PGOETZ@LOYVAX.BITNET (10/20/88)
Two important messages which were ignored: Quote #1: >From: peregrine!zardoz!dhw68k!feedme!doug@jpl-elroy.arpa (Doug Salot) > >If we were to accept the premise that Big Science is a Good Thing, >what should our one big goal? I personally think an effort to >develop a true man-machine interface (i.e., neural i/o) would be >the most beneficial in terms of both applications and as a driving >force for several disciplines. Quote #2: >markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins): Why? > > The first thing that comes to mind is our current situation >as regards science -- its increasing specialization. Most people will agree >that this is a trend that has gone way too far ... to the extent that we may >have sacrificed global perspective and competence in our specialists; and >further that it is a trend that needs to be reversed. Yet fewer would dare >to suggest that we can overcome the problem. I dare. One of the most >important functions of AI will be to amplify our own intelligence. In fact, >I believe that time is upon us that this symbiotic relation between human and >potentially intelligent machine is triggering an evolutionary change in our >species as far as its cognitive abilities are concerned. Here's some possiblities for research: Neural format: How the brain stores/retrieves/manipulates data/knowledge/etc., with the goal of learning to hook into this system Neural input: Camera eyes for the blind Artificial ears for the deaf Generic data input Other Neural output: Direct computer interface of some type Neural communications/control systems for quadraplegics I'm looking forward to the day when we'll have little calculator/calendar/watches interfaced with our brains which will tell us the time, notify us of appointments, and do arithmetic. Beyond that, as noted in Mark Hopkins' letter, it may be possible for devices to store & recall information for us (a big data bank which can communicate to your brain all those things we now spend years memorizing - foreign words, the effects of medical drugs, mathematical formulae, chemical compositions of materials, laws & equations of physics, the Gettysburg Address, the complete works of Pink Floyd, etc.) Note that such data might be manually entered at a terminal. (Also note that it might be nearly as good to carry around a small computer with intelligent search capabilities - provided they were allowed in exams....) Does anyone know: how realistic such hopes are? what work is being done towards them? from what discipline (computer science, biology, medical engineering,...) how soon (in decades) advancements might be made? any graduate programs that touch on this (ie the MIT cognitive science dept.)? I gather that a major problem is that those little neurons are too darn small & numerous to link up to... Phil Goetz Nord: What's that sticking out of your hat? PGOETZ@LOYVAX.bitnet Bert: Oh, that's my optical drive. FRED'S BRAIN-MATES: Here's our PhD model for $100,000... our MS for $50,000... our BS for $25,000... and our MBA for $1.75! Shatner & Nimoy in '92!