Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Science

The Future of Mind Control of Physical Objects 176

mattnyc99 writes A month ago we discussed the accomplishment when researchers got monkeys to feed themselves with a robotic arm controlled by their brains. But after all the recent successful experiments with brain-computer interfaces, will the technology ever make it out of the lab and into hospitals — or even into our hands, for the closest thing imaginable to The Force? Popular Mechanics takes a look at the future of mind-machine control, speculating on several theoretical applications once brains can adapt to devices via direct communication between, say, synapse and prosthetic. Quoting the field's leading neuroscientist: 'For the foreseeable future, the main benefit is for rehabilitation. But the research is showing that the brain can act independently of the body. One day, you could be sitting in an office and controlling a device from across the room — or in another building. And it's not just flicking a switch. It could be a nanotool that's moving through a tiny environment, and you can control it and see what it's seeing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Future of Mind Control of Physical Objects

Comments Filter:
  • Futurama (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Forrest Kyle ( 955623 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @07:14PM (#24091463) Homepage
    If I had the option, I would opt to have my brain placed in a jar attached to a robot body in the event that my heart gave out or something.

    I have to imagine there is someway to keep the brain alive chemically. If an artifical blood-like fluid could be manufactured that carried oxygen and nutrients to the brain, and some sort of electro-stimulus interface could transmit visual and audio data, it seems plausible (in a cartoonishly plausible way) that we could survive the deaths of our bodies and live on for several more decades as purely intellectual beings; an existence I would enjoy almost as much as my current existence. And don't get the impression that I'm willing to discard my body because I'm hopelessly fat and sedentary. I love my body. I have a black belt, I workout out at the gym, and I am physically active. But when those capabilities go away, I would love to live on and experience the intellectual future.
  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @07:22PM (#24091601) Journal

    What if mastering a prosthetic interface is like learning to speak a language without an accent, something that's almost impossible to do as an adult?

    What if people who grew up before this technology gets perfected won't be able to compete in the workforce?

  • Ghost in the shell. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by plasmacutter ( 901737 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @07:34PM (#24091733)

    Anyone interested in the dark side of direct neuro-prosthetic communication should watch ghost in the shell: stand alone complex.

    In this show, set in the near future (about 25 years from now), a common means of entry into enemy strongholds involves directly hacking people's motor functions and turning them into marionettes.

    A constant arms race is underway pitting entry vs "attack barrier" defenses which lash back against neuro-hackers and attempt to fry their brains.

  • reaction time (Score:2, Interesting)

    by NovaHorizon ( 1300173 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @07:44PM (#24091863)
    So... the question becomes how long until the neural interface can create movement in an object in less then 1/7th of a second.

    Why do I ask that? Because 1/7th of a second is roughly how long it takes for an electric pulse from your brain to reach your fingers.

    Why is that important?

    First Person Shooters...

  • In Sci Fi reading... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by skelly33 ( 891182 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @07:47PM (#24091907)
    I'm in the middle of a novel by David Brin titled Earth. In it he describes a futuristic version of a human-machine interface called a "sub-vocal" which reacts to nervous impulses for speech before they turn into physical movement. He imagines that such a think only works for someone with a very clear mind and sharp focus because drifting thoughts may cause bad signals. In the story, this manifests as obscure commands to the interface and sometimes verbalizing thoughts that normally would have qualifies as "inner monologue".

    While it is only a story, the author is a real sharp cookie, and it seems quite plausible to me that hyper-sensitive electronics could go wonky if the operator were not 100% focused on them - and when are we really 100% focused on anything? I do not have total focus on driving if I'm conversing with someone, listening to music, or thinking about my day. Could obscure thoughts wreck my ming controlled car?
  • Am I... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sklyan ( 1263518 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @07:50PM (#24091949)
    ...the only person who feels that the human thought patterns are too flakey and un-predictable to be put in this sort of situation. Anyone who has ever tried to take up meditation will tell you how frustrated, as well as surprised, they were to find out that you're really not in control of your thoughts as much as you would think.
  • We don't have to limit ourselves to the physical world (think Neuromancer). A few years ago, a friend of mine showed me a tale (forgot the url, sorry) about a scientist creating 3D pictures and doing advanced CAD using a neural interface and a holographic display. Imagine not even needing a mouse pointer to modify a curve, but instead just imagining what the curve will look like. And of course, having realtime feedback.

    Add a little AI to it so you can tell the program what parameters to modify as you're molding the object being designed.

    Now imagine if you could program software this way using the a VR (and user-friendly) equivalent of UML.

  • by halsver ( 885120 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @07:52PM (#24091981)

    If working with many computer illiterate baby boomers has taught me anything, no. This won't ever be a problem.

    However, though I can perform research on the internet 5 times faster than most BBs by no means can I spell or do math in my head nearly as well as many of them. Not to mention my handwriting is terrible!

    What skills will be lost to people who rely on this future tech too much?

  • Re:Cool I guess (Score:3, Interesting)

    by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @08:23PM (#24092331)

    more like the lantian interface from stargate.
    fighter pilots could focus on their targets to guide missiles in, select which targets to fire upon, etc.

  • by AnalogyShark ( 1317197 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @08:25PM (#24092345)
    I was thinking more along the lines of the military when he said the implications. We already have planes that can fly without a pilot (UAVs). If a person could wholly be inside a plane mentally (in a sense), imagine the increased control one could have, without the limitations of G-forces on a pilot's body or the fear of real death. And the military definately has the budget.
  • One Must Fall? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gringer ( 252588 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @08:38PM (#24092507)

    All this talk about human assisted robots reminds me of a game I played back in my youth:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Must_Fall:_2097 [wikipedia.org]

  • Re:Futurama (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Joe Tie. ( 567096 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @09:28PM (#24092965)
    Sadly, the brain ages in the same way as any other part of the body. Even if you could keep it healthy, it'd still almost certainly die off of old age pretty soon after, and probably with senile dementia as an extra gift.
  • Re:Futurama (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Monday July 07, 2008 @10:54PM (#24093979) Journal

    Or, someone could have it in for you :)

  • Re:Futurama (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @12:23PM (#24101681)

    And if you're into hedonism then your intellectual pursuits would presumably take a back seat.

    Yeah - I can get all hopped up on the crack cocaine. I could even do it 24/7 (or until I died, same thing in effect). I bet even the highest crack head would get bored at some point. There's a reason why hard drugs lead to harder drugs.

    You'd need to keep stimulating your happy fun zone to just get to normal. And then you'd have to crank up the voltage/dosage. And crank it up some more. And then you wouldn't be able to crank it up any more without killing you.

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...