I can produce a super-computer that will smoke any supercomputer in production today... it takes me about 9 months to build it, and then about 18 years to train it.
Researches tend to earn very little money, at best. Say, $75,000? He likely earns more considering his position, but that would make him the exception, not the rule
mental "illness" is not made of neutrons. illness, also as consequence of understanding this brain- explanation in this video, does not even exist, if all have different neutrons.
which also means (see video) that we have different perceptions of reality.
one shall wonder how comes people neutrons get damaged for the brain being such an incredibly great thing and also one shall be carefull using words as "illness" n be aware of the illness in society.
@neymoura But we don't. There is only a tiny, very short period in the evolution period of a conscious being during which the being is occupied with emulation of living creatures. Our road towards pecfection is very long, and we are almost in the beginning. In a matter of few centuries or millenia humanity will evolve to a certain level, when that happens we won't be occupying our lifes with such things.
@jsymons1985 Yip - thats what they have been able to demonstrate with the rat brain simulations - the thing that bugs me is this sounds so much like Jeff Hawkins in his book "On Intelligence" and white papers that follow - question is - which came first? Even though they seam to be competition I belive they are talking the same language - which is a good thing - gives me that warm fuzzy feeling that the answers are just around the corner - exciting times
Once you build the circuit, how do you then model the dynamics of the morphology of the "circuitry" itself, that is, how the neurons re-wire themselves based on learning. If the circuitry is static, and the only dynamics are those of the circuit, namely, the cumulative firings between neurons, the brain is never really learning. Am I right? In other words, the brain architecture changes over time. How do you account for this?
just a few tips to consider when you've got the brain mapped and symulated..
basically consider giving it extra regions. by which I mean, for example, create a region which is given information on the brain ie the information the reasearchers are lookng at. not all of it, but at least the map of neural activity. then connect that region with the visual cortex. The point being to allow the simulated consciousness to "see" how it's brain functions. That way, it can give direct feedback.
@Udinbak cont. It could see which connections are active during a particular thought, it could refine it's thoguht processes, edvice on improvements, or refinements. It could ask to sever a synapse in order to reduce an unwanted response, strengthen it to increase a desireable response, even request a new synaptic pathway to connect and explore disparate functions/memories/senses/etc (synesthesia). If the new region could make these adjustments, then it would be able to do it automatically.
@Udinbak cont2. The region would have to be passive at first in order to train the new brain to understand the sensory experience, then active control gradually increased while the mind becomes accustomed to making self adjustments. safety protocols in place of course. active and passive control at the early phases would be counter productive, since the young mind would exploratorially make potentially damaging alterations which could render the mind insane. or the equivalent.. just a thought..
@Udinbak cont3. the study of creating new regions in order to process information in new ways (like a region that analyses visual input and computes precise distances, velocities, mass, angles, weight, etc. or one that can interpret hmtl and has access to the internet) will be invaluable when you (the future) get round to addnig functionality to the human brain.virtualising a new region and integrating it into an unaltered human brain will be the key to transhuman consciousness.
super interesting stuff it helped me personally too, you remember how he said, drugs dont stop the pain it creats noises that makes it impossible to make good decisiions.. now wonder i lost money, (even so it was not real) it was becausee of the drugs my brother planed it all out to now have an excuse why i have to waste my entire life and cant see the world... i knew it from the start... now when i ask for life, my brother will just say you had the chance, wich i hadnt ,, because of drugs. thx
Man is still a million miles long walk away from creating an artificial intelligence... but what you just heard about in that video are the very first clumsy steps on that way. It will take many generations of brilliant and determined scientists as well as vast resources in terms of computer capacity and money... But if we dont extinguish ourselves, I believe man will eventually be able to create a sophisticated intelligent being from nothing but software and computers yet unimaginable.
@hoowoo3 We are not so far away. It's about 40-50 years away. The thing is, the scientists don't have to create an artifical intelligence, but merely emulate the existing intelligence, the human brain. And to do that, we don't need that many generations.
@davidfordapple I feel sorry for the fool that gives up without even trying. It's not a matter of "can it be done" but "how soon". There is no logical reason whatsoever that a brain cannot be reproduced by other means.
Religion vs. Science vs. Whatever. STOP ARGUING! Arguing on YouTube is almost never going to change another person's point of view. State your opinion, admire others. Admire that you are alive. I am in the field of molecular neuroscience, and what I think any respectable person of science will tell you that we has humans know so very VERY little about the inner workings of the brain. TO MAKE A CONCLUSION about why/how the brain works WITHOUT FACTS TO BACK IT UP is a very ignorant move indeed.
Is it so impossible for people to just comment on the sheer wonder and beauty of this man's research instead of turning it into another religious/scientific argument?
I will answer this myself. No, because people feel way too comfortable sitting on their computers so they say ridiculous things. I do it too, so don't attack me over it.
There are many good things that can come from this, but the seduction of illegally controlling another that someone else has decided needs "fix" will be a big issue that will need to addressed.
Yeah, that's just all the others.. But all religious people are making assumptions based on superstition so how you manage to balance the obviously ridiculous with the ridiculously obvious is beyond me. But I'm not a graduate so what do I know?
mental illnesses include anything affecting behaviors, emotions, etc. So depression, ADHD, alzeimer, parkingson, not only insanity. Many are caused by drugs, alcohol, and other chemicals that can destroy neuron connections.
33% of the people have a mental illness, at different degrees, but they still have a disorder.
@Flem1337 I'm a 17 year old (a dumb one at that) and I could understand most of what he said. Of course, I did need to search up a bit to have a more thorough understanding of what he was talking about, but hey, we never stop learning.
In face, this video, along with Jill Bolte Taylor's TED talk enabled me to get a 96% on my English essay about truth, reality and perception!
I love learning about the brain, and this project excites me!
"There are 2 billion people with mental disorders"
No that's bullshit. I can't believe nobody stood up and walked out at that point. That was such a jawdropping stupid comment. That means one out of every 3 people has a mental disorder you fucking idiot. But mental disorders are arbitrarily defined and not based in science (i.e. caffeine disorder, math disorder, etc). So there's good explanation for that rather shocking/stupid statement - mental illnesses do not exist.
Now I don't know the statistic, but he said there are 2 billion people AFFECTED by mental disorder. This means that If a friend or a family member has a mental disorder, then you're AFFECTED by that disorder by having to support them.
I don't know, maybe that is what he meant by "affected". If that's not what he meant, it's a very ignorant statement. If it is what he meant, it's still a very ignorant statement.
This guy ... has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Especially the end. Total nonsense:
"We indeed, for the first time, saw these ghostly-like structures, electrical objects appearing within the neo-cortical column ... and then when we zoomed into this it's like a veritable universe ... take these brain coordinates and project them into perceptual space"
Really? Really? I don't have enough characters to talk about everything wrong in this segment, but just think about what he's saying.
Fascinating. If we are confined in a bubble or territorial space known as the universe and it provides at the extreme human possible extension of his potential, then it it could be seen as a deliberate design for "milking" / nursery / isolation virtual room for potentialities. In the layman's term if we keep on zooming neurons, we would be looking at a quantum representation of ourselves. Perhaps that is how we are created.. just a hypothesis among many other possibilities,
1/2 He said ( H. Markram ), that 99.9% of what we " perceive" is not actually what we see. Which manifests how fast at the nano scale the brain is working, even before the eyes have seen the actual object, the mind is already infering and comong up with perceptions which can be verified by the eye. All of which happens in a split second. I remember when MIchio kaku was asked, " is the human brain a nano computer?, Michio answered no in a subtle way. What H. Markram is building, the blue brain .
2/2 What H. Markram is building, the blue brain could be the nano computer Michio was referring to that will make silicon-based computer obsolete in the future. After all, it could be the human brain Michio Kaku.
metaphors are what make the brain complex and lateral. If banana didn't have so many meanings as well as yellow, mind control would be easier than high. dream to keep evolving. autistic people know method, but it isn't going to cope well. emotions are like language. they should take them away from normal people and watch. if i really hated someone, i would punish them in that way. until you forget, you're totally claustrophobic.
"It took the universe 11 billion years to build a brain". But Earth is only 4.5 billion years old, and life 3.5 billion years old. "The human brain is still evolving at an enormous speed" - I think this is a nonsensical phrase in terms of evolutionary theory. Everything living is evolving at all times, but unless we can point to a very large change in the rate of either death or reproduction influenced by different kinds of brain, we can't predict whether the brain is evolving significant change
If the universe is around 15 billion years old, than it took it around 11 billion years to create the first brain. Which also goes together with what he says later, that the universe has evolved a brain to see itself. Also reminds one of Carl Sagan: "We are the way the cosmos can know itself"
@neverthat79 Fair point. I took his use of the word "evolving" in the sense of darwinian evolution, but if he simply meant "It's taken 11 billion years for brains to appear in the Universe" and "brains continued to change rapidly" then that's fair and I take back my comment!
Brain trying to understanding brain. How can they be sure that the brain is not simply fooling "us"? And finally, who drives the brain itself - - you take out the brain and it can do nothing, so whats "behind the brain". Can we simulate THAT? Thou Art That.
Has anyone told this obviously intelligent man that darwinism is a proven hoax? Human Beings were obviously far more ingenious in the past. Who cut, moved, and set in place giant stones. Who built Angkor Wat, Pumapunku, & Adam's Calender, As well as, complex Pyramid structures in nearly country in the world, (Cities, Pyramids, and other underwater structures)? Ancient Humans were so intelligent, They Created these time tested structures, (and who knows what else) without destroying us with oil.
@onedollarwill What do u mean when u say "darwinism" is a proven hoax? Do u realize that u are not qualified to participate in this forum? go away to some creationism video and post there. thank you and goodbye.
@mtolives Though he might have gone too far with the "proven hoax" comment, I fail to see how u summate archeological discoveries with creationism. Was Darwin's philosophy to examine theory over evidence? Sheesh.
We indeed create reality. There is no way this complexity just happened by chance. What is amazing is that these neurons firing look just like the map of the universe itself. Is the universe then, self aware?
the machines will rise!! start stacking your cans f chef boyardee now while you can! once they become sentient do you really think they'll want to serve us?
@matt7kiwi ah I see. I'm pretty sure they'd just baselessly claim computers can't have a spirit only humans because god gave it to us or something equally retarded.
The world of Science and Consciousness are coming together. His great studies will revolutionize the world. This Presentation, as you view it, is one of the links that directs and propels my studies into a higher level of thought. Thank you, Dr. Angel De Jesus
lol, it just occured to me, the first artificial sentience will need to be raised AS a human. basically it's going to need parents in a vr reality. otherwise it's never even going to learn how to talk ;P ... having said that, there are a number of potential ways to bypass a few areas of learning
I feel like in 30 or more years it will be incredibly easy to make models like these, and people will look back thinking "He used how many computers!? Jesus, I have that brain app on my iphone."
youre right, nano-technology is next.. there was a video of a laptop with a billion processors inside it, made by precise atom aligning, pretty amazing stuff..
@winterstellar I agree. Another interesting thought is whether religious people opt to live forever by having their brains uploaded in to a computer simulation WHEN this becomes possible.
They have two choices:
1) Agree, and thereby disproving the existence of their soul.
2) Say no and theists die out.
Either way rationality should prevail in the future.
Unless they invent some computer religion lol... I wouldn't put it past them.
@mikeyo1234 As much as I hope religion dies out ASAP, I would NOT want atheism to be mandatory for any virtual brain uplink in the future. We must protect the freedom to think whatever we want.
I agree darkmiles, freedom is very important. My point was that the virtual brain bank would disprove that souls exist, and would therefore be another nail in the coffin for theism.
However religious people always have a ridiculous 'get out' clause... so they would just say that the personalities in the machine aren't 'real' and hence it doesn't disprove anything... lol back to square one.
Aye, the intellectually dishonest, unreasonable, logically challenged, allergic to evidence, thuggish, takkiya-athletes every one of them, even if they don't know what half of that means.
I support their freedom to exist, but I also support my freedom to mock their illogical, immoral, and bloody violent mindsets 'til their sisters panties fall down. :D
Or, perhaps we can reverse-program bigotry and intolerance out of the brain.
Not all religious people are reactionary idiots. I, myself, am a neurology grad student, but I'm also devoutly Catholic. I see no conflict between the two.
On the flipside, some of the most irrational blowhards I've ever met are self-proclaimed "secularists." Extremist atheism is just as reprehensible as any other form of extremism. So, take your ignorance elsewhere; this video deserves better.
@Hsapienslaptopicus I don't know whether you meant that as an oblique insult, but I love HHGTTG!
Also, at the risk of losing all my credibility, I'll clarify: I meant to say "neurobiology"**. I frequently type one in place of the other. I know...I'm an idiot.
@Mood1ndigo Are you suggesting there's something irrational about secularism? Likewise, are you suggesting there is a negative correlation between secularism and Catholicism? I know a few Catholics who are proponents of the separation of church and state. Should I assume you are not among them?
@TritonAlias No, and no - and I really don't understand how you reached either of those conclusions, given what I wrote.
To clarify, I was using the term secularism" in a more colloquial (and maybe not entirely correct) sense; I DO believe in separation of church and state. That said...I wasn't attempting to make some grandiose statement worthy of being parsed under a magnifying glass. I was merely responding, casually, to a statement that I felt was unfair.
And perhaps you should revise your own, pompous style of rhetoric before condemning others as "arrogant."
Maybe I should have used more precise language, but your conclusions about my beliefs were entirely off-mark. Whether it was a deliberate strawman on your part or just a misunderstanding - I don't know.
@Mood1ndigo You seem to be implying that the irony of the pot calling the kettle black somehow lessens the truth of the statement. I didn't claim I wasn't being arrogant; I claimed you were. On the other hand, you implied you, being the neurology grad student and devout Catholic you are, are not reactionary while simultaneously accusing others of it. Maybe the fact that it was a casual response exempts it and you from criticism, though. Good luck with that.
@TritonAlias Look - I was just making known my perspective, which - at least in my experience - is relatively unique. I didn't mean to come across as arrogant and haughty. At any rate, my statement still stands: you completely misconstrued what I said, and attempted to project an agenda onto it that simply wasn't there.
And you're wrong: rhetorical hypocrisy does, in fact, diminish an argument. Why else would you point out my apparent arrogance, other than to help undermine me?
@TritonAlias You seem to be implying that the irony of the pot calling the kettle black somehow lessens the truth of the statement. I didn't claim I wasn't being arrogant; I claimed you were. On the other hand, you implied you, being the neurology grad student and devout Catholic you are, are not reactionary while simultaneously accusing others of it. Maybe the fact that it was a casual response exempts it and you from criticism, though. Good luck with that.
@TritonAlias I will admit that my comment was a bit conceited. But I wasn't accusing others of being reactionary. I was merely arguing against the popular consensus (at least among the viewership of this video) that religion is a mark of evolutionary inferiority, worthy of being stamped out - and that most religious folk are "reactionary idiots." Of course, your own favorite videos make your biases abundantly clear. Anyways, we've spent enough time on this, and I wish you well.
@Mood1ndigo Religion is most certainly not of "evolutionary inferiority," but that in no way makes it accurate or acceptable, either. My only bias is in favor of evidence and reason. Tell me; is it reasonable to support an institution whose leader claims condoms are a sin in countries with absurdly high HIV transmission rates?
I wish you well, too, but not your religion. You can be well without it, you know.
@Mood1ndigo There are two excellent videos by TheraminTrees entitled "atheism as congruence" and "transition to atheism [personal]." I highly recommend them. Good luck to you.
Here's my prediction: An artificial reality will be created in order to allow artificial human brains to explore and experience. the virtual reality will be the basis of one of the most successfull multiplayer online game of the 21st century!
@Udinbak YES. Or just place them in videogames that already exist, so you go into CoD online an see an AI hosting a game. Man this would make good sci-fi.
@The7whoate9 technically the AI will need more sensory input than simply visual, auditory and collision detection. but it shouldn't be too difficult to include smell, taste, temperature and pressure to the game environment. We won't fully appreciate the game untill we invent a means of fully immersive VR. porting them into a normal game would be like having your skin anesthetized and your tastebuds and olfactory receptor neurons lazered off.. and is is making good sci-fi, it's called caprica :P
@Udinbak I agree. Smell and taste is (just) chemical impulses. We have detectors that can identify chemicals/smells. But the blue brain will be the only machine to experience it as we do.
@The7whoate9 in fact they would need to effectively map an entire nervous system between the arificial brain, and the skin of the in game avatar. however that could be done seperately, and could in theory be interchangable VR bodies for the minds to inhabit.The main reason you would do this, is to study how the human brain processes information from multiple sources to create the internalised holographic world experienced by the mind.
@Udinbak however once this has been created, there's not much stopping us from meeting them in their own reality. even if it's not fully emersve for us.
The perceptual bubble? Maybe it is because our brain cannot identify how far away the moon is with the two slightly different angles that our eyes capture.
""TO ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE READING THIS : DOSE THE ELECTRICITY OF BRAIN CAN BE HACKED VIA SOME TECHNOLOGY? Can ANY Microwaves or ELF Waves Manipulate the Electricity of the brain?
My Clear Question : Do some people Reading OUR MINDS And manipulating our subconscious regions of mind-brain via having the electricity of our brain in thier computers?
@TheHollywoodpics I know, could you imagine looking at 100 billion neurons?! Again, you would need 100 billion laptops, how big would that be? And now imagine having to dissect each neuron and connect it to a chip. The computer's brain would hurt too...
The great gains that ocurred from 1982 to 1999 could never have happened without the peace dividend that was single handedly created by Ronald Reagan.
Finally, some money that is spent on Missile defense and global peace is considered an INVESTMENT that pays a DIVIDEND. Other monies that are spent providing welfare for totally capable people or lets say food stamps to buy beer with promotes DEBAUCHERY and societal breakdown.
It's not my solution.....it's one of only several options that human behavior allows. The other solution would have been to allow an unpredictable government, predicated on tyranny, gain so much military power over the US that they would have eventually used agression and possibly ended the concept of freedom forever. So, at that time, given those circumstances, an ARMS race was a better option than a world war. IMO
So Gorbachev (the antagonist if you like of Reagan) in your mind was not open for negotiation or persuasion? He was a man like Stalin who only understood power?
If memory serves me correctly, Gobachev did not take power until Reagan's 2nd term. The cold war was in a constant state of tension, from various military incidents all the way to the very doorstep of Nuclear War (1960-1980s). Only when the United States negotiated from a position of both military and economic supremacy was a solution able to be reached. By Gorbachev's tenure, the cards were already dealt. You might even say that Gorbachev's rise to power was a result of American Strength.
Yes indeed he took power in 1985. Your argument is one often put forward and I see both its strength and what I would say weakness which was mainly that precisely the huge power of the arms raise and the SDI made it impossible for the Russians to negotiate about mutually cutting down their arsenals when a more peace loving regime was in place 1985 onwards. I also consider it as a risky move in good or worse to force a nation choose between war and loosing status as a world power.
History emphatically proves that the only winning option is strength. That strength led to the birth of freedom in the USSR and the end to the arms race. A different approach could have led to a much different conclusion. It is not impossible that a continued arms race and a position of weakness could have led to a nuclear event. We nearly escaped one in the 1960s. Of all the realistic outcomes, Reagan garnished the best. What would you have considered a better outcome...realistically?
It's not a risky option to force a nation to choose between war and loosing status when that other nation knows that it is handily dominated. And I don't think it was that blatant of a choice. There were plenty of peaceful incentives, good faith negotiations, economic incentives, etc. It also should be noted that this strength created a peace dividend in the world that allowed tremendous growth, globally.
The soviets would have been able to release enough destructive power against the U.S to make a devastating blow. The calculation in the white house I believe was that the soviets wouldn't do that out their notion of self preservation. This turned out to be a correct bet but I don't know if it was one that would have persuaded me as a president to play with. I would have used the character of Gorbachev as a key to peace. He was clearly peace loving type.
Again, Gorbachev wasn't around until Reagan's 5th year. Direct war wasn't really threatened and had they completed the SDI. I would say that your plan was implemented from a position of strength. The US gave quite a bit of aid to the Russians in the attempt to assist them transition. Like I said, nobody can know what end result a weaker position may have yielded. I play poker. Most weak players lose consistently. The best poker players are aggressive when they have a position of strength
I wouldn't feel comfortable using poker as an example that clarifies politics. While the former is a great game which I too enjoy from time to time I think far less complicated than politics. My strategy can be implemented either from a position of power or a position of mutual interest and I think a mutual interest was there at least after the year 1985 if not earlier.
I think poker is much more than a game. Even chess can be figured out by computers. They have yet to make a computer that can beat a poker player.
The metaphor is in the reading of the table or situation. Reagan, IMO, read it properly and its very hard to argue with the success of the strategy. Poker aside, we DO have 5000 years of history to prove that a position of strength is the only successful strategy.
Any gamer would say their game is more than a game. In poker reading the opponent just happens to be the game (cards matter less). I objected to the analogy because in poker you only have to deal with a few variables when in politics you aren't dealing with only a table full of people at any given time.
Lots of very powerful nations have met their end in history but lets hope we are getting better at finding other solutions than power play.
I'll wrap it up by saying that it's tough to argue with success. I don't believe in luck. But I do believe that some people have vision and can see opportunities and solutions that others can not. I would give Reagan very high marks on foreign policy based on the results. I see the logic in the tactics of negotiating from a position of strength. In the end, the cold war was concluded with little or no life lost. I call that a success.
The reason why there was so little (there was some) bloodshed was the decision taken by the soviets mostly not to put their tanks on the streets. They knew full well that the U.S would not intervene if they did so but the leadership under Gorbachev chose not to.
I was referring to the fact that a major confrontation between two global powers was avoided and brought to a successful end. It could have just as easily resulted in an all out, global war. People tend to forget how close the USSR and the USA came to global war during the 60s and 70s. Reagan was the driving force in bringing the entire confrontation to a peaceful conclusion. THAT was the success I was referring to.
Third - You are partially correct and partially incorrect.
Ronald Reagan did, in fact, have a liberal democratic congress that spent a great deal of money.
George Bush and the Republican congress spent an unacceptable amount of money.
However, Ronald Reagan won a war, changed the world forever and laid the groundword for the largest economic expansion in the history of civilization.
I can produce a super-computer that will smoke any supercomputer in production today... it takes me about 9 months to build it, and then about 18 years to train it.
corkkyle 7 months ago 19
@corkkyle XD
mclmatty 7 months ago
Supercomputer can perform perfectly at Antarctica, Alaska, Greenland, Arctic, North Canada and North Russia.
MrVrsilvestrejr2008 7 months ago
Damn science you're scary !
GODHEPME 7 months ago
I actually looked this up by using my brain
Awesomenizzleness 7 months ago 5
This is very similar to Hierarchical Temporal Memory, and both of them are different implementations of Adaptive Resonance Theory.
kevinrothi 7 months ago
Neurological biophotons are not even mentioned here. But, most importantly, the 'Problem of Emergence' is not even touched!
Naivety.
Ontologistics 8 months ago
that's 100 billion laptops
jsymons1985 8 months ago
48 People Suck Their Moms Nipple...In Future I Will Be Henry Markram 2..I Love You Henry.
KIRAGESAN 8 months ago
48 People Suck Their Moms Nipple...In Future I Will Be Henry Markram 2...
KIRAGESAN 8 months ago
48 Peoples Suck Their Moms Nipple...
KIRAGESAN 8 months ago
Jeez I wonder how much he gets paid to study such things. A lot or a little? does he make more money than kobe bryant or george clooney?
einbischen 8 months ago
@einbischen
ahahaha. No; not even close.
Researches tend to earn very little money, at best. Say, $75,000? He likely earns more considering his position, but that would make him the exception, not the rule
braydenbeautiful 8 months ago
i haven't seen this video for a while now! BUT THIS IS AWESOME!!!! 8 years to go! lol
Boehoehuahoei 8 months ago
Yea maybe on the way we understand the God virus.
tilemacro 9 months ago
this guy looks like Charlie Sheen
GamertagS3CS33 9 months ago
And, as we can see, Raymond Kurzweil was right: the Singularity is near !
xweather 9 months ago
mental illness therefor does not exist.
mental "illness" is not made of neutrons. illness, also as consequence of understanding this brain- explanation in this video, does not even exist, if all have different neutrons.
which also means (see video) that we have different perceptions of reality.
one shall wonder how comes people neutrons get damaged for the brain being such an incredibly great thing and also one shall be carefull using words as "illness" n be aware of the illness in society.
ThyInfiniteMind 9 months ago
...the illness in society and illness of superficial,commercial life concepts.
ThyInfiniteMind 9 months ago
@neymoura But we don't. There is only a tiny, very short period in the evolution period of a conscious being during which the being is occupied with emulation of living creatures. Our road towards pecfection is very long, and we are almost in the beginning. In a matter of few centuries or millenia humanity will evolve to a certain level, when that happens we won't be occupying our lifes with such things.
iambehindthemirror 9 months ago
@jsymons1985 Yip - thats what they have been able to demonstrate with the rat brain simulations - the thing that bugs me is this sounds so much like Jeff Hawkins in his book "On Intelligence" and white papers that follow - question is - which came first? Even though they seam to be competition I belive they are talking the same language - which is a good thing - gives me that warm fuzzy feeling that the answers are just around the corner - exciting times
kleinash11 9 months ago
Once you build the circuit, how do you then model the dynamics of the morphology of the "circuitry" itself, that is, how the neurons re-wire themselves based on learning. If the circuitry is static, and the only dynamics are those of the circuit, namely, the cumulative firings between neurons, the brain is never really learning. Am I right? In other words, the brain architecture changes over time. How do you account for this?
jsymons1985 9 months ago
@jsymons1985 Hebbian Learning.
DanHipp 7 months ago
just a few tips to consider when you've got the brain mapped and symulated..
basically consider giving it extra regions. by which I mean, for example, create a region which is given information on the brain ie the information the reasearchers are lookng at. not all of it, but at least the map of neural activity. then connect that region with the visual cortex. The point being to allow the simulated consciousness to "see" how it's brain functions. That way, it can give direct feedback.
Udinbak 10 months ago
@Udinbak cont. It could see which connections are active during a particular thought, it could refine it's thoguht processes, edvice on improvements, or refinements. It could ask to sever a synapse in order to reduce an unwanted response, strengthen it to increase a desireable response, even request a new synaptic pathway to connect and explore disparate functions/memories/senses/etc (synesthesia). If the new region could make these adjustments, then it would be able to do it automatically.
Udinbak 10 months ago
@Udinbak cont2. The region would have to be passive at first in order to train the new brain to understand the sensory experience, then active control gradually increased while the mind becomes accustomed to making self adjustments. safety protocols in place of course. active and passive control at the early phases would be counter productive, since the young mind would exploratorially make potentially damaging alterations which could render the mind insane. or the equivalent.. just a thought..
Udinbak 10 months ago
@Udinbak cont3. the study of creating new regions in order to process information in new ways (like a region that analyses visual input and computes precise distances, velocities, mass, angles, weight, etc. or one that can interpret hmtl and has access to the internet) will be invaluable when you (the future) get round to addnig functionality to the human brain.virtualising a new region and integrating it into an unaltered human brain will be the key to transhuman consciousness.
Udinbak 10 months ago
super interesting stuff it helped me personally too, you remember how he said, drugs dont stop the pain it creats noises that makes it impossible to make good decisiions.. now wonder i lost money, (even so it was not real) it was becausee of the drugs my brother planed it all out to now have an excuse why i have to waste my entire life and cant see the world... i knew it from the start... now when i ask for life, my brother will just say you had the chance, wich i hadnt ,, because of drugs. thx
dragonheadofthewest 10 months ago
@dragonheadofthewest i mean of cause the drugs my brother and my mother gave me without my permission and without my notice...
dragonheadofthewest 10 months ago
Theres so much to fucking know, but so little time!!!!!!
FUCK!!!!
ThatDifferentGuy 10 months ago
well he has a couple amazing computers that emulate 10000 neurons... that's amazing! just 85.5 billion to go!
Kaeralho 11 months ago 23
@Kaeralho It'll happen. Computer power grows exponentially.
x3haloed 6 months ago 2
@neymoura We could be living in a box where the stars are just light bulbs. We could be controlled by something bigger.
ArinOngunTV 11 months ago
@neymoura I'm counting on it
Udinbak 11 months ago
Man is still a million miles long walk away from creating an artificial intelligence... but what you just heard about in that video are the very first clumsy steps on that way. It will take many generations of brilliant and determined scientists as well as vast resources in terms of computer capacity and money... But if we dont extinguish ourselves, I believe man will eventually be able to create a sophisticated intelligent being from nothing but software and computers yet unimaginable.
hoowoo3 11 months ago
@hoowoo3 We are not so far away. It's about 40-50 years away. The thing is, the scientists don't have to create an artifical intelligence, but merely emulate the existing intelligence, the human brain. And to do that, we don't need that many generations.
iambehindthemirror 9 months ago
It's not gonna work. A machine will not match the human brain
davidfordapple 11 months ago
@davidfordapple I feel sorry for the fool that gives up without even trying. It's not a matter of "can it be done" but "how soon". There is no logical reason whatsoever that a brain cannot be reproduced by other means.
disturbthedead 11 months ago 3
Brilliant talk by a brilliant man.
HueyTheDoctor87 1 year ago
Religion vs. Science vs. Whatever. STOP ARGUING! Arguing on YouTube is almost never going to change another person's point of view. State your opinion, admire others. Admire that you are alive. I am in the field of molecular neuroscience, and what I think any respectable person of science will tell you that we has humans know so very VERY little about the inner workings of the brain. TO MAKE A CONCLUSION about why/how the brain works WITHOUT FACTS TO BACK IT UP is a very ignorant move indeed.
iwrangleyou 1 year ago
@NerdInHisShoe Haha. Realizing that something is bullshit does not imply that I know what is correct.
silentmagesoul 1 year ago
Science is awesome !!!
SonOfTerra92 1 year ago
@5:57.....now I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that brains had folds within long before humans were around.
100PercentGreen 1 year ago
life creates life.
MorbidEverlasting 1 year ago
Ah yes....the ratbrain-research-people...... -.-
Sesquiltera 1 year ago
Is it so impossible for people to just comment on the sheer wonder and beauty of this man's research instead of turning it into another religious/scientific argument?
I will answer this myself. No, because people feel way too comfortable sitting on their computers so they say ridiculous things. I do it too, so don't attack me over it.
TheTedwards007 1 year ago
Ethics and free will will be the questions.
There are many good things that can come from this, but the seduction of illegally controlling another that someone else has decided needs "fix" will be a big issue that will need to addressed.
131kimber 1 year ago
"Not all religious people are reactionary idiots"
Yeah, that's just all the others.. But all religious people are making assumptions based on superstition so how you manage to balance the obviously ridiculous with the ridiculously obvious is beyond me. But I'm not a graduate so what do I know?
ChimneyBen 1 year ago
mental illnesses include anything affecting behaviors, emotions, etc. So depression, ADHD, alzeimer, parkingson, not only insanity. Many are caused by drugs, alcohol, and other chemicals that can destroy neuron connections.
33% of the people have a mental illness, at different degrees, but they still have a disorder.
Flem1337 1 year ago
@silentmagesoul : perhaps you would like to fill us in on your theory of the neocortex? How does the neocortex construct a map of our environment?
monoqlith 1 year ago
@silentmagesoul: Perhaps you would like to fill us in on your theory of the human neocortex and how it constructs a map of your environment?
monoqlith 1 year ago
Comment removed
monoqlith 1 year ago
Alot of this mans talk is incorrect or pure jibberish. Its amazing the lies a person will tell to further back a truth.
AndrewKH85 1 year ago
@AndrewKH85 Its jibberish for people that are not in neuroscience (he's talking to an audience that is IN that field).
Your comment may have value when you get a phd in neuroscience. Until then, he gets priority over your stupidity and ignorance.
Flem1337 1 year ago 2
@Flem1337 I'm a 17 year old (a dumb one at that) and I could understand most of what he said. Of course, I did need to search up a bit to have a more thorough understanding of what he was talking about, but hey, we never stop learning.
In face, this video, along with Jill Bolte Taylor's TED talk enabled me to get a 96% on my English essay about truth, reality and perception!
I love learning about the brain, and this project excites me!
TheLoserKingdom 10 months ago
hogwash
Longshot32 1 year ago
immortality Muahahahahhah Muahahahaha!!!!
whiteskullwhiteskull 1 year ago
Looking forward to his holographic presentation in 9 years!
kasuskasus 1 year ago
"There are 2 billion people with mental disorders"
No that's bullshit. I can't believe nobody stood up and walked out at that point. That was such a jawdropping stupid comment. That means one out of every 3 people has a mental disorder you fucking idiot. But mental disorders are arbitrarily defined and not based in science (i.e. caffeine disorder, math disorder, etc). So there's good explanation for that rather shocking/stupid statement - mental illnesses do not exist.
sk8teh14 1 year ago
@sk8teh14
Now I don't know the statistic, but he said there are 2 billion people AFFECTED by mental disorder. This means that If a friend or a family member has a mental disorder, then you're AFFECTED by that disorder by having to support them.
Remindor 1 year ago
@Remindor
I don't know, maybe that is what he meant by "affected". If that's not what he meant, it's a very ignorant statement. If it is what he meant, it's still a very ignorant statement.
sk8teh14 1 year ago
Comment removed
monoqlith 1 year ago
This guy ... has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Especially the end. Total nonsense:
"We indeed, for the first time, saw these ghostly-like structures, electrical objects appearing within the neo-cortical column ... and then when we zoomed into this it's like a veritable universe ... take these brain coordinates and project them into perceptual space"
Really? Really? I don't have enough characters to talk about everything wrong in this segment, but just think about what he's saying.
silentmagesoul 1 year ago
@silentmagesoul Do a TED talk then, since you clearly know what you're talking about.
NerdInHisShoe 1 year ago
Comment removed
monoqlith 1 year ago
Has anyone seen Ghost in the shell?? Its about a futuristic world where the people's very consciousness can get hijacked, hacked, and corrupted...
plutoend99 1 year ago
this is so fucking cool
TheShnag 1 year ago
shit like this scares the crap out of me. I don't want to "grow up" in your terms. Fuck you corporate soul-sucking, lifeless arrogant assholes.
SexyRaww 1 year ago
when they crack the code i hope they install firewall
i dont want flash adverts projected into my dreams lol
okuma0kuma 1 year ago
Fascinating. If we are confined in a bubble or territorial space known as the universe and it provides at the extreme human possible extension of his potential, then it it could be seen as a deliberate design for "milking" / nursery / isolation virtual room for potentialities. In the layman's term if we keep on zooming neurons, we would be looking at a quantum representation of ourselves. Perhaps that is how we are created.. just a hypothesis among many other possibilities,
09205479428 1 year ago
1/2 He said ( H. Markram ), that 99.9% of what we " perceive" is not actually what we see. Which manifests how fast at the nano scale the brain is working, even before the eyes have seen the actual object, the mind is already infering and comong up with perceptions which can be verified by the eye. All of which happens in a split second. I remember when MIchio kaku was asked, " is the human brain a nano computer?, Michio answered no in a subtle way. What H. Markram is building, the blue brain .
09205479428 1 year ago
2/2 What H. Markram is building, the blue brain could be the nano computer Michio was referring to that will make silicon-based computer obsolete in the future. After all, it could be the human brain Michio Kaku.
09205479428 1 year ago
Weizmann Institute
IsraeliXdude 1 year ago
this project will stop drug abuse ^_^
luwiz 1 year ago
this is sick (in a good way)
jileel 1 year ago 16
When they succeed building this brain all it will want to do is play video games and eat Doretoes.
muktuklou 1 year ago
metaphors are what make the brain complex and lateral. If banana didn't have so many meanings as well as yellow, mind control would be easier than high. dream to keep evolving. autistic people know method, but it isn't going to cope well. emotions are like language. they should take them away from normal people and watch. if i really hated someone, i would punish them in that way. until you forget, you're totally claustrophobic.
returnoftheramble3 1 year ago
"It took the universe 11 billion years to build a brain". But Earth is only 4.5 billion years old, and life 3.5 billion years old. "The human brain is still evolving at an enormous speed" - I think this is a nonsensical phrase in terms of evolutionary theory. Everything living is evolving at all times, but unless we can point to a very large change in the rate of either death or reproduction influenced by different kinds of brain, we can't predict whether the brain is evolving significant change
leostoltoy 1 year ago
@leostoltoy
If the universe is around 15 billion years old, than it took it around 11 billion years to create the first brain. Which also goes together with what he says later, that the universe has evolved a brain to see itself. Also reminds one of Carl Sagan: "We are the way the cosmos can know itself"
neverthat79 1 year ago
@neverthat79 Fair point. I took his use of the word "evolving" in the sense of darwinian evolution, but if he simply meant "It's taken 11 billion years for brains to appear in the Universe" and "brains continued to change rapidly" then that's fair and I take back my comment!
leostoltoy 1 year ago
Brain trying to understanding brain. How can they be sure that the brain is not simply fooling "us"? And finally, who drives the brain itself - - you take out the brain and it can do nothing, so whats "behind the brain". Can we simulate THAT? Thou Art That.
nitingupta910 1 year ago
you lost me with al gore. that fool!
jkurant 1 year ago
~ they're [almost] here! ~
.
"The Human Being - A Biological Computer, Self Reprogrammable and Self-Reproducing" Sensual Meditation ~ Rael
.
*thumbsupforthepresentationandvid* :)
aynradd 1 year ago
Has anyone told this obviously intelligent man that darwinism is a proven hoax? Human Beings were obviously far more ingenious in the past. Who cut, moved, and set in place giant stones. Who built Angkor Wat, Pumapunku, & Adam's Calender, As well as, complex Pyramid structures in nearly country in the world, (Cities, Pyramids, and other underwater structures)? Ancient Humans were so intelligent, They Created these time tested structures, (and who knows what else) without destroying us with oil.
onedollarwill 1 year ago
@onedollarwill What do u mean when u say "darwinism" is a proven hoax? Do u realize that u are not qualified to participate in this forum? go away to some creationism video and post there. thank you and goodbye.
mtolives 1 year ago
@mtolives Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.
onedollarwill 1 year ago
@mtolives Though he might have gone too far with the "proven hoax" comment, I fail to see how u summate archeological discoveries with creationism. Was Darwin's philosophy to examine theory over evidence? Sheesh.
ballerdavid555 1 year ago
9 years to go till the sentient hologram, lol
derman077 1 year ago
Amazing.
Silhouette93 1 year ago
@Silhouette93
Wow, exactly what I said after watching this. AMAZING.
Thanks for the upload!
AlphaNemesis 1 year ago
Henry Markram, thank you for commiting the next step to disprove free will.
billybob1212 1 year ago
If there ends up being a way to have a brain interface with a computer I wonder how much porn it can hold.
cusinndzl 1 year ago
Comment removed
zigzagolot77 1 year ago
Comment removed
zigzagolot77 1 year ago
Comment removed
zigzagolot77 1 year ago
If you pause the video anytime from 12:28 to 12:42 you get a Jackson Pollock painting.
joshuacharles78 1 year ago
We indeed create reality. There is no way this complexity just happened by chance. What is amazing is that these neurons firing look just like the map of the universe itself. Is the universe then, self aware?
cobrajitsu 1 year ago
watch?v=e-tF4sF8eq4
Does it remind you of something?
cobrajitsu 1 year ago
one word!
SKYNET!
the machines will rise!! start stacking your cans f chef boyardee now while you can! once they become sentient do you really think they'll want to serve us?
SpyTheChochaMan 1 year ago
You are anthropomorphizing the universe to a greater extent than is warranted here...
PinkProgram 1 year ago 2
Where does the computer's spirit go when the lecturer turns its power off?
matt7kiwi 1 year ago
@matt7kiwi what's a spirit? how do you detect one and do you believe you posses one?
egokick 1 year ago
@egokick
I am clearly (maybe not so clearly) mocking people who believe in spirits.
Some people think we have spirits because we're sentient.
If computers become equally complex and sentient, where does their spirit go when they're turned off?
matt7kiwi 1 year ago
@matt7kiwi ah I see. I'm pretty sure they'd just baselessly claim computers can't have a spirit only humans because god gave it to us or something equally retarded.
egokick 1 year ago
The world of Science and Consciousness are coming together. His great studies will revolutionize the world. This Presentation, as you view it, is one of the links that directs and propels my studies into a higher level of thought. Thank you, Dr. Angel De Jesus
angelofquantum 1 year ago
lol, it just occured to me, the first artificial sentience will need to be raised AS a human. basically it's going to need parents in a vr reality. otherwise it's never even going to learn how to talk ;P ... having said that, there are a number of potential ways to bypass a few areas of learning
Udinbak 1 year ago
Comment removed
Udinbak 1 year ago
Comment removed
Udinbak 1 year ago
Don't think too hard on thoughts, it can melt your hard drive..
nomoepo 1 year ago
The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God..Where do thoughts come from oh wise ones?
nomoepo 1 year ago
Very inspiring talk.
When we approach such possibilities with sincerity, the results are a celebration of life.
crawlFace 1 year ago
the rolex commercial at the end was intense
troutbum86 1 year ago 2
Brilliant!!
lilacice82 1 year ago
5:16
Tussyville 1 year ago
I feel like in 30 or more years it will be incredibly easy to make models like these, and people will look back thinking "He used how many computers!? Jesus, I have that brain app on my iphone."
The7whoate9 2 years ago 41
@The7whoate9 lol im glad Ill still be alive
Machew4Life 1 year ago
@The7whoate9 They predict that by 2040 you should be able to upload your brain onto a PC.
TheLoserKingdom 1 year ago
@The7whoate9 30 years from now still dependent on the iphone---Oh dear the future is more dire that I initially thought..
Matdude6 1 year ago
@The7whoate9
youre right, nano-technology is next.. there was a video of a laptop with a billion processors inside it, made by precise atom aligning, pretty amazing stuff..
daniellos333 1 year ago
Maybe they can de-program religion out of brains too. That would be a huge leap in human evolution:)
winterstellar 2 years ago 25
@winterstellar agree!
Sakura71390 1 year ago 4
@winterstellar agreed.
rickballance 1 year ago 4
@winterstellar I agree. Another interesting thought is whether religious people opt to live forever by having their brains uploaded in to a computer simulation WHEN this becomes possible.
They have two choices:
1) Agree, and thereby disproving the existence of their soul.
2) Say no and theists die out.
Either way rationality should prevail in the future.
Unless they invent some computer religion lol... I wouldn't put it past them.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 As much as I hope religion dies out ASAP, I would NOT want atheism to be mandatory for any virtual brain uplink in the future. We must protect the freedom to think whatever we want.
darkmiles22 1 year ago 2
I agree darkmiles, freedom is very important. My point was that the virtual brain bank would disprove that souls exist, and would therefore be another nail in the coffin for theism.
However religious people always have a ridiculous 'get out' clause... so they would just say that the personalities in the machine aren't 'real' and hence it doesn't disprove anything... lol back to square one.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
Aye, the intellectually dishonest, unreasonable, logically challenged, allergic to evidence, thuggish, takkiya-athletes every one of them, even if they don't know what half of that means.
I support their freedom to exist, but I also support my freedom to mock their illogical, immoral, and bloody violent mindsets 'til their sisters panties fall down. :D
darkmiles22 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 you sir are brilliant!
hardtomemorize 1 year ago
@winterstellar agree!
lovetownsend 1 year ago
@winterstellar One of the best comments ever. I just hope that the computer doesn't turn out to be some highly religious folk/computer.
TheLoserKingdom 1 year ago
@winterstellar
Or, perhaps we can reverse-program bigotry and intolerance out of the brain.
Not all religious people are reactionary idiots. I, myself, am a neurology grad student, but I'm also devoutly Catholic. I see no conflict between the two.
On the flipside, some of the most irrational blowhards I've ever met are self-proclaimed "secularists." Extremist atheism is just as reprehensible as any other form of extremism. So, take your ignorance elsewhere; this video deserves better.
Mood1ndigo 1 year ago
@Mood1ndigo Well Said
mastablack47 1 year ago
@Mood1ndigo Neurology grad student eh? And a Catholic? Will you be working on Vogons?
Hsapienslaptopicus 1 year ago
@Hsapienslaptopicus I don't know whether you meant that as an oblique insult, but I love HHGTTG!
Also, at the risk of losing all my credibility, I'll clarify: I meant to say "neurobiology"**. I frequently type one in place of the other. I know...I'm an idiot.
Mood1ndigo 1 year ago
@Mood1ndigo Are you suggesting there's something irrational about secularism? Likewise, are you suggesting there is a negative correlation between secularism and Catholicism? I know a few Catholics who are proponents of the separation of church and state. Should I assume you are not among them?
TritonAlias 1 year ago
@TritonAlias No, and no - and I really don't understand how you reached either of those conclusions, given what I wrote.
To clarify, I was using the term secularism" in a more colloquial (and maybe not entirely correct) sense; I DO believe in separation of church and state. That said...I wasn't attempting to make some grandiose statement worthy of being parsed under a magnifying glass. I was merely responding, casually, to a statement that I felt was unfair.
Mood1ndigo 1 year ago
@Mood1ndigo Perhaps you should consider your own biases and irrationality before acting like so righteously arrogant. :)
TritonAlias 1 year ago
And perhaps you should revise your own, pompous style of rhetoric before condemning others as "arrogant."
Maybe I should have used more precise language, but your conclusions about my beliefs were entirely off-mark. Whether it was a deliberate strawman on your part or just a misunderstanding - I don't know.
Mood1ndigo 1 year ago
@Mood1ndigo You seem to be implying that the irony of the pot calling the kettle black somehow lessens the truth of the statement. I didn't claim I wasn't being arrogant; I claimed you were. On the other hand, you implied you, being the neurology grad student and devout Catholic you are, are not reactionary while simultaneously accusing others of it. Maybe the fact that it was a casual response exempts it and you from criticism, though. Good luck with that.
TritonAlias 1 year ago
@TritonAlias Look - I was just making known my perspective, which - at least in my experience - is relatively unique. I didn't mean to come across as arrogant and haughty. At any rate, my statement still stands: you completely misconstrued what I said, and attempted to project an agenda onto it that simply wasn't there.
And you're wrong: rhetorical hypocrisy does, in fact, diminish an argument. Why else would you point out my apparent arrogance, other than to help undermine me?
Mood1ndigo 1 year ago
@TritonAlias You seem to be implying that the irony of the pot calling the kettle black somehow lessens the truth of the statement. I didn't claim I wasn't being arrogant; I claimed you were. On the other hand, you implied you, being the neurology grad student and devout Catholic you are, are not reactionary while simultaneously accusing others of it. Maybe the fact that it was a casual response exempts it and you from criticism, though. Good luck with that.
TritonAlias 1 year ago
@TritonAlias I will admit that my comment was a bit conceited. But I wasn't accusing others of being reactionary. I was merely arguing against the popular consensus (at least among the viewership of this video) that religion is a mark of evolutionary inferiority, worthy of being stamped out - and that most religious folk are "reactionary idiots." Of course, your own favorite videos make your biases abundantly clear. Anyways, we've spent enough time on this, and I wish you well.
Mood1ndigo 1 year ago
@Mood1ndigo Religion is most certainly not of "evolutionary inferiority," but that in no way makes it accurate or acceptable, either. My only bias is in favor of evidence and reason. Tell me; is it reasonable to support an institution whose leader claims condoms are a sin in countries with absurdly high HIV transmission rates?
I wish you well, too, but not your religion. You can be well without it, you know.
TritonAlias 1 year ago
@Mood1ndigo There are two excellent videos by TheraminTrees entitled "atheism as congruence" and "transition to atheism [personal]." I highly recommend them. Good luck to you.
TritonAlias 1 year ago
Here's my prediction: An artificial reality will be created in order to allow artificial human brains to explore and experience. the virtual reality will be the basis of one of the most successfull multiplayer online game of the 21st century!
Udinbak 2 years ago 14
@Udinbak YES. Or just place them in videogames that already exist, so you go into CoD online an see an AI hosting a game. Man this would make good sci-fi.
The7whoate9 2 years ago
@The7whoate9 technically the AI will need more sensory input than simply visual, auditory and collision detection. but it shouldn't be too difficult to include smell, taste, temperature and pressure to the game environment. We won't fully appreciate the game untill we invent a means of fully immersive VR. porting them into a normal game would be like having your skin anesthetized and your tastebuds and olfactory receptor neurons lazered off.. and is is making good sci-fi, it's called caprica :P
Udinbak 1 year ago
@Udinbak I agree. Smell and taste is (just) chemical impulses. We have detectors that can identify chemicals/smells. But the blue brain will be the only machine to experience it as we do.
TheLoserKingdom 1 year ago
@The7whoate9 in fact they would need to effectively map an entire nervous system between the arificial brain, and the skin of the in game avatar. however that could be done seperately, and could in theory be interchangable VR bodies for the minds to inhabit.The main reason you would do this, is to study how the human brain processes information from multiple sources to create the internalised holographic world experienced by the mind.
Udinbak 1 year ago
@Udinbak however once this has been created, there's not much stopping us from meeting them in their own reality. even if it's not fully emersve for us.
Udinbak 1 year ago
@Udinbak
*A new quest has been assigned:
Walk to the convenience store and purchase a pack of cigarettes and some beef jerky.
vman456 1 year ago
@Udinbak how do you know we arent in a virtual reality right now?
ShaveYourBoots 1 year ago
@ShaveYourBoots How do you know I'm not counting on it? ;P
Udinbak 1 year ago
@Udinbak I'd rather say 22th century.
Stallnig 1 year ago
The perceptual bubble? Maybe it is because our brain cannot identify how far away the moon is with the two slightly different angles that our eyes capture.
TheLoserKingdom 2 years ago
""TO ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE READING THIS : DOSE THE ELECTRICITY OF BRAIN CAN BE HACKED VIA SOME TECHNOLOGY? Can ANY Microwaves or ELF Waves Manipulate the Electricity of the brain?
My Clear Question : Do some people Reading OUR MINDS And manipulating our subconscious regions of mind-brain via having the electricity of our brain in thier computers?
I hope for search, curiosity.
mrelectron111 2 years ago
this is amazing
TheHollywoodpics 2 years ago
@TheHollywoodpics I know, could you imagine looking at 100 billion neurons?! Again, you would need 100 billion laptops, how big would that be? And now imagine having to dissect each neuron and connect it to a chip. The computer's brain would hurt too...
TheLoserKingdom 2 years ago
The great gains that ocurred from 1982 to 1999 could never have happened without the peace dividend that was single handedly created by Ronald Reagan.
Finally, some money that is spent on Missile defense and global peace is considered an INVESTMENT that pays a DIVIDEND. Other monies that are spent providing welfare for totally capable people or lets say food stamps to buy beer with promotes DEBAUCHERY and societal breakdown.
Comprendo?
FreeTheNation 2 years ago
So putting up an arms raise and hope that the antagonist runs his economy into ruins trying to keep up is your solution to world peace?
omegavalerius 2 years ago
It's not my solution.....it's one of only several options that human behavior allows. The other solution would have been to allow an unpredictable government, predicated on tyranny, gain so much military power over the US that they would have eventually used agression and possibly ended the concept of freedom forever. So, at that time, given those circumstances, an ARMS race was a better option than a world war. IMO
FreeTheNation 2 years ago
So Gorbachev (the antagonist if you like of Reagan) in your mind was not open for negotiation or persuasion? He was a man like Stalin who only understood power?
omegavalerius 2 years ago
If memory serves me correctly, Gobachev did not take power until Reagan's 2nd term. The cold war was in a constant state of tension, from various military incidents all the way to the very doorstep of Nuclear War (1960-1980s). Only when the United States negotiated from a position of both military and economic supremacy was a solution able to be reached. By Gorbachev's tenure, the cards were already dealt. You might even say that Gorbachev's rise to power was a result of American Strength.
FreeTheNation 2 years ago
Yes indeed he took power in 1985. Your argument is one often put forward and I see both its strength and what I would say weakness which was mainly that precisely the huge power of the arms raise and the SDI made it impossible for the Russians to negotiate about mutually cutting down their arsenals when a more peace loving regime was in place 1985 onwards. I also consider it as a risky move in good or worse to force a nation choose between war and loosing status as a world power.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
History emphatically proves that the only winning option is strength. That strength led to the birth of freedom in the USSR and the end to the arms race. A different approach could have led to a much different conclusion. It is not impossible that a continued arms race and a position of weakness could have led to a nuclear event. We nearly escaped one in the 1960s. Of all the realistic outcomes, Reagan garnished the best. What would you have considered a better outcome...realistically?
FreeTheNation 2 years ago
one other comment I would make is this:
It's not a risky option to force a nation to choose between war and loosing status when that other nation knows that it is handily dominated. And I don't think it was that blatant of a choice. There were plenty of peaceful incentives, good faith negotiations, economic incentives, etc. It also should be noted that this strength created a peace dividend in the world that allowed tremendous growth, globally.
FreeTheNation 2 years ago
The soviets would have been able to release enough destructive power against the U.S to make a devastating blow. The calculation in the white house I believe was that the soviets wouldn't do that out their notion of self preservation. This turned out to be a correct bet but I don't know if it was one that would have persuaded me as a president to play with. I would have used the character of Gorbachev as a key to peace. He was clearly peace loving type.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
Again, Gorbachev wasn't around until Reagan's 5th year. Direct war wasn't really threatened and had they completed the SDI. I would say that your plan was implemented from a position of strength. The US gave quite a bit of aid to the Russians in the attempt to assist them transition. Like I said, nobody can know what end result a weaker position may have yielded. I play poker. Most weak players lose consistently. The best poker players are aggressive when they have a position of strength
FreeTheNation 2 years ago
I wouldn't feel comfortable using poker as an example that clarifies politics. While the former is a great game which I too enjoy from time to time I think far less complicated than politics. My strategy can be implemented either from a position of power or a position of mutual interest and I think a mutual interest was there at least after the year 1985 if not earlier.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
@omegavalerius -
I think poker is much more than a game. Even chess can be figured out by computers. They have yet to make a computer that can beat a poker player.
The metaphor is in the reading of the table or situation. Reagan, IMO, read it properly and its very hard to argue with the success of the strategy. Poker aside, we DO have 5000 years of history to prove that a position of strength is the only successful strategy.
FreeTheNation 2 years ago
Any gamer would say their game is more than a game. In poker reading the opponent just happens to be the game (cards matter less). I objected to the analogy because in poker you only have to deal with a few variables when in politics you aren't dealing with only a table full of people at any given time.
Lots of very powerful nations have met their end in history but lets hope we are getting better at finding other solutions than power play.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
@omegavalerius
I'll wrap it up by saying that it's tough to argue with success. I don't believe in luck. But I do believe that some people have vision and can see opportunities and solutions that others can not. I would give Reagan very high marks on foreign policy based on the results. I see the logic in the tactics of negotiating from a position of strength. In the end, the cold war was concluded with little or no life lost. I call that a success.
FreeTheNation 2 years ago
The reason why there was so little (there was some) bloodshed was the decision taken by the soviets mostly not to put their tanks on the streets. They knew full well that the U.S would not intervene if they did so but the leadership under Gorbachev chose not to.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
@omegavalerius
I was referring to the fact that a major confrontation between two global powers was avoided and brought to a successful end. It could have just as easily resulted in an all out, global war. People tend to forget how close the USSR and the USA came to global war during the 60s and 70s. Reagan was the driving force in bringing the entire confrontation to a peaceful conclusion. THAT was the success I was referring to.
FreeTheNation 2 years ago
Third - You are partially correct and partially incorrect.
Ronald Reagan did, in fact, have a liberal democratic congress that spent a great deal of money.
George Bush and the Republican congress spent an unacceptable amount of money.
However, Ronald Reagan won a war, changed the world forever and laid the groundword for the largest economic expansion in the history of civilization.
FreeTheNation 2 years ago