DARPA Working on Spidey Sense for Soldiers

anti-human 1 writes to tell us Wired is reporting that DARPA is developing a new optics system to help soldiers identify threats earlier. "The most far-reaching component of the binocs has nothing to do with the optics: it's Darpa's aspirations to integrate EEG electrodes that monitor the wearer's neural signals, cueing soldiers to recognize targets faster than the unaided brain could on its own. The idea is that EEG can spot 'neural signatures' for target detection before the conscious mind becomes aware of a potential threat or target. [...] In other words, like Spiderman's 'spider sense', a soldier could be alerted to danger that his or her brain had sensed, but not yet had time to process."

Comments

1 step closer

[Vexor]

Now if I could just get this web shooter to work.....

Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[nexuspal]

I was reading a military close quarters combat manual and they made reference to a "sixth sense". It stated explicitly NOT to look directly at the enemy before you walk up to them and kill them silently one way or another. You are supposed to look at the ground by their feet and not think about them before you "off" them. It is amazing to me how many people do not believe that we have a sixth sense, the ability to know someone is looking at you even though they are not in your field of vision. I have yet to see science explain this...

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

I was reading a military close quarters combat manual and they made reference to a "sixth sense". It stated explicitly NOT to look directly at the enemy before you walk up to them and kill them silently one way or another. You are supposed to look at the ground by their feet and not think about them before you "off" them. - Of course you shouldn't be looking directly at them. You should be looking at the path between you and them. If you walk up to someone while staring directly ahead you're more likely to stand on something loudly or trip or generally fuck up your silent approach. As for thinking about them, well it's generally not a good idea to concentrate too much on someone you're about to kill. The more you think about them the more real and human they become.

It is amazing to me how many people do not believe that we have a sixth sense, the ability to know someone is looking at you even though they are not in your field of vision. I have yet to see science explain this... - I've yet to see anyone come up with a reliable and objective experiment that provided any evidence of a "sixth sense". Science can't explain something that hasn't been empirically observed.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[nuzak]

It is amazing to me how many people do not believe that we have a sixth sense, the ability to know someone is looking at you even though they are not in your field of vision. I have yet to see science explain this...

Science doesn't have to explain it. That part comes after proving that it actually exists.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[geek]

I remember studies from the late 90's about human perception, specifically in regards to insects. Ever notice a small spider out of the corner of your eye while watching TV? Ever wake up from a DEAD sleep to find a spider hanging over you? It was proposed that humans developed a "sixth sense" like this during our evolution to protect us from smaller and more deadly creatures such as poisonous snakes and spiders. The idea is that we percieve more around us than we are consciously aware of and our subconscious has the ability to red flag certain things and awake our consciousness to it. Speaking from personal experience, I have woken out of a dead sleep and found a spider over me, several times. I thought to myself "what a coincidence", but after hearing about the studies, whenever they were, I can't find them now, I realize it's very possible we have a sort of sixth sense in the non literal meaning of the words.

My guess is that this type of perception is what they are alluding to. The "gut instinct" of it.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[krbvroc1]

You sure thats not called a conscience? I would think removing the 'personal' factor and dehumanizing your enemy, you might reduce some combat stress and guilt that you just killed another human being. I wonder if this recommendation is more for mental health reasons or perhaps for both.

I kinda have a 'sixth sense' that someone is staring at this post right now.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[mi]

As for thinking about them, well it's generally not a good idea to concentrate too much on someone you're about to kill. The more you think about them the more real and human they become.

True about entire societies. The more evolved, the truer — one may even perish completely, when confronted by another, which manages to concentrate on the mission of killing the enemy, instead of "seeing his side".

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[0racle]

I thought to myself "what a coincidence"

If you're like most people, that wasn't your first thought.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[BWJones]

OK, so this is just more mil-speak bullshit. I've heard more generals and colonels talk about science issues on which they have no concept just to hear themselves speak. There has been more bad science done in the name of the military than I would like to admit and this is marketing speak designed around that.

*If* you are going to kill someone, particularly someone who can/will fight back, then you damn well better be prepared to pay attention to what you are doing. The whole reason that one is admonished to not think about them is that you may hesitate at what the Corps at least used to call the "Moment of truth", that moment at which you can make the decision to take a human life. Believe it or not, most human beings will hesitate at taking another persons life, so basic training programs spend an inordinate amount of time slowly accommodating soldiers to the concept through the use of paper circle targets, followed by silhouette targets, followed by more natural human looking targets. For other more specialized disciplines, there is even a more complex psychological process that soldiers go through to "glorify" the moment of a killing, "looking for the pink mist" if you will.

Any "sixth sense" is simply a more acute awareness of your surroundings through kinesthetic space, smell, hearing, etc.... We don't see higher mathematical dimensions like amphibians or fishes do and we don't have lateral lines like fishes do. However, there is nothing that says we cannot develop artificial supplements to our senses.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[morgan_greywolf]

It is amazing to me how many people do not believe that we have a sixth sense, the ability to know someone is looking at you even though they are not in your field of vision. I have yet to see science explain this...
- I've yet to see anyone come up with a reliable and objective experiment that provided any evidence of a "sixth sense". Science can't explain something that hasn't been empirically observed.

Okay, here's one:

Pick someone, anyone, out of a crowd, on the highway (not recommended if you are driving), etc., from who you are out of their field of view. Stare at them intensely for a few seconds. Direct a strong emotion towards them if you can -- hate, fear, rage, etc. I guarantee you that most of them will look back at you nervously. It may not work for everyone because some people are less aware of their '6th sense' than others.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Okay, here's one:

Pick someone, anyone, out of a crowd, on the highway (not recommended if you are driving), etc., from who you are out of their field of view. Stare at them intensely for a few seconds. Direct a strong emotion towards them if you can -- hate, fear, rage, etc. I guarantee you that most of them will look back at you nervously. It may not work for everyone because some people are less aware of their '6th sense' than others. - I'll bet a million simoleans that this experiment will find that the number of people who are "aware of their 6th sense" happens to directly correspond to the number of people who would simply by chance turn around and wonder "WTF is that guy looking at?". Funny that. It may seem to the casual starer that more people turn and look at them, but it's simply a case of them subconsciously dismissing the people who don't turn but explicitly noticing the people who do. You might want to look into selection bias for more info on the topic.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[BWJones]

Could someone please explain this to me? I've never heard of either concept before.

Humans see principally in three "channels", red, green and blue due to the opsins in your photoreceptors. There is some evidence that some women are tetrachromats however. At any rate, these three opsins give us color discrimination in three mathematical dimensions. However, fish and amphibian eyes are much more complicated than ours. For example, the turtle likely sees in at least seven channels of vision, perceiving a world we could never hope to imagine and here is another fact: In the zebrafish, despite their retinas being much more complex and sophisticated than ours, can repair their retinas from damage whereas we are currently screwed if our retinas go bad.

IAAVS (I am a vision scientist), and neuroscientist.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[Brigadier]

This has more to do with empathy. Picture your enemy is a 14 y/o iraqi girl with an AK. looking her in the eyes will cause you to connect, question and pause. all of which can be fatal under threatening conditions.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[airhed13]

In those spider situations, I always figured the bugger'd been crawling on my face and spun back up above my head when it realized I was waking up and moving around. The light pitter-patter of spider shoes has woken me up from a deep sleep more than once in my life. I just count myself lucky that I woke up before it crawled into my mouth.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[morethanapapercert]

I dunno about the ability to see higher dimensions, never heard of that concept myself either. I know that many, if not most, fish have a very different field of vision and see in a different part of the spectrum than do humans. (Deep dwelling species don't need to see the wavelengths that are filtered out by the first few feet of water.)
However, lateral lines are found on a lot of vertebrate sea life. They are lines of neural tissue that run down the body of the critter. The exact structure differs depending on if the animal is primarily a mobile one swimming from one place to another or a lurker. (e.g. fish that hang out in coral most of their lives.) These lines of nerves are exquisitely sensitive to pressure waves in the water, allowing the animal to sense the slightest shift in currents. Predator species use the lines to sense the presence of appropriately sized food moving at the right speed. Prey species use them to sense the approach of predators coming from their visual blind spot. There is evidence to suggest that schooling species also use this organ to help stay in formation within the schools. With some species, the lines are also electrical sensors, allowing an animal to sense the emanations even of prey that is lying motionless.
Oblig. Wiki Lateral-line

*Disclaimer: I am NOT a marine biologist or ichthyologist, so my summary is sloppy, but you get the gist of it anyway...

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[pQueue]

It is amazing to me how many people do not believe that we have a sixth sense, the ability to know someone is looking at you even though they are not in your field of vision. I have yet to see science explain this...

Experiments have shown exactly the opposite. Test subjects are unable to tell if someone was looking at them or not in a rigorous test. The real question is why people believe you can, which can be answered by psychology: you remember the hits and not the misses. When you turn and someone is looking you make note of that and forget when your are wrong.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[God'sDuck]

And even if it were confirmed, there would be a better-than-reasonable chance that some primitive part of our brain processes input coming from peripheral vision, and sorts it for input that might correspond to potential threats -- like "pairs of eyes directed directly at our tasty flesh."

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[rambag]

Yeah I did, my buddy is such an ass he's like, "yeah in the end you find out Bruce Willis' character has been dead the whole time" Oh did I just spoil it for you too.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[mike2R]

Pick someone, anyone, out of a crowd, on the highway (not recommended if you are driving), etc., from who you are out of their field of view. Stare at them intensely for a few seconds. Direct a strong emotion towards them if you can -- hate, fear, rage, etc. I guarantee you that most of them will look back at you nervously. It may not work for everyone because some people are less aware of their '6th sense' than others.

Then get scientific evidence for it: Make absolutely sure that the observer cannot affect the environment of the subject in any way, and record the results.

All sorts of EMP studies have been tried, and there is still no evidence for it. Given how easy it would be to get evidence if it did work, I think the only conclusion has to be that it doesn't.

My own opinion of this sort of anecdotal evidence is that 1) it is very startling when someone who you are sure cannot see you looking at them turns and looks at you (hence we tend to remember it as important event), 2) it's not very remarkable when people don't turn when you are looking at them (so we tend to forget it), and 3) our brains very very good at making connections between tiny bits of sensory data and the possibility that someone is looking at us (so in our everyday lives we are likely to see a bias towards people noticing us watching them).

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[Anonymous Coward]

This has more to do with empathy. Picture your enemy is a 14 y/o iraqi girl ... looking her in the eyes will cause you to connect, question and pause. all of which can be fatal under threatening conditions

If 14 year old girls that you have apparently freed from the oppression of a ruthless dictator are your enemy, then something has already gone very, very wrong

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[suitepotato]

As for thinking about them, well it's generally not a good idea to concentrate too much on someone you're about to kill. The more you think about them the more real and human they become.

This is what separates normal people from sociopaths and it isn't a good thing to head down that road. You should think about what you're doing, who you're doing it to, and be able to do it anyways and deal with the thoughts of it later. This is what it is to fight in the most limited way and not come to enjoying the killing, but only do what is necessary when necessary. Dehumanizing objectification has allowed people throughout history to do things to people that they ordinarily would never have done.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[st1d]

>>>"That said, it is pretty obvious from psychological studies that what we call a "sixth sense" is the brain making sense out of input that is below the conscious "noise" threshold. Your brain doesn't raise the vast majority of your neural input to a conscious level. If it did you couldn't consciously filter all the sounds, visual stimulation, tactile experience, balance sensation from your inner ear, etc. It would just be far too much to handle."

Speak for yourself, human. Besides, how wonderful is a brain that will occupy itself with American idol, radio, gossip, etc., but ignore items such as that large chunk of rock that you're about to break your neck tripping over? :)

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[dave562]

I will completely agree that proper body mechanics will help you generate better jin, which is the manifestation of qi when your body is the conduit. When I talk about "phenomena" level things, I'm talking about healers who can do the laying hands on type of stuff that some people swear only happened during the times of Jesus, and can only be done by people who are directly descendent from God. On the subject of sixth sense, I tend to believe that such a sixth sense can be encouraged through meditation and awareness practices. When you're calm and peaceful and centered, and have tuned your awareness to remaining in that kind of state, it isn't so far fetched that you'd be more likely to become aware of others who are in an opposite, hostile kind of state.

When you look at the bigger picture, it comes down to manifested intent. The mind needs to manifest intent before the body can carry out that intent. On the subject of healers and people who can manipulate other people's energy levels, they are able to manifest their own internal energy externally (through the palms usually). I've felt it personally (it feels like a tingling sensation, like when your arm wakes up after going numb from sleeping on it). Is it really so hard to believe that we as human beings might subconsciously manifest intent in such a way that others can pick up on?

To use an analogy that might not hold much water here, take talking to a girl who you're interested in as an example. When you're just being friendly and truly enjoying the conversation, she'll be open and friendly. Once you start trying to manuveur the conversation towards getting laid, she'll pick up on it.

Re:Ever hear of the "Sixth Sense"

[Jaqenn]

OK. Number one, your link is broken...

Number two, snopes says that this little tidbit is false.

As evidence of your claim you post a link that says the opposite is true? You might want to brush up on your rhetorical skills.

It was all a mal-formed attempt to whore for +x funny. It, uh, didn't work...

Edgy Perception?

[bitRAKE]

I get the same effect from too much coffee.

How is this better?

[Tofystedeth]

So if I understand it right from the article, our brain is constantly sending out danger signals that we ignore. This technology will then sense those danger signals and beep or flash red or something? So now we have another danger signal that needs to follow all the same routing. Does this cause a feedback loop? If there is something dangerous enough that our brain can recognize it would we not maybe notice it before the machine reading our brain? It sounds like we have a lot of these danger signals. Is every piece of trash blowing by in our peripheral vision going to set this thing off?

Well for starters...

[StressGuy]

The web-shooter goes in your wrist, not your

{no....I just can't bring myself to finish that one.....}

Altered Carbon

[AmiMoJo]

Anyone who has read Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan will recognise this. In the book, cloned bodies have improved reflexes, reaction times, even better responses to pain. Fall over a ledge, your augmented brain has a reflex action to grab something, which is faster and more accurate than normal.

In the book, ordinary people with enough money can get the tech. If you meet someone who has better tech than you, they can almost certainly take you down with little effort. Every move you make, they see first and move faster to counter.

And yet soldiers don't want this crap

[lawaetf1]

For the life of me I can't find the article but there was a recent publication about how soldiers don't like all this high-tech gear. And I can imagine why. Outside of body armor (and soldiers say there's such a thing as too much) and good communication a lot of this junk is over-hyped whiteboard warrior stuff that gobbles up billions of dollars of DoD R&D.

Within the article:

"It's unclear what the final system will look like." but "Darpa says it expects to have prototypes in the hands of soldiers in three years."

Sure. It's like the Popular Science covers of the 1960s "Flying cars tomorrow! Pick your model today!"

If we really want to helps soldiers brains, help them come back from a bogus war with fewer instances of PTSD and other psychological damage.

Almost like forcing "DSI"...

[StressGuy]

Also called "Dysfunction of Sensory Integration". It's a neurological condition where the brain has difficulty putting certain sensory signals "in the background". Say, for example, you put on a wristwatch this morning. Eventually your brain goes "OK...wrist watch...left arm...I get it", and you stop becomming constantly aware of the watch. You know it's there, the nerves in your arm can still detect it, but the brain pushes it into the background because it does not need to keep reminding you it's there.

A tactile DSI, would always feel like they just put that watch on, it can be quite irritating after a while. Tactile DSIs often do things like cut tags off of thier clothing and take other such steps to minimize the sensory overload they are exposed to.

I'm an auditory DSI, I have a hard time blocking out background noise and often times, it competes with what I should be paying attention to. My work-around is to wear wireless full-coverage headphones that pipe in soft classical music. Thus, I reduce the distractions to a single source that is easy to manage.

These days however, I have an office so I can also just close my door.

Based upon my experience, I say this won't work like they hope it will.

Book: Blink

[ZirbMonkey]

Everyone has a sixth sense about making split second decisions. Professional soldiers who've been in combat situations over their life gain subcontious instincts that let them spot things that "don't seem right." But this is experience one gains over time from encountering lots of examples.

This technology would merely make your subcontious more contious. But it doesn't tell you anything that you don't already know. Green recruits dropped into combat with this technology wouldn't get any use out of it, since they don't have the experience to understand what to look for. And all it would do to senior soldiers is confirm their already itching suspicions.

http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without /dp/0316172324

It's an interesting idea, especially for scientific purposes of visualizing what goes through a soldier's mind during combat. You get the possibility of mapping the subcontious in a visual way. But I have a strong feeling this tech will never make it on a practical side.

They never admit defeat

[mangu]

Shouldn't someone try this experiment already and either kill the myth or find out it is not that much of a myth?

When people want to believe in something extraordinary there's no way an experiment, no matter how well performed, will convince them of the contrary. They will always assume the experiment itself was faulty in some way.

It seems that for some people the need to believe in something is so strong it overrides reason.

Re:They never admit defeat

[WilliamSChips]

Really? So the successful hiring of clairvoyants by Police all over the world doesn't count?

Can you give me an example of that outside of a television show?

Re:tinfoil, please

[nexuspal]

Is a dog knowing its owner is coming home explainable by science as well? I'd like to see you put that into scientific terms.. Maybe the dog smells the owner 30 miles away? More to life than meets the eye, being close minded is what you are doing here... And yes, it is wildly complicated, a dog knowing an owner is coming home with no cues AT ALL (that science can explain AT THIS TIME). The owner leaves for home at a completely random time, and there's the dog waiting at the door when the owner is still miles off.