|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:01 pm
Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. The 'rate of progress', as it were, is advancing at an unbeleivable rate.
"The paradigm-shift rate is doubling every decade. Thus the twentieth century was graduall speeding up to today's rate of progress; its achirvrments, therefore, were equivalent to about twenty years of progress at the rate in 2000. We'll make another twenty years of progress in just fourteen years (by 2014), and then do the same again in only seven years. TO express this another way, we won't experience one hundred years of technological advance in the twenty-first century, we'll witness on the order of tewnty thousand years of progress (again, by today's[2000] rate of progress) or, about one thousand times greater than what was acheived in the twentieth-century."
Simply by looking at past to advancment you can see this to be true.
Air gliders were first developed around 500 AD, in China by Lu Ban.
In december of 1903 the Wright brothers performed the first sucessfull manned air-flight (at a grand total of 12 seconds).
In 1961 Yuri Gagarin was the first human being to perform a manned space flight.
In 1969 Lance armstrong landed on the moon.
Since then we've pretty much abandoned advancment in spaceflight, except for the occasional machine to mars. But by looking at this you can see the trend of advancment. Most technology advanced like this. We had rudamentery technolgy for hundreds (or thousands) of years. Slow advancments were made. Suddenly, some great technological breakthrough was made (in this case, the Wright Brother's plane) and suddenly we advance by leaps and bounds.
This is true in nearly all areas of technology. In some seventy five years processors (for computers) have advanced so much that what used to take two city block's worth of equiptment can now be performed by a chip about 1/4 of an inch wide.
Technology will not only continue to advance at this rate, it will increase. Pretty soon, the world that we know and love will cease to exist. Humanity will perform a merger with machines, and a singularity will be acheived.
Some of you may be saying "This sounds like crappy science-fiction. We're never going to have technological ad-ons to our bodies."
Consider this. "Although impressive in many respects, the brain suffers from severe limitations. We use its massive parallelism (one hundred trillion interneuron connections opperating simultaniously) to quickly recongnise subtle patterns. But our thinking is extremely slow: the basic neural transactions are several million times slower than contemporary electronic circits. That makes our psychological bandwith for processing extremly limited compared to the exponential growth of the overall human knowledge base."
This means that although we may still process information more quickly than modern electronics soley because of our ability to perform multipul processes at once, the technology is faster at the individual processing. We've started making multi-processors for computers. Within fifty years (at most) machines will be able to think much more efficently than us.
Equal advancments in biotechnology (Alterations to our physical bodies using machines, or even replacement of body parts with machinery) are advancing at an equal rate.
Within on hundred years I garuntee that you will (at least be able to) have a mechanical brain, capable of storing and processing data in such large quantities that it is unfathaomable to our current minds.
Another thing.
In about twenty five years we should have nanomachines that are capable of altering molecular structures. This means that humanity will be able to re-shape physical reality to our will. We will be able to change thin air into gold.
A much more intruigeing aspect of this is that we will be able to nearly instantly repair any cellular damage to any portion of a human body. This means that humanity will effectivly become immortal.
Within one hundred years I predict that we will not only have acheived immortality and infinite youth, but will be able to think (and therefore advance) at unfathomable rates. We will be able to do pretty much anything our little mechanical hearts desire. Things we consider advanced now (editing DNA, for example) will be childsplay.
But to be on topic (how technology will change culture) I propose this. The advancments in technolgy will signifigantly change our culture (meaning every culture on earth.)
No one (and I do mean no one) will ever age or die without wanting to. It will be normal to see people (human beings, Homo Erectus) with skin like a lizards, teeth like a lions, or with odd appendages (gills, wings, ect...). People will never die, meaning an exponential growth of population. That may sound bad to you nature lovers (we'll ruin planet earth crying ) except for the face that any waste may be transformed into pure air.
After a while, when Terra becomes too crowded, we'll simply teraform another planet, which will be incredibly easy using nanotechnology.
In short, things that seem like magic (being able to transform into an animal, or cast a spell) are just around the bend by using technology. A bit after that we will effectivly become Gods, able to alter the universe to our will. You can see how that would change culture.
Nearer still is the complete loss of money. With anything instantly available to every person, there will be no need for coin or paper currency.
_-__-___--__--_
Well, I know that was kind of rambling, and a lot bit long, but you get the just of it. Technology is about to (figurativly) explode. Consider yourself lucky, mortal, for you will soon see the dawn of a new world.
Oh, and I suppose this is a "discussion" forum, so discuss these topics:
Is what I described feasable?
How will the world deal with immortality?
Will we reach a technological standstill. A wall which we can't advance beyond?
(More questions like that)?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:23 pm
I disagree on a few points. First of all, Japan, just recently was the first to attempt to gather samples from a comet and return with them (although whether or not they were successful I don't know yet) and they also invented a brand new propulsion method... all this after just starting in the space races. Also, I think technology is grinding to a halt for now, at least in electronics. Why do I say this? Simple. What's the smallest thing we have been able to document and manipulate? Atoms. Well, yes there may be subatomic particles such as gravitons and chronotons (I hope I live long enough to see them manipulated) but they are just theories. So, until we can discover and manipulate them (which will be a long time from now I'm quite sure) we are stuck with atoms, and scientists have been making things with atoms for years. As a matter of fact I believe it was much over a year ago they made the world's smallest motor out of a few dozen atoms. So using that technology we can make faster, better, more powerful technology, and we already have been, but we can't advance any further for a long time.
Also implanting technology in people has been going on for a long time now. I recall reading many years ago (around 5 maybe?) about a computer chip/transmitter imbedded in one's skull, that could control a computer mouse on a computer screen by using one's mind... and around the same time giving sight to the blind by attaching sensors to one's eye.
The thing is, we already have this technology, but there's one catch, the same that has been around forever... it's not publically feasable yet, and won't be for a long time, but most of this is already old news.
The more I read the more I find...
Nanobots won't come around for a LONG time. Why? Referring back to my previous point about subatomic particles, so far the worlds smallest motor is 1/30th of the width of a human hair, that's FAR too large to make a nanobot. Considering the most simplistic of them would require a transmitter/reciever, a motor for propelling itself, four electromagnets (at minimum) for steering, and many more motors/electromagnets for any functions for it to perform, not to mention a power source... that would all make a machine approximately the size of a human hair, which is far too large for anything we can't already do, and the smallest technology is able to make, and until we find a way of manipulating subatomic particles we can't make it any smaller... and even if we discovered them tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to manipulate them in 25 years, that's impossible.
Also if you read old science prediction articles, they said by now we'd be living like the jetsons. wink
lastly on the subject of immortality, there's one more setback to all good discoveries and ideas.. the government. Death is far too valuable to the government, it's the same reason all our cars are still running on gas instead of electricity, and they aren't supporting solar power, they'd lose too much money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:50 pm
I would just like to comment on two things. First, while technology does tend to increase at an exponential rate, it also tends to level off. In the example of flight, you can look to the last decade. While there had been exponential growth in aerodynamic technology, the last decade has seen negligible (comparitive) increase. Quote: Also implanting technology in people has been going on for a long time now. I recall reading many years ago (around 5 maybe?) about a computer chip/transmitter imbedded in one's skull, that could control a computer mouse on a computer screen by using one's mind... and around the same time giving sight to the blind by attaching sensors to one's eye. My second point is on this. This is completely false. While some may theorize about these ideas, they have never been implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:35 am
Ndoki
Good post, and it is good to keep a level head, but there are a few things that I need to correct.
First off (as you mentioned), particles such as gravitons and chronotons are theoretical. There is no evidence that suggests that there is any particle like a chronoton. And while there is evidence that suggests the existence of a graviton-like particle, there are a few fundamental problems with it. And even if there were gravitons, they need not be altered for these techonlogies to work since gravity is one of the weakest (albiet, farthest reaching) forces in the universe. Magnatism greatly overpowers it, and since the three main components of the universe (Proton, Nutron, Electron) deal in magnatism, not gravity, there's no need for worry.
As for the feasable size of a nano bot, and the size of the smallest motor.
Dr Alex Zettl of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California (along with his team) has, as of 2003, created a motor 250 times smaller than a human hair. And it's not even the smallest nanodevice that we have, just the smallest motor. As you can see, if in 2003 we can make a motor this size, a machine of equal porportions will soon follow.
The simple fact is that DNA has been doing for God-knows-how-many thousands of years what we're just acheiving. A strand of DNA is 2 nanometers across (I do beleive). We're starting to build machines of equivilant size. Give it twenty or thirty years, and I garuntee you that our machines will make DNA look like Shaq compared to Mini Me, and then some.
Also, implanting technology in people has been happening, (For instance, pacemakers), but this is more about implanting people into technology. See, the goal isn't to make the machine and addition to the person, but a part of the person, a required peice of the whole. It will happen soon enough. We're already have working, albiet external, hearts, lungs, and kidneys, and we've had them for years. It won't be too long before a doctor creates an internal one. Then it's only a matter of time before the machines become more complex, smarter, and more efficient than organic parts.
On to nanobots. You're correct in noting that the first ones would be rather large, but so were the first cellphones. And we have the capability to make one of those smaller those about fifty times smaller than they are (Though it's not practical, considering you wouldn't be able to push any buttons.)
But I've already come up with a solution (though it is just an idea, so far, and therefore very rudamentery.) Since they would be taking protons and electrons away from some a lot of atoms in order to change the substance there will obviously be left-over protons and electrons. You must simply find a way to use those as a source of power for the machine as a whole.
This is the most intruguing part of the post, simply because I wholly agree with you. I do agree that the government would never allow the technology to be released as I have presented it. But if a scientise were to approach the government with a technology that allowed its troops to live forever, the goverment would jump at the chance. After all, immortal troops are the ultimate wet dream for any leader.
All though, I must note one thing, about the gas in cars issue. There is a new technology (though the name slips my mind, I'll have to look it up) that allows cars to run off of... water. A single gallon would last (I do beleive) five hundred miles. Not only that, but it's perfectly environmentally safe. It uses HHO as a combustion material, which (when a reaction occours) returns to H20. It is then re-devided into HHO by a unique form of electralisys, making it re-useable.
Also, there are several perpetual-motion devices capable of generating excess energy, therefore making them better alternatives for power sources.
You see, the reason I posted all of this is because I wanted to get an idea on the public perception of these technologies, should they come to exist. And ideas on how to make them possible.
The reason I do this is becasue I intend to be part of the happening. I'm going into college for nanotechnology, and I sincerly beleive that I will be part of the team that creates the first true nanobot (capable of altering matter). If I am, I don't intend to sell my product, I intend to use it. Not for anything like world domination (which would be entirly possible, considering you'd be able to create armies from thin air) but to grant immortality to the human race.
I plan on doing this without warning. One day people will die, the next they won't.
Of course, I concede that this is all grandure and wishes, but I have to start somewhere. smile
zz1000zz
You are correct that technology does tend to level out, but only when there is no feasable place to go. The technological increase will continue until well past the technologies that I've predicted, just the way that the technology of flight went past what the Wright brothers accomplished. I have no doubt that some day we will reach an upper limit to our current abilitied. I also have no doubt that we will eventuall renew our creationism and continue upwards. It's a case of "Nothing good can last forever" along with a bit of "Everything comes full-circle."
The advancing will die, then it will be born again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:59 am
zz1000zz, did I ever say it was implimented? No, but it has been invented, which makes it old news. Good to see you keeping up.
And DieiNoctis, I may have gotten my numbers mixed up, all I know is that they were working on the atomic level, and the motor was about a dozen or so atoms wide (I can't remember how many exactly) but I shall try to dig up my article about it if I still have it lying around. As for subatomic particles, the point is that nanobots need to be made out of matter, and so far atoms are far too large, yet the smallest form of matter we can manipulate into creating machines. It's not about the fact that gravity is used, and has nothing to do with gravtity... I'll give you an example. Say you stuck straws into a bunch of oranges and made a pyramid. This pyramid however, is way too big for what you need it for, so instead you switch to sticking grapes together with toothpicks. It's still too big though, you need a smaller pyramid, so what is smaller than grapes? Well in this example instead of oranges we have, say, a tiny tiny piece of metal. In the past tiny machines were made by etching metal, now that's too big, so instead of switching to grapes, we have switched to building machines out of atoms. Atoms are still too big though, and we so far have nothing that we can use as a material that is smaller than atoms to make machines out of... that's where subatomic particles come in... they are the only particles smaller than an atom that we are aware of (albeit theoretically) and since we cannot prove they exist, have never been able to see them in a lab, and cannot combine them in our own ways to form machines or basic structures, we cannot use them, so we are stick with atoms, and atoms are far too large right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:15 am
zz1000zz Quote: Also implanting technology in people has been going on for a long time now. I recall reading many years ago (around 5 maybe?) about a computer chip/transmitter imbedded in one's skull, that could control a computer mouse on a computer screen by using one's mind... and around the same time giving sight to the blind by attaching sensors to one's eye. My second point is on this. This is completely false. While some may theorize about these ideas, they have never been implemented. On a side note, it has been used, however, to a far lesser degree. Seizure patients commonly have diode-fields implanted in the brains to moniter their brain activity. A year or two ago, scientists had an experiment to see if a person could play a basic version of pong using their mind, the signals transmitted using the monitering equipment. Of the five or so patients who were tested on, only about one was able to figure out how to do it. Most patients tried to think the word "up" expecting that the paddle would move as though commanded; it didn't work. The patient who did get it to work claimed that it was more like using a muscle; when moving your hand, you don't think "hand, go up" "hand, go down". You just make your hand go up and down through reflex. The move the paddle, he had to do that. However, this technology is far from "controlling a computer with your brain". For one thing, only one in five people understood it. For another thing, it was pong. If only one in five people can figure out how to do pong, what is the likelihood that someone could operate a full computer? Also, to be able to use this in the first place, you'd have to get (potentially dangerous) brain surgery to implement the diode field onto your brain, then you'd need a a team of scientists to operate the expensive hardware. So, to sum it all up, it's within possible grasp of the next 30 or so years, however, it's going to be a long while before it becomes a common thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:30 pm
Ndoki
We only need to work with atoms. I mean, that's what the universe is comprised of.
If we could create a machine that's, let's say, fifty atoms of... gold (just for size) It would be, approximatly 6.750 nanometers. This is about three times larger than a single strand of DNA.
A machine this size could, hypothetically, manipulate and alter DNA.
Now, if we're working at these small of levels, the machine, with propper programing, could create another, smaller machine out of another molecule, it wouldn't even have to be fewer molocules, just smaller ones. We might be able to bring the size down to under 1 Nm using a process like thins (machines replicating smaller machines), and into the Picometer rage. Anything withing the picometer range should be able to alter pretty much any subatomic particle.
Using an example:
A human adult walks up to a structure about 10 in high, made out of legos. The human reaches down, seperates the legos, and re-combines them in the way that s/he sees fit. The lego structure remains fundementally unaltered, but servers a different purpose than the origionally.
This is the same sort of thing as a Nanomachine tearing apart a molecule and re-structuring it. The machine can be larger than the molecule, up to a point, and still be able to relativly easily alter it.
GilAskan
True, it isn't commercially feasible, at our current technological ability. But as we map out the brain, we're figurign out how it works.
Let's say that in... fourty years, someone successfully creates a nanobot capable of altering things of DNA size and larger. Well, it might be that only 1 of 5 people grasps the technology, but we could moniter the process of recognition in the brain of that 1 person, and forcibly impliment it in the other 4. In short, with small enough machines, you could teach people without them having to actually learn. Knowledge could be shared through physical alteration to the brain, instead of through words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:57 pm
It could alter DNA MAYBE, but it couldn't alter atoms... and last I checked viruses and diseases and cancers aren't always just a matter of DNA..
Also machines making smaller machines is still based off the idea there's something smaller for them to manipulate. If you have a minimally built machine, with the smallest particles known to man, you can't make one smaller without skipping some of the parts needed. To continue on your story, a nanobot would be made out of a few legos, one lego for the propellant, a few for steering, a few more for the transmitter/reciever, even more for the components to translate the signal.. etc. You can't use the same legos to make something smaller because they are already as small as they can get. And yes the machine may be able to be a little larger, but coming from a heavy background in electronics and robotics, assuming you could make every part out of one atom each, the machine would still be huge compared to a single atom. The motors may be able to be relatively small (possibly around a dozen atoms wide) but the components to translate signals, the parts needed to power the machine, the transmitter, etc, would all take a ton. I mean open up a walkman and look at how many components, wires, transisters, etc. there are in it, and yet they are incredibly simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:25 pm
Ok, I found a few articles. Firstly, the world's smallest motor by paul eisenstein december 2003. I won't type it all up since it's a few pages.. but I'll see what I can do. It also seems I'm one zero off, but it doesn't matter IMO.
"Using a gold rotor mounted atop a carbon nanotube shaft, the smallest synthetic motor ever made measures just 500 nanometers across-about 300 times smaller than the width of a human hair."
"Nanomotors would be built atom by atom and molecule by molecule. It will be years before they can be produced in quantity."
So there we can see they state it will be years before they can even mass produce them, and even then they'll still have to design/build the rest of the nanobot, which would take much longer, and then have the final designs mass produced? 25 years isn't even close, I'd wager it would be more like 150 years, depending on funding.
Also, more time will be spent trying to figure out what to do with it in the first place:
"What to do with the new nanomotor is another issue, and one that researchers have yet to figure out. "For me it's so far off I can't really pinpoint where it could go," concedes Adam Fennimore, one of the graduate students on the Zettl research team."
Also as an interesting side note, at the same time, the world's smallest power supply was .08x1.45 inches. I think it'll be some time before they'll make one small enough for a nanobot. wink
Also, the other article I was referring to I found as well.
zz1000zz, like I said, OLD NEWS. About 7 years to be more precise.
July 1999
Thoughts control a computer
Several teams of biomedical enigneers have proven that computers can be controlled directly with thoughts. Dr. Roy Bakay and Dr. Phillip Kennedy of Emory University implanted a glass cone into a patient's brain at the atlanta veterans affairs medical center. A nerve growth agent prompted neurons to link up to electrodes. Their patient then was able to move a cursor across the computer screenand point at icons with messages such as "See you later. Nice talking to with you," or ones indicating he was hungry or thirsty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:15 pm
Ndoki Also, the other article I was referring to I found as well. zz1000zz, like I said, OLD NEWS. About 7 years to be more precise. July 1999 Thoughts control a computer Several teams of biomedical enigneers have proven that computers can be controlled directly with thoughts. Dr. Roy Bakay and Dr. Phillip Kennedy of Emory University implanted a glass cone into a patient's brain at the atlanta veterans affairs medical center. A nerve growth agent prompted neurons to link up to electrodes. Their patient then was able to move a cursor across the computer screenand point at icons with messages such as "See you later. Nice talking to with you," or ones indicating he was hungry or thirsty. If you are going to use a source, you could at least have the decency to cite it. I suppose it really does not matter from which newpaper you got this, as quite a few had articles about it. Slight problem. These are newspapers. They are not scientific. They are not journals held in high regard for scientific discoveries. They do not study the subject. They do not monitor the scientific process. Indeed, they have no credibility in determining accurate scientific information. If you want to say this actually happened, try this. Find some scientific source. Find an article in a science journal that discusses this. Do that, and maybe it will have some credibility. Until then, it is nothing more than unsubstantiated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:27 pm
zz1000zz Ndoki Also, the other article I was referring to I found as well. zz1000zz, like I said, OLD NEWS. About 7 years to be more precise. July 1999 Thoughts control a computer Several teams of biomedical enigneers have proven that computers can be controlled directly with thoughts. Dr. Roy Bakay and Dr. Phillip Kennedy of Emory University implanted a glass cone into a patient's brain at the atlanta veterans affairs medical center. A nerve growth agent prompted neurons to link up to electrodes. Their patient then was able to move a cursor across the computer screenand point at icons with messages such as "See you later. Nice talking to with you," or ones indicating he was hungry or thirsty. If you are going to use a source, you could at least have the decency to cite it. I suppose it really does not matter from which newpaper you got this, as quite a few had articles about it. Slight problem. These are newspapers. They are not scientific. They are not journals held in high regard for scientific discoveries. They do not study the subject. They do not monitor the scientific process. Indeed, they have no credibility in determining accurate scientific information. If you want to say this actually happened, try this. Find some scientific source. Find an article in a science journal that discusses this. Do that, and maybe it will have some credibility. Until then, it is nothing more than unsubstantiated. You really never stop do you? Where did I say I got any of it from a newspaper? You want me to check a scientific journal? What about popular mechanics? Since that IS where I got it from. rofl rofl rofl Besides, they don't have to 'monitor the scientific progress'. The point was it was invented, and a long time ago already. Oh yeah, and not everything in newspapers is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:29 pm
Ndoki zz1000zz Ndoki Also, the other article I was referring to I found as well. zz1000zz, like I said, OLD NEWS. About 7 years to be more precise. July 1999 Thoughts control a computer Several teams of biomedical enigneers have proven that computers can be controlled directly with thoughts. Dr. Roy Bakay and Dr. Phillip Kennedy of Emory University implanted a glass cone into a patient's brain at the atlanta veterans affairs medical center. A nerve growth agent prompted neurons to link up to electrodes. Their patient then was able to move a cursor across the computer screenand point at icons with messages such as "See you later. Nice talking to with you," or ones indicating he was hungry or thirsty. If you are going to use a source, you could at least have the decency to cite it. I suppose it really does not matter from which newpaper you got this, as quite a few had articles about it. Slight problem. These are newspapers. They are not scientific. They are not journals held in high regard for scientific discoveries. They do not study the subject. They do not monitor the scientific process. Indeed, they have no credibility in determining accurate scientific information. If you want to say this actually happened, try this. Find some scientific source. Find an article in a science journal that discusses this. Do that, and maybe it will have some credibility. Until then, it is nothing more than unsubstantiated. You really never stop do you? Where did I say I got any of it from a newspaper? You want me to check a scientific journal? What about popular mechanics? Since that IS where I got it from. rofl rofl rofl I said newspapers because they are one of the few groups who published about this. As for Popular Mechanics, it is the same as newspapers in lacking validity. Quote: Besides, they don't have to 'monitor the scientific progress'. The point was it was invented, and a long time ago already. And your proof is an article in Popular Mechanics? Something this monumental would require a bit more than that. Simply saying it was invented is not enough, especially when there is no physical evidence to support that claim. Quote: Oh yeah, and not everything in newspapers is wrong. But some things are. Until i see some scientific review of this "technology," there is no reason for me to believe it. Without peer review, it is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:39 pm
GilAskan zz1000zz Quote: Also implanting technology in people has been going on for a long time now. I recall reading many years ago (around 5 maybe?) about a computer chip/transmitter imbedded in one's skull, that could control a computer mouse on a computer screen by using one's mind... and around the same time giving sight to the blind by attaching sensors to one's eye. My second point is on this. This is completely false. While some may theorize about these ideas, they have never been implemented. On a side note, it has been used, however, to a far lesser degree. Seizure patients commonly have diode-fields implanted in the brains to moniter their brain activity. A year or two ago, scientists had an experiment to see if a person could play a basic version of pong using their mind, the signals transmitted using the monitering equipment. Of the five or so patients who were tested on, only about one was able to figure out how to do it. Most patients tried to think the word "up" expecting that the paddle would move as though commanded; it didn't work. The patient who did get it to work claimed that it was more like using a muscle; when moving your hand, you don't think "hand, go up" "hand, go down". You just make your hand go up and down through reflex. The move the paddle, he had to do that. However, this technology is far from "controlling a computer with your brain". For one thing, only one in five people understood it. For another thing, it was pong. If only one in five people can figure out how to do pong, what is the likelihood that someone could operate a full computer? Also, to be able to use this in the first place, you'd have to get (potentially dangerous) brain surgery to implement the diode field onto your brain, then you'd need a a team of scientists to operate the expensive hardware. So, to sum it all up, it's within possible grasp of the next 30 or so years, however, it's going to be a long while before it becomes a common thing. The only reference to anything like this i could find so far was an experiment in 2004. Scientists from the Fraunhofer Society using fMRI used real-time scanning to allow two people to play each other in pong. However, this was a non-invasive procedure which had no implantation involved. The biggest proponent of brain-computer interfaces in the last decade has been Miguel Nicolelis. Even he has only used invasive procedures in monkeys and other animals. Indeed, he has made a good deal of progress with his experiments, but it has never been tried on humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:04 pm
Nice try, having seein how you choose to act I know it wouldn't matter if someone waved one in your face you'd still deny it. Popular mechanics is probably the most valid thing I have ever seen considering about 80% of the things in it I have seen with my own eyes. Nice try though, but you saying it's not proof doesn't mean it isn't, that just means you're in denial because otherwise you'd have to admit you're wrong which I know you'd never do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:14 pm
Ndoki Nice try, having seein how you choose to act I know it wouldn't matter if someone waved one in your face you'd still deny it. Popular mechanics is probably the most valid thing I have ever seen considering about 80% of the things in it I have seen with my own eyes. Nice try though, but you saying it's not proof doesn't mean it isn't, that just means you're in denial because otherwise you'd have to admit you're wrong which I know you'd never do. Uh-huh. Because i ask for peer reviewed scientific data supporting a monumental claim i am in denial? That makes no sense to me, but fine. It is obvious to me the two of us will not be able to hold any actual discussions, so i will refrain from responding to you as much as i can. If you can find actual evidence to support your claims, i would be greatly interested in reading it, but otherwise i see no need for further communication. Goodbye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
