TED Community » Osaze Udeagbala
About Me
- Location:
- United States, New York, NY
- Current organization:
- Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
- Past organizations:
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
- Current role:
- Student
- Gender:
- Male
Favorite talks
This member doesn't have any favorite talks yet.
TEDCred score: +3.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Will mind-reading eventually become a reality and what are the implications for humanity?
New advancements in neurotechnology seem to be introduced on a daily basis, and it's really exciting to see how the field continues to develop.
There are a lot of different applications and developments that we could reasonably imagine could begin to be addressed by neurotechnology. For example, let's consider mind-reading. The mechanisms behind the function of the mind are so unknown that I'm not sure if it's even feasible to move technology in the direction of mind-reading - at least, as we imagine it now. I'm sure that a number of paradigms governing how we understand the function of the brain are prone to being radically changed sometime in the near future (in a manner somewhat similar to how the advent of special relativity theory influenced the understanding of physics). I say this mostly because so little is known about the mapping of the brain.
Speaking of which - have you heard about the BRAIN initiative? There's a lot of interest in mapping the brain - which could impact the way in which we imagine neurotechnological applications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/science/project-seeks-to-build-map-of-human-brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
There's a similar project just getting off the ground in Europe.
Inevitably, though, I think the use of electrical stimulation in neurotechnology will lead to really important medical advances. Andres Lozano (see the link below) very recently did a TEDx talk (at CalTech!) in which he discussed the recent advances of high-precision deep-brain stimulation and its implications for the treatment of Parkinson's disease.
http://www.ted.com/talks/andres_lozano_parkinson_s_depression_and_the_switch_that_might_turn_them_off.html
I hope that you find the links as inspiring as I did.
A reply on Conversation: Will making rockstars out of women in science get more girls interested in science/technology/engineering/math (i.e. STEM) fields?
I agree with your sentiments so far as that there should be an emphasis on making a career in a STEM-related field freely accessible to all of the youngest and brightest (regardless of gender, etc.). Though perhaps it's more important that we strive to break down barriers stopping a desire to pursue a STEM-related field rather than attempt to force people into career paths they may not be so inclined to pursue. This requires a bit of a balance when it comes to the zeal with which we attack the boundaries preventing underrepresented groups from pursuing STEM-related fields.
A comment on Conversation: Will making rockstars out of women in science get more girls interested in science/technology/engineering/math (i.e. STEM) fields?
I'm a huge fan of Malcolm Gladwell (and that book in particular). I do agree that the lack of gender equality in STEM fields (and the "rockstars" who break the trend) is a sort of phenomenological outcome (i.e. a result of the aforementioned "accumulative advantage"). In fact, I'm totally with you in saying that the proliferation of "rockstars" isn't the way to go in order to destroy the discouragement of women from STEM fields. I think that "rockstars" are a natural consequence of promoting a culture supporting (instead of subtly discouraging) universal engagement in STEM fields.
A reply on Conversation: Is the heart overlooked when it comes to intelligence?
In our bioelectricity class, we did not analyze the heart as the source of electrical activity associated with emotion or feelings. I think the spirit of Hadar's question is to open up the consideration of sources of electrical signal aside from the brain which could influence the way we perceive and interact with our surroundings.
In other words, since the heart produces electrical signals just as the brain does, could there be some connection between the electrical activity in the heart and the electrical activity in the brain, as a sort of interference phenomenon? This could have implications on not just our emotions, but also our motor function and subconscious regulatory processes.
A comment on Conversation: How can we better harness our human capabilities to develop medical technology?
Really cool topic! I want to highlight the fact that, as you mentioned, development is a human process. I think that over time we have seen this ongoing trend in which we utilize our most recent technologies as "springboards" of sorts for the advent of even newer technologies. As a result, it's kind of difficult to "optimize" this process due to its inherently unknown nature. I'm really optimistic about what future developments in medical technology will be able to do for us - as long as we remain open to it.
A comment on Conversation: What good is being able to control our dreams?
I really like this topic! It seems that throughout history, people have been interested in the mechanics of the unconscious mind. Being able to manipulate the dream state (at least, somewhat) would therefore seem to be a great way to begin understanding how the unconscious mind works. Since so little about the mechanics of the brain is well-understood, it's difficult to determine with our current knowledge how the ability to "interact" with your subconscious can influence your well-being. I think it would also be relevant here to consider the ages-old, but not well-characterized world of meditation, which I think falls under a similar category in terms of exploring one's mind.
A reply on Conversation: Do we rely too heavily on technology for medical diagnosis?
I totally agree that remote-access medicine would benefit the outlook of medical care across the globe. This idea is among many that I think would augment the work of physicians both now and in the future through the use of technology. We could definitely use more of this, and other technology encouraging physicians to communicate and collaborate.
I just want to point out that like any good thing, too much of it could be harmful. I suppose the question at the heart of this conversation is as follows: how much medical technology is too much? Clearly, the question and the answer are both dynamic entities, which makes it rather difficult to nail down a quasi-definite solution...
A reply on Conversation: How do we best balance collaboration and individual efforts to solve our grandest challenges?
I totally agree with your answer to the first question. I believe there is a "sweet spot" to be struck between working as a team and working as an individual. The optimum relationship for this balance would depend on the nature of the problem to be solved (and, of course, the nature of the people solving the problem), and I suppose it would have to be empirically determined.
As for the second question, I think Avi's "eggs in one basket" question was a reference to a potential downside of total collaboration - namely, if everyone is totally involved in the groupthink resulting from constant collaboration, we may miss out on important discoveries/insights made when people strike out on their own when trying to address a problem. I think this question is very relevant to general human nature... I think that this is a very valid concern and thus necessitates the balance which we referred to in the first part of the question.
A reply on Conversation: Why don't we treat science experiments like primetime TV?
I appreciate your comment about how scientific experiments by nature are very difficult to package in a way that will make people want to sit and watch. However, I do think there is potential in the presentation of advances in scientific methods. It could essentially be a knock-off of "How Things Work". I feel like perhaps that type of idea is what Jay had in mind when proposing this question. These kinds of videos could inspire people (particularly, the youth) and encourage further scientific innovation.
A reply on Conversation: Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
Your point is totally valid... but I'd like to point out that it is essentially identical to the historical statements of Kelvin and von Jolly.
I'm a believer of the notion that history repeats itself, and I see a trend here. Countless intelligent people devote their entire lives to understanding our environment and how we interact with it, and eventually it becomes perfectly logical to assume that the major centers of the "scientific arena" have been identified. Then some benign discovery comes along and tears a gaping hole in our bubble of knowledge, sparking a race to explain this discovery. It's almost like the gold rush era in California - except there are seemingly unlimited supplies of gold.
I like to envision the relationship between the known and unknown as a battlefront on an infinite plane. Sure, we continue to make advances, and that's great for society, but by no means does that guarantee or even imply that we are running out of unknown territory to conquer.