Neuralink - Elon Musk Unveils New Implant Which Enables The Brain to Control Devices

I'm not so sure about that. Put yourself in the shoes of a 1st century person describing the world of today. Even a person two hundred years ago would not have words to describe it, and it would be very hard to understand without those words. If we try to describe some thing that doesn't exist yet, we have to use words that already exist and approximate. Whenever I read Revelation I see it describing a technologically advanced world, just described with pre-industrial words, like for example in chapter 11, where 'all peoples' look upon the dead prophets. The only way this is possible is with instant communication and transmission.

Sure. Although if they are describing the modern world. They will use words "Great thunder and smoke came out of their hands"

"Like horses with breastplates breathing fire and smoke galloping along the ground". "Birds clad in iron dropped fire from the sky".
 

skullmask

Woodpecker
I'm not sure what to think of neuralink yet. If it could help people with brain and spinal injuries to function better then I think that's good.

However, I see a lot of potential for mischief. For one, these links are two way I assume. Perhaps a malicious hacker might wirejack you, and corrupt your brain. Or someone could steal your memories and either hold it ransom like modern ransomware, or use it to blackmail you or ruin you in some way. It might pave the way for mind control.

I doubt banning this will have the desired effect though. They tried banning drugs and prostitution, and those are widespread. Given current woke-tard proclivities, I wager you will see more resistance to this stuff coming from the left. If Musk is successful in making chips that can actually aid cognition, over and above that of a baseline human, they will object because that would create a new race of trans-human supermen, and that's just not fair!
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
I'm not sure what to think of neuralink yet. If it could help people with brain and spinal injuries to function better then I think that's good.

There should be no modifications to human beings, and this goes beyond. They should be shutting this frankenstein shit down.

Elon has openly said that he views this as our only answer to AI superiority, so we can keep up with the machines. This is just the trojan horse. It's akin to the "well what if she was raped" abortion argument. We are letting so much evil (Transhumanism) in so that a small subset of people can "potentially" be healed.
 

skullmask

Woodpecker
There should be no modifications to human beings, and this goes beyond. They should be shutting this frankenstein shit down.

Elon has openly said that he views this as our only answer to AI superiority, so we can keep up with the machines. This is just the trojan horse. It's akin to the "well what if she was raped" abortion argument. We are letting so much evil (Transhumanism) in so that a small subset of people can "potentially" be healed.

Ok, what about pacemakers? That's a mod to help people with bum tickers, should that be outlawed too?
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
Ok, what about pacemakers? That's a mod to help people with bum tickers, should that be outlawed too?

I'll say no, we keep pacemakers. I get your point though.

I suppose I would view a pacemaker as somewhat mechanical in nature. The neural link is messing with peoples' minds. For similar reasons I think we are way over prescribed with meds. The other area I dislike is genetic modification/stem cell research.

It would be great if at some point a moral leader says "the line is here". I know the Chinese are already doing all of the above and more, but it might be best to let them be. After all, the nations success should be behind the good of the people wanting to live here, and actually being people.
 
I'll say no, we keep pacemakers. I get your point though.

I suppose I would view a pacemaker as somewhat mechanical in nature. The neural link is messing with peoples' minds. For similar reasons I think we are way over prescribed with meds. The other area I dislike is genetic modification/stem cell research.

It would be great if at some point a moral leader says "the line is here". I know the Chinese are already doing all of the above and more, but it might be best to let them be. After all, the nations success should be behind the good of the people wanting to live here, and actually being people.

That is a serious line because it is interfering with the Free Will. How bad is it that a Person loses his ability to choose because of said neural link.
 

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
I'll say no, we keep pacemakers. I get your point though.

I suppose I would view a pacemaker as somewhat mechanical in nature. The neural link is messing with peoples' minds. For similar reasons I think we are way over prescribed with meds. The other area I dislike is genetic modification/stem cell research.

It would be great if at some point a moral leader says "the line is here". I know the Chinese are already doing all of the above and more, but it might be best to let them be. After all, the nations success should be behind the good of the people wanting to live here, and actually being people.

That is a serious line because it is interfering with the Free Will. How bad is it that a Person loses his ability to choose because of said neural link.

I think this reveals a core discomfort with the realization that our minds can be manipulated. Where does free will start and where does instinct and/or chemical reactions begin? As science understands more and more about the brain we come to realize that the idea of a "soul" does not have much scientific justification - if you could take a "screenshot" of every single chemical reaction occurring in the brain at once then you could likely predict the vast majority of our actions. Neuralink is merely the technological manifestation of that, albeit applied to a narrow scope such as movement, which can be very helpful for society.

Do you really think this is the first time that people have tried to draw red lines with technological advancement interfering with human autonomy? Far from it.

You can say "let the Chinese do whatever they want" but what happens when Chinese enhanced soldiers defeat us in the next war and usurp America as the world superpower? Guess what, your entire lifestyle has been subsidized by the US military enforcing the dollar as the world's reserve currency. When you become a second class citizen to your Chinese overlord, you can grandstand all you want about how your soul is protected, while the enhanced are able to contemplate issues far beyond our comprehension and influence the fate of the universe.

Good luck participating unenhanced in the future knowledge economy where most repetitive jobs have been automated as well. Insist on maintaining your "autonomy" and you will be completely dependent on the transhumanists for your monthly UBI check and a guarantee that they won't find a better use for the resources you take up.

Hubris? Perhaps, but the Neanderthals and Native Americans and various victims of slavery and genocide over the millennia probably thought the same when they refused to adapt to new technologies and were subsequently wiped out.

And make sure that you can explain to someone who is disabled (from accident or genetic defect) that they have to embrace not being able to walk and needing someone to wipe their butt for them is a gift from God, and that it's hubris to want to use technology to be independent again.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
if you could take a "screenshot" of every single chemical reaction occurring in the brain at once then you could likely predict the vast majority of our actions.

Arado, you are an astute thinker of economics but it seems to me that you are a materialist. You are a missing a great many things that are present in the universe that you can't explain, and certainly not with only 5 senses. The will is not caused by a chemical reaction, this is a neuroscience problem. Saying NO, which can be good or bad, is the essence of free will - denying yourself is saying no and materialists can't explain it. I saw Hawking that hack before he died try to act like he could predict things. I noticed (and they didn't tell the viewers this on the discovery channel) that they could only predict certain positive actions. Not the will to decide to not undergo an actions, or participate. This is crucial because it stifles the idea that we are "forced" to act on our urges. We are not.

The key to understanding this is the spiritual life. It is also practice just as an athlete practices. Most people aren't even aware a spirit world exists, so how could they think they can deny themselves and follow virtue? Yes, it is very difficult and all of us stumble. But civilizations are made on virtue and impulse control, as well as delayed time preference.

If no one in the society is teaching, or paying attention to, the eternal things ... of course they believe that they can't "help themselves."

Why else has everything that has to do with accountability been labeled a disease (like being fat, abusing drugs, etc). The root is spiritual sickness of the age combined with excess and easy access. I wonder who would promote such a thing ...
 

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
Arado, you are an astute thinker of economics but it seems to me that you are a materialist. You are a missing a great many things that are present in the universe that you can't explain, and certainly not with only 5 senses. The will is not caused by a chemical reaction, this is a neuroscience problem. Saying NO, which can be good or bad, is the essence of free will - denying yourself is saying no and materialists can't explain it. I saw Hawking that hack before he died try to act like he could predict things. I noticed (and they didn't tell the viewers this on the discovery channel) that they could only predict certain positive actions. Not the will to decide to not undergo an actions, or participate. This is crucial because it stifles the idea that we are "forced" to act on our urges. We are not.

The key to understanding this is the spiritual life. It is also practice just as an athlete practices. Most people aren't even aware a spirit world exists, so how could they think they can deny themselves and follow virtue? Yes, it is very difficult and all of us stumble. But civilizations are made on virtue and impulse control, as well as delayed time preference.

If no one in the society is teaching, or paying attention to, the eternal things ... of course they believe that they can't "help themselves."

Why else has everything that has to do with accountability been labeled a disease (like being fat, abusing drugs, etc). The root is spiritual sickness of the age combined with excess and easy access. I wonder who would promote such a thing ...

Appreciate the shout-out and I am venturing out of my finance focus, but it's the same focus on asking the hard questions and difficult truths that shape my view on this technology.

I'm not denying that as a society we have utterly failed to cultivate positive values and discipline among our population, and instead have made excuses to encourage our worst excesses. I firmly believe that if our leaders demand the best from us then our society would be able to achieve a moral lifestyle.

However, we can have a society in which scientists behind closed doors understand that the brain is a material object, while at the same time enforcing strict social pressure for traditional moral standards.

In terms of the chemistry/neuroscience question of free will and whether a computer chip can influence your decisions it's a simple question:

-Either our "soul" makes decisions and we shouldn't fear the neuralink and it's a scam,
-Or the brain IS a material object, and chemical reactions in our brains then cause neurons to fire and send signals to our muscles to do things.

If the latter, then we need to rethink why we really neuralink - is the chip merely exposing the lack of free will that we were deluding ourselves to think that we had?

Do all humans have free will? What about someone who is autistic or has a 70 IQ and can barely make sense of anything? What about dolphins or chimpanzees?
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
But again, middle ground, because there is a gigantic difference between the city of the middle ages - an extension of the countryside and very agricultural - and the city of today - which is turns the countryside into an extension of the city.

I only see a difference of degree there, not of nature.
Cities only ever could exist because they controlled the countryside in order to be able to support themselves - and that's the main problem with them.

Sure, they were smaller, they needed less surface, now they're big and there is nowhere left to escape.
That doesn't change the fundamental problem, a hierarchy forced upon you by weaker and stupider urbanites.
 
I don't disagree with the antagonism for neuralink, but like the nuclear disarmament this regulation has to be a collaborative effort.

Like many have posted before, China will surpass US in AI technology in the next 5 years. If there isn't a global consensus on limiting the use of AI, the AI race will continue and proliferate. China will have no issues with using the AI advantage to exert control over the rest of the world.

I am sure Elon Musk is not the only one experimenting with Neuralink. He is just more of a showman. I am sure China, European, Saudi are also working on it.

Maybe it's a race towards humanity's self destruction, maybe it is a race for humans to transcend the limits of our material flesh. Only time will tell.
 
I only see a difference of degree there, not of nature.
Cities only ever could exist because they controlled the countryside in order to be able to support themselves - and that's the main problem with them.

Sure, they were smaller, they needed less surface, now they're big and there is nowhere left to escape.
That doesn't change the fundamental problem, a hierarchy forced upon you by weaker and stupider urbanites.

Hence why some peoples lived a Nomadic Lifestyle. Its not possible for Cities to develop that way. A bunch of tents cannot be a city.

And the lowest rung of the nomads are healthier than the lowest rungs of the settled civilizations. The Mongols that invaded China for example:
"The Chinese noted with surprise and disgust the ability of the Mongol warriors to survive on little food and water for long periods; according to one, the entire army could camp without a single puff of smoke since they needed no fires to cook. Compared to the Jurched soldiers, the Mongols were much healthier and stronger. The Mongols consumed a steady diet of meat, milk, yogurt, and other diary products, and they fought men who lived on gruel made from various grains. The grain diet of the peasant warriors stunted their bones, rotted their teeth, and left them weak and prone to disease. In contrast, the poorest Mongol soldier ate mostly protein, thereby giving him strong teeth and bones. Unlike the Jurched soldiers, who were dependent on a heavy carbohydrate diet, the Mongols could more easily go a day or two without food."


Only settled Civilization can however provide a very Palatial Lifestyle for the Small Elites that Ruled.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
I only see a difference of degree there, not of nature.
Cities only ever could exist because they controlled the countryside in order to be able to support themselves - and that's the main problem with them.

Sure, they were smaller, they needed less surface, now they're big and there is nowhere left to escape.
That doesn't change the fundamental problem, a hierarchy forced upon you by weaker and stupider urbanites.

I agree with you, as I've detailed in this post (though you might not like it, because it's based in a Christian understanding).
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
I never rejected any explanation just because it was christian, even though I don't believe in god myself - I can be convinced by any sound reasoning, regardless of where it comes from.
To be honest I find it almost funny, in general it's more the other way around : people reject what I say because it's both true and non-christian.

Anyway, thanks for the link, I'll definitely read it :)
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
Whenever we try to improve the human being itself or alter it, it feels like the hubris of man.

We know Elon has this idea in mind, the entry of neural link for medical reasons is just a cover. Same as when the Jews demanded naked holocaust pictures be shown, it opened things up for porn.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
-Either our "soul" makes decisions and we shouldn't fear the neuralink and it's a scam,
-Or the brain IS a material object, and chemical reactions in our brains then cause neurons to fire and send signals to our muscles to do things.

This is a false dualism. It's both/and, not either or, as most things are when we deal with men and the metaphysical.

As a slight aside, I think even now we are seeing just how silly trying to live for a long time is, and how it hollows you out. The more people pay homage to the idol of longevity (the west, materialist), the more acutely we see their fear of death (and thus life) and how silly and vacuous they really are.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Appreciate the shout-out and I am venturing out of my finance focus, but it's the same focus on asking the hard questions and difficult truths that shape my view on this technology.

I'm not denying that as a society we have utterly failed to cultivate positive values and discipline among our population, and instead have made excuses to encourage our worst excesses. I firmly believe that if our leaders demand the best from us then our society would be able to achieve a moral lifestyle.

However, we can have a society in which scientists behind closed doors understand that the brain is a material object, while at the same time enforcing strict social pressure for traditional moral standards.

In terms of the chemistry/neuroscience question of free will and whether a computer chip can influence your decisions it's a simple question:

-Either our "soul" makes decisions and we shouldn't fear the neuralink and it's a scam,
-Or the brain IS a material object, and chemical reactions in our brains then cause neurons to fire and send signals to our muscles to do things.

If the latter, then we need to rethink why we really neuralink - is the chip merely exposing the lack of free will that we were deluding ourselves to think that we had?

Do all humans have free will?

As Blade runner already brought up, we are a synthesis of spirit/matter. We're an embodied soul. The body affects the mind and vise versa. If what you were positing were true, then syphilis wouldn't affect the mind, nor would body language even be a possibility.

Humans are born free, but as a consequence of the fall of man, the consequences of that corruption passes on to each generation. We inherit the problems from our ancestors (but not the guilt). It's not our fault we aren't free, but once we understand that we're in bondage to sin, conscience demands that we fight it. This fight against sin is the fight to become truly free, to become what we were meant to be. This is why the Christian wars against his body and sinful desires, to attempt to see and act in the world as it truly is (and if they're not doing this according to their own strength/ability, they aren't really a Christian(The fact that people call themselves Christians and don't realize this is evidence how far this world has fallen)).

The "world" on the other hand, tries to weaken and enslave people. Whether it's through power, comfort or the ego all depends on the disposition of the person. A lustful man can always be controlled through women, a heroin junkie always forcuses on his next fix. This is why vice is and always will be promoted in societies that don't value truth above all else, for vice keeps the economy going and people distracted. As long as people are satisfied with bread and circuses the job of the ruling class is easy. This is also why I'm highly skeptical of any positive motivations for this tech. And not just this tech, any tech, for man to invent it, he (or the person funding/pushing him) has to be dissatisfied with what God gave him.

What about someone who is autistic or has a 70 IQ and can barely make sense of anything? What about dolphins or chimpanzees?

Is it right to take advantage of people if they have low IQ? How low does their IQ have to be to make it okay? If you can justify these, Is it right to take advantage of children because their IQ hasn't developed yet?


Like many have posted before, China will surpass US in AI technology in the next 5 years. If there isn't a global consensus on limiting the use of AI, the AI race will continue and proliferate. China will have no issues with using the AI advantage to exert control over the rest of the world.

Global consensuses don't matter, for example, in WW2, Eisenhower reclassified German POWs as DEF (Disarmed Enemy Forces) to avoid treating them by the Geneva Convention. America already has been using it's superior tech to exert control over much of the world for decades. Do you think democracy comes naturally after a revolution? How about LGBT issues in the third world?
 
Top