h a l f b a k e r yIf ever there was a time we needed a bowlologist, it's now.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
//and I suspect information will start to flow from one mind to the other.// em I suspect not, but if one set of wires was plugged into the mains, something might happen. |
|
| |
//The VDCP is a bio-compatible protocol designed for passing
information from the human visual system into the human
mind.// |
|
| |
No it isn't. The VDCP is an acronym you've just thought up,
coupled to a desire to make such a protocol possible, which
makes this dangerously close to WIBNI. |
|
| |
... maybe, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it would allow "direct mind 2 mind communication": it would be more along the lines of subconsciously noting any patterns that correspond with the mood the other person is in. [ ] |
|
| |
Well, if you allow for my brain to feedback control the
output of your brain and visa versa, then maybe after a
while we can
watch the clouds float by together and maybe do math. |
|
| |
I only partly understand the idea. It's like building
something that probably won't work but hoping like hell
it does. |
|
| |
It's not far from [crash]'s recent Brain Device which was
unconvincing. |
|
| |
Hey, I like it... it would make an interesting experiment at least. Maybe design the VDCP to be a bit less dense... at the start so the subjects can adapt to it... depending on the density of the subject (which can be assessed Visually). |
|
| |
So, for example at one extreme, you classify the static into two categories, HIGH and low, white and black, Windows and Unix, whatever works for the subjects. |
|
| |
On the other hand... I suppose you could always just talk or use bodylanguage or whatever. Oh dear, the density is sort of the selling point, isn't it? Because we already have a bunch of wired and wireless methods to encode and transmit neural information at, perhaps, slightly lower bandwidth. Blast. |
|
| |
Bun anyway for making me do some thinking at work for a change[+] |
|
| |
Uh... [jamobaker], If I ever hear you say anything
remotely, so wrong, as what you just said...I'll slap
you this side of yesterday, and then the other side.
(thinking at work, wtf?=bone) |
|
| |
I can only guess at the bandwidth required to
represent sight. |
|
| |
I disagree with those who see this as a low bitrate
device. The human mind is a very powerful machine
and where a computer may only be capable of low
resolution recognition of specific patterns, a person
can see much, much more. Attach electrodes all over
each person's skull and send the output to a monitor
in front of the other and ask the two people to try to
cooperate at a task. They won't know how they' re
doing it but I KNOW they will communicate at a fairly
high bandwidth. |
|
| |
[ddn3], you got here 8 years and 2 days ago. You've had time to read the help file. I'm disappointed in you. |
|
| |
[jamobaker] got here 5 weeks ago. The help file is over there on the left, under "meta". |
|
| |
"Now hook up 2 peoples neural static into a loop and I suspect information will start to flow from one mind to the other". Oh dear, you've just invented the halfbakery. |
|
| |
I can displace air without doing any work at all. Results are a bit smelly, though. |
|
| |
Given that fact that sensory stimulus is severely restricted for brain function, I think it is measured at a baud rate of 1200 at nyquist rate, so nominal 2400. Bear in mind these are wildly inaccurate. |
|
| |
And given pattern recognition and positive feedback loops. This could work. To the extent where I influenece you enough to influence me, and so on. |
|
| |
There is also the problem that we should not to the marriage of two minds admit impediments... |
|
| |
How long will it take me to take over your brain with
one of these connections? Just theoretically, you
know... |
|
| |
True i did join 8 years ago but i soon lost the
password a few days later. That is why this is ddn3
:) and in the 8 years I've been plotting my
revenge.. i mean contributions.. |
|
| |
I will review the help, I did do a search for mind
direct communication but maybe i'll just use
google index searching next time :) |
|
| |
I've actually though alot about this idea before,
but only really recently have the technology
become commodity level accessible (ie the
Emotive headset, enough computational power for
the VDCP, know enough programming to do
something like this) |
|
| |
If its a requirement that submissions actually have
to be acted upon, i doubt many people would
submit, but I'll honor this sites wishes. |
|
| |
If you found a suitably unused area of the brain an hooked up a series of electrodes into an amplifying/ transmission/ receiver unit and performed a similar operation in another person's brain, then exposed both people to a period of shared experiences, it's conceivable that the stimulated areas of the mind might generate links and connections based on the stimulus received (the brain self organises based on stimulus inputs) this 'new' area of the brain would process signals received through the equipment, but since there's little coherence about what those signals might mean, it would be difficult to anticipate what sensoric features might be manifested (if any) |
|
| |
If you hotwire the visual cortex to also process 'neural static' it may simply adapt to ignore it - the same way your vision adapts to different lighting conditions (I came in from reading in the sun the other day, and everything in the kitchen looked distinctly green) - in order to make the brain not blank-out the signal, you have to make it meaningful in some way - and have some feedback from the static signal, and something that happens in the real world. Maybe prolonged exposure to the other person, in addition with the feed might provide some level of meaningful information - but that may require some additional emotional connection to make it 'stick' - perhaps choosing experimental subjects who are lovers, or maybe mothers and their children. Still, the communication is more likely to be 'empathic' rather than 'telepathic' - and maybe not even that - if both people who are connected go through the same experience, but one enjoys it, and the other dislikes it - coupling the two minds together in this way may mean that repeated stimulation of the coupled segments of the brain would result in two distinct experiences - one pleasurable and the other not. |
|
| |
All the meaning (emotional and semantic) contained in the brain is maintained by the structure of that brain. Making a connection between two brains changes that structure (opening a new channel for input/output) at a surface level, but the underlying semantic structures will always be alien to one another. |
|
| |
Now maybe, if you had a pair of twins, and connected them from birth, and engineered a range of experiences that were as equal as possible, and as such likely to have similar brain structures (although even that is a bit of a stretch) there may form some 'sense' of the other via the connection. But I'm not sure what that would achieve later on. |
|
| |
However, without having an idea as to what the potential benefits may be, a speculative experiment that requires extensive brain surgury over a number of years, without a method of measuring the results except through the subjective experiences of your subjects, it may prove tricky to secure the required funding. |
|
| |