Arguments of own minds !!! Society for brain integrity?
To return to nanotechnology, I want to explore how we will augment our own minds using nanotechnology. At this time, crude experiments using surgery are able to implant sensors onto the surface of a human brain and extract signals to control the cursor of a computer. We would like to go further and connect additional memory, add functionality and enable a visual and auditory connection to the Internet. How else would we do that without using nanotechnology?
If your spine is damaged at the neck, and you are confined to a bed for the rest of your life, then brain surgery is a risky, but important, thing to do. For the rest of us, it goes too far mearly to get a better internet connection.
Nanotechnology will allow us to add hardware to our brains without the expense and danger of brain surgery. Of course we will still be taking a risk – perhaps a large one in the early years of augmentation.
One suggestion I’ve heard but don’t remember who said it, is to slowly replace brain cells one by one with a chunk of hardware much smaller than the original brain cell. The hardware would simulate all the functions of a brain neuron. If we can come up with a safe replacement module that runs off the chemical energy in the blood and has a predicted lifetime greater than 20 years then it will be time to start the conversion. Take a pill each day to supply the hardware to your body and let the nanorobots install them over a six month period, one brain cell at a time. Six months later, you would never know any thing had changed yet you would be running on a hardware platform with amazing capability.
It could run a million times faster than your old biological brain. It would have room for a thousand times more memory. And it would be your own brain. Not a computer in the sense of the thing on your desk, but an exact copy of the structure and personality that existed before the conversion. And it would have an operating system that would allow you to control the speed of processing. Jump it from the biological 100 millisecond response time to something like 50 nanoseconds. That is 20 million times faster.
What that means is that for a short period ( limited, most likely, by the power dissipation limits of your blood and skull) you could slow the world down by a factor of 20 million. Your perceptions speed up but ordinary physics will limit how fast your body can move so, to you, the world slows down as your brain speeds up. But think about what you could do in an emergency. You would have time to think, to plan for hours during the first tenth of a second. And you could slow your brain down in small steps to ramp the world activity back up to a rate where you can interact with the world and accomplish a goal.
Since the hardware brain cells are smaller than the organic version, there’s a lot of room left over. That allows the nanorobots to install additional cells that can be added as needed for new memory, new skills, new interfaces – like that wireless internet. Also, it allows backup units to replace a failing unit with little or no impact on the overall memory or awareness.
The hardware is almost indestructible compared to the organic brain. Say an augmented person is involved in an accident and dies. The body may be a total loss, but the brain could be in perfect condition. An organic brain dies about three minutes after the heart stops. These hardware brains only turn off until they get a new power supply. All memories are intact. The brain is removed from the dead body. An organic body is regrown without a brain and the hardware brain is installed in the clone. It boots up as soon as the blood supply brings a new supply of energy. The person wakes up and learns to use the slightly different body.
In fact when hardware brains are common, the idea of life extension is a sure thing. Trade in your old body and get a new version that looks just like your old one but comes with all the latest mods. Things like intelligent immune systems, diamond reinforced bones, skin art ala a chameleon or cuttlefish, sensors that did not come with the original, and the list goes on.
One main issue is that a lot of people will see this as a distortion of what is human. And will not want to associate with the “cybogs” who will be seen as evil. It is good that you can have a fully hardware based brain that is installed in a perfectly human body. Who can tell without an X-ray?
29 Responses to “Brain Augmentation via nano robots”
- Jake Says:
January 4th, 2007 at 5:01 pm What an amazing blog.
I just found it today and am very impressed by the thought and research that you have put into your posts. I will continue to visit.Cheers.
- john2004 Says:
January 4th, 2007 at 7:23 pm Jake,
Thank you ! I’m very pleased that this looks like a good start. I do care a LOT about this subject and it just seems natural to speculate on how it will work out. Feel free to disagree if anything seems too far out. I’m interested in constructive critisism.
- Mike Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 5:13 pm if my father died i would like to see him brought back simply by giving him a new body but at the same time its unethical. the world would become overcrowded. wouldnt an emp blast destroy theese cells? or any other kind of electronics interfear with their working? WIFI? thinking of this ahckers could get into your brain and do all sorts. for instince.. Bush gets an augmentation (which he needs… badly) and hackers get into his brain and nuke the world. what now? please set me wrong and tell me that my fears are just fears because i know this technology is the next revoloution. ps. if the operating systems are anything like Windows then were doomed from the start. -Mike, please reply and put me straight
- jason Says:
- February 9th, 2008 at 2:23 am Jason, you call them as you see them and I will do the same. That said, I see no good reason to change anything I said. I hear that you are concerned about causing fear or misunderstanding in the public mind. I do not personally value having a discussion that is limited by that concern. Perhaps that is a poor choice on my part.
- Contact: Magnus Olsson ( email@example.com)
- Can A Satellite Read Your Thoughts? – Eye-Witness Testimony
If you have been following this series for the last year or so, you would know that I demonstrated how naturally occurring radio signals can be reconstructed by computer to betray thoughts, feelings, sight and sound and how such information can be communicated back to the body. Today we are going to take a look at some of the eye-witness testimony and see how it stacks up against the technical material.
To explain this properly, there will be quite a bit of video. I have reviewed what is available on Youtube and came up with a selection that should at least give you a moment’s pause.
The first video is from a European organization campaigning against this technology. As you will see, this is no tin foil hat brigade, but a professional team of individuals from throughout Europe. Watch the video, check out the site and come back to this article:
Now for some background:
Now, no doubt some of the claims are false, misinterpreted, etc., but I think you get the idea…this is big. I think the video speaks for itself, so I will add no further comment to it.
Next up, we have two eye-witness reports from the US. Before we get to that, I feel that some form of baseline reference for mental illness is required. That is, let’s take a look at how a Schizophrenic behaves and talks:
Case studies of Schizophrenia:
Watching the last video, I am sure you noticed every aspect that the Doctor mentions, from disordered thoughts to paranoid interpretation of events. Whilst the guy in the video demonstrates clear classic symptoms, any schizophrenic will show similar behavior to varying degrees.
As a further example, watch this:
We are almost ready to hear the testimony from the US. At this stage, if you have not already read the articles leading up to this, now is a very good time to. Otherwise, you may be a little lost when it comes to noticing the similar descriptions of the capabilities of the technology. I will point them out and provide links, but I would rather that you think of the previous articles as required reading at this point.
Complete? Now watch the following videos:
US Eye-witness Testimony
At 25 seconds in, she starts to describe how she has been hearing the same group of voices, or “characters”. Note how rational she is, not demonstrating any of the symptoms associated with Schizophrenia. At 1 min, 4 secs, she begins to describe the A.I. and how it uses surrounding events to as the basis of its conversation. Just after this she describes how it attempts to build a relationship between events, thoughts and the surrounding people, specifically trying to create the impression of “gang stalking”. At 1 min, 51 secs, she describes how they have “catchphrases” or certain phrases they repeat, which is a classical indicator of the A.I. stalling for time whilst it evaluates some of the input.
At 2 mins, 8 secs, she states that she believes it for the purpose of training her mind. This should be disregarded as it is her trying to make sense of that behavior from a non-technical viewpoint. She is trying her best to understand it. At 2 mins, 22 secs, she begins to describe the audio quality and how the A.I. attempts to hide by altering how it uses the inner monologue and the memory of that event, to create different audio effects. At 2 mins, 55 secs, she drops the bomb by saying when they spoke she felt “vibration”. I’m sure anyone who has read the background material will recognize this from the portion of the A.I. and stimulating spasms in muscles to enunciate syllables.
At 3 mins, 4 secs, she describes how the voice is in her inner monologue and not in the surrounding environment, just as described in this series of articles. At 3 mins, 14 secs, she drops another bomb, she feels she is being trained to “hear them, without hearing them”. This effect is achieved because understanding has a pipeline, the vocalized words move down the brain and become more of an idea, or an awareness of what was being said. The A.I. achieves this “hearing without hearing” by writing the patterns further down the “stack” to give the direct impression of words, phrases or even complete concepts. At 5 mins, 14 secs, she describes how she is hearing the voice of people she knew at a hospital, this is of course false, the A.I. is just a good impressionist. We can see from this how the A.I. creates the impression that people you meet are “in on it”.
This guy just speaks for himself, note that he adds a new element, sleep deprivation and white noise generated by essentially spamming the auditory system and stimulating regions of the brain associated with maintaining alertness. The effect is almost like caffine, but leads to visual and auditory hallucinations within a few days when at full strength.
The eye-witness testimony is matching with the technical capabilities described within these series of articles. Obviously, this is no accident and very widespread.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.