I love the approach from a science fiction angle starting w the classic tropes- frames the whole BCI discussion around the use cases and potential applications!
As for reading thoughts/feelings: There's 2 parts to that: reading someone's thoughts/feelings, and then feeding them to someone else. A lot depends on how you're picturing it.
For reading: feelings seems like in the realm of possibility -- most current BCIs are in the motor or sensory cortex, but if you stuck one in the amygdala (plus monitored hormone levels) you could probably pretty reliably read someone's emotions, and there might even be a fair amount of person-to-person similarity so you wouldn't have to completely retrain for each individual. But there definitely would be some learning involved, so there would be some long boring process of teaching the computer "I am feeling sad now". Gradually it could learn a possibly pretty nuanced mapping of your emotional states. Reading thoughts would be similar but a lot harder -- thoughts can be a lot more varied than emotions, there's higher dimensionality, but in principle you might be able to get a fuzzy picture of what someone's thinking.
Putting those emotions in someone else is very different. One version would just be to tell you "they're feeling sad now", without having you experience it. But if you want to actually induce the emotion in a brain, you're going to be very limited, because the patterns of activity associated with emotions are complex and our ability to induce activity are really blunt.
Ahh I see. So if the BCI reads, I'm sad based on a long process of learning what sad looks like in me, it would be able to communicate to your BCI (in theory) - Dom's sad.
Do you think it would be possible if your BCI learns what you're sad looks like, and mine learns what my sad looks like, that it would be able to see that I'm sad, and then induce the "sad" state within you? It sounds like the capability to induce a state is not currently great, but theoretically speaking that could happen eventually, or would you see further limitations?
Thanks for the shout out, Tommy! Great article, I really enjoyed it.
It's fascinating to ponder the possible future breakthroughs. I was recently chatting with a friend (who works in the area). She mentioned some of the new ways that optogenetics and robotics are being implemented. All I'm allowed to say is, watch this space.
I think anyone who is interested in this will benefit from reading up on Transhumanism. It talks about the benefits and ethics of enhancing the human condition but also how it could go wrong very quickly.
Currently, the biggest use for invasive BCIs are medical -- people who have paralysis, ALS, or other disabilities. If it meant being able to use a computer when I otherwise would be confined to bed with nothing to do, I would certainly consider a brain implant!
So would I. But there's nothing putting the brakes on this - where and when does it end? As I said, the brain is an enigma. We don't know the long term effect of implants, and it's irresponsible to use them to alleviate some people's boredom.
Why should it end? If there exist people willing to try, willing to take a chance while fully aware of the risks involved, then why should they be stopped?
The brain will only remain an enigma if we stop studying it. At a certain point, that means experimenting with the sorts of technologies.
Very interesting article. I can't help but feel I will be one of those Luddites who abstains from this kind of brain/computer interfacing. Like the friend of the protagonist in the Black Mirror episode 'The Entire History Of You', who at a dinner party reveals she has abstained from getting the implant. Perplexed, everyone else speaks to her like she is Amish or something, unable to understand how anyone would want to live 'naturally'. I always resonated with that character the most.
Nice discussion of Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs), @Tommy Blanchard.
It is only natural, should human technology progress, that we need to integrate that technology directly into our brains.
Not only could this help shield us from the possibility of being “left behind” by AI, it would greatly increase the bandwidth between us and the machines we use everyday.
I don’t know about you, but while I cannot live without the supercomputer in my pocket, I find the touch screen incredible slow and clunky.
Thanks for the shout out @tommy!
I love the approach from a science fiction angle starting w the classic tropes- frames the whole BCI discussion around the use cases and potential applications!
Nice piece - thank you for this!
What do you make of the sci-fi capability to read each other's thoughts, or feel each other's feelings with BCIs?
Thanks!
As for reading thoughts/feelings: There's 2 parts to that: reading someone's thoughts/feelings, and then feeding them to someone else. A lot depends on how you're picturing it.
For reading: feelings seems like in the realm of possibility -- most current BCIs are in the motor or sensory cortex, but if you stuck one in the amygdala (plus monitored hormone levels) you could probably pretty reliably read someone's emotions, and there might even be a fair amount of person-to-person similarity so you wouldn't have to completely retrain for each individual. But there definitely would be some learning involved, so there would be some long boring process of teaching the computer "I am feeling sad now". Gradually it could learn a possibly pretty nuanced mapping of your emotional states. Reading thoughts would be similar but a lot harder -- thoughts can be a lot more varied than emotions, there's higher dimensionality, but in principle you might be able to get a fuzzy picture of what someone's thinking.
Putting those emotions in someone else is very different. One version would just be to tell you "they're feeling sad now", without having you experience it. But if you want to actually induce the emotion in a brain, you're going to be very limited, because the patterns of activity associated with emotions are complex and our ability to induce activity are really blunt.
Ahh I see. So if the BCI reads, I'm sad based on a long process of learning what sad looks like in me, it would be able to communicate to your BCI (in theory) - Dom's sad.
Do you think it would be possible if your BCI learns what you're sad looks like, and mine learns what my sad looks like, that it would be able to see that I'm sad, and then induce the "sad" state within you? It sounds like the capability to induce a state is not currently great, but theoretically speaking that could happen eventually, or would you see further limitations?
Thanks for the shout out, Tommy! Great article, I really enjoyed it.
It's fascinating to ponder the possible future breakthroughs. I was recently chatting with a friend (who works in the area). She mentioned some of the new ways that optogenetics and robotics are being implemented. All I'm allowed to say is, watch this space.
👀
I think anyone who is interested in this will benefit from reading up on Transhumanism. It talks about the benefits and ethics of enhancing the human condition but also how it could go wrong very quickly.
Super interesting read, I enjoyed it immensely.
No. Just no.
😂
But since we actually know so little about the human brain, why would anyone want their brain messed with?
Currently, the biggest use for invasive BCIs are medical -- people who have paralysis, ALS, or other disabilities. If it meant being able to use a computer when I otherwise would be confined to bed with nothing to do, I would certainly consider a brain implant!
So would I. But there's nothing putting the brakes on this - where and when does it end? As I said, the brain is an enigma. We don't know the long term effect of implants, and it's irresponsible to use them to alleviate some people's boredom.
Why should it end? If there exist people willing to try, willing to take a chance while fully aware of the risks involved, then why should they be stopped?
The brain will only remain an enigma if we stop studying it. At a certain point, that means experimenting with the sorts of technologies.
Good job, man. Great article. You really nailed the psychology behind “human upgrading.”
Thank you!
Welcome! :-)
Very interesting article. I can't help but feel I will be one of those Luddites who abstains from this kind of brain/computer interfacing. Like the friend of the protagonist in the Black Mirror episode 'The Entire History Of You', who at a dinner party reveals she has abstained from getting the implant. Perplexed, everyone else speaks to her like she is Amish or something, unable to understand how anyone would want to live 'naturally'. I always resonated with that character the most.
Nice discussion of Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs), @Tommy Blanchard.
It is only natural, should human technology progress, that we need to integrate that technology directly into our brains.
Not only could this help shield us from the possibility of being “left behind” by AI, it would greatly increase the bandwidth between us and the machines we use everyday.
I don’t know about you, but while I cannot live without the supercomputer in my pocket, I find the touch screen incredible slow and clunky.
Fascinating article, thanks!