Programming has been all the rage for a good time now, with a variety of different coding languages and platforms to use for both enthusiasts and professionals alike. But newly popular microcontrollers and microprocessors have shaken up the industry, making enthusiasts excited and drawing new recruits into the fold as well. It can be difficult to know where to start with these, as they are quite complicated in many ways, and connecting them to the Internet of Things is a tall task without knowledge of how to do so.
Luckily, with the Internet of Things & ESP32 Arduino Beginners Bundle, you can become an expert on Arduino, Raspberry Pi, the Internet of Things, MQTT, and more by following a series of online lessons. Brought to you by Makerdemy, there are hours of content available that will answer any questions you might have regarding programming these electronics. The courses are targeted towards beginners, but if you are relatively experienced you will still find a lot of value in the lessons provided, as you’ll go further in-depth on arcane subjects like aeroponics and IBM Bluemix. The nine courses are each project-based, meaning you will learn by pursuing basic projects from which you can take knowledge and generalize towards going after your own personal goals and ideas. In no time, you’ll find that what seemed incomprehensible is made simple and understandable by the accomplished teachers from who you’ll be learning.
If you’ve been struggling to work things out on your own, or you just bought new electronics which you don’t yet understand, it’s easier than ever to access a consolidated database of information that will lead you to the promised land of technological comprehension. For just 29 dollars, you can purchase the Internet of Things & ESP32 Arduino Beginners Bundle today, and set yourself forward on the pathway towards microtechnology expertise.
Prices subject to change.
When you buy something through a link in this article or from our shop, Big Think earns a small commission. Thank you for supporting our team's work.
By November 2020, The Queen's Gambit had been watched in over 62 million households, making it the most-watched scripted limited series in Netflix history. The thoughtful, stylized show on the patient pursuit of chess was perfectly timed for a world in lockdown. Viewers were enamored with Elizabeth Harmon's mental prowess as she envisioned dozens of potential moves on the ceiling in order to evade capture and declare victory.
Chess is one of the most intellectually stimulating games in existence. What if you could play it purely with your mind? Given how immersive chess is, can you imagine leaving the physical world behind and truly entering a mind palace?
A game of the mind
It turns out a number of researchers have had such a vision. In a paper published in IEEE Xplore, German professors David Hubner, Albrecht Schall, and Michael Tangermann discuss the evolution of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) as applied to two-player chess games. Incredibly, 96 percent of moves were correct — and most errors were technical issues that they believe can be fixed.
Chess is played by an estimated 605 million people around the world. While face-to-face interactions will always be an integral component of the intimacy of chess, the game was adopted early on the internet. The ability to play at a distance increased its popularity and accessibility as players found suitable opponents across the planet.
Photo: Anusorn / Adobe Stock
The BCI is based on a two-step process: first, identifying the piece a player wants to move, then moving it on the board. In this study, six players used a BCI chess application (which was based on an open-source Java app) along with an electroencephalogram (EEG) equipped with 31 passive electrodes that detected the chess piece and board position in the player's mind.
Before the game, each player performed predefined chess moves to calibrate the BCI. During play, they also had a predefined amount of time for thinking about their next move. Specifically, they were given 15 seconds to consider the piece that they were going to move and five seconds to "move" the piece. If the player only had one possible move, the BCI automatically executed it.
Hands-free chess has real-world applications
Beyond the excitement of controlling a computer with your mind, the researchers recognize a variety of potential applications. For instance, BCI games aid in cognitive training and help motor-impaired people express themselves.
--
Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter and Facebook. His most recent book is "Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."
The comparison between computers and the human brain is hard to get away from. It is often a useful analogy, but sometimes conflicts with how our brains actually work.
One of the continuing questions about how our brains are similar or dissimilar to computers is how they process code. Do we process it as if it is a language or a series of math problems? This question is important for a number of reasons. From an educational standpoint, knowing how our brains work when dealing with coding problems could provide insights into how to teach it.
Some schools are beginning to allow students to select coding languages for a "foreign" language credit and are approaching the subject in the same way they might teach French. This might be a decent way to get more students into coding but could backfire if reliance on language learning techniques is misplaced, for example. Likewise, attempts to teach coding as math might be equally mistaken.
To help settle the debate, a new study analyzed the brain activity of computer programmers while they read code.
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." - Harold Abelson.
The study, carried out by a team from MIT and Tufts University, had two dozen participants read code, English, and logic puzzles while in an fMRI machine. By seeing which parts of the brain lit up while doing these tasks, the researchers could determine how our brains process coding languages.
If the areas of the brain associated with language processing were to light up, then we treat code like we treat languages. The same would go for the math parts. The control tasks, reading either a real sentence or a nonsense one and memorizing the location of colored squares, demonstrated the baseline activation levels for these systems in each subject.
The coding languages used in the study were Python, a language considered highly readable by many, and ScratchJr, a symbolic picture code designed for children.
An example of the code and puzzles that might be seen in the experiment.
Credit: MIT
When the subjects were in the machine, they were asked to work through the code and predict the output. The brain scans showed only limited responses in the brain's language processing centers, but a considerable amount in the multiple demand (MD) system, which often handles math, logic, and executive tasks.
While this may sound like a win for the "coding is math" argument, it isn't quite the slam dunk you might think it is. This system handles most of our "difficult" thinking and is useful for many things. Logic and math typically cause the left half of it to fire up while the right half handles abstract thinking.
Working with Python caused both sides of the system to activate. ScractchJr worked the right side a little more than the left.
What does this mean?
These findings suggest that the brain handles coding as a unique and complex process. As lead author Anna Ivanova put it: "Understanding computer code seems to be its own thing. It's not the same as language, and it's not the same as math and logic."
The authors note that this does not rule out the possibility that very experienced programmers might have specially dedicated areas of the brain for coding. It also doesn't settle what the right way to learn the subject is; it could be the case that learning it requires elements from both pedagogues.
Are there any limits to the study?
This study was very small, it only involved about twenty people, and all of them had knowledge of the coding language they were tested with. The codes used are noted for their readability, and the results may differ if future test subjects without coding knowledge are trying to decipher something like Piet.
Despite these limitations, the study does provide helpful information about how the brain handles coding languages. It will undoubtedly be the first of many investigations into this topic.
