From: wjbaird@dahlia.uwaterloo.ca (Warren Baird)
Subject: Re: Ultimate input hardware
Date: 14 Feb 91 19:52:07 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo



In article <16410@milton.u.washington.edu> matth@mars.njit.edu (Matthew Harelick
) writes:
>
> Wouldn't the development of neural interfaces be dangerous. If you develop 
>equipment that can "read minds" , you could develop equipment that can read
>specific parts of a persons brain, thereby invading his privacy etc. 


I don't think this is what is meant when most people refer to 
'neural interfaces'.  I'm no expert, but when I think of neural
interfaces, I think of a machine that can tell when I'm trying to
raise my arm, or flex my hand, and can then overwrite neural signals,
to make it appear (to me) that I am picking up something heavy.  Or a
machine that can project visual stimuli directly onto either the
visual cortex, or (preferrably) the optic nerves.  I think that there
is a BIG gap between doing that, and reading someone's thoughts...

I do agree that a machine that could actively read the thoughts of a
person would be a very dangerous tool...

Warren

>
>- Matt


--
         Warren Baird, 2A Co-op Math Computer Science, U(Waterloo)
 wjbaird@dahlia.uwaterloo.ca ...utzoo!watmath.uwaterloo.edu!dahlia!wjbaird
            An elephant is a mouse with an operating system.