Jump to content


Photo

General Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 CaelesMessorem

CaelesMessorem

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 01:31 PM

Moderation note: For readability, this thread was split from the very old and long How Long Until We Could Make A Real Sword Art Online (sao) Nerve Gear Type Device. See this post for details.

@ CraigD:
 
   Is it possible that you could make this topic a VR General Discussion and seperate the posts within that contain useful information into a seperate topic? Trying to reference those ancient posts that have valuable insight has become rather tedious as I'm sure you can imagine.

#2 17robots

17robots

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 06 July 2015 - 10:51 PM

Well. How about we all just start actually getting things on paper and getting our ideas down now. We can collaborate and discuss our ideas and pick the best methodology of construction. We aren't gonna get anything done if we just sit here and talk about it.

#3 NightWolfx5

NightWolfx5

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 09 July 2015 - 02:48 AM

So I have read through some of this thread and I did see something similar to what I am thinking so sorry if this is just a repeate.

If we scanned the brain (without taking away the ability to move) then we could use the information gathered to create a digital replica (veiwed on a screen) of the person moving, right? And if that is possible then it wouldn't be a far shot to convert those same signals into movements within the game while the person is immobile. We would just use the same signals in both occasions. To set this sorta thing up, the system would send some sorta command like, "move your right index finger", (recording the specific brain signal each time (the user could recalibrate anymotion at anytime)) and so on until there is sufficient data to mimick that persons movements. Also, a voice test could be used to allow speach in-game. That way the need to move would just be a reading of the signal and the system would have an action set for that specific signal (the same would be true for sound). (It would also limit the user to doing only what their body is phisically capable of). The downsides of this option would be that the set-up would be very long and the full immersion would not be complete in the sense that, while the actions are being done in real time, they would be products of the systsm and not the person themselves. (I do believe that this would be a good starting point, and that it could be improved to make the feelings more real). Also if the speach option wouldn't work a keyboard could be used in-game instead.

The other part of this technology, as said by those before me, is being able to recieve the information from the system to create the users sensation of interaction (sight, sound, touch, feel, etc.). In my (unproffessional) opinion, the only way to acheive a portion of this is to use a screen and headphones (maybe something like gloves for touch). Using these things, the person would have to be left semi-conscious (don't know how we would get to that point and maintain it), allowing the user to see and hear the actions and events that happen in the game. (Again, taking away from the full immersion technology). So, while the user's brain trasmists signals in-reaction to what is happening in game and the system then using these signals to cause movement in the game, the screen and headphones would be providing the information to react to (this is also why a suspended sorta consciousness is needed). In explanation to the gloves, they would be attached to the system to create heat and cold, and would compress and decompress to make the hand feel as if it were pushing on something (if the idea is reasonable, then other items (like boots) could be made). While they are not complete, the gloves could allow weather options too.

I am only 16 and have done no reasearch other than reading this thread, so some (or all) of my ideas may not be possible. Some other things that would come into question with my idea would be the conversion time between the brain signals and the movement in-game. I think that, that is a problem easily worked with so it should not be too much trouble. Also the suspended consciousness is something that would be beyond me (probably should have done reasearch on it), but anyways, where I was going with that is that the person would have to be able to feel, see and hear outside influences (avoiding the trouble of sending singnals/impulses back into the brain), and at the same time be unable to move as a result of their actions being transmitted directly into their digital avatar.

I am sorry for any missspellings and for any bad logic or repetitions. I hope firstly that my idea is valid and seccondly that I covered enough of it to be understood. I hope that this can be used to help create this technology and I will try to responde to any questions (please ask/notify me if you see a gap in what I was trying to explain(I do like to know when I can improve on my idea/understanding). This E-mail (while weird) you can contact me at if anyone wishes to do so...( deaths.demon@yahoo.com ).

#4 NightWolfx5

NightWolfx5

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 09 July 2015 - 02:59 AM

Sorry for the double post but I did need to add something. The screen would have to be large enough to enable peripheral vision, and would wrap aroud the user's face (at a reasonable distance). Also, start up and shut down features like logging in and logging out would still have to be worked with because of the fact that it requires the brain to trasition between worlds, and I would have no knowledge on how to do that safely.

#5 zivtheawesome

zivtheawesome

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 09 July 2015 - 06:18 AM

The idea of using external physical sources such as headsets and screens are already in use to create VR technology, for example the occulus rift. In my personal opinion, I wouldn't call this `true` virtual reality, as theres a clear distinguishing from reality and virtual reality. I do believe there's a way to directly stimulate sensory neurons to recreat e the senses, but... All my research so far have pointed towards invasive technology, and that is not an acceptable option for many reasons.

Motor actions can be read from the brain through technology such as EEG (primarily used in research for its temporal resoloution), and it has been used successfully to control motor actions. (There was research done where one researcher managed to lift the hand of another researcher across a room using his own mind).

The problem with that is pricing for the machine because if you try to make it a 'true' virtual reality it can cost a lot to the point it won't be usefull at all. what i think is that: currently it looks like there will be two main companies. one can take the idea of the true full dive while the other will take the easier option of the oculus rift like solution. 

 

ps: i am not forcing any one to work like that, i just gave my opinion of the subject.



#6 17robots

17robots

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 09 July 2015 - 08:59 AM

I agree with that, simroh1, but if we just sit here and not do anything about it, we won't even be able to price it. That's why I've begun to write my ideas down. That way, we could move forward and see what didn't work, but also be able to look back on it as well. I feel that just talking about how it could work is a start, sure. But, if we really want to do stuff toward the project then we need to take actions in that direction and get our ideas down on paper with methods and designs and implementation into the helmet design. That kind of stuff.



#7 NightWolfx5

NightWolfx5

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 09 July 2015 - 11:05 AM

I did say that my idea did take away from the full dive technology. I offered it as an opinion because one, it hasn't been said in this thread yet, and two because right now it could be a good starting point for the eventual full dive technology.

Additionally, my idea does move more into this type of VR because the screen and speakers are only to bypass the problem brought up in this thread, "how can we write back into the brain" Everything else would deal directly with this technology. This may be a temporary solotion to that problem.

Edited by NightWolfx5, 09 July 2015 - 11:15 AM.


#8 17robots

17robots

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 09 July 2015 - 11:20 AM

I understand but we at least need to be writing them down and sketching out how they'd look and how they would go into a design for the helmet. No idea is bad as of this point, but we nee them sketched and recorded as well as documented.



#9 NightWolfx5

NightWolfx5

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 09 July 2015 - 10:29 PM

ok so i understand what you would lke to happen. What I would like to know is where you guys are at with your chain of developement. I would like to help and I find that the best way for me to do that (in any situation) is to think about problems/issues you are having and solutions to these problems. If I knew what direction you were heading in your reasearch then I would know what questions to ask and I may even be able to contribute to your idea.

My above attempt was obviously not on track with what you wanted and was working toward. I have other ideas. I think that there isnt an issue with receiving the information and putting it in the VR, so what im going to focus on is the opposite/receiving information back from the VR. Also you mentioned that you wanted ideas and designs down on paper. Now since that isn't my strong suit i'm not going to be able to contribute with that very much, but what i can do is modify an existing design (one of my hobbies). So, even though I might not be a big asset or anything, I am very good at making people think around their obsticles.

I will post again soon with what I am able to come up with. It would help/speed things up if someone gave me some background on what they are working on, or even a specific problem they are having so that I can make the idea more specific to what they are doing/dealing with. Again my E-mail is deaths.demon@yahoo.com and I would apreciate any involvement I am given. (I don't expect to become part of a reasearch team or anything like that. I am just someone with a lot of time on their hands and a huge drive to see this technology completed as soon as possible.)

#10 17robots

17robots

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 10 July 2015 - 08:32 AM

We are still in the idea stage but we are all getting them down and documenting them. We have gotten past the phase where we just talk about doing this. We have our own seperate forum as well.



#11 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 10 July 2015 - 12:53 PM

@ CraigD:

Is it possible that you could make this topic a VR General Discussion and seperate the posts within that contain useful information into a seperate topic? Trying to reference those ancient posts that have valuable insight has become rather tedious as I'm sure you can imagine.

The thread has long since gone way off topic. The question was about when, but i feel as if this thread gone to question 'how', more than anything.

There seems to be a recurring need to split and restructure FullDive Tech threads, especially this first and longest of them. I’ll undertake another cleanup in the next few days.

For now, I’ve split the last 13 posts of the threads into this new “General discussion” thread, and locked the original to prevent more posts in it.
  • 17robots likes this

#12 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 10 July 2015 - 01:25 PM

If we scanned the brain (without taking away the ability to move) then we could use the information gathered to create a digital replica (veiwed on a screen) of the person moving, right?

The problem is that there’s no present-day technology close to capable of “scanning the brain” completely enough to do this. We can scan the brain to find physical and metabolic abnormalities to diagnose disease and injury, measure small voltages that escape the brain to detect life, an in a crude way, general state of mind and intention, but true “mind reading” is far from current capabilities.

Though we’ve speculated a lot in these threads about how this might be done, we’ve only a very faint idea what such a system would actually be like. It’s nearly certain, from the fundamental laws of nature, that it can’t be done with “high density microwave transceivers” as described in Reki Kawahara’s fiction. Whether our or anybody else’s guesses are on-track is … well, if we knew with certainty which were, they wouldn’t be guesses. :)

Worse that the lack of a sure direction in developing a NerveGear-like mind-reading device, I think, is a lack of surety that such a device is the best way to approach deeply immersive VR. I personally suspect that people would be very happy with much less technically challenging systems, even types of systems that exist now. So there’s not just the question of “how”, but a more fundamental “what”.

In project management terms, we have very poorly defined requirements.

#13 17robots

17robots

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 10 July 2015 - 02:10 PM

Haha I agree on that, I do believe though that we have a small idea of what we want... the nervegear from sword art online. How they want it and stuff is undefined, leaving it open to interpretation. Though it says stuff in the light novels and anime, I agree with you CraigD, that it is fiction, but I do believe it can be done. We just need lots of research to be done. And that will take a bit, no doubt about it. But, I will say this: we all keep talking and looking into it and aren't actually trying to do anything besides say an idea, and have it shot down by other people. We need to actually take action, try stuff, see what doesn't work, and keep going and developing.



#14 CaelesMessorem

CaelesMessorem

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 10 July 2015 - 04:40 PM

Worse that the lack of a sure direction in developing a NerveGear-like mind-reading device, I think, is a lack of surety that such a device is the best way to approach deeply immersive VR. I personally suspect that people would be very happy with much less technically challenging systems, even types of systems that exist now. So there’s not just the question of “how”, but a more fundamental “what”.

In project management terms, we have very poorly defined requirements.

 

    I definitely agree with the lack of clarity as far as requirements. I think the biggest hinderance to this so far is our lack of knowledge in what technology would be used for it (and by extension the lack of the tech itself), but not just for the reason that we need such tech to even do this. Without an idea of what the technology is, we have no idea of the kind of scale or space we would be working with. Without knowing whether the tech to read brain activity would be the size of a fingernail or a movie theatre screen, it's hard to speculate what the best form for the tech would even be. There are numerous times I've wondered if it would be possible to use a model more akin to the Animus from the Assassin's Creed series, as it doesn't limit what technology would be useable as much as the NerveGear headset (mostly in available internal space).

 

   Also just for clarification CraigD, do you mean that people would be happier with systems similar to their current complexity, or do you mean something even more simplified?



#15 17robots

17robots

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 10 July 2015 - 05:41 PM

I see what you mean. The methods used in Sword Art Online were proven not to actually work, and they don't give us any other detail as to how they did it, so I guess we have our own creative license as to the technology, but we don't know what would work.



#16 17robots

17robots

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 11 July 2015 - 09:04 AM

I see. And what ideas would you be talking about?

#17 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 11 July 2015 - 11:00 AM

There are numerous times I've wondered if it would be possible to use a model more akin to the Animus from the Assassin's Creed series, as it doesn't limit what technology would be useable as much as the NerveGear headset (mostly in available internal space).

The showstopping problem with The Animus from Assassin’s Creed is that it assumes the memories of our ancestors are encoded in our DNA, which is known with nearly 100% certainty to be false.

The scientific hypothesis that characteristics acquired during an individual’s lifetime are passed to their descendants is called Lamarckism. The hypothesis, and the related idea of genetic memory, had some popularity in the 1800s through the mid 1900s, but with the discovery of DNA and its central role in genetics ca 1960 and the subsequent decades of increasingly detailed research, is now known simply not to be true, with the possible exception of animals like bacteria where their “memories” are, in a sense, genes.

The Animus machine can’t work, because what it’s supposed to read doesn’t exist.

Even if you didn’t know more about modern molecular biology and genetics than the size of the human genome, that alone should be enough to make you suspicious of the idea of there being vast amounts of information stored in it. The human genome has about 3,200,000,000 base pairs (which are base 4), equivalent to 800 MB, or about 1/32th of a storage capacity of a standard single-layer Blu-ray disk.

It’s difficult to estimate and describe the capacity of the human brain equivalent to some number of bytes, because it stores memories as complicated, weighted connections of its many (about 85,000,000,000) neurons. Many neuropsychologists have made estimates based on current best understanding of the brain, however, reaching the consensus that the brain can store about the equivalent of 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 bytes (2.5 TB). (source: http://www.scientifi...emory-capacity)

So the human brain stores about 3,000,000 times as much as the human genome.

The genome is a wonderfully great place to store the “blueprint” for building a body, including the brain, but far too small to store the information the brain stores. Assassin’s Creed is an fun video game series, but the science of its fictional back story is very bad.

By comparison, the science of Sword Art Online is soft and wrong in some key details, but not in principle impossible.

SAO is soft-SF. Assassin’s Creed is science fantasy.
 

Also just for clarification CraigD, do you mean that people would be happier with systems similar to their current complexity, or do you mean something even more simplified?

What I meant by

I personally suspect that people would be very happy with much less technically challenging systems, even types of systems that exist now.

is that I think that normal people might be able to experience satisfying, immersive VR using nothing more than devices that exist today – position and orientation-sensing stereooptical headsets like the Oculus Rift, position-sensing haptic gloves, and maybe “virtual treadmills” like the Virtuix Omni.

The assumption that deeply immersive VR requires a true 2-directional brain–computer interface discounts, I think, how good we humans are at voluntarily “remapping” our senses and motor controls to produce various kinesthetic body transfer illusions. It’s possible, even, that mechanical controller devices might provide better control over a VR avatar that a true BCI, as suggested by present day video game players that have tried a wide range of available controls having found that more “realistic” controllers, such as pointing devices, are often inferior to joysticks or even buttons and keyboards, especially in competitive gameplay.

I also think the assumed need for a BCI for VR overlooks psychological theory and evidence that people may prefer a system that provides a constantly perceivable separation between themselves and the VR environment to one that nearly or completely eliminates it.

Perhaps we want to dive deeply into VR, but not too deeply.

I don’t intend any of my comments to suggest that BCIs are not worthy of research and development. Their potential benefit to people with disabilities is immense. I think every serious student of them should, though, consider the possibility that they might not be the ultimate interface for VR.