There is a better answer than the prosthetic eyes to cure blindness, and that is by using the genetic makeup from the patient's own body to grow parts of the eye, or the full eye, which is going the natural route! Now it is right to say that with the fact that the RNA/DNA reconstruction is possible just says that there is already a cure for blindness being that your body knows its own genetic makeup! This says that there are way too many problems with any foreign body part fact!
@jkgjihghb The real brilliance will just come from the fact that by using the genetic makeup from the patients own body this will guarantee that being where doctors treat blindness will not be enough for the patient, because what has been mentioned in these video responses says that with all of what has been mentioned just says that by having the eyes grown for the blind patient through the use of their own genetic makeup will prove that these people will not have a foreign organ fact!
How basic! The fact that current prosthetics doesn't do this astounds me.
Really, using this tech, we should be able to produce a prosthetic that equals the human eye right now. Camera lenses and processing equipment are both already miniaturized enough for it to be plausible.
Unconvincing. How do they know that the animal implant produces that sharp beautiful baby face??? They apparently measured the signal and concluded "it looks good!"
If it works, then get a VIDEO of the animal recognizing a sign leading to food(and differentiating from a very similar sign that leads to bad tasting junk.)
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
She is either presenting on work she doesn't understand herself, and hence giving farcical analogies, or else she is just trying to "dumb it down" way too much. She could have simply showed the slide that showed the improvement, and said "hey, look at what an improvement we've made, by encoding a visual image with semantic information gained by image processing such as light,dark,edge,shadow,movement,smooth tone,detail,focus." That would then have been believable, interesting, and time-worthy.
You're all seemingly surprised by the underwhelming response from the audience. Perhaps they simply didn't buy her story that her device somehow sends a few bits which say "baby,face" and the animal brain magically comes up with an image that matches the source image almost identically. That is what her words and her pictures claimed.
The irony is this presenter is treating her audience like babies if she expects them to believe that the retina encoded information like "this is a baby". It is complete and utter trash. The device is real, but its encoding other information like contrast, 'potential edge', 'movement', or possibly even 'shadow'. 'smooth','rough'.Maybe possibly even extra semantic flags - 'human', or 'face', 'sunlight' (basic things of biologic significance). But no, not 'babies face', 'orange ball', as she said.
invention is amazing... just her presentation wasn't all that... what the word... no spark of life. She's presenting like a high school student, saying everything that she is gonna do, and the mono tone voice also doesn't help...
Great idea, I hope it gets the attention it deserves. I know almost nothing of circuitry, but bigger eye means more space to make a better prosthetic, right? I love it.
couldnt this wonderful tech be reversed so you could see what another person see's? or better yet record and play it back in your own head? one step closer to SQUID's
I loved the talk but the reason it didn't get an amazing response from the audience was due to her public speaking skills. I'm a coach for public speaking and she kept using downward inflections at key moments which took power away from the times she would have wanted a huge response. It sucks but if you want an audience to clap for you, you need public speaking skills. The way she presented the material didn't seem new or exciting. It was a great talk and an amazing feet technologically though.
This may not be the most exciting or flabbergasting appearance on TED ever, but for all intents and purposes this might be the most important invention of the new millennium. It just goes to show that scientific progress is achieving such amazing new heights.
This talk should bring us more hope and happiness than a magician syncing some iPods or someone doing math tricks, no doubt about it.
Can anyone give me a picture of how such a prothesis looks like? I mean the actual machine, its size and the way its connected. Ive been waiting the entire presentation for a picture of it.
The Audience must have been sleeping. That was an amazing discovery on seeing again but instead of a standing ovation when she mentioned what they were able to do; they stood there not doing nothing. only at the very END, THAT'S HORRIBLE!
Prosthetic eye my fat arse. This is complete bullshit. Medical hype based on something that will take 100 or more years before it actually becomes available as a treatment option. Same as the aids cure that was promised long ago. Bullshit.
@thaer12345 Bullshit. If you started pouring in money, it would have already been done. Look at the computer industry; it's grown exponentially because that's where the money is at. This will never happen because no-one gives a shit about the blind and treatment options for the blind- there's no money to be made from it. As a result there will be no progress.
this is such an amazing breakthrough in communicating directly to the brain. and we used to laugh about Steve Austin costing $6M. the bionic eye is finally hear.
@8legsFreak blindness-shmindness. you cant imagine what a wonderful thing it would be for people like my husband who is blind to be able4 to see his children. Think before you talk
@scrapbookqueen41 If you don't see the joke in my post, then all hope for you is lost:D Besides, even jokes aside, look at this rationally. A cybernetic cure for blindness will help millions of people, but that would hardly make a difference for humanity as a whole. A cybernetic enhancement, and VR for ALL people, formerly blind or not, would radically improve the fate of human race, and would be the greatest change since the invention of fire. Think hard about possible applications of this.
Heh I'm trying to get into university for bionics. Within the next 50-100 years we as a species will be able to rebuild mankind in profound ways like never before. Take this technology for example what happens if you start sending visual input for infared light or wavelengths that we can't see. Perhaps we could even send auditory information to the visual center of the brain and experience sound like no human has before, The potential possibilities are endless and experiences even more so.
Maybe she should have explained more how the old prosthetic eyes worked before revealing what her team was working on. To be honest, I had to look it up, because I couldn't really understand the difference between the two methods. You really appreciate it more if you understand if you can understand the difference though.
I think that the audience, while being a crap one, also weren't helped by the woman. She had an amazing, incredibly fascinating thing to talk about that will help millions of people in their everyday life, and yet her talk was strangely unsatisfactory. Where's the confidence gained from knowing that your team just made millions of lives that much more liveable? Where's the happiness? If she isn't that enthusiastic about it, why would we be? FUck.
I absolutely want to see more about how the algorithms are made. I really liked her calm presentation. It was nice to just listen to a scientist explain her work in a straightforward way. More, more from Sheila Nirenberg this is amazing stuff. I can't wait to see how this is applied to Cochlear Implants (or will they completely start from scratch?)
She sounds so sad, like totally forever alone, I feel bad just hearing her talk, even though its a fascinating topic... i think thats why she didnt get a great response
I remember how thrilled I was when "cochlear implant" came out and since then it has been defending deafness!!!! More than 1000 electrodes were required to get a good vision BUT retina gets burned from using that many electrodes and therefore,restoration of vision had always been a great challenge for us until NOW !!!! This is really amazing! I can't wait to see someone getting their vision back by using it!
This is a great topic, bio-engineering an interface to restore vision. I feel the presentation omitted several items, such as when it could be made available for people, some additional detail about how it works and who else is working in this area. This information is briefly covered by the Q and A followup. The url is on the right side of this page or search for 'Sheila Nirenberg - Q & A at TEDMED 2011'.
One of the few TED talks that actually deserves a standing ovation, but TED audiences are usually full of emotional saps who like to give applause to some douchebag making a totally useless and impractical 30 dollar water filter for "poor africans" as long as the said douchebag uses the right tearjerker tactics in the presentation.
The woman failed to do the show-woman part, but nevertheless, this is revolutionary shit and the missing piece .... I am flabbergasted at the reception it got...
pretty awesome. but if the code is cracked, does it work the other way around too? like being able to extract images/sounds from imagination? that's what I'm mostly interested in.
anyways... Geordi La Forge is gonna be so outdated.
REALLY understated reaction from the crowd, and not at all a very confident delivery by the woman. SHE JUST TOLD YOU SHE'S FIGURED OUT THE MATHS TO ENABLE YOU TO DIGITALLY SPEAK DIRECTLY WITH THE BRAIN! Where's the standing ovation?
@KaiTendo174 by definition we are Bio Mechanical Machines, and our Socio Economic systems already treat us as such. For Example : Wake up, Go to work, Have Lunchbreak, Do More Work, Go Home, watch TV, Sleep Repeat 5 Times then Wake up see family, See friends back to Monday do it all again until at least 65.
@kwamelaryea Indeed it is so, and that's TERRIBLE... The "definition" is something new to me. Incredible hatred towards it had erupted in me quickly. lol We've got to, as a society, change that, and I stand firm on this position.
@KaiTendo174 Well it is terrible in a way. But the way I see it is that this "work" has a very broad definition. Yes, we can be sitting at our desk and doing seemingly boring and mundane job. However, some of us actually enjoy our days sitting at the job. Some other enjoy working in the lab. Some other enjoy playing music pieces for an audience. And to them, no 2 days are the same. This perhaps is just an excuse... but I think it gives a brighter outlook at life :D life's not so glum :P
@mikahebat I absolutely agree with you :D I said it that way in hope that people will realize that... it's not a good thing ;D i guess it doesn't bother me that much though :D
The same technology could probably add a head up display to people with normal vision. This will make finding Sarah Conner easier ;) But seriously an awesome talk though so understated, cool was definitely the right word!
Smart chick and a nice rack. Oh, and ground breaking, revolutionary science that has implications for several fields of enquiry within, and without, the scientific disciplines. Does anyone know her phone number? Very cool and engaging delivery on a complex topic. Pity there wasn't more time for deeper exploration of the subject matter.
Amazing .. I reckon the audience is dead cz they maybe wondering what is the status of this research .. i mean how soon will it become available for the blind ppl .. and how much will it cost .. Hope its cheap and will be in the market asap ..
As a person with a disability (Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus) myself, I always would say that the worst disability a person could have is being blind because there was no 'aid' to assist that person to try and overcome the disability in some way, now there is! AWESOME! #HCSolns
Wow! this means that if somebody has a paralysis say from a severed nerve.. that could be fixed by using the transducer encoder in between!! Awesome!!
She didn't tell how she got those nerve signal pattern though..
The audience seemed very silent throughout the lecture. Some applause would have been nice when Nirenberg showed the realistic output of the electronic device @ 8:00. If the users of this prosthetic get an advantage as drastic as this slide suggests, then this research group deserves a place in the hall-of-fame of science & technology.
I wish more research groups took on problems like these which are high on beneficial impact and also technically challenging. We can do without whatever they are planning after Blu-Ray ... or iPhone ... or Porsche's latest model - humanity has bigger needs waiting to be addressed.
one step closer to having a virtual reality pumped to your brain. all you need is a graphics processing unit feeding the encoder. trans-humanism is coming.
When people see, they see the world in multiple layers ie., background images at varying distances. If I look at a babies face, I see what it's wearing, maybe, the blanket it's on all the way to the wall in back of the baby. So, my question is, will this new prosthetic provide sight beyond just what is in th user's central vision?
this is about retina. does anyone know any new development that improve damaged optical nerves? so far, I found nothing. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate a reply. Thanks.
@burgercide anything? clapping when they saw the difference between the old method and the new method would have been acceptable. as an audience, you are kind of expected to participate thru clapping, and laughter, etc. obviously she wasnt incredibly funny, but there were several appropriate times to clap when people didnt.
Man, what a stupid audience. I'd be jumping out of my chair when she showed that baby's face. Do these people not realize that kind of progress that's been made? So annoying.
Now these are the sort of TED talks I stick around for. Thank you Sheila Nirenberg, and all others associated with this research for breaking into the brain machine interface. I look forward to seeing more of this sort of technology in the future. Perhaps in the future, while I am alive I can get a memory upgrade, as mine has always been lousy.
THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN! See similar device in Feb 2010. tinyurl(.)com/cur2gop ...2 min and 55 seconds into that clip. I'm sure this is device is slightly better, but they will face the same hurdles. (Like this if you weren't aware!!)
@dmg46664 Failure is apart of scientist, there where many failed airplanes and computers also. Just because hurdles exist doesn't mean they will NEVER be overcome.
@Khyrid Did you watch the clip? The computer (charles babbage) & the airplane (the wright bros) didn't have government agencies saying that people weren't allowed to sell the inventions. Please like the orig comment if you weren't previously aware of that case.
@dmg46664 I watched the clip now, I was aware of those hurdles already. There are a lot of BS out there, the government has to filter most of it. A lot of scammer who want to sell alternative medicines that don't do anything or can actually be harmful. The bottom line is the products that show results gets funds. This eye thing may require invasive surgery, that means they need human trials, it should be very hard for them to get that and my tax dollar funds to do it.
@Khyrid U should watch the whole episode. The "bottom line" is that out of 10000 products only 1 comes to market, and that product takes 10 years. Beta blockers in the same program was such a drug that the FDA didn't approved and lots of people died before approval, but they don't get reported. Same with Erbitux. This is not a new issue, see a Nobel prize winner speak about the economics tinyurl(.)com/cdxwe4t
@dmg46664 Your bottom lien is irrelevant. Drugs and inventions that are used on people can have bad consequences, the government needs to control the distribution and conception of these things. While the FDA may work slowly that is just another thing we need to improve. What would suggest?
@Khyrid Watch the whole Milton Friedman program. You can also google his lectures on CSPAN or see his talks at the mayo clinic for more detail. Your error is to assume that preventative measures (good intentions) could never be more costly than the disease. Moreover the incentives at the FDA guarantee them to always be so, even if you wanted to streamline it. My conclusions are the same as Friedman's, it should go.
@Khyrid You have courts of law if drug companies lie about their products. Drug companies advise doctors very carefully because of threat of litigation. Can you name a drug that the FDA successfully prevented through their trials? The Thalidomide alarm was only raised because cases outside US, not because of work done by the FDA. Basically they impose huge costs on companies simply to wait. That $100mil stage 3 approval is simply passed onto consumers. Tough luck if there aren't ppl to warrant.
@dmg46664 There are products on shelves now that do nothing like homeopathy "medicines", where's the court of law stepping in to punish them? Some drugs need to be prevented from ever landing on store shelves even once because of the destruction they could do. Now I don't doubt the FDA has problems, but something needs to exist to screen new drugs and treatments.
@Khyrid We're in complete agreement that homeopathy is nonsense. But be careful about government bureaus. In the UK, they've managed to get them financed by the NHS! The reason there aren't cases against that, is because by and large the customers are happy! (unfortunately). I don't know if you're in favour of ending the war on drugs (legalization)... but if like me, you are... then maintaining this affront on medical drugs in hypocritical! Doctors and patients should decide, not the FDA.
@dmg46664 You have identified a real problem but you have offered no practical solution. Not everybody goes to a doctor or can afford to. People abuse drugs or use them irresponsibly. We don't live in a perfect world. If there is no government oversight, more people will die from bad drugs. It would be so easy to make a quick fortune at the expense of unsuspecting people by marketing a harmful substance as a cure.
@Khyrid One might think that it would be easy to take advantage of people, but in general it is not. It's never been easier to self diagnose with Doctor's guidance online. People arent as stupid as you're making them out to be. I'm not saying there'd be no incidents... but the cost associated with them will be insignificant compared to current FDA costs. Same went for 911 tinyurl(.)com/d5ubj3n Humans have an irrational bias 2 prevent things even when dealing with consequences r cheaper 4 society
@dmg46664 Some harmful effects of drugs cannot be properly tested until years down the line. Like asbestos for example, a building material that can be hazardous but not until years later. If drugs hit the shelves without years of oversight and restrictions, sure people will get potentially life saving medicines sooner but people would be taking all kinds of medicines that nobody knows for sure what the long term effects of are. The potential for harm is greater without the FDA.
@Khyrid "The potential for harm is greater without the FDA". That's the statement that I and others dispute. To be fair, I don't have such a study that aggregates all the harm, but you don't have one that aggregates all the good. Vested interests are against such studies. I'll just leave you with this, as it represents the principles behind my arguments. tinyurl(.)com/czrjnjz . I'll leave u to your own research on the matter.
@dmg46664 so you got a price on a "better" life? which i see as some of the problem.. no, i dont want to debate, just wanted to remind you of something you forgot =)
@oaaserud Sorry, I don't follow you. But if you are saying that it's possible to quantify a "price" for a better life... or anything for that matter... Then we're in agreement.
There is a better answer than the prosthetic eyes to cure blindness, and that is by using the genetic makeup from the patient's own body to grow parts of the eye, or the full eye, which is going the natural route! Now it is right to say that with the fact that the RNA/DNA reconstruction is possible just says that there is already a cure for blindness being that your body knows its own genetic makeup! This says that there are way too many problems with any foreign body part fact!
jkgjihghb 1 month ago
@jkgjihghb The real brilliance will just come from the fact that by using the genetic makeup from the patients own body this will guarantee that being where doctors treat blindness will not be enough for the patient, because what has been mentioned in these video responses says that with all of what has been mentioned just says that by having the eyes grown for the blind patient through the use of their own genetic makeup will prove that these people will not have a foreign organ fact!
jkgjihghb 1 month ago
to see the rest with the Q&A search "Sheila Nirenberg - Q&A at TEDMED 2011"
hyperverbal 1 month ago 2
she is extremely nervous
EMAMAMAM11 1 month ago
Sheila of course its cool!
cyclingzealot 1 month ago
How basic! The fact that current prosthetics doesn't do this astounds me.
Really, using this tech, we should be able to produce a prosthetic that equals the human eye right now. Camera lenses and processing equipment are both already miniaturized enough for it to be plausible.
coRnflEks 1 month ago
but this only works for the types of blindness she introduced?> Or all blindness?
TheGallows32 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unconvincing. How do they know that the animal implant produces that sharp beautiful baby face??? They apparently measured the signal and concluded "it looks good!"
If it works, then get a VIDEO of the animal recognizing a sign leading to food(and differentiating from a very similar sign that leads to bad tasting junk.)
RezaRob3 1 month ago
Next stop Matrix?
jakk18 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
She is either presenting on work she doesn't understand herself, and hence giving farcical analogies, or else she is just trying to "dumb it down" way too much. She could have simply showed the slide that showed the improvement, and said "hey, look at what an improvement we've made, by encoding a visual image with semantic information gained by image processing such as light,dark,edge,shadow,movement,smooth tone,detail,focus." That would then have been believable, interesting, and time-worthy.
onehandontool 1 month ago
You're all seemingly surprised by the underwhelming response from the audience. Perhaps they simply didn't buy her story that her device somehow sends a few bits which say "baby,face" and the animal brain magically comes up with an image that matches the source image almost identically. That is what her words and her pictures claimed.
onehandontool 1 month ago
The irony is this presenter is treating her audience like babies if she expects them to believe that the retina encoded information like "this is a baby". It is complete and utter trash. The device is real, but its encoding other information like contrast, 'potential edge', 'movement', or possibly even 'shadow'. 'smooth','rough'.Maybe possibly even extra semantic flags - 'human', or 'face', 'sunlight' (basic things of biologic significance). But no, not 'babies face', 'orange ball', as she said.
onehandontool 1 month ago
invention is amazing... just her presentation wasn't all that... what the word... no spark of life. She's presenting like a high school student, saying everything that she is gonna do, and the mono tone voice also doesn't help...
SomniumDS 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
8:40 Put your phone down and focus, dick.
Great idea, I hope it gets the attention it deserves. I know almost nothing of circuitry, but bigger eye means more space to make a better prosthetic, right? I love it.
ZeroToNowhere 1 month ago
@ZeroToNowhere He was taking a picture... I would probably to that too...
rats7 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Comment removed
ZeroToNowhere 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rats7 It's inconsiderate to the speaker and those behind you. I expect more.
ZeroToNowhere 1 month ago
couldnt this wonderful tech be reversed so you could see what another person see's? or better yet record and play it back in your own head? one step closer to SQUID's
KaylinJH 1 month ago
boring.
GigaBoost 1 month ago
OMFG! YESSSS by the time im old ill be able to fix everything! >:D
Yahweigh 1 month ago
@Yahweigh if you're wealthy :)
KaylinJH 1 month ago
I'll take one, with UV and IR reception.
EthanNin0 2 months ago
I loved the talk but the reason it didn't get an amazing response from the audience was due to her public speaking skills. I'm a coach for public speaking and she kept using downward inflections at key moments which took power away from the times she would have wanted a huge response. It sucks but if you want an audience to clap for you, you need public speaking skills. The way she presented the material didn't seem new or exciting. It was a great talk and an amazing feet technologically though.
CanadaJoshua27 2 months ago 2
This may not be the most exciting or flabbergasting appearance on TED ever, but for all intents and purposes this might be the most important invention of the new millennium. It just goes to show that scientific progress is achieving such amazing new heights.
This talk should bring us more hope and happiness than a magician syncing some iPods or someone doing math tricks, no doubt about it.
FudgePoly 2 months ago
Can anyone give me a picture of how such a prothesis looks like? I mean the actual machine, its size and the way its connected. Ive been waiting the entire presentation for a picture of it.
Favar1 2 months ago 2
The Audience must have been sleeping. That was an amazing discovery on seeing again but instead of a standing ovation when she mentioned what they were able to do; they stood there not doing nothing. only at the very END, THAT'S HORRIBLE!
I applaud this amazing discovery!
djzammyz 2 months ago
She's so nervous but the whole presentation is amazing. This stuff is so cool
goteeisit 2 months ago
Where does this encoder transducer "plug in" at the ganglion cells, optic nerve, or visual cortex?
jayandcassandrameent 2 months ago
This is freaking amazing, but the way the speaker delivered it you'd think she was talking about the history of gray paint.
thaer12345 2 months ago
I know this isn't the right place to say this, but she is a total milf. Look at that rack aha
threeclock 2 months ago
She doesnt even mention the Optic nerves? lol
PeculiarTactics 2 months ago
Prosthetic eye my fat arse. This is complete bullshit. Medical hype based on something that will take 100 or more years before it actually becomes available as a treatment option. Same as the aids cure that was promised long ago. Bullshit.
theendlesssuffering 2 months ago
@theendlesssuffering Progress takes time, you know.
thaer12345 2 months ago
@thaer12345 Bullshit. If you started pouring in money, it would have already been done. Look at the computer industry; it's grown exponentially because that's where the money is at. This will never happen because no-one gives a shit about the blind and treatment options for the blind- there's no money to be made from it. As a result there will be no progress.
theendlesssuffering 2 months ago 2
you know what they should combine this with? theo jansen's beach creatures O_o
ekuLpsaaH 2 months ago
How can we sign up for this. If my husband could see his child
scrapbookqueen41 2 months ago
this is such an amazing breakthrough in communicating directly to the brain. and we used to laugh about Steve Austin costing $6M. the bionic eye is finally hear.
frazler 2 months ago
I would love to see this technology advance to the point where we can write GUI applications to run on the chip using a high-level API.
Imagine it, having the time/date/social network updates/new/etc. displayed right in your eyes!
inlinevoid 2 months ago
00:01
is that bill gates?
lehmejoun 2 months ago
@lehmejoun yeah probably he's done at least 2 talks on this channel
rajasmasala 2 months ago
@rajasmasala lol, the video is hanging at 00:02
lehmejoun 2 months ago
TAKE MY MONEY NOW! THIS IS HUGE!
youtubian2500 2 months ago
blindness-shmindness... look at the implications for future Virtual Reality, and cybernetic enhancements!
8legsFreak 2 months ago
@8legsFreak blindness-shmindness. you cant imagine what a wonderful thing it would be for people like my husband who is blind to be able4 to see his children. Think before you talk
scrapbookqueen41 2 months ago
@scrapbookqueen41 If you don't see the joke in my post, then all hope for you is lost:D Besides, even jokes aside, look at this rationally. A cybernetic cure for blindness will help millions of people, but that would hardly make a difference for humanity as a whole. A cybernetic enhancement, and VR for ALL people, formerly blind or not, would radically improve the fate of human race, and would be the greatest change since the invention of fire. Think hard about possible applications of this.
8legsFreak 2 months ago
Heh I'm trying to get into university for bionics. Within the next 50-100 years we as a species will be able to rebuild mankind in profound ways like never before. Take this technology for example what happens if you start sending visual input for infared light or wavelengths that we can't see. Perhaps we could even send auditory information to the visual center of the brain and experience sound like no human has before, The potential possibilities are endless and experiences even more so.
catklyst 2 months ago
Dr. Nirenberg is AMAZING. ( NOBEL Committee, Take note.)
elchicho25 2 months ago 3
Wow this audience is terrible......I was clapping when she showed the chip...Damn old people in the audience.
muslimgiga 2 months ago
GENIUS GENIUS GENIUS GENIUS GENIUS GENIUS to the power of GENIUS
twistedbass15 2 months ago 14
Maybe she should have explained more how the old prosthetic eyes worked before revealing what her team was working on. To be honest, I had to look it up, because I couldn't really understand the difference between the two methods. You really appreciate it more if you understand if you can understand the difference though.
stewinsalot 2 months ago
I think that the audience, while being a crap one, also weren't helped by the woman. She had an amazing, incredibly fascinating thing to talk about that will help millions of people in their everyday life, and yet her talk was strangely unsatisfactory. Where's the confidence gained from knowing that your team just made millions of lives that much more liveable? Where's the happiness? If she isn't that enthusiastic about it, why would we be? FUck.
yared94 2 months ago
@HornetFellow what did you expect? its a scientific presentation not a slipknot "concert".
alexhamster1134 2 months ago
more women like her and the world will be fine
Vienalgs 2 months ago 5
she must be a lecturer
danialothman 2 months ago
Wow! This is very important to me. I am already blind on one eye, and the other one is going too. So this gives me hope.
Thanks so much for posting it.
Kurtlane 2 months ago 28
good for blind people wonder if the mil is already using this
lllraverslll 2 months ago
revolutionary tech.
OcelotPwns 2 months ago
audience totally got lost... and so did I, lol ><
darkshark08 2 months ago
I absolutely want to see more about how the algorithms are made. I really liked her calm presentation. It was nice to just listen to a scientist explain her work in a straightforward way. More, more from Sheila Nirenberg this is amazing stuff. I can't wait to see how this is applied to Cochlear Implants (or will they completely start from scratch?)
gillythebetter 2 months ago
Truly amazing! One of the best talks yet!
jonjon1333 2 months ago
This also paves the way for direct-feed stereo HD video from an iPhone implant.
BGenerous 2 months ago
She deserved a better audience.
rollmasterross 2 months ago
Jordi Laforge anyone?
Seannyskillz 2 months ago
She sounds so sad, like totally forever alone, I feel bad just hearing her talk, even though its a fascinating topic... i think thats why she didnt get a great response
Seannyskillz 2 months ago
It makes you think: what other parts of our brain can be emulated with some algorithms on a chip? Truly mind-blowing stuff.
ComradeMDK 2 months ago
I was thinking the exact same thing, why is the audience so bored ? the thing that she is showing us is revolutionary, yet...they sit in silence...
I wonder if they'd be blind,would this presentation appeal to them more ? fucking stupid people, not everything is about fun gadgets.
I liked your presentation Sheila Nirenberg. Bring more news about it when u have it.
Bankay89 2 months ago
Brilliant.
hautepower 2 months ago
at 4:30: "Cool" is the exact right word. Perhaps "Super Cool" is a little better.
thoxbui 2 months ago
I remember how thrilled I was when "cochlear implant" came out and since then it has been defending deafness!!!! More than 1000 electrodes were required to get a good vision BUT retina gets burned from using that many electrodes and therefore,restoration of vision had always been a great challenge for us until NOW !!!! This is really amazing! I can't wait to see someone getting their vision back by using it!
TheSbtbsm 2 months ago 3
This is a great topic, bio-engineering an interface to restore vision. I feel the presentation omitted several items, such as when it could be made available for people, some additional detail about how it works and who else is working in this area. This information is briefly covered by the Q and A followup. The url is on the right side of this page or search for 'Sheila Nirenberg - Q & A at TEDMED 2011'.
sysprog1953 2 months ago
One of the few TED talks that actually deserves a standing ovation, but TED audiences are usually full of emotional saps who like to give applause to some douchebag making a totally useless and impractical 30 dollar water filter for "poor africans" as long as the said douchebag uses the right tearjerker tactics in the presentation.
The woman failed to do the show-woman part, but nevertheless, this is revolutionary shit and the missing piece .... I am flabbergasted at the reception it got...
YoLninYo 2 months ago 89
@YoLninYo I agree :)
iceprincessdelta121 2 months ago
@YoLninYo This is TEDMED. They're doctors, and don't show that much emotion haha.
RarewareLover 2 months ago
@YoLninYo Well, that's how stupid people are. As if water is more important than eyesight!
kablamo9999 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Maybe the audience is blind and deaf ...
Legarsdu76 2 months ago 3
pretty awesome. but if the code is cracked, does it work the other way around too? like being able to extract images/sounds from imagination? that's what I'm mostly interested in.
anyways... Geordi La Forge is gonna be so outdated.
PuppetXeno 2 months ago
@PuppetXeno You are interested in something that needs an output interface. Imagination does not have an output interface as we know of.
What is shown in the video is only possible because there is an input interface.
MarchingHome 2 months ago
What the hell is wrong with the audience!?
This is awesome!
ZarlanTheGreen 2 months ago 58
@ZarlanTheGreen She just wasn't the greatest speaker, but the technology was amazing, ya'know if it's really real.
GDop26 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GDop26 "ya'know if it's really real."
It is,and it's not the only ongoing project, for development of better visual prostheses, either.
Look it up.
ZarlanTheGreen 2 months ago
I'd be way more awkward if I were giving a talk about effectively curing blindness and the audience was being that rude........
faithhahn33 2 months ago
Shit audience envy her.
Nercury 2 months ago 2
Her main problem is presentation, otherwise, very interesting.
RareAirSupply 2 months ago
I'm totally going to save up all my money and turn myself into a cyborg in 60 years.
AndyHaTalking 2 months ago
@AndyHaTalking hehe probably me too , however i think it will possible much sooner than that !
i'd say probably within 20 years we will reach full cyborg potentials !!
VoiceOfAleppo 2 months ago
I find curing blindness cool!
shibomi1 2 months ago
what an amazing 'invention'. only if it had been delivered more enthusiastically from the woman.
fificvg1 2 months ago
REALLY understated reaction from the crowd, and not at all a very confident delivery by the woman. SHE JUST TOLD YOU SHE'S FIGURED OUT THE MATHS TO ENABLE YOU TO DIGITALLY SPEAK DIRECTLY WITH THE BRAIN! Where's the standing ovation?
platinummediauk 2 months ago 2
This makes us look like robots... I mean her view of it all.
KaiTendo174 2 months ago
@KaiTendo174 by definition we are Bio Mechanical Machines, and our Socio Economic systems already treat us as such. For Example : Wake up, Go to work, Have Lunchbreak, Do More Work, Go Home, watch TV, Sleep Repeat 5 Times then Wake up see family, See friends back to Monday do it all again until at least 65.
kwamelaryea 2 months ago
@kwamelaryea Indeed it is so, and that's TERRIBLE... The "definition" is something new to me. Incredible hatred towards it had erupted in me quickly. lol We've got to, as a society, change that, and I stand firm on this position.
KaiTendo174 2 months ago
@KaiTendo174 I'm with you on that :)
kwamelaryea 2 months ago
@KaiTendo174 Well it is terrible in a way. But the way I see it is that this "work" has a very broad definition. Yes, we can be sitting at our desk and doing seemingly boring and mundane job. However, some of us actually enjoy our days sitting at the job. Some other enjoy working in the lab. Some other enjoy playing music pieces for an audience. And to them, no 2 days are the same. This perhaps is just an excuse... but I think it gives a brighter outlook at life :D life's not so glum :P
mikahebat 2 months ago
@mikahebat I absolutely agree with you :D I said it that way in hope that people will realize that... it's not a good thing ;D i guess it doesn't bother me that much though :D
KaiTendo174 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Perhaps, a better word would be - not a "code", but a "melody".
KaiTendo174 2 months ago
Comment removed
KaiTendo174 2 months ago
Revolutionary!
zrizolina 2 months ago
The same technology could probably add a head up display to people with normal vision. This will make finding Sarah Conner easier ;) But seriously an awesome talk though so understated, cool was definitely the right word!
littlestworkshop 2 months ago
Its a great talk. Also is the start of the matrix.
stealthyspider 2 months ago
Smart chick and a nice rack. Oh, and ground breaking, revolutionary science that has implications for several fields of enquiry within, and without, the scientific disciplines. Does anyone know her phone number? Very cool and engaging delivery on a complex topic. Pity there wasn't more time for deeper exploration of the subject matter.
halb45 2 months ago
The most understated ..bionic?... milestone in 50 years.
breaneainn 2 months ago
Amazing .. I reckon the audience is dead cz they maybe wondering what is the status of this research .. i mean how soon will it become available for the blind ppl .. and how much will it cost .. Hope its cheap and will be in the market asap ..
Raazh 2 months ago
As a person with a disability (Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus) myself, I always would say that the worst disability a person could have is being blind because there was no 'aid' to assist that person to try and overcome the disability in some way, now there is! AWESOME! #HCSolns
SujitKReddy 2 months ago
NEO UNDERSTOOD THE CODE.
WE WILL ALL BE NEOS.
UTLonghornPistol 2 months ago
@UTLonghornPistol Just make sure your girlfriend sees the sun before you both die..
breaneainn 2 months ago
Im thinking that the.images would.be somewhat matching to what is actually being observed but not the.object itself still useful
h0tie 2 months ago
This sounds amazing! does anyone know how this thing is powered?
MrCylonToast 2 months ago
Wow! this means that if somebody has a paralysis say from a severed nerve.. that could be fixed by using the transducer encoder in between!! Awesome!!
She didn't tell how she got those nerve signal pattern though..
Entropy1947 2 months ago
Ted audiences go wild when some woman comes on and talks about rape, this woman comes up with a possible cure for blindness and they sit silent.
Coltaculuss 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLZ I need suck and kiss a beautfull girl feet and i will be her slave if oky PLZ send Email to
L111111219@yahoo.com
L111111219 2 months ago
more evidence our minds are just like very complex computers..
"got to admit it... that at this point in time that its clear..the future looks bright" donald fagen
legion0101 2 months ago
The audience seemed very silent throughout the lecture. Some applause would have been nice when Nirenberg showed the realistic output of the electronic device @ 8:00. If the users of this prosthetic get an advantage as drastic as this slide suggests, then this research group deserves a place in the hall-of-fame of science & technology.
wrichik 2 months ago
This is really exciting work !
I wish more research groups took on problems like these which are high on beneficial impact and also technically challenging. We can do without whatever they are planning after Blu-Ray ... or iPhone ... or Porsche's latest model - humanity has bigger needs waiting to be addressed.
wrichik 2 months ago
i don't get the comments about the audience.. are they suppose to do somthing?
nice idea though. liked it
BleachRush 2 months ago
@BleachRush It's just that the audience constantly applaud during schowcases of tech that are much less impressive than this one.
DeathG4n 2 months ago
@DeathG4n oh thx for the clarification. Ya they seemed quieter than usual
BleachRush 2 months ago
one step closer to having a virtual reality pumped to your brain. all you need is a graphics processing unit feeding the encoder. trans-humanism is coming.
tranceman14 2 months ago
cybernetics are so exciting, can't wait for the brain implant that connect directly to the web :)
quaxk 2 months ago
When people see, they see the world in multiple layers ie., background images at varying distances. If I look at a babies face, I see what it's wearing, maybe, the blanket it's on all the way to the wall in back of the baby. So, my question is, will this new prosthetic provide sight beyond just what is in th user's central vision?
HahnJames 2 months ago
this is about retina. does anyone know any new development that improve damaged optical nerves? so far, I found nothing. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate a reply. Thanks.
jewellx80 2 months ago
commendable work.... very interesting.
theonlyartist1992 2 months ago
this retina is backwards, the photoreceptor cells need to be on the back end
xenoxwolp 2 months ago
This is the digital transhuman evolution starting right here.
OriginalMindTrick 2 months ago
I don't get what was "wrong" with the audience. What were they supposed to do? Start doing the wave?
burgercide 2 months ago
@burgercide anything? clapping when they saw the difference between the old method and the new method would have been acceptable. as an audience, you are kind of expected to participate thru clapping, and laughter, etc. obviously she wasnt incredibly funny, but there were several appropriate times to clap when people didnt.
tronist 2 months ago
Comment removed
lordhighevolutionary 2 months ago
Brilliant :)
MrNRurka 2 months ago
bionic cyborgyan eyes
dattebenforcer 2 months ago
Perhaps the audience was stunned into silence.
Come on, people - digital eyes!
kargelr 2 months ago 64
@kargelr Deus Ex soon?
beatboxpeej 2 months ago
Nice ideas, not so great presenter :S
HookshotHero 2 months ago
@HookshotHero They are scientists, not actors.
vraciudude 2 months ago
this video was recorded with a camera
omghai2u 2 months ago
Great work!
jacobreinvented 2 months ago
Man, what a stupid audience. I'd be jumping out of my chair when she showed that baby's face. Do these people not realize that kind of progress that's been made? So annoying.
ChrisCapel1998 2 months ago
oh there was a crowd... thought she was talking to the air...
YFabu 2 months ago
What a shitty audience.
campusdyno 2 months ago 85
@campusdyno We`re the real audience:)
kimkjederseg 2 months ago
@campusdyno yeah because the speaker isn't very self-confident and rather tense ...although the subject is very interesting !
VoiceOfAleppo 2 months ago
I didn't ask for this.
Zuriki09 2 months ago
the matrix is coming !!! ~ hehehe ^__^
PushkaCom 2 months ago
Pretty amazing how far we've come in this science... I can remember not too long back when this sort of thing was just a dream
Truthiness231 2 months ago
Now these are the sort of TED talks I stick around for. Thank you Sheila Nirenberg, and all others associated with this research for breaking into the brain machine interface. I look forward to seeing more of this sort of technology in the future. Perhaps in the future, while I am alive I can get a memory upgrade, as mine has always been lousy.
Please bring more videos like this one TED.
jathgnos 2 months ago 3
Is the crowd alive??
sinasfles 2 months ago
How long b4 I can replace my eyes with badash cyborg eyes that see the world better than a hawk?
KynMites 2 months ago
Wait, wait, how could people dislike this video? :\
dachan928 2 months ago
Comment removed
anitakos 2 months ago
Excellent! So rarely does technology actually HELP humanity... wonderful. :)
3CooperBoys 2 months ago
anyone else notice how hot this woman is?
tardesnegras 2 months ago
@tardesnegras hahah yep, she seems nervous thou :(
violet101 2 months ago
The video starts here 0:15
MrYorkshireFella 2 months ago 2
THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN! See similar device in Feb 2010. tinyurl(.)com/cur2gop ...2 min and 55 seconds into that clip. I'm sure this is device is slightly better, but they will face the same hurdles. (Like this if you weren't aware!!)
dmg46664 2 months ago
@dmg46664 Failure is apart of scientist, there where many failed airplanes and computers also. Just because hurdles exist doesn't mean they will NEVER be overcome.
Khyrid 2 months ago
@Khyrid Did you watch the clip? The computer (charles babbage) & the airplane (the wright bros) didn't have government agencies saying that people weren't allowed to sell the inventions. Please like the orig comment if you weren't previously aware of that case.
dmg46664 2 months ago
@dmg46664 I watched the clip now, I was aware of those hurdles already. There are a lot of BS out there, the government has to filter most of it. A lot of scammer who want to sell alternative medicines that don't do anything or can actually be harmful. The bottom line is the products that show results gets funds. This eye thing may require invasive surgery, that means they need human trials, it should be very hard for them to get that and my tax dollar funds to do it.
Khyrid 2 months ago
@Khyrid U should watch the whole episode. The "bottom line" is that out of 10000 products only 1 comes to market, and that product takes 10 years. Beta blockers in the same program was such a drug that the FDA didn't approved and lots of people died before approval, but they don't get reported. Same with Erbitux. This is not a new issue, see a Nobel prize winner speak about the economics tinyurl(.)com/cdxwe4t
dmg46664 2 months ago
@dmg46664 Your bottom lien is irrelevant. Drugs and inventions that are used on people can have bad consequences, the government needs to control the distribution and conception of these things. While the FDA may work slowly that is just another thing we need to improve. What would suggest?
Khyrid 2 months ago
@Khyrid Watch the whole Milton Friedman program. You can also google his lectures on CSPAN or see his talks at the mayo clinic for more detail. Your error is to assume that preventative measures (good intentions) could never be more costly than the disease. Moreover the incentives at the FDA guarantee them to always be so, even if you wanted to streamline it. My conclusions are the same as Friedman's, it should go.
dmg46664 2 months ago
@dmg46664 The FDA should go? That's your conclusion? No oversight? Anybody can distribute and crap they want unchecked?
Khyrid 2 months ago
@Khyrid You have courts of law if drug companies lie about their products. Drug companies advise doctors very carefully because of threat of litigation. Can you name a drug that the FDA successfully prevented through their trials? The Thalidomide alarm was only raised because cases outside US, not because of work done by the FDA. Basically they impose huge costs on companies simply to wait. That $100mil stage 3 approval is simply passed onto consumers. Tough luck if there aren't ppl to warrant.
dmg46664 2 months ago
@dmg46664 There are products on shelves now that do nothing like homeopathy "medicines", where's the court of law stepping in to punish them? Some drugs need to be prevented from ever landing on store shelves even once because of the destruction they could do. Now I don't doubt the FDA has problems, but something needs to exist to screen new drugs and treatments.
Khyrid 2 months ago
@Khyrid We're in complete agreement that homeopathy is nonsense. But be careful about government bureaus. In the UK, they've managed to get them financed by the NHS! The reason there aren't cases against that, is because by and large the customers are happy! (unfortunately). I don't know if you're in favour of ending the war on drugs (legalization)... but if like me, you are... then maintaining this affront on medical drugs in hypocritical! Doctors and patients should decide, not the FDA.
dmg46664 2 months ago
@dmg46664 You have identified a real problem but you have offered no practical solution. Not everybody goes to a doctor or can afford to. People abuse drugs or use them irresponsibly. We don't live in a perfect world. If there is no government oversight, more people will die from bad drugs. It would be so easy to make a quick fortune at the expense of unsuspecting people by marketing a harmful substance as a cure.
Khyrid 2 months ago
@Khyrid One might think that it would be easy to take advantage of people, but in general it is not. It's never been easier to self diagnose with Doctor's guidance online. People arent as stupid as you're making them out to be. I'm not saying there'd be no incidents... but the cost associated with them will be insignificant compared to current FDA costs. Same went for 911 tinyurl(.)com/d5ubj3n Humans have an irrational bias 2 prevent things even when dealing with consequences r cheaper 4 society
dmg46664 2 months ago
@dmg46664 Some harmful effects of drugs cannot be properly tested until years down the line. Like asbestos for example, a building material that can be hazardous but not until years later. If drugs hit the shelves without years of oversight and restrictions, sure people will get potentially life saving medicines sooner but people would be taking all kinds of medicines that nobody knows for sure what the long term effects of are. The potential for harm is greater without the FDA.
Khyrid 2 months ago
@Khyrid "The potential for harm is greater without the FDA". That's the statement that I and others dispute. To be fair, I don't have such a study that aggregates all the harm, but you don't have one that aggregates all the good. Vested interests are against such studies. I'll just leave you with this, as it represents the principles behind my arguments. tinyurl(.)com/czrjnjz . I'll leave u to your own research on the matter.
dmg46664 2 months ago
@dmg46664 so you got a price on a "better" life? which i see as some of the problem.. no, i dont want to debate, just wanted to remind you of something you forgot =)
oaaserud 2 months ago
@oaaserud Sorry, I don't follow you. But if you are saying that it's possible to quantify a "price" for a better life... or anything for that matter... Then we're in agreement.
dmg46664 2 months ago