Here's a problem I see: the more advanced the technology becomes and the less people know about it, the greater the potential to abuse it. For instance, say technology advances to the point where...
Here's a problem I see: the more advanced the technology becomes and the less people know about it, the greater the potential to abuse it. For instance, say technology advances to the point where some government can put a helmet on your head and basically monitor your thoughts, most people will not believe that can actually be possible and will be ill-equipped to consider or partake in any policy decision about its use. Some crisis will be used to justify its use, e.g. the war on terrorism, and the next thing you know, a decision within government has been made to use it and you, an individual citizen, have no choice or input on the decision.
In this regard, getting the word out and causing people to think about the possibility of mind control, or at least mind monitoring, will better prepare people who can then influence the decision makers in government.
On an entirely selfish level, I have trouble writing stuff down and would kill for a debug port on my thoughts to pull things down and organize them outside my head, in a super Evernote or Pensive...
On an entirely selfish level, I have trouble writing stuff down and would kill for a debug port on my thoughts to pull things down and organize them outside my head, in a super Evernote or Pensive like environment. But I could totally see where this technology could be misused.
This article is largely speculative. It'd be interested in reading an article more informed on the topic. I got my B.S. in cognitive science from UCSD. While there I took a class on machine...
This article is largely speculative. It'd be interested in reading an article more informed on the topic.
I got my B.S. in cognitive science from UCSD. While there I took a class on machine learning methods for brain computer interfaces. I was disappointed that this article never describes how brain computer interfaces actually work. Neither does it describe the different kinds of brain computer interfaces or how they are actually used. Instead the article seems to contain some generalized lack of trust in the government and fear mongering. I have no critique for the reliability or trustworthiness for anyone weary of the government in general especially the current administration in the United States. However, to apply that remarkably broad argument to BCI's is a stretch.
The largest area of practical use of BCIs right now if for patients with 'locked in syndrome'. This is were due to neurodegenerative disease or some other cause of paralysis reduces the patient's ability to communicate with the world. In some cases the patients can't move their bodies at all. In others they can move their eyes or blink. With neurodegenerative diseases their ability to move is reduced over time. For these people BCI's are their main or only way to communicate.
BCI's in practice work one main way. This is through an electroencephalogram(EEG). This is some variant of putting electrodes on the head. This is usually done with some kind of cloth cap with embedded electrodes. Some modern EEG game systems just use plastic headbands with electrodes inside.
What do EEG's actually do? First we must look at how neurons work. One can think of a neuron as a pipe. You can imagine this pipe to have a large electrical potential one moment and then none the next. If we wanted to measure what state this pipe was in without touching it, we could put an electrode near it and see the electrical potential change between the pipe being charged and not charged. In this scenario we have one neuron, one electron, and no interference. We know exactly what is going on in that neuron. But what happens when we start adding neurons? Let's say we have 30 neurons and we've arranged them in such a way that they do something. Maybe they are arranged very neatly where some message starts at one end and outputs transformed on the other end of this network. Each cell activation produces some small electrical potential and we measure this using that one electrode. What we can read from that electrode is very generalized. We can tell basic patterns of activation. Like is this area active right now? Or is it active in a certain pattern. Listening to neurons like this is like giving a classroom of 30 students each a drum and then listening in. You're going to be able to tell if they are all playing at the same time or if they are all trying to play the same pattern. You're not going to be able to tell what that neural circuit is exactly doing.
For perspective, right now in neuroscience common model animals are rats and round worms. Even in these animals there is a huge amount we don't know. For instance, neuroscience divides the brain up loosely into groups called nuclei. These contain hundreds of thousands of neurons to millions of neurons. We know generally what different nuclei do but we are still trying to figure out how these work. It should be noted that this research often uses implanted electrodes which get much better readings than an EEG. The reason we don't use implanted electrodes on humans is because of the boatload of issues that come with doing something that invasive. Implanted electrodes also damage neural tissue. There is a kind of electrode people will use on human brains but most often it is just laid on top of the brain rather than put into it. Please note that even implanted electrodes have the same issue of having hundreds or thousands of neurons being 'listened to' by each electrode. It should also be noted that sometimes monkeys are used as animal models but that they are much less common due to cost.
Difficulties in using EEG's include any kind of muscle movement including blinking. Muscle produces a much larger electrical change than neurons so these interfere with any signal we get from the brain and must be filtered out as best as possible. The electrical wiring in the walls of buildings also interferes with the signal and must be filtered out. I once had some data that came from Pakistan and I had to filter at a different frequency because their current is different than in the US (it was very cool to me at the time). So most EEG readings have to be done sitting down very still.
What can we actually read with an EEG? Right now we can detect very general changes in brain state. For instance we can tell when someone is resting v.s. alert and active. Another we can tell is if someone is trying to move the right side of their body v.s. the left because these things are divided into the left and right sides of the brain respectively. There is a brain wave that is modulated by attention. One of the people in the class made a little game similar to flappy bird out of the attention modulation signal. It didn't work very well because attention modulation is really hard to do. For patients with locked in syndrome imaging moving the left or right side of their bodies can be used as a binary decision ie. yes/no, up/down, left/right. When this is tied to a monitor they can very very slowly navigate some specially designed software for writing, replying in conversation, or other very specific use cases.
There are some government agencies trying to made EEGs for people who are standing and moving. I'm not really sure what they wish to get out of that signal but I wish them the best of luck with it.
Right now, we have limited knowledge of how the brain works. We the means of measuring some very general aspects of cognition. For commercial purposes all of these measurements are made non-invasively. Research is constantly improving our knowledge of cognition and our means of measuring neural activity. This progresses very slowly. Will most people be able to elect to have some kind of invasive surgery for BCI's for everyday commercial use? Maybe. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not.
Is it interesting to think of new and creative ways for the government to abuse our privacy and freedoms? Yes. Is it productive for this topic any time soon? Almost certainly not.
With 7+ billion humans in the world, I'm not so much worried about systems gathering data to target me, as I'm worried about automated adaptation of my digital environment. We're all being trained...
With 7+ billion humans in the world, I'm not so much worried about systems gathering data to target me, as I'm worried about automated adaptation of my digital environment.
We're all being trained to seek information which confirms and comforts our prejudices, to gather in easily manipulated tribes, and to manifest bloodthirsty hate when pointed at the right enemies. This is the efficient orchestration of the masses which governments crave, not necessarily the pinpoint bespoke control of individuals. Ultimately, we're not as unique as we think we are, except in terms of the random buffeting of circumstance and experience.
As to corporations, I'm more concerned that whatever unique talents and viewpoints (heuristics) I may have will be used to build AI models which will replace me, without recompense. There are already a number of professions where this is happening, e.g. radiology. While I understand your article's emphasis on personal ownership of data, I'd give this information freely to a communal pool as long as there's a reciprocal relationship.
If you'd like to review a couple of science-fictional models for what you're concerned about with respect to brain-computer interfaces, I'd recommend Michael Swanwick's Vacuum Flowers (models of anarcho-communism in persona use, versus hive-mind, and versus "slave" personas) and Pamela Sargent's Venus series (complete data transparency and free access, provided you don't act on unsanctioned thoughts).
Wow. This article definitely opened my eyes to things I was not aware of, e.g. Moran Cerf's video: Moran Cerf: "Decoding Thoughts and Dreams Using In-Brain Electrodes". Highly recommended and...
Here's a problem I see: the more advanced the technology becomes and the less people know about it, the greater the potential to abuse it. For instance, say technology advances to the point where some government can put a helmet on your head and basically monitor your thoughts, most people will not believe that can actually be possible and will be ill-equipped to consider or partake in any policy decision about its use. Some crisis will be used to justify its use, e.g. the war on terrorism, and the next thing you know, a decision within government has been made to use it and you, an individual citizen, have no choice or input on the decision.
In this regard, getting the word out and causing people to think about the possibility of mind control, or at least mind monitoring, will better prepare people who can then influence the decision makers in government.
On an entirely selfish level, I have trouble writing stuff down and would kill for a debug port on my thoughts to pull things down and organize them outside my head, in a super Evernote or Pensive like environment. But I could totally see where this technology could be misused.
This article is largely speculative. It'd be interested in reading an article more informed on the topic.
I got my B.S. in cognitive science from UCSD. While there I took a class on machine learning methods for brain computer interfaces. I was disappointed that this article never describes how brain computer interfaces actually work. Neither does it describe the different kinds of brain computer interfaces or how they are actually used. Instead the article seems to contain some generalized lack of trust in the government and fear mongering. I have no critique for the reliability or trustworthiness for anyone weary of the government in general especially the current administration in the United States. However, to apply that remarkably broad argument to BCI's is a stretch.
The largest area of practical use of BCIs right now if for patients with 'locked in syndrome'. This is were due to neurodegenerative disease or some other cause of paralysis reduces the patient's ability to communicate with the world. In some cases the patients can't move their bodies at all. In others they can move their eyes or blink. With neurodegenerative diseases their ability to move is reduced over time. For these people BCI's are their main or only way to communicate.
BCI's in practice work one main way. This is through an electroencephalogram(EEG). This is some variant of putting electrodes on the head. This is usually done with some kind of cloth cap with embedded electrodes. Some modern EEG game systems just use plastic headbands with electrodes inside.
What do EEG's actually do? First we must look at how neurons work. One can think of a neuron as a pipe. You can imagine this pipe to have a large electrical potential one moment and then none the next. If we wanted to measure what state this pipe was in without touching it, we could put an electrode near it and see the electrical potential change between the pipe being charged and not charged. In this scenario we have one neuron, one electron, and no interference. We know exactly what is going on in that neuron. But what happens when we start adding neurons? Let's say we have 30 neurons and we've arranged them in such a way that they do something. Maybe they are arranged very neatly where some message starts at one end and outputs transformed on the other end of this network. Each cell activation produces some small electrical potential and we measure this using that one electrode. What we can read from that electrode is very generalized. We can tell basic patterns of activation. Like is this area active right now? Or is it active in a certain pattern. Listening to neurons like this is like giving a classroom of 30 students each a drum and then listening in. You're going to be able to tell if they are all playing at the same time or if they are all trying to play the same pattern. You're not going to be able to tell what that neural circuit is exactly doing.
For perspective, right now in neuroscience common model animals are rats and round worms. Even in these animals there is a huge amount we don't know. For instance, neuroscience divides the brain up loosely into groups called nuclei. These contain hundreds of thousands of neurons to millions of neurons. We know generally what different nuclei do but we are still trying to figure out how these work. It should be noted that this research often uses implanted electrodes which get much better readings than an EEG. The reason we don't use implanted electrodes on humans is because of the boatload of issues that come with doing something that invasive. Implanted electrodes also damage neural tissue. There is a kind of electrode people will use on human brains but most often it is just laid on top of the brain rather than put into it. Please note that even implanted electrodes have the same issue of having hundreds or thousands of neurons being 'listened to' by each electrode. It should also be noted that sometimes monkeys are used as animal models but that they are much less common due to cost.
Difficulties in using EEG's include any kind of muscle movement including blinking. Muscle produces a much larger electrical change than neurons so these interfere with any signal we get from the brain and must be filtered out as best as possible. The electrical wiring in the walls of buildings also interferes with the signal and must be filtered out. I once had some data that came from Pakistan and I had to filter at a different frequency because their current is different than in the US (it was very cool to me at the time). So most EEG readings have to be done sitting down very still.
What can we actually read with an EEG? Right now we can detect very general changes in brain state. For instance we can tell when someone is resting v.s. alert and active. Another we can tell is if someone is trying to move the right side of their body v.s. the left because these things are divided into the left and right sides of the brain respectively. There is a brain wave that is modulated by attention. One of the people in the class made a little game similar to flappy bird out of the attention modulation signal. It didn't work very well because attention modulation is really hard to do. For patients with locked in syndrome imaging moving the left or right side of their bodies can be used as a binary decision ie. yes/no, up/down, left/right. When this is tied to a monitor they can very very slowly navigate some specially designed software for writing, replying in conversation, or other very specific use cases.
There are some government agencies trying to made EEGs for people who are standing and moving. I'm not really sure what they wish to get out of that signal but I wish them the best of luck with it.
Right now, we have limited knowledge of how the brain works. We the means of measuring some very general aspects of cognition. For commercial purposes all of these measurements are made non-invasively. Research is constantly improving our knowledge of cognition and our means of measuring neural activity. This progresses very slowly. Will most people be able to elect to have some kind of invasive surgery for BCI's for everyday commercial use? Maybe. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not.
Is it interesting to think of new and creative ways for the government to abuse our privacy and freedoms? Yes. Is it productive for this topic any time soon? Almost certainly not.
With 7+ billion humans in the world, I'm not so much worried about systems gathering data to target me, as I'm worried about automated adaptation of my digital environment.
We're all being trained to seek information which confirms and comforts our prejudices, to gather in easily manipulated tribes, and to manifest bloodthirsty hate when pointed at the right enemies. This is the efficient orchestration of the masses which governments crave, not necessarily the pinpoint bespoke control of individuals. Ultimately, we're not as unique as we think we are, except in terms of the random buffeting of circumstance and experience.
As to corporations, I'm more concerned that whatever unique talents and viewpoints (heuristics) I may have will be used to build AI models which will replace me, without recompense. There are already a number of professions where this is happening, e.g. radiology. While I understand your article's emphasis on personal ownership of data, I'd give this information freely to a communal pool as long as there's a reciprocal relationship.
If you'd like to review a couple of science-fictional models for what you're concerned about with respect to brain-computer interfaces, I'd recommend Michael Swanwick's Vacuum Flowers (models of anarcho-communism in persona use, versus hive-mind, and versus "slave" personas) and Pamela Sargent's Venus series (complete data transparency and free access, provided you don't act on unsanctioned thoughts).
Wow. This article definitely opened my eyes to things I was not aware of, e.g. Moran Cerf's video: Moran Cerf: "Decoding Thoughts and Dreams Using In-Brain Electrodes". Highly recommended and thank you.