Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interfaces

UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:39:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.

WOW! I need to soak some of the up, but am interested. One of the first things that came to mind was the Lawnmower Man.

I do have a question from the get go, are those pieozo's safe in the brain? Are they powered or passive?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:54:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:39:43 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.

WOW! I need to soak some of the up, but am interested. One of the first things that came to mind was the Lawnmower Man.

I do have a question from the get go, are those pieozo's safe in the brain? Are they powered or passive?

They should be safe (They are much smaller than neurons, and made entirely from inert materials). The design isn't finalized, but recent news suggests that they will most likely be powered. The paper I linked discusses whether they should be powered or not, and concludes that they probably will need to be. They need a baseline DC output in order to have sufficient signal-to-noise ratio with respect to neural activity, so that is why they need to be powered. I believe the current model is to power them wirelessly through one of the transceivers.

If it was proven safe, what would it need to allow you to do before you considered getting it yourself?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 11:03:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:54:53 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:39:43 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.

WOW! I need to soak some of the up, but am interested. One of the first things that came to mind was the Lawnmower Man.

I do have a question from the get go, are those pieozo's safe in the brain? Are they powered or passive?

They should be safe (They are much smaller than neurons, and made entirely from inert materials). The design isn't finalized, but recent news suggests that they will most likely be powered. The paper I linked discusses whether they should be powered or not, and concludes that they probably will need to be. They need a baseline DC output in order to have sufficient signal-to-noise ratio with respect to neural activity, so that is why they need to be powered. I believe the current model is to power them wirelessly through one of the transceivers.

Sorry, should have read that paper first. I build my own guitar amplifiers and am currently trying to envision a schematic for the DC output, but for the life of me can't see what could be used as the common ground. Perhaps, that's in the paper?

If it was proven safe, what would it need to allow you to do before you considered getting it yourself?

I would jump on that opportunity in a heart beat, the potential for that is limitless.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 11:16:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 11:03:10 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:54:53 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:39:43 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.

WOW! I need to soak some of the up, but am interested. One of the first things that came to mind was the Lawnmower Man.

I do have a question from the get go, are those pieozo's safe in the brain? Are they powered or passive?

They should be safe (They are much smaller than neurons, and made entirely from inert materials). The design isn't finalized, but recent news suggests that they will most likely be powered. The paper I linked discusses whether they should be powered or not, and concludes that they probably will need to be. They need a baseline DC output in order to have sufficient signal-to-noise ratio with respect to neural activity, so that is why they need to be powered. I believe the current model is to power them wirelessly through one of the transceivers.

Sorry, should have read that paper first. I build my own guitar amplifiers and am currently trying to envision a schematic for the DC output, but for the life of me can't see what could be used as the common ground. Perhaps, that's in the paper?

No problem, it's really dense. And I should have re-read the paper (I only read it when it first came out, which was around 2 years ago now). I misremembered. Rather than a DC output in the receiver nodes, there is a DC input as the power supply in order to power a system of amplifiers, regulators, and modulators to maximization signal-to-noise ratio.

In case you haven't noticed, I have basically no background in hardware =). This stuff is pretty hard for me to understand, but I'm excited about the possibility of developing algorithms for the hardware that would allow a user to, say, access the internet mentally. Maybe you can help me with the hardware component.

If it was proven safe, what would it need to allow you to do before you considered getting it yourself?

I would jump on that opportunity in a heart beat, the potential for that is limitless.

I would be very interested as well. I do think this level of technology integration is inevitable, but I'm a little more cautious over all, so I probably wouldn't be among the very first adopters, even if I were a developer.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:18:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer.

That's really interesting, UR. Thank you for the link.

I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

How do people feel about this level of technological integration in humans?

There ought to be a word for 'excited, but deeply uncomfortable' ('troubcited', maybe?) But it's the feeling you get when you're looking at a technology that changes the basic sense of what it means to be human. Nuclear energy did that for a lot of people. This technology does that for me.

I'm excited, because you'd advance this technology if only to help with spinal patients and stroke victims, say.

I'm also troubled because, can you think of a chronic invasive prosthetic that doesn't fundamentally and irreversibly change the surrounding tissue? Saying that it won't seems a glib and misleading presumption. The question should be how big the change might be, and what might be its functional and nonfunctional impacts -- because that should be central to evaluations of viability, and inform indications and contraindications for use. (I guess I'm not surprised to see this sort of naive technoevangelism from Electrical Engineers, but we also ought to be discouraging it. :D)

This seems a technology ideally suited for people in extreme medical need; but it's not one you could immediately sell for entertainment or vocational purposes. And yet... that's exactly what communications companies will want to do.

So there's the long-term psychosocial side, UR, which I think already needs more study with smartphones and ubiquitous networking. Our social identities are unquestionably changing: our private thoughts have become not only public, but are becoming increasingly mandatory. If we don't expose some voyeuristic narrative into selected intimate moments, people are starting to think we don't exist.

So what happens when our stronger emotional reactions trigger automatic instagram photo-capture? When employers want to see the top twenty things that pleased us in the workplace last year? People are already reframing their public identities in terms of a photojournalistic pseudonarrative; will they start navigating their emotional experiences the way people currently fake resumes?

And what happens when Google, say, begins to intercept our reactions as well as our attention? When the communications disciplines know not just what interests us, but what we individually desire and envy, and what specific images will provoke that?

So, yup: troubcited. :D
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 7:04:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.

I readily admit this topic and your slant on it are over my head and my level of understanding that would be needed to offer any useful input. But I find it fascinating, so I'll probably just read and lurk on what you guys say. Maybe I'll jump in if I see a post I can relate to. LOL.

But I hope this thread flourished and does not whither on the proverbial vine. Although in view of its level--at least post-grad--I would not be surprised if indeed that were its fate.

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:19:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:04:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.


I readily admit this topic and your slant on it are over my head and my level of understanding that would be needed to offer any useful input. But I find it fascinating, so I'll probably just read and lurk on what you guys say. Maybe I'll jump in if I see a post I can relate to. LOL.

But I hope this thread flourished and does not whither on the proverbial vine. Although in view of its level--at least post-grad--I would not be surprised if indeed that were its fate.

Thanks!

Thanks. You're welcome to join in, but I hope we can stick to science with this one =P
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:21:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:04:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.


I readily admit this topic and your slant on it are over my head and my level of understanding that would be needed to offer any useful input. But I find it fascinating, so I'll probably just read and lurk on what you guys say. Maybe I'll jump in if I see a post I can relate to. LOL.

But I hope this thread flourished and does not whither on the proverbial vine. Although in view of its level--at least post-grad--I would not be surprised if indeed that were its fate.

Thanks!

Thanks. You're welcome to join in, but I hope we can stick to science with this one =P

Yeah. I know I am welcome. As this is a public forum.

BTW..."....but I hope we can stick to science on this one."

A thinly-veiled allusion to the fact that the Saint does not always do so? LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:38:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:18:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer.

That's really interesting, UR. Thank you for the link.

I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

How do people feel about this level of technological integration in humans?

There ought to be a word for 'excited, but deeply uncomfortable' ('troubcited', maybe?) But it's the feeling you get when you're looking at a technology that changes the basic sense of what it means to be human. Nuclear energy did that for a lot of people. This technology does that for me.

I think I've said almost the same thing before, but I never came up with "troubcited" =)

I'm excited, because you'd advance this technology if only to help with spinal patients and stroke victims, say.

That's where most research in this field is now, but it's been expanding over the last decade.

I'm also troubled because, can you think of a chronic invasive prosthetic that doesn't fundamentally and irreversibly change the surrounding tissue? Saying that it won't seems a glib and misleading presumption. The question should be how big the change might be, and what might be its functional and nonfunctional impacts -- because that should be central to evaluations of viability, and inform indications and contraindications for use. (I guess I'm not surprised to see this sort of naive technoevangelism from Electrical Engineers, but we also ought to be discouraging it. :D)

That's a good point. At minimum there would be neuroplastic changes involved in whatever controls the interface facilitates. But most likely there would be other changes as well. Any electrical leakage from the components involved could interfere with pre-existing neural networks, and possibly destabilize them. It will be years of animal testing before this can be tried on coma patients, let alone healthy humans.

This seems a technology ideally suited for people in extreme medical need; but it's not one you could immediately sell for entertainment or vocational purposes. And yet... that's exactly what communications companies will want to do.

That's true. Currently there are no approved invasive BCI technologies for people outside of extreme medical need (e.g., paralysis).

So there's the long-term psychosocial side, UR, which I think already needs more study with smartphones and ubiquitous networking. Our social identities are unquestionably changing: our private thoughts have become not only public, but are becoming increasingly mandatory. If we don't expose some voyeuristic narrative into selected intimate moments, people are starting to think we don't exist.

In the long-run this is the kind of technology that could lead to the decline of individual identity at a fundamental level. Far more psychologically invasive than networking through smartphones would be being permanently networked to each other and the internet. It's a scary thing to think about, but if it's something we can adapt to, there are some clear benefits that could be seen as well. Over several generations, this might be the kind of technology that could force upon us a degree of necessary adaptation which could make future humans fundamentally different than we are now.

So what happens when our stronger emotional reactions trigger automatic instagram photo-capture? When employers want to see the top twenty things that pleased us in the workplace last year? People are already reframing their public identities in terms of a photojournalistic pseudonarrative; will they start navigating their emotional experiences the way people currently fake resumes?

And what happens when Google, say, begins to intercept our reactions as well as our attention? When the communications disciplines know not just what interests us, but what we individually desire and envy, and what specific images will provoke that?

So, yup: troubcited. :D

I'd like to say that it's ultimately up to use how we develop and apply this technology, but it would be naive to suggest that this will be a democratic process. Corporations will try to use these technologies in their favour, even if if those applications are detrimental to humans ans society in significant ways. I am willing to consider that many aspects of current society are fundamentally incompatible with the changes a more advanced version of this technology could bring. One thing that worries me is the possibility of access to these technologies being decided by wealth. That would result in separate classes of humans who are separated by a gap too wide to cross naturally. That would be a serious problem for society, and I don't know if humanity as a whole has the compassion not to leave half the world behind.

These technologies aren't really in the public mind yet, but when they are, I'm sure there will be considerable opposition. I'm curious as to how that will play out.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:44:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:21:21 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:04:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.


I readily admit this topic and your slant on it are over my head and my level of understanding that would be needed to offer any useful input. But I find it fascinating, so I'll probably just read and lurk on what you guys say. Maybe I'll jump in if I see a post I can relate to. LOL.

But I hope this thread flourished and does not whither on the proverbial vine. Although in view of its level--at least post-grad--I would not be surprised if indeed that were its fate.

Thanks!

Thanks. You're welcome to join in, but I hope we can stick to science with this one =P

Yeah. I know I am welcome. As this is a public forum.

BTW..."....but I hope we can stick to science on this one."

A thinly-veiled allusion to the fact that the Saint does not always do so? LOL

I did not mean to say that I "grant you permission" to join the conversation, or any such thing. What I meant to say is that you have my personal invitation to have your say here, because perhaps you will offer up an interesting perspective.

And it wasn't veiled at all =)
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:54:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:44:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:21:21 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:04:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.


I readily admit this topic and your slant on it are over my head and my level of understanding that would be needed to offer any useful input. But I find it fascinating, so I'll probably just read and lurk on what you guys say. Maybe I'll jump in if I see a post I can relate to. LOL.

But I hope this thread flourished and does not whither on the proverbial vine. Although in view of its level--at least post-grad--I would not be surprised if indeed that were its fate.

Thanks!

Thanks. You're welcome to join in, but I hope we can stick to science with this one =P

Yeah. I know I am welcome. As this is a public forum.

BTW..."....but I hope we can stick to science on this one."

A thinly-veiled allusion to the fact that the Saint does not always do so? LOL

I did not mean to say that I "grant you permission" to join the conversation, or any such thing. What I meant to say is that you have my personal invitation to have your say here, because perhaps you will offer up an interesting perspective.

And it wasn't veiled at all =)

The biggest question mark i see in any sort of human brain/mind-Computer Interface would be, well, the "interface" part? That is: the modem. Or the device that would replicate the same task that today's PC modems do: and as you know, that is to simply "modulate and de-modulate."

That is to ask: How exactly would we get the "modem" to transfer the inner mechanism of the brain--the chemical/electrolyte processes and reactions, into a "language" a computer could understand? Or process. After all, at the end of the day, all that even the fastest, "smartest", biggest baddest most cutting edge computer on the planet does is.....Manipulate electrons. Using logic gates. "Off and on" baby. Zeros and Ones. Open and closed circuits. That's it. Period.

Not even the staunchest defender or the wonders of Computers and the Promise of AI can refute that.

Right?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:00:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:54:25 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:44:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:21:21 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:04:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.


I readily admit this topic and your slant on it are over my head and my level of understanding that would be needed to offer any useful input. But I find it fascinating, so I'll probably just read and lurk on what you guys say. Maybe I'll jump in if I see a post I can relate to. LOL.

But I hope this thread flourished and does not whither on the proverbial vine. Although in view of its level--at least post-grad--I would not be surprised if indeed that were its fate.

Thanks!

Thanks. You're welcome to join in, but I hope we can stick to science with this one =P

Yeah. I know I am welcome. As this is a public forum.

BTW..."....but I hope we can stick to science on this one."

A thinly-veiled allusion to the fact that the Saint does not always do so? LOL

I did not mean to say that I "grant you permission" to join the conversation, or any such thing. What I meant to say is that you have my personal invitation to have your say here, because perhaps you will offer up an interesting perspective.

And it wasn't veiled at all =)


The biggest question mark i see in any sort of human brain/mind-Computer Interface would be, well, the "interface" part? That is: the modem. Or the device that would replicate the same task that today's PC modems do: and as you know, that is to simply "modulate and de-modulate."

That is to ask: How exactly would we get the "modem" to transfer the inner mechanism of the brain--the chemical/electrolyte processes and reactions, into a "language" a computer could understand? Or process. After all, at the end of the day, all that even the fastest, "smartest", biggest baddest most cutting edge computer on the planet does is.....Manipulate electrons. Using logic gates. "Off and on" baby. Zeros and Ones. Open and closed circuits. That's it. Period.

Not even the staunchest defender or the wonders of Computers and the Promise of AI can refute that.

Right?

It sounds like you're asking how we digitize neural activity, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean to ask. All devices which record brain activity digitize this informaton. For example, EEG sensors pick up the electromagnetic field from locally synchronous populations of neurons and represent it as the amplitude of electrical activity observed over time.

Is that what you mean to ask about, or do you mean to ask about how we take that digitized representation of brain activity and infer what brain's intentions are, so that we send the right commands to a computer?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:03:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:54:25 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:44:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:21:21 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:04:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.


I readily admit this topic and your slant on it are over my head and my level of understanding that would be needed to offer any useful input. But I find it fascinating, so I'll probably just read and lurk on what you guys say. Maybe I'll jump in if I see a post I can relate to. LOL.

But I hope this thread flourished and does not whither on the proverbial vine. Although in view of its level--at least post-grad--I would not be surprised if indeed that were its fate.

Thanks!

Thanks. You're welcome to join in, but I hope we can stick to science with this one =P

Yeah. I know I am welcome. As this is a public forum.

BTW..."....but I hope we can stick to science on this one."

A thinly-veiled allusion to the fact that the Saint does not always do so? LOL

I did not mean to say that I "grant you permission" to join the conversation, or any such thing. What I meant to say is that you have my personal invitation to have your say here, because perhaps you will offer up an interesting perspective.

And it wasn't veiled at all =)


The biggest question mark i see in any sort of human brain/mind-Computer Interface would be, well, the "interface" part? That is: the modem. Or the device that would replicate the same task that today's PC modems do: and as you know, that is to simply "modulate and de-modulate."

That is to ask: How exactly would we get the "modem" to transfer the inner mechanism of the brain--the chemical/electrolyte processes and reactions, into a "language" a computer could understand? Or process. After all, at the end of the day, all that even the fastest, "smartest", biggest baddest most cutting edge computer on the planet does is.....Manipulate electrons. Using logic gates. "Off and on" baby. Zeros and Ones. Open and closed circuits. That's it. Period.

Not even the staunchest defender or the wonders of Computers and the Promise of AI can refute that.

Right?

Yeah....Boolean logic is STILL the primary methodology as well. After all these years of Moore's Law being amazingly accurate to its original prognostications some 50 years ago! Oh...we have added more and more transistors to the IC's. (If memory serves the fastest CPUs now have about Ten Million? And, sure, more logic gates.

But still. Vastly different in its working that the Human Mind. Tinker toys compared with nano-particles. Electrolytes with electrons whizzing through 5-nanamoter-width busses. That is almost apples and oranges, amigo.

BTW: did I miss it? Or perhaps you do not care to respond, but I was curious--and asked in a previous post a couple days ago: about your level of education? You were talking about a new grant app? I am guessing grad school or post doc?

Information Technology or Computer Science?

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:16:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You know what?

I have just come to the conclusion I was selling myself short in my OP.

My grasp of Computer Science and of the human mind are pretty damn good. And since this Thread's topic IS pure speculation and NOT current scientific fact--I do believe I will toss in my dos centavos, now and again. LOL

As...in retrospect I think I am well aware of your OP postulate, as it is hardly a new one. I am also aware of the vast differences between our organic, 3-lb. brains and an electronic calculating device that is but a tool.

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:21:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:39:43 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.

WOW! I need to soak some of the up, but am interested. One of the first things that came to mind was the Lawnmower Man.

I do have a question from the get go, are those pieozo's safe in the brain? Are they powered or passive?

I think they would be safe...as the most powerful and highest-quality current piezo crystal today now can generate about 20 watts psi. And since our brains--coincidentally!--produce about 20 Watts, and the crystals in question here would be certainly nano-sized..or micron sized, it does not seem as the electricity generated form them wold pose a threat.

And it is also a "passive" current in p.e. crystals.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:26:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:03:05 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:54:25 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:44:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:21:21 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:04:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.


I readily admit this topic and your slant on it are over my head and my level of understanding that would be needed to offer any useful input. But I find it fascinating, so I'll probably just read and lurk on what you guys say. Maybe I'll jump in if I see a post I can relate to. LOL.

But I hope this thread flourished and does not whither on the proverbial vine. Although in view of its level--at least post-grad--I would not be surprised if indeed that were its fate.

Thanks!

Thanks. You're welcome to join in, but I hope we can stick to science with this one =P

Yeah. I know I am welcome. As this is a public forum.

BTW..."....but I hope we can stick to science on this one."

A thinly-veiled allusion to the fact that the Saint does not always do so? LOL

I did not mean to say that I "grant you permission" to join the conversation, or any such thing. What I meant to say is that you have my personal invitation to have your say here, because perhaps you will offer up an interesting perspective.

And it wasn't veiled at all =)


The biggest question mark i see in any sort of human brain/mind-Computer Interface would be, well, the "interface" part? That is: the modem. Or the device that would replicate the same task that today's PC modems do: and as you know, that is to simply "modulate and de-modulate."

That is to ask: How exactly would we get the "modem" to transfer the inner mechanism of the brain--the chemical/electrolyte processes and reactions, into a "language" a computer could understand? Or process. After all, at the end of the day, all that even the fastest, "smartest", biggest baddest most cutting edge computer on the planet does is.....Manipulate electrons. Using logic gates. "Off and on" baby. Zeros and Ones. Open and closed circuits. That's it. Period.

Not even the staunchest defender or the wonders of Computers and the Promise of AI can refute that.

Right?



Yeah....Boolean logic is STILL the primary methodology as well. After all these years of Moore's Law being amazingly accurate to its original prognostications some 50 years ago! Oh...we have added more and more transistors to the IC's. (If memory serves the fastest CPUs now have about Ten Million? And, sure, more logic gates.

But still. Vastly different in its working that the Human Mind. Tinker toys compared with nano-particles. Electrolytes with electrons whizzing through 5-nanamoter-width busses. That is almost apples and oranges, amigo.

BTW: did I miss it? Or perhaps you do not care to respond, but I was curious--and asked in a previous post a couple days ago: about your level of education? You were talking about a new grant app? I am guessing grad school or post doc?

Information Technology or Computer Science?

Thanks.

I believe I responded to that and that I have given you my credentials on two separate occasions. Would you like to me to share them with you again?

Also, since the primary mode of communication between neurons is via action potentials, with the activity of neurotransmitters modulating the total voltage of the presynaptic neuron to its postsynaptic neighbours, binary logic with real-valued weights is not functionally dissimilar from the the behaviour of neurons. See the Hodgkin-Huxley model, or artificial neural networks.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:30:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:26:22 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:03:05 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:54:25 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:44:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:21:21 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:04:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.


I readily admit this topic and your slant on it are over my head and my level of understanding that would be needed to offer any useful input. But I find it fascinating, so I'll probably just read and lurk on what you guys say. Maybe I'll jump in if I see a post I can relate to. LOL.

But I hope this thread flourished and does not whither on the proverbial vine. Although in view of its level--at least post-grad--I would not be surprised if indeed that were its fate.

Thanks!

Thanks. You're welcome to join in, but I hope we can stick to science with this one =P

Yeah. I know I am welcome. As this is a public forum.

BTW..."....but I hope we can stick to science on this one."

A thinly-veiled allusion to the fact that the Saint does not always do so? LOL

I did not mean to say that I "grant you permission" to join the conversation, or any such thing. What I meant to say is that you have my personal invitation to have your say here, because perhaps you will offer up an interesting perspective.

And it wasn't veiled at all =)


The biggest question mark i see in any sort of human brain/mind-Computer Interface would be, well, the "interface" part? That is: the modem. Or the device that would replicate the same task that today's PC modems do: and as you know, that is to simply "modulate and de-modulate."

That is to ask: How exactly would we get the "modem" to transfer the inner mechanism of the brain--the chemical/electrolyte processes and reactions, into a "language" a computer could understand? Or process. After all, at the end of the day, all that even the fastest, "smartest", biggest baddest most cutting edge computer on the planet does is.....Manipulate electrons. Using logic gates. "Off and on" baby. Zeros and Ones. Open and closed circuits. That's it. Period.

Not even the staunchest defender or the wonders of Computers and the Promise of AI can refute that.

Right?



Yeah....Boolean logic is STILL the primary methodology as well. After all these years of Moore's Law being amazingly accurate to its original prognostications some 50 years ago! Oh...we have added more and more transistors to the IC's. (If memory serves the fastest CPUs now have about Ten Million? And, sure, more logic gates.

But still. Vastly different in its working that the Human Mind. Tinker toys compared with nano-particles. Electrolytes with electrons whizzing through 5-nanamoter-width busses. That is almost apples and oranges, amigo.

BTW: did I miss it? Or perhaps you do not care to respond, but I was curious--and asked in a previous post a couple days ago: about your level of education? You were talking about a new grant app? I am guessing grad school or post doc?

Information Technology or Computer Science?

Thanks.

I believe I responded to that and that I have given you my credentials on two separate occasions. Would you like to me to share them with you again?

Also, since the primary mode of communication between neurons is via action potentials, with the activity of neurotransmitters modulating the total voltage of the presynaptic neuron to its postsynaptic neighbours, binary logic with real-valued weights is not functionally dissimilar from the the behaviour of neurons. See the Hodgkin-Huxley model, or artificial neural networks.

Please. And...please know: in no way, shape,or form am I "calling you" on your creds. Far from it: it is just that I am impressed with your seeming expertise in computer science and I am truly curious as to how yo have attained it. Thanks!

OK...you mentioned binary logic. Of course. That is all the computers do. As I said: "on and off." Open and closed circuits. Yes and Know. Ones and Zeros.

So how would that "modem" I mentioned interface this with the decidedly analo
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:34:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:21:46 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:39:43 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.

WOW! I need to soak some of the up, but am interested. One of the first things that came to mind was the Lawnmower Man.

I do have a question from the get go, are those pieozo's safe in the brain? Are they powered or passive?

I think they would be safe...as the most powerful and highest-quality current piezo crystal today now can generate about 20 watts psi. And since our brains--coincidentally!--produce about 20 Watts, and the crystals in question here would be certainly nano-sized..or micron sized, it does not seem as the electricity generated form them wold pose a threat.

And it is also a "passive" current in p.e. crystals.

Well, you have to remember that there would be thousands of them, and they would only be in the cortex. And the question of safety that Ruv brought up, I think, is more to do with how neurons would be effected, not just the whole brain. Yes, one of the devices is nothing compared to the whole brain. But thousands of them compared to the small volume of neural tissue they would be embedded in could have a non-negligible effect.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:36:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.

I just got done reading about some interesting experiments in this field. One was a brain to brain transfer that had 2 humans saying hello. And one where human volunteers were able to move a rats tail.

What I would like to see is that the brain pattern of one transmitter perceived by the recipient. What it looks like to me, take for instance the mouse experiment, the human attempts to think in a certain way that the computer interprets as a hit, then the computer sends signals to cause the rats tail to move.

Remove the human and the computer could cause the rat tail to move with any activation criteria. the human thought is merely a mouse click, or enter button. (haha mouse click).

I'm curious how this technique stacks up against the injectable mesh. http://www.nature.com...

As far as human social acceptance of using such technologies. I think it looks good. Not with out back lash.

I personally wouldn't want it done to me. I like the idea of being able to go o-natural if I choose to.

People are already comfortable with the idea of stints, screws, pace makers, even artificial organs. But people have to be weary of their surroundings.

But when you mention "computer" in the name, the thoughts inevitably bring about ideas of hackers, viruses, and other stuff. Ideas of being controlled by a hacker, or personal thoughts being manipulated.

While the benefits will be what pushes overall acceptance. I wonder if this dust can be vibrated with ultrasound to aid in the destruction of plaque in the brain helping recovery from degenerative diseases? I wonder if they can be flushed from the brain?

A lot of people I know use bluetooth earbud and mikes at work. If people had the opportunity to implant these just behind the ear, I doubt it would catch on. perhaps the next generation. kids these days seem to have an attention span of 5 seconds and a phone already surgically implanted in their hand. But while people are addicted to and want technology with them, implanting or body augmentation need to feed on human nature. Phones feed on the resemblance of communicating and interacting with other beings. So social nature of people feeds an addiction to such devices.

I hate to say it but augmentation would probably be sold as a way to improve someone's innate abilities. Maybe a catch line like "Release the power inside you". has all the Satanic underpinnings for a fundamentalist backlash. It will have to meld with the body seamlessly in that it can be secure, personal, and adaptive to surroundings.

I always thought the path to mass computer augmentation would be through augmented reality glasses and such. I like the mesh idea because the external processor can be turned off, while the structure remains. In this respect I think people will like. Keep the wires in the body but the processing removable.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:44:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:36:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
There is a serious lack of anything scientific on these forums, and that troubles me. Whether topics I am currently studying is of interest to others here remains to be seen, but I would like to see something of science on these forums.

I believe this paper is open accessible:
http://arxiv.org...

I've been following this research for quite some time, because I would like to work with it one day. It currently is being tested in animals and then possibly in humans in several years.

A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer. Brain-computer interfacing is a specific subfield of neural cybernetics, and if anyone is interested, I can send them or discuss one of the hundreds of papers I've read on the topic.

The purpose of the linked paper is to introduce a new hardware design for brain-computer interfaces (perhaps the first method of brain signal recording actually designed specifically for brain-computer interfacing). In this design, thousands of tiny piezoelectric sensors are injected into the cortex and float in the fluid between neurons. They respond to the electrical activity of neurons and relay that information (e.g., total electrical activity in surrounding neurons) via ultrasound to a receiver sitting above the cortex but below the dura (see figure 1). A scalp transceiver reads from these sub-dural transceivers, does some basic signal preprocessing, and then relays that information to a computer.

There are several interesting aspects to this design. For me, I'm interested largely in machine learning and information theoretic methods for translating these electrical signals back into information like mental state, mood, thoughts, contents of the imagination, etc. (currently I specialize in doing this with EEG, but EEG is a very limited recording technology). This information would be used for real-time control over some computerized device (e.g., a software interface, a robot, etc.). But before exploring those ideas, I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

An important question we ask ourselves in the brain-computer interfacing technology is how the public will react to and receive our technologies. In the case of Neural Dust, the interface is likely to be greatly enhanced at the cost of having micro or nanoscale machines and implanted transceivers in and around the brain. How to people feel about this level of technological integration in humans? Do you think technology of this nature will eventually be adopted on large scales? How will that change society?

I'm interested in answers to the above questions, but this thread is open to discussion about the hardware design, possible methods for interpreting the signals read by Neural Dust, or brain-computer interfacing in general.

Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion that is actually related to science. Sorry for picking a topic that is in many ways esoteric, but I thought this could be interesting to many of you.

I just got done reading about some interesting experiments in this field. One was a brain to brain transfer that had 2 humans saying hello. And one where human volunteers were able to move a rats tail.

What I would like to see is that the brain pattern of one transmitter perceived by the recipient. What it looks like to me, take for instance the mouse experiment, the human attempts to think in a certain way that the computer interprets as a hit, then the computer sends signals to cause the rats tail to move.

Remove the human and the computer could cause the rat tail to move with any activation criteria. the human thought is merely a mouse click, or enter button. (haha mouse click).

I'm curious how this technique stacks up against the injectable mesh. http://www.nature.com...

As far as human social acceptance of using such technologies. I think it looks good. Not with out back lash.

I personally wouldn't want it done to me. I like the idea of being able to go o-natural if I choose to.

People are already comfortable with the idea of stints, screws, pace makers, even artificial organs. But people have to be weary of their surroundings.

But when you mention "computer" in the name, the thoughts inevitably bring about ideas of hackers, viruses, and other stuff. Ideas of being controlled by a hacker, or personal thoughts being manipulated.

While the benefits will be what pushes overall acceptance. I wonder if this dust can be vibrated with ultrasound to aid in the destruction of plaque in the brain helping recovery from degenerative diseases? I wonder if they can be flushed from the brain?

A lot of people I know use bluetooth earbud and mikes at work. If people had the opportunity to implant these just behind the ear, I doubt it would catch on. perhaps the next generation. kids these days seem to have an attention span of 5 seconds and a phone already surgically implanted in their hand. But while people are addicted to and want technology with them, implanting or body augmentation need to feed on human nature. Phones feed on the resemblance of communicating and interacting with other beings. So social nature of people feeds an addiction to such devices.

I hate to say it but augmentation would probably be sold as a way to improve someone's innate abilities. Maybe a catch line like "Release the power inside you". has all the Satanic underpinnings for a fundamentalist backlash. It will have to meld with the body seamlessly in that it can be secure, personal, and adaptive to surroundings.

I always thought the path to mass computer augmentation would be through augmented reality glasses and such. I like the mesh idea because the external processor can be turned off, while the structure remains. In this respect I think people will like. Keep the wires in the body but the processing removable.

Great post.

And it begs the question I too thought of. (When you mentioned that you would not to be a subject in this interface experiment)

Because, neither would I. And my question, therefore, to the Thread Author, would be: "What would the purpose of this whole idea be? Other than to simply show that we could do it? (If we could..which, all due respect, I do not think will happen in our lifetimes).

After all: it's not going to really help us. Good old learning and studying and utilizing our newly-discovered abilities of engaging "Neuro-plasticity" would be more effective--and far more practical, as well.

And it is not going to "help" the computer either. The way we think is simply not a mechanism that an electronic device can utilize or incorporate into its software. Again: the "apples and oranges" dilemma.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:47:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:18:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer.

That's really interesting, UR. Thank you for the link.

I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

How do people feel about this level of technological integration in humans?

There ought to be a word for 'excited, but deeply uncomfortable' ('troubcited', maybe?) But it's the feeling you get when you're looking at a technology that changes the basic sense of what it means to be human. Nuclear energy did that for a lot of people. This technology does that for me.


haha I'm troubcited by it.

I'm excited, because you'd advance this technology if only to help with spinal patients and stroke victims, say.

I'm also troubled because, can you think of a chronic invasive prosthetic that doesn't fundamentally and irreversibly change the surrounding tissue? Saying that it won't seems a glib and misleading presumption. The question should be how big the change might be, and what might be its functional and nonfunctional impacts -- because that should be central to evaluations of viability, and inform indications and contraindications for use. (I guess I'm not surprised to see this sort of naive technoevangelism from Electrical Engineers, but we also ought to be discouraging it. :D)

Right now the processing of thought is through pattern recognition of a network of neurons. But that is not how the brain works. It is an efficiency machine. I think of the brain as an organ for making habits. The technology will have to change the brain. I think the best results will come from it melding with the tissue. Encouraging nerve cell connections and becoming a part of the neural network, not just reading the neurons present.


This seems a technology ideally suited for people in extreme medical need; but it's not one you could immediately sell for entertainment or vocational purposes. And yet... that's exactly what communications companies will want to do.

So there's the long-term psychosocial side, UR, which I think already needs more study with smartphones and ubiquitous networking. Our social identities are unquestionably changing: our private thoughts have become not only public, but are becoming increasingly mandatory. If we don't expose some voyeuristic narrative into selected intimate moments, people are starting to think we don't exist.

So what happens when our stronger emotional reactions trigger automatic instagram photo-capture? When employers want to see the top twenty things that pleased us in the workplace last year? People are already reframing their public identities in terms of a photojournalistic pseudonarrative; will they start navigating their emotional experiences the way people currently fake resumes?


I think people like to share, humans are naturally expressive creatures. I think they want to be able to communicate along channels. the thought "dang my buddy needs to see this" Doesn't send a photo to all people marked friends.

And what happens when Google, say, begins to intercept our reactions as well as our attention? When the communications disciplines know not just what interests us, but what we individually desire and envy, and what specific images will provoke that?

So, yup: troubcited. :D
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:59:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:56:50 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Regarding my twice-mentioned "Apples and Oranges" analogy............

http://scienceblogs.com...

For my money....in this link, Points #1, 2, and 7 present the biggest hurdles for any type of the OP's proposed Interface. With #7 being what I think is, well. an insurmountable hurdle.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:07:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:36:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I just got done reading about some interesting experiments in this field. One was a brain to brain transfer that had 2 humans saying hello. And one where human volunteers were able to move a rats tail.

What I would like to see is that the brain pattern of one transmitter perceived by the recipient. What it looks like to me, take for instance the mouse experiment, the human attempts to think in a certain way that the computer interprets as a hit, then the computer sends signals to cause the rats tail to move.

Remove the human and the computer could cause the rat tail to move with any activation criteria. the human thought is merely a mouse click, or enter button. (haha mouse click).

I'm glad you picked up on that. These kinds of experiments get a lot of media attention because they seem spooky or highly advanced, but the difference between brain-to-brain interfaces and brain-computer interfaces is trivial. The challenging part is interpreting someone's brain activity. Easier is to send an electrical signal that causes a specific movement. Trivial is connecting the two. You are correct in saying that once you have both of those pieces, connecting the two makes is no different than using a mouse click to move the rat's tail - the brain-computer interface is just a switch that either sends the signal or doesn't, depending on the neural activity of the user.
I'm curious how this technique stacks up against the injectable mesh. http://www.nature.com...

I think this technology doesn't scale as easily in terms of number of sensors, because the mesh can't unravel and spread as easily among neural networks. There's also the chance that the mesh could get in the way of new synapses forming. Neural Dust at least only requires wireless connections between the sensor nodes. Still very cool. I think they could expand on this and maybe it will be viable for brain-computer interfacing in humans one day.

As far as human social acceptance of using such technologies. I think it looks good. Not with out back lash.

I personally wouldn't want it done to me. I like the idea of being able to go o-natural if I choose to.

I hope that choice is always respected. I shared that stance for most of my life, but only recently started changing that stance as I began to work in this field. I still makes me somewhat uncomfortable, and I still only work with non-invasive technologies. But I am interested now in invasive technologies as well. I don't see technology as separate from nature.

People are already comfortable with the idea of stints, screws, pace makers, even artificial organs. But people have to be weary of their surroundings.

But when you mention "computer" in the name, the thoughts inevitably bring about ideas of hackers, viruses, and other stuff. Ideas of being controlled by a hacker, or personal thoughts being manipulated.

Good point. Right now these only read information from the brain, so you wouldn't be able to influence neural activity. Also, each brain is individually different, so it would be difficult to interpret someone's brain activity beyond basic reactions without having a large amount of data specific to that person. Those obstacles might be overcome in the future, but it is difficult to see how. However, basic reactions can reveal a lot (this paper might even deserve its own thread): http://www.scribd.com...

While the benefits will be what pushes overall acceptance. I wonder if this dust can be vibrated with ultrasound to aid in the destruction of plaque in the brain helping recovery from degenerative diseases? I wonder if they can be flushed from the brain?

That's an interesting idea. Probably not this dust, but maybe a similar material can be designed which settles on plaque and can be vibrated using ultasound. Good idea. Also a very good point that there should be a way to flush them from the brain. I don't think there is right now, though you could deactivate them by removing the transceivers. Still, makes it a little too much of a one-way trip...

A lot of people I know use bluetooth earbud and mikes at work. If people had the opportunity to implant these just behind the ear, I doubt it would catch on. perhaps the next generation. kids these days seem to have an attention span of 5 seconds and a phone already surgically implanted in their hand. But while people are addicted to and want technology with them, implanting or body augmentation need to feed on human nature. Phones feed on the resemblance of communicating and interacting with other beings. So social nature of people feeds an addiction to such devices.

Would you say implanted brain-computer interfaces would feed more or less on human nature?

I hate to say it but augmentation would probably be sold as a way to improve someone's innate abilities. Maybe a catch line like "Release the power inside you". has all the Satanic underpinnings for a fundamentalist backlash. It will have to meld with the body seamlessly in that it can be secure, personal, and adaptive to surroundings.

Very true.

I always thought the path to mass computer augmentation would be through augmented reality glasses and such. I like the mesh idea because the external processor can be turned off, while the structure remains. In this respect I think people will like. Keep the wires in the body but the processing removable.

An off switch would be useful at first, but I think ultimately the idea is that this would become like a new part of the brain. A neo-neocortex, or a technocortex, or something. At that stage, no one would want to turn it off.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:13:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:18:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer.

That's really interesting, UR. Thank you for the link.

I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

How do people feel about this level of technological integration in humans?

There ought to be a word for 'excited, but deeply uncomfortable' ('troubcited', maybe?) But it's the feeling you get when you're looking at a technology that changes the basic sense of what it means to be human. Nuclear energy did that for a lot of people. This technology does that for me.

I'm excited, because you'd advance this technology if only to help with spinal patients and stroke victims, say.

I'm also troubled because, can you think of a chronic invasive prosthetic that doesn't fundamentally and irreversibly change the surrounding tissue? Saying that it won't seems a glib and misleading presumption. The question should be how big the change might be, and what might be its functional and nonfunctional impacts -- because that should be central to evaluations of viability, and inform indications and contraindications for use. (I guess I'm not surprised to see this sort of naive technoevangelism from Electrical Engineers, but we also ought to be discouraging it. :D)

This seems a technology ideally suited for people in extreme medical need; but it's not one you could immediately sell for entertainment or vocational purposes. And yet... that's exactly what communications companies will want to do.

So there's the long-term psychosocial side, UR, which I think already needs more study with smartphones and ubiquitous networking. Our social identities are unquestionably changing: our private thoughts have become not only public, but are becoming increasingly mandatory. If we don't expose some voyeuristic narrative into selected intimate moments, people are starting to think we don't exist.

So what happens when our stronger emotional reactions trigger automatic instagram photo-capture? When employers want to see the top twenty things that pleased us in the workplace last year? People are already reframing their public identities in terms of a photojournalistic pseudonarrative; will they start navigating their emotional experiences the way people currently fake resumes?

And what happens when Google, say, begins to intercept our reactions as well as our attention? When the communications disciplines know not just what interests us, but what we individually desire and envy, and what specific images will provoke that?

So, yup: troubcited. :D

Uhh. I'm pretty sure Google can already do that stuff. LOL

Do you know that Google has programmed demographic information into its "search" algorithms? And then they plug-in your IP addy and subnet mask into that data? This is programmed to the extent that a person asking Google a question from, say, a trailer park in Hot Springs, South Dakota, will get a different "hit" page than somebody in Seattle?

And the way it keeps completing my sentences for me is getting downright scary. Especially after I have been online for awhile and it "learns" what the general gist of my surfing is. It can truly "learn" in this way.

(Of course I realize that "learn" is somewhat of a misnomer, as it is actually only incorporating 'self-writing" code and using feedback loops. But stil.....)
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:20:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:13:46 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 4:18:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer.

That's really interesting, UR. Thank you for the link.

I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

How do people feel about this level of technological integration in humans?

There ought to be a word for 'excited, but deeply uncomfortable' ('troubcited', maybe?) But it's the feeling you get when you're looking at a technology that changes the basic sense of what it means to be human. Nuclear energy did that for a lot of people. This technology does that for me.

I'm excited, because you'd advance this technology if only to help with spinal patients and stroke victims, say.

I'm also troubled because, can you think of a chronic invasive prosthetic that doesn't fundamentally and irreversibly change the surrounding tissue? Saying that it won't seems a glib and misleading presumption. The question should be how big the change might be, and what might be its functional and nonfunctional impacts -- because that should be central to evaluations of viability, and inform indications and contraindications for use. (I guess I'm not surprised to see this sort of naive technoevangelism from Electrical Engineers, but we also ought to be discouraging it. :D)

This seems a technology ideally suited for people in extreme medical need; but it's not one you could immediately sell for entertainment or vocational purposes. And yet... that's exactly what communications companies will want to do.

So there's the long-term psychosocial side, UR, which I think already needs more study with smartphones and ubiquitous networking. Our social identities are unquestionably changing: our private thoughts have become not only public, but are becoming increasingly mandatory. If we don't expose some voyeuristic narrative into selected intimate moments, people are starting to think we don't exist.

So what happens when our stronger emotional reactions trigger automatic instagram photo-capture? When employers want to see the top twenty things that pleased us in the workplace last year? People are already reframing their public identities in terms of a photojournalistic pseudonarrative; will they start navigating their emotional experiences the way people currently fake resumes?

And what happens when Google, say, begins to intercept our reactions as well as our attention? When the communications disciplines know not just what interests us, but what we individually desire and envy, and what specific images will provoke that?

So, yup: troubcited. :D

Uhh. I'm pretty sure Google can already do that stuff. LOL

Do you know that Google has programmed demographic information into its "search" algorithms? And then they plug-in your IP addy and subnet mask into that data? This is programmed to the extent that a person asking Google a question from, say, a trailer park in Hot Springs, South Dakota, will get a different "hit" page than somebody in Seattle?

And the way it keeps completing my sentences for me is getting downright scary. Especially after I have been online for awhile and it "learns" what the general gist of my surfing is. It can truly "learn" in this way.

(Of course I realize that "learn" is somewhat of a misnomer, as it is actually only incorporating 'self-writing" code and using feedback loops. But stil.....)

This reminds me.....I have a question for you guys. (If I may be allowed to veer slightly off-topic for a moment).

I have noticed--as has probably anybody who spends a good deal of time Googling--that Google is by far and away the best Search Engine on the Internet. (Actiually a "meta-search" Engine).

I mean, it is absurdly better than the rest. I am talking, NBA vs. elementary schoolyard basketball better.

Why? When most other things in the Internet realm, as well as the OS and PC and any-other-realm of the PC biz is fairly competitive. But Google stands head and freakin' shoulders above the rest. (Bing is laughably inferior).

I have been told by a couple of IT guys that the reason is that Google holds certain crucial "search engine" algorithms patents. But I am not sure this is the whole story.

Perhaps one of you cats knows?

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:26:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:47:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/3/2015 4:18:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:20:01 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
A "Chronic Invasive Brain-Computer Interface" is any endogenous (implantable or injectable) technology which facilitates uninterrupted direct communication between a brain and a computer.

That's really interesting, UR. Thank you for the link.

I am curious what people think about the hardware design.

How do people feel about this level of technological integration in humans?

There ought to be a word for 'excited, but deeply uncomfortable' ('troubcited', maybe?) But it's the feeling you get when you're looking at a technology that changes the basic sense of what it means to be human. Nuclear energy did that for a lot of people. This technology does that for me.


haha I'm troubcited by it.

I'm excited, because you'd advance this technology if only to help with spinal patients and stroke victims, say.

I'm also troubled because, can you think of a chronic invasive prosthetic that doesn't fundamentally and irreversibly change the surrounding tissue? Saying that it won't seems a glib and misleading presumption. The question should be how big the change might be, and what might be its functional and nonfunctional impacts -- because that should be central to evaluations of viability, and inform indications and contraindications for use. (I guess I'm not surprised to see this sort of naive technoevangelism from Electrical Engineers, but we also ought to be discouraging it. :D)

Right now the processing of thought is through pattern recognition of a network of neurons. But that is not how the brain works. It is an efficiency machine. I think of the brain as an organ for making habits. The technology will have to change the brain. I think the best results will come from it melding with the tissue. Encouraging nerve cell connections and becoming a part of the neural network, not just reading the neurons present.


This seems a technology ideally suited for people in extreme medical need; but it's not one you could immediately sell for entertainment or vocational purposes. And yet... that's exactly what communications companies will want to do.

So there's the long-term psychosocial side, UR, which I think already needs more study with smartphones and ubiquitous networking. Our social identities are unquestionably changing: our private thoughts have become not only public, but are becoming increasingly mandatory. If we don't expose some voyeuristic narrative into selected intimate moments, people are starting to think we don't exist.

So what happens when our stronger emotional reactions trigger automatic instagram photo-capture? When employers want to see the top twenty things that pleased us in the workplace last year? People are already reframing their public identities in terms of a photojournalistic pseudonarrative; will they start navigating their emotional experiences the way people currently fake resumes?


I think people like to share, humans are naturally expressive creatures. I think they want to be able to communicate along channels. the thought "dang my buddy needs to see this" Doesn't send a photo to all people marked friends.

And what happens when Google, say, begins to intercept our reactions as well as our attention? When the communications disciplines know not just what interests us, but what we individually desire and envy, and what specific images will provoke that?

So, yup: troubcited. :D

Uhh. I'm pretty sure Google can already do that stuff. LOL

Do you know that Google has programmed demographic information into its "search" algorithms? And then they plug-in your IP addy and subnet mask into that data? This is programmed to the extent that a person asking Google a question from, say, a trailer park in Hot Springs, South Dakota, will get a different "hit" page than somebody in Seattle?

And the way it keeps completing my sentences for me is getting downright scary. Especially after I have been online for awhile and it "learns" what the general gist of my surfing is. It can truly "learn" in this way.

(Of course I realize that "learn" is somewhat of a misnomer, as it is actually only incorporating 'self-writing" code and using feedback loops. But stil.....)
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:27:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This reminds me.....I have a question for you guys. (If I may be allowed to veer slightly off-topic for a moment).

I have noticed--as has probably anybody who spends a good deal of time Googling--that Google is by far and away the best Search Engine on the Internet. (Actiually a "meta-search" Engine).

I mean, it is absurdly better than the rest. I am talking, NBA vs. elementary schoolyard basketball better.

Why? When most other things in the Internet realm, as well as the OS and PC and any-other-realm of the PC biz is fairly competitive. But Google stands head and freakin' shoulders above the rest. (Bing is laughably inferior).

I have been told by a couple of IT guys that the reason is that Google holds certain crucial "search engine" algorithms patents. But I am not sure this is the whole story.

Perhaps one of you cats knows?

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:57:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:07:27 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:36:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I'm curious how this technique stacks up against the injectable mesh. http://www.nature.com...

I think this technology doesn't scale as easily in terms of number of sensors, because the mesh can't unravel and spread as easily among neural networks. There's also the chance that the mesh could get in the way of new synapses forming. Neural Dust at least only requires wireless connections between the sensor nodes. Still very cool. I think they could expand on this and maybe it will be viable for brain-computer interfacing in humans one day.

I don't think the mesh interferes with synaptic growth. The nerves can grow around and through the mesh.


Would you say implanted brain-computer interfaces would feed more or less on human nature?

Not as they are sold now no. Make it easier to do common tasks, accessibility to resources other non-enhanced humans won't have, finding sex faster ect.. haha those would be technologies fed by human nature.

An off switch would be useful at first, but I think ultimately the idea is that this would become like a new part of the brain. A neo-neocortex, or a technocortex, or something. At that stage, no one would want to turn it off.

I think the off switch is important. At least a secure airplane mode.

As I stated to Ruv's post. Synaptic growth and brain circuits are extremely adaptive plastic systems. instead of focusing on reading current brain patterns, have the technology meld with nerves and encourage growth.

For instance. maybe this dust can have a surface etched by a electron microscope, that can match with chemical receptors of a synapse. Now I know you think this is a pseudo-science but I think synapse growth begins with an electromagnetic signal before a chemical one. So I imagine the dust can emit a field that encourages it to be linked to by a nerve ending. The vibration of the dust can rotate or shake the etched surface into the nerve ending activating the ending and sending a signal. then shook again to turn the signaling off.

This way people won't think about clouds or the color purple to active a machine, but actually just think "activate machine". It will be as intuitive and seamless as raising one's arm.

by constructing the pathway with the brain we can forgo interpreting brain patterns.