TED Community » Howard Yee

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Sci Fi, space travel, artificial intelligence, UI, rapid prototyping, industrial design, sustainable engineering, Robert Heinlein (yes, he get's his own entry), time travel

An idea worth spreading

In the early 90's INRAN and Cornell conducted a study to determine the sustainable carrying capacity of Earth (which means we would use resources that are completely sustainable/renewable). They arrived at around 3 billion people, 200 million in the US alone. We are well over those numbers, with US teetering around 400 million. That means 200 million people are eating into non-renewable resources every year. We can observe that by observing how our water levels are dropping in the aquifers. We are still exporting over 50% of our wheat. I believe that we were given a gift, the gift of life as a species whose purpose is to continue thriving. We are lucky enough to have non-renewable resources as startup material. We are eating away at it annually when we should be trying to colonize another planet. I believe that we are arriving to a point where we can no longer do that.

Talk to me about

Sci Fi, space travel, artificial intelligence, UI, rapid prototyping, industrial design, sustainable engineering, Robert Heinlein (yes, he get's his own entry), time travel

People don't know that I'm good at

I wouldn't say I'm good at things. I want to be capable at things I'm involved in and so I try and pick up a multitude of skills.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +52.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: How does virtuality translate into reality?

  Apr 12 2012: I agree with Andrew. It's like the wave particle duality or the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Schrodinger's Cat). Without context, reality may be a waveform of infinite possibilities. Its only during observation do we give our subjects substance.
  
  In the end we can never know what is real and what is not. We receive information through our senses and we process it with our brain, but they're limiting as well. If the entire human race was unable to sense color, does that make color non-existent? The concept of color isn't non-existent. We can measure it's wavelength, but the qualia would be completely missing.
  
  Just another note. Our retina is always firing; the absorption of EM waves causes the cones and rods in our eye to stop firing, so our brain only detects the lack of visual action potentials. We also don't pick up colors as individual channels, luminance, red-green, blue-yellow are paired together. Our eyes actually only sense the contrasts of the pairs. Knowing this tid-bit, would you say that the concept of color channels is "virtual"? We never sense them as separate entities, they always have to be paired together. Why not call "red-green" a singular entity, and label red and green as representations of virtual components that make up "red-green"?

• A comment on Conversation: Can we "engineer" our own interests through repeated exposure?

  Apr 2 2012: I think there are two question in this conversation: Can we create interests through reinforcement? And: should we create interest through reinforcement? Matt gives the example of interacting with a teacher or role model which potentially affects our career choices. However, the other way I see this is whether it is right for a teacher or role model to spark specific interests in people?
  
  This is a very gray area as we've all heard of tiger moms or helicopter parents who live vicariously through their children. They may have the best intentions but in the end, they may be doing more harm than good. In the end, I believe we need to teach ourselves and others to observe the intentions instead of the surface-level problem at hand. When we expose people to ideas, what are our intentions at the exposure? Do we want to force them to believe what we believe in? And as consumers of ideas, we need to understand why we are receiving information. Having a horrifying experience should not deter us from pursuing something, just like how we should not blindly believe in something just because of a positive experience.

• A comment on Conversation: Does society need more interdisciplinary work? Or more well-rounded individuals working together?

  Apr 2 2012: I think we need to ask ourselves what is the goal of making the decision between specialization versus being interdisciplinary. What sort of benefits do we want for society? Specialization can be seen as a huge benefit to society as it allows for mass production. We no longer need artisans to craft a single product, rather, we have people who specialize in one very specific skill. Specialization also allows us to ignore the need to learn a lot or do a lot to give ourselves more time to focus on other things which can benefit society (like the use of dishwashers, etc versus doing it ourselves)
  
  Of course, this also introduces a problem. People are free to ignore some knowledge to obtain other knowledge; but people are also free to not learn at all. I believe a person's choice not to do anything beneficial to society is the crux of the problem. We cannot all specialize, we need people who are like systems engineers, who can see how all the piece fit together. The issue is that society lacks trust and the sense of duty. If one were to specialize, that one has to trust that systems engineers are around to piece things together. And there has to be a sense to duty for others to become systems engineers. This is analogous to one who is missing a limb. Phantom limb syndrome occurs and we think a limb is there, but the limb (specialized components) are missing.
  
  To sum up, we definitely need both. I'd like to emphasize "working together". I think regardless of whether we're specialized or not, we need to have engrained in ourselves that our intentions should be to benefit society, else we become the malignant parts of society and instead of continuing to benefit society, society needs to waste time and effort to fix the malignant parts.

• A reply on Conversation: Can technology replace human intelligence?

  Mar 11 2012: Very true, this discussion is full of opinions with passion backing it up. This is what I want to try to get above. These feelings or passions are due to what we classify as "qualia". It is hotly debated whether we can explain whether qualia is something systematic and explainable, thus measurable with a machine, or whether it's something unexplainable and thus truly an aspect that makes humans unique (thus sentient and conscious and unreproducible).

• A reply on Conversation: Can technology replace human intelligence?

  Mar 11 2012: From what you know, what do you think the "core" is? When you say "artificial", what do you think it means? Artificial doesn't mean it's any lesser than the reference. Artificial simply means its source is not the same as the reference.
  
  Say we have the technology to grow hearts in-vitro, we would call it an artificial heart. If we use that heart in a person, is that heart any lesser than the original heart? Is that person then any lesser than he/she was before?
  
  You mention human experience; can we not replicate the systems that would enable machines to process the same experiences? In philosophy, this experience is called qualia. Can you state without a doubt that qualia is something only inherent in human beings? If it is only inherent in human beings, what processes does the human have that can process qualia and why is the process something we cannot reproduce?

• A reply on Conversation: Can technology replace human intelligence?

  Mar 11 2012: I think technology and understanding of the universe around us is stifled because of our inability to treat everyone/everything on equal grounds. This is an extension of my belief that we focus too much on the individual and singular instead of the uniform and oneness. We only notice differences, not similarities, thus our understanding of truth only comes from what we notice as different from ourselves.
  
  It's only recently that we've realized that time and space is the same; matter is just energy. Yet, research is still forced to focus on separate isolated fields. When we study biological systems, we devise ways to observe the system. We do not focus on how we can just measure, calculate, predict the root energies involved to see what the system is doing. This roundabout way of doing this tedious, but at the same time, necessary for now because of our lack of understanding. But we're now stuck with a chicken or egg problem. Are we roundabout because we know we lack understanding? Or do we lack understanding because we're consistently going at things the wrong way?

• A reply on Conversation: Can technology replace human intelligence?

  Mar 11 2012: I response to your statement about "many young people carrying their brains around in their pockets". Do you also reject the written word? Do you reject books?
  
  This is what Plato said in response to the advent of writing:
  "If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows."
  
  I find many similarities between his concerns and our concerns for the current state of affairs with regards to instantaneous access to information. But we've since shown that writing helps the dissemination and creation of ideas, rather than the mere semblance of knowledge and thought. At the same time Plato's concern is well founded as we may choose to write meaningless drivel. It's easy for us to choose what is worth while to read. Computers are no different. It is up to education to teach the future generation how to use tools for the better.

• A reply on Conversation: Can technology replace human intelligence?

  Mar 10 2012: Who's to say that we are not equal to the stone, the planet, space and everything else? What I find disconcerting is our tendency to focus on the singular instead of the whole. Am I a separate entity from you? Are matter separate entities? We may focus on singular particles, but in the end, we're pure energy. In quantum field theory, particles are standing waves: an attribute of a series of waves, not a separate entity. The waves themselves are this very fluid like entity, there's no real separation of individual elements.
  
  Why do we have so many beliefs that make all living beings born from a large mass of energy? I-Ching, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
  
  If we believe in the wave-particle duality, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc then I want to present the possibility that material is a waveform of probabilities while they are unobserved; this is very similar to being just a large mass of energy. The moment someone observes it, the waveform collapses and gives it a physical standing. The existence of the stone relies on something observing it; the existence of the stone is not mutually exclusive to the other material that causes the waveform to collapse.
  
  Humans are humans because of the experiences they receive. A person that is missing a limb or colorblind since birth lacks understanding. I want to suggest, by extension, that all matter around us is important for dictating what it means to be human. Sure, the stone is visually detached from us, but that does not mean it is a separate entity from us. There is some connection beyond our understanding. This connection, I think, it related to what makes consciousness. We seem too content at believing what we see (ie. the separation between entities) and do not question whether there's a rule/system in place that defines the apparent separation (or relationship)

• A reply on Conversation: Can technology replace human intelligence?

  Mar 10 2012: Logan, I don't think Oliver has been talking "as if there is some essence to people that makes people, 'people' the goes beyond appearances". It's the complete opposite. What he's saying, and I agree with him, is that people are caught up with just appearances and it's short sighted. The "appearances" has a source that generates that appearance. It's short sighted to stop at the appearance level and think that if we can replicate the appearance, then it's something we can call "conscious".
  
  For instance, if I happen to have synesthesia or am color blind all my life and I did not know that other people experience sensual information differently than I do, does that mean my experiences are real and others are not? If I was tasked to explain what I experience, what I experience is completely different. We've shown that there's a reason for the evolution of these systems. We have more sensory cells for detecting green and reds because we need to differentiate leaves from fruit. These systems have a purpose, and so I would say if one is color blind, something is faulty with their system. If one was tasked to replicate this faulty system (without knowledge that it's faulty), then they'd believe that the replicated system is correct.
  
  Right now, I see consciousness as something like colorblindness. It's as if we all have this flaw, and we don't have a reference for what isn't colorblindness. Since we do not know, we live thinking that our condition is acceptable. We may even try to make artificial systems that are colorblind. And since it matches what we observe, we are content.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Can technology replace human intelligence?

  Mar 9 2012: I agree with with Peter. I don't think anything has a soul. I think that we give something we cannot explain the label "soul". How can we prove what a soul is? Dan, you refer to material and dead and alive. What makes the pebble in your statement dead? How do we know without a doubt that the pebble is dead material?
  
  Would you say a singular neuron is alive? If we break the neuron down to it's baser components, all we end up are inanimate material. They are composed of the same atoms, quarks, subatomic particles as any other material, dead or alive. What qualities does a neuron have that makes it alive?
  
  But it seems like you do not believe that individual cells have feelings, so where is the soul? If our constituent parts do not have a soul, then from where does the soul originate?