Brain reading

[Panda]

Generally they don't detect "precisely what you're thinking." The technology is based on pattern recognition and training (discovery of that pattern). So when a pattern of x, y, z, ... from sensors a, b, c, ... are detected, it can infer a specific cognitive function is taking place because of the action specific training involved. In this case, that generalized cognitive function is, "think rotate a direction" or an abstract of, "disappear".

With a little practice and the right equipment, you can actually learn to focus and control some of your brain waves. IIRC, theta waves are one such example. This is typically done via a feedback loop between you, a device which displays a value, and a sensor connected to your head.

I personally believe what they demoed is real. Stuff like this have been in R&D labs for a very long time. The major hurdle has always been available computing power for training and recognition, and consumer price point for the sensor array. The computing power is very likely available now in consumer homes. IMOHO, really the only claim they need to prove is that they can produce a reliable sensor array, which does not require contact gel+direct skin expoure, at a reasonable, consumer price point. They claim they have. We'll see.

I am aware of what feedback loops and many methods of brainwave controlling one's own brainwaves are including those that do not require feedback loops. I don't believe that you quite caught what I was saying. Yes, I know that a person can train themselves to display certain kinds of brainwaves.

What I was getting at was a concept called umwelt. This is a german word that I read in a science book one time and have trouble remembering because I don't speak german and there's no English equivalent for the word. The definition is "organized experience that is not shared by all creatures". All creatures and people have their own umwelt. For example, a rattlesnake has 150,000 sensors on something called it's pit organ located above it's mouth that allows it to hunt without the use of other senses by detecting temperature changes in the environment. As a result, it's umwelt is much different than that of a human.

People have their own individual umwelts (even if they're all human umwelts) too and that is a good thing. Therefore, if a machine such as this requires so much training to use, even if it picks up on brainwave patterns from which generalizations can be made (and keep in mind these are only generalizations and may still leave out a very large percentage of the population including people who can use it), it will not be suitable for many people to use. Sure, some people can rotate a robotic arm when they're hooked up to a computer, but I agree with this guy, we're no where near being able to be jacked into a network like that to play games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZRXrOq1T08

This is a realistic video. If you're interested in this subject, you may want to watch it. I think it's interesting.

As this guys says, with a scalp EEG, you have good timing when signals are coming off the brain, but you don't know where signals are coming from. It's like trying to figure out how a car works by measuring the vibrations from the hood. Imagine if you had a blind, someone with damage to the occipital lobe of the brain causing them to be blind even though they have no eye injury, or visually impaired person who has different areas of the brain activated when they think of rotating something than a person with vision does.

And twitching of muscles is another one.

Some prosthetics work off of this muscular/nerve/voltage detection. That's what I was referring to as, "muscular", in my previous post.

I didn't write "And twitching muscles is another one." or say anything about this in my previous post. FireStorm_ posted that. It was a misquote, but, lol, don't worry, you didn't loose your entire post like I've done before. That is annoying.

[TradeMark]

I dont think its psychologically healthy to control something with your mind, will give a lot of problems after long term use: you might react to disasters by thinking of doing something, instead of doing something, so you get driven over by car etc...

[Panda]

I dont think its psychologically healthy to control something with your mind, will give a lot of problems after long term use: you might react to disasters by thinking of doing something, instead of doing something, so you get driven over by car etc...

Nah, I think it's alright to train yourself to do stuff with your mind. Just because you can control something with your mind, it doesn't mean that you won't have good reactions. For example a martial artist can train himself to do all kinds of crazy martial arts moves, but if a baseball comes flying at his head he can still react to it and swat it away or maybe catch it. Besides, you can react improperly even if you don't attempt to control something with your mind.

[TradeMark]

Nah, I think it's alright to train yourself to do stuff with your mind. Just because you can control something with your mind, it doesn't mean that you won't have good reactions. For example a martial artist can train himself to do all kinds of crazy martial arts moves, but if a baseball comes flying at his head he can still react to it and swat it away or maybe catch it. Besides, you can react improperly even if you don't attempt to control something with your mind.

Thats different, he trains physical movements not mental. Think about it: if you play these kind of mind controlled games where you have to dodge balls from hitting your head, and you see realistic person dodging those balls on the screen with your 3d glasses. Then after 23 hours of playing that game you go to IRL and some kid throws a ball at you, and instead of moving your hand to dodge it, you imagine moving your hand just like in that game, and then half second later you realise nothing happened and its too late already.

Or imagine if you play a game where you have 4 legs, and you learn to control those legs with your mind. Its only a matter of time until you feel those legs are part of you if you see they move when you think of moving them. They already did experiments like this on apes and robotic hands.

[Panda]

Thats different, he trains physical movements not mental. Think about it: if you play these kind of mind controlled games where you have to dodge balls from hitting your head, and you see realistic person dodging those balls on the screen with your 3d glasses. Then after 23 hours of playing that game you go to IRL and some kid throws a ball at you, and instead of moving your hand to dodge it, you imagine moving your hand just like in that game, and then half second later you realise nothing happened and its too late already.

Or imagine if you play a game where you have 4 legs, and you learn to control those legs with your mind. Its only a matter of time until you feel those legs are part of you if you see they move when you think of moving them. They already did experiments like this on apes and robotic hands.

What you're talking about is phantom limb syndrome. That kind of thing happens to amputees too. People who are missing their limb can even still feel pain and it feels like it's coming from the limb. That sensation is actually coming from the brain because the nerves in the limb are not there for the brain to be feeling the missing limb's pain. It's possible that that sort of thing could happen, but it still doesn't mean that it will and that is not a reason to avoid mental training. Interference from past learning is always a possibility when it comes to mental reactions even if you have no training, so you can't say that mental interference is really a good reason to avoid it. Plus, the way a person reacts, with or without training, kind of depends on the person and it has been proven that doing some kind of mental training is beneficial. For example, in order to learn a foreign language you are required to do some kind of mental training and learning the foreign language will broaden your world view enabling you to effectively communicate with more people.

[TradeMark]

Now youre mixing up everything... think more clearly plz

[Panda]

Now youre mixing up everything... think more clearly plz

Be more succinct in your examples and ask the right questions.

[TradeMark]

wut?

/me off

[SwiftSpear]

I dont think its psychologically healthy to control something with your mind, will give a lot of problems after long term use: you might react to disasters by thinking of doing something, instead of doing something, so you get driven over by car etc...

Nah, I think it's alright to train yourself to do stuff with your mind. Just because you can control something with your mind, it doesn't mean that you won't have good reactions. For example a martial artist can train himself to do all kinds of crazy martial arts moves, but if a baseball comes flying at his head he can still react to it and swat it away or maybe catch it. Besides, you can react improperly even if you don't attempt to control something with your mind.

There's some argument to be made that longterm or excessive early life developmental use might damage the development of "normal" muscle memory.

So if a basketball was thrown at your head your reaction wouldn't be to catch it or to swat it, but to think it away, which obviously won't work.

That being said, I think it's utter paranoia that practice of mental digital interface would decrease conscious ability to control one's own limbs and stuff. Nor do I think it's really an issue that muscle memory is not trained to be "normal" (other than maby in the case of early development; I believe a wide range of activities should be practiced in young life so the individual is capable of making an adult choice from many different activities as their subject of focus). Wrestlers have wrestling muscle memory, boxers have boxing muscle memory, soccer players have soccor muscle memory, most of us have a bit of all of it but not alot of any of it. There's no reason a person with a career in computers NEEDS to have elite level muscle memory in some or many other activities.

[zwzsg]

Humans very much function on the basis of biochemical, electrical, and even magnetic radiation. Sensors to detect much of this is easily within our technological capabilities. Its been proven that long term placement of a magnet on the head can directly affect brain chemistry.

If magnetic fields affected thoughts, patients undergoing MRI would be driven insane.

[Panda]

There's some argument to be made that longterm or excessive early life developmental use might damage the development of "normal" muscle memory.

So if a basketball was thrown at your head your reaction wouldn't be to catch it or to swat it, but to think it away, which obviously won't work.

I've heard of people being stunned, nervous, scared, or going into shock, which might prevent them from physically performing an action, but it sounds like your saying something along the lines of learning something like practicing dance early in life would prevent someone from swatting away a basketball. Can you give me a different example? In my opinion there are so many reasons as to why someone may not react by swatting the ball away that I have a difficult time believing that doing something like a lot of dancing would prevent them from swatting the ball away even if they aren't as coordinated as someone who has played basketball before.

I suppose I'm having difficulty believing this because, when I was young I was really good at all kinds of acrobatics and gymnastics. When I got older I learned swimming, yoga, and many kinds of martial arts and the gymnastics training only seemed to help me. As a matter of fact, most people would ask me if I'd done dancing before because I've always been flexible and they thought I looked graceful even though I have never taken dance lessons. In addition to that, I can still do acrobatics and today and can't really think of anyone that I know of who has ever really had any complaints about how exercising a lot as a kid has had a negative effect on their muscle memory. I'll admit that I'm not that great when it comes to playing catch or basketball (even though I can swat a ball away or catch it), but that's probably just because I don't really have any experience playing those games.

[hoijui]

being good in acrobatics and then starting to dance =>
two different situations requiring similar actions.
the brain is good at that.

often swatting a ball away in virtual reality, and then facing a ball coming towards you in reality =>
two very similar situations (a bit more abstracted: a single situation) requiring two different actions.
failure immanent

[SwiftSpear]

There's some argument to be made that longterm or excessive early life developmental use might damage the development of "normal" muscle memory.

So if a basketball was thrown at your head your reaction wouldn't be to catch it or to swat it, but to think it away, which obviously won't work.

I've heard of people being stunned, nervous, scared, or going into shock, which might prevent them from physically performing an action, but it sounds like your saying something along the lines of learning something like practicing dance early in life would prevent someone from swatting away a basketball. Can you give me a different example? In my opinion there are so many reasons as to why someone may not react by swatting the ball away that I have a difficult time believing that doing something like a lot of dancing would prevent them from swatting the ball away even if they aren't as coordinated as someone who has played basketball before.

I think the argument would rest on the fact that at least dance uses a wide range of muscles, and will improve muscle memory for generic fields like balance and knowing how to fall correctly. Perhaps in the case of the basketball it might not improve anything, but it will increase many other "normal" muscle memories.

You can see the kinds of kids who spend most of their childhood watching cartoons, reading, and playing video games often have difficulty with physical activity, things like knowing how to fall properly or catch a ball elude them... In that regard I think children in their young life should do a wide range of activities. In general I think it's bad for a kid to do only one thing anyways. It's bad for a kid to spend all their time playing piano, it's bad for a kid to spend all their time practicing dance, it's bad for a kid to spend all their time playing video games. I'd think, at the same time, it would be at least equally bad for a kid to spend all their time in a digital mental interface. I think it's bad because I think a parent should allow a child to choose their own path in life as adults, and you should give your children a wide range of interests and skills to draw experience from into choosing their focus in life.

In the end I'm on your side. I don't think this is any worse than a PlayStation controller. But at the same time, I wouldn't defend it as any better from a developmental stand point.

[Teutooni]

I don't know much about brainwaves and their information resolution (how accurately they can be read so they truly represent what we think, and if they even contain all information of a thought process), but given some training I'd guess a computer could be tuned to read common concepts used in everyday speech. It would be awesome to be able to make a phone call through a mind/machine interface.

[Panda]

being good in acrobatics and then starting to dance =>
two different situations requiring similar actions.
the brain is good at that.

Ok. As I've said in my previous post, I've never done dance, though, and I don't intend to. People just thought I looked like I was dancing.

[hoijui]

what argument?

[Machete234]

In addition to that, I can still do acrobatics and today and can't really think of anyone that I know of who has ever really had any complaints about how exercising a lot as a kid has had a negative effect on their muscle memory.

The more movements you learn the better.
Since when does the brain have a certain capacity and when its full you cant learn anything anymore?

two very similar situations (a bit more abstracted: a single situation) requiring two different actions.
failure immanent

When you get a ball thrown at you right after you played this game maybe you will react wrong but I think in real life you will instinctively put your hand up.

The game cant kill your reflexes.

[SwiftSpear]

In addition to that, I can still do acrobatics and today and can't really think of anyone that I know of who has ever really had any complaints about how exercising a lot as a kid has had a negative effect on their muscle memory.

The more movements you learn the better.
Since when does the brain have a certain capacity and when its full you cant learn anything anymore?

two very similar situations (a bit more abstracted: a single situation) requiring two different actions.
failure immanent

When you get a ball thrown at you right after you played this game maybe you will react wrong but I think in real life you will instinctively put your hand up.

The game cant kill your reflexes.

Reflexes in humans are primarily trained though. There are very very very few instinctual reflexes inherent to us. Many people just don't know how to catch a ball, or fall correctly, or steady their hand to stroke a straight line.

Now I hardly think most parents would strap an infant into a digital mental interface... but who knows. I'd still argue that, while basic practice of one reality interface is of no developmental threat, practice of it at the large expense of practice of other reality interfaces (like martial arts, dance, sports) is harmful to the development of a child. No responsible parent would agree that it's a good idea to sit their child infront of a playstation for 60 hours a week. Why should this be any different?

[Gota]

There's some argument to be made that longterm or excessive early life developmental use might damage the development of "normal" muscle memory.

So if a basketball was thrown at your head your reaction wouldn't be to catch it or to swat it, but to think it away, which obviously won't work.

I've heard of people being stunned, nervous, scared, or going into shock, which might prevent them from physically performing an action, but it sounds like your saying something along the lines of learning something like practicing dance early in life would prevent someone from swatting away a basketball. Can you give me a different example? In my opinion there are so many reasons as to why someone may not react by swatting the ball away that I have a difficult time believing that doing something like a lot of dancing would prevent them from swatting the ball away even if they aren't as coordinated as someone who has played basketball before.

I think the argument would rest on the fact that at least dance uses a wide range of muscles, and will improve muscle memory for generic fields like balance and knowing how to fall correctly. Perhaps in the case of the basketball it might not improve anything, but it will increase many other "normal" muscle memories.

You can see the kinds of kids who spend most of their childhood watching cartoons, reading, and playing video games often have difficulty with physical activity, things like knowing how to fall properly or catch a ball elude them... In that regard I think children in their young life should do a wide range of activities. In general I think it's bad for a kid to do only one thing anyways. It's bad for a kid to spend all their time playing piano, it's bad for a kid to spend all their time practicing dance, it's bad for a kid to spend all their time playing video games. I'd think, at the same time, it would be at least equally bad for a kid to spend all their time in a digital mental interface. I think it's bad because I think a parent should allow a child to choose their own path in life as adults, and you should give your children a wide range of interests and skills to draw experience from into choosing their focus in life.

In the end I'm on your side. I don't think this is any worse than a PlayStation controller. But at the same time, I wouldn't defend it as any better from a developmental stand point.

Depends what sort of kids you want to create.
If you want everyone to be as similar as possible than yes.
if you want a wide range of people with different outlooks and experience and ideas than maybe setting up a single mold is not the best idea.

Also the "let them choose what they want" is more of an illusion...
When you can do something extremely well in many cases your motivated by your own ability..
I wonder if Mozart wanted to be say...a banker...after he became famous for his music.
any way you look at it to be extremely good at something and stand out of the crowed you need to start doing it as early as possible.

[SwiftSpear]

Depends what sort of kids you want to create.
If you want everyone to be as similar as possible than yes.
if you want a wide range of people with different outlooks and experience and ideas than maybe setting up a single mold is not the best idea.

Also the "let them choose what they want" is more of an illusion...
When you can do something extremely well in many cases your motivated by your own ability..
I wonder if Mozart wanted to be say...a banker...after he became famous for his music.
any way you look at it to be extremely good at something and stand out of the crowed you need to start doing it as early as possible.

The brain isn't that easy to developmentally guide. There are fundamental genetic personality differentials between people, and there are SO SO SOOOOOOO many little factors in a persons developmental history that are somewhere between insanely hard and impossible to really nail down from a parenting perspective. Parents by enlarge just CAN'T guide their kid into one field or another, it, largely speaking, does not work almost at all. There's just too much inherent difference between people, even genetically.

Giving children the opportunity try many different activities gives them the opportunity to develop a breath of life skills that they can take in many different potential directions. Even entirely ignoring that if left to their own devices kids will do this as much as possible anyways, it should be taken as fact that parents should encourage their kids to do many different things and not be too focused on any one thing. I don't see how that can be construed as a "mold". I'm not, nor would I ever say "your child should do exactly 30 minutes of soccer, and then exactly 30 minutes of piano, and then blah blah...." The whole point is that after trying something a child may like it more or less than other things and conversely spend more or less time on it, and therefore naturally guide the development of their skills into an area that they are interested in.

If you don't like "do what they want" then replace it anywhere I said it with "choose to not be forced to do something the absolutely hate", because that's more accurate to the meaning I'm trying to convey. If my parents decided when I was 4 years old that I was going to be an accountant and that was the only thing I was going to be trained to do from then on, I DEFINITELY would have killed myself by now. Computers and language teaching (the two fields I'm studying right now) respectively may not be supremely fun and everlasting sources of happiness for me, but I'm pretty satisfied with them, and the amount of related stuff that I absolutely hate doing is far outweighed by the stuff that I find rewarding and satisfying.