Back to cyborgs...
Monday, August 24, 2009 by budding_writer
I was browsing the Stuff technology page, and I came across an article in which the opening paragraph reads:
"The man regarded as one of the founding fathers of the internet is in the country - and he says the future of the web is in our bodies and in outer space."
Vint Cerf is the vice president of Google, and this article outlines his vision of "the introduction of internet capability to existing neural interface technology such as cochlear implants, allowing, as an example, web radio played direct from computer to brain". This got me thinking about the Kingsley Dennis reading, and how "the body brain is increasingly shifting towards becoming a biologically-enhanced data processor for wireless reception and transmission (Dennis, 2008). Donna Haraway (1991) describes a cyborg as "a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction" (I got this from my FTVMS312 reader). So putting these two concepts together, Vint Cerf’s vision is of a cyborgian future.
A cochlear implant, as mentioned by Cerf, works by sending impulses to nerves in the ear, and then directly to the brain through the auditory nerve system. Cerf has the vision of using such technologies to receive and transmit information through the internet. The concept of using technologies such as this has been suggested before, and even used to a certain extent by Philip Kennedy with brain implants in his patient Johnny Ray’s brain to allow him to communicate with a computer using only neural signals (Baker, 2008). The idea of receiving and transmitting information is what has really captured by attention though. What could the effects be of such a practice?
On the positive side of the argument, if our brains were able to download information, we would essentially become super-intelligent, or, as Baker (2008) suggests be able to communicate with other species. Our brains would not be limited to the things we learn or experience, but we would be able to know incredible amounts of information and communicate without even speaking to one another.
However, whilst the imagination could easily run wild with exciting possibilities, I fear that the negative implications of the concept of introducing an internet capability to neural interface technologies would far outweigh any positive aspects. The brain will naturally recoil from things which could cause it, or the human body harm (survival instinct), but if this was able to be over-ridden by a computer system, a version of the plot line of The Happening could be unfolding right in front of our eyes. The possibilities of being able to control the human brain, and over-riding the basic survival instincts would be a weapon that could kill off an entire population in seconds.
Additionally, by opening the brain to the internet, the brain would probably be vulnerable to viral attack, just as a computer is. For example, a Trojan horse virus is designed to open the computer up to a hacker, and allow them remote access to the machine. Once the virus has been installed on the computer, the hacker is able to remotely control the system. Essentially, the hacker would be able to hack into the brain which the computer was operating with. If the computer implant was able to influence the brain, the hacker would then be able to control the person’s actions, shut down certain neural functions, or, as mentioned above, over-ride survival instincts, making the person kill them self.
This all seems like doom and gloom however, but I think that if the technologies were used appropriately, and in situations in which they need to be used (such as someone who was completely paralysed or unable to enjoy a ‘normal’ life), then this particular concept of a cyborg is not so abhorrent. I am however, wary of exploitation of such technologies, and believe that if computer implants were to become accepted and a way of life, massive amounts of effort and money would need to be poured into developing security systems to protect the human brain.
Information I used
Baker, S. (2008). Rise of the Cyborgs. Discover. 29(10). 50-57
Dennis, K. (2008). Opening Pandora’s box: How technologies of communication and cognition may be shifting towards a "psycho–civilized society. First Monday. Vol 13(2)
Link to the article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/2779006/Google-evangelist-sees-web-brain-implant-link
"The man regarded as one of the founding fathers of the internet is in the country - and he says the future of the web is in our bodies and in outer space."
Vint Cerf is the vice president of Google, and this article outlines his vision of "the introduction of internet capability to existing neural interface technology such as cochlear implants, allowing, as an example, web radio played direct from computer to brain". This got me thinking about the Kingsley Dennis reading, and how "the body brain is increasingly shifting towards becoming a biologically-enhanced data processor for wireless reception and transmission (Dennis, 2008). Donna Haraway (1991) describes a cyborg as "a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction" (I got this from my FTVMS312 reader). So putting these two concepts together, Vint Cerf’s vision is of a cyborgian future.
A cochlear implant, as mentioned by Cerf, works by sending impulses to nerves in the ear, and then directly to the brain through the auditory nerve system. Cerf has the vision of using such technologies to receive and transmit information through the internet. The concept of using technologies such as this has been suggested before, and even used to a certain extent by Philip Kennedy with brain implants in his patient Johnny Ray’s brain to allow him to communicate with a computer using only neural signals (Baker, 2008). The idea of receiving and transmitting information is what has really captured by attention though. What could the effects be of such a practice?
On the positive side of the argument, if our brains were able to download information, we would essentially become super-intelligent, or, as Baker (2008) suggests be able to communicate with other species. Our brains would not be limited to the things we learn or experience, but we would be able to know incredible amounts of information and communicate without even speaking to one another.
However, whilst the imagination could easily run wild with exciting possibilities, I fear that the negative implications of the concept of introducing an internet capability to neural interface technologies would far outweigh any positive aspects. The brain will naturally recoil from things which could cause it, or the human body harm (survival instinct), but if this was able to be over-ridden by a computer system, a version of the plot line of The Happening could be unfolding right in front of our eyes. The possibilities of being able to control the human brain, and over-riding the basic survival instincts would be a weapon that could kill off an entire population in seconds.
Additionally, by opening the brain to the internet, the brain would probably be vulnerable to viral attack, just as a computer is. For example, a Trojan horse virus is designed to open the computer up to a hacker, and allow them remote access to the machine. Once the virus has been installed on the computer, the hacker is able to remotely control the system. Essentially, the hacker would be able to hack into the brain which the computer was operating with. If the computer implant was able to influence the brain, the hacker would then be able to control the person’s actions, shut down certain neural functions, or, as mentioned above, over-ride survival instincts, making the person kill them self.
This all seems like doom and gloom however, but I think that if the technologies were used appropriately, and in situations in which they need to be used (such as someone who was completely paralysed or unable to enjoy a ‘normal’ life), then this particular concept of a cyborg is not so abhorrent. I am however, wary of exploitation of such technologies, and believe that if computer implants were to become accepted and a way of life, massive amounts of effort and money would need to be poured into developing security systems to protect the human brain.
Information I used
Baker, S. (2008). Rise of the Cyborgs. Discover. 29(10). 50-57
Dennis, K. (2008). Opening Pandora’s box: How technologies of communication and cognition may be shifting towards a "psycho–civilized society. First Monday. Vol 13(2)
Link to the article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/2779006/Google-evangelist-sees-web-brain-implant-link
epicly long and epicly interesting post. I think its ironic that the dude says the future of the web is "in our bodies AND in outer space." Because traditionally modernity and the idea of technological progress has been a strictly outward notion, how big can we build, what's the furthest planet we can get to etc etc (a seperation between mind and technology). But recent advances like the human genome project, dna mapping, neuroscience and the possibilities raised in your post, have seen the notion of 'progress' switch 180 degrees from external of the body to internal. The 'final frontier' is increasingly not just in space but in the inner most caverns of the body and mind.
I didn't actually realise how long my post was until I posted it =S haha