[LINK] From a wrongful arrest to a life-saving romance: the typos that have changed people's lives | Technology | The Guardian
Karl Auer
kauer at biplane.com.au
Mon Aug 5 12:47:13 AEST 2019
On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 11:52 +1000, David wrote:
> On Monday, 5 August 2019 11:07:17 AEST Karl Auer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is a vastly different proposition to decoding thoughts.
> > Well - yes and no. And you still need to decode the speech.
> Interesting... I interpreted "decoding thoughts" as identifying a
> concept, or an intention, before it's resulted in motor activity such
> as verbalisation, activation of limb muscles, etc. But leaving aside
> the issue of sensors, would this require a processor having the same
> order of complexity as the human brain, especially if the whole brain
> is involved in creating that intention?
You have successfully decoded my thoughts! :-)
"Yes" to the first part, "not necessarily" to the second part.
For me, controlling systems "by thought" just means any system that can
be controlled directly by the nervous system, without the need to
physically interact with anything. "Physically" meaning "moving mass" -
obviously I don't think thought exists outside the physical Universe.
The speech detection thing you wrote of meets that definition, but
ordinary speech recognition does not. Moving a bionic prosthesis via
nerve impulse likewise counts as "thought controlled" for me.
As far as it needing a similar complexity to determine as to create an
intention - well, possibly. I think it depends very much on the
complexity of the intention. "Fire!" is probably pretty easy to work
out, but "How shall I eat a peach?" might be a bit tricky.
Regards, K.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389
GPG fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D
Old fingerprint: A0CD 28F0 10BE FC21 C57C 67C1 19A6 83A4 9B0B 1D75
More information about the Link
mailing list