Present Futures #2: Information Relay Hardware and the State of Modern Post-Humanist Ideology

Technology has been advancing at an increasingly alarming pace in the past 20 years… and people are beginning to notice that perhaps the pace with which we develop technology is failing to keep balance with the regulation of it, and perhaps even with our wisdom.

This is quite obvious with taking a look over the decades of the evolution of developments such as the internet as well internet based inventions, like cryptocurrencies or social media. These specific examples have been able to develop many patterns of abuse and criminal activity that have since been mostly managed, however – it did take a while.

Considering this, I find it absolutely remarkable that people are excited for or consider neural computational devices in modern society for the mass market… it is absolutely unfathomable to me, but that’s just personal opinion.

If the next step in human evolution is putting a computer in a person’s head, I be damned.

So what awaits us in 40 years? Or even more importantly, what awaits us tomorrow? What is there hidden under the veil of unknown, at the abyss of the well of uncertainty?

Could it be a fully digital nation?

Why do I say “nation”?

Well – the fact is, that we are already as though split into digital nations, if you think about it. I am an Apple user, I am part of an ecosystem that supports Apple devices. One can say the same if they’re an Android user, for their device similarly operates in a different ecosystem, using different programming languages and a different operating system which also manages data differently. This goes the same for users of Windows, Linux and crosses over into social networks like YouTube, X, Facebook and so on...

Sure, these programs may be used to perform similar tasks – yet at the end of the day – there is a distinct and clear separation between users of various devices with different systems of operation, starting with the language and ending with the format. Corporate differences which become eerily similar to national differences, if compared and contrasted - really.

Coming from a smaller country with a small population, nevertheless endowed with fast wireless internet, the latest smart-device technology and an international community, it is often scary to consider where humanity is going with technological advancement nowadays.

This begins with data management and ends with the outlook on societal perceptions of the computer. I can safely assure populous nations, that smaller nations such as where I am from often feel like guinea pigs when considering their landmark on ginormous multinational technological corporations.

Not to say that technology isn’t beneficial, but simply focusing on the bright side of everything is absolutely utopic thinking, while idealization of the constantly evolving systems the developers of which themselves have said pose issues to the future of humanity makes absolutely no sense.

In my opinion - security and surveillance isn’t a serious issue unless the government gets out of hand, which is of course a worldwide problem and is definitely relative to an individual nation on a term-by-term basis, but data management and marketing is a universal issue worth to consider for the entirety of humanity that uses and relies on smart-technology.

The privacy and safety debate is everlasting, and this is where the argument on neural computing comes up again, during which I wish to outline that it makes absolutely no sense in terms of both privacy or safety, at least, from how I see it – certainly not at this time.

We currently live in a world in which the main operative is economics and finances. Naturally there is money to be made from information, and where there is money to be made people often close their eyes on the factors of morality and common sense, although dear reader – I do hope you are not one such person. This is the broader issue of digitization and information networks, but – where does it go from there? What about safety breaches? What about viruses and hacking?

During the first semester of my college year – our school experienced a system wide breach. The college networks got hacked while the hackers demanded a ransom of 70k USD.

This is all in all a silly real world example of what could happen, nothing like what was thought of the possibilities of the Y2K bug for example, but nevertheless – it’s worth considering that a lot of valuable information is stored on school networks - very sensitive document data, including social security information, names, phone numbers, home addresses and such.

Back to neural devices - at the end of the day, just like with smartphones – even if police is given access to regulate and control neural devices (which I doubt is the case at this point) – how would the police have enough man power to maintain all of the users? Again, just like with cellphones – it is pretty much impossible.

Invasive Neural Technology

With the advancement of neural technologies and the consideration for the brain as the primal organ responsible for decision making as well as body movements it is immensely important to be well aware of the state of health of an individual in this regard, it is also quite necessary to consider the regulation and control of such devices, and this might as well apply to modern smart technology and computers.

Just the mere fact of the existence of such devices should already prompt a serious consideration for their application in society and the repercussions that come with that.

Let’s just consider for a moment the current informational black-hole that technology presents when considering the amount of knowledge the average person is aware of in regards to their data input. Kids are using smart-devices, which log their data and create marketing profiles from an incredibly young age, and the fact that the industry is expanding and accelerating at an incredible pace cannot be put aside, after all – if these issues don’t get dealt with at this point, it may be too late to deal with them in the near future.

Regarding invasive brain technologies, I myself am starkly opposed to any sort of consumer invasive technological enhancements at this point in time, as I think it is a utopic ideal of technological interaction which humanity is far from the point of being able to maintain.

The arguments for this viewpoint that I wish to present for the large part consist of human autonomy and hacking. Just consider the fact that people have long been using computers, yet we have yet to develop any computer system that cannot be breached or hacked. Windows users may be most often familiar with this phenomenon, often encountering various kinds of viruses from an attempted online download. This isn’t even considering targeted black hat operations, which truly is a very important thing to consider in this case.

Any computer system, starting from a calculator and ending with high-end government controlled server is potentially at a risk of a breach, which is why necessary precautions should be put into place to manage such issues, and should apply on a broader scale to medical regulation when considering the possibility of neurological computing devices, especially if a possibility presents when these devices may be installed in “unwilling participants”.

To compare this to the issue that is presented by neurological interfaces, let’s just imagine for a second that we remove the equation of various competing companies and focus on the technology itself. As far as living conditions – if you live far away in a forest with a neural implant and find that it helps you get your work done quicker and more efficiently you may be in a very comfortable position, as you are less likely to be hacked and manipulated. But, let’s consider the average flat dweller in a major city.

It isn’t rare to encounter issues with wireless connections, often times encountering tracking and key-logging. A neighbor may be able to penetrate a wireless connection, therefore granting them access to login information, as well as data on any other device connected to the network, for example.

What does this mean for a person who has a neurological computer implant and encounters a hacker in a coffee shop or as a neighbor.

What this means is that generally, this technology creates a very unsafe environment, notably – for the less fortunate and impoverished population while creating an unfair advantage to those who have the knowledge and capability to access programming resources.

As far as I know there are no government regulations in place to combat an issue as such, meanwhile the technology is being developed at a rapid pace.

I would like to pose an example of you noticing a neighbor acting strange, and, for example - constantly emptying his bank account and handing money to another neighbor. Say that you suspect that this neighbor is being hacked and programmed through an unregulated and illegal neural interface, using what could be described best as a hypnotic state.

Now, at this point – a dilemma is presented in the form of being a good neighbor and an outstanding citizen which consists of attempting to aid your neighbor, which seems like the right thing to do. Using the help of law enforcement to aid this person makes sense. It is obvious that the type of mental health reform required for this sort of situation is forced medical assistance, for, a person may have a thought implanted in their head to not want to seek medical assistance.

At this point, due to dilemmas I am not absolutely aware of – there is not much that can be done in a situation as such, which leaves a person who is undergoing a state of digitally programmed hypnosis – helpless.

Mix in human trafficking, prostitution, politics and other daunting and depressing activity into this case and you have an overall bleak picture of what life may be like when society accepts implementing invasive neurological technology without necessary regulation and medical reform. It could be a matter involving situations such as involuntary action, rape, violence, war among many more horrible things.

Without any enforcement or regulation of such technology in modern society, what you essentially get is unregulated and horrid mass human trafficking.

Now, to consider the negatives without the benefits of this technology would be incompetent, so I will consider the benefits which, although few – are still present.

At this point, a person cannot live after being beheaded. So, as much as the problem of human trafficking is presented through invasive neurological technology, it is also a factor that may be able to assist in, say – locating a person. But that is a factor that is divided by the difference between the amount of “computing power” that a device may possess as well as the operator or programmer of the device.

As far as I can imagine, special units, figure heads and various important field agents may have already used invasive neurological technology, such as tracking chips which are implemented in animals.

Now, the logic behind this can only be estimated to be that of safety. Again, we are not roaches, and cannot survive once beheaded. Considering this, an argument for safety that invasive neurological devices present is that of being able to find a person if held hostage or if on a field mission that may pose a danger to the severance of limbs, which I imagine is quite rare – hence the “important field agents” remark. This must be the reason why such technology logically wouldn’t be implemented in say – hands or feet for these specific classes of individuals.

So, say that an important politician is kidnapped and held for ransom. Well, special units may be dispatched to their location if this person has a tracking device installed, and from the above presented arguments – it would only make sense to implement this device in an area of the body that is safe from severance. If figure heads had tracking devices installed in hands for example, it may be safe to assume that they would be quickly cut off to avoid tracking.

A thought that came to me at this point would be the possibility of making sure that a person wouldn’t get cloned, yet I imagine there may be ways around that as well (it’s taking out the device and placing it in another person, although granted there may be safeguards in place for such an occurrence).

Dream, Inception and Split Reality Perception

One serious matter to consider when approaching the brain in any capacity with technology is the ability of a person to maintain a grip on reality and not loose oneself in the digital world, perhaps even literally.

Video games have long been a dynamic and active culture as well as a seriously marvelous art form. Not only do video games mash so many disciplines of art into one, but they also present us with the modern consumer grade technological level of digital simulation capability.

Nowadays, even consumer level video game graphics can be (and tend to be) extremely realistic. This isn’t even considering Virtual Reality cameras and photographic realism as a whole when it comes to 3-D graphics and film.

It was interesting to find out that parts of Germany don’t have street view on Google maps. The reason for this remains a mystery to me, but It it quite peculiar to imagine that it’s because they did not want to get dream inceptions.

Imagine someone could hack into your dreams and paint or present a certain memorable occurrence. Is it not often that dreams seem so incredibly realistic that we wake up unsure whether an event did in fact happen? Although not often, but still possible in all metrics of assumption as far as it concerns brain stimulation through neural enhancement.

Could a person then be present in two simultaneous realities at the same time, one of which was incepted through a dream? Yes, that’s what it means and that is exactly one of the dangers invasive technologies pose for people. Dreams often seed thoughts after all and are based off of memories.

Recently I thought I saw a license plate switch letters in an incredibly short amount of time. I assumed it was the angle at which I was looking at the letters, but oh man did it send me for a sudden relentless panic attack.

What I’m saying is that with access to things such as the visual cortex (skipping the connections other organs for now) it is quite possible that a red STOP sign could be a red STOP sign for me, but for another person who has been augmented with a neural device, the vision of which could’ve been hacked – they could possibly see a green GO sign instead.

Naturally this may create traffic issues. Seeing is believing is thrown out the window.

Again, I feel like I have the responsibility to reiterate the importance of helping the less fortunate people such as the blind to see, which would in all metrics be a medical miracle and would be awesome – but it is also incredibly important to consider the rest of mankind and their ability to deal with the issues such technological breakthroughs present.

The Next Step in Communication

Since the creation and implementation of the internet, the world changed forever. No longer did one have to pay expensive fees for an international call, while the delay of sharing media has been minimized to minutes if not seconds.

The world is massively interconnected. We are all in this together.

So, imagine we skip a step and consider the next possible way of communication: through telepathy.

Direct peer to peer thought sharing. What a marvelous way to look at it. This has been done and remains possible, as proven by some research done by M.I.T. for example – however – the dangers this technology presents are plain and obvious.

It may result in a breach of privacy, hacking and… well – data mining. Scary stuff. Subvocalization is an alternative term to describe the thoughts we have to ourselves, the language and the words and the way you think in the moment.

Now to present more hypotheticals in this realm - imagine someone hacks that and your thoughts are always communicated as though through a boom box.

Sounds freaking awful.

Isn’t it much better to just talk?

Well, one can suppose there may be practical uses in Telepathy in external devices, but even with wearables, considering the possibility to talk like this only makes sense through selective and non-invasive devices and even then seems like an overreach unless medically necessary.

If, say – the reason for communication through frequencies that wouldn’t be picked up by other devices is to avoid being heard, then the logic behind it can be seen, yet I would highly doubt that any invasive device wouldn’t also have an ability to communicate with external connections… and if you consider that possibility – what you get is that the N.S.A. or whomever may pose interest to you or your information may then consequentially be able to quite literally read your mind, which on the surface level sounds okay when you think you have nothing to hide, but then could potentially turn into an all out catastrophe when you accidentally think “bomb” or something similar.

After all, isn’t it quite often that you find yourself wondering in your thoughts, thinking anything, sometimes even things that make little to no sense?

What may be a larger invasion of privacy than that of reading thoughts? I cannot imagine anything more insane than that. This situation immediately reminds me of the thought police from Orwell’s 1984. I really hope that isn’t the future that people are looking forward to, but who knows.

Sometimes, looking at the world - you cant help but think that we are indeed living in the end times.

Again, I think that there are some major steps that are amiss prior to considering neurotech a viable alternative to any sort of wearable, but for all intents and purposes here are even more reasons why this is so.

Temporal Impermanence

Say you are in a place and time, but then all of a sudden wish to be in another place and time all together. For example, you may have a side job of operating a constructed humanoid robot on the Moon or Mars, thus constructing a future for space faring humanity and making sure that there is a place where we could be once we do arrive to our space colonies.

Well, wouldn’t it just be dandy to instantly teleport there through your consciousness without having to process any other action like putting on a helmet or going to a physical work location?

On one side, it sounds pretty convenient – but realistically, I think this is an absolutely horrible nightmarish development, for imagine if people can use this technology as a method of controlling a humanoid robot, that must mean that people may as well be used as humanoid robots themselves to be controlled through reverse programming.

Scary stuff.

Instant temporal teleportation sounds like an incredible feat, but ultimately sounds like another horrible predicament in which we are giving up the freedom of movement to developers of these devices, the government and whomever else may gain or be in control of such devices.

The coolest thing this could do is allow for quick and efficient ways for men and women to understand how each other’s bodies work through literal exchange of bodies through consciousness transfer.

Then again, this sounds like a horrible predicament, for imagine some glitch trapping you in a body you didn’t want to be in, or, even worse – imagine losing control of your body and having to observe yourself do things you would never do.

I would imagine among the most nightmarish situations to be in would be to be transferred to a dog or even worse… what if your body does get taken over and you are still there to see everything in a nightmarish paralysis type of manner.

Imagine someone getting hacked and becoming a prostitute without consent for example. No control over their body. No laws stopping any horrid act from happening.

Scary stuff.

Controlled Amnesia

Hey, yea – that thing you did that you didn’t really do and were just hacked during the moment, yea forget about it.

Essentially, what you get at that point is memorial erasure. Controlled Amnesia, Dementia, or whichever.

Actions which were undertaken when in the state of controlled hypnosis during neurological programming could then be erased.

Memory Recollection

Imagine that the police gains access to this technology and manages to use it to go through people’s memories and recollect events. Well, at first this may seem like an excellent plan, except if we were to consider the reality that memories often settle in our mind with false hallucinations or perception.

Unless recorded live through a feed by such technology, it proves to be very unreliable, and if recorded live through such technology – then that could be well considered a horrible breach of privacy, massive personable population mind control that enables totalitarian police states to thrive and create horrible outcomes for any attempted anti-establishment operations, essentially creating a technocratic capitalist dystopia, in which the people with the lobbying power and the people who develop and work on technology are the people who ultimately decide what goes, and if so – this creates a world in which we are steadily heading for nothing else than CyberPunk 2077 and then the Matrix. Possibly worse even, considering that some of these people would likely attempt to transfer their consciousness to live forever.

Immortality

Now let’s consider for a second that I have bought one of these devices and enabled a function which allows me to create a backup of my entire brain, my consciousness so to say. Once and if my body degrades and becomes shriveled, old and sick – I may choose to transfer my consciousness into the body of another person.

This goes back to the “Eva Brown doesn’t want a C.T. scan” joke.

Essentially, if technology like this is accessible to people during the existence of systems in which oligarchies are still present and thriving, the amount of damage and horrible outcomes that this technology presents is laughably large.

So, of course, I doubt that something like this would be a free accessible service for the common folk, starting with the fact that it is quite difficult to find a housing unit for digitized consciousness. So, we are back at this situation where younger people would probably suffer at the hands of older folk, or we learn to manage and create biological clones or housing for digitized consciousness.

The best option to me, seems to try and prolong human life expectancy to the max while avoiding cyborg augmentation – but the dilemmas invasive neural technologies present at these times are unfortunately such that these matters ultimately get thrown out the window, while the people with most money and tech thrive among the population with no resources to do anything about the matter.

I am of the opinion that immortality, if it were to exist – should be a right rather than a privilege or a costly operation.

What modern-day immortality would look like reminds me a lot of dictatorships, except this time brought to you by oligarchies and possibly older folks in control of younger people’s bodies, reliving their youth at the cost of another human beings autonomy, freedom and well – life.

Regulated at-birth Implementation of Neural Technology

Imagine that there comes a time at which a government or corporation enforces and begins to regulate the mandatory installment of neural enchantments at birth in a society, similar to what was required by some states to participate in society during the COVID-19 pandemic with vaccination. What this essentially creates is a cyborg nation, a police state in which laws are subject to little to no change and in which individuality becomes a distant dream, therefore creating a technocratic dystopia.

This of course makes no sense in anything but implementing a mass surveillance state and utter technological totalitarianism. A very bleak and sad reality to subject human beings to.

What more is there to say?

Artificial General Intelligence Interaction

As of 2024, everyone is seriously facisnated with the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence. However, the long developed fear of robots and automated systems comes from the fear of Artificial General Intellignece, or A.G.I.

What A.G.I. is, could essentially be summed up as a program that literally replicates the independent capability to think such as the human mind.

Now, let’s suppose for a second that a program of A.G.I. does indeed become a reality. An actual type of computer system similar to HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey or Ex Machina.

What the potential of neural technology means for this is that it may as well be possible for this A.G.I. system to eventually inhabit and control an actual human being, reminiscent of the Borg from Star Trek.

Conclusion

I would like to conclude this chapter by mentioning and reitirating that I think that the implimintation of invasive neurological computing devices into modern society is an abysmal and horrifying possibility, and that there are many more nuances to figure out prior to considering these devices for use for anything other than medical reasons. Even then, the safety precautions that must be taken by world leaders moving forth when considering this issue must be enacted urgently, as the situation may already be considered dire and the truth of the matter is that regulating and enforcing the transportation and manipulation of such devices remains to be incredibly difficult if not impossible.

Also, in my honest opinion – even considering the implementation of these devices into the mass consumer market – creates far too many problems for the human psyche to adequately measure and consider.

These are probably just some of the factors worth considering in the bigger picture of the implementation of these devices and again, I would like to reitirate my perspective, which is in favor of non-mass market implimentation

I am trying my best, but trust me it doesn’t come without its headaches.