I circled back to work I’d done on Neal Stephenson’s “big stuff challenge.” One thing I listed, but didn’t explore, was brain research. Since Stephenson put an emphasis on engineering projects with high visibility, this one seemed important to point to, but easy to dismiss. Unless our research into the brain leads to either the bulbous heads of bad SF or antenna-festooned cyborgs, the changes are not likely to catch our attention as we walk down the street. On the other hand, the basic criteria qualify technologies emerging from brain research.
Certainly, we will see achievable goals met in terms of disease mitigation, augmentation, and manipulation. Some of these will require the dedicated work of teams over many years. The practical use of sparing people from dementia or building productivity through new approaches to increase attention or creativity is obvious. And, given the aging of our population and the complexity of the global challenges we face, the better use of thinking, our most important resource, is obvious.
So, what are some of the areas that might be the most fruitful in brain research? I put together a short list, which I don’t pretend is exhaustive:
Control of sleep and attention. Recent articles have indicated that the most successful people get by on a lot less sleep. They simply have more hours in their days to achieve their goals. I saw this first hand with my grandfather, who only required four hours sleep a night. He rose to the top of this field and was one of the best-read people I ever met. Attention is important to include here because people who truly need eight hours sleep and try to get by with fewer (through, for instance, the use of caffeine) are often less productive.
The building block model. It isn’t entirely clear yet, but there are indications that separate systems participate in many of the tasks performed by our brains. Often, we are not remotely conscious of some of the processing and contributions. If there are clear patterns for teaming within our brains and we can understand the fundamental nature of the participation and relationships among these systems, we may gain some control in turn to switch them on to approach qualitatively different problems. An interesting article on using electrical pulses to “turn on the brakes” and increase self-control suggests such a possibility. Taking this a step further, perhaps we can copy what we’ve learned about how these systems collaborate to provide new approaches to using computers to solve problems.
Restoration and repair. It is only in recent years that we’ve come to discover that the brain is not fixed, in a physical sense, at an early age. It continues to grow, develop, and repair itself throughout our lives. This offers hope in terms of dealing with dementia and other losses. It might be possible to access mechanisms that can help the brain heal itself. It also may be possible, through the use of stem cells to create new tissue to replace that which is worn out, damaged, or lost.
Collaboration. The range of brains and brain capability known within humankind is astoundingly broad. Though few people exhibit genius in other than narrow subject areas (music, mathematics, three-dimensional imaging, persuasion), our species as a whole displays a breadth and depth of talent that has allowed us, working together, to create complex cultures and transformer planets.
All this effort is modulated by our need for communications. The prospect for deeper collaboration is questionable. There are some indications that we might be able to, for instance, interface with machines, but will that speed us up or simply slow the machines down? Will we ever be able to read each other’s minds and will it become an advantage? Monkeys have been shown to be able to connect in a way that allows one to control the actions of another. Is this something we would want? Does it indicate in any way the possibility of deeper collaborations?
Perhaps the most obvious and likely technology that connects with collaboration is the development of a foolproof lie detection system. Within specific limits, this could become a part of our culture. If it were to engender more trust, it could have a real impact. However, how it is used, what social controls exist, and the general attitude toward such technology are likely to outweigh any specific functionality. Ultimately, the value we place on such information and our own sense in how it fits into relationships will be much more important.
Comments are closed.