[nfb-talk] Fw: Implanted chip 'allows blind people to detectobjects'

Sun Nov 7 16:47:54 UTC 2010

Well, for that matter, couldn't you say the same thing about the KNFB 
Reader? Anyone who wants a KNFB reader isn't fully adjusted to being blind, 
right? In what fundamental way is this chip different from a KNFB Reader? In 
fact, you could argue that the KNFB Reader gives restaurants an excuse to 
not bother making braille menus.

PS: I want a KNFB reader too. Next time I have an extra $2000 lying around 
doing nothing, I'm going to jump on it. Well, actually, that's probably not 
true. I'll probably buy an IPhone next. Still, that KNFB Reader is cool.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Bullis" <mabullis at hotmail.com>
To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: Implanted chip 'allows blind people to 
detectobjects'

> Allow me to Engage in a bit of speculation for a moment.  Let's change the
> issue.
> Suppose that tomorrow somebody developed a new augmentation for hearing.
> Suppose it allowed you to hear in an expanded range--say 5 hertz to 40,000
> hertz.  Let's further suppose that it allowed you a very increased ability
> to locate objects with your hearing.  Say that you could locate an object 
> at
> a half mile within a foot or two if it was making the noise of a buzzing 
> fly
> or thereabouts.
> Ok, ok, so, there are complications.  But, suppose you could adequately
> filter what you hear, removing, or at least attenuating, sounds that you
> didn't want to hear and hearing the ones you did want to hear.  For 
> example.
> There's a large semi tractor and trailor right next to you and you're at 
> an
> intersection.  With this new discriminating hearing, you could completely
> attenuate the sound of the truck and hear what's going on for blocks 
> around,
> smoothly creating a sound picture of the landscape.
>
> I believe you would accept the device without hesitation if there were no
> risks or major disruptions to your normal life.  Actually, I believe you
> would most likely accept it even if it disrupted your life, so long as you
> saw a long term benefit to your ability to travel.  And, let's be honest.
> The learning of the long cane or guide dog has caused it's own set of
> disruptions to our lives--causing us to have to take time away from school
> or work to learn.  So, the techniques we now have are not without
> complexity, risk, or a lack of disruption.  And, the techniques we now 
> have
> still don't protect us from overheads and still can't detect quiet cars.
> So, there is room for improvement.
>
> Having posed this situation, I speculate that the reason for so much
> discussion about the chip that provides sight is that it is sight.  If it
> were hearing we wouldn't have nearly the controversy.
>
> I agree with Dave.  As I said earlier.  Having vision would be a hoot.
> Should the opportunity to see come my way, I'd take it, if the benefits
> outweighed the potential risks or side effects.  I also learned much from
> the real life story of Marsha Drenth.  She truly faced the choice and 
> sounds
> like she learned hard lessons.
>
> No, I don't live my life mourning the lack of sight.  On the other hand,
> what fun it might be.
> And, who knows, with my alternative techniques I might be able to use 
> sight
> in ways other sighted folks don't.  It might actually make me a "better 
> than
> sighted person."  Ok, Ok, maybe not.
> But, again, what an experience.
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of David Andrews
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 7:27 PM
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Fw: Implanted chip 'allows blind people to detect
> objects'
>
> I agree with John and Mike.  All things being equal, I think most of
> us would see if we could.
>
> Dave
>
> At 02:41 PM 11/4/2010, you wrote:
>>Well, I seldom agree with John about anything but....
>>I'd take the chip just because it would be an interesting and probably
>>exciting thing to try.
>>My life is quite full and I'm comfortable with my blindness but that
> doesn't
>>mean I would turn down sight.
>>In any case, the sight provided in this article is pretty minimal and
>>probably not usable by people who have never seen.
>>In most cases the reason I would turn down opportunities to see are that
>>they would be a major disruption of my life, probably involving numerous
>>operations or major amounts of time off work.  In other words, although I
>>would find sight an interesting and new option in my life, I wouldn't take
>>risks of what I currently have to get it.  And, I always envisioned any
> such
>>treatment as having percentages of success.  They'd say, "This process has
> a
>>20 percent chance of working and if it doesn't work you could be in major
>>pain for the rest of your life."  You get the picture.  I'd love to see so
>>long as I didn't have to risk anything serious for it.
>>Now, offer me new eyes with no risk to the rest of my life and the
>>reasonable cewrtainty that I'd end up with good vision, I'd take that.
>
>                         David Andrews:  dandrews at visi.com
> Follow me on Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/dandrews920
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> 