TED Video: Daniel Kraft: Medicine's future?

[rhody]

Interesting talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kraft_medicine_s_future.html?utm_source=new sletter_weekly_2011-06-14&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email) by Daniel Kraft, worth your time, IMHO.

Rhody... :approve:

[Ryan_m_b]

Interesting talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kraft_medicine_s_future.html?utm_source=new sletter_weekly_2011-06-14&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email) by Daniel Kraft, worth your time, IMHO.

Rhody... :approve:

Hmmm I really don't like the emphasis on exponential technological development. When someone starts arguments along the line of Ray Kurzweil, especially when they start talking about nanobots (nanomedicine in real life is nothing like nanobots which are considered a bit of a joke) I get suspicious.

However I do agree that the emergence of digital, personalised medicine is something that will be a great boon. The internet of things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things) would have a huge effect on medicine.

[rhody]

Hmmm I really don't like the emphasis on exponential technological development.

ryan,

IMHO I think those words that he used were the "salesman" in Daniel talking. It seems to me that he was trying to create, "a buzz" at the start of his talk. In this regard I think he succeeded. That being said, I think you will agree that we do need an "exponential" increase in computing power to begin to make sense of the massive amounts of data generated from a single high resolution diagnostic scan in the future, no ?

Rhody...

[Ryan_m_b]

ryan,

IMHO I think those words that he used were the "salesman" in Daniel talking. It seems to me that he was trying to create, "a buzz" at the start of his talk. In this regard I think he succeeded. That being said, I think you will agree that we do need an "exponential" increase in computing power to begin to make sense of the massive amounts of data generated from a single high resolution diagnostic scan in the future, no ?

Rhody...

Certainly we have seen exponential growth in computer power and yes this has greatly helped medicine and will continue to do so. Eventually Moore's law will dwindle as we reach the limits of silicon lithography (not necessarily a bad thing IMO, it will make developers focus on better software rather than relying on more power) and computer development will be much more gradual. I object to his claim that computers are nearing or surpassing the human mind, for a start that doesn't make sense (if anything computers should be compared to a brain) and secondly we have no way of fairly comparing a computer and a brain. The fact that he works with/for the singularity institute means he will try and peddle these ideas of exponential development in all sectors, this is a fallacy.

I completely agree with you though that this was a good way to drum up the audience and was probably a salesman style tactic. Ubiquitous computing will have a massive effect on medicine and hopefully for the better, interfacing everyday objects such as our clothes, medical diagnostics and phones could greatly help us live our lives.

Personally I'm more excited about regenerative medicines than biomaterials and prosthetics, there is no machine that can rival biology for efficiency and adaptive power. This especially applies to nanobots which are mostly science fiction. But that's not to say that advances in B and P are also inspiring and would be a massive boon to treatments, hopefully they will be surpassed by regenerative medicines as soon as possible.

[Pythagorean]

We have some way of comparing a brain to a computer. Computers are much faster serial processors. Brains are much better at integrating parallel information.