Looks like I hit a nerve here <wide brin>!
------- start of forwarded message -------
From: daharrell@aol.com (DAHarrell)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.blind-users
Subject: Substituting gedankenexperimente for reality...?
Date: 25 Oct 1995 15:59:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 257
Message-ID: <46m4ua$1rr@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: daharrell@aol.com (DAHarrell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Substituting gedankenexperimente for reality...?
Two weeks ago I posted an article detailing "Tactile Image Reception
(Interactive High-Resolution)". I requested help in building the first
prototype. Mike Freeman posted the following comment (evidently directed
toward people who might be considering contributing in some way to the
construction of the first FAVision prototype):
----------
Message-ID: <45jlvr$90m@pacifier.com>
On date: 12 Oct 1995 11:15:23 -0700, mikef@pacifier.com (Mike Freeman)
wrote:
On the other hand, unless you have money to burn, e.g., you're Bill Gates
(and even if you are, your time would be better spent insuring
accessibility of the GUI environment to the blind), don't bother. Whom
would you rather believe: the blind and others familiar with past
endeavors and the difficulties inherent in this sort of project or
someone who is not blind, is unfamiliar with the techniques used by the
blind to travel independently and who spends his time substituting
gedankenexperimente for reality?
Mike Freeman | Internet: mikef@pacifier.com
---------
It would appear that Mr Freeman wishes to portray me as an individual
without scientific credibility. In self defense, I must point out that my
chosen field of research is cognitive science; I have written four books
detailing new perspectives on artificial intelligence. I am considered
the founder of "cognitive physics", and have achieved some degree of
notoriety for my theories isolating Random Perspective Expansion as a new
method of objective oriented problem solving. My contentions concerning
this project are very specific,
they may be expressed in three parts:
1. Tactile Image Reception (Interactive High-Resolution) has never been
attempted.
2. Tactile Image Reception (Interactive High-Resolution) has a high
probability of offering a substantial degree of useful sensory input for
some individuals.
3. The degree to which this device may be useful can only be determined
through real-time mobile testing.
I am characterized by Mr Freeman as the world's sole believer in the
probability of obtaining successful results from this device. Over the
past months I have received a great number of opinions from around the
world concerning my theory of Tactile Image Reception (Interactive
High-Resolution). The majority of these persons have expressed their
enthusiasm and support for this idea, and a few have offered suggestions
on how to deal with some of the design challenges. These people are
invariably of high academic standing, currently working as experts in
specific related fields.
Curiously, most of the negative comments seem to have come from the
administrators of the very foundations assumed to be concerned with
advancing the quality of life for the blind. Approximately half of these
administrative professionals (whom have rejected this project) seem to be
of the opinion that it may indeed work, but they go on to claim that such
a devise obviously cannot be built. Ironically, the other half have taken
the completely opposite point of view.
It is difficult to comprehend Mike Freeman's direct attacks on myself and
my theories concerning human perception. I can easily understand Mr
Freeman's failure to support this work, but why should he actively seek to
deter this project?
I cannot resist this opportunity to examine the reasoning powers of this
influential figurehead in the blind community. Please excuse this brief
digression from the point. It is perhaps an attempt to dissipate some of
the frustration I have incurred on this project. I have endured months of
correspondence with a certain level of intelligence, which I believe is
vividly illustrated by the prominent Mr Freeman as he itemizes his three
objection to the FAVision project.
Apparently, none of the following three assertions address the relevant
details or aspects of my theory, but instead seem intended to disqualify
or degrade my personal character.
My three shortcomings are described by Mr Freeman as being:
(1) "someone who is not blind."
Presumably Mr Freeman is suggesting that persons who are not blind, are
unable to conceive of valid ideas relating to cognitive perceptions. I am
confident he will find very little support for this point of view.
(2) "someone who is unfamiliar with the techniques used by the blind to
travel independently."
Here Mr Freeman appears once again to be simply ignorant of the facts. I
am of course very well informed as to current independent travel
techniques, as well as their respective limitations. But in any case, he
has failed to offer a point, since conventional methods of blind
navigation are somewhat irrelevant to the concept of Tactile Image
Reception (IH-R), just as the details of horse and buggy travel were
almost irrelevant to the conception of the airplane.
(3) "someone who spends his time substituting gedankenexperimente for
reality."
Obviously Mr Freeman and his legal staff have no clear knowledge of how my
time is spent, and unfortunately have made a very poor guess. His
references however to "gedankenexperimente" may indeed be valid, since
here at last, I suspect we have finally touched on a subject with which Mr
Freeman has had a great deal of professional experience.
The relevant details of the FAVision project are not addressed by Mr
Freeman, perhaps because he knows they are well supported in my published
articles. I suspect he is simply concerned with his apparent loss of
control over funds being allocated toward research and development of this
kind. (BTW public contributions are NOT being accepted. Support for the
FAVision prototype is currently being sought in the large corporate and
private sector. I trust Mike won't mind if Bill and Dave go ahead and
build this device without his blessing.)
David Albert Harrell
DAHarrell@aol.com
For anyone who missed all of this the first time around, the follow
selections are from the recently published series of articles describing
this new approach to human perception: Tactile Image Reception
(Interactive High-Resolution)
Feel-A-Vision
Did you ever put your hand on a TV screen to see if you can feel anything?
You can't. But if you could, you would feel thousands of dots being
electronically selected and lighted to create an image over the entire
two-dimensional field.
If such a field were delivered to the "sea of nerve endings" contained in
a large area of skin, a human being would be able to make use of this
two-dimensional order-image.
The device is in three main parts:
1. A video camera.
2. A central processing unit (computer).
3. A flexible pad worn snugly to the skin (or scanning emitter) that
stimulates the nerve endings of the dermal area.
Briefly, the pictorial image from a video camera is received and processed
by a computer, and then delivered to an x,y grid (100,000+ picts), in the
form of dermal stimulating impulses. The specific type of stimulation is
a variable at this point. I have considered electric shock, heat, or
laser (of low but perceivable intensity). It would be ideal to isolate an
effective type of electric current which the brain is already accustom to
receiving. This question of what kind of stimulation would be most
effective, can only be answered through experimentation.
The neuro-system, brain, pattern recognition capabilities, and natural
adaptive powers of the human mind accomplish the remainder of this
unorthodox direct image perception.
One of the reasons that I am so completely convinced that this will work,
is that I have subjectively proved it. I have repeatedly conducted
sessions in which I sat quietly, blindfolded or with my eyes closed, while
another person drew simple pictures and letters on my back. At first I
was only able to deduce the images by reconstructing them in my mind,
however eventually, during many of the more focused sessions, the touch of
the finger on my skin began to "light up" in the darkness of my minds eye,
leaving a trail that lingered long enough in many cases for me to perceive
the entire image or letter as a coherent complete picture.
What I am essentially suggesting is that the normal two-dimensional image
that falls upon the cones and rods on the rear portion of the inner eye,
can be effectively replace (in its role with the visual cortex of the
brain), by a larger dermal area (such as the back, stomach, or scalp)
undergoing a different (but also 2 dimensional) stimulation; creating a
parallel system of input that the brain would have an opportunity to
recognize in a somewhat familiar manner.
It is also the natural business of the brain to respond to a specific
overture of patterned stimuli. A mobile blind subject, wearing such a
device, would have an opportunity to create a real-time feedback
relationship with the physical world.
Feel-A-Vision: a MOBILE subject in a real-time environment.
It appears that many people are dismissing Feel-A-Vision as having been
tried before. These hasty assumptions are not correct. There are two
aspects that sharply separate this concept from any and all past
endeavors.
The first issue is the method of stimulation. I am suggesting a high
resolution (100,000+ picts is easily obtainable) electric or laser sweep
(operating from a cone shaped emitter placed on the subjects back or
scalp). This is the same method which a conventional TV picture tube uses
to light the picts located on the screen-face area of the tube. The
sensation I am attempting to produce is that of a tickle or slight heat,
corresponding with the lighted areas in the picture. This "tickle
sensation" might also be eventually produced by a snugly worn pad embedded
with an electrode grid array. Considering the varying number of current
types available, it is difficult for me to view this as a serious impasse
to the building of the first prototype.
Also, the fingertips, although more densely populated with nerve endings,
would not offer a large enough area for the necessary resolution. Giving
the current state of electronic technology, I am certain that such a
tickle sensation could be delivered to a dermal area in a variety of
different methods and intensities.
Secondly, there is the matter of interfacing the subject with a real-time
physical environment. For instance, imagine a mobile subject fitted with
a working portable device that was delivering the picture from a camera
(perhaps cap mounted) to an emitter pad covering as large an area of the
back as possible, with as many picts involved as would be useful to
increase the "resolution' of the image.
Now place this subject in an environment void of light, except for a line
guided path which the subject would begin to walk upon. Now suppose that
this path at some point has a low hanging lighted "bright white" limb (I
don't want to appear cruel of flippant here, but this is necessary to make
my point). The first time the subject encountered the limb, there would
be a registration by the Feel-A-Vision system of a "white stripe" that
would pass across the "back pad emitter field" just before the subject was
impeded by the limb.
What I am saying is that eventually the subject will associate the passing
of the "white stripe" as a cognitive precursor to being struck by the
limb, and will duck. The rest is merely a matter of experience, learning
to distinguish shapes and details. But the key is to create conditions
that offer instant feedback in a real and physical space. This is the
kind of endeavor in which the human mind invariably excels to astonishing
heights.
Adaptability is the strongest single resource of the brain. If a useful
orderly image is made available, the brain will tune in to it. The only
necessary ingredient to achieve effective results where human beings are
involved, seem to be determination and endurance. I expect there will be
no shortage of these elements.
A stationary subject would not offer the kind of real-time feedback
necessary for the subject to begin adapting to the device, nor for the
brain to discover and correlate the relevance and usefulness of the area
being stimulated.
Assume that we have already built such a device, i.e. a moving picture is
being delivered to the back area of a subject in the form of a tickle or
heat image; if the subject does not proceed to interface with a real
environment, then I would not expect any learning, nor even cerebral
discover of the area. Putting such a device on a stationary subject,
would be like inventing a parachute and then attempting to test it from
the deck of a submarine.
Finally I am suggesting that if such a tickle image is made available to
the brain, that it is the natural business of the brain to recognize such
an area of two-dimensional data within a given feedback loop of real-time
information, this being completely analogous to the normal relationship
between the visual cortex and the rear portion of the inner eye surface
(in effect offering the visual cortex an "alternate retina"). It is the
correlation between the real world, and this new area of stimulation, that
will achieved the inevitable communication of a useful "picture".
More details are available on request. Anyone who believes this machine
may work, and wishes to be of help in creating the first prototype, should
contact David Albert Harrell. DAHarrell@aol.com
------- end of forwarded message -------
-- Mike Freeman | Internet: mikef@pacifier.com GEnie: M.FREEMAN11 | Amateur Radio Callsign: K7UIJ /* PGP2.6.2 PUBLIC KEY available via finger or PGP key server */ ... The usefulness of a meeting is inversely proportional to its attendance.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:03 PST