Brain-Computer interface (BCI), why are we not yet tele-pathetic?

Hello fellow researchers,

I will introduce myself, since this is my first post, despite the fact I have been following the forums for quite a while now. My name is Peter and I am a 26 year old computer networks / security researcher, living in the island of Crete, Greece. (please excuse my English )

I want to propose something, that I feel that it cannot fail. There have been numerous BCI papers and experiments, ranging from simple computer controlling devices to complex implants for disabled people that showed that the human brain can adapt and interpret external electric signals after a period of training.

Even in the simple wikipedia entry here (look for the invasive part) it is shown that blind people can learn to interpret special camera signals and "see" through them.

This begs the question: why didn't we attach a simple thought amplifier and test for the results on human individuals? I mean why don't we attach onto our nerves a transceiver that will allow us to exchange thoughts "as is"? A computer may not be in the best position to analyse and understand my thoughts of a butterfly sitting on a flower, but what would you make out of it?

It hasn't got to be really complex at the start. We can just attach a simple RF transceiver on a small non-basic neuron. Let's say we do it on a nerve that controls my middle finger. Will an individual equipped with the same device be able of sensing me giving him the finger (even after some training)?

What will happen if we attach it to a central nerve?

This post is a call for action. For real research and experiments. I really don't mind being the subject of such experiments, given that they are carried out by trained individuals.

The way our nerves "hug" such implants by slowly adapting and interpreting the signals always amazed me. I find it rather odd that this technology is not yet widely developed.

Thank you for your time, I am anxiously waiting for your responses,
Peter

This idea has always intrigued me. We can use the mind to control machines hooked to muscles but the transfer of cognitive data from the mind has not been accomplished.

technology.newscientist.com...

Saw this a while back...i could see it becoming the norm in 5 or 6 years..

Originally posted by earthman4
This idea has always intrigued me. We can use the mind to control machines hooked to muscles but the transfer of cognitive data from the mind has not been accomplished.

You are quite right here, but why has it failed? Because we tried to interpret the signals first! Just take a look at the computer brain controllers, like the one recently reported by arstechnica.

I propose that we transfer the data as-is, let the human brain of the receiver interpret them.

Peter

[edit on 30-7-2008 by ppolitop]

My guess would be that relaying "thoughts" would be much more difficult than controlling adaptive devices, (like when cursor movements are controlled by the brain). The reason, I would think, is that there is no clear cut way of defining a thought. Thoughts are permeated with memory, emotion, cognition, judgments, etc. There isn't any one part of the brain that we could attach a device to that would allow us to relay a thought.

The key would be to develop a thought process that both machine and brain can interpret. It would be like a new language as a bridge between two. Our brains cannot work with on and off signals but processers have just gotten to the 4.5 billion cycles per second our brain operates at.

reply to post by Toromos


Have you ever experienced telepathy? Do you or any person that you trust believes in it? If so, how do you believe that thoughts are relayed or manifested in another person's mind?

I am sure there are differences between my and your perception of the same thing, but how can we know for sure I will not understand it, or even better how can we know that I cannot be trained to understand it after several interactions? Even a computer today can "understand" mood and that's not the most sophisticated technology present today.

In other words, are you against my initiative for the experiments and convinced that are doomed to fail?

Thank you for your feedback,
Peter

reply to post by ppolitop


I'm not against more research at all. I think the difficulty lies much deeper than having another person understand my thoughts. The difficulty is in defining what a thought is at all. Which part of the brain has a thought? For the more basic brain-machine interactions pointed to earlier, the location and mechanism of brain interaction is pretty well understood because it involves a very simple, specific task. But thoughts are very complex since they involve so many different levels of cognitive activity.

I think an earlier comment about focusing on the linguistic side of thoughts could be fruitful since so much of our thinking is mediated through language. But language itself is not located in just one part of the brain; it's just better understood than the vague term "thought."

reply to post by Toromos


I can see your point.
This still leaves us with a simple option:

Let us connect the transceiver to a neuron and train two people to communicate through it. I do not know what the outcome will be, but I am convinced that they will communicate, even if they have to fall back to spoken-word like language transmitted through RF.

Do you find this scenario plausible? Because of my experiences I am more than convinced that it can be a huge step.

Great feedback, many thanks
Peter

Indeed an interesting topic.

My question would be, are our brainwaves already encrypted or do we need encryption on our brains in the future?