It has been said within the Jonas, Kording paper "Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor" that a microprocessor is not necessarily a full model to understand the human brain. Due to the complex, yet completely understood nature of microprocessors, they are not good examples for helping us understand the more intricate system that is the human brain.
However, does this necessarily mean that what we do understand about the nervous system can't be transferred into more in-depth knowledge of technology? Can't technology assist us in situations in which the nervous system has failed?
The New York Times article Prosthetic Limbs, Controlled by Thought discusses exactly that. The notion of interpreting motor, and in some cases, sensory neuron information into a language understood by a microprocessor. The purpose of this, as the paper details, is to augment the nervous system in order to allow a subject's brain to ultimately control the movements and sensation of a robotic, prosthetic limb.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/technology/a-bionic-approach-to-prosthetics-controlled-by-thought.html
What do you all think of this? What may be the prospect of the near, or distant future of nervously controlled prosthetics? How feasible is a microprocessor that fills in for other central Nervous system functions?
No comments:
Post a Comment