Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Of course, there are many other possibilities for direct interface that
> do not require neurosurgery. Using nanotech for linkages without normal
Okay, so neurosurgery is too hard, let's do nano? Thanks for a laugh, I
really needed one today ;)
> surgery is one of course. Another might be some form of deep memory
Of course, medical nanotechnology is significantly harder the one churning
raw computronium out by the mole. Mature nanotechnology is thus incompatible
with continued existance of meat people, and hence makes speculations about
nontrivial CNS I/O implants seem like rather like a treatment on the
molecular structure of the unicorn's horn, or cryptozoology proceedings
on the applied proteomics of the common mermaid.
> sensing and input signalling that is a future outgrowth of the most
> advanced work in field now.
If you're willing to live docked inside a massive, expensive device,
sure. (I don't want to see your bills for teleoperation, though).
The bitrates you can get from noninvasive imaging are rather low,
unfortunately. The technology can't provide an all-resolving fix
to an ultimately physical problem. As long as you mince around the
perimeter you'll never get a good lock at what's happening inside.
> Input into the visual cortex is not all that difficult or dangerous and
> will be less so a very few years down the road.
Um, have you ever lived with a skin portal of any kind? Have you ever
asked your health insurance whether they finance frivolous multielectrode
> In the meantime much of the necessary software can be built and field
> tested and many of the benefits can be gained by ubiquitous and wearable
Wearables and augmented reality will indeed become very big, and precisely
because they don't require any messy brain surgery nor Ragnar0k-class
technology like molecular manufacturing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:46 MDT