►
From YouTube: A Conversation on A Thousand Brains and Pedagogy
Description
How can the ideas from A Thousand Brains inform our understanding of learning, both in the classroom and beyond?
We talked to Dr. Michael Riendeau and his two students, Ranger Fair and Jacob Shalmi from Eagle Hill School about how the theory can be beneficial to educators and students.
We then followed up the fantastic Zoom conversation with a Q&A with Dr. Riendeau, which you can find here: http://numenta.com/blog/2021/05/12/conversation-on-a-thousand-brains-and-pedagogy
The 'Conversations on A Thousand Brains' video series aims to extend the meaningful dialogues that the book, A Thousand Brains by Jeff Hawkins, has started. We invite leading intellectuals and experts in various fields to discuss the impacts and implications of Jeff's novel framework of intelligence - the Thousand Brains Theory.
Visit http://AThousandBrains.com for more information.
A
We're
here
today
to
have
a
conversation
about
jeff's,
new
book,
a
thousand
brains,
a
new
theory
of
intelligence
and
just
just
to
summarize
in
the
beginning.
This
book
is
the
story
of
the
discoveries
that
jeff
and
the
team
have
made
that
led
to
the
thousand
brains,
theory
of
intelligence,
this
theory
of
how
the
brain
works
and
how
it
learns
model
of
the
world.
A
B
At
some
point,
this
one
is
called
big
ideas,
exploring
narrative
argument
and
it's
really
about
how
to
deal
with
a
an
expository
text
in
a
way
that
you
can
manage.
If
you're
just
first
wondering
whether
this
is
a
book
that
will
help
me
with
what
I'm
thinking
about
or
not
without
spending
the
time
to
read
word
for
word
through
the
whole
book,
and
so
we
do
a
lot
of
of
that.
We've
been
sort
of
breezing.
C
B
D
C
A
Great
well,
why
don't
we
start
michael?
If,
if
you
would
kind
of
kick
things
off,
because
I
know
you
initially
had
a
conversation
with
with
donna
after
reading
the
book
and
had
some
some
thoughts
and
observations
about
it,
and
so
I'd
love
for
you
to
to
kick
things
off
by
by
sharing
some
of
those
initial
reactions.
B
Sure
we
had
a
pretty
wide-ranging
conversation.
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
might
be
a
good
starting
place
is
what
we
all
noticed
here
is
the
access
that
we
have
today.
Christy
you
sort
of
alluded
to
this.
The
the
book
is
very
accessible
to
people
who
are
not
neuroscientists,
and
that
is
the
three
of
us,
but
it
means
that
we're
accessing
it
through
the
metaphors
that
explain
those
concepts
in
the
book,
and
I
mean
I
have
a
couple
of-
I
think,
really
basic
questions
about
that.
How
much?
E
Well,
first
of
all,
it's
nice
to
meet
you
jacob
nice
to
meet
you
ranger
nice
to
meet
you
michael
and
it's
a
pleasure
to
just
talk
to
you
guys
about
this,
so
it's
kind
of
a
fun
thing
and
that's
a
very
deep
question
actually
you're
jumping
into
it's
not
even
particularly
relevant
necessarily
relevant
to
this
book.
In
specifics,
it's
it's
a
question
about
metaphors
in
general
and
I
actually
hadn't
even
thought
about
that
question
as
deeply
as
you
as
you
just
expressed
it.
E
Obviously,
the
the
the
details
of
how
these
just
the
things
I
describe
in
the
book
are
quite
challenging.
Technically,
if
you're,
even
if
you
are
a
neuroscientist,
so
I
mean
because
neuroscience
is
such
a
big
field
and
they
don't
all
share
the
same
language,
and
so
it
it.
You
can't
make
a
book
that's
accessible
to
anyone
and
use
the
language
that
neuroscientists
use.
It's
really
really
hard
to
read.
I
mean
I've
been
reading
those
science
papers,
my
whole
life-
and
I
still
you
know
this
is
true
of
all
neuroscientists.
E
You
really
have
to
think
hard
about
the
metaphors
and
and
try
to
figure
out.
What's
a
good
one,
to
use
for
different
concepts
and
and
some
of
the
metaphors
I
came
up
initially
myself,
other
people,
donna
and
my
wife
and
other
people.
Christie
would
suggest
other
metaphors
which
are
better
and
and
so
that's
a
that's
a
skill
in
its
own
right,
just
coming
up
with
metaphors
right
now,
how
I
don't
know
how
to
answer
your
question
directly.
How
do
I
know?
B
Maybe
I
can
make
it
a
tiny
bit
more
concrete.
You
know,
so
one
of
the
places
that
that
question
arose
for
us
was
with
thinking
about
objects
and
using
that
word
object
for
both
a
cop
with
the
nomento
logo
on
it
and
democracy
and
then
yeah
both
objects
and
how
you
know,
maybe
there's
something
more
detailed
about,
what's
actually
happening
in
the
neocortex.
That
would
help
us
see.
E
God,
okay,
I
couldn't
talk
about
that
specifically,
that's
it
and
a
lot
of
people
have
asked
that
specific
question
and
we
use
the
term
object
in
our
research
meetings
at
nomento
because
we
don't
have
a
better
word
for
it
yet,
but
I
can
be
more
explicit
about
what
it
means
I
mean
we
can
think
of
an
object
like
a
physical
object.
Oh
a
coffee
cup
or
a
stapler,
a
bicycle,
a
car.
These
are
physical
objects.
E
I
talk
about
in
a
book
like
knowledge,
isn't
just
a
list
of
facts:
it's
not
just
a
list.
Knowledge
is
organized
in
a
way
right.
So
then
one
of
the
analogies
I
use
is
maps
you
know
now
the
map
is
a
model,
the
world
and
it's
organizing
knowledge
and
in
a
way
that
it
makes
it
usable
it's
not
just
a
list
of
things,
it's
structured
and
so
everything
it
turns
out
that
we
didn't.
E
We
didn't
anticipate
this
when
we
went
into
this
research
that
you
know
what
is
the
structure
of
democracy,
but
we're
forced
to
accept
that
idea,
because,
because
this
principle,
the
neocortex,
which
is
it
works
the
same
way
on
everything.
So
if
those
the
way
the
cortex
is
going
to
understand,
democracy
is
going
to
be
the
way
it
understands
physical
objects,
and
that
was
sort
of
a
constraint
that
we
had
to
live
with
and
we
accepted
so
then
we
can
say
to
ourselves:
okay,
what
does
it
mean
to
enough
structure
for
democracy
right?
E
And
so
it's
it's.
It's
I'm
going
to
beat
around
the
bush
a
little
bit
here,
but
essentially
it
it
everything.
Any
kind
of
object
with
knowledge
about
anything
is
in
some
sense
a
series
of
facts
or
observations.
If
you
will
that
are
arranged
in
a
way
in
in
some
sort
of
physical
structure
and
the
easiest
structure
to
imagine
is,
like
a
you
know,
a
grid,
a
three-dimensional
grid
or
latitude
longitude
or
the
grid
lines
on
a
map.
The
way
the
neurons
do.
This
is
really
tricky.
E
I
don't
mind
talking
about
that,
but
so
and
in
this
sense
an
object
is
something
that
we
have
you
take
information,
you
put
it
in
a
structure
that
is
where
things
have
a
location
relative,
each
other
in
some
sort
of
dimensional
space
like
a
space,
whether
it's
a
physical
space
or
not,
and
that
the
way
the
brain,
the
accesses
information.
It
moves
from
point
to
point
on
this
structure.
Just
like
you
would
move
from
point
to
point
on
a
map.
E
You
can't
jump
from
one
part
of
town
to
another
part
of
map
you
can
you
can
go
north
or
south
or
east
or
west,
and
that
when
you
move
you
get
to
the
next
piece
of
data.
Well,
that's
how
everything
is
organized
in
the
brain,
so
the
word
object
refers
to
just
anything
that
has
structure
that
can
be
organized.
This
way
is.
E
E
Deeper
understanding
these
things
that
most
people
get
through,
we
don't
know
the
complete
answer
to
that
question.
At
the
best.
I
have
a
pretty
good
guess
about.
What's
going
on
and
we're
going
to
get
really
technical
really
quickly.
If
that's
okay,
so
we
tend
to
think
about
the
world
like
three
dimensions:
right,
there's
three
dimensions
of
movement
in
space,
one
can
think
of
time,
as
maybe
a
fourth
dimension.
But
let's
think
about
things
as
three-dimensional
space
and
and
a
map
is
like
a
two-dimensional
space
right.
It's
just
two
dimensions.
E
The
way
we
think
it
works
in
the
brain
is
that
the
neural
tissue
enforces
a
certain
set
of
properties
and
the
way
it
works
is
that
imagine
the
neural
tissue
allows
you
to
have
maybe
a
hundred
dimensions.
I
know
that's
a
weird
thing:
what
does
a
hundred
dimensions
mean,
but
you
can
think
of
like
I
could
even
use
a
hundred
dimensions
on
a
two-dimensional
map.
I
could
say:
there's
north
and
there's
east,
but
I
can
say,
there's
northeast
and
I
can
say:
there's
north
northeast
and
there's
you
know,
east
northwest,
whatever
yeah.
E
B
E
Think
you
know
okay,
so
I
think
from
an
educator's
point
of
view.
I
wish
I
was
smarter,
so
I'm
going
to
rely
on
you
about
this.
It's
not
stuff,
we
typically
think
about,
but
I
think
the
trick
here
is
when
we
present
information
to
someone
as
an
educator.
It's
really
useful
to
present
it.
It's
just
as
a
list
of
facts
right
you
try
to
you,
try
to
present
in
some
sort
of
structure.
I
gave
an
example
of
the
book
of
two
different
types
of
structures
you
might
take.
E
E
Now
I
don't
know
how
what's
the
right
way
to
do
this
or
maybe
do
it
multiple
ways,
but
one
all
I
can
point
out
is
that
how
you
present
the
information,
how
you
you
you
have
to
present
in
some
way
other
than
just
a
list.
You
have
to
say
here's
some
structure
to
it
and
that
the
brain
will
pick
up
on
that
structure
right.
E
That's
because
that's
how
it's
being
presented
to
you,
and
so
I
think,
at
a
very,
very
high
level,
not
a
very
detailed
level
when
we
think
about
how
we're
going
to
teach
something
we
have
to
think
about.
What
is
the
underlying
structure
which
we
present
it
with
you
know,
is
it
like?
Are
we
going
to
do
like
a
map
or
we're
going
to
do
like
a
timeline?
Are
we
going
to
do
it
based
on
wealth
to
someone's
life
and
so
on,
and
this
will
change
how
we
think
about
it?
E
I
don't
know
the
right
way
of
doing
that.
I
don't
even
know
the
right,
pedagogical
tools
to
do
that
and
just
pointing
out
that
you
can
take
the
same,
how
we
present
it
and
I'll
point
out
one
more
thing.
One
of
the
parts
of
our
theory
is
that
the
it's
really
the
brain
really
is
based
on
movement.
We
learn
mostly
through
movement.
We
touch
things,
we
move
our
eyes,
we
move
our
bodies.
E
But
when
it
comes
to
something
like
democracy,
we
can't
really
do
that,
but
there
is
sort
of
an
equivalence
to
it
there.
It's
it
there
is
a
the
brain
was
designed
or
evolved.
I
should
say
to
learn
through
movement
and
now,
when
we're
learning
things
like
democracy,
we're
not
really
moving.
You
know
we're
not
physically
moving,
but
the
brain
still
wants
to
think
of
it.
That
way,
so
sometimes
it
might
be
helpful
to
to
present
information
in
a
way
that
you
actually
could
physically
manipulate
something.
E
You
know
you
could
place
things
literally
on
a
map
or
you
could
place
things
literally
on
a
timeline
or
you
could
physically
somehow
make
a
structure
and
rotate
it
in
your
head.
I
don't
I'm
on
your
physical,
I
don't
know
the
answer
that
question,
but
but
movement
helps-
and
I
think
this
is
something
people
talk
about
when
you
teach
science
that
generally
or
other
certain
topics,
and
that
it's
helpful
to
physically
do
things
physically.
That
helps
your
brain
encapsulate
the
knowledge
better.
F
No,
I
just
have
to
jump
in
that.
One
of
the
things
that
struck
me
dealing
with
eagle
hill
is
that
they
did
a
lot
of
that,
quite
naturally
in
the
classroom,
making
things
concrete
and
that
that
that
suited
the
theory
well
of
of
trying
to
not
make
them
too
conceptual
make
them
concrete,
and
so
you
could
experience
them.
Is
that
fair
to
say,
michael,
that
that's
been
sort
of
a
hallmark
anyway.
B
C
B
E
Well,
I
can
only
I'm
not
a
linguist
and
I
don't
really
know
the
field
very
well,
but
I
know
a
little
bit
about
it,
but
not
I'm
not.
I
wouldn't
call
myself
a
linguist,
but
I
think
I
did
point
out
in
the
book
that
there
is
something
different
about
language
and
learning
through
language
and
I
think
it's
worth
pointing
out
if
you
and
I,
if
all
of
us
were
presented
with
a
new
object,
we
never
saw
these
a
physical
thing.
E
I
think
we'd
never
seen
a
stapler
before
and
we're
all
given
one
and
we
we'd
all.
We
would
all
hold
it
and
move
it
and
look
at
it
independent.
We
all
build
a
similar
kind
of
model
of
it
because
we
there's
the
model
would
be
self-correcting
and
you
know,
if
I
I
thought,
maybe
it
didn't
move
and
then
I
discovered
it
moves
like.
Oh,
it
does
move.
E
Just
because
you
just
people
are
exposed
to
different
different
presentations
of
through
language,
so
it
is,
it
is
different
and
we
rely
on
so
much
as
humans,
but
it's
really
different
in
the
sense
that
it's
not
really
self-correcting
as
easily
as
other
things.
You
know
when
we
physically
touch
something
so
it's
prone
for
errors,
it's
very
and
that's
what
propaganda
is,
etc.
B
It
sort
of
struck
us
that
that
there's
a
kind
of
that
nested
reference
frame,
sort
of
thing
going
on,
where
maybe
I
have
a
frame
for
the
word
democracy
or
the
concept,
democracy,
and
you
have
one
and
in
that
isn't
you
know
within
that-
is
nested
a
whole
series
of
other
concepts
that
build
up
democracy
and
by
the
time
we
get
to
the
end.
The
two
of
us
may
have
diverged
a
lot
and
still
be
using
the
same
words,
maybe
even
the
same
sentence.
E
B
Is
there
anything
along
those
lines
that
that
you
know
is
different
in
terms
of
how
I
mean
the
section
on
hebbian
learning
is,
is
what
made
us
think
about
this?
So
is
there
anything
technically,
you
know
physically
different
about
how
memories
are
encoded.
Models
are
encoded
when
they're,
when
they,
the
data,
comes
in
different
ways,
whether
it's
through
reading
or
through
the
authority
of
the
the
your
parent
telling
you
about
the
stove
being
hot
rather
than
touching
it,
then,
if
I
go
through
the
the
other,
more
direct
sensory
way,.
E
E
What
learning
is
a
very
complex
process
and
a
lot
of
it
has
to
do
with
our
emotional
states
and-
and
so
when
you
bring
up
different
scenarios
like
what
your
parents
tell
you,
what
your
friends
tell
you,
what
you
learn
on
your
own
or
what
you
read
in
the
book
now
we're
entering
regions
where,
which
is
the
stuff.
We
don't
study
very
well,
but
you
can
think
of
you
can
think
of
the
the
part
of
the
brain
we
study.
E
The
neocortex
is
this
building
this
general
purpose
model,
but
what
it
decides
to
learn
and
how
long
it
remembers.
Something
is
very
much
dependent
on
the
the
contextual
space
at
which
it
occurred
and
the
emotional
space,
if
you're
with
someone
and
you
just-
fell
in
love-
and
they
just
told
you
something
that
you
might
remember
that
forever.
E
B
E
B
C
Yeah
one
thing
I
had
to
say
was
going
back
to
like
how
we
like
build
up
like
these
more
complex
thoughts.
Is
it
kind
of
like
we're,
correlating
them
back
to
like
more
like
concrete
objects
that
we
can
actually
like?
Have
those
like
3d
models
of
to
basically
compare
and
contrast
them
to
like
build
up
higher
level
ideas
and
thoughts.
E
E
E
You
might
have
seen
pictures
as
you
can
find
them
of
the
two
of
them,
but
these
big
models
of
the
amino
acids
and
so
and
they
were
they-
would
physically
hold
these
things
together
and
try
to
fit
them
together
like
to
see
if
it
worked
right-
and
that
was
a
key
part
of
how
they
made
that
discovery
is
that
they
built
physical
structures
of
things
that
they
couldn't
see
and
and
by
holding
in
their
hand
and
looking
at
them.
It
helped
them
figure
out
what
the
ultimate
shape
of
the
dna
molecule
was.
E
That
is,
I
mean
as
much
as
we
can
do
that
it's
useful,
I'm
not
sure
it's
always
you
doable.
I
don't
know
what
kind
of
physical
model
I'd
make
for
something
like
democracy.
It's
an
interesting
question.
Maybe
you
guys
could
figure
that
out.
I
mean,
I
think
if
you
could
figure
it
out,
it'd
be
really
cool.
You
know,
it'd
be
or
maybe
there's
some,
maybe
there's
some
general
purpose,
physical
things
you
could
do.
That
would
just
help
facilitate
imagination
and
thinking
about
problems.
E
I
mean
it's
an
interesting
idea
that
you
know
what
what
would
be
the
equivalent
of
watson
cricks.
You
know
models
of
molecules
when
you're
trying
to
learn
about
something
conceptual.
I
bet
you
it
would
help
if
you
could
come
up
with
something
anyway.
I
think
your
question
ranger
was
you
know.
Can
we
can?
We
relate
our
conceptual
knowledge
back
to
physical
things?
I
think
that's
what
you're
asking
yeah
and
I
think
it's
a
really
interesting
idea
and,
as
I
point
out,
we
do
do
it
anyway
to
some
extent.
E
I
know
in
my
personal
work.
What
I'll
do
is
I
will.
I
will
make
doodle
sketches,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
something
and
I'm
stuck
and
so
I'll
just
draw
pictures
of
it
and
and
try
to
make
pictures
of
it,
and
sometimes
I
don't
know
what
the
picture
is
supposed
to
look
like,
but
I'll
just
start
drawing
pictures
and
say
well,
let's
go
like
this,
maybe
rearrange
it.
This
way,
it'll
look
like
that,
and
sometimes
that
helps
you
know.
That's
an
interesting
question
from
from
a
teaching
pedagogical
point
of
view.
E
C
And
like
how,
like
you,
can
use
it
like
or
how
you
shouldn't
be
using
it
to
like,
develop
like
machine
like
artificial
intelligence
and
stuff,
and
how
you're
like
pretty
adamant
about
that.
It's
like,
but
like
you're
kind
of
saying
that
there's
no
like
amount
of
computing
power
that
can
develop
like
its
own
will
and
their
its
own
like
goals
and
intentions.
Yeah.
E
E
E
If
I
build
an
intelligent
machine,
does
that,
even
if
it's
super
intelligent,
even
if
it's
like
a
huge
model,
the
world
thinks
a
million
times
faster
than
you,
and
I
do
will
that
on
its
own
makes
it'll
just
one
day
say:
hey
I'm
alive,
and
I
don't
want
to
be
constrained
by
you
and
I
want
to
be
free,
and
I
you
know
I
like
eating
chocolate,
milkshakes
or
something
like
that.
You
know
my
point
is
that
doesn't
happen
on
its
own
and
many
people
think
it
will.
E
Many
people
think
that
when
you
build
something
an
intelligent
machine,
it
will
some
sense,
have
the
same
motivations
and
drives
that
humans
do,
but
those
don't
come
from
the
intelligent
part
of
the
brain.
They
come
from
the
the
other
parts
of
the
brain
and
and
and
just
because
you
build
an
intelligent
machine.
Even
a
really
super
sophisticated
one
doesn't
mean
it's
it.
In
fact
it
won't
my
argument,
is
it
won't
all
of
a
sudden
wake
up
and
say?
Well?
Why
am
I
a
slave
to
this
human
type
of
thing?
E
E
Even
if
the
computer
was
super
smart,
it
wouldn't
care
it's
more
like
that
farm
animals
are,
you
know,
of
course,
they're
really
they're
most
a
lot
of
them
are
animals
just
like
us,
and
so
not
old,
but
some
are
but
in
some
sense
you're
right
yeah.
You
could.
You
could
argue
that,
but
some
people
think
it's
it's.
Some
people
argue
that
it's.
You
know
it's
ethically
improper,
that
we
do.
E
B
E
Center
attention,
centers
or
yeah
okay,
well
attention
in
our
world.
You
have
to
be
careful
about
language
here.
So
when
I
use
the
word
attention,
I'm
talking
about
a
physical
phenomena
that
happens
in
the
brain,
where,
let's
just
talk
about
visual
attention,
you
might
be
say:
okay,
michael
you're,
teaching
a
class,
and
you
say:
okay,
everyone!
I
want
you
to
pay.
E
You
know
attention
to
what
I'm
writing
on
the
board
and,
while
you're
doing
that,
someone
opens
the
door
on
the
side
of
the
room,
and
everybody's
head
is
going
to
turn
to
that
open
door.
Regardless
of
what
you
said
doesn't
matter,
even
if
they're
trying
really
hard
to
not
be
distracted,
the
door
opens
everyone's
going
to
go
what
what
happened
and
that's
a
physical
phenomenon
and
now
the
tension.
So
what
happens?
E
Is
your
brain
was
literally
pointing
at
sensors
at
one
thing,
and
now
that's
going
to
point
its
senses
at
something
else,
and
it
was
thinking
about
one
thing
and
now
it's
going
to
think
about
the
other
thing
and
that
process
can
happen
in
both
the
top
down
and
bottom
up.
The
example
I
just
gave
was
a
bottoms
up
example
right
everyone's
conscious,
like
hey,
I'm,
going
to
listen
to
the
professor
michael
he's
telling
us
take
our
attention
off
the
board,
I'm
thinking
about
that.
E
That's
a
top-down
attention
and
then
bingo
the
door
opens
and
that's
a
bottom-up
thing.
That's
like
the
old
brain
saying,
whoa
something's
moving
over
there
better
look
at
it
might
be
dangerous,
and
so
what
we
attend
to
is
a
combination
of
things
of
both
uncontrolled
older
brains,
type
of
functions
and
top-down,
conscious
attention.
E
But
it's
a
physical
process.
It's
not
a
mysterious
thing.
It's
really!
The
brain
is
literally
moving
its
sensors
there's
something
going
on
in
the
cortex
with
where
it
essentially
narrows
down
inputs
from
some
area
of
the
sensory
arrays
that
we
have,
and
it
says
we're
going
to
process
that
thing
right
now,
because
that's
more
important
at
this
moment
in
time-
and
I
separate
that
from
any
kind
of
concept
of
you
know,
free
will
or
something
like
that.
B
The
troubling
the
troubling
thing
about
those
explanations.
I
think
that
sort
of
nagged
at
us
at
several
places
as
we
read
the
book,
is
that
it
maybe
maybe
we're
overdoing
it,
but
it
seemed
to
kind
of
suggest
a
really
almost
laplacian
determinism
like
these
are
just
molecules
interacting
and
that's
the
end
of
it.
There's
no
directing
your
attention
as
if
there's
an
effort
of
will
in
there
somewhere
there's.
No,
you
know
your
taste
is
determined
somehow
from
those
thoughts.
E
E
Now
I
didn't
bring
open
the
big
can
of
worms
about
free
will
with,
but
that's
what
I
was
talking
about
there,
I'm
of
the
belief,
as
is
most
neuroscientists,
not
all,
but
most
that
there
isn't
something
independent
of
the
physical
brain.
That
is,
you
don't
have
a
mind
and
a
brain
that
are
separate.
There
is
no
free
will.
That
is
a
will.
That's
independent
of
the
biological
or
tissue,
many
people,
maybe
yourself
I
don't
know-
have
trouble
believing
that
or
don't
want
to
believe
that.
E
But
there
seems
to
be
no
evidence
to
suggest
it's
different
and
it
doesn't
really
take
away
my
view.
It
doesn't
take
away
the
beauty
of
the
whole
thing.
It
doesn't
take
away
the
beauty
of
I
think
of
a
human
being
and
what
we're
capable
of
doing
and
so
on
to
to
say:
yes,
we're
biological,
that
doesn't
mean
it's
deterministic.
E
It
doesn't
mean
that
anyone
could
say.
Oh,
I
can
know
your
state,
you
know
and
if
I
know
the
state
of
your
brain,
then
I
know
everything
you're
going
to
do
in
the
future.
That's
not
true.
We
know
that
the
world
isn't
deterministic
like
that.
As
far
as
fundamentally
physics
tells
us,
we
can't
predict
the
future
quantum,
mechanics
and
other
things.
So
it's
not
like.
Oh
there's
no
point
in
the
world
at
some
point
doing
anything,
it's
all
determined.
E
E
E
E
E
We
have.
You
know
where
these
biological
machines
that
are
really
complicated
and
we
have
these
internal
thoughts
and
we
have
these
internal
emotions
and
it
makes
us
feel
like
there's
lots
of
reasons.
We
feel
like
a
lot
of
reasons.
We
might
feel
like
we're
independent
of
our
brain,
but
we
can
observe
ourselves
and
we
can
you
just
describe
donna.
We
can
observe
our
own
things
and
say
hey.
Maybe
I
should
do
this
or
do
that.
B
B
I
don't
know
if
we
really
want
to
get
into
the
so-called
right
now,
but
let's
just
they've
been
told
that
at
some
point
and
it's
pretty
clear
in
our
experience
that
they
are
more
likely
to
say
after
having
had
those
conversations
for
many
years
with
evaluators
neuropsychologists
who
do
evaluations
with
them
and
and
parents
and
teachers
they're
very
likely
to
say
things
in
a
classroom
setting
like
sorry.
It's
not
me.
It's
just
my
brain
and
they
kind
of
create
this
dualism
that
resulted
from
hearing
about
some.
B
E
Don't
you
know,
I
think,
I
think
there
are
clearly
differences
in
everybody's
brains
and
what
we're
good
at
and
what
we're
not
good
at
yeah
and
everyone's
good
at
some
things-
and
you
know
it's
funny,
I
my
wife.
This
does
a
lot
of
art
and
she
sees
colors.
I
can't
see,
I
just
can't
see
them.
I
don't
know
what
she's
talking
about
and
and
then
I'll
talk
about
things
and
she'll
like
what
the
hell
are
you
talking
about.
You
know
I
was
like
and
so
we're
experiencing
the
world
the
same.
E
So
my
point
is:
there's
a
spectrum
on
which
we
all
we
all
have
differences
and
everything.
You
know
our
work
has
been
trying
to
understand
the
basic
commonality
and
how
brains
work
and
not
like
the
differences,
but
I
think
ultimately,
we'll
have
theories
about
that.
Why
do
some
people
learn
differently
in
this
way
or
that
way?
What's
the
right
methods
for
for
teaching?
E
So
there
may
not
be
a
single
method
that
works
best
for
everybody
on
all
different
topics
and
clearly
some
people
are
better
at
language
than
other
people,
some
people
better
art
than
other
people,
some
people-
you
know
just
this
music
than
other
people,
and
I
think
some
of
that
is
trained
and
learned
in
your
lifetime.
But
some
of
it's
probably
inherent
too
so
we
don't
have
to
put
a
label
on
it
as
good
or
bad.
Just
as
we're
a
little
bit
different
can.
F
I
can
I
turn
this
question
to
ranger
and
jacob
I'd
be
interested
in.
Were
there
any
specific
moments
or
places
in
the
book
where
you
went
like
an
aha
moment
where
you
said
oh,
this
helps
me
understand
something
I
do
or
some
way
I
learn
like
for
me.
It's
the
cupcake
with
the
old
brain
versus
the
new
brain.
It's
like
oh
yeah.
I
relate
to
the
cupcake
story.
F
D
Yeah
so
well,
you
talked
a
lot
about
in
your
book
about
how
memories
are
created,
and
after
reading
this,
I
was
very
interested,
and
I
I
thought
about
how
how
memories
can
be
retrieved,
because,
after
after
reading
this,
it
took
me
a
minute
to
understand
exactly
how
it
worked.
But
then
I
had
the
question,
for
example,
if
like
how
does
someone
remember
the
name
of
their
childhood
pet
after
a
number
of
years?
What
exactly
triggers
that
that
that
thing
in
your
brain
to
to
retrieve
that
back
to
you?
D
B
E
A
good
question:
well
in
the
book,
I
described
the
basics
by
how
knowledge
is
stored
in
reference
frames
in
the
sentinel
and
in
order
to
retrieve
a
piece
of
information
like
the
name
of
a
friend
or
something
like
that
you
have
to
you
have
to.
In
some
sense
the
neurons
have
invoked
that
location
in
the
reference
frame,
and
you
do
that
by
it's
analogous
to
movements,
but
you
you
can't
get
there
randomly
from
everywhere.
It's
like
it's
like.
If
I
want
to.
E
If
I
want
to
recall
or
something
is
in
my
house,
I
still
have
to
mentally
move
through
the
house
to
get
there,
and
then
I
recall
it's
there
and
the
same
basic
process
would
be
occurring
in
in
terms
of
your
friends,
so
it
all
has
to
be
on
context.
Someone
we
don't
really
have
random
thoughts
right
so
but
you'd
have
to.
E
You
have
to
follow
some
series
of
links
to
get
you
to
that
point
in
the
sense,
in
some
sense
of
following
the
same
series
of
links
walking
through
your
house
to
figure
out
what's
in
the
drawer
in
the
kitchen,
and
so
you
know
we
don't
have
these
thoughts,
don't
just
literally
pop
into
our
head.
There's
always
some
some
context
to
which
there
was
something
related
to
that
item.
E
Why
do
you
remember
your
you
know
something
happened
early
in
life
and-
and
you
can't
remember
things
that
happened
more
recently-
that's
pretty
easy
to
explain,
but
but
there's
sort
of
these
links
to
get
to
how
you
retrieve
something,
there's
always
there's
always
some
chain
of
thought
that
gets
you
there.
It
can
happen
very
quickly
too.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
the
flow
process,
but
you
know
you
could
think
about.
You
know
someone
you
see
now
reminds
you
of
a
place
you
were
and
that
place
reminds
you
another
place.
F
I
think
it
has
interesting
implications
for
the
pedagogy.
I'm
curious
what
you
think
about
this,
michael
in
that,
if,
if
you
people
are
struggling
to
remember
things
as
they're
trying
to
learn
things,
the
idea
of
having
you
know
putting
in
deliberate
links
to
learn
them
with
other
things
that
they
relate
to
and
helping
them
along.
The
way
might
really
enable
that
I
mean
it's
kind
of
like
the
the
memory,
the
memory
memory
palace
tools
and
so
on.
But
you
know
I'm
just
struck
by
you
know.
B
Yeah
teachers
do
use
a
range
of
mnemonic
devices
like
the
memory
palace
or
others.
You
know
whether
associations
made
where
you
know
people
make
up
acronyms
for
things
that
help
them
recall.
I
mean
a
lot
is,
is
dependent
upon
subject
matter
and,
frankly,
individuals
that
are
that
are
working
at
remembering
something.
B
Question
for
for
students
and
teachers
about
how
is
it
that
it
appeared
that
you
know
this.
You
had
a
solid
memory
of
this
last
tuesday,
wednesday,
thursday
friday
and
now
monday.
It
seems
to
have
evaporated
all
together,
yeah
and-
and
you
know,
they're,
it's
useful
to
know
some
of
the
things
that
will
make
those.
E
These
connections
between
the
neurons
on
any
particular
neuron
in
the
neocortex
you
might
see
40
percent
40
of
the
thousands
of
connections
on
that
cell
change
every
day.
That
is
some
good
disappear.
New
ones
appear
some
stay
around
forever.
Some
connections
stay
for
the
rest
of
your
life.
Other
ones
are
just
you
know,
worked
for
a
couple
weeks,
and
now
it's
gone
that
those
issues
like.
Why
would
I
remember
something
for
a
week
and
then
forget
it?
It's
a
little
bit
outside
of
our
realm
of
inch
of
knowledge.
E
It
has
to
do
more
of
the
sort
of
the
biochemistry
of
the
synapses
and
why
they
form
and
unform.
We
we.
We
focus
more
on
how
the
information
is
structured
in
the
brain
like
what
is
it
what's
its
manifestation,
but
but
you
know
why
one,
you
know
what
what
leads
these
synapses
to.
Why
would
I
forget
something
or
learn
something
that
has
to
there's
a
whole
field
of
literature
about
how
to
motivate
people?
B
B
B
E
E
Yeah
yeah
I
mean
I
always.
I
always
use
this
little
example
about
forgetting
this
is
like
you
know.
If
I
ask
you
what
you
had
for
breakfast
this
morning,
you
could
tell
me
that
no
problem
and-
and
I
said
what'd
you
do
last
night-
you
said
I
think
I
mean
I
can
think
of
that.
But
I
asked
you
what
you
had
for
breakfast
just
a
week
ago
on
a
tuesday
he's.
I
don't
know,
but
you
did
know
it.
E
You
know
the
time
you
knew
it
and
the
connections
were
there
and
it
was
there,
and
so
your
brain
is
constantly
forgetting
stuff
everything
you're
doing
all
day
long.
It's
just
constantly
forgetting
that
you
remember
all
these
facts
from
today
or
yesterday
and
they're
gone
in
the
week.
So
this
is
inherent
to
the
problem
of
you
know.
There's
an
interesting
there's.
Another
field
of
interesting
fact
again
unrelated
to
our
research,
but
very
very
interesting
fact
is
that
when
you
recall
something,
maybe
you
call
a
memory.
E
E
It's
yes
in
some
sense:
it's
like
that
a
little
bit.
Isn't
it
isn't
it?
I
do
find
that
personally
too.
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
feel
that
way,
but
sometimes
you
just
think
about
something
too
hard.
It
just
doesn't
settle
and
it
doesn't
settle
in
you
just
can't
do
it
and
you
come
back
the
next
day
and
you
try
again
and
it
works.
You
know.
E
E
Yeah
yeah,
I
I
did
use
that
example
in
the
book
about
mathematics-
is
that
for
many
people,
a
great
many
people,
they
look
at
mathematical
formulas
and
and
numbers,
and
it
just
looks
like
greek
and
they
don't
it's
not
it
just
you're
struggling
with
it
right.
It's
like
looking
at
a
foreign
language.
You
don't
read
and
you're
trying
to
make
sense
of
it,
but
for
a
mathematician
they've.
E
They
they
love
numbers
and
they
they're
like
friends,
and
they
know
what
their
relationship
to
each
other
and
they
look
at
an
equation
and
they
know
immediately
what
it
is.
It's
the
same
as
them.
Looking
at
at
a
stapler
and
go
oh,
I
know
what
that
is,
and
I
know
what
I
can
do
with
that
and
and
that's
because
in
the
argument
I
make
in
the
book.
E
Is
that
because
they've
developed
reference
frames
for
mathematical
concepts,
which
is
a
weird
thing
to
think
about,
but
they've
done
that
and
and
then
then
these
things
become
very
familiar,
so
I
think
not
having
a
good
reference
frame
is
certainly
a
detriment
if
you're
trying
to
understand
the
field.
But
you
know
whether,
if
you
think
about
history
in
terms
of
timelines
or
spatial
area,
I
don't
know
which
is
better.
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
better
one
or
not,
you
know
well.
F
I
think
one
of
the
interesting
questions
for
eagle
hill,
because
this
is
what
they
specialize
in
is
it
may
not
even
be
better
or
worse.
It
may
be
that
different
reference
frames
are
better
for
different
people,
so
they
have
focused
a
lot
on.
You
know
we
teach
the
way
you
learn,
and
I
know
you
know.
People
have
different
learning
styles
and
we
said
everybody's
brain
is
a
little
bit
different,
so
it
could
be
certain
reference
frames
are
better
for
developing
a
deeper
understanding
than
others
for
different
people
right.
E
B
We
do,
and
I
think,
donna's
exactly
right
that
it's
not
so
much,
which
is
the
right
reference
frame,
but
which
is
the
the
most
effective
one
today
for
the
goals
we
have
with
this
person
at
10
o'clock
in
the
morning
in
music.
You
know
I
mean
yeah
may
shift
between
today
and
tomorrow,
based
on
something
else,
one
of
the
questions
we
have
about
reference
frames
somewhere
relatively
early
in
the
book.
I
think
you
say
you
know
the
difficult
thing
is
choosing
or
developing
the
right
reference
frame
for
something.
C
B
E
Think
you
know,
I
think
you're
honing
in
on
maybe
the
the
core
thing
that
we
can
get
out
of
today's
conversation,
and
I'm
not
I'm
just
I'm
observing
this
as
opposed
to
coming
in
with
this.
As
a
point
of
view
yeah,
I
meant
that,
because
the
reason
I
wrote,
those
words
is
because
I
felt
that
we
weren't
even
aware
we
were
doing
this
reference
frame
creation.
It's
it's
it's
not
even
the
language
of
learning.
E
You
know
and
and
then
you
can
start
thinking
about
it
like
that,
I'm
just
pointing
out
that
that's
there's
so
much
in
the
world
to
be
an
expert
in
something
you
need
to
have
that
correct
structure,
and
maybe
there
are
ways
we
could
figure
out
how
to
teach
where
it
encourages
that
structure.
I'm
thinking
ideas
in
my
head
right
now,
because
the
way
the
the
way
we
learn
the
structure
of
the
the
reference
frames
for
physical
objects
in
the
world
is
we
the
way
the
brain
does
this?
E
I
haven't
written
about
this
yet,
but
it's
in
my
next
paper
is
the
brain
observes.
It
actually
observes
how
your
body
moves
and
and
from
those
observations
it
determines.
What
is
the
the
the
space
that
it's
moving
in,
and
so
you
can
literally,
it
literally
observes
your
finger
moving
left
and
right
your
eyes.
E
It
observes
things
moving
around
and
so
the
point
where
I'm
sort
of
rambling
here,
but
the
idea
is
that
we
might
be
able
to
come
up
with
a
structured
way
involving
clever,
clever
tricks
in
some
sense
that
force
the
brain
to
define
a
useful
structure
for
knowledge.
So
if
we're
trying
to
teach
a
new
concept
like
mathematics,
maybe
there
is,
in
the
future,
we'll
develop
a
sort
of
clever
techniques
for
for
just
blasting,
the
brain,
with
some
certain
information
that
forces
it
to
think
in
certain
structures.
E
I
can't
express
it
better
than
that,
but
it's
a
very
interesting
idea
to
me
that
that
that
whole
thing
of
reference
frames
and
just
acknowledging
we
have
to
come
up
with
you
know,
structure,
to
represent
this
knowledge
and
what
what
should
we
do
physically
to
make
sure
that
the
body
is
doing
that
you're
already
doing
that
with
physical?
You
know
manipulation
of
things,
but
maybe
we
could
do
something
more
clever
than
that.
You
know.
I
know
it's
a
very
interesting
idea.
E
E
Perhaps
it's
an
interesting
question.
I
mean
if
I
just
put
a
blanket
term
like
psychologists
right,
you
know,
that's
a
field
where
psychologists
come
up
with
different
terms
for
different
things.
For
the
same
things
right
some
say:
oh
there's,
six
properties
of
this
and
no
one
says
no.
There's
four
properties.
They're
this
and
and
and
they're
kind
of
made
up.
You
know
they're
they're,
not
necessarily
empirically
grounded,
and
so
I
that
doesn't
mean
they're,
not
useful.
It
doesn't
mean
they're,
not
great.
It
just
means
that.
E
E
We
can
say
these
are
the
physical
properties
that
are
underlying
learning,
so
we
can
call
them
different
names
if
you
want,
but
these
we
all
have
to
agree
that
these
are
the
you
know
the
physical
there's,
maybe
six
of
them
whatever
to
three
of
them.
These
are
the
actual
physical
properties,
and
you
know
we
can
call
whatever
you
want
to
call
them,
but
it's
not
arbitrary,
and
I
think
that
is
something
you
can
think
about
pedagogy.
You
can
think
about
psychology.
You
can
think
about.
E
F
E
E
You
can
have
a
theory
of
chemistry
or
you
can
have
a
theory
of
you
know,
genetics,
but
at
the
bottom
there's
atoms,
you
know
and-
and
they
all
have
to
build
up
on
that-
and
so
I
think
today
we
have
equivalents
of
like.
Oh,
we
have
genetic
theories.
We
have
this
in
this
other
space,
but
we
don't
really
have
the
atomic
component
of
it.
Maybe
that's
the
kind
of
work
we're
trying
to
provide
it's
like
underlying
all
these
different
things
are,
is
a
physical
manifestation,
a
physical
substrate
and
that's
not
questionable.
E
E
Yeah,
I
I
think
it's
I've
come
to
believe
it's
amazing.
We
all
we
all
have
to
go
through
20,
30
years
of
learning,
formal
learning,
and
we
don't
have
these
really
fundamental
knowledge
about.
What's
going
on
our
heads
as
we
learn
yeah-
and
I
think
you
know-
that's
that's
the
dream,
I
guess
in
some
sense
of
of
our
work
is
ultimately
we'd.
Have
that
foundational
knowledge
and
we
would
be
able
to
come
up
with
these,
these
techniques
that
you've
talked
about
where
we
could
say.
E
D
E
Okay,
so
those
are
related
right.
Those
are
those
are
very
related.
Well,
let's
just
start
with
the
mystery
right.
The
mystery
is,
your
eyes
are
moving
about
three
times
a
second
you're,
not
aware
of
it,
but
it's
really
happening
and
every
time
your
eyes
move
the
input
to
the
brain
from
the
eyes
changes
completely.
It's
not
like
it's
shifting,
it's
a
completely
new
input
and
for
the
most
part
we
are
completely
unaware.
This
is
happening.
The
world
seems
stable.
E
How
can
that
be?
Well,
I
can
explain
at
different
levels
at
one
level
what
you're
perceiving
is
actually
your
model
of
the
world.
It's
not
the
actual.
It's
really
the
model
the
world
and
your
model.
The
world
says
it's
stable.
So
that's
why
it's
stable,
but
we
can
explain
how
it
happens,
and
I
go
through
this
in
the
book
in
some
detail,
but
I'll
try
to
review
it
here
real
quickly.
E
It's
not
that
it's
each
as
you
remember,
the
new
quarter
is
divided
into
these
many
many
of
these
columns
and
the
columns
are
sophisticated,
they're,
really
complex
processing
elements
and
each
one's
inputs
to
it
is
changing,
and
it's
trying
to
it's
trying
to
figure
out
what's
going
on
in
the
world.
Imagine
you
have
a
a
column
in
your
new
cortex,
so
it's
looking
a
little
part.
It's
getting
a
little
part
of
your
visual
input.
It's
not
getting
the
whole
input.
It's
just
getting!
E
It's
like
it's
looking
through
a
straw
right
and
it
only
seems
a
little
bit.
Imagine
you're
looking
through
a
straw
and
as
you
move
the
straw
around
the
input,
what
you
see
through
the
end
of
the
straw
is
changing,
but
you
might
say:
oh
that's
a
chair,
even
though
you're
moving
your
eyes
around
it's
a
chair,
so
the
the
column
is
saying
I
got
these
changing
inputs,
but
I'm
I'm
correlating
the
movement
with
the
input
and
I'm
going
to
figure
out.
E
What's
out
there,
it's
a
chair,
and
but
the
idea
that
the
chair
is
not
changing.
Now,
when
you
put
a
whole
bunch
of
columns
together,
you
don't
have
to
move
them,
I
mean
because
each
one
is
like
looking
through
a
straw
and
they
just
they
just
say
to
each
other.
Okay,
I'm
seeing
this
and
I'm
seeing
this
and
I'm
seeing
this
I'm
seeing
it.
What
is
the
one
thing
that
we
all
agree
on
that
this
is
and
it
and
that's
the
voting
and
they
send
these
connections
between
them
and
they
say:
okay,
we
all
agree.
E
This
has
to
be
a
chair
and
so
the
the
neurons
that
are
actually
actually
firing
that
represent
chair
those
neurons
are
going
to
say
this
is
a
chair.
Those
nards
are
stable,
they're,
not
changing
where
the
inputs,
all
the
columns,
are
changing
rapidly.
So
you
have
one
side
in
the
right
order.
Just
saying
this
is
a
chair
and
all
the
other
arms
are
going
part
of
a
chair
partner,
chair
moving
around
blah
blah
blah,
and
it
turns
out
we're
only
consciously
aware
of
the
vote
so
the
other
stuff
we
have.
E
We
can't
it's
happening
in
your
brain,
but
you
can't
access
it.
You
can't
talk
about
it.
It's
stuck
in
these
columns;
it
doesn't
move
beyond
the
columns.
The
only
thing
that
moves
beyond
individual
columns
is
votes
and
the
voting
neurons
are
saying
it's
a
chair.
So
that's
what
you
perceive
just
stable
chair,
all
the
all
most
of
the
neurons
are
going
whoa,
it's
going
in
somebody
that
way.
This
way
that
way,
it's
changing
all
the
time.
E
They're,
all
still
thinking
like
I'm
looking
at
this
part
of
here,
I'm
looking
at
that
of
you
look
at
this
part
of
the
chair,
and
so
that's
that's.
How
that
mystery
is
solved.
Is
that
you,
you
you're,
only
able
to
see
the
subset
of
neurons
that
are
voting
and
they're
all
saying
it's
the
same
chair,
I
don't
care
which
way
you're
pointing
it's
the
same
chair
and
it's
it's
pretty
amazing
that
this
is
all
happening
in
your
head.
Yeah,
that's,
really
cool!
Thank
you.
A
E
F
Any
final
comments
or
questions
that
we
want
to
touch
on
before
we
wrap
up.
I
mean
I'm
really
curious,
michael
if,
in
the
end,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
have
any
big
takeaway
about
whether
this
information
is
useful
for
people
to
even
understand
some
of
the
basics
in
terms
of
their
learning
and
their
different
learning
styles,
or
is
it
just
too?
Is
it
premature?
It's
like
okay,
we
need
another
layer
before
we
can
actually
get
there
or
what?
What
do
you
think.
B
I
think
for
us
to
make
decisions
about
pedagogy.
We
need
another
layer,
I
think,
to
get
started
coming
up
with
the
questions
to
ask
about
that.
We
have
enough-
and
I
think
you
know
sitting
with
teachers
and
students
you
know
reading
you
know
getting
a
reading
group
together
here
that
12
of
us
sit
and
read
the
book
and
talk
about
it
and
then
go
back
to
class.
You
know
students
and
teachers
and
say,
okay,
what
you
know.
What
do
you
see
differently
now
I
think
could
be
exercise.
I
don't
have
a.
B
I
don't
have
a
takeaway
about
what
that
will
reveal.
I
mean
we
had
a
few
ideas.
I
mean
I
think
I
mentioned
the
one
that
lead
me
a
little
concerned
about
the
you
know
endorsing
this
sort
of
new
dualism
between
my
brain
and
me,
and
I
think
we
have
to
be
just
careful
about
how
we,
how
we
convey
that
information,
how
we
talk
about
the
brain
and
several
places
in
the
book
jeff.
You
say
you
are
your
brain.
I
think
that's
a
helpful
way
to
put
it
because
it's
so
easy
to
slip
into
well.
B
E
I
think
that's
a
good
summary
and
it's
helpful
for
me
to
hear
you
say
that
michael
I
mean
again,
I
can
relate
to
another
field
of
science.
It
might
be
something
let's
go
back
to
the
you
know,
discovery
of
the
dna
molecule
and
the
biochemistry
of
life.
Well,
it
took
a
long
time
before
we
had
our
messenger
rna
vaccine
that
that
we're
getting
here,
you
know
pfizer
and
moderna,
but
those
kind
of
you
know
there's
a
long
gap,
both
time
and
scientifically,
to
fill
in
those
extra
layers
between
hey.
E
This
is
how
our
genes
work
to
hey:
let's
make
a
vaccine,
that's
also
you
know
psalms
mccovin
and
we
have
to
fill
in
those
gaps,
but
I
think
you
know
those
gaps
can
be
filled
in
rapidly.
I
I
think
you
know
it's
well
rapidly
years,
maybe
a
decade
or
so,
maybe
two
decades
max,
I
would
say
it's
possible.
We
could.
We
can
fill
those
in
and
I
think
you
know
in
the
lifetime
of
you
ranger
and
jacob.
E
These
are
things
that
are
going
to
happen
and
that
you
could
help
me
make
happen
if
you're
so
interested,
but
it's
not
something
that
we're.
I
think
it's
100
years
away
or
50
years
away.
I
I
don't
think
so
well,
this
has
been
a
great
conversation
for
me.
I
I
have
got
some
food
to
thought
about
this.
Does
you
know
how
we
design
those
missing
layers?
You
talked
about,
michael
and
donna.
E
I
think
the
idea
of
thinking
I'm
just
reiterating
for
my
own
benefit
the
idea
of
thinking
about
what
kind
of
ways
could
we
actually
come
up
with
for
making
a
science
out
of
reference
frames
and
how
to
model?
How
get
people
think-
and
I
know
enough
about
them
now-
that
I
might
be
able
to
come
up
with
some
ideas
along
that
line,
and
so
that's
to
me
that
was
very
beneficial.