FSK, Vision, and the Brain

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Sat May 10 17:19:04 EST 2003


"External Network Error" <peer-error at excite.com> wrote in message
news:f4163860.0305101235.1a4eea6c at posting.google.com...
| r norman <rsnorman_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<cqqpbvgsktmgosm9sad08spq7l868a7929 at 4ax.com>...
| > [...]
|
| There is a electronic brain device currently used by the blind.
| Electrode stimulate the brain to produce visual perception. A major
| disadvanted is the heat [generated by electrons flowing against
| resistance] damage brain tissue eventually rendering this technique
| useless. Burnt tissue is dead and does not respond to excitation of
| any type. I am thinking of a device using electrical stimulation
w/out
| generating a denaturing amount of heat.

Anything that counters artificially-induced organic damage is 'good',
but just going in-there results in irreversible organic damage. So,
on that 'level', your idea seems to be worthwhile [the =caveat= being
that you didn't provide sufficient info to evaluate its merits in any
way other than with respect to this extremely-general Truth].

Anyway, Dr. Norman's advice is a a prerequisite - just doing anything
without comprehending the Neuroscience will result in degradation of
what's in-there, even if what's in-there is already less than fully
functional.

The Knowledge can be gained outside of an institutional setting, but,
unless you're independently-wealthy, that's not a promising way to
go. Anything you accomplish will 'just' get 'ripped-off' by folks
who're in a better position than you are to implement it.

So Dr. Norman's advice is sound.

The knowledge-base is Huge, and there's no way around having to Learn
it.

K. P. Collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list