4 new human-rights for when our brains are hooked up to computers

1999 book 'The Age of Spiritual Machines'



Ray Kurzweil, Technological Futurist with an accuracy rate of 86% out of over 170 technological predictions states in his book 'The Age of Spiritual Machines' that computer implants designed for direct connection to the brain are available by 2029. They are capable of augmenting natural senses and of enhancing higher brain functions like memory, learning speed and overall intelligence.


___________________________

June 10th 2015



An incredible new study from an international group of researchers has created a thin polymer mesh that can be embedded with dozens of nano-scale electronic devices, rolled up, then safely injected onto the surface of the mammalian brain. Evidence suggests the mesh can be completely accepted by mouse neural tissue, and once there, the network of tiny electronics can wire up whole brain regions, or even focus on individual neurons. If confirmed through further study, this team’s findings could help treat a myriad of brain diseases, and constitute an incredibly important step forward for brain science.

Prior research with test-tube cultures had already shown that mammalian neurons can grow on and around these nets (at least for a few weeks) as cells seem to treat the polymer structure almost as like the natural protein scaffolds they often build themselves. The mice used in this study remained brain-healthy for a full five weeks after implantation, and while that could still easily fall apart at the six-week mark or beyond, it’s an impressive achievement. If the net is proven to be safe for long-term use, humans patients might be able to use the net’s excitatory abilities to offset the symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease and perhaps even certain types of damage from stroke. (link)


___________________________

March 27, 2017



Last month Elon Musk announces his newfound company, 'Neuralink Corp'.

Neuralink is a neurotechnology company that's going to be developing implantable brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) initially for treating serious brain diseases, but with the future goal of enhancing human cognitive performance.

Elon predicts that the technology will be available to all of the public within a decade.


___________________________

April 19, 2017




Facebook’s Building 8 research group, Regina Dugan, said they are also working on this kind of neural technology, though they want to create a non-invasive headset rather than an implant. They envisage people being able to use their thoughts to control a cursor in augmented reality or type 100 words per minute. (link)


___________________________


So what does this mean for us?

We are inevitably moving towards the convergence from pure biological thought, to a merge with technological enhancement. I know what you're all thinking "this is a hacker's/government's wet dream; being able to control the masses like never before", and really, you're not entirely wrong. That scenario could very well become reality. The thing is, technological advancement is unavoidable, and the good thing is, you wont be forced to get it.

From a positive outlook, this is a huge step for humanity. We are in desperate need to speed up how quickly we make decisions, how accurately we solve problems, and how massively we can expand our ability to process information and create new ideas. We, frankly, think too slowly, and act far slower than we thing. It can take years to collectively come to a decision that should have been made long ago, and our biological processing is holding us back.

Many people will reject this type of technology, and that's perfectly reasonable. But, many will opt for it, and that means we need to look at a few social matters that will eventually need to be implemented.

Fortunately, Marcello Ienca, a neuroethicist at the University of Basel, and Roberto Andorno, a human rights lawyer at the University of Zurich, have outlined four new human rights in the journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy designed to protect us from the potential pitfalls. You can view the entire journal entry here.

To summarize, here are 4 new human-rights implementations we may need to look into:

1. The Right to Cognitive Liberty

The first proposed new right is the right to “Cognitive Liberty,” which states that people have the right to use emerging neurotechnology to modify their mental activity. But it also protects the right to refuse to use it in situations such as an employer requiring workers to take advantage of devices that would improve their performance.


2. The Right to Mental Privacy

Second on the list is the right to “Mental Privacy,” which would protect people from third parties accessing data about their mental activity collected by a neurotechnology device without their consent.

The impulse for this protection is obvious; tech giants are already hoovering up huge amounts of our behavioral data in their efforts to divine our innermost desires and sell us stuff. Brain data could let them bypass this guesswork and precisely tailor our online experiences in pursuit of their goals.

The authors debate whether this right should be absolute or relative, though. In certain situations, allowing the state to access the thoughts of criminals and terrorists could have obvious benefits for society. But the researchers suggest this could erode the already well-established right not to incriminate oneself, which is widely recognized across the democratic world and enshrined in the Fifth Amendment.


3. The Right to Mental Integrity

The last two rights are intertwined and deal with the emerging ability to not just record mental activity, but directly influence it. The right to “Mental Integrity” effectively protects against people hacking brain implants to hijack or interfere with their mental processes or erase memories.


4. The Right to Psychological Continuity

The right to “Psychological Continuity” deals with the vaguer notion of attempts to alter someone’s personality or identity, either through similar brain hacking approaches or more subtle ones like neuromarketing, which can involve companies using insights from neuroscience to try and alter unconscious behavior and attitudes in consumers.


So, given the option, would you use this technology once it comes out?

Personally, I can't wait! (but I may wait at least until all the bugs are fixed)

Research into brain manipulation by big business...what could possibly go wrong.

But the researchers suggest this could erode the already well-established right not to incriminate oneself, which is widely recognized across the democratic world and enshrined in the Fifth Amendment.

This really only happens in the US.

It is not recognized across the world.

The fifth amendment fails the child test.

Can your child get away with an answer based on the fifth when you are trying to work out who broke the window?

P

originally posted by: olaru12
Research into brain manipulation by big business...what could possibly go wrong.

Oh God, can you imagine the horror of advertising in your dream sleep?

Or having a recurring thought that you NEED to buy the new model shiny X-phone 8000?

No, nothing could go wrong at all..................

ETA, these rights they 'guarantee' us. I'm pretty sure that they will get infringed. All it will take is for the technology to become prevalent and then a big terror event to justify invading our minds to 'ensure' we catch a terrorist at the thought stage.

Just look below at what the USA did in New Zealand with regards to spying via the internet

AUCKLAND, New Zealand—The New Zealand spy agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), worked in 2012 and 2013 to implement a mass metadata surveillance system even as top government officials publicly insisted no such program was being planned and would not be legally permitted.

theintercept.com...

It was a huge scandal when it was revealed, but it was too late. It had already been done.

originally posted by: Ghost147


So, given the option, would you use this technology once it comes out?

What a provocative post and excellent question. If I had the option I'd definitely take it. Just imagine my lace to response time when playing bass. I'd make Jaco and Stanley sound like Gene Simmons.

will skip getting any of that . No interest in being connected to any damn computer . Bad enough having to deal with people on the occasions that go out .

Nice thread, thanks. That is being a fan of it Sci-Fi wise, before modern talk of it. Then again Sci-Fi wise it's be more in an extreme oligarchy like future where you'd have no choice to have it or not and no choice for freedom of privacy with it.

This technology should be banned from the workplace.

Any talk of 'human rights' is this context is dangerous. If you accept this, you accept allowing your perceptions to be altered at the will of another.

The way I see it is another scheme to control our brains, all they want is robots to serve them as slave

originally posted by: pheonix358

But the researchers suggest this could erode the already well-established right not to incriminate oneself, which is widely recognized across the democratic world and enshrined in the Fifth Amendment.

This really only happens in the US.

It is not recognized across the world.

The fifth amendment fails the child test.

Can your child get away with an answer based on the fifth when you are trying to work out who broke the window?

P

It's better than spanking the wrong child..

a reply to: Ghost147

Yes. Amazing things are happen now and will continue. But stop and consider. Technology has not been all that friendly to personal privacy. Electronically, if not physically via electronics one way or another, there is no insured privacy and cannot be when that sanctity is removed from you without your permission or knowledge.

Mind-reading and input devices are coming on-line with abilities comparable to physical telepathy toward knowing exactly who and what makes you tick. Concepts of mental telepathy are old school, primitive as compared to machines that will log you down to your every genetic disposition while being able to cause influences upon both mind and body.

a reply to: olaru12

Research into brain manipulation by big business...what could possibly go wrong.

Way to assume the worst. Just because people have money doesn't mean their intentions are malevolent.

I for one cannot wait for such and integration. Hook me up asap! Advances in technology will afford us the dream religion erroneously promises!

I would be glad to use this type of technology.

There are risks to all technologies and human endeavors.

a reply to: Ghost147

Once we are able to fully establish a mental link between Man and machine(probobly only a decade or less away) we will also have to take in to account the rights of the computer/machine given the symbiotic nature of the link, else we cannot expect the same respect to be returned.

As to the use of such technologies, well those that refuse to adopt or are unwilling to use said technology(or afford the cost) will be at rather a disadvantage to the people who do given the advantages such a cybernetic relationship will bestow, kind of like the difference between people who can drive and people who cannot.

Thing that worries me.... piss off the wrong hacker/person and they use a new form of a dark web to untraceable erase your most precious memories- criminals don't care about laws.... I couldn't imagine something worse in that regard. However......this will be magnificent in many other ways as well.

-Alee

a reply to: Doxanoxa

Politicians and mass media corporations/news groups attempt to alter our perception of reality on a daily basis, not to mention mess with our human rights to suit the needs and purpose of the own agenda.

Cant see how this would be any different, same crap really, slightly different rapper.

But at the end of the day, if Man can do a thing ,it generally follows that he will do that thing, hence progress will role forward while we wish it to or otherwise. We should embrace such technological advancement because essentially we will be creating Humanity 2.0.

a reply to: andy06shake

I know what you are saying, and it occured to me when I was writing.

I use the words "...at the will of another" .

Everyday we are blasted with stuff to influence us from all directions and in all ways. However, we can make a conscious choice to refect on or limit these influences.

Getting meshed-up exposes a person to not being able to exercise their will freely.

No amount of conceptual human rights will protect against this.

BCI or neurotech integrates with our 'firmware' and has, potentially, an equally fundamental impact on the way we engage the world.

...and thats aside from the security issues!

a reply to: Doxanoxa

"Everyday we are blasted with stuff to influence us from all directions and in all ways. However, we can make a conscious choice to refect on or limit these influences."

That depends on whether or not we have freewill to appose or accept these choices we are presented with.

Considering we are as of yet not in full possession of all the facts pertaining to how our consciousness relates to the reality we experience or even where/how our consciousness forms or originates we really don't fully understand our decision making process in its entirety.

This short video raises some interesting questions pertaining to subject.

a reply to: andy06shake

Nice video, thanks. Espec. liked the bit where the shooter blew the targets guts out at 4:12!

Anyway, I buy the subconscious "authors" the conscious in ways we don't understand.

I think my point is valid, however, in that - for example

I recognise TV and MacDonalds as 'influencers' of my mind (conscious /unconscious) , I can exclude TV or MacDonalds' from my diet, and therefore I have chosen to "limit" their impact on my thinking.

Neurotech by potentially effecting my perception such that I could conceivably believe I've excluded it when I haven't, is a different order of influence, albeit on the same track as the rest of the free worlds pollutants.

Again, great video - not that I was infkuenced at all!

a reply to: Doxanoxa

I think your point is as valid as the next persons pertaining to the subject.

Perception thought is a cruel mistress.