the child is in pain, thats good information for predicting behavior, he said.

Renaud and his team assess about 80 patients per year, including pedophiles, rapists and other sexual deviants assigned by the court for assessment.

The lab is under intense scrutiny from ethical committees and the police in Quebec. The computer-generated imagery must be encrypted and stored in a highly secure closed computer network inside the maximum security hospital so that the material doesnt fall into the wrong hands.

However, at a time when virtual reality pornography is on the rise, its not unreasonable to assume that someone will if it hasnt already happened create virtual reality child abuse images designed explicitly to arouse rather than diagnose pedophiles.

Thanks to advances in computer graphics, such experiences could be created without ever harming or exploiting children. But even if no children are harmed in the making of such imagery, would society tolerate its creation? Could the content provide an outlet to some pedophiles who dont want to offend in real life? Or would a VR experience normalize behavior and act as a gateway to physical abuse?

Jamie Sivrais, of A Voice For The Innocent, which provides community support to survivors of rape and sexual abuse, said that people have a long history of blaming technology for human problems. He pointed to VHS tapes being used to create child abuse images and predators using internet chat rooms and smartphones to meet and abuse children.

If the technology exists, there will be people who abuse it, he said.

I think this is a human problem. The same criticisms of VR could have (and have been) made about the internet and smartphones, and they are valid criticisms. So as we continue to push the envelope of technology, lets also continue to expand resources for people who are hurt by abuse.

Ethan Edwards, the co-founder of Virtuous Pedophiles, an online support group for people attracted to children but who do not want to molest them, argues virtual reality could help prevent real-life offences.

Edwards believes that, provided the imagery of children is computer-generated and doesnt involve any real victims, it should be legal, as should life-size child sex dolls and erotic stories about children.

I have a strong civil liberties streak and feel such things should be legal in the absence of very strong evidence they cause harm, he said.

Nick Devin, a pedophile and co-founder of the site, called for thorough scientific research. The answer may be different for different people. For me, doing these things wouldnt increase or reduce the risk to kids: Im not going to molest a kid whether I fantasize or not.

Its a view echoed by Canadian forensic psychologist Michael Seto. He believes that VR could provide a safer outlet for individuals with well-developed self control.

But for others, such as those who are more impulsive, prone to risk-taking, or indifferent about the effects of their actions on others, then access to virtual child pornography could have negative effects and perhaps increase their desire for contact with real children.

Its a risk that concerns Renaud, who describes VR child abuse imagery and child-shaped sex robots as a very bad idea.

Only a very small portion of pedophiles could use that kind of sexual proxy without having the urge to go outside and get the real stuff, he said.

Its not just child sex abuse experiences that are concerning to Renaud, but violent first-person sexual experiences including rape and even entirely new deviances like having sex with monsters with three penises and blue skin.

We dont know what effect these sexual experiences will have on the behavior of children and adults in the future, he said.

Go here to read the rest:

Polygraph for pedophiles: how virtual reality is used to assess sex offenders - The Guardian

Two people spent 48 hours in nonstop virtual reality – Engadget

Johnson has been challenging the rules of consumer VR from the beginning -- when virtual reality hit the mainstream last year, he spent 24 hours immersed in a mix of Rift, Vive and Gear VR experiences, setting an unofficial record for longest time in virtual reality. This year, he doubled that effort, recruiting Sarah Jones from Coventry University to join him in two days of extreme VR immersion -- breaking for only five minutes each hour to record vlogs and use the facilities.

The experiment was designed to question the arbitrary limits of VR-use time and help expose virtual reality to a wider consumer audience, but it wasn't a PR stunt for any specific headset manufacturer. "In fact, it was quite the opposite," he says. Every company he invited to participate in the project turned him down. "Mostly because they thought we'd die," he joked.

The fears of the likes of Oculus VR and HTC weren't completely unfounded. Johnson didn't just spend two days watching movies and playing games in virtual reality -- he wore VR goggles while driving go-karts, getting tattoos and walking across the wings of an airplane in-flight. "We wanted it to be as physical as possible," he says. "How extreme do you need to get with the physical additions to VR to make it feel real?" It sounds almost like a silly question, but when you're wearing a headset that partially blinds you to your environment, the influence of your mixed reality could have unexpected results.

Johnson and Jones' wind-walking adventure, for instance, was seen through a GearVR's pass-through camera -- but despite the physical exertion of fighting the wind on the wing of a plane, the experience wasn't completely real. "It still didn't feel real to us with what we were seeing," he says, "but the movement -- the buffeting and forcing yourself against the wind, they were the things that physically added the extra dimension." They just couldn't see well enough through the GearVR to get the full experience. Johnson thinks it might have been better if the headset had been displaying a VR dragon ride. "If everything you were seeing felt real, that would all be amazing."

Go-karting fared a little better -- the limited view of the GearVR's pass-through camera gave the drivers' vision a lower framerate and letterboxing but didn't seem to hamper the experience in the same way. "It's amazing that our brains just corrected and we got used to seeing that view," Johnson says. "We were going pretty quickly around the go-karting track, not hitting anything -- though with really reduced visibility."

These spectacle events are novel, but some of the more interesting results came from the smaller experiments. Johnson wore a VR headset to a tattoo parlor to see if the distraction of a false reality could dull the pain of being branded with a nerdy Apple tattoo in the real world. It did.

After briefly removing the headset to measure his pain threshold in the real world, Johnson spent the rest of his tattoo session playing Gunjack. "If the headset off was my 10 benchmark," he said, giving the pain a number, "It came down to like a six or a seven. It really did seem to have some effect." According to his Apple Watch, his heart rate dropped in VR too, averaging at 74 beats per minute in the headset to 103 without.

Living in VR drastically changed mundane everyday life, too. Having a face-to-face conversation with anybody meant logging into Facebook Spaces or another social-VR app, and sleeping was an altogether different kind of experience.

"When you wake up in VR, you just believe everything," he explains. Normally, virtual reality is a conscious choice, but if you wake up in a simulation, surrounded by dinosaurs and spaceships, you don't' have time to question your reality as you regain consciousness. "It's kind of like waking up in an unfamiliar hotel room. You may not know where you are or what the timezone is, but you just believe you're in a hotel room. Why would you not?"

Despite breaking every VR health-and-safety guideline imaginable, Johnson and Jones walked away from the experiment relatively unscathed. They learned, at worst, that watching a 360-degree movie in a car is a nauseating experience -- but that doesn't mean their extended time in VR didn't have consequences.

Johnson admits his vision without glasses was slightly more blurry for a few days after the experience, but it was the physical pain that bothered him most. "The bridge of my nose got bruised," he said, "And Sarah's cheeks have kind of permanent red marks on them." If the health and safety warnings were right, it wasn't because of the risk of experiencing altered-reality for long periods -- it was because the headsets were never designed to be worn indefinitely. "I think we're just physically glad to be out," he concluded. "If you had done anything for two straight days, you'd just be glad to be out."

View original post here:

Two people spent 48 hours in nonstop virtual reality - Engadget

Virtual reality is being used to show naked images to paedophiles – Metro

Computer-generated images are used (Picture: Shutterstock)

Suspected paedophiles at a maximum security mental health facility are shown virtual reality images of child abuse and pornography.

The controversial practice is used to determine the individuals arousal when viewing the material, and researchers claim it can predict whether they are threats to the public.

People admitted to the Institut Philippe-Pinel hospital in Montreal, Canada, sit with devices placed on their penises to measure arousal, and wear glasses that simulate virtual reality.

Patients rapists, paedophiles and sexual deviants are shown computer-generated images of naked children, and an eye-tracking device means they cannot look away.

Patrice Renaud, who leads the project, told The Guardian: We do develop pornography, but these images and animations are not used for the pleasure of the patient but to assess them.

The project determines the patients sexual preference, which is then used by a court to rule whether they pose a risk to the public or not.

Mr Renaud said: You can have someone who molested a child once but is not a paedophile as such they may have been intoxicated or have another mental health disorder.

If we find that the guy is attracted to children and doesnt feel empathy for the fact that the child is in pain, thats good information for predicting behaviour.

The experiment takes place and the material created must be encrypted and stored in a secure computer network minimising the chance it could spread outside the hospital.

It is also under intense scrutiny from ethical committees and the police.

Follow this link:

Virtual reality is being used to show naked images to paedophiles - Metro

Virtual reality helps Honeygrow worker-bees acclimate – Philly.com

Some worker-training programs take days to imbue in new employees corporate culture and best practices.

But after just 15 minutes under the spell of a virtual-reality headset and spiffy VR program created by Northern Liberties experiential video shop Klip Collective, new hires at the Philadelphia-based Honeygrow fast-casual dining chain are already feeling the company spirit.

Theyre connecting with its HG Engine best-practices philosophy. Learning food-prep techniques. Practically tasting the dishes. So theyre instantly energized, eager to dive into the work themselves, said company executives.

Our goal was to provide a consistent yet unique on-boarding and initial training experience for all employees, regardless of geographic location or who the individual performing the training would be, Justin Rosenberg, Honeygrows founder and CEO, said Wednesday. Klip has really impressed us with taking our ideas and exceeding our expectations by making them a reality.

Back in the early, local-only days of his salad and stir-fry emporiums the first location on 16th Street between Sansom and Chestnut opened exactly five years ago this Thursday Rosenberg could afford to be very hands-on. He would personally welcome all new employees and immerse them in the ways of Honeygrow an upscale fast-food alternative obsessed with personalized orders, fresh ingredients, fast turnaround, and hospitable treatment of guests.

But all thats getting harder to do as the privately owned chain expands. Seventeen Honeygrow locations now stretch south to Washington, D.C., and north to Brooklyn. More are coming to Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Manhattan the latter our first, smaller-footprint Minigrow, said Rosenberg. By the end of the year, well be up to 25 locations.

Enter the VR training solution, as executed by Klip Collective. Its an idea (just dubbed brilliant by Entrepreneur magazine) that first started brewing when Rosenberg got a Google Cardboard with my Sunday Times and I thought, What can I do with this? The answer: a VR experience that allows Rosenberg and team to warm up new trainees virtually, with much better focus than reading a written manual would have, and with more consistency than a local manager would, if having a bad day. The VR experience also is being used for recruitment, to interest potential job applicants. And it impresses our guests, when they walk in and see employees doing it.

Said Klip Collective co-founder Ricardo Rivera: When a new hire puts on the VR headset and presses the start button on the remote, Justin materializes in our virtual-3D Honeygrow restaurant to share welcoming remarks and philosophy how Honeygrow is all about thinking differently, bringing people together over high-quality, wholesome, simple foods.

Then we offer an interactive tour of a Honeygrow that gives a good feel for how and why things are done, with a casual video game at the end thats meant to be both fun and instructive, Rivera said.

No stranger to integrating tech into the operation as new hires (virtually) discover Honeygrow locations also feature a custom variation on the classic split-flap railroad-station sign that communicates the news when customer orders are done.

Restaurant touch screens take a page from the Wawa customer ordering system, though Honeygrow dresses its models with special screen savers still images and videos of neighborhood locations that are a love letter to every market we go into, said Jen Dennis, chief brand officer.

In that game component of the VR experience, participants learn-by-doing how food is best stored on refrigerator shelves for health safety (fish on top, beef below, then pork and chicken on the bottom shelves).

Were finding this gamification really helps people grasp and retain information, said Dennis.

So more will be built into the next phase, Honeygrow VR 2.0, said Kevin Ritchie, a post-production wizard at Klip Collectives sister company, Monogram. Given the ever-improving state of the technology, anything you do in VR is a work-in-progress. When we first got started on the project, we thought it would run on Samsung Galaxy smartphones and Gear VR glasses. Then the Google Daydream-ready phones and companion goggles came out and were so much better in terms of screen resolution and processing power. The new Google Pixel phones dont overheat, as was happening with the Galaxys.

How about mixing VR with AR, augmented reality, which would allow trainees to do hands-on food prep with a superimposed timer and graphic arrows pointing them in the right directions? A nice idea, but the tech is not there yet.

For the sake of future-proofing, Klip Collective lights its sets (in this case, the Honeygrow restaurant in Cherry Hill) like a Hollywood film production, shoots VR with an ultra-high definition $55,000 Nokia VR camera, and processes the footage on a server system so powerful it could run an automated car factory.

If you want to convince VR viewers theyre really in the moment, you cant afford to cut corners, said Ritchie.

Published: June 7, 2017 4:29 PM EDT | Updated: June 7, 2017 4:30 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Here is the original post:

Virtual reality helps Honeygrow worker-bees acclimate - Philly.com

Play piano with this virtual reality glove – University of California

Engineers at UC San Diego are using soft robotics technology to make light, flexible gloves that allow users to feel tactile feedback when they interact with virtual reality environments. The researchers used the gloves to realistically simulate the tactile feeling of playing a virtual piano keyboard.

Engineers recently presented their research, which is still at the prototype stage, at the Electronic Imaging, Engineering Reality for Virtual Reality conference in Burlingame, Calif.

Currently, VR user interfaces consist of remote-like devices that vibrate when a user touches a virtual surface or object. Theyre not realistic, said Jurgen Schulze, a researcher at the Qualcomm Institute at UC San Diego and one of the papers senior authors. You cant touch anything, or feel resistance when youre pushing a button. By contrast, we are trying to make the user feel like theyre in the actual environment from a tactile point of view.

Other research teams and industry have worked on gloves as VR interfaces. But these are bulky and made from heavy materials, such as metal. The glove the engineers developed has a soft exoskeleton equipped with soft robotic muscles that make it much lighter and easier to use.

This is a first prototype but it is surprisingly effective, said Michael Tolley, a mechanical engineering professor at the Jacobs School of Engineering at UC San Diego and also a senior author.

One key element in the gloves design is a type of soft robotic component called a McKibben muscle, essentially latex chambers covered with braided fibers. The muscles respond like springs to apply force when the user moves their fingers. The board controls the muscles by inflating and deflating them.The system involves three main components: a Leap Motion sensor that detects the position and movement of the users hands; a custom fluidic control board that controls the gloves movements; and soft robotic components in the glove that individually inflate or deflate to mimic the forces that the user would encounter in the VR environment. The system interacts with a computer that displays a virtual piano keyboard with a river and trees in the background.

Researchers 3-D-printed a mold to make the gloves soft exoskeleton. This will make the devices easier to manufacture and suitable for mass production, they said. Researchers used silicone rubber for the exoskeleton, with Velcro straps embedded at the joints.

Engineers conducted an informal pilot study of 15 users, including two VR interface experts. All tried the demo which allowed them to play the piano in VR. They all agreed that the gloves increased the immersive experience. They described it as mesmerizing and amazing.

The engineers are working on making the glove cheaper, less bulky and more portable. They also would like to bypass the Leap Motion device altogether to make system more compact.

Our final goal is to create a device that provides a richer experience in VR, Tolley said. But you could imagine it being used for surgery and video games, among other applications.

Tolley is a faculty member in the Contextual Robotics Institute at UC San Diego. Schulze is an adjust professor in computer science, where he teaches courses on VR.

Read the original here:

Play piano with this virtual reality glove - University of California

Study: This virtual reality simulation could reduce fear of death – TNW

If youve ever played a virtual reality game, youre probably used to dying at least digitally. But not like this.

Scientists are using VR headsets to create out-of-body experiences that may be able to reduce the fear of death, according to a recently published study. According to Mel Slater, one of the studys authors and a research professor at the University of Barcelona:

My lab has been working for many years on the influence of changing someones body in virtual reality on their attitudes, perceptions, behavior and cognition. For example, placing White people in a Black virtual body reduces their implicit racial bias, while putting adults into a child body changes their perceptions and self-identification.

Here we wanted to see what the effects were of establishing a strong feeling of ownership over a virtual body, and then moving people out of it, so simulating an out-of-body experience. According to the literature, out-of-body experiences are typically associated with changes of attitudes about death, so we wanted to see if this would happen with a virtual out-of-body experience.

The study, published in PLOS One, uses an Oculus Rift headset and a virtual reality simulation known as the full body ownership illusion. In it, researchers created a virtual human body designed to be the participants own. Once the participant assimilated to the illusion, the view shifted from first-person to third-person, creating an experience similar to how some describeout-of-body incidents.

So far, the study has only attempted the simulation on 32 women, 16 of which experienced the out-of-body incident, and 16 more in a control group who didnt experience this phenomena.

After the study, participants in the main group reported lower anxiety about death than the control group, althoughresearchers admit the studyis still in the preliminary stages. Limited as it may be, it should surprise no one that a virtual reality simulation could help overcome fears even the fear of death. It is, after all, being studied in multiple other scientific disciplines as a way to do just that.

A Virtual Out-of-Body Experience Reduces Fear of Death on PLOS

Read next: Alien mystery solved: It was just gas

Read more:

Study: This virtual reality simulation could reduce fear of death - TNW

Meme-Gene Coevolution – Susan Blackmore

Evolution and Memes: The human brain as a selective imitation device

Susan Blackmore

This article originally appeared in Cybernetics and Systems, Vol 32:1, 225-255, 2001, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA. Reproduced with permission.

Italian translation I memi e lo sviluppo del cervello, in KOS 211, aprile 2003, pp. 56-64.

German translation Evolution und Meme: Das menschliche Gehirn als selektiver Imitationsapparat , in: Alexander Becker et al. (Hg.): Gene, Meme und Gehirne. Geist und Gesellschaft als Natur, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 2003 pp 49-89.

Abstract

The meme is an evolutionary replicator, defined as information copied from person to person by imitation. I suggest that taking memes into account may provide a better understanding of human evolution in the following way. Memes appeared in human evolution when our ancestors became capable of imitation. From this time on two replicators, memes and genes, coevolved. Successful memes changed the selective environment, favouring genes for the ability to copy them. I have called this process memetic drive. Meme-gene coevolution produced a big brain that is especially good at copying certain kinds of memes. This is an example of the more general process in which a replicator and its replication machinery evolve together. The human brain has been designed not just for the benefit of human genes, but for the replication of memes. It is a selective imitation device.

Some problems of definition are discussed and suggestions made for future research.

The concept of the meme was first proposed by Dawkins (1976) and since that time has been used in discussions of (among other things) evolutionary theory, human consciousness, religions, myths and mind viruses (e.g. Dennett 1991, 1995, Dawkins 1993, Brodie 1996, Lynch 1996). I believe, however, that the theory of memes has a more fundamental role to play in our understanding of human nature. I suggest that it can give us a new understanding of how and why the human brain evolved, and why humans differ in important ways from all other species. In outline my hypothesis is as follows.

Everything changed in human evolution when imitation first appeared because imitation let loose a new replicator, the meme. Since that time, two replicators have been driving human evolution, not one. This is why humans have such big brains, and why they alone produce and understand grammatical language, sing, dance, wear clothes and have complex cumulative cultures. Unlike other brains, human brains had to solve the problem of choosing which memes to imitate. In other words they have been designed for selective imitation.

This is a strong claim and the purpose of this paper is first to explain and defend it, second to explore the implications of evolution operating on two replicators, and third to suggest how some of the proposals might be tested. One implication is that we have underestimated the importance of imitation.

The new replicator

The essence of all evolutionary processes is that they involve some kind of information that is copied with variation and selection. As Darwin (1859) first pointed out, if you have creatures that vary, and if there is selection so that only some of those creatures survive, and if the survivors pass on to their offspring whatever it was that helped them survive, then those offspring must, on average, be better adapted to the environment in which that selection took place than their parents were. It is the inevitability of this process that makes it such a powerful explanatory tool. If you have the three requisites variation, selection and heredity, then you must get evolution. This is why Dennett calls the process the evolutionary algorithm. It is a mindless procedure which produces Design out of Chaos without the aid of Mind (Dennett 1995, p 50).

This algorithm depends on something being copied, and Dawkins calls this the replicator. A replicator can therefore be defined as any unit of information which is copied with variations or errors, and whose nature influences its own probability of replication (Dawkins 1976). Alternatively we can think of it as information that undergoes the evolutionary algorithm (Dennett 1995) or that is subject to blind variation with selective retention (Campbell 1960), or as an entity that passes on its structure largely intact in successive replications (Hull, 1988).

The most familiar replicator is the gene. In biological systems genes are packaged in complex ways inside larger structures, such as organisms. Dawkins therefore contrasted the genes as replicators with the vehicles that carry them around and influence their survival. Hull prefers the term interactors for those entities that interact as cohesive wholes with their environments and cause replication to be differential (Hull 1988). In either case selection may take place at the level of the organism (and arguably at other levels) but the replicator is the information that is copied reasonably intact through successive replications and is the ultimate beneficiary of the evolutionary process.

Note that the concept of a replicator is not restricted to biology. Whenever there is an evolutionary process (as defined above) then there is a replicator. This is the basic principle of what has come to be known as Universal Darwinism (Dawkins 1976, Plotkin 1993) in which Darwinian principles are applied to all evolving systems. Other candidates for evolving systems with their own replicators include the immune system, neural development, and trial and error learning (e.g. Calvin 1996, Edelman 1989, Plotkin 1993, Skinner 1953).

The new replicator I refer to here is the meme; a term coined in 1976 by Dawkins. His intention was to illustrate the principles of Universal Darwinism by providing a new example of a replicator other than the gene. He argued that whenever people copy skills, habits or behaviours from one person to another by imitation, a new replicator is at work.

We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. Mimeme comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like gene. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. (Dawkins, 1976, p 192).

Dawkins now explains that he had modest, and entirely negative, intentions for his new term. He wanted to prevent his readers from thinking that the gene was necessarily the be-all and end-all of evolution which all adaptations could be said to benefit (Dawkins, 1999, p xvi) and make it clear that the fundamental unit of natural selection is the replicator any kind of replicator. Nevertheless, he laid the groundwork for memetics. He likened some memes to parasites infecting a host, especially religions which he termed viruses of the mind (Dawkins, 1993), and he showed how mutually assisting memes will group together into co-adapted meme complexes (or memeplexes) often propagating themselves at the expense of their hosts.

Dennett subsequently used the concept of memes to illustrate the evolutionary algorithm and to discuss personhood and consciousness in terms of memes. He stressed the importance of asking Cui bono? or who benefits? The ultimate beneficiary of an evolutionary process, he stressed, is whatever it is that is copied; i.e. the replicator. Everything else that happens, and all the adaptations that come about, are ultimately for the sake of the replicators.

This idea is central to what has come to be known as selfish gene theory, but it is important to carry across this insight into dealing with any new replicator. If memes are truly replicators in their own right then we should expect things to happen in human evolution which are not for the benefit of the genes, nor for the benefit of the people who carry those genes, but for the benefit of the memes which those people have copied. This point is absolutely central to understanding memetics. It is this which divides memetics from closely related theories in sociobiology (Wilson 1975) and evolutionary psychology (e.g. Barkow, Cosmides & Tooby 1992, Pinker 1997). Dawkins complained of his colleagues that In the last analysis they wish always to go back to biological advantage (Dawkins 1976 p 193). This is true of theories in evolutionary psychology but also of most of the major theories of gene-culture coevolution. For example, Wilson famously claimed that the genes hold culture on a leash (Lumsden & Wilson 1981). More recently he has conceded that the term meme has won against its various competitors but he still argues that memes (such as myths and social contracts) evolved over the millennia because they conferred a survival advantage on the genes, not simply because of advantages to themselves (Wilson 1998). Other theories such as the mathematical models of Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1981) and Lumsden and Wilson (1981) take inclusive fitness (advantage to genes) as the final arbiter, as does Durham (1991) who argues that organic and cultural selection work on the same criterion and are complementary. Among the few exceptions are Boyd and Richersons Dual Inheritance model (1985) which includes the concept of cultural fitness, and Deacons (1997) coevolutionary theory in which language is likened to a parasitic organism with adaptations that evolved for its own replication, not for that of its host.

With these exceptions, the genes remain the bottom line in most such theories, even though maladaptive traits (that is, maladaptive to the genes) can arise, and may even thrive under some circumstances (Durham 1991, Feldman and Laland 1996). By contrast, if you accept that memes are a true replicator then you must consider the fitness consequences for memes themselves. This could make a big difference, and this is why I say that everything changed in evolution when memes appeared.

When was that? If we define memes as information copied by imitation, then this change happened when imitation appeared. I shall argue that should we do just that, but this will require some justification.

Problems of definition

If we had a universally agreed definition of imitation, we could define memes as that which is imitated (as Dawkins originally did). In that case we could say that, by definition, memes are transmitted whenever imitation occurs and, in terms of evolution, we could say that memes appeared whenever imitation did. Unfortunately there is no such agreement either over the definition of memes or of imitation. Indeed there are serious arguments over both definitions. I suggest that we may find a way out of these problems of definition by thinking about imitation in terms of evolutionary processes, and by linking the definitions of memes and imitation together.

In outline my argument is as follows. The whole point of the concept of memes is that the meme is a replicator. Therefore the process by which it is copied must be one that supports the evolutionary algorithm of variation, selection and heredity in other words, producing copies of itself that persist through successive replications and which vary and undergo selection. If imitation is such a process, and if other kinds of learning and social learning are not, then we can usefully tie the two definitions together. We can define imitation as a process of copying that supports an evolutionary process, and define memes as the replicator which is transmitted when this copying occurs.

Note that this is not a circular definition. It depends crucially on an empirical question is imitation in fact the kind of process that can support a new evolutionary system? If it is then there must be a replicator involved and we can call that replicator the meme. If not, then this proposal does not make sense. This is therefore the major empirical issue involved, and I shall return to it when I have considered some of the problems with our current definitions.

Defining the meme

The Oxford English Dictionary defines memes as follows meme (mi:m), n. Biol.(shortened from mimeme that which is imitated, after GENE n.) An element of a culture that may be considered to be passed on by non-genetic means, esp. imitation. This is clearly built on Dawkinss original conception and is clear as far as it goes. However, there are many other definitions of the meme, both formal and informal, and much argument about which is best. These definitions differ mainly on two key questions: (1) Whether memes exist only inside brains or outside of them as well, and (2) the methods by which memes may be transmitted.

The way we define memes is critical, not only for the future development of memetics as a science, but for our understanding of evolutionary processes in both natural and artificial systems. Therefore we need to get the definitions right. What counts as right, in my view, is a definition that fits the concept of the meme as a replicator taking part in a new evolutionary process. Any definition which strays from this concept loses the whole purpose and power of the idea of the meme indeed its whole reason for being. It is against this standard that I judge the various competing definitions, and my conclusion is that memes are both inside and outside of brains, and they are passed on by imitation. The rest of this section expands on that argument and can be skipped for the purposes of understanding the wider picture.

First there is the question of whether memes should be restricted to information stored inside peoples heads (such as ideas, neural patterns, memories or knowledge) or should include information available in behaviours or artefacts (such as speech, gestures, inventions and art, or information in books and computers).

In 1975, Cloak distinguished between the cultural instructions in peoples heads (which he called i-culture) and the behaviour, technology or social organisation they produce (which he called m-culture). Dawkins (1976) initially ignored this distinction, using the term meme to apply to behaviours and physical structures in a brain, as well as to memetic information stored in other ways (as in his examples of tunes, ideas and fashions). This is sometimes referred to as Dawkins A (Gatherer 1998). Later (Dawkins B) he decided that A meme should be regarded as a unit of information residing in a brain (Cloaks i-culture) (Dawkins 1982, p 109). This implies that the information in the clothes or the tunes does not count as a meme. But later still he says that memes can propagate themselves from brain to brain, from brain to book, from book to brain, from brain to computer, from computer to computer (Dawkins, 1986, p 158). Presumably they still count as memes in all these forms of storage not just when they are in a brain. So this is back to Dawkins A.

Dennett (1991, 1995) treats memes as information undergoing the evolutionary algorithm, whether they are in a brain, a book or some other physical object. He points out that copying any behaviour must entail neural change and that the structure of a meme is likely to be different in any two brains, but he does not confine memes to these neural structures. Durham (1991) also treats memes as information, again regardless of how they are stored. Wilkins defines a meme as the least unit of sociocultural information relative to a selection process that has favourable or unfavourable selection bias that exceeds its endogenous tendency to change. (Wilkins 1998). This is based on Williamss now classic definition of the gene as any hereditary information for which there is a favorable or unfavorable selection bias equal to several or many times its rate of endogenous change. (Williams 1966, p 25). What is important here is that the memetic information survives intact long enough to be subject to selection pressures. It does not matter where and how the information resides.

In contrast, Delius (1989) describes memes as constellations of activated and non-activated synapses within neural memory networks (p 45) or arrays of modified synapses (p 54). Lynch (1991) defines them as memory abstractions or memory items, Grant (1990) as information patterns infecting human minds, and Plotkin as ideas or representations the internal end of the knowledge relationship (Plotkin 1993, p 215), while Wilson defines the natural elements of culture as the hierarchically arranged components of semantic memory, encoded by discrete neural circuits awaiting identification. (Wilson 1998, p 148). Closer to evolutionary principles, Brodie defines a meme as a unit of information in a mind whose existence influences events such that more copies of itself get created in other minds. (Brodie 1996, p 32), but this restricts memes to being in minds. Presumably, on all these latter definitions, memes cannot exist in books or buildings, so the books and buildings must be given a different role. This has been done, by using further distinctions, usually based on a more or less explicit analogy with genes.

Cloak (1975) explicitly likened his i-culture to the genotype and m-culture to the phenotype. Dennett (1995) also talks about memes and their phenotypic effects, though in a different way. The meme is internal (though not confined to brains) while the way it affects things in its environment (p 349), is its phenotype. In an almost complete reversal, Benzon (1996) likens pots, knives, and written words (Cloaks m-culture) to the gene; and ideas, desires and emotions (i-culture) to the phenotype. Gabora (1997) likens the genotype to the mental representation of a meme, and the phenotype to its implementation. Delius (1989), having defined memes as being in the brain, refers to behaviour as the memes phenotypic expression, while remaining ambiguous about the role of the clothes fashions he discusses. Grant (1990) defines the memotype as the actual information content of a meme, and distinguishes this from its sociotype or social expression. He explicitly bases his memotype/sociotype distinction on the phenotype/genotype distinction. All these distinctions are slightly different and it is not at all clear which, if any, is better.

The problem is this. If memes worked like genes then we should expect to find close analogies between the two evolutionary systems. But, although both are replicators, they work quite differently and for this reason we should be very cautious of meme-gene analogies. I suggest there is no clean equivalent of the genotype/phenotype distinction in memetics because memes are a relatively new replicator and have not yet created for themselves this highly efficient kind of system. Instead there is a messy system in which information is copied all over the place by many different means.

I previously gave the example of someone inventing a new recipe for pumpkin soup and passing it on to various relatives and friends (Blackmore 1999). The recipe can be passed on by demonstration, by writing the recipe on a piece of paper, by explaining over the phone, by sending a fax or e-mail, or (with difficulty) by tasting the soup and working out how it might have been cooked. It is easy to think up examples of this kind which make a mockery of drawing analogies with genotypes and phenotypes because there are so many different copying methods. Most important for the present argument, we must ask ourselves this question. Does information about the new soup only count as a meme when it is inside someones head or also when it is on a piece of paper, in the behaviour of cooking, or passing down the phone lines? If we answer that memes are only in the head then we must give some other role to these many other forms and, as we have seen, this leads to confusion.

My conclusion is this. The whole point of memes is to see them as information being copied in an evolutionary process (i.e. with variation and selection). Given the complexities of human life, information can be copied in myriad ways. We do a disservice to the basic concept of the meme if we try to restrict it to information residing only inside peoples heads as well as landing ourselves in all sorts of further confusions. For this reason I agree with Dennett, Wilkins, Durham and Dawkins A, who do not restrict memes to being inside brains. The information in this article counts as memes when it is inside my head or yours, when it is in my computer or on the journal pages, or when it is speeding across the world in wires or bouncing off satellites, because in any of these forms it is potentially available for copying and can therefore take part in an evolutionary process.

We may now turn to the other vexed definitional question the method by which memes are replicated. The dictionary definition gives a central place to imitation, both in explaining the derivation of the word meme and as the main way in which memes are propagated. This clearly follows Dawkinss original definition, but Dawkins was canny in saying imitation in the broad sense. Presumably he meant to include many processes which we may not think of as imitation but which depend on it, like direct teaching, verbal instruction, learning by reading and so on. All these require an ability to imitate. At least, learning language requires the ability to imitate sounds, and instructed learning and collaborative learning emerge later in human development than does imitation and arguably build on it (Tomasello, Kruger & Ratner 1993). We may be reluctant to call some of these complex human skills imitation. However, they clearly fit the evolutionary algorithm. Information is copied from person to person. Variation is introduced both by degradation due to failures of human memory and communication, and by the creative recombination of different memes. And selection is imposed by limitations on time, transmission rates, memory and other kinds of storage space. In this paper I am not going to deal with these more complex kinds of replication. Although they raise many interesting questions, they can undoubtedly sustain an evolutionary process and can therefore replicate memes. Instead I want to concentrate on skills at the simpler end of the scale, where it is not so obvious which kinds of learning can and cannot count as replicating memes.

Theories of gene-culture coevolution all differ in the ways their cultural units are supposed to be passed on. Cavalli-Sforza and Feldmans (1981) cultural traits are passed on by imprinting, conditioning, observation, imitation or direct teaching. Durhams (1991) coevolutionary model refers to both imitation and learning. Runciman (1998) refers to memes as instructions affecting phenotype passed on by both imitation and learning. Laland and Odling Smee (in press) argue that all forms of social learning are potentially capable of propagating memes. Among meme-theorists both Brodie (1996) and Ball (1984) include all conditioning, and Gabora (1997) counts all mental representations as memes regardless of how they are acquired.

This should not, I suggest, be just a matter of preference. Rather, we must ask which kinds of learning can and cannot copy information from one individual to another in such a way as to sustain an evolutionary process. For if information is not copied through successive replications, with variation and selection, then there is no new evolutionary process and no need for the concept of the meme as replicator. This is not a familiar way of comparing different types of learning so I will need to review some of the literature and try to extract an answer.

Communication and contagion

Confusion is sometimes caused over the term communication, so I just want to point out that most forms of animal communication (even the most subtle and complex) do not involve the copying of skills or behaviours from one individual to another with variation and selection. For example, when bees dance information about the location of food is accurately conveyed and the observing bees go off to find it, but the dance itself is not copied or passed on. So this is not copying a meme. Similarly when vervet monkeys use several different signals to warn conspecifics of different kinds of predator (Cheney and Seyfarth 1990), there is no copying of the behaviour. The behaviour acts as a signal on which the other monkeys act, but they do not copy the signals with variation and selection.

Yawning, coughing or laughter can spread contagiously from one individual to the next and this may appear to be memetic, but these are behaviours that were already known or in the animals repertoire, and are triggered by another animal performing them (Provine 1996). In this type of contagion there is no copying of new behaviours (but note that there are many other kinds of contagion (Levy & Nail, 1993; Whiten & Ham, 1992)). Communication of these kinds is therefore not even potentially memetic. Various forms of animal learning may be.

Learning

Learning is commonly divided into individual and social learning. In individual learning (including classical conditioning, operant conditioning, acquisition of motor skills and spatial learning) there is no copying of information from one animal to another. When a rat learns to press a lever for reward, a cat learns where the food is kept, or a child learns how to ride a skateboard, that learning is done for the individual only and cannot be passed on. Arguably such learning involves a replicator being copied and selected within the individual brain (Calvin 1996, Edelman 1989), but it does not involve copying between individuals. These types of learning therefore do not count as memetic transmission.

In social learning a second individual is involved, but in various different roles. Types of social learning include goal emulation, stimulus enhancement, local enhancement, and true imitation. The question I want to ask is which of these can and cannot sustain a new evolutionary process.

In emulation, or goal emulation, the learner observes another individual gaining some reward and therefore tries to obtain it too, using individual learning in the process, and possibly attaining the goal in quite a different way from the first individual (Tomasello 1993). An example is when monkeys, apes or birds observe each other getting food from novel containers but then get it themselves by using a different technique (e.g. Whiten & Custance 1996). This is social learning because two individuals are involved, but the second has only learned a new place to look for food. Nothing is copied from one animal to the other in such a way as to allow for the copying of variations and selective survival of some variants over others. So there is no new evolutionary process and no new replicator.

In stimulus enhancement the attention of the learner is drawn to a particular object or feature of the environment by the behaviour of another individual. This process is thought to account for the spread among British tits of the habit of pecking milk bottle tops to get at the cream underneath, which was first observed in 1921 and spread from village to village (Fisher and Hinde 1949). Although this looks like imitation, it is possible that once one bird had learned the trick others were attracted to the jagged silver tops and they too discovered (by individual learning) that there was cream underneath (Sherry & Galef 1984). If so, the birds had not learned a new skill from each other (they already knew how to peck), but only a new stimulus at which to peck. Similarly the spread of termite fishing among chimpanzees might be accounted for by stimulus enhancement as youngsters follow their elders around and are exposed to the right kind of sticks in proximity to termite nests. They then learn by trial and error how to use the sticks.

In local enhancement the learner is drawn to a place or situation by the behaviour of another, as when rabbits learn from each other not to fear the edges of railway lines in spite of the noise of the trains. The spread of sweet-potato washing in Japanese macaques may have been through stimulus or local enhancement as the monkeys followed each other into the water and then discovered that washed food was preferable (Galef 1992).

If this is the right explanation for the spread of these behaviours we can see that there is no new evolutionary process and no new replicator, for there is nothing that is copied from individual to individual with variation and selection. This means there can be no cumulative selection of more effective variants. Similarly, Boyd and Richerson (in press) argue that this kind of social learning does not allow for cumulative cultural change.

Most of the population-specific behavioural traditions studied appear to be of this kind, including nesting sites, migration routes, songs and tool use, in species such as wolves, elephants, monkeys, monarch butterflies, and many kinds of birds (Bonner 1980). For example, oyster catchers use two different methods for opening mussels according to local tradition but the two methods do not compete in the same population in other words there is no differential selection of variants within a given population. Tomasello, Kruger and Ratner (1993) argue that many chimpanzee traditions are also of this type. Although the behaviours are learned population-specific traditions they are not cultural in the human sense of that term because they are not learned by all or even most of the members of the group, they are learned very slowly and with wide individual variation, and most telling they do not show an accumulation of modifications over generations. That is, they do not show the cultural ratchet effect precluding the possibility of humanlike cultural traditions that have histories.

There may be exceptions to this. Whiten et al. (1999) have studied a wide variety of chimpanzee behaviours and have found limited evidence that such competition between variants does occur within the same group. For example, individuals in the same group use two different methods for catching ants on sticks, and several ways of dealing with ectoparasites while grooming. However, they suggest that these require true imitation for their perpetuation.

Imitation

True imitation is more restrictively defined, although there is still no firm agreement about the definition (see Zentall 1996, Whiten 1999). Thorndike (1898), originally defined imitation as learning to do an act from seeing it done. This means that one animal must acquire a novel behaviour from another so ruling out the kinds of contagion noted above. Whiten and Ham (1992), whose definition is widely used, define imitation as learning some part of the form of a behaviour from another individual. Similarly Heyes (1993) distinguishes between true imitation learning something about the form of behaviour through observing others, from social learning learning about the environment through observing others (thus ruling out stimulus and local enhancement).

True imitation is much rarer than individual learning and other forms of social learning. Humans are extremely good at imitation; starting almost from birth, and taking pleasure in doing it. Meltzoff, who has studied imitation in infants for more than twenty years, calls humans the consummate imitative generalist (Meltzoff, 1996) (although some of the earliest behaviours he studies, such as tongue protrusion, might arguably be called contagion rather than true imitation). Just how rare imitation is has not been answered. There is no doubt that some song birds learn their songs by imitation, and that dolphins are capable of imitating sounds as well as actions (Bauer & Johnson, 1994; Reiss & McCowan, 1993). There is evidence of imitation in the grey parrot and harbour seals. However, there is much dispute over the abilities of non-human primates and other mammals such as rats and elephants (see Byrne & Russon 1998; Heyes & Galef 1996, Tomasello, Kruger & Ratner 1993, Whiten 1999).

Many experiments have been done on imitation and although they have not been directly addressed at the question of whether a new replicator is involved, they may help towards an answer. For example, some studies have tried to find out how much of the form of a behaviour is copied by different animals and by children. In the two-action method a demonstrator uses one of two possible methods for achieving a goal (such as opening a specially designed container), while the learner is observed to see which method is used (Whiten et al. 1996; Zentall 1996). If a different method is used the animal may be using goal emulation, but if the same method is copied then true imitation is involved. Evidence of true imitation has been claimed using this method in budgerigars, pigeons and rats, as well as enculturated chimpanzees and children (Heyes and Galef 1996). Capuchin monkeys have recently been found to show limited ability to copy the demonstrated method (Custance, Whiten & Fredman 1999).

Other studies explore whether learners can copy a sequence of actions and their hierarchical structure (Whiten 1999). Byrne and Russon (1998) distinguish action level imitation (in which a sequence of actions is copied in detail) from program level imitation (in which the subroutine structure and hierarchical layout of a behavioural program is copied). They argue that other great apes may be capable of program level imitation although humans have a much greater hierarchical depth. Such studies are important for understanding imitation, but they do not directly address the questions at issue here that is, does the imitation entail an evolutionary process? Is there a new replicator involved?

To answer this we need new kinds of research directed at finding out whether a new evolutionary process is involved when imitation, or other kinds of social learning, take place. This might take two forms. First there is the question of copying fidelity. As we have seen, a replicator is defined as an entity that passes on its structure largely intact in successive replications. So we need to ask whether the behaviour or information is passed on largely intact through several replications. For example, in the wild, is there evidence of tool use, grooming techniques or other socially learned behaviours being passed on through a series of individuals, rather than several animals learning from one individual but never passing the skill on again? In experimental situations one animal could observe another, and then act as model for a third and so on (as in the game of Chinese whispers or telephone). We might not expect copying fidelity to be very high, but unless the skill is recognisably passed on through more than one replication then we do not have a new replicator i.e. there is no need for the concept of the meme.

Second, is there variation and selection? The examples given by Whiten et al. (1999) suggest that there can be. We might look for other examples where skills are passed to several individuals, these individuals differ in the precise way they carry out the skill, and some variants are more frequently or reliably passed on again. For this is the basis of cumulative culture. Experiments could be designed to detect the same process occurring in artificial situations. Such studies would enable us to say just which processes, in which species, are capable of sustaining an evolutionary process with a new replicator. Only when this is found can we usefully apply the concept of the meme.

If such studies were done and it turned out that, by and large, what we have chosen to call imitation can sustain cumulative evolution while other kinds of social learning cannot, then we could easily tie the definitions of memes and imitation together so that what counts as a meme is anything passed on by imitation, and wherever you have imitation you have a meme.

In the absence of such research we may not be justified in taking this step, and some people may feel that it would not do justice to our present understanding of imitation. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this paper at least, that is what I propose. The advantage is that it allows me to use one word imitation to describe a process by which memes are transmitted. If you prefer, for imitation read a kind of social learning which is capable of sustaining an evolutionary process with a new replicator.

This allows me to draw the following conclusion. Imitation is restricted to very few species and humans appear to be alone in being able to imitate a very wide range of sounds and behaviours. This capacity for widespread generalised imitation must have arisen at some time in our evolutionary history. When it did so, a new replicator was created and the process of memetic evolution began. This, I suggest, was a crucial turning point in human evolution. I now want to explore the consequences of this transition and some of the coevolutionary processes that may have occurred once human evolution was driven by two replicators rather than one. One consequence, I suggest, was a rapid increase in brain size.

The big human brain

Humans have abilities that seem out of line with our supposed evolutionary past as hunter-gatherers, such as music and art, science and mathematics, playing chess and arguing about our evolutionary origins. As Cronin puts it, we have a brain surplus to requirements, surplus to adaptive needs (Cronin, 1991, p 355). This problem led Wallace to argue, against Darwin, that humans alone have a God-given intellectual and spiritual nature (see Cronin 1991). Williams (1966) also struggled with the problem of mans cerebral hypertrophy, unwilling to accept that advanced mental capacities have ever been directly favoured by selection or that geniuses leave more children.

Humans have an encephalisation quotient of about 3 relative to other primates. That is, our brains are roughly three times as large when adjusted for body weight (Jerison 1973). The increase probably began about 2.5 million years ago in the australopithecines, and was completed about 100,000 years ago by which time all living hominids had brains about the same size as ours (Leakey, 1994; Wills, 1993). Not only is the brain much bigger than it was, but it appears to have been drastically reorganised during what is, in evolutionary terms, a relatively short time (Deacon 1997). The correlates of brain size and structure have been studied in many species and are complex and not well understood (Harvey & Krebs 1990). Nevertheless, the human brain stands out. The problem is serious because of the very high cost (in energy terms) of both producing a large brain during development, and of running it in the adult, as well as the dangers entailed in giving birth. Pinker asks Why would evolution ever have selected for sheer bigness of brain, that bulbous, metabolically greedy organ? Any selection on brain size itself would surely have favored the pinhead. (1994, p 363).

Early theories to explain the big brain focused on hunting and foraging skills, but predictions have not generally held up and more recent theories have emphasised the complexity and demands of the social environment (Barton & Dunbar 1997). Chimpanzees live in complex social groups and it seems likely that our common ancestors did too. Making and breaking alliances, remembering who is who to maintain reciprocal altruism, and outwitting others, all require complex and fast decision making and good memory. The Machiavellian Hypothesis emphasises the importance of deception and scheming in social life and suggests that much of human intelligence has social origins (Byrne & Whiten 1988; Whiten & Byrne 1997). Other theories emphasise the role of language (Deacon 1997, Dunbar 1996).

There are three main differences between this theory and previous ones. First, this theory entails a definite turning point the advent of true imitation which created a new replicator. On the one hand this distinguishes it from theories of continuous change such as those based on improving hunting or gathering skills, or on the importance of social skills and Machiavellian intelligence. On the other hand it is distinct from those which propose a different turning point, such as Donalds (1991) three stage coevolutionary model or Deacons (1997) suggestion that the turning point was when our ancestors crossed the Symbolic Threshold.

Second, both Donald and Deacon emphasise the importance of symbolism or mental representations in human evolution. Other theories also assume that what makes human culture so special is its symbolic nature. This emphasis on symbolism and representation is unnecessary in the theory proposed here. Whether behaviours acquired by imitation (i.e. memes) can be said to represent or symbolise anything is entirely irrelevant to their role as replicators. All that matters is whether they are replicated or not.

Third, the theory has no place for the leash metaphor of sociobiology, or for the assumption, common to almost all versions of gene-culture coevolution, that the ultimate arbiter is inclusive fitness (i.e. benefit to genes). In this theory there are two replicators, and the relationships between them can be cooperative, competitive, or anything in between. Most important is that memes compete with other memes and produce memetic evolution, the results of which then affect the selection of genes. On this theory we can only understand the factors affecting gene selection when we understand their interaction with memetic selection.

In outline the theory is this. The turning point in hominid evolution was when our ancestors began to imitate each other, releasing a new replicator, the meme. Memes then changed the environment in which genes were selected, and the direction of change was determined by the outcome of memetic selection. Among the many consequences of this change was that the human brain and vocal tract were restructured to make them better at replicating the successful memes.

The origins of imitation

We do not know when and how imitation originated. In one way it is easy to see why natural selection would have favoured social learning. It is a way of stealing the products of someone elses learning i.e. avoiding the costs and risks associated with individual learning though at the risk of acquiring outdated or inappropriate skills. Mathematical modelling has shown that this is worthwhile if the environment is variable but does not change too fast (Richerson and Boyd 1992). Similar analyses have been used in economics to compare the value of costly individual decision making against cheap imitation (Conlisk 1980).

As we have seen, other forms of social learning are fairly widespread, but true imitation occurs in only a few species. Moore (1996) compares imitation in parrots, great apes and dolphins and concludes that they are not homologous and that imitation must have evolved independently at least three times. In birds imitation probably evolved out of song mimicry, but in humans it did not. We can only speculate about what the precursors to human imitation may have been, but likely candidates include general intelligence and problem solving ability, the beginnings of a theory of mind or perspective taking, reciprocal altruism (which often involves strategies like tit-for-tat that entail copying what the other person does), and the ability to map observed actions onto ones own.

The latter sounds very difficult to achieve involving transforming the visual input of a seen action from one perspective into the motor instructions for performing a similar action oneself. However, mirror neurons in monkey premotor cortex appear to belong to a system that does just this. The same neurons fire when the monkey performs a goal-directed action itself as when it sees another monkey perform the same action, though Gallese and Goldman (1998) believe this system evolved for predicting the goals and future actions of others, rather than for imitation. Given that mirror neurons occur in monkeys, it seems likely that our ancestors would have had them, making the transition to true imitation more likely.

We also do not know when that transition occurred. The first obvious signs of imitation are the stone tools made by Homo habilis about 2.5 million years ago, although their form did not change very much for a further million years. It seems likely that less durable tools were made before then; possibly carrying baskets, slings, wooden tools and so on. Even before that our ancestors may have imitated ways of carrying food, catching game or other behaviours. By the time these copied behaviours were widespread the stage was set for memes to start driving genes. I shall take a simple example and try to explain how the process might work.

Memetic drive

Let us imagine that a new skill begins to spread by imitation. This might be, for example, a new way of making a basket to carry food. The innovation arose from a previous basket type, and because the new basket holds slightly more fruit it is preferable. Other people start copying it and the behaviour and the artefact both spread. Note that I have deliberately chosen a simple meme (or small memeplex) to illustrate the principle; that is the baskets and the skills entailed in making them. In practice there would be complex interactions with other memes but I want to begin simply.

Now anyone who does not have access to the new type of basket is at a survival disadvantage. A way to get the baskets is to imitate other people who can make them, and therefore good imitators are at an advantage (genetically). This means that the ability to imitate will spread. If we assume that imitation is a difficult skill (as indeed it seems to be) and requires a slightly larger brain, then this process alone can already produce an increase in brain size. This first step really amounts to no more than saying that imitation was selected for because it provides a survival advantage, and once the products of imitation spread, then imitation itself becomes ever more necessary for survival. This argument is a version of the Baldwin effect (1896) which applies to any kind of learning: once some individuals become able to learn something, those who cannot are disadvantaged and genes for the ability to learn therefore spread. So this is not specifically a memetic argument.

However, the presence of memes changes the pressures on genes in new ways. The reason is that memes are also replicators undergoing selection and as soon as there are sufficient memes around to set up memetic competition, then meme-gene coevolution begins. Let us suppose that there are a dozen different basket types around that compete with each other. Now it is important for any individual to choose the right basket to copy, but which is that? Since both genes and memes are involved we need to look at the question from both points of view.

From the genes point of view the right decision is the basket that increases inclusive fitness i.e. the decision that improves the survival chances of all the genes of the person making the choice. This will probably be the biggest, strongest, or easiest basket to make. People who copy this basket will gather more food, and ultimately be more likely to pass on the genes that were involved in helping them imitate that particular basket. In this way the genes, at least to some extent, track changes in the memes.

From the memes point of view the right decision is the one that benefits the basket memes themselves. These memes spread whenever they get the chance, and their chances are affected by the imitation skills, the perceptual systems and the memory capacities (among other things) of the people who do the copying. Now, let us suppose that the genetic tracking has produced people who tend to imitate the biggest baskets because over a sufficiently long period of time larger artefacts were associated with higher biological success. This now allows for the memetic evolution of all sorts of new baskets that exploit that tendency; especially baskets that look big. They need not actually be big, or well made, or very good at doing their job but as long as they trigger the genetically acquired tendency to copy big baskets then they will do well, regardless of their consequence for inclusive fitness. The same argument would apply if the tendency was to copy flashy-looking baskets, solid baskets, or whatever. So baskets that exploit the current copying tendencies spread at the expense of those that do not.

This memetic evolution now changes the situation for the genes which have, as it were, been cheated and are no longer effectively tracking the memetic change. Now the biological survivors will be the people who copy whatever it is about the current baskets that actually predicts biological success. This might be some other feature, such as the materials used, the strength, the kind of handle, or whatever and so the process goes on. This process is not quite the same as traditional gene-culture evolution or the Baldwin effect. The baskets are not just aspects of culture that have appeared by accident and may or may not be maladaptive for the genes of their carriers. They are evolving systems in their own right, with replicators whose selfish interests play a role in the outcome.

I have deliberately chosen a rather trivial example to make the process clear; the effects are far more contentious, as we shall see, when they concern the copying of language, or of seriously detrimental activities.

Whom to imitate

Another strategy for genes might be to constrain whom, rather than what, is copied. For example, a good strategy would be to copy the biologically successful. People who tended, other things being equal, to copy those of their acquaintances who had the most food, the best dwelling space, or the most children would, by and large, copy the memes that contributed to that success and so be more likely to succeed themselves. If there was genetic variation such that some people more often copied their biologically successful neighbours, then their genes would spread and the strategy copy the most successful would, genetically, spread through the population. In this situation (as I have suggested above) success is largely a matter of being able to acquire the currently important memes. So this strategy amounts to copying the best imitators. I shall call these people meme fountains, a term suggested by Dennett (1998) to refer to those who are especially good at imitation and who therefore provide a plentiful source of memes both old memes they have copied and new memes they have invented by building on, or combining, the old.

Now we can look again from the memes point of view. Any memes that got into the repertoire of a meme fountain would thrive regardless of their biological effect. The meme fountain acquires all the most useful tools, hunting skills, fire-making abilities and his genes do well. However, his outstanding imitation ability means that he copies and adapts all sorts of other memes as well. These might include rain dances, fancy clothes, body decoration, burial rites or any number of other habits that may not contribute to his genetic fitness. Since many of his neighbours have the genetically in-built tendency to copy him these memes will spread just as well as the ones that actually aid survival.

Whole memetic lineages of body decoration or dancing might evolve from such a starting point. Taking dancing as an example, people will copy various competing dances and some dances will be copied more often than others. This memetic success may depend on whom is copied, but also on features of the dances, such as memorability, visibility, interest and so on features that in turn depend on the visual systems and memories of the people doing the imitation. As new dances spread to many people, they open up new niches for further variations on dancing to evolve. Any of these memes that get their hosts to spend lots of time dancing will do better, and so, if there is no check on the process, people will find themselves dancing more and more.

Switching back to the genes point of view, the problem is that dancing is costly in terms of time and energy. Dancing cannot now be un-evolved but its further evolution will necessarily be constrained. Someone who could better discriminate between the useful memes and the energy-wasting memes would leave more descendants than someone who could not. So the pressure is on to make more and more refined discriminations about what and whom to imitate. And crucially the discriminations that have to be made depend upon the past history of memetic as well as genetic evolution. If dancing had never evolved there would be no need for genes that selectively screened out too much dance-imitation. Since it did there is. This is the crux of the process I have called memetic driving. The past history of memetic evolution affects the direction that genes must take to maximise their own survival.

We now have a coevolutionary process between two quite different replicators that are closely bound together. To maximise their success the genes need to build brains that are capable of selectively copying the most useful memes, while not copying the useless, costly or harmful ones. To maximise their success the memes must exploit the brains copying machinery in any way they can, regardless of the effects on the genes. The result is a mass of evolving memes, some of which have thrived because they are useful to the genes, and some of which have thrived in spite of the fact that they are not and a brain that is designed to do the job of selecting which memes are copied and which are not. This is the big human brain. Its function is selective imitation and its design is the product of a long history of meme-gene coevolution.

Whom to mate with

There is another twist to this argument; sexual selection for the ability to imitate. In general it will benefit females to mate with successful males and, in this imagined human past, successful males are those who are best at imitating the currently important memes. Sexual selection might therefore amplify the effects of memetic drive. A runaway process of sexual selection could then take off.

For example, let us suppose that at some particular time the most successful males were the meme fountains. Their biological success depended on their ability to copy the best tools or firemaking skills, but their general imitation ability also meant they wore the most flamboyant clothes, painted the most detailed paintings, or hummed the favourite tunes. In this situation mating with a good painter would be advantageous. Females who chose good painters would begin to increase in the population and this in turn would give the good painters another advantage, quite separate from their original biological advantage. That is, with female choice now favouring good painters, the offspring of good painters would be more likely to be chosen by females and so have offspring themselves. This is the crux of runaway sexual selection and we can see how it might have built on prior memetic evolution.

Miller (1998, 1999) has proposed that artistic ability and creativity have been sexually selected as courtship displays to attract women, and has provided many examples, citing evidence that musicians and artists are predominantly male and at their most productive during young adulthood. However, there are differences between his theory and the one proposed here. He does not explain how or why the process might have begun whereas on this theory the conditions were created by the advent of imitation and hence of memetic evolution. Also on his theory the songs, dances or books act as display in sexual selection, but the competition between them is not an important part of the process. On the theory proposed here, memes compete with each other to be copied by both males and females, and the outcome of that competition determines the direction taken both by the evolution of the memes and of the brains that copy them.

Whether this process has occurred or not is an empirical question. But note that I have sometimes been misunderstood as basing my entire argument on sexual selection of good imitators (Aunger, in press). In fact the more fundamental process of memetic drive might operate with or without the additional effects of sexual selection.

The coevolution of replicators with their replication machinery

Memetic driving of brain design can be seen as an example of a more general evolutionary process. That is, the coevolution of a replicator along with the machinery for its replication. The mechanism is straightforward. As an example, imagine a chemical soup in which different replicators occur, some together with coenzymes or other replicating machinery, and some without. Those which produce the most numerous and long lived copies of themselves will swamp out the rest, and if this depends on being associated with better copying machinery then both the replicator and the machinery will thrive.

Something like this presumably happened on earth long before RNA and DNA all but eliminated any competitors (Maynard Smith & Szathmry 1995). DNAs cellular copying machinery is now so accurate and reliable that we tend to forget it must have evolved from something simpler. Memes have not had this long history behind them. The new replicator is, as Dawkins (1976 p 192) puts it, still drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup the soup of human culture. Nevertheless we see the same general process happening as we may assume once happened with genes. That is, memes and the machinery for copying them are improving together.

The big brain is just the first step. There have been many others. In each case, high quality memes outperform lower quality memes and their predominance favours the survival of the machinery that copies them. This focuses our attention on the question of what constitutes high quality memes. Dawkins (1976) suggested fidelity, fecundity and longevity.

This is the basis for my argument about the origins of language (Blackmore 1999, in press). In outline it is this. Language is a good way of creating memes with high fecundity and fidelity. Sound carries better than visual stimuli to several people at once. Sounds digitised into words can be copied with higher fidelity than continuously varying sounds. Sounds using word order open up more niches for memes to occupy and so on. In a community of people copying sounds from each other memetic evolution will ensure that the higher quality sounds survive. Memetic driving then favours brains and voices that are best at copying those memes. This is why our brains and bodies became adapted for producing language. On this theory the function of language ability is not primarily biological but memetic. The copying machinery evolved along with the memes it copies.

Originally posted here:

Meme-Gene Coevolution - Susan Blackmore

Can A Human Be Frozen And Brought Back To Life? – Zidbits

Science

Published on February 21, 2011

We see it all the time in movies. A person gets frozen or put in cryosleep and then unfrozen at a later date with no aging taking place, or other ill effects.

Sometimes this happens on purpose, like to someone with an incurable disease hoping a cure exists in the future, or sometimes by accident, like someone getting frozen in a glacier.

The science behind it does exist and the application of the practice is called cryonics. Its a technique used to store a persons body at an extremely low temperature with the hope of one day reviving them. This technique is being performed today, but the technology behind it is still in its infancy.

Someone preserved this way is said to be in cryonic suspension. The hope is that, if someone has died from a disease or condition that is currently incurable, they can be frozen and then revived in the future when a cure has been discovered.

Its currently illegal to perform cryonic suspension on someone who is still alive. Those who wish to be cryogenically frozen must first be pronounced legally dead which means their heart has stopped beating. Though, if theyre dead, how can they ever be revived?

According to companies who perform the procedure, legally dead is not the same as totally dead. Total death, they claim, is the point at which all brain function ceases. They claim that the difference is based on the fact that some cellular brain function remains even after the heart has stopped beating. Cryonics preserves some of that cell function so that, at least theoretically, the person can be brought back to life at a later date.

After your heart stops beating and you are pronounced legally dead, the company you signed with takes over. An emergency response team from the facility immediately gets to work. They stabilize your body by supplying your brain with enough oxygen and blood to preserve minimal function until you can be transported to the suspension facility. Your body is packed in ice and injected with an anticoagulant to prevent your blood from clotting during the trip. A medical team is on standby awaiting the arrival of your body at the cryonics facility.

After you reach the cryonics facility, the actual freezing can begin.

They could, and while youd certainly be frozen, most of the cells in your body would shatter and die.

As water freezes, it expands. Since cells are made up of mostly water, freezing expands the stuff inside which destroys their cell walls and they die. The cryonics companies need to remove and/or replace this water. They replace it with something called a cryoprotectant. Much like the antifreeze in an automobile. This glycerol based mixture protects your organ tissues by hindering the formation of ice crystals. This process is called vitrification and allows cells to live in a sort of suspended animation.

After the vitrification, your body is cooled with dry ice until it reaches -202 Fahrenheit. After this pre-cooling, its finally time to insert your body into the individual container that will be placed into a metal tank filled with liquid nitrogen. This will cool the body down to a temperature of around -320 degrees Fahrenheit.

The procedure isnt cheap. It can cost up to $200,000 to have your whole body preserved. For the more frugal optimist, a mere $60,000 will preserve your brain with an option known as neurosuspension. They hope the technology in the future will allow them to clone or regenerate the rest of the body.

Many critics say the companies that perform cryonics are simply ripping off customers with the dream of immortality and they wont deliver. It doesnt help that the scientists who perform cryonics say they havent successfully revived anyone, and dont expect to be able to do so anytime soon. The largest hurdle is that, if the warming process isnt done at exactly the right speed and temperature, the cells could form ice crystals and shatter.

Despite the fact that no human placed in a cryonic suspension has yet been revived, some living organisms can be, and have been, brought back from a dead or near-dead state. CPR and Defibrillators can bring accident and heart attack victims back from the dead daily.

Neurosurgeons often cool patients bodies so they can operate on aneurysms without damaging or rupturing the nearby blood vessels. Human embryos that are frozen in fertility clinics, defrosted and implanted in a mothers uterus grow into perfectly normal human beings. Some frogs and other amphibians have a protein manufactured by their cells that act as a natural antifreeze which can protect them if theyre frozen completely solid.

Cryobiologists are hopeful that nanotechnology will make revival possible someday. Nanotechnology can use microscopic machines to manipulate single atoms to build or repair virtually anything, including human cells and tissues. They hope one day, nanotechnology will repair not only the cellular damage caused by the freezing process, but also the damage caused by aging and disease.

Some cryobiologists have predicted that the first cryonic revival might occur as early as year 2045.

Read this article:

Can A Human Be Frozen And Brought Back To Life? - Zidbits

Everything You Need to Know About Eating Activated Charcoal – Eater

If youve taken a peek through Instagram recently, one thing is clear: Black food is everywhere. Perhaps a goth response to the ubiquity of unicorn lattes and rainbow bagels, dyeing foods a deep, inky black has become one of the years biggest food trends. Activated charcoal, the ingredient that creates this super-black hue, has made its way into coconut ash ice cream, detoxifying lemonades, pizza crusts, and boozy cocktails that are as black as your cold, dark soul.

Activated charcoal, also known as activated carbon or coconut ash, has long been a staple in hospitals, where it is used to prevent poisons and lethal overdoses of drugs from being absorbed by the body. Its a potent detoxifier, which has also helped activated charcoal attract an ardent following among the crunchy juice-cleanse types, who claim that the supplement (usually taken in pill form, though the powder can be mixed into a glass of water) can do everything from preventing hangovers to mitigating the side effects of food poisoning.

The idea of charcoal as a detoxifier isnt going away anytime soon, but consumers are now more interested in charcoal-tinted ice cream and pizza because it makes for excellent Instagram fodder. The black ice cream from shops like Morgensterns in New York City and Los Angeles Little Damage have been posted to social media thousands of times, along with inspiring countless copycats at ice cream shops across the country. This time, the craze isnt necessarily attributed to activated charcoals purported health benefits. Instead, the appeal is directly attributed to the fact that black-hued dishes are relatively rare and unique and also happen to look really, really cool.

Still, as the trend has grown, a number of articles have raised concerns about whether or not activated charcoal is safe to consume. Theres been a little bit of fearmongering regarding the ingredient, like pieces at Self and BoingBoing that warn people to definitely avoid foods dyed black with activated charcoal because theyre not safe.

As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, between the natural health evangelists and complete skeptics. If consumed in excessive amounts, activated charcoal can cause some adverse health effects but definitely it isnt as dangerous as some might believe.

While technically made of the same material as the charcoal briquettes in your barbecue, activated charcoal is a decidedly different thing. Food-grade activated charcoal is most frequently produced by heating coconut shells to extremely high temperatures until they are carbonized, or completely burned up. The resulting ash is then processed with steam or hot air at equally high temperatures to produce a microporous structure.

This process dramatically increases the surface area of the charcoal, which partly explains why it is such a powerful detoxifier. You can imagine activated charcoal as a sponge with its many tiny pores, writes Discover Magazines Eunice Liu. In fact, it is these little pores that endow the activated charcoal with its powerful adsorption properties, referring to the process by which atoms or molecules from a gas, liquid, or dissolved solid bind onto a surface.

Before it hit mainstream food culture, activated charcoal was a popular ingredient for detox enthusiasts. Added to juice cleanses and cayenne pepper lemonades, the powdered charcoal has been touted by natural health advocates for its anti-aging benefits, as a way to lose weight and lower cholesterol, draw poisonous spider venom out of wounds, and minimize gastrointestinal distress. Long before that, even, it was used by Ayurvedic and Eastern medicine practitioners to whiten teeth and cleanse toxic mold spores from the body.

Pretty much the only reason to add activated charcoal to ice cream or pizza crust is to produce that rich, Instagram-worthy black color. In terms of flavor, activated charcoal doesnt really bring much to the mix, which is why Morgensterns added coconut and burnt honey vanilla flavors to its black ice cream when it was introduced last year. Little Damage offers a rotating selection of flavors, like almond, dyed with activated charcoal.

The inspiration for Little Damages black ice cream came after owner Jenny Damage noticed activated charcoal in a number of juice shops across Los Angeles, and found that it was a really good way to produce a pure, super-black color. Black is not an easy color to achieve when youre mixing white ice cream with it, Damage says. I first saw it in charcoal lemonades, and I thought that was fun. The ingredient itself didnt have too much of a taste, so it was a really good base for us to rotate our flavors, using that as our iconic color.

At Prohibition Creamery in Austin, Texas, owner Laura Aidan first whipped up a batch of black ice cream as a Halloween special last year, but its been so popular that its made its way back to her constantly rotating menu a few times since. On a weekly basis, she gets requests from people via Instagram, Facebook, and email for the black ice cream, which was originally intended to just be a one-time-only offering.

When she decided to do a black ice cream, Aidan originally thought she might use squid ink, which is used to dye Italian pastas, or maybe black sesame seeds. Ultimately, though, activated charcoal was the best option. Activated charcoal was totally the best fit. I was familiar with it as a health food supplement, but I had never put it in ice cream before, Aidan says. It adds just a slight bit of crunch, a really fine little crunch to the texture, but for the most part it was amazing how smoothly the charcoal mixed into the ice cream.

Activated charcoal is really good at adsorption, or soaking up all the molecules in its path, but it isnt so good at picking out whats toxic and what isnt. When a person consumes activated charcoal in ice cream, the charcoal sucks up the calcium, potassium, and other vitamins that would be found in the milk. This prevents the stomach lining from absorbing those nutrients, which means that the body eliminates them as waste alongside the charcoal. In extreme cases, this can result in malnutrition.

For people who take prescription medications every day, activated charcoal may pose an even bigger concern. Activated charcoal is given to people who take too much medication because charcoal is so absorbent and can counteract an overdose, gastroenterologist Patricia Raymond, M.D. told Womens Health. But if youre drinking it and you also are on any meds, even birth control pills, the charcoal is likely to absorb the drugs. So you risk having them become ineffective. According to Drugs.com, that warning applies to more than 200 drugs, ranging from the ibuprofen you take to fend off a headache to albuterol, used to stop asthma attacks. As such, most companies that sell the product as a supplement recommend waiting at least two hours between taking activated charcoal and other prescription drugs.

Its especially concerning for people who use hormonal contraceptives, as consuming activated charcoal within just a few hours of taking the pill can reduce its efficiency. In a January interview with Imbibe, Bittermens founder Avery Glasser joked that he was going to make an activated charcoal cocktail called See Ya In Nine Months, referring to its potential to produce an unplanned pregnancy. It was a nod to the ethical dilemma at hand: Should bartenders really be serving these drinks to unwitting patrons, and if they do, should they come with a warning?

The science is somewhat mixed on the health benefits of activated charcoal, but as with most other detox products, most scientists are skeptical. There is little hard evidence that consuming activated charcoal actually does anything to detoxify the body or improve liver function, but that hasnt stopped natural health enthusiasts from consuming it, much like turmeric lattes or juice cleanses. Perhaps not surprisingly, natural lifestyle maven Gwyneth Paltrow is an ardent activated charcoal proponent.

Activated charcoal is amazing, says Elissa Goodman, a Los Angeles-based holistic nutritionist whos developed cleanse plans for celebrities like Kate Hudson. I have used it for myself, my children use it, and we always travel with it. Its powerful, potent stuff that is able to trap toxins and chemicals in the body and help flush them out so that theyre not absorbed. I think our bodies are really toxic.

For Goodman and her now college-aged kids, activated charcoal is mostly used as a hangover cure. She also packs it when traveling to places where shes concerned that the water may make her sick, and believes that it can be effective in helping remove toxic mold spores (which are prevalent in the laundry rooms and bathrooms of many homes and apartments) from the body. We all have digestive issues, and charcoal can alleviate gas and bloating, which is usually produced by some kind of fermentation in our guts, she says. We inhale spores of toxic molds. In places where water is crappy, tap water can be toxic and have chemicals. A lot of people dont have filtration systems in their homes, so its great to use.

Still, despite Goodmans obsession with eliminating toxins, she doesnt see activated charcoal as the kind of thing that should be eaten every day. Everything in moderation. We get onto these crazes and run with them, even if its potentially not that great for us in the long run, she says. I dont think its good to eat or drink it all the time. When youre feeling bad, its great to use. When youre healthy and normal, you dont need it. Goodman also knows that activated charcoal can interfere with adsorption of medications and other supplements, which is why she recommends taking it first thing in the morning.

In small quantities, activated charcoal is perfectly safe to consume, even if the purported health benefits are scientifically dubious. In the black ice cream at Prohibition Creamery, only a few ounces (by weight) of activated charcoal go into an 18-gallon batch of ice cream, which means that each scoop only contains a tiny amount. But because its hard to judge exactly how and when your body will process the charcoal, its still a good idea to wait a few hours after taking prescription medications like birth control before eating that charcoal pizza crust.

The amount that goes into each serving isnt great enough to make a huge difference when youre talking about ice cream, says Damage. Youd have to consume a huge amount. Of course, I dont know every medicine each and every person is taking, so if youre on medication, people should consult with their doctors before trying our ice cream.

Its also important to remember that activated charcoal isnt the only common ingredient used in restaurants that can interfere with medications. Grapefruit juice is known to increase the absorption of some drugs, including statins used to regulate cholesterol, HIV protease inhibitors, and over-the-counter cough syrup those who consume those medications are encouraged to avoid drinking grapefruit juice within two hours of downing their pills.

A natural compound called tyramine, found in aged cheeses, cured meats, and certain wines, can also be deadly for people using monoamine oxidase inhibitors, or MAOIs, to treat depression and personality disorders. (Fun fact: In The Silence of the Lambs, when Anthony Hopkins, starring as diabolical cannibal Hannibal Lecter, tells FBI agent Clarice Starling that he ate a census workers liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti, that particular assortment of foods (all high in tyramine) provides a subtle clue that Lecter is off his medications. Otherwise, as Mental Floss notes, its a combination that would have otherwise killed him.)

Still, despite the fact that activated charcoal is harmless in small quantities, its probably not a good idea to eat (or drink) it every single day. Over time, activated charcoal will adsorb crucial nutrients away from the body, which could eventually lead to malnutrition. Kim Kardashian might keep her fridge stocked with activated charcoal lemonades, but regular consumption comes with some less-than-glamorous side effects, like constipation, dehydration, and some very metal black-tinted poop.

Ultimately, its unlikely that consuming ice cream or pizza dyed black with activated charcoal every once in a while is going to result in any serious health complications. It might still be a good idea to treat this trendy ingredient much like the ice cream it is stirred into as an occasional splurge instead of a diet staple.

Amy McCarthy is the editor of Eater Dallas and Eater Houston. Editor: Erin DeJesus

See original here:

Everything You Need to Know About Eating Activated Charcoal - Eater

All of those antioxidant supplements are a huge con – INSIDER

facebook pinterest email copy link Antioxidants may not live up to all the hype.Flickr/Ano Lobb The INSIDER Summary:

Food and supplement companies make it seem like antioxidants are little warriors that start vanquishing diseases in your body as soon as you ingest them. It's easy to assume that consuming more of them must be better than consuming less.

But science shows loading up on antioxidants may not be as beneficial as you'd think some research suggests it can even cause harm. Here's what you need to know.

First, a quick primer on how antioxidants work:

Blueberries are a source of dietary antioxidants.Flickr/mystuart

Antioxidants have the power to stop free radicals, highly reactive chemicals that tear through the body, damaging cells and possibly playing a role in the development of diseases like cancer. Free radicals are an inescapable fact of life: The body makes them as a natural byproduct of digesting food, and it also makes them in response to pollution or radiation exposure.

"Antioxidants" is the catchall name given to the hundreds probably thousands of chemicals that can quench destructive free radicals. The body makes a lot of its own antioxidants, but we can also get them from our diet. Some antioxidants are also vitamins vitamins A, C, and E, to be specific but most others aren't.

When it comes to antioxidants, more is n0t always better.

Vitamin E supplement pills.Flickr/John Liu

A few decades ago, scientists began to understand that free radical damage might play a role in conditions like heart disease, cancer, vision loss, and more, according to the Harvard School of Public Health. So they decided to study what would happen if they gave people large doses of antioxidants in supplement form.

The results have been largely disappointing.

In 1985, for instance, American researchers recruited 18,000 people at high risk for lung cancer and had some of them take vitamin A supplements. But the study was halted almost two years early because participants taking the supplements were lung cancer than participants taking a placebo.

Antioxidant supplements aren't always beneficial.Shutterstock

Newer research hasn't been much more promising. A 2007 review found that taking antioxidants beta carotene, vitamin A, or vitamin E could increase mortality yes, that's the fancy scientific term for death. And while some trials have found a benefit to antioxidant supplementation, most simply haven't.

"The supplement trials have really failed," Christopher Gardner, PhD, professor of Medicine at Stanford Prevention Research Center and member of the True Health Initiative (THI), told INSIDER.

The antioxidant "scores" on food packages don't mean much, either.

You've probably come across tons of foods with claims about antioxidants on the label.

The test that companies use to make such claims is called the Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity, or ORAC. The problem is that it's a done in a test tube, not in humans. And just because a food has lots of antioxidant power in a test tube, Gardner explained, doesn't mean it's going to translate to a tangible health benefit in your body.

Food companies like to boast about antioxidant content.Flickr/Ty Konzak

"Even though [there's an antioxidant] in a food, you would have to absorb it without breaking it down," Gardner said. "Then it would have to be delivered to some part of your body that needs it. Then it would have to be the case that you didn't have enough to begin with, so this [antioxidant] made up for your deficiency. And then the last thing is, how would you measure that it did something?"

It's really tough to prove that the antioxidants in your morning goji berries, for example, are the reason you do or don't get heart disease 50 years from now.

Antioxidant content isn't the only reason you should buy a food.Flickr/Mike Mozart

Because of all this, the USDA decided to shut down its online ORAC database back in 2012, writing that ORAC values were "routinely misused" by food and supplement companies.

This doesn't mean products that list ORAC scores are necessarily bad for you. On the contrary, foods with high ORAC scores are often very nutritious choices, cardiologist Joel Kahn, MD, another THI member, told INSIDER.

But you shouldn't let antioxidant-based marketing claims sway your food decisions. Don't spend more on a certain type of berry solely because it has a high ORAC score or the word "antioxidants" plastered all over the package. Just buy whatever berries you want to eat.

One thing is clear: Foods that contain lots of antioxidants are good for your health.

Fruits and vegetables are the way to go.Flickr/Jason Paris

Most health authorities agree: Antioxidant supplements aren't worth your money, but antioxidant-rich foods definitely are.

"Antioxidant-rich foods probably sound familiar because we've been telling you to eat those for a really long time," Gardner said.

Fruits, vegetables, whole grains these foods are all rich in antioxidants, but they also have healthful fiber and essential nutrients your body needs. Plus, a robust body of evidence says that they're beneficial for long-term health.

"People should get the majority of their antioxidants from brightly colored fresh fruits and vegetables," Kahn said. "There's no doubt eating fruits and vegetables is a dose-related way to improve your health."

Like what you see here? Subscribe to our daily newsletter to get more of it.

See more here:

All of those antioxidant supplements are a huge con - INSIDER