The Surprisingly Simple Myth of ‘Neurotech’
Occasionally, I contemplate the profound impact that brain-computer interfaces, particularly those intended for implantation, could have on human capabilities. These technologies may offer enhancements such as flawless memory, instantaneous mathematical calculations, or accelerated data transmission among users. However, despite the allure of these prospects, I contend that the integration of such innovations into everyday life is a distant reality. After dedicating two years to the study of Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain at the University of Law, I would like to outline my perspective, commencing with the associated drawbacks.
First and foremost, the act of implanting electrodes into the human brain poses considerable risks. Potential complications, such as infections, dislocation of electrodes, hemorrhaging, or cognitive decline as evidenced by various studies, indicate that this technological advancement is not yet sufficiently mature. The application of deep brain stimulation in treating Parkinson’s disease exemplifies its potential efficacy, where targeted electrical stimulation can yield remarkable outcomes; patients previously immobilized may regain the ability to walk or execute intricate movements. Nevertheless, such interventions are accompanied by adverse effects, including speech impediments, concentration difficulties, and memory loss. While accepting these risks may be justified in the context of treating severe medical conditions, extending similar measures to individuals without such conditions necessitates exceptionally compelling advantages to warrant the invasiveness involved.
Moreover, I perceive that augmenting a healthy neurological system is substantially more complex than rehabilitating one that is impaired. Individuals afflicted by paralysis may derive benefits from implants that circumvent damaged neural pathways. However, enhancing a normally functioning brain presents an entirely distinct set of challenges. It is apparent that extensive research will be required before such technologies can be safely and effectively disseminated to the general population.
At times, I question the necessity of invasive implants, given that current technologies provide extraordinary capabilities. Cochlear and retinal implants assist individuals who are deaf or blind, while deep brain stimulation alleviates symptoms of Parkinson’s disease or chronic pain. Establishing a high-bandwidth connection between the brain and a computer, capable of significantly augmenting human intelligence—is an endeavor of a different order.
Many enhancements envisioned for healthy individuals might be realized through simpler, more secure, and cost-effective means. There is no requirement for a fiber-optic conduit directly affixed to the brain to gain access to the internet. The human retina already conveys approximately ten million bits per second, and the visual cortex processes and interprets this data with remarkable efficiency. Even if methodologies for transmitting greater quantities of information to the brain are eventually discovered, such advancements alone would not inherently enhance cognitive speed or learning capacity, these improvements would necessitate a fundamental restructuring of the neural architecture.
The notion of directly transmitting thoughts or concepts between brains often resembles the realm of science fiction. While the vision is appealing, few comprehend the intricate nature of memory storage and information representation in the human brain. Unlike a computer, our brains do not organize information into “files.” Each brain develops unique neural patterns shaped by individual experiences, genetics, and biological variances. Constructing a universal system capable of interpreting and sharing thoughts among individuals would be remarkably challenging.
Existing technologies clearly illustrate notable limitations. Brain-computer interfaces that allow locked-in patients to maneuver a cursor with their thoughts remain inefficient, composing a few words can extend over several minutes. A more sophisticated implant situated in Broca’s area may provide assistance to stroke survivors or those with muscle degeneration, yet it seems improbable that healthy individuals would elect such a solution when more conventional means, such as microphones and speech-recognition technologies, operate effectively. Factors such as convenience, cost, and the absence of the need for neurosurgery favor the utilization of external devices.
In conclusion, I advocate for prioritizing the advancement of external technologies that can be easily upgraded. The process of replacing a smartphone is significantly less complex than upgrading an implanted device. Although the concepts of thought-sharing and direct digital integration with the human brain are captivating, they remain distant prospects, particularly for healthy individuals—for the foreseeable future.
