the summary at the end blew my mind the host who talked to him really got down to the core wants in this field and being able to relate the brain binary code is a way for us to be able to understand the brain in groundbreaking ways.
Your points might get a bit too complex to discuss them properly in a youtube comment. But a few thoughts: - Strict modular understanding of brain processes is probably inadequate, but throwing the idea out of the window completely is too I think - The brain doesn't process information? Maybe not entirely, but what else would you call, say sensory input if not information? - I agree that the brain is not a linear system, but that weakens the idea of hierarchical organization doesn't it?
Just to take the example of electricity - early theories used the idea of electricity as a stream to make sense of their observations (Franklin considered it as an imponderable fluid pervading everything). Of course electricity is not really like a stream, but that metaphor can guide you to build a more elaborate theoretical framework.
This was all about stimulating or suppressing neuronal firing. I want to hear about sensing neuron firing and mapping the related networks. (I want a backup.)
Just to be clear, I don't argue your point that the brain is not a computer. As any metaphor it becomes imprecise the deeper your understanding becomes. But metaphors still have their place in offering a starting point for new models and viewpoints. In essence metaphors are models too, maybe not very elaborated ones. But that is not the point - you have to start somewhere to build your theoretical framework.
11 років тому
I agree with your point, we can understand things as complex as how the brain works without a metaphor but sadly not everyone has that ability, kids for example. If you were to teach kids how the brain works you wouldn't explain it as if you were talking to a grown up. The fact that a metaphor if taken too literally will cause problems is correct but we can prevent this changing from the metaphor to the correct model as we teach the youths. Metaphors can help if we use them correctly.
Because science relies on metaphors to generate ideas and theories. The computer metaphor has helped the cognitive revolution in psychology, but I agree it has boundaries. The brain can do stuff that a traditional computer just can't. Just consider the parallel processing that goes on in the brain on a truly massive scale. Or its adaptability to damage to the structure (the brain is amazing at compensating for damage sometimes, try to see how well your computer works if you damage components).
Agreed, but I would still call that processing of information even if that is very different from the (digital) processing of a computer. I think we may just disagree on the semantics here...
Sadly, they need to do both. Few companies do high-expense, high-risk research, even just for business plans. If you want the technology to spread far and wide, you need to do the heavy lifting for them. Sucks, but that's how it's always been, from radio waves to cellular phones.
Yes, absolutely. But that is a matter of falsification then. My point is that it is not necessarily wrong to take inspiration from metaphors when advancing existing theories - subjective, metaphorical thinking might just be part of the human condition. The question for scientific models then becomes if these ideas hold up in the process of scientific testing.
I'll grant you that there currently is no neural network that is a good model of the brain, but my contention is that there is no reason to believe that one won't be developed eventually. Plus, I suspect the device that hosts the ultimately successful model will be called a computer, and, just to stretch wild speculation to an interesting conclusion, that model will inevitably lead to hosting a concious human mind in an artificial brain.
It's super exciting. Wouldn't they need a lot more than 2 lights to control different groups of neurons though? and can they get a neuron that belongs to, say, 2 different groups, to be able to receive 2 different types of light? I like imagining us with a translucent helmet that is constantly lighting up with all the colours of the rainbow to help us think.
Computers now can model plasma turbulence, nuclear chain reactions, and even galaxies colliding. Neural networks are being tuned to ever-more-accurately mimic the behavior of biological networks. I see no reason at all to believe that there is some fundamental block that will prevent continuing progress. The novel (exciting, scary) difference with modelling cognition is that, unlike those other models, a model of cognition potentially *is* cognition. "Computer" was originally a job title.
How about we say the brain works more like a computer with massive parallel processing? Probably won't catch on until these computers become mainstream though...
I'm always amused when people jump to the conclusion that the cheap pile of hardware used to sell a Microsoft license is somehow the definition of a computer. Or are you really trying to claim that the entire nervous system couldn't possibly be modeled by an appropriately complex neural network?
Whoops. "conscious" . . . That's what I get for depending on spellcheck. More near term, from the work in the video, we should expect a better understanding of brain function and morphology and perhaps advances in direct brain interfaces. Don't we all need an android device in our brains? ;^)
the summary at the end blew my mind the host who talked to him really got down to the core wants in this field and being able to relate the brain binary code is a way for us to be able to understand the brain in groundbreaking ways.
To me, this is TEDtalks at its very best! Great work! Thanks for uploading.
Your points might get a bit too complex to discuss them properly in a youtube comment. But a few thoughts:
- Strict modular understanding of brain processes is probably inadequate, but throwing the idea out of the window completely is too I think
- The brain doesn't process information? Maybe not entirely, but what else would you call, say sensory input if not information?
- I agree that the brain is not a linear system, but that weakens the idea of hierarchical organization doesn't it?
Just to take the example of electricity - early theories used the idea of electricity as a stream to make sense of their observations (Franklin considered it as an imponderable fluid pervading everything).
Of course electricity is not really like a stream, but that metaphor can guide you to build a more elaborate theoretical framework.
This was all about stimulating or suppressing neuronal firing. I want to hear about sensing neuron firing and mapping the related networks. (I want a backup.)
Just to be clear, I don't argue your point that the brain is not a computer. As any metaphor it becomes imprecise the deeper your understanding becomes. But metaphors still have their place in offering a starting point for new models and viewpoints. In essence metaphors are models too, maybe not very elaborated ones. But that is not the point - you have to start somewhere to build your theoretical framework.
I agree with your point, we can understand things as complex as how the brain works without a metaphor but sadly not everyone has that ability, kids for example. If you were to teach kids how the brain works you wouldn't explain it as if you were talking to a grown up. The fact that a metaphor if taken too literally will cause problems is correct but we can prevent this changing from the metaphor to the correct model as we teach the youths.
Metaphors can help if we use them correctly.
The end there seemed like he was hinting the show Dollhouse. I hope it never gets that far.
Because science relies on metaphors to generate ideas and theories. The computer metaphor has helped the cognitive revolution in psychology, but I agree it has boundaries. The brain can do stuff that a traditional computer just can't. Just consider the parallel processing that goes on in the brain on a truly massive scale. Or its adaptability to damage to the structure (the brain is amazing at compensating for damage sometimes, try to see how well your computer works if you damage components).
Agreed, but I would still call that processing of information even if that is very different from the (digital) processing of a computer. I think we may just disagree on the semantics here...
Great work.
I want to know how they attach wires to their brain without the wires falling out or doing any damage. Great talk!
Painfully interesting.
Sadly, they need to do both. Few companies do high-expense, high-risk research, even just for business plans. If you want the technology to spread far and wide, you need to do the heavy lifting for them. Sucks, but that's how it's always been, from radio waves to cellular phones.
Scary because of the ability to control.. the mind, but this is amazing technology.
Incredible.
This is awesome!
Bravo...
Watch it on ted . com for subtitles in several languages
Yes, absolutely. But that is a matter of falsification then. My point is that it is not necessarily wrong to take inspiration from metaphors when advancing existing theories - subjective, metaphorical thinking might just be part of the human condition. The question for scientific models then becomes if these ideas hold up in the process of scientific testing.
@faegen gravity is the metaphor.
The implications are mind boggling… at least until someone turns off the switch =/
I'll grant you that there currently is no neural network that is a good model of the brain, but my contention is that there is no reason to believe that one won't be developed eventually. Plus, I suspect the device that hosts the ultimately successful model will be called a computer, and, just to stretch wild speculation to an interesting conclusion, that model will inevitably lead to hosting a concious human mind in an artificial brain.
It's super exciting. Wouldn't they need a lot more than 2 lights to control different groups of neurons though?
and can they get a neuron that belongs to, say, 2 different groups, to be able to receive 2 different types of light?
I like imagining us with a translucent helmet that is constantly lighting up with all the colours of the rainbow to help us think.
I thought Steward Francis was giving a speech when I heard his voice.
awesome
Computers now can model plasma turbulence, nuclear chain reactions, and even galaxies colliding. Neural networks are being tuned to ever-more-accurately mimic the behavior of biological networks. I see no reason at all to believe that there is some fundamental block that will prevent continuing progress. The novel (exciting, scary) difference with modelling cognition is that, unlike those other models, a model of cognition potentially *is* cognition.
"Computer" was originally a job title.
How about we say the brain works more like a computer with massive parallel processing? Probably won't catch on until these computers become mainstream though...
Life, perfecting life.
What, I wonder, will we make from ourselves?
Summary of my position: The brain is not a (current) computer, but the computer will, perhaps inevitably, become a brain.
computer = something that computes. our brains are very much computers
not to worry , just get a new upload ..
Did he just say there trying to make the matrix at the end of the video...
"hahaha, so what are you saying? We're gonna be able to upload & download memories? hahaaa & lolz."
"Yeah pretty much."
"Oh =O"
...or is functional already. Right now.
I'm always amused when people jump to the conclusion that the cheap pile of hardware used to sell a Microsoft license is somehow the definition of a computer. Or are you really trying to claim that the entire nervous system couldn't possibly be modeled by an appropriately complex neural network?
Optogenetics!!! Sweet!!!
Wow
As you say...
Actually less than 1% according to Tony Buzan
That lisp tho
hurrah for lab mice :3
This is quite old info
I dont know why but this whole thing seems really wrong to me...
next step : connect every1s consciousnesses to the internet.
Whoops. "conscious" . . . That's what I get for depending on spellcheck.
More near term, from the work in the video, we should expect a better understanding of brain function and morphology and perhaps advances in direct brain interfaces. Don't we all need an android device in our brains? ;^)
Dreams recorded!!
Al...gah? I thought it was alGEE...?
Matrix ?
you can test on my left eye...
No blind people.
Sounds to me like the Matrix is in its pre-Alpha state...
I know Kung Fu...
is he talking about a cure or ways to make money.
@marcelx blink blink.. hahaha
nek minnit: Zombie Apocalypse
Dollhouse
You read/watch too much Sci-Fi.