TED Conversations

Andy Averbuch

CTO, futurethinkdigital

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Idea: The human brain is currently evolving by adapting to electronic based high frequency cycles.

One of the human brain's main tasks is to always be synched to environmental cycles and reoccurring patterns. Jeff Hawkins describes our brain as a pattern recognition machine with a pattern memory attached. He describes the brain as a prediction machine that is constantly synched to environmental cycles and patterns (reality) in his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing.html.

Recently emerging environmental patterns that are practically affecting human survival are industrial and electronic frequency cycles. The brain is now actively adapting to these cycles on a conscious level. There is the potential for humans to create tools that operate using these cycles in a proactive way. Consider this: a desktop computer can function at incredible frequencies for certain processes, yet has bottlenecks of multiple orders of magnitude in difference. A human computer user can become much more efficient at using this high frequency tool if the bottlenecks are reduced in magnitude.

Kwabena Boahen describes the bottlenecks in modern computers and their inefficiency when compared with human brain processing in his talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/kwabena_boahen_on_a_computer_that_works_like_the_brain.html

Personally, as a computer programer, this back and forward between high frequency thinking and low frequency beach balling is forcing me to always have a backup device ready to maintain my attention focused at high frequency in case of a bottleneck event. My brain hates having to go from mach 10 to hitting a bring wall so i help it by giving it alternative high frequency opportunities during the slowdown. Also, children born being exposed to high frequency cycles on a conscious level all the time are basically training their brains to work at these frequencies. This is either an opportunity or a handicap depending on the context.

Related Talks:
Topics: brain computers education evolution science technology
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • Austin Rinehart

    • 0
    Nov 15 2012: What critical bottlenecks we can't avoid or fix in "computer - brain" interface?
    • thumb

      Andy Averbuch

      • 0
      Nov 17 2012: For example, i switched my moving parts hard drive in my mac with a solid state drive and that helped reduce the beach-balling in my work day quite drastically. This alone helped my efficiency and productivity in a measurable way. Data transfer between components can become bottlenecks as well. I think that any choke point where there is a difference of orders of magnitude in speed should be specifically targeted and minimized. Components should be specifically paired to work in the same ranges of speed.
  • thumb

    Gerald O'brian 50+

    • 0
    Nov 14 2012: So, by "evolving" you mean of course that people whose brain happen to be synched with processor frequencies are more likely to pass their special genes down a generation than other people?
    • thumb

      Andy Averbuch

      • 0
      Nov 14 2012: Yes, check out this infographic: http://msnbc.msn.com-id2.us/jobs/
      It basically says that people who work in a high frequency environment are at the top of the food chain. This is the main evolutionary requirement for passing genes on.
      • thumb

        Gerald O'brian 50+

        • 0
        Nov 14 2012: Top of the food chain? So do they eat the rest? Or eat before the rest and thus have more nutrients in them for copulation, hence have more offspring?
        Or is it that have harems with every available sex mates, due to their high status, imposing celibacy on the rest?
        • thumb

          Andy Averbuch

          • 0
          Nov 14 2012: Yes, eating the rest provides more protein :-) Mostly it shows there is a demand for the gene, a selective advantage, a fertile ground for the gene, an opportunity, a growing resource niche attracting the gene, a potential for higher survivability of the gene, the ability for the gene to pay for its copies' higher education and therefore increase the chance of its propagation for many generations...

  • Austin Rinehart

    • 0
    Nov 14 2012: So you talking about possible existence of mind control or advanced tools for boosting link between computer and brain?
    • thumb

      Andy Averbuch

      • 0
      Nov 14 2012: I think a good start would be in trying actively to remove some of the bottlenecks separated by larger orders of magnitude from the computers interface. That alone can increase our efficiency in interacting with them. Other bottlenecks will then become apparent such as the actual methods of interaction, which will give birth to more direct connections such as mind control.
  • thumb

    Joe Spence

    • 0
    Nov 14 2012: Not too long ago I was a physics student who had to concentrate through 3 hours of lectures every morning, but in the past 2 years maybe I've spent a lot of my time using computers and working with children (I'm a teacher working in Korea). Very recently I've noticed that I find it incredibly difficult to concentrate on one thing for any length of time. I realised this about myself after becoming frustrated with some students who could not pay attention for (honestly) less than 10minutes.

    The children here all have iPads and when at home spend most of their time on computers, as do I. Undoubtedly modern technology is allowing us to access information and operate our brains at a high frequency. However, I believe it may also be having a huge impact on our ability to work efficiently and at the right pace when we're not using a screen. What do you think of this? Have you any suggestions for this "problem"/change in behaviour?
    • thumb

      Andy Averbuch

      • +1
      Nov 14 2012: That is a good question. What we are witnessing is a split in frequency usage of the brain, as you mentioned. The low-frequency patterns are more deeply embedded in our physiology. It's the same thing that happened during the Industrial revolution. We created machines that were efficient based on their output and material constitution but where detrimental to and physically incompatible with their operators, resulting in a miserable existence for the poor people who were stuck working them in factories. What we need is a compromise: we need to be better at switching between the 2 frequencies, or we need to pick one and abstract the other using intermediary tools and interfaces. For example, i'm a coder, i hate typing and i prefer writing more efficient shorter lines of code rather then verbose long paragraphs of code. Let the robots do the hard work, and let me control the robots using interfaces that fit my physiology better. For us older folks, the robots would do the high frequency stuff. For younger people, i suspect they would rather have the robots do the slow frequency stuff.

  • george lockwood 20+

    • 0
    Nov 14 2012: I don't know. This part of the environment is dynamic not static. How could we change so quickly? Things are not always getting better. Reread Voltaire's Candide
    • thumb

      Andy Averbuch

      • 0
      Nov 14 2012: I've started to think that there is no static environment. Especially our curent times, we live in a relatively dynamic epoch which has seen humanity become an industrial species, an event unique in the history of life on earth. We are creating our own environments, and removing or changing non-human environments. What humans dont realize is that just because we are creating our own environments, doesn't mean we do not need to adapt anymore. In fact, we are now busy adapting to our own man-made environments. In some ways, those are changing much faster then the ancient non-human environments.
Showing all 12 comments