Henry Markram builds a brain in a supercomputer

     After viewing this TED talk, I immediately thought of Kwabena's talk. In fact, this talk could have very well been a response to Kwabena's talk, as Kwabena's dealt with one day having a computer that works like a brain, and Henry's deals with his creation of a supercomputer that simulates a brain. In two years time, from 2007 to 2009, one man's theory became another man's work, and I find that exciting.

     On the talk itself, Henry's use of videos helped to describe what he was saying very well, and it was much easier to understand what he was trying to explain with the use of his visuals. His talk was also very philosophical in addition to being technical, but, once again, he broke down everything very well.

     What I found most interesting about Henry's talk was the reason he undertook his work. He started off explaining how if the universe is just the result of a perception of the brain. This is a very philosophical reason to pursue what he is pursuing, and I give him much credit for that. And what is even more interesting is that his experiments are somewhat proving his theories true. By dedicating an entire chip to a neuron in the brain, he and his team successfully created a computer simulation of a part of the brain utilizing 10,000 neurons, and when they introduced a stimulus, they were able to observe exactly what the neurons in the brain would be doing, and when they further examined just the raw electric activity, they noticed electrical "objects" that were created. Henry believes that if he were able to project these "objects" into perceptual space, we would be able to step inside the reality created inside the brain. And that would be just flat out mind-blowing.

     In all, this TED talk left me like most of the other ones have left me: wondering about the future. Will we eventually be able to build a computer with the capacity of a brain? What will we discover about the brain's inner workings? Is our reality just our brain's perception and subject to a different perception by a different brain by a different human or animal? They are all very intriguing and I can only hope that they will be answered in my life time.

Helen Fisher studies the brain in love

     Emotion. Helen's TED talk on the brain and love is full of emotion, and that was the one thing that stood out to me the most. While the previous TED talks on the brain were more logic, this one definitely pleaded to my emotions a lot more than the others, and that's what made this TED talk stand out for me. But maybe that is exactly what Helen is trying to prove. That love is such a powerful emotion, even just talking about it strikes a chord.
     I noticed a similarity between Helen Fisher's talk and Rebecca Saxe's talk, and the similarity was that they both dealt with how a certain part of the brain would be stimulated when dealing with, in Helen's case, love, and in Rebecca's case, the judgement of another person's thoughts. And then I thought about how these two could be related. Helen brought up a case of how a person who was recently dumped or how a person in a long distance relationship still uses the same part of the brain that deals with love, and these kinds of people could just as easily be thinking of what the other person is thinking, too, which makes their situation all the more complicated. But what would be the effect on a person's feelings if a magnetic pulse was sent to the RTPJ? Or perhaps the part of the brain that deals with love? These are questions that a lab experiment with Rebecca's equipment and Helen's insight could answer, so I believe a collaboration between the two would be very interesting.

Rebecca Saxe: How we read each other's minds

     In this TED talk, Rebecca Saxe describes her scientific work research on the part of the brain called the right temporo-parietal junction, or the RTPJ for short, which is used solely in making judgements on what other people are thinking. In her presentation, she specifically talks about the development of the RTPJ and how our moral judgements of other people's actions can change as we go from children to adulthood, and how they can also change through the use of magnetic pulses that scramble the neurons in the RTPJ.
     What I liked most about Rebecca's presentation was that it was very straight-forward. She used empirical data from her experiments to support her claims, and the videos of the children made her assertions very strong and clear-cut. I actually found the videos of the children to be the best part, not only because they were entertaining and enjoyable to watch, but because they proved her hypothesis on the RTPJ so well; that there really is one part of the brain that controls our thoughts on other people's thoughts, and this is proven through the development of that part as humans get older. The demonstration of the magnetic pulses was also very interesting, and the speaker at the end which asked the question of the possible implications of that technology took the words from right out of my mouth. But Rebecca had a good answer. She said that while using the pulses, she is not changing the defendant's mind, but merely the jury's. And she even said it herself, that this is a fairly new field of science that has not yet been explored, and it leaves me wondering just what will become of it in the future.

Kwabena Boahen on a computer that works like the brain

     This TED talk was very informative and thought-provoking at the same time. In it, Kwabena teaches the differences between how the brain and computers process information, and what makes the brain so efficient since it uses much less energy than a computer. He compared the brain to a freeway, which is linear and more of a bottleneck of processes, while the brain is a network which is messy and redundant, which is why information can be processed much more efficiently, and I felt that this comparison was very effective in helping me to understand his concern for current computers. Since Kwabena wants to aim for supercomputers that are more like the brain, his description of the way computers work now helped solidify his point.
     What I also found interesting was the silicon model of the optical nerve. While the output was hardly not exactly like what an actual human eye would see, the fundamental information was there, showing that one day, a computer replica of an optical nerve could be a possibility. This lead me to think about all the applications for this, with one of the most important being possibly giving sight to the blind. And to think about all the other applications of computer models of not just eyes but other body parts as well, and how they could possibly restore senses or fix paralysis.
     All in all, I enjoyed this talk very much, especially as a computer science major. It reinforced the point that the applications of computers and technology are endless, and as they are becoming better and faster, more and more possibilities once considered fantasy are slowly becoming reality.

Rory Sutherland: Sweat the small stuff

     Rory's TED talk dealt with the fact that the smaller details are often overlooked, and in some cases they can have the biggest impact. I agree with him on that point, and on his point that businesses and companies often spend too much to try to do more than what is necessary, when the same goal can be accomplished through smaller and less expensive means. In fact, when he brought up the big yellow TV screens at the airport, I was reminded of these big high-definition TV screens that my high school bought in order to display announcements and news. But the TV's were barely looked at since they ran the same announcements displayed in the morning, and the visual output on the TV's themselves wasn't the greatest since they were trying to display standard definition powerpoints on high definition TV's, resulting in a blurry and stretched output. The fact that they could have saved money and bought smaller standard-definition TV's, or no TV's at all and just posted the announcements through e-mail or another cheaper way, I feel ties directly into what Rory was discussing in his talk, and I didn't even realize the fact about my own high school's TV's until viewing this talk.

Dan Gilbert on our mistaken expectations

      This TED talk was very similar in idea to Dan Ariely's talk, although he made different points and had different examples. What stood out in Dan's presentation, for me, was his central theme revolving around Bernoulli's expectation equation, which stated that expected value equals the odds of gain multiplied by the value of gain. All his examples tied into that main idea, and thus made it easy to see what he was trying to prove and say.
     His data and instances were also very interesting, and like Dan Ariely's, were easy to relate to. I felt like I have made the mistakes he talked about, especially where people compare to the past instead of possibility, and how people make decisions based on the comparison. For example, I would have been one of those people who would drive across town to save $100 on just a car stereo, but I wouldn't have if it was saving $100 on the car. Or one of those people who would have taken the $50 now instead of $60 in a month, but would have waited a month if I was getting $50 in a year and $60 in 13 months. I found myself guilty of the irrational behavior he explained, and thus this TED talk was very eye-opening and enjoyable for me.

"Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?"

     In this TED talk, Dan talks about how we may possibly be making more irrational decisions than we think we do. The first thing he does is demonstrate our inherent flaws with our vision, which I thought was fascinating since it was true. This included the fact that two objects were the same size although one appeared larger because of its orientation, and how two colors were the same shade although they looked different because of the background. This caught my attention and I anticipated for him to do the same with the mind and decision-making, and he did. One of the most powerful examples I felt he had was the economist.com survey, where people chose an option solely because there was an option inferior to it. I felt like I would have been part of that 84% that chose the seemingly superior option, and then would have switched if I wasn't given the inferior one. The fact that I felt like I could relate to his examples, and because his examples were mostly actual surveys conducted, solidified the points he was making on irrational behavior. While we may all think that everything is under our control and it is all going according to plan, Dan challenges this notion, and it will definitely make me think twice the next time I have to make an important decision.

Christopher "moot" Poole: The case for anonymity online

     After viewing this TED talk on 4chan, I was pleased to know that there exists a place where complete anonymity is the focus. I agreed with Christopher's point on the fact that everything online is now becoming so "identity persistent"; sites ask you to register using your name and e-mail, Facebook and twitter are ubiquitous, and online profiles are becoming an increasingly important part of one's social and vocational life. I personally remember how when I was younger, I would sign up for everything with a fake name and a fake e-mail, as I was told the internet was dangerous, but nowadays it seems the complete opposite. Therefore, I consider a site like 4chan a gem.
     The case of anonymity on 4chan also allows for unfiltered and raw comments and discussion threads, and while this can and does lead to some inappropriate content as Chris mentioned, it also allows for amazing good that otherwise may have not happened, like with the person who was beating the cat was arrested within 48 hours. In fact, I read an article on how 4chan users all gamed an online voting system for a contest of Oprah's to see who would get their own television show, in a much similar fashion of how they managed to get Chris to win the TIME poll. Organization and assembly like this, especially over the internet, may not have been possible if it was possible to trace who every person partaking in the incident was, but it is thanks to 4chan and complete anonymity. In addition to this, individual creativity is allowed to flow freely without the fear of personal judgment, and thus an outlet like this is very important and arguably necessary for the ever-changing internet.

Theo Jansen creates new creatures

     Intriguing. Theo Jansen, a Dutch artist/sculpture maker specializes in what he calls "kinetic sculptures", which I take to mean art that moves, and in his mind, lives. That is probably what I found the most interesting about this video. Not just the fact that he produces such unique and pioneering art, but also his perception of his work. Like I said, while I see it as art that moves, he sees it as art that lives; every animal has a "skeleton", a "brain", a "nose", and lives off of "food". I feel that he is deeply connected with his work, and it shows through his boldness to deal with his art the way he does. He is a great example of someone expressing his or her creativity to the fullest, as he not only makes his art but also, quite literally, gives life to it, too.
    But the machines themselves are also very confounding. They are very big creations, and the fact that they can move by themselves is amazing. Past the size, the mechanisms inside are simple yet complex. Theo explained it himself, about how they can store wind and use it for later, how the "brain" is essentially a binary computer, and how they will hopefully be completely independent. With all of this taken into consideration, these "creations" are truly remarkable in design and construction.
    All in all, this video was a very good video to start viewing TED talks with, especially since this week's videos are dealing with creativity. Theo exemplifies a creative artist taking his work to the fullest, and this is because of not only his art but also because of the way he treats and handles his work.

Elizabeth Gilbert on nurturing creativity

     Elizabeth's TED talk was engaging and certainly moving. She explains her school of thought on creativity and how perhaps not all the creative work someone has done is completely his or her doing. To the average person, this may sound like nonsense, but she brought in the perspective of how the artist or writer or musician may be in complete anguish from the fact that none of his or her works will or have lived up to their "masterpiece", and if they ascribe that work as a result of the partnership of him or her and an external genius, then that may be enough motivation to keep on working and to not be afraid of any future criticism he or she may receive.
     As a songwriter, this TED talk really inspired me. I, too, am always in fear of my next song not being better or as good as my last, but if I think about my talent having its ups and downs and the only way to find those ups and downs are to keep working, then there is no reason for me to give up on anything just because I feel like I've hit a road block. It sort of all goes back to the mentality of "if it's meant to be, it's meant to be", and applying that thinking to creativity would definitely help struggling artists, while also creating new ones.