• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Intel: Chips in brains will control computers by 2020


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 20 November 2009 - 01:57 PM


Can't wait. This will make people much more receptive to more extreme transhumanist concepts such as brain uploading.

http://www.computerw...mp;pageNumber=2

By the year 2020, you won't need a keyboard and mouse to control your computer, say Intel Corp. researchers. Instead, users will open documents and surf the Web using nothing more than their brain waves.

Scientists at Intel's research lab in Pittsburgh are working to find ways to read and harness human brain waves so they can be used to operate computers, television sets and cell phones. The brain waves would be harnessed with Intel-developed sensors implanted in people's brains.

The scientists say the plan is not a scene from a sci-fi movie -- Big Brother won't be planting chips in your brain against your will. Researchers expect that consumers will want the freedom they will gain by using the implant.

"I think human beings are remarkable adaptive," said Andrew Chien, vice president of research and director of future technologies research at Intel Labs. "If you told people 20 years ago that they would be carrying computers all the time, they would have said, 'I don't want that. I don't need that.' Now you can't get them to stop [carrying devices]. There are a lot of things that have to be done first but I think [implanting chips into human brains] is well within the scope of possibility."

Intel research scientist Dean Pomerleau told Computerworld that users will soon tire of depending on a computer interface, and having to fish a device out of their pocket or bag to access it. He also predicted that users will tire of having to manipulate an interface with their fingers.

Instead, they'll simply manipulate their various devices with their brains.

"We're trying to prove you can do interesting things with brain waves," said Pomerleau. "Eventually people may be willing to be more committed ... to brain implants. Imagine being able to surf the Web with the power of your thoughts."

To get to that point Pomerleau and his research teammates from Intel, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, are currently working on decoding human brain activity.

Pomerleau said the team has used Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) machines to determine that blood flow changes in specific areas of the brain based on what word or image someone is thinking of. People tend to show the same brain patterns for similar thoughts, he added.

For instance, if two people think of the image of a bear or hear the word bear or even hear a bear growl, a neuroimage would show similar brain activity. Basically, there are standard patterns that show up in the brain for different words or images.

Pomerleau said researchers are close to gaining the ability to build brain sensing technology into a head set that culd be used to manipulate a computer. The next step is development of a tiny, far less cumbersome sensor that could be implanted inside the brain.
Such brain research isn't limited to Intel and its university partners.

Almost two years ago, scientists in the U.S. and Japan announced that a monkey's brain was used to to control a humanoid robot. Miguel Nicolelis, a professor of neurobiology at Duke University and lead researcher on the project, said that researchers were hoping its work would help paralyzed people walk again.

And a month before that, a scientist at the University of Arizona reported that he had successfully built a robot that is guided by the brain and eyes of a moth. Charles Higgins, an associate professor at the university, predicted that in 10 to 15 years people will be using "hybrid" computers running a combination of technology and living organic tissue.

Today, Intel's Pomerleau said various research facilities are developing technologies to sense activity from inside the skull.

"If we can get to the point where we can accurately detect specific words, you could mentally type," he added. "You could compose characters or words by thinking about letters flashing on the screen or typing whole words rather than their individual characters."

Pomerleau also noted that the more scientists figure out about the brain, it will help them design better microprocessors. He said, "If we can see how the brain does it, then we could build smarter computers."


Edit: repaired formatting.

Edited by niner, 10 August 2010 - 03:17 AM.


#2 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 21 November 2009 - 08:11 PM

I don't know if it will happen as early as 2020, but this is surely exciting ... it's like we're almost heading to the world of Ghost in the Shell.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,114 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 21 November 2009 - 09:37 PM

" The next step is development of a tiny, far less cumbersome sensor that could be implanted inside the brain."
An implant?? No, if you need a surgery, this won't be done by the mass. Without surgery, there are already games that can be played with a brain-wave-sensors headset (rather than a joystick, keyboard or mouse).

I hope they are trying to improve the headset, not the implant

#4 forever freedom

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 23 November 2009 - 04:00 PM

" The next step is development of a tiny, far less cumbersome sensor that could be implanted inside the brain."
An implant?? No, if you need a surgery, this won't be done by the mass.



It depends on the scale of benefits you get. If the benefits are too large, we'll see prices of surgery consistently going down (in case price is the problem) and the public increasingly accepting it. No matter how weird something is, if people see tangible benefits they'll eventually accept and embrace it.

Edited by forever freedom, 23 November 2009 - 04:00 PM.


#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 November 2009 - 10:06 PM

" The next step is development of a tiny, far less cumbersome sensor that could be implanted inside the brain."
An implant?? No, if you need a surgery, this won't be done by the mass.

It depends on the scale of benefits you get. If the benefits are too large, we'll see prices of surgery consistently going down (in case price is the problem) and the public increasingly accepting it. No matter how weird something is, if people see tangible benefits they'll eventually accept and embrace it.

If an implant gave you an order of magnitude more effective memory, or Wikipedia in your head, or made you dramatically smarter, maybe you couldn't afford not to do it. Such a development might create a bifurcated world of normals and superhumans... But that's going to happen eventually anyway.

#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,058 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 23 November 2009 - 10:23 PM

Intel is really getting into the singularity-type predictions lately. I wonder if the Kurzweil criticizers are going to start criticizing Intel as well.

#7 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 November 2009 - 05:10 AM

I wonder if the Kurzweil criticizers are going to start criticizing Intel as well.

If they start talking about reincarnating Gordon Moore's dad, then yeah...

#8 Cameron

  • Guest
  • 167 posts
  • 22

Posted 24 November 2009 - 05:55 AM

The problem I see is the issue of updates with later more advanced versions of said chips, not to mention decay of both the physical interface and chips(sure chips last a really long time, but a lifetime, especially an extended lifespan? with molecular scale electronics?). Besides that I'm not sure brain-surgery|medical-science will be risk free enough to do this en masse by then(we need better ways of handling complications, infections, in-the-worst-case-scenario regenerate and train lost tissue, etc. which may or may not be available by then.).

Those problems could be done away with using some form of molecular scale self-repairing machinery to maintain|update chip designs and the physical interface.

#9 forever freedom

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 24 November 2009 - 07:27 PM

" The next step is development of a tiny, far less cumbersome sensor that could be implanted inside the brain."
An implant?? No, if you need a surgery, this won't be done by the mass.

It depends on the scale of benefits you get. If the benefits are too large, we'll see prices of surgery consistently going down (in case price is the problem) and the public increasingly accepting it. No matter how weird something is, if people see tangible benefits they'll eventually accept and embrace it.

If an implant gave you an order of magnitude more effective memory, or Wikipedia in your head, or made you dramatically smarter, maybe you couldn't afford not to do it. Such a development might create a bifurcated world of normals and superhumans... But that's going to happen eventually anyway.


I agree, it could happen. Anyways, that would still be better that than a world of only normal humans..

#10 Singularity

  • Guest
  • 138 posts
  • -1

Posted 28 November 2009 - 04:09 AM

The problem I see is the issue of updates with later more advanced versions of said chips, not to mention decay of both the physical interface and chips(sure chips last a really long time, but a lifetime, especially an extended lifespan? with molecular scale electronics?). Besides that I'm not sure brain-surgery|medical-science will be risk free enough to do this en masse by then(we need better ways of handling complications, infections, in-the-worst-case-scenario regenerate and train lost tissue, etc. which may or may not be available by then.).

Those problems could be done away with using some form of molecular scale self-repairing machinery to maintain|update chip designs and the physical interface.


They will probably implant a simple interface that doesn't need replacement so often and your addons could be external... you can plug-in to your iLobe.

But, seriously, there are so many personal security hurdles to tackle it isn't even funny.

#11 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 November 2009 - 05:32 AM

But, seriously, there are so many personal security hurdles to tackle it isn't even funny.

I would think that if we had the technology for a brain-computer interface, that robust encryption would not be difficult to implement, given that it's mature technology.

#12 j0lt_c0la

  • Guest, F@H
  • 43 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 November 2009 - 05:44 AM

But, seriously, there are so many personal security hurdles to tackle it isn't even funny.

I would think that if we had the technology for a brain-computer interface, that robust encryption would not be difficult to implement, given that it's mature technology.


.... Assuming they achieve this before large scale quantum computing. Encryption is based on factoring large primes, and that will be completely insecure for encryption with the use of Shor's algorithm on quantum computers. I'd like not to have something in my brain that becomes a giant security breach if/when I succeed at my research. I'd be almost afraid to go into the lab for the fear that I'd discover the breakthrough that would leave my mind a sitting duck to hackers.

#13 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 November 2009 - 06:42 AM

" The next step is development of a tiny, far less cumbersome sensor that could be implanted inside the brain."
An implant?? No, if you need a surgery, this won't be done by the mass. Without surgery, there are already games that can be played with a brain-wave-sensors headset (rather than a joystick, keyboard or mouse).

I hope they are trying to improve the headset, not the implant


Yeah, I agree, I definitely would not to do surgery to get an implant. I don't want to become a cyborg. I am all for genetic optimization, but still want to remain "natural".

#14 Singularity

  • Guest
  • 138 posts
  • -1

Posted 28 November 2009 - 09:43 PM

But, seriously, there are so many personal security hurdles to tackle it isn't even funny.

I would think that if we had the technology for a brain-computer interface, that robust encryption would not be difficult to implement, given that it's mature technology.


.... Assuming they achieve this before large scale quantum computing. Encryption is based on factoring large primes, and that will be completely insecure for encryption with the use of Shor's algorithm on quantum computers. I'd like not to have something in my brain that becomes a giant security breach if/when I succeed at my research. I'd be almost afraid to go into the lab for the fear that I'd discover the breakthrough that would leave my mind a sitting duck to hackers.


I suspect that we will not be able to rely on simple mechanical security measures. Our intelligence would be required to actively inspect the data stream of anyone wanting access to our minds (such as for direct communication and sharing of info). IOW, after the preliminary keys are exchanged, you will still have to actively and intelligently monitor the behavior of those you are interacting with to determine if the person visiting you is authentic and not an impostor.

But, the scariest thought is just knowing that all this goes out the window if someone uses force on you to bypass your security and access your mind. Any criminal, police force, military or rogue government could create a mess if they wanted to. If we don't have some degree of world peace by this time, then the world could become even more brutal with a new degree of psychological torture possible.

Here's a thought. Maybe standardization would actually be a cause of all these problems. Instead, what if each individual had the power to develop his own brand of technology to modify himself. Then, his brain interface would not be standardized with well known exploits. There are problems with this idea such as with efficiency. If everyone had a different kind of brain interface, then it would be less likely someone could exploit you since there would be no copies to test on. Of course, this would all be impractical and overkill in a generally trusting world.

#15 Berserker

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 November 2009 - 11:49 PM

Amazing, if this technology finally arrives in the 2020(or around) will you be the first to but it? (if you have the money to pay for it) or will you wait? I don’t like the idea of having a chip in mi brain...unless not until the technology had been used already in more humans during a period of time.

#16 SiliconAnimation

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 November 2009 - 03:12 AM

But, the scariest thought is just knowing that all this goes out the window if someone uses force on you to bypass your security and access your mind. Any criminal, police force, military or rogue government could create a mess if they wanted to. If we don't have some degree of world peace by this time, then the world could become even more brutal with a new degree of psychological torture possible.


The largest problem is that in a brain-interfaced society, personal security is futile and useless. All security measures would have to be entrusted to the manufacturer of the chips, and those running the monitoring farm as a result of the high overhead of managing all that data. That would make us a futuristic Republic-oriented society by default.

Nice Ceasar leafs around the ImmInst logo btw. Hail robotics? *roman salute*

Edited by SiliconAnimation, 30 November 2009 - 03:18 AM.


#17 SiliconAnimation

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 November 2009 - 03:14 AM

Here's a thought. Maybe standardization would actually be a cause of all these problems. Instead, what if each individual had the power to develop his own brand of technology to modify himself.


I think your idea is in the right place but, my first bet would be in lifting the ban on radio-jamming tech.

#18 SiliconAnimation

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 November 2009 - 03:34 AM

Yeah, I agree, I definitely would not to do surgery to get an implant. I don't want to become a cyborg. I am all for genetic optimization, but still want to remain "natural".


As individuals in a pre-singulitarian society I believe we have been most free in situations where we may have the options of limiting our influences to what is primarily unconscious, natural (not made by man) or otherwise undisturbed by the toils of man. Whenever man consumes himself with the interests of his fellow men, he learns that the nature of his peers is to progress. When progress can only be measured against one's neighbor, or coworker we destabilize unity. Unity is most prevalent when we measure progress against an outside force, which threatens our society from it's extremeties rather than from within. Nature is our universal struggle, rather than against each other (though the latter usually prevails). This entails more than this simple acknowledgement that from which is outside of our reach is where our achievements should lie, it requires an active understanding of the sort where in spite of all wrongs percieved of the doings of one's least desirable neighbor we may take comfort that there is a space contrasting our efforts from that which is not our own. In that moment of silence so many poets have found peace, where others reflecting on man-made creations for his definition have found poverty, malice, tyranny, wrath, jealousy to name just a few vices.

There is nothing more selflessly abundant than the warmth of a sunny summer sky.

"There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you,
I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
- TS Eliot, The Wasteland: The Burial of the Dead

Edited by SiliconAnimation, 30 November 2009 - 03:46 AM.


#19 forever freedom

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 04 December 2009 - 08:40 PM

On a totally different note, and i'm just bringing this up here so i don't have to create a new topic, i have some thoughts regarding the consequences of such technology.


What will be the impact on school and university and formal education in general once we can finally google up everything we want and need in our heads? Pedagogues will argue that the purpose of education is not just to teach people facts. But the reality is that in school and even university, the vast majority of what we learn is facts, facts, and more facts. Exams test how much we memorized. What happens when we can just google whatever we want, whenever we want to?

#20 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 December 2009 - 10:00 PM

But the reality is that in school and even university, the vast majority of what we learn is facts, facts, and more facts. Exams test how much we memorized. What happens when we can just google whatever we want, whenever we want to?

Not in a decent school. You learn how to solve problems, how to weigh evidence. You learn judgment. You learn to work with other people. You learn how to write, how to analyze. There is a lot more going on in school besides cramming facts in people's heads.

#21 David Styles

  • Life Member
  • 512 posts
  • 295
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 December 2009 - 11:27 PM

Personally I'm all in favour of this, and have wanted it for a long time.

A few things to bear in mind:

1) It surely won't involve brain surgery, as the sensors won't be *in* the brain, so much as on the surface. So it'll perhaps be necessary to make bore-holes through the skull to get to the brain's surface, but that's all. That's my understanding, anyway - control over computer developed by biofeedback and learning to control one's EEG output. This is why I've already ordered one of those EEG-based games, the sort that has one use a sensor cap to pick up EEG output and use it to control the air cushions that in turn control the movement of a ball through hoops and things.

2) Encryption notwithstanding, surely it's not really a tremendous security risk as far as hacking is concerned; as it's an output-only system, the worst someone can do is skim a copy of my EEG, which won't really get them much or harm me.

To be honest if it were available now, I'd just see it as one more handy bluetooth peripheral.

And frankly, I'm already frustrated by still having to use a keyboard and mouse, so I'm all for this :p

#22 forever freedom

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 04 December 2009 - 11:36 PM

But the reality is that in school and even university, the vast majority of what we learn is facts, facts, and more facts. Exams test how much we memorized. What happens when we can just google whatever we want, whenever we want to?

Not in a decent school. You learn how to solve problems, how to weigh evidence. You learn judgment. You learn to work with other people. You learn how to write, how to analyze. There is a lot more going on in school besides cramming facts in people's heads.



yes, i was to expand on what i said but had to leave.


Anyways, the system is still going to be revolutionized. I envision a lot less people placing as much value in formal education as it's placed today. I also hope the model of going to class to listen to a professor for hours, shrinks to much smaller levels than it is today. The future will be education at a distance, with people teaching themselves and following as they like the learning process (this is not me hoping, this is a fact). In the end of the day, with formal education, information is still being pushed into our brain whether we want to learn it or not (because even if we're studying a course in university that we want, a lot of information teached will be useless). I remember the saying by Jim Rohn, "Formal education will make you a living, self education will make you a fortune".

I, for one, hate formal education because i prefer learning things by myself, on my own pace and only what i find useful.

#23 Singularity

  • Guest
  • 138 posts
  • -1

Posted 05 December 2009 - 04:25 AM

On a totally different note, and i'm just bringing this up here so i don't have to create a new topic, i have some thoughts regarding the consequences of such technology.


What will be the impact on school and university and formal education in general once we can finally google up everything we want and need in our heads? Pedagogues will argue that the purpose of education is not just to teach people facts. But the reality is that in school and even university, the vast majority of what we learn is facts, facts, and more facts. Exams test how much we memorized. What happens when we can just google whatever we want, whenever we want to?



That will level the playing field to a point where mere knowledge is no longer competitive. A new skill providing for a new edge will have to be used or discovered. General problem solving will probably be more important.

#24 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 05 December 2009 - 05:44 AM

People won't want to do the surgery unless there is social pressure to do it. There won't be social pressure unless it becomes something everyone is doing. Hence, getting holes drilled into the head will never be "popular." What might happen though is an injection of some sort into a person's scalp, or a nanotechnology based solution. There are companies who specialize today in RDIF chip injections. People get an RDIF chip injected right under the skin of their wrist. That way all the have to do to get into a club is wave their wrist with all their ID and credit card information on it. The same is true for IDing dogs and mental patients. I have a friend that was talking about getting one installed so he could use it to unlock his front door.

Edited by bobscrachy, 05 December 2009 - 05:45 AM.


#25 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 December 2009 - 06:04 AM

People won't want to do the surgery unless there is social pressure to do it. There won't be social pressure unless it becomes something everyone is doing. Hence, getting holes drilled into the head will never be "popular." What might happen though is an injection of some sort into a person's scalp, or a nanotechnology based solution. There are companies who specialize today in RDIF chip injections. People get an RDIF chip injected right under the skin of their wrist. That way all the have to do to get into a club is wave their wrist with all their ID and credit card information on it. The same is true for IDing dogs and mental patients. I have a friend that was talking about getting one installed so he could use it to unlock his front door.

I think it will boil down to the balance of benefit vs. safety vs. cost. If it's just a matter of drilling a tiny hole in your skull and injecting a little chip, that might not be such a big deal. If they have to saw off the top of your head, that's another story, but I wouldn't expect that. I thought about the door opening/car starting chip in the hand a long time ago. The technology is there, but it's too expensive ATM. It would be cool though.

#26 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 03 April 2010 - 02:49 AM

A great incremental and promising first step (video included)!

Wednesday, March 31, 2010: Mobile Phone Mind Control
NeuroPhone is the first step toward hands-free phone operation.
http://www.technolog...tors/24993/?a=f

Edit: Video Embed

Edited by icantgoforthat, 03 April 2010 - 02:57 AM.


#27 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 10 August 2010 - 01:43 AM

" The next step is development of a tiny, far less cumbersome sensor that could be implanted inside the brain."
An implant?? No, if you need a surgery, this won't be done by the mass. Without surgery, there are already games that can be played with a brain-wave-sensors headset (rather than a joystick, keyboard or mouse).

I hope they are trying to improve the headset, not the implant


Yeah, I agree, I definitely would not to do surgery to get an implant. I don't want to become a cyborg. I am all for genetic optimization, but still want to remain "natural".


I do want to become a cyborg but I wouldn't have unnecessary brain surgery unless/until it becomes a lot safer. My brain is too damn important. ;)

#28 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 10 August 2010 - 02:22 AM

" The next step is development of a tiny, far less cumbersome sensor that could be implanted inside the brain."
An implant?? No, if you need a surgery, this won't be done by the mass. Without surgery, there are already games that can be played with a brain-wave-sensors headset (rather than a joystick, keyboard or mouse).

I hope they are trying to improve the headset, not the implant


Yeah, I agree, I definitely would not to do surgery to get an implant. I don't want to become a cyborg. I am all for genetic optimization, but still want to remain "natural".


I do want to become a cyborg but I wouldn't have unnecessary brain surgery unless/until it becomes a lot safer. My brain is too damn important. ;)


A most immortalist approach ;)

#29 DAMABO

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Mars

Posted 20 December 2010 - 09:04 PM

does anybody know if it is true that brain chips can or will be used by the government to control us?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#30 forever freedom

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 21 December 2010 - 12:56 AM

does anybody know if it is true that brain chips can or will be used by the government to control us?


Yes, yes. The government will turn all of us into thoughtless monkeys. A friend of mine from the CIA told me that.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users