Re: The Link -- The Noct Cabal

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:08:11 07/04/02 Thu
Author: Rob
Subject: Re: The Link
In reply to: Rob 's message, "Re: The Link" on 06:17:02 07/03/02 Wed

I poked about on the web a bit and found some good data on what I was talking about. The device is called a SQUID, or Superconducting QUantum Interface Device. It measures the minute electromagnetic fields generated directly by neural currents through superconducting electrodes on the scalp. The primary limitations of the technology seem to be based on practical limitations of the sensor's sensitivity and reliability and certain mathematical difficulties involving the interpretation of that data. I feel confident that we could easily overcome those limits as well as be able to reverse the process directly to create sensory feedback. Perhaps we can improve resolution by changing the contacts from a handful of gelled wires attached to the scalp to few thousand superconducting filaments that could extend to contact the scalp right through the hair, like one of those beds of needles that you press your hand into. There's an excellent paper on the technology and processes involved at http://biron.usc.edu/~timsari/embspaper.pdf

-Rob

>Not exactly moot. There are still many things that a
>full-sensory immersion through a wetware link can do
>that even solid-light holograms could not. Smells for
>instance, or tastes. Plus, it could never alter the
>viewer or the viewer's physics. Through a neural link,
>we could just as easily interact with the environment
>through the eyes of a housecat, for instance. As far
>as the interface itself goes, You might look into a
>technology called SQUIDS. There was some talk about it
>being the new frontier in active-brain scanning some
>years ago, but it was hindered by the problem of
>getting superconducting materials at manageable
>temperatures. I have a feeling that we could surpass
>that problem ourselves. I'll check it out when I have
>some more time.
>
>-Rob
>
>>>It shouldn't require an implant. Basically, all the
>>>implant does is make it easier to stimulate
>particular
>>>sets of neurons. It ought to be possible to do the
>>>same with some kind of full-head gear that can both
>>>capture (for output) and modify (for input) your
>>>brain's electrical signature. Of course, I would
>have
>>>no idea how to do it beyond the most basic of
>outlines
>>>- in fact, I don't even think it's been done in the
>>>"real" scientific world. On the other hand, maybe
>>>this is a research project I can suggest to Marty;
>>>maybe one of the other Etherites has already done
>this
>>>and I can just build it from their specs.
>>
>>I think I might be able to handle the non-hardware
>>issues of the signal conversion - I will need to run
>>extensive tests to determine my capabilities in this.
>>A more interesting route of inquiry is the subject of
>>"force-fields" that both Jessica and Rob brought up
>>with me. If I am understanding the applications of
>>the theory correctly, if I were able to manipulate
>>these fields, it would make the issue of interfacing
>>via implant or signal conversion moot. I could make
>>it "real"

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]