MIT creates glucose fuel cell to power implanted brain-computer interfaces

Neuroengineers at MIT have created a implantable fuel cell that generates electricity from the glucose present in the cerebrospinal fluid that flows around your brain and spinal cord. In theory, this fuel cell could eventually drive low-power sensors and computers that decode your brain activity to interface with prosthetic limbs.

i thought this , was interesting , how far away are we from programming our brains ? anyway what are your thoughts ATS ?

www.extremetech.com...

well, i guess its a bit hard to understand , i wonder though what progress they could make with this ...

It could also interface with a PC.

If they give it enough ram you could upload any kind of data.

Imagine uploading profiles!!! Today you could be pilot, tomorrow you upload a different profile and your a scientist.
An interface to the brain would be miraculous, no need for schools, just upload whatever data you require.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
It could also interface with a PC.

If they give it enough ram you could upload any kind of data.

Imagine uploading profiles!!! Today you could be pilot, tomorrow you upload a different profile and your a scientist.
An interface to the brain would be miraculous, no need for schools, just upload whatever data you require.

i was thinking the same thing XD

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


Would you be brave enough to upload ATS direct to yout brain

reply to post by VoidHawk

Would you be brave enough to upload ATS direct to yout brain

Even if such a thing were possible, I'd generally stray away from such intellectually suicidal ideas.

reply to post by VoidHawk

It could also interface with a PC.

This is where things get a little tricky. The only practical interface is an RF or other 'wireless' device. None of those are going to come as low power (in terms of what this type of fuel cell can provide and is likely safe to be catalyzed from spinal fluid). That's at least four layers of interface to design in hardware and implement in software (organic-digital; digital-transmission protocol; transmission protocol-digital; digital processing - software environment).

If they give it enough ram you could upload any kind of data.

The brain isn't designed to upload data. It is not designed to download data, either. (nor has it evolved to in either case). Any digital interface will have to glean information from what is going on in the brain and interpret its meaning. Further - an interface would require training the neural pathways to respond to stimuli from the interface and interpreting them into meaningful information.

Due to the individual nature of each person's neurological structure - it is unlikely that there will ever be a method of simply "scanning" or "downloading" memories from an individual's brain - regardless of the method used. Without considerable amounts of data detailing the manner in which the brain functions - the electrochemical systems within the brain are mere patterns of noise.

Imagine uploading profiles!!! Today you could be pilot, tomorrow you upload a different profile and your a scientist.

Again, unlikely.

Peripheral nervous systems are integral in the fluid operation of many processes. The brain doesn't actually control the body much of the time - the body's neural pathways are trained in a sort of short-hand coupled with minimal processing of feedback information.

This is why after, say, roller-skating for a few hours will leave you feeling awkward at the sensation of walking - and why musicians will come to view the instrument as an extension of their own bodies. It's the same concept, and there are many such processes in neurology that cannot be developed via a 'download.'

Though, theoretically, if you had an entire network of nano-architecture supporting your primary and peripheral nervous systems in parallel - controlled stimulation of the nerves by a program could emulate the training process at an accelerated rate (still may take several sleep cycles to compare to months on a training regimen - but I'm really speculating at that point).

An interface to the brain would be miraculous, no need for schools, just upload whatever data you require.

Again, unlikely.

What is more likely is that you would be able to store vast amounts of information digitally on a portable device and use your interface to access and interpret that information.

It would, basically, short-hand the search function. Let's say you are in the middle of a discussion, and need to look up the most recent statistics on oil imports. You could pull up a chart stored on your phone, or use it to run a search and interpret the search results (and viewed web pages) without ever having to pull your phone out of your pocket.

Although first marketable generations would likely still require a visual interface for interpreting visual information. Which is why Amazon may be one of the first to invest in such a device once the technology to bring it to market comes around. Accurately interpreting a book of text is much more within the realms of our understanding of the brain than triggering accurate renderings of pictures or 3d objects in the mind.

Though most of the developers of the device in the pre market era will be interface companies looking to develop the next Mouse, touch pad, or joystick of its era.

"Unlikely" does not mean Impossible.

I think your reasoning is based on current knowledge and techno. What about in 10 or 50 years time?

Suppose we learn how to alter the way the brain works?

And you cant deny that television programs people

LOL, reminds me of this video:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by VoidHawk


This is more like a power supply unit than it is Ram. All it does is create a power source inside your body that can be utilized by the electric currents that power machines (albeit very small machines)

Now where is the token "free energy" comment.

May as well throw a Tesla reference in there as well....

reply to post by boncho


I know but they speak of using it to interface with prosthetics etc and it got my imagination running

No doubt google will monetize this technology and then implement android roms for your brain...

oh what fun FC'ing your erection... or your... never mind..

lol

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by boncho

 

I know but they speak of using it to interface with prosthetics etc and it got my imagination running

Definitely a step in the right direction, mimicking the method used by our own bodies to generate low power. The issues will still remain with the external limb's power source, but it wouldn't be too out there to whip yer arm off and plug it into the recharger over night..

when you think about it, it's amazing how we have any strength at all, given the way we work.

I think it's be actually nice to have a reverse sort of this tech. batteries that we use that fuel us, so we don't need to consume food. Or at least very little. Just add water.

if we can understand how to create energy from biological means, surely we can also create biological energy for use by organs/muscles etc.

Originally posted by mainidh
No doubt google will monetize this technology and then implement android roms for your brain...

oh what fun FC'ing your erection... or your... never mind..

lol

Android!!! You dont think they'll let us mere mortals have Android do you!! Sorry but it'll be Dos Beta for us matey

Just imagine being blind and then being able to see. Great technology. But wait until the creative minds of the military get a hold of this. Hmmm. The possibilities. Bionic eye with ability to calculate target and fire weaponry taking out human error in aiming; automatic transmission of real time data. And don't forget scientists are working on DNA computers. The possibilities would be endless if scientists were able to indeed develop a truly working version of a DNA computer that could do more than just simple calculations.

reply to post by Aim64C


holy , smokes where do you get this info from ..... you must know a little bit about this stuff

reply to post by VoidHawk

"Unlikely" does not mean Impossible.

As a knowledgeable person, I know better than to deal in absolutes unless I'm dealing with someone on the same footing and I expect to challenge, with logic and/or a thesis, said absolute.

I think your reasoning is based on current knowledge and techno. What about in 10 or 50 years time?

It is based on current understandings of the brain and available/projected technology.

Here's the thing: Structural Engineering has changed very little since the building of Cathedrals and other massive architectural accomplishments. The laws governing the involved forces have not changed.

What has changed are the properties and availabilities of building materials. These properties have allowed structures that were previously not possible in reality (but could still be functionally drawn on paper with: "super-strong yet impossibly light cable." The gap in capability was linked to the properties of the materials - not a failure to discover the arch or mathematical principles behind suspension bridges.

Similarly, what we do know about the brain and its function precludes the impracticality of many hollywood concepts of cybernetic devices.

Suppose we learn how to alter the way the brain works?

We already can through a number of processes. The brain is a neural network that, if anything, is designed to adapt to the stimuli it receives. This is, vaguely, a concept known as neural plasticity.

Autism-spectrum 'disorders' are an example of atypical neurological function. People with Asperger's Syndrome, for example, often have incredibly accurate memories combined with very narrow and peculiar interests. A person with Asperger's may collect cameras, but have no interest in photography (but be able to recite their serial number and user manual verbatim complete with a page, paragraph, and line index - depending upon the 'severity' of the 'disorder').

Even if it would be possible to create a "plug and play" device for 'neruotypicals'; it would not function with 'neuroatypicals' (a group that will only grow and be further sub-divided as time goes on and more detailed research about the neurology of our population compiles).

The only practical solution is a device designed to use nearly universal sensory regions of the brain to, itself, co-adapt with the brain to form an intelligible interface with a digital system.

Even then - things can be a little tricky. There are people in the population who have neurological issues that point to possible individual differences even in the "basic" senses of sound, sight, etc. Take the increasingly popular "2d glasses" www.2d-glasses.com... They claim (though I'm not sure if research backs it) that about 10% of the population experiences discomfort and/or the inability to watch 3d movies. This has a neurological base and has to do with how the brain processes information from the eyes. In some people, such as a friend of mine, illness and the necessary surgery have led to a complete inability to process 3d. A 3d movie with 3d glasses is nothing but noise.

While it may be possible to use MRIs and nanobot technologies to map each individual's neural network over the course of years to allow an implant to be made and tailored to work almost flawlessly upon installation... that is just not a practical market.

The key limitation to a practical cybernetic implant is the whole process of implanting. So long as people are required to go under the blade - it will remain a 'repair' and enthusiast application. When one could be injected with nanobots that construct synthetic networks (possibly even an entire parallel network of digital processors distributed through the brain) out of trace minerals or injected/consumed feed-stock, then cybernetics become practical as a general market item.

Psychologically, people will not bite too hard on an implant that requires them to stay in the hospital for any length of time.

Technologically - we have the capability, now, for some pretty impressive cybernetic interfaces (of the adaptive variety that I talk about - though a considerable amount of research has to be done on the subject's individual neurology at present).

And you cant deny that television programs people

In soviet Russia, VCR programs you!

In all seriousness, though - television doesn't program people any differently than social interaction does (though video games can help with spatial awareness and some other interesting things that are unique in their broad-transfer natures).

reply to post by Aim64C


Yep, as somebody mentioned above, you seem to know your stuff so I'm not gonna argue with you.

Two very intersting posts, thanks

Leaving out the brain its still exciting stuff. I'm sure it'll lead to good things for example hearing loss and blindness etc

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

holy , smokes where do you get this info from ..... you must know a little bit about this stuff

I draw from years of experience in hardware electronics/computers, computer software, and some forays into neuropsychology.

I'm likely in some category of "neruoatypical" - I have a memory that far surpasses most people with some traits in common with Asperger's... though some of the more troublesome symptoms are less prominent in myself (though I do not have the ability to recall page numbers, paragraphs, and lines like a human bibliography - I just recall a lot of information verbatim and do so with a single exposure to the information).

I look at the problem as someone trying to make a practical cybernetic interface. Knowing what I know about neurological function - I see no reason to pursue a device intended to be "plug and play" or otherwise universally compatible with individuals. The very nature of a neural network means that the topography of the network can and will change based on the demands placed upon it. The only practical expectation is to be able to get it to adapt and make use of the information you are feeding it (starting with basic patterns that the network is adept at recognizing as a sign of useable information).

I wouldn't waste my time and resources going after a fundamentally flawed device that ignores the nature of what it is supposed to interface with.

For example... draw a nickle from memory. Don't look at one, don't google it - just draw one from memory (or just try to picture one... or substitute a similar coinage you are familiar with).

Is the date on it? Is the head facing the correct way? What about the mint code?

Or - try to draw the face of one of your friends from memory and compare it to a photo.

In both cases, there are likely huge chunks of information missing from your memory. Why should your brain remember every detail about a nickle when it merely needs to remember enough to recognize it when it is viewed?

Memory doesn't work the way we want it to. Your brain isn't a computer in the same way a digital computer works. You form memories based on links between traits. The amount of detail retained is sufficient for the function of the individual.

For example - I'm an enthusiast of military aircraft. You can give me a picture of only the port horizontal stabilizer and a portion of the exhaust manifolds and I can tell you what aircraft it is (or what possibilities it could be - depending upon which aircraft and exactly how much detail is captured).

To most people - it's an airplane. It has wings, a seat, and some engines. They couldn't tell you whether it was a Mig-29, Su-37, or F-18 (and forget which model of the F-18).

Similarly, I don't really see the difference between many cars. Sure - I can look at a car in front of me and tell you what about it looks distinguishing - but I couldn't tell you what type of car (even if I looked at the hood ornament, half the time), the model, year, or anything most people my age would consider common knowledge. I simply have no interest in cars in that fashion.

Again - other people can take you out and identify species and sub-species of trees by looking at their bark, leaves, etc. Most of us could tell you it's an oak, birch, maple, pine - etc... but this individual has taken the time to learn what distinguishes the species and sub-species.

Since the structure is so radically different from a digital memory system we are accustomed to working with - developing a device to even minimally interface with an individual's working perception of the world is a serious undertaking. Likely - the device would have to interpret what the eyes are actually seeing before it could even begin to piece together what the mind is perceiving.

I would possibly see large portions of schooling replaced by cybernetic implant training. It would be a continual process over the course of years (that would never really stop - just as you never really stop training your brain) - and integral to the functionality of the implant.

SWEET!

Now I can power that bluetooth stereo system I want to implant in those bones behind my ears!