First off, I apologize for not getting this out on time on Thursday. Two things intervened. One, I've been sick as a dog this week, and have no voice left. Two, I finished my BA and graduated from college, and the ceremony really wiped me out more than the virus could.
Anyhow, based on ideas suggested to me by Kossack Texas Revolutionary and by Gaian 2jane, I'd like to talk about interfaces. Specifically, interfaces between human brains and mechanical devices outside of them.
Not too long ago, this was almost entirely the realm of science fiction. Controlling a machine with your mind? Bah! Can't do it. But then there were a series of experimental studies that proved this wrong.
Using EEG, I believe, one research team found they could train a person to control a cursor on a computer screen and hence communicate - merely by flexing his mental muscles.
Using electrodes implanted in the brains of two motor-neuron-diseased patients, another team found they could train them to do more or less the same thing.
But perhaps more impressive than that was the research team that used electrodes implanted in a monkey's brain to allow the monkey to actually control a mechanical manipulator arm, and trained the monkey to use it. (I don't remember if they trained the monkey by feeding it banana chips in reward, or if the monkey was supposed to just be doing it for its own amusement, which can be quite rewarding for monkeys.)
Also, advancements in prosthetics mean that people can be trained to interpret certain sensory feedback mechanisms as actual sensation from the limb. A very simple example of that I've read of was a contact switch built into the foot of a prosthetic leg; when closed (by contact with the ground), it would activate a small buzzer motor strapped to the wearer's hip. With training, she came to perceive the vibration against her hip in the same way that she perceived the sensations of pressure from her intact foot. Now, I personally think this is awesome (actually I would add a modifier, but don't impressionable children read this?) and we should do more of the same.
But the question is as follows. So let's say you've lost the use of your own limbs due to, hmm, let's say Parkinson's disease. So either from a wheelchair, or strapped to prosthetics, you control said prosthetics with your mind. My question is, if you still retain sensation from your own limbs, and you get some sensation from the prosthetics, does using the prosthetics feel like using one's own limbs? I mean, does the cortical space associated with the mechanical right arm tend to overlap the cortical space associated with the flesh-and-bone right arm? I think this is an interesting question.
But having spoken about read-only devices, I think I would also like to talk about devices that could influence the brain. Now, for a long time it has been known that minute electrical currents or infusions of chemicals could change the behavior of an animal. There is a photo that shows neuroscientist Jose Delgado, having enraged a bull into charging him, stopping it with the press of a button. He is shown on the right, holding a radio transmitter.
If I understand what he did correctly, he built a radio-controlled "reset" switch into the bull's motor coordination system. When activated, the bull would simply stop whatever it was doing and stand still, until the switch was turned off. The bull, presumably irritated by having its mind controlled, turned and fled as soon as it could move again.
I think we've all encountered the idea of a person's behavior being controlled by outside influences. And, well, our understanding of motor pathways and endocrinology and other factors that influence behavior has deepened over time, as it should, science being our best tool for understanding material things; so whenever, in the future, it becomes possible to safely and routinely implant complex transceivers in the brain, that will both read neural activity and "write" it by stimulating neurons with tiny zaps or with infusions of amino acids, we might face the possibility of serious control. The question is, how do we prevent that? How should we write policy, medical and legal, and design devices, so the likely therapeutic benefit is maximized, and the likelihood of abuse is minimized? This is an excellent question and I have no idea how to answer it. Knock yourselves out, ladies and gentlemen.
.
.
.
Previous MSPW diaries can be found as follows (and don't read them if you're trying to preserve your unwarped mind):
MSPW 10: Powered armor leads the way
MSPW 9: Noise-Marines, forward!
MSPW 8: Rapid prototyping brings engineering to the masses
MSPW 7: Putting Mentos and Diet Coke to good use
MSPW 6: Why Bjorn the Fel-Handed is probably unhappy
MSPW 5: Combining the latest concepts in farming and power generation
MSPW 4: Project Orcon, or why pigeons make good pilots
MSPW 3: Can cuttlefish drive?
MSPW 2: The hafnium bomb
MSPW 1: Building a better skunk