3 ms·
>The one big objection I have to this article is the emphasis on how "opening a person’s skull is not a trivial procedure". I would be willing to bet that Neura
by skummetmaelk 10y ago
>The one big objection I have to this article is the emphasis on how "opening a person’s skull is not a trivial procedure". I would be willing to bet that Neuralink is shooting for something which won't require that, along the lines of injectable "neural dust" or stents:
The stent is placed in a blood vessel resting on top of the cortex, this will never be able to give you the resolution required for what we would consider a neural lace.
If Neuralink could somehow make "neural dust" that crosses the blood brain barrier and transmits very local recordings then they might be on to something.
The dream scenario would be tiny robots that cross the BBB and keep going until they latch onto a neuron.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoThat won't help. There are 100 billion neurons in the brain. Even if you decide on a low-bandwidth limited system, you're still looking at somewhere between 1 and 10 billion neurons. The bandwidth is fairly low, but you still need to work out a way to address the individual dust units for both reading and writing. You have to be able to place them fairly accurately. And you also have to make them maintenance-free, or replaceable if they break. None of this is even remotely possible today. It may be possible fifty to a hundred years from now, but by then some other technology may have appeared. I'd guess this approach is going to seem impossibly crude - like trying to build an i7 core out of valves.
- skummetmaelk 10y agoYour cortex contains "only" 20 billion. The mean firing rate of neurons is estimated to be between 1 and 10 Hz. If you wanted to monitor 10% of the cortex you would then need at to handle at most 20 giga events per second. Not so bad after all.