basically, he's saying that the next big mathematics since the discovery of calculus can be found by studying the brain because of the similar complexity of celestial motion in the ancient times and the brain in modern times.
Sounds like he only just learned about matrices. Its not new math, just math with grids of numbers and slightly different rules. Its also how we calculate higher than 3 dimensions, as well as that "the brain works on 11 diminsions. Its not that its 11 dimensional, just that it has the same number of "dimensions" (basically rows in the grid) as when you use a matrix to simulate 11 diminsions.
For those of you saying his talk wasn't about the title- it totally was! He is saying that, in a similar manner as looking at the planets' movement before we understood the math behind them was, we are seeing something similar with the human brain now. You could say his talk was a hypothesis based off of what he is seeing for something that might come out of what he is studying- a new mathematics that our brain uses that we haven't yet qualified.
I think this dude was in my classes back in the early 2000s at UMBC. I remember a young kid that was around 10 years old in my class and thought "WTF!??"
Instead of what is said here at 5:25 (future affecting the present, brain travelling back in time), I would rather say that the brain is doing some kind of pattern matching based on action-reaction sets already stored from past experiences. A baby or youngster who has little or no life experience would not be able to react the same. It's also the same for a person who moves to a different environment in a different culture.
He kind of said what you said. When he talked about a multidimensional manifold and all. Also, when he said that current theoretical approxes to imitate the brains future vision, namely neural networks, look too complicated to be right, like epicycles. He wasn't the clearest of the presenters km Ted.
Yea John Locke, tabula rasa. Something of the future is affecting your decision, due to experience from the past. Therefore, long story short..something from the past affected your decision. Nontheless, he might be onto something.
+RU-vidx This is not what he meant, yes you do use past experiences, but he is specifically talking about your brain imagining the future and how that is difficult to model
It shouldn't be ThaT difficult as it's made out to be here. The "AI" could run multiple simulations based on the continuous steam or incoming info and decide the appropriate response. It is improper to say our brains are "looking into the future" and deciding action based on that. The brain is basically taking in data and comparing that to past experiences and running multiple simulations at ultra high speed to determine the Best course of action to take....and it does this countless times when we, say, take a drink of water. It's not the same as seeing the future...
I assumed comments would be less objective and more inquisitive but alas humans have no future insight again... Go for it David! Neurology is a 1000 page book with most blank pages. I look forward to following your work :)
I was hoping to see some "New math" as the title suggests, but instead it was a blank page that someone has to write. So much for David's insight here. Some suggest that the brain is holographic by nature, so maybe this is the new math we are looking for.
+Andrew Lohbihler Same here. I was hoping to catch a glimpse of some new concept. Instead we got a vague promise of some hypothetical new paradigm in math that is as yet unexplained. Not saying he doesn't know what he's talking about but it would've been nice to hear some real details.
That word on top of your slide, "homeostasis", should have clued you in to the branch of mathematics you're groping for. It's called Feedback Control Theory and it was developed in the World War II era. Post-war developments led to the field of "cybernetics", the precursor to the current age of artificial intelligence.
Thank you Canada for the love, you know I love you back:), WoW David, those were very kind words you chose, Thank you, I am honored that you considered me a influence in your understanding of everything, I look forward to working on any thing that is of interest to you and your research, good luck, peace and love, Doug.
obviously you didn't understand what it was about......but go on believe you're super brained..............don't forget to eat your McDo extra large.........
Being an economics major, I think what he means in his "looking into the future brain model", is simply put, a type of Backward induction technique which we do in Game theory. But Game theory has one major flaw, just like traditional economics in general, that "All individuals are rational." I think a combination of Game Theory and Behavorial economics along with neuro-science (obviously) is the way forward to understand the mathematics of the brain.
There are a lot of us who don't work at Google, who are following the developments of the forefront of technology. Call them cheerleaders if you will. I do believe we are nearing an AI explosion and I for one am cheering this on. Why? because I care and I have faith in the powers of human scientific understanding. All he says is that the future is unknown, but there will be a future. You can be in the trenches, studying the brain or developing AI firsthand, or you can be on the sidelines as a nerd cheerleader. I like his enthusiasm and I hope we can build a better world through technology. Do we have a choice but to progress?
It's pity but TED is very often about that. That's why our governments need the mass-media - to stupefy people. I wonder whether the abbreviation says: Talking Even Dummies? - Is there something inside those hats except cranial bones? One can't yield a definitive answer. That's why I think we shouldn't be here and be better reading books, discussing issues and solving tasks ourselves - that is much more useful and good for us and the world around. Just yesterday decided to read Galileo Galilei's dialogues on celestial movement and mechanics written in 1632 and 1638 (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems and Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences) and meet a lot of good and deep thoughts there, it's nothing like TED's speeches - the thinker there (Galileo Galilei) is deep, never sold for money and supply the reader with only qualitative ideas and deep discussions. So, back to reading - and good luck to you all :)
Vadim V, regarding your claim, " the thinker there (Galileo Galilei) is deep, never sold for money and supply the reader with only qualitative ideas and deep discussions..." um... no, Galileo got his books published to be sold... Never mind the fact that some of them were banned... He was what we would call a scientist by profession... it's not surprising that the commodity he sold was his thoughts. And regarding your statement, "That's why I think we shouldn't be here and be better reading books, discussing issues and solving tasks ourselves - that is much more useful and good for us and the world around..." Fool, you're reading a 378 year old book with outdated science and world views... If your claim is that you're reading this because it's interesting to know what a man from 378 years ago thought of the world and mathematics, in his time... sure, it's a great book for that purpose. However, if your claim is that you're trying to make the world better (haha give me a fucking break) then no: this is not a good book to read. There are far better books that reflect our understanding of the world today. For example, The Road to Reality, by Roger Penrose, gives you a fairly detailed look at the current state of physics and how we see the world today. It's a good book, if you actually wanna understand things... and he actually goes over some of the really intense modern mathematics that is utilized. but also, if you're reading that book, you're not a physicist... you're a layman. And so you're not making a contribution to physics anyway... So you're not "making the world better" But I have a feeling that you mentioned what you're reading because you wanna give people a sense that you are more "intellectual" than those who watch Ted Talks (while watching ted talks yourself)... And in that case, let me tell you: nobody is impressed that you can read a book. And under no circumstance should you mistake the quality of the book you're reading with the depth of your understanding of the material. And certainly, the quality of the book you read does not, in any way, reflect your intelligence. You could be reading Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant and nobody would be impressed.
+Aditya C, you are right - I'm a layman, but.. a layman having several published works on radiophysics, so, you missed, but never mind - it's o.k. You are right also about one's reading - one should pick up an interesting book to be satisfied. I was reading Galilei because I am interested in the history of physics and science in general and it's better to promote historical interest than to promote something no one even knows what is all about, like in this particular talk. So, your conclusion is actually wrong and a bit out of place - some physicist and other people DO read Galilei and others who worked before them. It's not about having a fashionable fresh look on science - for that you can read a modern course. In some cases it is also questionable what is better. It's rather about comparison, sometimes about respecting your predecessors, analyzing their ideas and worldviews. And also reading (solving tasks, and discussing) is just the way we got knowledge for a couple of last millennia. And still you press keys with letters on them to write your messages - the same Latin (or other language) letters that were printed centuries ago. About my reading preference over the majority of TED talks and telling you now that I have some contributions to physics - it's not about emphasizing my "intellectual" superiority or desire to "give people a sense that you're (i'm) more `intellectual` than those who watch Ted Talks (while watching ted talks yourself)"... You know, when it works - let it be - we all improve by trying to be better or looking at someone who set a good example - a contest is a good way of improving oneself. So, there is nothing bad about intellectual superiority and showing it. One's intellectual power can be defined over the set of practical or theoretical tasks one can solve - it's also not about a number of one's publications - we have a bunch of scientists whose publications' counters are nothing in comparison with their scientific impact. And to know that we still need to read - at least history books. To be a good solver you need to watch (or do whatever you prefer) some better stuff than current TED talks then pick a challenge on your taste, concentrate and solve some tasks your own way - that is the way mathematicians usually work. It's better to think about TED channel content and its scientific value whatever it is... It may be better watching other scientific channels or looking over conference talks, or reading something else on ArXiVe or somewhere else where scientific value do present. At least for now. Also I'm free to express my own opinion as you are. That I am and I was trying to tell you.
One would have to use existing mathematics to create mathematics so abstract that this form of mathematics could explain the brain and human consciousness. The mathematics of human thinking is coming.
In summary, he states that all living entities incorporate their knowledge from the past into a situation to predict the outcome. Solving something requires knowledgeable incorporation of of solutions to previous situations in order to combat this situation. The solution to this situation is then incorporated with other solutions to solve problems within the future.
I totally agree, I was telling the same thing to my wife in the car today! A new type of math made to navigate through solutions that are no longer scarce, and a new type if scientist that will have to get used to wait for hours for computers to do their thing :)
Interesting to note he works at Twitter as a software engineer, I guess to be closest to a random data modeling collection and patterning event horizon. I personally think he should work in the Quantum Computer RAS-RASA. Utilizing his RALA process. Just a thought.
I enjoyed the talk, though it's not very profound. We all know the brain is crazy, and crazy things always have lots of crazy math to go along with them, but the talk gets you thinking more holistically on how discovery drives math and math drivers discovery. Math is how we frame the world around us, so there will be at least a new formulation, the brain-formulation, that finally allows us a more fundamental understanding. I'm a little more intrigued that he thinks its going to be a new kind of math, though. Maybe if we discover that quantum effects really are very important in our brain and consciousness, it would be a tool to bridge the two realms, and with the AdS/CFT correspondence, all known phenomenon would be under one theory. That's quite intriguing indeed.
The continuum problem is outside of our present mathematics. Parallel processing at the quantum level, is where the source of consciousness will be found. By the way David has PLENTY of common sense.
The first picture of orbits is in fact of the retrograde motion of Venus round the Earth & not some old epicycle system. Surely the main area of Mathematics used by the Brain & Holograms is Fourier Transforms
IMHO a slight misrepresentation of von Neumann's book, which you can get as for Kindle on Amazon and read for yourself. I don't think it's unfinished. But other than that, a great talk! I guess this guy was a child prodigy, but he shows a capacity not just for technical achievement but for deep and profound insights. I hope he is right that a 'calculus' of immensely complex systems awaits discovery, and that it is coming soon.
I guess MIT didn't teach him that "you give a presentation when you actually have something to present." Anyone who've answered a phone knows they are still having trouble with artificial intelligence but it is getting a lot better than before!
Mr Willet, it seems, was one of the few who LISTENED to Dalrymple's presentation instead of fixating on only some of the visuals as most of the commentors did. As a neuroscientist, I have always been uncomfortable with the usual hard-nosed math applied to neural functions. Anyone who has listened to and watched the displays of single neuron and brain area activity can tell that a mathematical description of this input-output/stasis system is more than the sum of the hard-nosed math equations used sofar. His analogy to unraveling celestial orbits by going beyond the math of that day is probably correct. Back in the 1970's, someone tried unsuccessfully to apply the math of holography to brain functions; others since have tried to build on that also without much success. A new perspective on the math that is needed is in order - what we got ain't working.
Like he said, just look at it, because most of what it does, (the brain), is "reflect" and integrate a lifetime of images with the self-centered senses of sound and touch. So the "external" modelling of the world that is inside out relative to a sensation of coherent experience within surroundings, is a hologram of fractal recollection, (it matches perspective), and might be simulated with multiple lasers. A lifetime of human development, to make a mind of superimposed experience, is like when a little bit of talcum dust is put in a clear tube and the sound assembles a node in the middle. ...I would declare that to be what I've understood about String Theory, except that it is "inside out" relative to the descriptions I've read - ..but which is not a problem for Mathematicians (which I am not). Comment Maybe the combination of QM/Tachyons, String Theory and Fractal/Holography in one composite conglomerate of Math will provide jobs for another couple of generations making sense of it all. It's interesting.
The speaker predicts that a new type of math will be developed to model the brain and I suppose other complex systems. It seems like software algorithms already do that, so I'm not sure if he is adding any new insight(s) here.
It we could make the human the size of a cube, we would all benefit by the intellectually awesome discussions that would happen. We will be flying cars in a year :) Cmon researchers!
I tought it was a serious talk. I cannot get the point, it seems to me jumping between different arguments, seeming unrelated the one with the other. I hope in his mind the whole argument is clearer...
He is trying here (as i understood his talk)to make an analogy between the mistake of making epicycles and complicating the solar system model which turned out to be much simpler (after discovering calculus and applying it to the solar system) ,and the complicated neural networks algorithms that we are building which may have much simpler mathematical structure.
You realise that's basically just Ocam's Razor? An idea well established in the scientific community - and for a long time. I'm sure that he has something to say about this to his colleagues at a bar - but in terms of a presentation, he's said nothing new.
Incorporation is a very critical word to what I am speaking about. I do apologize for the mass usage of it as it may seem to be a habitual word in my speech, it is not.
At 12:58 "It took a very powerful telescope to look at Jupiter's moons". No, not a "very powerful telescope". Galileo's telescope for looking at Jupiter's moons was a small one, probably hand-held (preserved at the Museo Galileo in Italy), with a power (or magnification) of about 10, which was only 3-4 times more powerful than previous telescopes, which had powers of about 3. Modern hand-held binoculars typically have powers of 7 or 10, with higher powers available.
+Don Challenger If you really are into cherry picking, there are quality levels of fashion. There is such a thing as better and worse opinions in a sense that it shows a certain degree of maturity. And the speaker certainly lacks a few degrees of that particular maturity. Bad choice of fashion, good choice of words.
I call the new math shape math. It's based on infinite repetitive patterns on a surface. The type of patterns that Sir Roger Penrose has experience with. Building those shapes and sending light through the matrix will give you mathematical answers simply by timing the interval of time the light took to travel through.
I don't really buy his claim. More recently than calculus, it's been the case that developments in mathematics advanced by mathematicians have applied beautifully to science afterwards. For example, differential geometry was around before Einstein's General Relativity used it to revolutionise physics. Group theory was developed before particle physics started looking at groups. Nonetheless I'm sure the problems involved in this kind of Neuroscience are very hard.
This is just the kind of mind that will take mathematics to another level. Maybe good maybe bad. Why be in a rush to judge. You get my vote for now. Just don't pull any Terminator crap on us!! HA HA!!
Can't discover a new mathematics in this simulation where we are living. The parameters are set so that we discover natural numbers then move on to the Euclidean framework along with the analytical geometry.
Mathematics is a set that actually transcends the parameters of our own universe. We start off with empirically derived patterns based on the regularity we observe within physical reality, but from that point onward, logic and relational analysis is what leads to the construction of new algorithms, rules, and structures that lie beyond our own three-dimensional conception of existence. So what may initially appear to be an impossibility of every discovering, has already been proven otherwise given the advanced development in the objects of mathematics throughout the years, decades, and centuries.
Yes but the creators of the simulation themselves reached a point where they couldn't go further. They had to hide these inconsistencies from us in the way of black holes, dark matter, dark energy, singularities, etc.
Fernando Reyes Actually, it may be that black holes, dark matter, dark energy, singularities, and many other seemingly anomalous entities within the composition of this system are merely illusory consequences of the integral behavior of the quantum information processing that constructs and drives spacetime to begin with: arxiv.org/abs/1402.5674 Conclusively, this implies that the universe is significantly more virtual and dynamical (hence Schrödinger's wavefunction) in stochastic processing than previously realized, and could mean that this massive computational system is actually derived from the most fundamental template of existence itself: Quantum information (commonly known as quantum informational realism): arxiv.org/abs/1405.0879 Mathematics, in essence, would be derived as the consequentially relational backbone that determines the autonomous causal behavior of quantum information integration, given that it is the only element in existence (mathematical patterns as the only reality).
Fernando Reyes Who knows. Nick Bostrom and Ray Kurzweil's proposal is that our revelation of the nature of reality will actually lead to the exact opposite outcome; an eventual direct confrontation between us and the Creator(s). After all, what would be more interesting to a programmer than to see their own creation recognize itself for what it is, and strive beyond it? Maybe this is what the true meaning of life is; Growth: The extropic trend of intelligent systems evolving themselves to greater complexities, possibilities, and integrity. Perhaps this is what this universe was programmed for to begin with. Now it's only a matter of learning how to utilize it... *"Just as the constant increase of entropy is the basic law of the universe, so it is the basic law of life to be ever more highly structured and to struggle against entropy." - Vaclav Havel*
Why do robots have to act like humans or have a human-like AI?! maybe this idea is flawed! * discussing the drinking process 5:01 * besides this Dalrymple is a genius! ;) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dalrymple_%28computer_scientist%29
I'm not sure there is anything to retain from this video... Does this guy have a point to make? Do he know where he is going when he start talking? Focus guy!
octopibingo And who says that chaos created order? where is the order? There is no order. Humans look desperately for order among chaos, that's our nature.
Assali Hernán Well, that is ideological. It can go both ways, the human mind is limited it can't understand everything and every pattern and hence the concept of chaos. Everything might be/work in a well defined pattern, ordered, but maybe we as humans can't grasp such patterns, yet and therfore we preceive it as chaos.
Sr Eng Well I have to tell you, you make a very good point. Nice one Sir... thank you for your comment! (gotta love when a comment makes you think different)
Sr Eng It's not usual to find a kind reply on RU-vid, is it? :) We're sharing thoughts here, and I thank you for sharing your way of looking at this subject. We need more of that. Have a great day!
I just wanna know...what is this guy talking about? If he is referring to a whole new branch of mathematics then well, happens all the time. If he is referring to a whole new paradigm shifting brand spanking new system of generating answers from questions of logic then this too is not really a ground breaking thought especially since he himself admits to not really having any evidence to back up his claim sooo...what? If he is referring to a new way of looking at the brain for AI applications, this is being done in neocortical theory where a memory-prediction model is used to solve problems that classical computation cannot do or is very hard to do, using a probabilistic approach where they even plan to build hardware thats modeled after the neocortex rather than a traditional Von Neuman architecture.
I stopped watching after 8 minutes because I couldn't follow or understand anything he said, or what conclusion he was trying to reach/teach. was this my fault due to any cognitive deficit of my own or due to the massively disorganized nature of this presentation? I think I wasted my precious time because I got nothing from this. caveat other possible viewers
I think the same thing... This guy don't know where he's going with his presentation. It's like watching an over-caffeinated person talking about how excited he is about discovering a new thing he hasn't seen yet!
I found it pretty interesting. He's talking about the approach to solving problems in nature, its a zoomed out view on the process of science and the nature of insight.
I want to be nice cause I'm sure the guy is brilliant, I mean, I get the since he is, but damn, what the heck was the point. Don't we already know this. Is he just discovering what many of us already know. Youth. Come on, catch up with us old guys. Good luck though. I do wish him good... and I am trying to be constructive.
not trolling, but to be honest it is impossible to understand yourself. because once you claim to understand yourself you must prove to yourself that you understand yourself. then you will have to infinitely justify the proofs which will lead to infinite regression.
@@kevinabel2370 I don't remember this video grrr... but imagine you don't "knew" it... imagine that you "know" it because all the time exists at the same "time"... and what "see" as future, past or present is a question of human perception
Interesting Idea, remember that the brain does millions of calculations a second, so it's already doing mathematics, but what about the fascinating idea of abstract reality > mathematics instead of the other way around. Perhaps in some type of super reality it flows the other way, and mathematics is imitating abstractness and maybe nature has built abstractness into us so we can understand the true nature of the universe. Could it be the way we experience reality is an illusion created by nature to try and explain her true language to us, in the only way we could possibly understand it?
Not the clearest of presentations. May be commendable for a 14 year old. But, not for a someone with a graduate degree. The speaker seem to be ignorant of many branches of maths, or at least pretends they do not exist. Optimization, model prediction, statistical analysis etc., do not seem to concern him.
+Janardhanan Sivaramakrishnan "Optimization, model prediction, statistical analysis etc" Can those be employed to explain consciousness? If so, why have they not been so used? And if they cannot, and other such tools cannot, then the speaker's point is made.
I hate to be negative but I am not very impressed At ALL with this guy. I guess he leaked at 14 and has went downhill from there. I was expecting some genius-level insight but all I got was another 15 minutes of my life totally wasted
Our version of mathematics is very limiting for the future and we will need some totally new approaches to "math" if we expect to keep advancing in our tech and understanding of the universe
Nothing to hear but a self-impressed smart guy pontificating about how scientists will need to thing differently. Unfortunately, you probably watched the video first and came to the comments to confirm that, yes, you did just waste fourteen minutes.
