Fonte: http://lifeboat.com/ex/brain-computer.interfaces
A first-generation commercial
brain-computer interface (BCI) is being
released by Emotiv Systems later this year. What does the future hold
for BCI?
By 2050, and likely sooner, you will be able to buy a BCI device that
records all your dreams in their entirety. This will be done in one of
two ways. One method would be to use distributed
nanobots less than a
micrometer in diameter to spread throughout the brain and monitor the
activation patterns of neurons.
By this point, cognitive
science will
have advanced enough to know which neural activation patterns correspond
to which sensory experiences. This has already been done with cats
(using electrodes, not nanobots), where researchers led by scientist
Garrett Stanley were able to extrapolate what a cat was seeing merely by
monitoring the neurons of its visual cortex. Here are some images they
obtained:
The next steps will be to increase the resolution, add monitoring of
emotions, sounds, and smells, and make it safe for human use. An
alternative route, if nanobots are still not ready for commercial
deployment by 2050, is to have minimally invasive surgery where tiny
holes, no larger than a grain of sand, are drilled in the skull. (Small
price to pay, I’d say. And if drilling holes in the skull, even holes
too
small to do any damage, bothers you, then wait for the
nanobots.)
Electronic nanofibers could be routed through these holes from a port on
the outside to neurons throughout the brain. The holes could be
protected by a plastic membrane, ensuring that no foreign particles
could pass through them into the brain. The access ports on the scalp
would be compatible with a BCI headset designed to monitor activity in
specific neural groups and selectively stimulate neurons according to a
program.
A major challenge, of course, would be to get FDA approval for such a
device. The therapeutic and practical benefits of a high-resolution BCI
device are so large that if it can be shown not to cause any damage or
negative side effects to its user, approval seems likely.
If the BCI device offers input to the brain as well as recording output,
then dreams could be played back too. A Dream Machine would let us
show
our dreams to others. If we know which neural activation pattern
corresponds to which perceptions (sight, sounds, etc.), it’s not a huge
leap to selectively stimulate neurons to produce
customized dream
scenarios, or even
enter the dreams of others in action. (In
ascending
order of technological difficulty.)
Manipulating our dreams… how many thousands of years has humanity
waited
for this? Here’s a frequent kind of background I see in my dreams:
…other things I see include gigantic academic complexes, cliff
networks,
green hills overlooking sunny blue bays, and many others. I’m sure you
can imagine hundreds of scenarios from your dreams, many of which seem
so fleeting. But it won’t necessarily be that way forever.
The possible societal effects of a Dream Machine would be immense. Dream
recordings and recreations would offer an opportunity to:
1)
Validate or refute Freudian theories about the connections of
dreams
to subconscious or conscious psychological states.
2) Create a “science of dreams” or
oneirology, that organizes all
available dream data, breaks up dreams into categories, studies which
type of people get which dreams, etc.
3) Create a “dream entertainment industry” where people choose to have
customized dreams, with features like greater visual complexity or
richness of colors, or even massively multiplayer dreams.
4) The possible rise of “dream celebrities” — people who freely
upload
their dreams for others to examine, followed by a positive reception.
People might lead double lives — boring accountant by day,
world-famous
lucid dreamer by night. Some people might even get paid for their
dreams.
5) Uncover the
hidden world of dreams that barely rise above our
subconscious. People tend to have several dreams per night, but remember
only one or two. We experience these dreams when they happen, our brain
just neglects to transfer the information content into long-term memory.
(The reasons for this are likely evolutionary — we would get
confused
about reality if we remembered too many of our dreams.) Imagine if we
could record all these dreams and play them back at will. With enough
storage density
(
molecular memory), you could even store your dreams on
a pendant around your neck.
6)
Convert dream-worlds into real-worlds; amusement parks based
on
dreams, or
utility fog banks that quickly morph in response to a given
personal or collective dreamscape. Or vice versa: turn real world places
and people into dream objects.
7) In general,
blur the line between dreams and reality by making
dreams
more tangible, manipulable, interactive, customizable, and social. Bring
dreams “in from the cold”. Make dreams as mysterious, colorful,
productive, foreign, erotic, or mundane as you want them to
be.
Considering these possibilities, the first thing that makes me nervous
is that people would institute inappropriate regulations over the use of
this technology. For instance, some groups of people might hate the idea
of removing some of the “mystery of dreams” (like how modern biology
ostensibly dispels some of the mystery of life, or modern physics
dispels some of the mystery of nature) through technology. As someone
who is socially liberal, barring sufficiently negative externalities,
I’d
advocate
light regulation on this technology. Heavy regulation
should be
saved for more dangerous technologies such as
synthetic biology and
molecular nanotechnology.
Possible risks:
1) If dreams start to be run on servers, hacking or computer viruses
could be a problem. In most cases, this would likely just result in the
dream shutting down (not a big deal — this already happens all the
time),
but if your dream got hijacked, someone could use them to threaten or
attempt to brainwash you. This is what doubters will focus on
excessively — but remember, our brain and body is already
accessible to
“viruses” — including real viruses, bacteria, prions, and
parasites, but we
manage to defend against them.
Eventually, we will develop
computers with
technological immune systems as complex and effective as the human
immune system, it will just take time. Even if dream-recording BCI
devices are possible, dream-manipulating BCI devices may have to wait
until computer security catches up.
2) Communication through dreams could make it more difficult for parents
to
control their children, or for regimes to
control their
populations,
by opening up the information channels they have access to. In this
regard, the challenge would be similar to a magnified version of the
struggles already seen with the Internet in general.
3) A “delightful dream” so thoroughly enjoyable and amazing that it
spreads across the world, and all humanity is consumed by it. From that
point onward, we only develop our civilization for the purpose of
maintaining this euphoric state, a local maxima in the fitness landscape
of cultural progress and evolution. This might be a dream that involves
direct stimulation of the pleasure center. (For this reason, it might be
good to avoid building BCI devices that directly stimulate the pleasure
center.)
The “delightful dream” scenario would be
considered a subset of
wireheading. It might be more notorious, though, because while many
people wouldn’t stick electrodes into their head just to stimulate their
pleasure center, they might be willing to use a Dream Machine,
which could get them trapped in a wirehead addiction when they otherwise
would
avoid it.
Those are the main risks I can think of, but there are likely more. One
thing is for sure — if we can avoid the risks and maximize the
benefits,
the world will be a very interesting place in 2050.
Sweet dreams!