|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Related Mental Conditions
- 2 CIA Activity
- 3 Cyborgs
- 4 Research
- 5 Sabotage
- 6 Neuroprosthetics
- 7 Please note: there is overlap between Brain-computer interface and Brain implant articles
- 8 Clarifications, fixed broken links, improved material on Jose Delgado, too much focus on the CIA
- 9 Suggest merging Brain implant page into Brain-computer interface page
- 10 Brain implants in fiction and philosophy
- 11 Sales Pitch
- 12 Introductory image
Related Mental Conditions
I have read a lot of stories about people that actually believe that they have such an implant (although they have not of course) and are being controlled by other people. But what they really are experiencing is a form of Paranoid Schizophrenia. If anyone have more insight into this topic it might be worth mentioning in this context.
Re: I have interesting insight into this with online research to back it up. Contact me by email from skewsme.com if you want to write it.
Please cite relevant sources for the supposed "details" of the CIA's implantation of brain implants. Making unsubstantiated claims and then making a snide comment that "editors" should check with someone in the field before deleting them is not sufficient. Ha-reed 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- "...see brain implants as part of a next step for humans in progress and evolution, whereas others fear humankind losing essential human qualities and being changed into cyborgs."
I think bioconservatives aren't apprehensive about mechanical or artificial parts mixed in with their organic parts (the definition of cyborg), but rather they're apprehensive about the implications, such as that it is unnatural (in this view). Mechanical hearts, corrective lens and artificial bone components are not seen apprehensively, though they do technically change people into cybernetic organisms (cyborgs).--Nectarflowed T 05:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just found your comment concerning "cyborgs". Let me reply to that. I think the fears are somehow connected though it is right, as you state, that the brain implants that are mostly used don't scare people that much. There are other implants, some of which discussed in the article, which are for mind control, etc. and are feared much the same way as people fear cyborgs. But maybe the paragraph is too blatant. I will try to make it more serious with a copyedit from your comment. Ben T/C 02:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
In the third paragraph there is a link to an article:
"electronic-based neuron transistors for leeches (), control of the movements of rats, etc."
How relevant is that article referred to by  to the discussion? It is a long text and the relevant part is quite close to the end, which makes me suspect most people would probably quit reading it after the first few paragraphs. I'm also not too sure about placing that link right behind the leeches thing. -Luuknam
Someone deleted the reference that credited my illustrated essay as the basis for this article that mirror sites still report: "Brain Implants" by SkewsMe.com at www.skewsme.com/implants.html . Who deleted it and why?
Google [ brain implants ] may show my page as "by ICT Tasmania's" which has forced me to mark ownership of www.skewsme.com/implants.html, SkewsMe.com (c) Kevin Crosby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that the article contains material that is copied from something that you wrote? If so, could you say more clearly what material is copied and where it came from? Was it you who put it there? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
However, prosthesis only refers to the replacement of a *missing* body part, whereas brain implants can refer to either corrective replacements or replacements meant for improvement of a healthy part of the brain. I'm aware that science hasn't quite gotten to that point yet, but still... In the fiction part there's plenty of non-prosthetic brain implants. "Neural prosthesis" is a more popular term than neuroprosthesis anyway. I suggest keeping "Brain Implant" as a page on its own and either linking "Neuroprosthesis" to it or making a separate page for it dealing with just neuro*prosthetics*. -Luuknam
- I've seen prosthesis used to refer to any device used to augment human abilities. Usage for replacement limbs is the usage most widely known, but, when prosthetics is under discussion, I've seen even a notepad be referred to as a memory prosthesis. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines prosthetics as "The branch of medicine or surgery that deals with the production and application of artificial body parts [not replacement-Nectarflowed]." So it does seem like this term can be used for both therapeutic applications as well as future enhancement applications.
- I used Merriam Websters, and that one said prostheses were replacements for missing body parts. That's also the context I've always heard it used in.Luuknam
- A google test of Neuroprosthetics returns 2300 results, and "Neural prosthetics" returns 1100 results (searching in quotes searchs for the words as a phrase). It should, though, be mentioned that "Neural prosthesis" returns more results than Neuroprosthesis, so there is variance between the different word forms, and both are in professional use (for example here. Another term is 'neural interface,' but, in conclusion, I think 'neuroprosthetics' emphasizes that the field is within neuroscience and medicine. (type ~ 4 times in a row to sign your name at the end of your post :) --Nectarflowed T 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, I'd googled for neuroprostheses instead of prosthetics. I guess the popularity is ambiguous indeed. The article "Neural interface" seems already to have been linked to an article that's relevant anyway. Luuknam 22:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think a merge is warranted. The brain is only a part of the nervous system. Neuroprosthetics is the more general term, merge brain implant into there if anywhere. I see nothing wrong with seperate articles; indepth discussion of brain implants(sci-fi, research, futurists) would likely become so large as to drown out the more practical tone of neuroprosthetics(sensory prosthetics, field overview). Also, a brain-computer interface is a non-trivial(ie long article) component of any of these prosthetics. Merging all of these articles together would create a monstrously large page. Intangir 20:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neuro is not clearer than "brain". C. Elegans neurons can be described by the word "neuro", but "brain" implies a higher evolutionary state. Telencephelon implants would be even better! Brain implants are also not a subset of neural prosthetics. Deep brain stimulation, for example, uses brain implants, but has no prosthetic role. With respect to brain-computer interfaces, all the limiting work currently is having brain implants that work well enough, and understanding the brain well enough to couple it to an external device. The external device, in this case a computer, is the "solved" part of the problem. Also, brain-computer interfaces may be done non-invasively using EEG or MEG technology. It may not work so well, but it is a clear demonstration that brain implants are a distinct entity from brain-computer interfaces. --Animalresearcher 17:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note: there is overlap between Brain-computer interface and Brain implant articles
I think there is some overlap between these two articles. It might be useful if we define the scope of these two articles more clearly and move around some of the information. It is my opinion, and correct me here if I am wrong, that a brain-computer interface is about establishing a communication interface (incoming, outgoing or both) while a brain implant refers to more to a specific type of technology that is inserted into the brain (be it communicating or not, for example, it could be a specific piece of biological tissue that is inserted such as fetal tissue to treat a degenerative disease.) If this distinction is accepted then we could rearrange both articles in this fashion. --Ben Houston 02:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've attempted to clarify the difference between brain implants and BCI (I'd say brain implants are a subset of BCI research). I've also repaired some broken links and attempted to improve the material concerning Jose Delgado after reading a well-researched Scientific American article on the topic. I also wonder that there's too much focus on the CIA's 'contribution' to the brain implants and neuro-prosthetics pages, especially in light of recent advances that have been carried out for therapeutic reasons. Thanks, Saganaki-.Ello Ello, 6 September 2006.
I would like to completely agree and further suggest that "Brain Implant" be renamed "Brain Implant Conspiracy" due to the nearly complete dependence on third, forth, and above sources, lack of substantiating _scientific_ documentation in peer reviewed journals aside from those citing that implanting something in the brain is possible, and hearsay. As a researcher in this field, I can say that any article on the the field that has a 2 paragraph "History" section, all on one researcher I might add, and 7 paragraphs on their role in fiction should be simply disregarded. The fact that the External Links go directly to a site filled with black helicopters, support forums for victims of "forced implants", and other conspiracy topics like the Kennedy assassination, etc., should be better noted and clearly shows that the topic is not intended to report of scientific research, not related to therapeutics, and not use, advances, peer reviewed journal articles, or any other substantive content related to the field. This is nearly all fiction and conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggest merging Brain implant page into Brain-computer interface page
I suggest we merge this page with the brain computer interface (BCI) page because brain implants are a subset of this research. Brain implants and non-invasive imaging/EEG type techniques seem to be the two main thrusts of BCI research so there's plenty of scope for duplication between this and the BCI page. The BCI page also has a far larger amount of up-to-date content although I'd say there's scope to make the language more user friendly and improve the formatting. There's also plenty of material in this page that's of dubious provenance. Thanks, Saganaki-. Ello Ello, 6 September 2006.
Whereas I agree that some brain implants are parts of brain-computer interfaces, not all are. Deep brain stimulation probes, for one example, have been implanted in 10s of thousands of people, making them more common than all BCI's combined, yet are not a BCI. Also, the brain-implant page focuses more on the interface between the brain and the implant itself. This is a problem that is largely disjoint from the other problems that need to be solved in brain-computer interfaces. I do not agree that merging pages provides a solution. A short summary paragraph on the BCI page can include a link over to the brain implant page for more detail on the implants themselves, rather than the tasks they attempt to solve. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Brain implants in fiction and philosophy
The fringe implant doesn't allow Observers to read minds, it allows them to mathematically predict the future so well that they appear to be reading minds. The implant itself doesn't have that capacity, it rewires the brain into having more intelligence at the expence of emotion and other functionality it doesn't need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The third paragraph under ethical considerations reads with a persuasive tone, I think it should be altered to neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a good one http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1518/neuralimplant.jpg 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is no copyright information -- we can't use an image unless it has a copyright that allows it to be freely distributed. Looie496 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)