theultimateend said:
Space Jawa said:
Graham_LRR said:
Who exactly wouldn't want a chip in their head?
*Raises hand*
I don't know where to
begin on all the things that could go absolutely, horribly wrong with that. With all the problems we have with computers as it is, I have no idea why anyone would want to trust that technology to go inside their brain.
You don't appreciate radiation right upside your brain?
How about the issue of leaving computer components in brain juice?
This sounds like a solid plan to me!
TLDR version: I wouldn't worry too much about it, it's a long ways off (if it even happens at all).
The major problem is just that we don't understand the brain's software. The predominant theory is that it is a parallel processing network, but that is more a type of hardware than software, and some still argue that the brain can (and does) run the same kind of binary based languages as computers.
All we can do right now is associate certain parts of the brain with certain activities. For instance, thinking "Right" and "Left" light up different portions of the brain, so they've programmed wheelchairs to turn when people think those words. The problem is that you have to keep thinking them. It takes a lot of concentration.
For there to be a REAL neural interface, you'd have to make it so the device interconnects with neural modules so that they can actually share computational inputs and outputs, which would require a complete understanding of the brain's software. And on top of that, the brain's hardware and software mutually condition each other: "the neurons that fire together, wire together" is a popular saying in neuroscience.
This means that the "hardware" (i.e. the weight distributions of the neurons in a cognitive module), and thus the software as well, is almost certainly different for every person. Certain areas of the brain are set aside for certain activities likely because they are connected to predominant inputs and outputs (sources of information) that are genetically determined (i.e. the optical nerves are genetically predetermined to connect with and give their information to the occipital lobe). But the actual way the modules process these inputs is a result of the way the neurons adjust their weights until they convert the determined inputs into the appropriate outputs.
The human brain is the most complex thing in existence, and there simply aren't enough genes to predetermine its software.
What does this mean? Well, it probably means that the brain has no common computing language. And if the brain doesn't have a common computing language then it becomes very difficult for us to get information from it. In essence, any neural implant would probably have to act much like neurons themselves in order to interact with our brains, and this would make it fairly difficult to encode information in these systems.
In essence, the implants would probably have to learn just like us, so they probably wouldn't be very convenient or useful.