This is a good combination of Science, engineering (computing)
   and potentially industry here. I started watching this video by
   Jeff Hawkins on May 11, 2013. I was _so impressed_ by it, that I
   STOPPED the video about 1/3 of the way through and I started
   researching on my own. I wanted to understand COMPLETELY what he
   had talked about so far and, well, the research took on a life
   of its own. It was about 1.5 years later that I finally got
   around to finishing the video. In the inbetween time, I stayed
   up until 5am, changing my sleep/work schedule and just following
   wherever the research led me, mostly in cognitive science,
   computational theory of mind, and then beyond that into
   alternate theories of self and such until I finally hit upon
   some decent conclusions I could stand behind. Now here, he talks
   about using sparse data sets to model the brain and mimics
   similar facilities, although I finally hit a point where I could
   see some potential flaws in it becoming a perfect brain model.
   Someone asked my conclusions on my commentary on the video.
   While Id likely explain it a little differently now (my head was
   still in circuitry at the time for analogies), the 'gist' would
   be the same at this point which is... um... a year since I wrote
   this. I'd like to know your thoughts on "year ago Ken's"
   conclusions: === cut here === a) Embodied Cognition explains
   best my beliefs. The brain is not a computer in the head/nor a
   telephone switchboard/ nor a database : We model our idea of
   what the brain is based on the latest technology. And these are
   all good, effective models, but not "enough" I think the brains
   functions can be somewhat mimicked using sparse data sets as
   representation of switches flipped on and off representing
   aspects of a "concept" or "idea" or "function"... that our short
   term memory is NOR and our long term is NAND - and short term
   pulls analogies in from long term (NAND is a serial rather than
   parallel circuit - hence pulling seemingly unrelated things when
   we try to remember stuff) NOR is parallel; why we can MAKE so
   many diverse connections so quickly and trim selectively on the
   fly while decsion-making. But again; these are computer models
   of the brain; our ACTUAL thinking appears to be trinary rather
   than binary; I don't think there is a need to invoke quantum
   stuff to mirror the brain; trinary is enough. But anyway;
   embodied cognition says that we are brains + bodies +
   environments together; none are separate from the others. They
   may interrelate to different degrees; but they're all one thing.
   I believe we have an error in thinking that goes WAY back to
   Aristotle; including the law of excluded middle; that
   contradictions are "bad things" and should be eliminated. But
   contradiction is a part of our thinking processes; so is
   perspective and subjectvitiy and emotion; Ignoring those things
   will get us pretty far but someday we'll have to address
   subjectivity to have a complete "science of what it is to be
   human". b) We build our knowledge based on physical analogy; it
   happens so young that we don't remember; but it's the best way
   to explain how we learn so quickly; "this is a that, except
   these are the ways it is different". === cut here === As you can
   see, I relied heavily on the circuitry model here. I value it
   because it's a mimic-able system unlike purely theoretical
   models which sometimes have a little bit of a barrier for
   application. I'd like to know your thoughts.