The Device–Object Pairing Problem: Matching IoT Devices with Video Objects in a Multi-Camera Environment

IoT technologies enable millions of devices to transmit their sensor data to the external world. The device–object pairing problem arises when a group of Internet of Things is concurrently tracked by cameras and sensors. While cameras view these things as visual “objects”, these things which are equipped with “sensing devices” also continuously report their status. The challenge is that when visualizing these things on videos, their status needs to be placed properly on the screen. This requires correctly pairing visual objects with their sensing devices. There are many real-life examples. Recognizing a vehicle in videos does not imply that we can read its pedometer and fuel meter inside. Recognizing a pet on screen does not mean that we can correctly read its necklace data. In more critical ICU environments, visualizing all patients and showing their physiological signals on screen would greatly relieve nurses’ burdens. The barrier behind this is that the camera may see an object but not be able to see its carried device, not to mention its sensor readings. This paper addresses the device–object pairing problem and presents a multi-camera, multi-IoT device system that enables visualizing a group of people together with their wearable devices’ data and demonstrating the ability to recover the missing bounding box.

Pairing Problems: Causal and Christological

Trenton Merricks has objected to dualist conceptions of the Incarnation in a similar way to Jaegwon Kim’s pairing problem. On the original pairing problem, so argues Kim, we lack a pairing relationship between bodies and souls such that body A is causally paired with soul A and not soul B. Merricks, on the other hand, argues that whatever relations dualists propose that do pair bodies and souls together (e.g. causal relations) are relations that God the Son has with all bodies whatsoever via his divine attributes (e.g. God the Son could cause motion in any and all bodies via his omnipotence). So if we count these relations as sufficient for embodiment, then dualism implies that God the Son is embodied in all bodies whatsoever. I shall argue that while the original pairing problem might be easily answerable, the Christological pairing problem is not and that dualists must shift some of their focus from the defense of the soul’s existence to explicating the nature of the mind-body relationship.

The Causal Efficacy of Consciousness

Mental causation is vitally important to the integrated information theory (IIT), which says consciousness exists since it is causally efficacious. While it might not be directly apparent, metaphysical commitments have consequential entailments concerning the causal efficacy of consciousness. Commitments regarding the ontology of consciousness and the nature of causation determine which problem(s) a view of consciousness faces with respect to mental causation. Analysis of mental causation in contemporary philosophy of mind has brought several problems to the fore: the alleged lack of psychophysical laws, the causal exclusion problem, and the causal pairing problem. This article surveys the threat each problem poses to IIT based on the different metaphysical commitments IIT theorists might make. Distinctions are made between what I call reductive IIT, non-reductive IIT, and non-physicalist IIT, each of which make differing metaphysical commitments regarding the ontology of consciousness and nature of causation. Subsequently, each problem pertaining to mental causation is presented and its threat, or lack thereof, to each version of IIT is considered. While the lack of psychophysical laws appears unthreatening for all versions, reductive IIT and non-reductive IIT are seriously threatened by the exclusion problem, and it is difficult to see how they could overcome it while maintaining a commitment to the causal closure principle. Yet, non-physicalist IIT denies the principle but is therefore threatened by the pairing problem, to which I have elsewhere provided a response that is briefly outlined here. This problem also threatens non-reductive IIT, but unlike non-physicalist IIT it lacks an evident response. The ultimate aim of this survey is to provide a roadmap for IIT theorists through the maze of mental causation, by clarifying which commitments lead to which problems, and how they might or might not be overcome. Such a survey can aid IIT theorists as they further develop and hone the metaphysical commitments of IIT.

Comparison of two hybrid algorithms on incorporated aircraft routing and crew pairing problems

<span>In airline operations planning, a sequential method is traditionally used in airline system. In airline systems, minimizing the costs is important as they want to get the highest profits. The aircraft routing problem is solved first, and then pursued by crew pairing problem. The solutions are suboptimal in some cases, so we incorporate aircraft routing and crew pairing problems into one mathematical model to get an exact solution. Before we solve the integrated aircraft routing and crew pairing problem, we need to get the aircraft routes (AR) and crew pairs (CP). In this study, we suggested using genetic algorithm (GA) to develop a set of AR and CP. By using the generated AR and CP, we tackle the integrated aircraft and crew pairing problems using two suggested techniques, Integer Linear Programming (ILP) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Computational results show that GA's executed of AR and CP and then solved by ILP obtained the greatest results among all the methods suggested.</span>

The Coherence of Naturalistic Personal Pantheism

This paper examines the coherence of naturalistic personal pantheism (NPP) in an attempt to reconcile pantheism, naturalism, and a personal concept of God. NPP proposes that i) God is identical with the universe, ii) the universe is entirely natural, and iii) God is personal. Several critics of accounts of a God such as this have voiced concerns about a natural — as opposed to a supernatural — God, since a natural God cannot be worship-worthy. In response, I propose a controversial premise — physical primacy — to justify the worship-worthiness of a natural God. Physical primacy maintains that physical existence is a great-making property, therefore a God that exists naturally is greater than a God that exists supernaturally. I maintain that NPP is an attractive alternative to other theisms because it bypasses the pairing problem, presents a worship-worthy concept of God, and boasts ontological simplicity.