Compare And Contrast...
....with certain other people who prefer to find ways to crash your pacemaker.
Australian researchers have claimed a world’s first by successfully implanting a ‘pre-bionic eye’ in a blind patient. Ms Dianne Ashworth is the patient in question, and suffers retinitis pigmentosa, a condition that has left her with profound vision loss. The eye Ashworth received is a prototype with only 24 electrodes in its …
....with certain other people who prefer to find ways to crash your pacemaker.
Being blind won't be a disability, all the text books will show that this lady was where it all started. Patient zero.
No, it won't since its not the first...
In 200 years having only two eyes you are born with will be considered a disability. Well maybe a little longer than 200 years, but eventually our sight we have today will be seen as restrictive.
Once developed this kind of stuff will be expanded to support additional features natural human eyes don't have, like zoom and focus, increased resolution and nightvision built into the retina. Not only that but you will be able to link your vision to remote cameras and people might expect rearview vision. The concept of a "screen" we see on computers, tablets, mobiles today will become obsolete as movies and presentations will just beam directly into the brain. Cameras will cover the entire Earth much like webcams and people will link their "eyes" to them to see what is happening. People will also be capable of sharing their eyesight to let others literally see the world through their eyes.
I suspect the biggest obstacle will be the brain's capacity to process images. I expect the next step will be the offloading of visual processing in the brain to external devices (and then maybe internal). I think long before we have the ability to enhance ourselves generically we will go down the cyborg route.
"In 200 years having only two eyes you are born with will be considered a disability."
With your understanding of science and inability to tell science from science fiction, it's easy to "see" why you've bought into the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax.
I can accept your remarks about improving the performance of one's own eyesight.
I'm more skeptical about the "sharing" and "remote" access. If your eyes are built to accept external inputs, how can you trust that you are seeing the real world when you *think* you are working internally? How hard would it bee for someone to hack your eyes' visual stream, filter it in real time to remove things or people that they didn't want you to see, and the play the resulting lie back into your head?
Then again, perhaps we'll have learned something about securing IT systems by then.
"I'm more skeptical about the "sharing" and "remote" access. If your eyes are built to accept external inputs, how can you trust that you are seeing the real world when you *think* you are working internally?"
Good point, I guess it would be similar to not being able to trust what you see on TV. It's definitely open to abuse and no doubt there will be a significant number of people paranoid (justifiably) and not using it. But given the utility of having complete control over our vision I imagine it would become popular and widely used, much like how mobiles have become widely used today.
"How hard would it bee for someone to hack your eyes' visual stream, filter it in real time to remove things or people that they didn't want you to see, and the play the resulting lie back into your head?"
The primary camera on the front of your head would be so close to the brain that it would be pretty immune to such attacks, but yes if you were dialing into a remote camera an attacker certainly has a lot more room to interfere with that.
"Then again, perhaps we'll have learned something about securing IT systems by then."
Some things never change.
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
Well done to the team and keep up the good work.
First, get the vision thing done.
Then, get the skin feeling done.
Optional bonus points: Do the smell and hearing.
Finally, porn it out to the delighted public.
As a side-note, my mid-70s Father pointed out that my Grand-daughter is probably going to be one of the Moms who give birth to immortals ... Technology is moving FAST ... Not sure if it's a good thing or not, only time will tell :-)
Immortality is unlikely I'm afraid.
1. It's not possible, even with switching off age genes, regrowing limbs etc. Cancer is still not preventable, nor are a number of degenerative disorders, genetic or otherwise.
2. The social and economic repercussions are unthinkable. There world is overpopulated as it is, the last thing it needs is people not dying. Expect gene therapy from point one to be outlawed or legislated to..errr...death.
3. Would you really want to be immortal? Especially if you were the only one in your family to afford it? Seeing all your children, grand-children dying? Nah, no thanks.
Forget turning off genes, think retro-virus's to repair DNA,
Cancer, already very treatable, and nano tech will enable us to target and eradicate cancers easily, all you need is a way to detect cancer cells vs normal cells.
Social & economic repercussions... Just because you ARE immortal, won't mean people will choose to live forever, plus the universe is a BIG place....
Would I buy it? yes, but then I would probably want to be shot out into space towards a distant star, just to find out what is there....
Maybe that's how it ends. Once your species is immortal they agree to a population cap. This means you only get new individuals if an existing individual dies from an accident. Over time this selects against individuals who take risks. So you eventually you get a population consisting entirely of couch potatoes floating in space doing nothing but watching movies all day. And that's why the universe is silent.
"Cancer, already very treatable"
Although there are forms of cancer that are more treatable than in the past, in general I think that that's a debatable statement.
I could see a little flash
Poor lady. Blind all those years and the first thing she sees is someone getting their knob out.
.. better make sure rotten Apple hasnt patented this yet.
They will call it the iEye, (cap'in)
"They will call it the iEye, (cap'in)"
Actually it's called Eye-fi
Eat your heart out.
A good effort, but...why the need for external processing, if there is an internal stimulation pathway already? What is the external processing actually, errrr, processing?
Great achievement and will get better I am sure, but hasn't this been done before?
What about the
Argus Retinal Prosthesis
MIVIP (which sounds close to this)
and the Artificial Silicon Retina (ASR) by the Dr Chow?
So while I am glad to hear of the research, its not first...
A 1980s science fact/fiction glossy ? ISTR they covered a researcher who had done something similar. Odd it's taken so long to progress ....
Now that you mention it I remember watching a documentary many years ago in which they made a blind man see Braille dots thanks to some kind of implant. I don't remember the details so it may have been something completely different.
How soon until these implants are better than human eyes?
I'm thinking UV, Infra-red, thermal imaging, low light vision, integrated targeting scope, video camera, and picture in picture.
Kryten will be pleased - human eyes just have the zoom (moving your head closer to the object)
"Kryten will be pleased - human eyes just have the zoom (moving your head closer to the object)"
Nipple twisting tuning is next
"Nipple twisting tuning is next"
You haven't discovered sex yet? That explains lots ...
Don't you just hate it when you out yourself, fanboi/stalker?
I mean seriously, under 20 minutes? Do you watch my posts 24/7, fanboi/stalker?
Less intrusive, however as one of the articles states, more than one gene involved, so no ons size fits all cure (yet).
Wake me when they have something similar to G'kar's.
A similar trial is taking place in Oxford.
I've read elsewhere that the "codec" used by the retina to transfer image data to the brain has already been discovered - and yet, this project seems to aim for the very same thing...
I think God is suing Apple over a related patent dispute
Other way around.
I think this project is "plugging in" some way downstream of the retina. I imagine the main problem is that the don't know how far downstream they are, so there's a bit of a learning process before you can know what signals you are trying to fake.
Seems it has already been done - 12 years ago:
And with much better results than merely "detecting flashes" and seeing random shapes.
I want an eye that has extended wavelength reception, geometric enhancement, zoom, and recording capability with real-time playback. It's all about the bus speed between the bionic component and the brain. Curing blindness and other vision ailments with bionic components would be a great achievement.
I want the upgrade with the X-ray vision option!!
Seriously though, good work - whoever is doing it. Not sure about NomNomNomNomNomNom's "vision" of the future though. Glad I won't be around to suffer couch potato couchiness. It's bad enough now!!!
Typos. Remove the leading "couch".
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017