Top Tech Voices Podcast S2 E3: Neuro-Tech and Brain Interfaces

Very engaging episode, definitely food for thought.

I often use the famous “dress” image in my computer vision lectures as an example of how human perception can mislead us. While it’s commonly described as an illusion, it’s really about interpretation. If you measure the pixel values, for example using ImageJ, you’ll find that in the supposedly “white” regions, the red and green components are actually lower than the blue, indicating that the color is in fact blue. Of course, this doesn’t reveal the true color of the dress, since illumination conditions play a crucial role. The full explanation is well documented on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress).

Around the 38-minute mark, Anil Seth argues that the brain is not a computer, later refining the comparison by likening it more to an analog system. This brought back memories of early analog computer prototypes I encountered in my youth. Ultimately, digital computers, even those based on vacuum tubes, proved more efficient and scalable. Still, it’s interesting to imagine how analog computing might have evolved if it had kept pace technologically. Neural networks, the backbone of modern AI, largely implemented as software on digital hardware, are relatively inefficient compared to what an analog neural network could achieve, for instance, using operational amplifiers to perform summation and activation functions directly in hardware. Interestingly comparable technology in camera technology, so called neuromorphic cameras are now entering the scene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_camera).

Finally, I’d like to touch on the discussion of free will at around 24 minutes. This debate goes back centuries. In the 16th century, Martin Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio (“On the Bondage of the Will”) argued that humans cannot freely choose between good and evil, but depend entirely on divine grace for salvation. This was written in response to Erasmus’ earlier defence of free will. That said, Anil Seth seems to approach the concept from a different, less theological perspective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will).

Very engaging episode, definitely food for thought.

I often use the famous “dress” image in my computer vision lectures as an example of how human perception can mislead us. While it’s commonly described as an illusion, it’s really about interpretation. If you measure the pixel values, for example using ImageJ, you’ll find that in the supposedly “white” regions, the red and green components are actually lower than the blue, indicating that the color is in fact blue. Of course, this doesn’t reveal the true color of the dress, since illumination conditions play a crucial role. The full explanation is well documented on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress).

Around the 38-minute mark, Anil Seth argues that the brain is not a computer, later refining the comparison by likening it more to an analog system. This brought back memories of early analog computer prototypes I encountered in my youth. Ultimately, digital computers, even those based on vacuum tubes, proved more efficient and scalable. Still, it’s interesting to imagine how analog computing might have evolved if it had kept pace technologically. Neural networks, the backbone of modern AI, largely implemented as software on digital hardware, are relatively inefficient compared to what an analog neural network could achieve, for instance, using operational amplifiers to perform summation and activation functions directly in hardware. Interestingly comparable technology in camera technology, so called neuromorphic cameras are now entering the scene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_camera).

Finally, I’d like to touch on the discussion of free will at around 24 minutes. This debate goes back centuries. In the 16th century, Martin Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio (“On the Bondage of the Will”) argued that humans cannot freely choose between good and evil, but depend entirely on divine grace for salvation. This was written in response to Erasmus’ earlier defence of free will. That said, Anil Seth seems to approach the concept from a different, less theological perspective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will).