No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a mediocre brain, something like the President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I was interested in big unknowns, and the brain is one of the biggest, so building tools that allow us to regard the brain as a big electrical circuit appealed to me.
There is a real danger that computers will develop intelligence and take over. We urgently need to develop direct connections to the brain so that computers can add to human intelligence rather than be in opposition.
I'm more cerebral than I want to be.
If we could find a way to totally empower half of the brains in America, imagine how much more productive we could be.
The ultimate creative capacity of the brain may be, for all practical purposes, infinite.
I'm tremendously optimistic about the future of my discipline, yet understanding the brain is so difficult that we neuroscientists need help.
It could be - and it has been argued, in my view rather plausibly, though neuroscientists don't like it - that neuroscience for the last couple hundred years has been on the wrong track.
Everything good and bad about technology would be magnified by implanting it deep in brains. Is the risk of brain-hacking outweighed by the societal benefits of faster, deeper communication, and the ability to augment our own intelligence?
I was always interested in curing the brain.
I'm very cerebral. I like to think things through.