Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!elm
From: elm@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: input devices for the computer of the future
Message-ID: <8972@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 20 Jan 89 22:16:41 GMT
References: <8901201826.AA08787@multimax.encore.com>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: bandersnatch@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller)
Organization: Univ. of CA, Berserkeley
Lines: 36

In article <8901201826.AA08787@multimax.encore.com> U1DF1@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU ("John Neubert") writes:
#[stuff about direct computer-brain interface deleted]
#This is not a crazy idea... and I didn't see any smilies.  I was a film
#major way back when, pre-CS days.  An alternative cinema book I was
#studying had a final chapter in which the author postulated the ultimate
#creative cinema recorder -- brain hook up so one could record one's
#thoughts or dreams.  The idea pervades much sf -- how about Spock's
#brain connection?

Two sf books I will recommend that deal with this subject are _Neuromancer_,
by William Gibson (there are sequels, but I haven't read them) and _The
Genesis Machine_, by James P. Hogan.  The first deals with man-machine
interface to a worldwide computer network, and much of the information
is delivered by "converting" it to sight and sound, etc.  Of course, that's
just the way it was written down; perhaps the protagonist's brain was
working in some way which we can't understand.  Maybe it's like trying
to explain "green" to someone who has been blind from birth.

The other book uses a more conventional approach--the computer is hooked
up to the brain directly, and visualized problems are picked up by the
computer and solved (incidentally, this is not the main focus of the
book, but it is mentioned a few times).  For example, if you want to
solve a finite-element analysis on a bridge, you would visualize a bridge
and provide relevant information like materials and dimensions.  One
problem brought up was that, given today's computers, there would be
problems "imagining" correctly.  The computer still followed orders
literally and provided GIGO.  Perhaps we should do more work in AI
and "do what I mean, not what I say" computers before hooking them
directly to the brain (of course, there's the minor problem of
_designing_ a brain-computer interface, but that exercise is left
to the reader :-).

ethan
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ethan miller (UCB CS grad student)         | bandersnatch@ernie.berkeley.edu   
"Quod erat demonstrandum, baby." -T. Dolby | {...}!ucbvax!ernie!bandersnatch