Med stormsteg mot ett psykociviliserat samhälle! Nya teknologier implementeras för övervakning och social kontroll: Trådlösa teknologier riktas mot individens kropp för att uppnå specifika mål i hjärnans neuronfunktioner…

Av Dr. Kingsley Dennis

Teknik som trådlöst kan överföra information till och från kroppen är ett forskningsområde som har lockat olika intressenter efter andra världskriget. Sådan energi-information distribution och inriktning inom det elektromagnetiska spektrumet kan omväxlande användas för medicinska, industriella, militära och telekommunikation syften. Jag kommer nu att undersöka en del av den militär-industriell forskningen och användningen av trådlös teknik. Fortsättningen finns att läsa här: Global Research

4 svar to “Med stormsteg mot ett psykociviliserat samhälle! Nya teknologier implementeras för övervakning och social kontroll: Trådlösa teknologier riktas mot individens kropp för att uppnå specifika mål i hjärnans neuronfunktioner…”

  1. Josef Boberg Says:

    FRÖJDEFULL JUL ❗ – önskar Josef B. 😉

  2. nathaliesview Says:

    Hej Josef!

    Hoppas Din Jul också var fröjdefull!

    Passar också på att önska Dig ett riktigt Gott Nytt År!

    All the best!/Nv

  3. Magnus Olsson (SWEDEN) Says:

    So fire up your neurotech engines, ladies and gentlemen. And as for the rest of us, presumably the contest winner will remember it for us wholesale.

    H+: Let me start off with a broad general question. I interviewed Zack Lynch a few years ago – the executive director of the Neurosociety. He believes that neurological improvement and self-control will be the defining characteristic of human society in a decade or so, acing out even biotech. I wonder if you share this view. Will we see a neurological age?

    PETE W. ESTEP: I absolutely share this view and Zack is a trustee of the Inner- Space Foundation to help make this vision a reality. But maximum benefit will only materialize on that timeline if we push hard on the accelerator. I started out in neuroscience research as an undergraduate (at Cornell) because I saw the importance and centrality of the field to both understanding and improving biology and behavior. I also sensed huge future potential for the integration of neuro with computer technology. When I moved on to get my Ph.D. [at Harvard] I was still excited about the prospects for a neurotech revolution a few years down the road, but I wanted to do more in silico biology and I sensed an impending revolution in genomics after I met and began to work with my doctoral adviser, George Church. So, I got into genome science because it was so hot and exciting and so many smart people from computer science, engineering, and various hard sciences were joining in, and George’s lab seemed like the place to be. I am still very excited about what is going on in genomics but I’ve segued back into neuro because I think the potential is even greater — probably far greater, especially for people already alive. The Internet and electronic devices have become pervasive and indispensable, and interfaces between us and these outboard intelligences will become increasingly powerful and direct. I think these changes will come steadily and will profoundly transform our lives, but maximum impact will only come if we alter the current research and development dynamic to produce those technologies with the greatest potential.

    H+: Your project, as I understand it, is offering awards for uploading information to the brain, and downloading information from the brain. And the idea is a device, whether external or implanted, that allows one to retrieve information by thinking about it. It sounds like a first step to the sort of mind uploading envisioned by people like Hans Moravec and much copied in various science fiction scenarios. I’m trying to envision what a prize-winning project would do. Would this be a first baby step toward these visionary ideas or a “great leap forward?”

    PWE: The InnerSpace Foundation is concerned primarily with challenges that lie within the visible technology horizon, which is getting shorter in some ways. The challenges of improving natural mental functions are very daunting, so we have focused on establishing basic two-way communication between the brain and prototype devices. Interfacing with nonbiological electronic devices is important because they have many advantages over brains and neurons in terms of speed, accuracy, and durability. Input of information into the brain by electronic means rather than just through our normal sensory channels can be called learning, even though it is a non-traditional form of learning, and outputting existing memory information to a device for later access is potentially an extremely powerful way of augmenting memory because it has essentially unlimited capacity and high fidelity.

    Since it is difficult for us to imagine exactly how these things might be done best in several years’ time, we have decided to set up a prize-based competition for rewarding one or more teams who produce the most compelling breakthroughs that most clearly satisfy the prize guidelines.

    We already know we don’t have to destroy or dismantle the brain to get enormous quantities of information out of it; I think we simply need to push forward technologies that allow for maximum information flow to and from the brain in a non-destructive manner. Therefore, procedures like those suggested by Moravec that require the brain to be destroyed or dismantled and reconstructed don’t appeal to me. The IF is committed to technologies that will move essential information to and from the brain, and allow it to be stored and backed up, but I don’t want to speculate much on “mind uploading,” which implies dynamic reanimation of downloaded and stored information. Nevertheless, there are many very serious and respectable people who contemplate and seek the development of such technologies. The IF is trying to get the world’s leading neuroengineering talent to give us baby-step technologies toward what we currently regard as the future great leap of exceeding or transcending our unwanted evolved limitations — whatever they might be — and I am a very strong advocate of this bioprogressive view.

    H+: Do you see this program of neural achievement as running in parallel to ideas of developing smart AIs, potentially of greater-than-human intelligence, and could this – in some sense – be a step toward fostering hybridization between humans and advanced AI?

    PWE: A long-term goal of the IF is to allow the maximum possible degree of direct human control over powerful outboard intelligences. Many extremely bright people have argued that self-improving AI could have catastrophic consequences for humanity unless we are an indispensable part of the overall equation. My view on the AI developmental timeline is pretty conventional. I think AI of this level is some way off, and might even be dependent upon improved human intelligence, but I see the logic of their argument.

    It is interesting to contemplate the interdependent hybrid human–AI intelligence scenario I just mentioned. It is entirely possible that naturally evolved human intelligence is incapable of producing catastrophically (for us) self-improving outboard intelligences, and that both natural human intelligence and AI are largely incapable of producing dramatic increases in human intelligence through purely biological manipulations because of the constraints of neurons and neuron-based storage and “computation.” However, when we consider that both abiotic and biotic storage and computational devices have their own strengths and weaknesses, it is easy to envision hybrids that tap the advantages of each and have characteristics superior to either alone. As one simple example of the comparative advantage of abiotic storage, my (inexpensive and old) 1 gigabyte keychain flash drive can store about a thousand 400-page books. And in less than a decade, a 1 terabyte (TB) keychain storage should be inexpensive and common. People will be able to store the equivalent of about a million books of text on their 1 TB keychain, and using standard and simple protocols retrieval is essentially error-free and extremely fast. 1 TB is also equivalent to about a million minutes of CD-quality music, a million photos from a typical 3 megapixel camera, or 140 days of continuous video (5 MB/minute bitrate, which is about YouTube or better).

    Each of us should probably ask ourselves if we could store all information that is essential and important to us on a single such device how we might make real use of that potential. I think when we seriously reflect on such questions we begin to really see some of our inherent biological limitations. The harsh reality is this: the human brain is a magnificent and mysterious collection of abilities, but for fast and accurate storage and retrieval of important information, even a humble keychain flash drive has overtaken us. But I am extremely excited that — for the first time in history — we can envision using such technologies to augment the brain’s natural limitations.

    H+: You’re focusing on memory rather than. say. perceptual intelligence or happiness, mainly because it’s measurable. My immediate impulse is that eliminating psychological misery would create the greatest benefit of all — both for its own sake and because troubled people cause our biggest problems socially and economically. But are there other reasons why memory has the greatest advantage, if it does?

    PWE: We’re focused on memory because it is the currency of our very existence. Our memories give us a sense of continuity and connection to our friends, relatives, and associates and to our own histories. We’re also focused on memory because moving memory information from the brain to a device accomplishes one of the two most basic directional transfers of information (into the brain and out of the brain), which is a first step toward establishing meaningful and increasingly complex two-way communication. There are many types of information that might flow from the brain to a device but when we consider establishing connectivity at the most basic prototype stage, we probably think of “sending” requests to a device for information input, and transferring to a device somewhat more meaningful, preexisting information about ourselves. This first type of “query” information is important for accessing or learning information and we are addressing this with our “The IF Prize for Learning.”

    This information can be stored and retrieved as “memory” but this challenge is somewhat different from dealing with other types of information, particularly complex and preexisting memories of, for example, friends and events. Capturing this more-meaningful “memory” information on a device is beyond our current understanding and technical abilities, but this is information you’d like to recall accurately over time, and even back up in the same way you back up important documents stored on your computer hard drive. But the complexity of this type of information exists on a continuum that can be as trivial as a grocery list or as meaningful as the details of your wedding day or your first date. We won’t be able to store and subsequently access all the complexities of an important memory with initial prototype devices; we’ll probably begin much closer to the grocery list stage but with time they’ll improve; and it is hard to say what the upper limit will be. So, we have established “The IF Prize for Memory” to accelerate the development and demonstration of a prototype memory augmentation device. and a particularly powerful prototype device might satisfy the criteria for both prizes.

    The reason we’re not trying to accelerate development of other research or technologies is multilayered. First, mainstream research into the brain and behavior is very well funded. Mental diseases and disorders are researched by thousands of people around the world. The kind of research we would like to accelerate is woefully underfunded and is difficult to fund through traditional channels. Second, we think that the pace of scientific research and technology development are limited primarily by the natural limitations of the human mind. It seems self-evident that a more-powerful intelligence can solve difficult problems — including providing lasting cures for any disease or disability — much more quickly and efficiently. So we’re putting all our efforts where we think they’ll do the most long-term good, rather than wishfully employing underpowered brains to continue devising superficial solutions to these extremely serious problems.

    the human brain is a magnificent… collection of abilities, but for fast and accurate storage and retrieval of important information, even a humble keychain flash drive has overtaken us.
    H+: I realize that it’s not part of this project, but do you worry at all about the quality of the information that human brains will be linking to? In other words, if my brain is directly hooked up to the Internet, or more specifically to Wikipedia, I’m still going to experience the same frustrating quantity of crap — errors, irrelevancies, and the tendency of Internet informational materials to exclude important bits of data.

    PWE: I am very concerned with the data quality issue but when we consider the downside of what we might get with new technologies, we should carefully reflect on the quality of what we already have and ask why and how it got that way. The reason our public discussions and databases give us some garbage out is because people put garbage in. Wikipedia has gotten much better over time and in many cases is surprisingly good, which shows that mature technologies eventually establish an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio. One of the problems of the naturally evolved mind trying to sift through large amounts of data in a complex modern world is that we don’t have efficient filters. We do have filters, lots of them, but they are not very good at rapidly sorting through complex data. This is another area that should benefit greatly from increasingly direct interfaces with computers. But your question raises some very vexing downstream questions that will take a long time to sort out. Nevertheless, we’re already painfully aware of excessive noise in at least parts of our essential communications systems like the Internet, and we feel the impact from time to time. This is a really serious problem, and like any other really serious problem, faster and more accurate learning and memory, and increased overall cognition and intelligence, should contribute to more rapid and satisfactory solutions.

    H+: Do you see a relationship between this project and neural performance enhancement oriented projects like brain exercises, nutrients, and “smart drugs?”

    PWE: I’d say there’s only a weak relationship. I’m certainly an advocate of those approaches since they’re all we’ve got right now; but their potential is very limited relative to what we would like to accomplish — although, right now I’d be happy with anything to remind me to return emails or phone calls on time! It might sound a little futuristic at this point but I think for what we’d like to achieve there is a much greater upside to investments in brain imaging, biocompatible materials science, microelectronics, and information technology, than in inherently weaker approaches for tweaking our existing biology. I support the continuation of basic research on brain function using brain exercises, drugs, and other approaches but I’d like to see each person thinking “outside the box” that sits on his or her shoulders.

    We have expanded our intelligence and reach in unexpected ways in the past and I’d like people to contemplate possible future expansions. Richard Dawkins’ seminal book The Extended Phenotype is an exploration of the selection for genotypes that result in organisms creating various extensions of themselves, including physical extensions of their biological selves (a more succinct treatment can also be found in the second and later editions of The Selfish Gene, in the chapter “The Long Reach of the Gene”). This process can be very abstract; it can extend to the establishment of various novel relationships and can be extremely rewarding. Consider our relationship with dogs. Dogs are not just a human’s best friend, they are one of our greatest creations … well, we didn’t exactly create dogs as much as cultivate them from a preexisting species, the wolf. But everyone knows a dog is not equivalent to a wolf. We used a crude but effective understanding of trait-based selective breeding to enrich our proto-dog companions for behavioral tendencies to herd, protect, hunt, and probably to show obvious appreciation and affection for us. They have intelligences and abilities that are complementary to ours and we turned a marginal initial relationship. into an extremely mutually rewarding relationship that we valued then and probably value even more now because they have become increasingly what we wanted them to be.

    I think we should go forward with an extremely optimistic belief that we can establish even more rewarding and complementary relationships with other intelligences — including one another — by all becoming more like we’d like ourselves and others to be.

    See Also
    •h+ Magazine Current Issue
    •Overclocking the Human CPU
    •EPOC Neuroheadset
    •The Artificial Hippocampus


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: