Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
There's not even a reason for Google glass.
There's zero reason for a skullcap or implant.
But I remember back in the 90s "wearable computers" were a thing, before even smartphones.
100% impractical, and needed to carry a computer in a backpack and a monitor on glasses or attached to a hat.
Controlled usually by a weird orcania like one handed keyboard/trackball that you might have to press three buttons for the right letter.
People are always going to want to try cutting edge tech, but it's rarely practical for anything.
Where this is different, is it involves actual brain surgery.
I read one good idea for a Google glass-type device. Say you wanted to repair your lawn mower. You'd input the proper program and you'd get a heads up display showing you every step. A little red dot would appear over the first screw, and if you looked around it would locate the proper tool.
But yeah, most of the other stuff is just tech for the sake of tech.
Not zero reason. Some people with certain disabilities could benefit from such a device. (Stephen Hawking for instance, was limited to about 10 words per minute with his button interface. A brain interface on a similar patient could be closer to normal conversion speed.)
Yeah, but the implant does nothing that can't be done without surgery
Brain surgery isn't just something you do for shits and gigles.
Okay, but would you rather be locked in your unmoving body or get brain surgery and have motion again? Would you rather be blind and deaf or get brain surgery and have your senses back?
What?
I dont think you understand anything about this subject...
Probably any subject, but definitely not this one
Your issue, as far as I understood it, was that the brain implants are pointless, cause they do nothing we can't already do. There's plenty current medical technology can't fix, but a brain implant could (one day). Such as restoring sight by bridging cameras to the visual cortex; or restoring control over their body to disabled people, either by bypassing damaged nerves anywhere in the body or connecting prosthetics to the motor cortex. Are those things worth the trouble of going through brain surgery?
You're vastly overestimating what Musk has...
Drastically underestimating what it would take to get that stuff...
All while ignoring that what Musk is attempting to do, has essentially already been done.
Musk just wants to shrink it down a little, while claiming he invented it.
But considering he can't even get the brain surgery done, why would you trust his product?
Like, don't do it right after eating. But read up on his "studies". They're following no scientific procedure and basically trying random shit while torturing intelligent animals to death.
And this isn't a rant against animal testing, thats a thing that sucks but we need it. But Musk is not at the point for it yet, and from what records they do keep of the experiments, it legitimately looks like they're not trying.
They're not even sterilizing the surgery equipment.
You have zero idea what youre defending.
Which is true of most people defending musks companies in any field.
You just believe his claims and accept them despite zero evidence or it ever working in the past.
Why are you bringing up Musk? I fail to see how Neuralink is the killing blow to the very concept of brain-computer interfaces. Your bias is showing.
It's true that current BCIs can't do what I outlined as their potential benefits. Hence, why they're potential. The technology still needs to develop before those potential benefits can be realised. Personally, I look forward to that day.