Question Question about technology.

[OrbiterSpore]

There's any way you could "connect" to the brain to "synthesize/digitalize" any thought in a "modified enhanced reality headset" with current/experimental tech? I know that, to do this, we need to understand even more the human brain and EVEN even more the technology. If there is, how much it would cost to current cooperative world-wide (just supposing...) research budget? And if there isn't, how much time it would take to have such tech?

Simplifying: i meant that you control a equipment that read thoughts like "put that in this place" or "make that when that happens" without needing that megatons of programming info, and it doesn't connects fully to the person (in a way that means certain death) like the COFFIN system in Ace Combat 3 [http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/COFFIN], nor a Matrix-like system, i meant just a machine/computer that reads your mind, does your orders virtually and have an "non-hand use" system. Not a quite unstable and dangerous system that requires complete concentration of the user.

Some people i know asked me that, and i got interested in that question. The only solution i could find is ask here.

 

[Carmen A]

We have a long way to go before we have cybernetic technology.

Currently I see the next step up in electronic interfacing is augmented reality technology. Imagine looking through a pair of sunglasses that overlays digital information over points of interest in the environment before you - but even this "robocop" style technology is many decades ahead of what is regarded as common technology today. To accomplish full-scale real world functionality (outside of specialised applications) there has to be very large processing power and also a much more advanced networking system where literally, everything is connected. And we have issues with too much connectivity.

However there have been advances in medical science for integrating electronic components to the human nervous system - the best thing that comes to mind now are advanced prosthetic limbs and retina implants. Maybe in the next century, they will act like what we see in games like Deus Ex today.

So I'm not in the hurry to speculate when we will live in an [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality"]augmented reality [/ame]environment.

Heck, I'm still going to work in a carburetted engine, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a hundred times more fun than a "modern" fuel injected engine. I can tune the air/fuel ratio and other running conditions to suit daily atmospheric conditions and desired power/torque levels... like an aircraft

 

[Rtyh-12]

[...] this "robocop" style technology is many decades ahead of what is regarded as common technology today.

You sure about that? (I'm no scientist in this field, just guessing that it won't take that long)

To accomplish full-scale real world functionality (outside of specialised applications) there has to be very large processing power and also a much more advanced networking system where literally, everything is connected.

Can't you find on the Internet information about anything? Can't you invent a system that automatically looks it up and displays it? (again, I'm no scientist)

 

[jedidia]

There's any way you could "connect" to the brain to "synthesize/digitalize" any thought in a "modified enhanced reality headset" with current/experimental tech?

current Tech, no way. The problem is that we have a bottleneck at Neurology... while the purely electronical side of things should be managable, and the Medical problems could probably be solved, we still have no deeper understanding on how thought actually works. We'll have to learn a lot more about the brain before we can decide wheather or not such stuff is really possible.

 

[Linguofreak]

And also, even if it could be done, there are *huge* ethical questions raised.

 

[Spacethingy]

Bionics... *sigh*

Didn't someone design a "WI-FI" arm that they could use to turn lights on and off with by thinking?

 

[jedidia]

There's also a game-input device that lets you emulate key inputs by measuring your brainwave activity. Sounds great, until you realise that it doesn't work the way it suggests. The software is able to keep apart a few patterns if they are intense enough. It cannot pick out the thought "walk forward". It has to be calibrated, and every wave pattern it is able to recognise can be given a command, and to produce recognisable patterns one has to think pretty intensly of pretty different things.

As a result of that, you actually have to train to use the device. The thought "crap, I have to go to the bathroom" might produce a much clearer pattern than "walk forward", and as a result you might end up training yourself to think "it's urrrrrrgent" when you want to run in a game. The sensors also use much more readings it gets from facial muscles than the actual brain activity, so it's not much closer to a "mind-to-computer"-interface than an ordinary keyboard. After all, a well trained typer also has to only think what he wants to type and leave the rest to his fingers without thinking about it.

Plus, measuring of brainwave activity most probably won't ever result in a deciphering of what the brain is actually thinking about in detail. It's possible to decipher several general states, but you'll never get, say, a word out of this mess. You'll have to read the neurons directly, and with the vastly complex interconectivity of neurons it's well possible that it's several thousand of them interacting to form a word. Plus a few millions engaged in background tasks like keeping your heart go, making your feet walk and scratching yourself at a place where you didn't even realise you were itching. We won't be able to make sense of this mess unless we map the complete brain (and luck has it that a brain forms highly dynamic connections, so it's possible we'd have to map large parts of every brain individually... we really don't know jack about how the thing works, so it's all quite speculative).

 

[N_Molson]

And also, even if it could be done, there are *huge* ethical questions raised.

If you can "plug" an human being to a machine, then you're very close from a "Matrix" scenario... Imagine the machine triggers a "format d:" like command or generates a "runtime error" in your brain !...

 

[Carmen A]

You sure about that? (I'm no scientist in this field, just guessing that it won't take that long)


Can't you find on the Internet information about anything? Can't you invent a system that automatically looks it up and displays it? (again, I'm no scientist)

For sure the right ideas are there but implementation in a safe and ethical manner, with enough ease of use not to disrupt or disorient normal activity,mass proliferation of advanced tech like this thus takes a long while.

 

[Jarvitä]

If you can "plug" an human being to a machine, then you're very close from a "Matrix" scenario...

I don't think that's what OP asked. A neural interface simply presents your brain with a set of input impulses (instead of your natural senses), and reads some of your output impulses instead of passing them on to motor nerves. It's just a more efficient version of a keyboard and monitor. I don't see the ethics dilemma, as long as we're not being forcefully plugged into it by robots.

 

[marooder86]

There's any way you could "connect" to the brain to "synthesize/digitalize" any thought in a "modified enhanced reality headset" with current/experimental tech?

Yes you can. This man has became what you could call a first human "cyborg". He run some experiments during which he controlled robotic arm through the microchip conected directly to his nervous system.
It's still just the first small step on the road to merge living organisms like humans with alectronics devices enhancig it's capabilities, but it's the step that already has been made.

 

[jedidia]

That's "only" a nerve interface, though. It's two tons of cool, but a completely different animal than reading output from the brain directly.

 

[T.Neo]

Of course connecting with the brain directly raises ethical issues. What happens when people start to mount malicious brain attacks? Or scan people's thoughts without their consent? Or use such technology to influence them in some way?

 

[marooder86]

That's "only" a nerve interface, though. It's two tons of cool, but a completely different animal than reading output from the brain directly.

For that we just have to wait for him implanting and connecting the microchip directly to his brain and central nervous system:lol:.
And why you think it's something such completely diffrent then reading from the brain directly. If I get you right you're thinking about somethink like telepathy, am I right? If so, then I personally think it's not the way, cause what are thoughts? Well, if we skip all this spiritual stuff then there is nothing more happening in our brains then electrics currents floating and chemical reactions going. Hence, connecting to nervous system and interpreting the signals correctly creates ability to control or communicate with things by thoughts.
If I remember it right, in this experiments run by Dr Kevin Warwick it was happening in that way. He was controlling robotic arm by simply thinking about it.
Yes this technology is still primitive, and far from being use in augmented reality solution, but it shows it's possible, even nowadays, not mentioning what might be done in 20 or 30 years in the future.

---------- Post added at 02:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

Of course connecting with the brain directly raises ethical issues. What happens when people start to mount malicious brain attacks? Or scan people's thoughts without their consent? Or use such technology to influence them in some way?

Sure there is such risk, thats the part of human nature:lol:. But isn't it still fun having internet or all those fancy electronics gadgets, advenced technology, etc., despiting the fact someone can harm us with them.

 

[Artlav]

Would be very useful if such an interface was done properly.
It should enlarge active memory and allow access to information on all types of queries.
Try imagine the whole planet earth in detail, and you'll get sleepy and confused for a moment as you run out of resources, but with the machine attached you would have both resources and data access to keep it all in mind.

Worst case scenario is if they go for words - a neural interface that can only decode words said inside won't be worth a penny.

Of course connecting with the brain directly raises ethical issues. What happens when people start to mount malicious brain attacks? Or scan people's thoughts without their consent? Or use such technology to influence them in some way?

We know it can be done, so we'll be watching for it not to happen.

Laser listening became useless in USSR as soon as someone described how it's done in some novel and people figured out to close the windows.

Once fiction shows us something, it becomes less of a threat.

 

[Ghostrider]

Of course connecting with the brain directly raises ethical issues. What happens when people start to mount malicious brain attacks? Or scan people's thoughts without their consent? Or use such technology to influence them in some way?

Have a firewall installed? Anyway, there was an issue like that in "Ghost in the Shell: Innocence" if I remember correctly. GITS is a must-see for all cyberpunk enthusiasts with an interest in human-machine hybridation.

BTW Motoko Kusanagi is HOT.

 

[jedidia]

If I remember it right, in this experiments run by Dr Kevin Warwick it was happening in that way. He was controlling robotic arm by simply thinking about it.

Not quite... if I got the story right, he moved the robotic arm by moving his own arm. In case his own arm wouldn't be there anymore, it might seem like mind controll, but as long as you are measuring the nerv output you're still measuring the motoric process initiated by the brain. I can just as well think about moving my arm without moving it, by suppressing the output. In case of prostetics, this is of course very good, even desirable.

In the OP's case of a direct brain-machine interface, however, it's not enough. The proposition was, for example, to be able to input text into a computer ba thinking about it. With a pure nerve-controlled interface, I might not have to speak the words aloud, but I still have to move my mouth. Otherwise, there won't be any nerve signal to read from.

But it doesn't stop at words. Let's take a hypothetical mind-control plane in the likes of Firefox. For purposes of the movie, Eastwood of course still had to speak (think) the words, but such an interface would be utterly useless, as it is far inferior to a well-trained hand throwing switches. What you'd want in reality is the interface interpreting the yet un-worded impulse of "switch to AMRAAMS, aquire the bogey 2 o'clock at 50 miles, fire" and carrying out the action. Only then can a direct human-machine interface really become faster than the pretty efficient interface that a trained body combined with a sensible controls-design already is. And for that, you'd have to know exactly how the brain works, and keep precise tap on neural activity.

So yeah, I guess Telepathy comes pretty close to it...

BTW Motoko Kusanagi is HOT.

Too bad only her ghost was in innocence... :lol:

 

[OrbiterSpore]

I don't think that's what OS asked. A neural interface simply presents your brain with a set of input impulses (instead of your natural senses), and reads some of your output impulses instead of passing them on to motor nerves. It's just a more efficient version of a keyboard and monitor. I don't see the ethics dilemma, as long as we're not being forcefully plugged into it by robots.

Almost that; i meant you control a equipment that read thoughts like "put that in this place" or "make that when that happens" without needing that megatons of programming info, and it doesn't connects fully to the person (in a way that means certain death) like the COFFIN system in Ace Combat 3 [http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/COFFIN], nor a Matrix-like system, i meant just a machine/computer that reads your mind, does your orders virtually and have an "non-hand use" system. Not a quite unstable and dangerous system that requires complete concentration of the user.

 

[T.Neo]

Sure there is such risk, thats the part of human nature. But isn't it still fun having internet or all those fancy electronics gadgets, advenced technology, etc., despiting the fact someone can harm us with them.

My advanced technology is external to me. If an EMP goes off tomorrow, at least I won't start having seizures and become schizophrenic...

Have a firewall installed?

And when it blocks your sense of smell, thinking it's a malicious input? :shifty:

Sorry, but a direct brain interface is a bad idea. It's just... bad. It's the kind of technology you want to have a moratorium on in general so that there's less of a chance of people perverting it. You might take away the freedom of people to do what they want, you might take away the right of people to say what they want, but you definitely can't take away the ability for people to think what they want...

I mean, you can even question the reason of why you need anything like it. Is humanity really too lazy, to stare at computer screens and tap on keyboards?

 

[Ghostrider]

I think what the OP meant was something along the lines of the ANTARES system from the Dale Brown novel "Day of the Cheetah" (back when he was still trying to be original). ANTARES directly interfaced the pilot of a prototype fighter (Dreamstar) with its onboard systems so that he could fly it by just thinking, like he were the plane. All the fighter's sensors became additional senses, and the computer constantly advised the pilot in order to have complete situational awareness. The catch was that not everybody could achieve interfacing with ANTARES and that over time the pilot developed an addiction to it.
Have no idea how to achieve it without drilling holes into the skull and do other squishy things that make one lose appetite, unless transcranial magnetic stimulation can achieve something like that.