Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Upgrades Hardware

DARPA Working on Spidey Sense for Soldiers 191

anti-human 1 writes to tell us Wired is reporting that DARPA is developing a new optics system to help soldiers identify threats earlier. "The most far-reaching component of the binocs has nothing to do with the optics: it's Darpa's aspirations to integrate EEG electrodes that monitor the wearer's neural signals, cueing soldiers to recognize targets faster than the unaided brain could on its own. The idea is that EEG can spot 'neural signatures' for target detection before the conscious mind becomes aware of a potential threat or target. [...] In other words, like Spiderman's 'spider sense', a soldier could be alerted to danger that his or her brain had sensed, but not yet had time to process."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DARPA Working on Spidey Sense for Soldiers

Comments Filter:
  • by LighterShadeOfBlack ( 1011407 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @12:57PM (#18958841) Homepage

    I was reading a military close quarters combat manual and they made reference to a "sixth sense". It stated explicitly NOT to look directly at the enemy before you walk up to them and kill them silently one way or another. You are supposed to look at the ground by their feet and not think about them before you "off" them.
    - Of course you shouldn't be looking directly at them. You should be looking at the path between you and them. If you walk up to someone while staring directly ahead you're more likely to stand on something loudly or trip or generally fuck up your silent approach. As for thinking about them, well it's generally not a good idea to concentrate too much on someone you're about to kill. The more you think about them the more real and human they become.

    It is amazing to me how many people do not believe that we have a sixth sense, the ability to know someone is looking at you even though they are not in your field of vision. I have yet to see science explain this...
    - I've yet to see anyone come up with a reliable and objective experiment that provided any evidence of a "sixth sense". Science can't explain something that hasn't been empirically observed.
  • by nuzak ( 959558 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @01:01PM (#18958911) Journal
    It is amazing to me how many people do not believe that we have a sixth sense, the ability to know someone is looking at you even though they are not in your field of vision. I have yet to see science explain this...

    Science doesn't have to explain it. That part comes after proving that it actually exists.
  • by krbvroc1 ( 725200 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @01:08PM (#18959047)
    You sure thats not called a conscience? I would think removing the 'personal' factor and dehumanizing your enemy, you might reduce some combat stress and guilt that you just killed another human being. I wonder if this recommendation is more for mental health reasons or perhaps for both.

    I kinda have a 'sixth sense' that someone is staring at this post right now.
  • by lawaetf1 ( 613291 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @01:08PM (#18959049)
    For the life of me I can't find the article but there was a recent publication about how soldiers don't like all this high-tech gear. And I can imagine why. Outside of body armor (and soldiers say there's such a thing as too much) and good communication a lot of this junk is over-hyped whiteboard warrior stuff that gobbles up billions of dollars of DoD R&D.

    Within the article:

    "It's unclear what the final system will look like." but "Darpa says it expects to have prototypes in the hands of soldiers in three years."

    Sure. It's like the Popular Science covers of the 1960s "Flying cars tomorrow! Pick your model today!"

    If we really want to helps soldiers brains, help them come back from a bogus war with fewer instances of PTSD and other psychological damage.
  • As for thinking about them, well it's generally not a good idea to concentrate too much on someone you're about to kill. The more you think about them the more real and human they become.

    True about entire societies. The more evolved, the truer — one may even perish completely, when confronted by another, which manages to concentrate on the mission of killing the enemy, instead of "seeing his side".

  • by StressGuy ( 472374 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @01:14PM (#18959133)
    Also called "Dysfunction of Sensory Integration". It's a neurological condition where the brain has difficulty putting certain sensory signals "in the background". Say, for example, you put on a wristwatch this morning. Eventually your brain goes "OK...wrist watch...left arm...I get it", and you stop becomming constantly aware of the watch. You know it's there, the nerves in your arm can still detect it, but the brain pushes it into the background because it does not need to keep reminding you it's there.

    A tactile DSI, would always feel like they just put that watch on, it can be quite irritating after a while. Tactile DSIs often do things like cut tags off of thier clothing and take other such steps to minimize the sensory overload they are exposed to.

    I'm an auditory DSI, I have a hard time blocking out background noise and often times, it competes with what I should be paying attention to. My work-around is to wear wireless full-coverage headphones that pipe in soft classical music. Thus, I reduce the distractions to a single source that is easy to manage.

    These days however, I have an office so I can also just close my door.

    Based upon my experience, I say this won't work like they hope it will.
  • Book: Blink (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZirbMonkey ( 999495 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @01:40PM (#18959497)
    Everyone has a sixth sense about making split second decisions. Professional soldiers who've been in combat situations over their life gain subcontious instincts that let them spot things that "don't seem right." But this is experience one gains over time from encountering lots of examples.

    This technology would merely make your subcontious more contious. But it doesn't tell you anything that you don't already know. Green recruits dropped into combat with this technology wouldn't get any use out of it, since they don't have the experience to understand what to look for. And all it would do to senior soldiers is confirm their already itching suspicions.

    http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without /dp/0316172324 [amazon.com]

    It's an interesting idea, especially for scientific purposes of visualizing what goes through a soldier's mind during combat. You get the possibility of mapping the subcontious in a visual way. But I have a strong feeling this tech will never make it on a practical side.
  • by airhed13 ( 732958 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @01:42PM (#18959551)
    In those spider situations, I always figured the bugger'd been crawling on my face and spun back up above my head when it realized I was waking up and moving around. The light pitter-patter of spider shoes has woken me up from a deep sleep more than once in my life. I just count myself lucky that I woke up before it crawled into my mouth.
  • by God'sDuck ( 837829 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @02:05PM (#18959925)
    And even if it were confirmed, there would be a better-than-reasonable chance that some primitive part of our brain processes input coming from peripheral vision, and sorts it for input that might correspond to potential threats -- like "pairs of eyes directed directly at our tasty flesh."
  • by mike2R ( 721965 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @02:17PM (#18960121)

    Pick someone, anyone, out of a crowd, on the highway (not recommended if you are driving), etc., from who you are out of their field of view. Stare at them intensely for a few seconds. Direct a strong emotion towards them if you can -- hate, fear, rage, etc. I guarantee you that most of them will look back at you nervously. It may not work for everyone because some people are less aware of their '6th sense' than others.

    Then get scientific evidence for it: Make absolutely sure that the observer cannot affect the environment of the subject in any way, and record the results.

    All sorts of EMP studies have been tried, and there is still no evidence for it. Given how easy it would be to get evidence if it did work, I think the only conclusion has to be that it doesn't.

    My own opinion of this sort of anecdotal evidence is that 1) it is very startling when someone who you are sure cannot see you looking at them turns and looks at you (hence we tend to remember it as important event), 2) it's not very remarkable when people don't turn when you are looking at them (so we tend to forget it), and 3) our brains very very good at making connections between tiny bits of sensory data and the possibility that someone is looking at us (so in our everyday lives we are likely to see a bias towards people noticing us watching them).

  • by mangu ( 126918 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @02:22PM (#18960225)
    Shouldn't someone try this experiment already and either kill the myth or find out it is not that much of a myth?


    When people want to believe in something extraordinary there's no way an experiment, no matter how well performed, will convince them of the contrary. They will always assume the experiment itself was faulty in some way.


    It seems that for some people the need to believe in something is so strong it overrides reason.

  • by suitepotato ( 863945 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @02:42PM (#18960593)
    As for thinking about them, well it's generally not a good idea to concentrate too much on someone you're about to kill. The more you think about them the more real and human they become.

    This is what separates normal people from sociopaths and it isn't a good thing to head down that road. You should think about what you're doing, who you're doing it to, and be able to do it anyways and deal with the thoughts of it later. This is what it is to fight in the most limited way and not come to enjoying the killing, but only do what is necessary when necessary. Dehumanizing objectification has allowed people throughout history to do things to people that they ordinarily would never have done.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:54PM (#18961731)
    "It seems that for some people the need to believe in something is so strong it overrides reason."

    Like you believe that experiments are infallible.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:59PM (#18961817)
    When people refuse to believe in something extraordinary there's no way an experiment, no matter how well performed, will convince them of the contrary. They will always assume the experiment itself was faulty in some way.

    It seems that for some people the need to believe in something is so strong it overrides reason.

    Whoops, turned that around on ya, huh.
  • by WilliamSChips ( 793741 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ytinifni.lluf'> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @07:36PM (#18965143) Journal

    Really? So the successful hiring of clairvoyants by Police all over the world doesn't count?
    Can you give me an example of that outside of a television show?

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Working...