New brain, sir?

[Underemployed]

The world's first brain prosthesis - an artificial hippocampus - is about to be tested in California. Unlike devices like cochlear implants, which merely stimulate brain activity, this silicon chip implant will perform the same processes as the damaged part of the brain it is replacing.

The prosthesis will first be tested on tissue from rats' brains, and then on live animals. If all goes well, it will then be tested as a way to help people who have suffered brain damage due to stroke, epilepsy or Alzheimer's disease. (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993488)

My first response to this was

:eek: :eek: AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!:eek: :eek:

But then I thought about it some more and went

:eek: :eek: AAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGHHHHHHHHH!:eek: :eek:

Help, Mr. Wizard! I don't want to live in the future any more!

:eek:

[garys_2k]

Expect an animal "rights" excoriation momentarily...

Cool research, though!

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by garys_2k
Expect an animal "rights" excoriation momentarily...

Cool research, though!

hell yeah that is cool. Soon we can start getting Cyberware implants, Data Jacks, Boosted Reflexes, all that cool crap.


Maybe eventually we will replace a whole brain!

[Kiri]

On the other hand, I know a couple of people for whom ANY such prosthesis would be an improvement.

[arcticpenguin]

I'm wondering, is this scheduled to appear in hte April issue of New Scientist?

[LucyR]

Originally posted by garys_2k
Expect an animal "rights" excoriation momentarily...


Judging by your style, I assume you believe that the concept of animal "rights" is less meaningful than that of human "rights". If so, would you mind explaining why?

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by LucyR


Judging by your style, I assume you believe that the concept of animal "rights" is less meaningful than that of human "rights". If so, would you mind explaining why?
Not really, there'd be no point. Go ahead and tell us why this is another example of institutionalized torture and get it off your chest. You'll feel much better then, having enlightened us all.

[rwald]

Are we actually surpassing Star Trek-level technology? I mean, all those nuts who talk about becoming "post-humans" may have a point after all.

[garys_2k]

I'm sure this will lead to revolutionary treatments for many brain injuries and diseases, perhaps even allow spine-damaged people to regain the use of their limbs.

This may be one of those things people will read about in a hundred years, recognizing it (like mapping the genome) as truly the dawn of a new era. I'm amazed.

[espritch]

The work was funded by the US National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Does anyone else besides me find it a little disturbing that this research is being funded by the Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency rather than, say, the Department of Health? Why would this work be relevant to Naval Defense? :confused:

[The Fool]

"I'm sorry sir but jobs are not available to people with your brain version, you will need to be upgraded"

great...everyone will have to pay Bill Gates great grandson for a brain upgrade every 2 years.......

[spoonhandler]

This sounds ambitious - I won't hold my breath on the outcome.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

esprich,

Does anyone else besides me find it a little disturbing that this research is being funded by the Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency rather than, say, the Department of Health? Why would this work be relevant to Naval Defense?

Not at all. The ONR is one of the largest funders of pure scientific research in the US. They fund all sorts of stuff that does not have what would be considered "direct" military applications. Unlike most corporations, they realize that one can never estimate the potential benefit of "pure research".

Even so, the majority of their funding does go to stuff with direct military applications, but they recognize that any field of research, no matter how abstract it may seem, could lead to a major breakthrough.

Incidentally, my own PhD research, which primarily concerned with trying to understand how electrosensory receptors in marine life work, was funded by the ONR. I am sure you could try to find some tangential link with military applications there, but the same could be said for this work. Bottom line: They funded it because it seemed likely that it could give some insight into a fundamental aspect of nature.

Dr. Stupid

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by sundog
Help, Mr. Wizard! I don't want to live in the future any more! Maybe you won't have a choice.

Some predict that, as a result of self-replicating nanotechnology and computational singularity, we will all disappear in a flash within the next century.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by espritch


Does anyone else besides me find it a little disturbing that this research is being funded by the Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency rather than, say, the Department of Health? Why would this work be relevant to Naval Defense? :confused:
I can imagine a non-chilling direct military use for this type of technology: injury recovery. How many brain trauma victims can be saved from all sorts of injuries, or life in a vegetative state, with this type of technology?

I truly hope it works out and that progress can be made. I believe we are living in exciting times, and I mean that in a GOOD way!

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Maybe you won't have a choice.

Some predict that, as a result of self-replicating nanotechnology and computational singularity, we will all disappear in a flash within the next century.

It's not so much that their predicting Humanity will disappear but rather that the ever increasing pace of technological change will draw the prediction horizon closer, not to say that in the future people won't disappear or be transformed into something else.

Most predictions expect to reach the singularity in 30 to 50 years.

Not that I'm holding my breath in anticipation, but I am content to see what happens.

The predictions are based on superimposing a series of S curves describing the appearance, rapid mastery of, and saturation of a given technology. If you superimpose a series of S curves you end up with an asymptotic curve reaching toward infinity at an ever increasing rate.

[Dragonrock]

This reminds me of the Michael Chriton novel The Terminal Man. In it, the hero had a chip implanted to fix a brain problem, I think it was dyslexia or stuttering rather than brain damage, and certain unsavory people used this chip to control him and make him kill people.

The important thing with this new chip is make sure there's no antennae sticking out of your head to allow people to run you through remote control.

[Mark]

I have one question: will there be "pop-ups?" :D

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by Mark
I have one question: will there be "pop-ups?" :D
No, that's from a different kind of implant. ;)

[Alaric]

Im sorry but could you explain what was meant about Knowledge/humanity going towards a singularity? Im lost.

[Agammamon]

A better graphical metaphor is the spike. If you look at an asymptotic curve it starts off relatively flat, but over time curves upward sharply, eventually rising straight up like a spike. The curve measures our technological level over time. As you follow the curve from time1 to time2 you increase in tech level by (oh lets say) X. However from t2 to t3 ( the same interval as 1 to t2) you increase by 2x. and from t3 to t4 you increase by 4x. The gist is that (theoretically) over a given time the rate of increase of technology increases exponentially, eventually reaching infinity within a finite time frame.

Now before the screaming starts, let me say that yes, there could be an unknown factor that limits technological growth. But that is the essence of prediction. You take what you know and extrapolate into the future. The reason the singularity prevents this is that tech change is eventually happening in the order of months, days, even minutes. By the time you have completed a prediction, thing can change so much to render your prediction invalid.

[BillyJoe]

Agammamon,

I was referring to the "empty planet syndrome".

The idea is that a combination of self-replicating nanotechnology and computational singularity could make it possible that a machine could evolve that could grant your every wish - just by thinking about it. Considering the nature of our hidden desires, this could lead to total annihilation of our planet within a single night. We could never hope to control these machines because, in order for them to reach the singularity, they would necessarily have to evolve far beyond our capacity to understand them.

Runaway technology at its most nightmarish.

[Graham]

I have a question for y'all about the part where it says:

While trials on monkeys will tell us a lot about the prosthesis's performance, there are some questions that will not be answered. For example, it is unclear whether we have any control over what we remember. If we do, would brain implants of the future force some people to remember things they would rather forget?

I think what they are saying is that a artificial "brain" would be infallible and thus a person with an artificial brain would be forced to remember everything.

Thinking about it though, there are two factors that prevent us from remembering things:

1) Age & decay of our brains (or brain damage from, say, an accident)

2) Deliberate suppression of unpleasant memories

I would say that (1) is a physiological function which would be eliminated by the artificial brain (and that would be a good thing, IMO) but (2) is a psychological function which would not necessarily be affected.

Does anyone see a counter-argument to this or a flaw in my logic?

Graham

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by Graham
I have a question for y'all about the part where it says:



I think what they are saying is that a artificial "brain" would be infallible and thus a person with an artificial brain would be forced to remember everything.

Thinking about it though, there are two factors that prevent us from remembering things:

1) Age & decay of our brains (or brain damage from, say, an accident)

2) Deliberate suppression of unpleasant memories

I would say that (1) is a physiological function which would be eliminated by the artificial brain (and that would be a good thing, IMO) but (2) is a psychological function which would not necessarily be affected.

Does anyone see a counter-argument to this or a flaw in my logic?

Graham
It would depend on how #2 happens. If it's a form of self-imposed deterioration, perhaps it would have to be specifically allowed for. I'd imagine that any "sanity preservation" system would have to permit a certain amount of memory suppression.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Graham
I think what they are saying is that a artificial "brain" would be infallible No.

An artificial brain must necessarily be based on heuristic algorithms and, as such, would be as fallible as our own brains regardless of whether or not it had one hundred percent reliable memory.
The only alternative is "brute strength" algorithms and they cannot run in "real time'.

[neutrino_cannon]

Fun! Cybernetics... and all the associated advantages.

I suppose, inversely, it might be interesting to make a computer out of neurons.

[Agammamon]

You've already got one in your head.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Fun! Cybernetics... and all the associated advantages.

I suppose, inversely, it might be interesting to make a computer out of neurons.

Or, we could build a holographic computer using the patterning of a human brain, maybe we could use an executed criminal for our donor.