 Human decision-making is not embodied in the cold heart of a transistor chip. Humans make decisions because of the influence of emotion, morality, and social interaction combined with cold cognition. They fell in love because of emotion, they had a baby because of that, and the baby is more important than them because of their emotional influence on decision-making. Similarly, one slide, one picture, changed the course of the Vietnam War. Morality, the child who's been napalmed, screaming, running with the soldiers. I'm sure a computer could tell you they're screaming kids and soldiers, but they probably couldn't influence with one picture the course of the Vietnam War. How about embodied cognition? If I ask someone to throw a switch, the train is going to kill five people, throw a switch and only kill one, most of you will throw the switch. You'll kill one person to save five. But now, if I ask you to push the person, the same person off a bridge and they'll be killed and they'll stop the train, you won't do it. The five people will die. Why is that? It's because our feelings and our decision-making are embodied in us. The visceral part of emotions, the visceral part of touch are heavily important in terms of how we make decisions. The rule of the sea, how did this evolve? Why is it that save the women and children first? In the Titanic, 80% of the women survived, 60% of the children survived and only 20% of the men survived. How did that rule evolve? Maybe a computer might say save the captains of industry. How did this happen? It happened because of two million years of evolution of the frontal lobe of the brain. It has two large components, the lateral part involved in cold cognition similar to programming a computer and the blue orbital part that's evolved to maintain and support social and emotional processing. Many sub areas, many sub regions, not one monolithic Bayesian inference machine. Different parts of this orbital frontal cortex and of the lateral frontal cortex doing different things. What happens if you injure it? What you get, the famous case from 1848 of the gentleman who had a ride go through his orbital frontal cortex and damage the yellow and green areas, his IQ is perfect. He could program a computer perfectly if he was alive now. But his social and emotional compass is gone. He can't operate effectively in the real world. You need both. You need all of these things working in concert. In computational power and plasticity, 100 billion brain cells, 10,000 synaptic connections per brain cell, that's 125 trillion connections in each of your brains more than the entire net that can interact together combinatorially. How about unconscious and conscious processing? Computers program explicit codes, but if I have a stroke in your right hemisphere, the entire left half of this world disappears. The left half of the clock is gone. The left half of the page is gone. I don't see it. I can't report it. Does it influence my behavior? Move to the piazza del Duomo. Take a patient in the hospital in Milan with the syndrome and say, ma'am, put yourself on the steps of the government building and tell me what you see as you look at the church, the right side of the piazza. Put yourself on the steps of the church. Look at the government building. What do you see? The entire other side. It's there. What's going on in the neglected part of the world? You show them two houses. One is burning. You see any difference. They say, no. There's no difference because what they see in their mind's explicit eye is only the right half of the house. The left half is gone. But if you ask them and you say a very simple question, you say, which house would you like to live in? They say, that house on the top. Which house is dangerous? The house on the bottom. Why? I have no idea. This is the classic example, everyday example we've seen patients. Creativity in two-year-olds. Genius in adults. Mozart, Einstein, Turing, my favorite. Basically, Tesla, the brilliant, brilliant engineer. Probably kid-like minds. Multiple hypothesis. Multiple areas of exploration. These are unique to the human condition. For many years, people have said, bigger and faster and more complex computers will take over human cognition. They'll be better. Just like a bigger slide rule is not any better than a small slide rule, a bigger computer and a faster computer will never replace the essence of human decision-making.