“Mind Hacking”: Information in the Cyber Age


Watch Yuval Noah Harari speak with Fei-Fei Li, renowned computer scientist and Co-Director of Stanford University’s Human-Centered AI Institute — in a conversation moderated by Nicholas Thompson, WIRED’s Editor-in-Chief. The discussion explores big themes and ideas, including ethics in technology, hacking humans, free will, and how to avoid potential dystopian scenarios. Publication is available under Creative Commons, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 – https://creativecommons.org/licenses/…. The event was hosted at Stanford in April 2019, and was jointly sponsored by the university’s Humanities Center, McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, and the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI).

The good old days of cold war disinformatia are gone. Social media are increasingly relevant in shaping the public opinion, but they are just “eco chambers”. Foreign actors with malicious intent can easily exploit this intrinsic feature of social media manipulating online information in order to influence the public opinion.  Moreover, cyberspace allows a large degree of anonymity, behind which it is easy to automate propaganda, and cyber attacks may be leveraged to exfiltrate and expose sensitive content or to gain information dominance during military operations, increasing the strategic relevance of the “information space”.  Operations in this domain are central in Russia’s security strategic thinking, featuring predominantly in its “New Generation War” military doctrine. But the ongoing militarization of cyberspace risks having dangerous spillovers in the conventional domain. What can we do in order to protect our open democracies while preserving a global, free will and resilient Internet? The answer is multi-faceted, in as much as CEIW (cyber-enabled information warfare) is an emerging asymmetric threat that forces us to innovate our security approach in many ways.

Nanoethics, On The Mind and the Machine Interaction…

The Mind and the Machine. On the Conceptual and Moral Implications of Brain-Machine Interaction…

Maartje Schermer

Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, ErasmusMC, Room AE 340, PO Box 2040, 3000 Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Find articles by Maartje Schermer
Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, ErasmusMC, Room AE 340, PO Box 2040, 3000 Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Maartje Schermer, Phone: +31-107-043062, ln.cmsumsare@remrehcs.m.
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Received 2009 Nov 5; Accepted 2009 Nov 5.


Brain-machine interfaces are a growing field of research and application. The increasing possibilities to connect the human brain to electronic devices and computer software can be put to use in medicine, the military, and entertainment. Concrete technologies include cochlear implants, Deep Brain Stimulation, neurofeedback and neuroprosthesis. The expectations for the near and further future are high, though it is difficult to separate hope from hype. The focus in this paper is on the effects that these new technologies may have on our ‘symbolic order’—on the ways in which popular categories and concepts may change or be reinterpreted. First, the blurring distinction between man and machine and the idea of the cyborg are discussed. It is argued that the morally relevant difference is that between persons and non-persons, which does not necessarily coincide with the distinction between man and machine. The concept of the person remains useful. It may, however, become more difficult to assess the limits of the human body. Next, the distinction between body and mind is discussed. The mind is increasingly seen as a function of the brain, and thus understood in bodily and mechanical terms. This raises questions concerning concepts of free will and moral responsibility that may have far reaching consequences in the field of law, where some have argued for a revision of our criminal justice system, from retributivist to consequentialist. Even without such a (unlikely and unwarranted) revision occurring, brain-machine interactions raise many interesting questions regarding distribution and attribution of responsibility.

Keywords: Brain-machine interaction, Brain-computer interfaces, Converging technologies, Cyborg, Deep brain stimulation, Moral responsibility, Neuroethics


Within two or three decades our brains will have been entirely unravelled and made technically accessible: nanobots will be able to immerse us totally in virtual reality and connect our brains directly to the Internet. Soon after that we will expand our intellect in a spectacular manner by melting our biological brains with non-biological intelligence. At least that is the prophecy of Ray Kurzweil, futurist, transhumanist and successful inventor of, amongst other things, the electronic keyboard and the voice-recognition system.1 He is not the only one who foresees great possibilities and, what’s more, has the borders between biological and non-biological, real and virtual, and human and machine, disappear with the greatest of ease. Some of these possibilities are actually already here. On 22 June 2004, a bundle of minuscule electrodes was implanted into the brain of the 25-year-old Matthew Nagel (who was completely paralysed due to a high spinal cord lesion) to enable him to operate a computer by means of his thoughts. This successful experiment seems to be an important step on the way to the blending of brains and computers or humans and machines, that Kurzweil and others foresee. With regard to the actual developments in neuroscience and the convergence of neurotechnology with information, communication- and nanotechnology in particular it is still unclear how realistic the promises are. The same applies to the moral and social implications of these developments. This article offers a preliminary exploration of this area. The hypothesis is that scientific and technological developments in neuroscience and brain-machine interfacing challenge—and may contribute to shifts in—some of the culturally determined categories and classification schemes (our ‘symbolic order’), such as body, mind, human, machine, free will and responsibility (see the Introduction to this issue: Converging Technologies, Shifting Boundaries)

Firstly I will examine the expectations regarding the development of brain-machine interfaces and the forms of brain-machine interaction that already actually exist. Subsequently, I will briefly point out the moral issues raised by these new technologies, and argue the debate on these issues will be influenced by the shifts that may take place in our symbolic order—that is, the popular categories that we use in our everyday dealings to make sense of our world—as a result of these developments. It is important to consider the consequences these technologies might have for our understanding of central organizing categories, moral concepts and important values. Section four then focuses on the categories of human and machine: are we all going to become cyborgs? Will the distinction between human and machine blur if more and more artificial components are built into the body and brain? I will argue that the answer depends partly on the context in which this question is asked, and that the concept of the person may be more suitable here than that of the human. Section five is about the distinction between body and mind. I argue that as a result of our growing neuroscientific knowledge and the mounting possibilities for technological manipulation, the mind is increasingly seen as a component of the body, and therefore also more and more in mechanical terms. This put the concept of moral responsibility under pressure. I will illustrate the consequences of these shifts in concepts and in category-boundaries with some examples of the moral questions confronting us already.

Developments in Brain-Machine Interaction

Various publications and reports on converging technologies and brain-machine interaction speculate heatedly on future possibilities for the direct linkage of the human brain with machines, that is: some form of computer or ICT technology or other. If the neurosciences provide further insight into the precise working of the brain, ICT technology becomes increasingly powerful, the electronics become more refined and the possibilities for uniting silicones with cells more advanced, then great things must lie ahead of us—or so it seems. The popular media, but also serious governmental reports and even scientific literature, present scenarios that are suspiciously like science fiction as realistic prospects: the expansion of memory or intelligence by means of an implanted chip; the direct uploading of encyclopaedias, databases or dictionaries into the brain; a wireless connection from the brain to the Internet; thought reading or lie detection via the analysis of brain activity; direct brain-to-brain communication. A fine example comes from the report on converging technologies issued by the American National Science Foundation:

‘Fast, broadband interfaces directly between the human brain and machines will transform work in factories, control automobiles, ensure military superiority, and enable new sports, art forms and modes of interaction between people. […] New communication paradigms (brain-to-brain, brain-machine-brain, group) could be realized in 10–20 years.’ []

It is not easy to tell which prospects are realistic, which to a certain extent plausible and which are total nonsense. Some scientists make incredible claims whilst others contradict them again. These claims often have utopian characteristics and seem to go beyond the border between science and science fiction. Incidentally, they are frequently presented in such a way as to create goodwill and attract financial resources. After all, impressive and perhaps, from the scientific point of view, exaggerated future scenarios have a political and ideological function too—they help to secure research funds2 and to create a certain image of these developments, either utopian or dystopian, thus steering public opinion.

Uncertainty about the facts—which expectations are realistic, which exaggerated and which altogether impossible—is great, even amongst serious scientists []. Whereas experts in cyberkinetic neurotechnology in the reputable medical journal, The Lancet, are seriously of the opinion that almost naturally-functioning, brain-driven prostheses will be possible, the editorial department of the Dutch doctors’ journal, Medisch Contact, wonders sceptically how many light-years away they are [, ]. It is precisely the convergence of knowledge and technology from very different scientific areas that makes predictions so difficult. Although claims regarding future developments sometimes seem incredible, actual functioning forms of brain-machine interaction do in fact exist, and various applications are at an advanced stage of development. Next, I will look at what is currently already possible, or what is actually being researched and developed.

Existing Brain-Machine Interactions

The first category of existing brain-machine interaction is formed by the sensory prostheses. The earliest form of brain-machine interaction is the cochlear implant, also known as the bionic ear, which has been around for about 30 years. This technology enables deaf people to hear again, by converting sound into electrical impulses that are transmitted to an electrode implanted in the inner ear, which stimulates the auditory nerve directly. While there have been fierce discussions about the desirability of the cochlear implant, nowadays they are largely accepted and are included in the normal arsenal of medical technology (e.g. []). In this same category, various research lines are currently ongoing to develop an artificial retina or ‘bionic eye’ to enable blind people to see again.

A second form of brain-machine interaction is Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS). With this technique small electrodes are surgically inserted directly into the brain. These are connected to a subcutaneously implanted neurostimulator, which sends out tiny electrical pulses to stimulate a specific brain area. This technology is used for treatment of neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s disease and Gilles de la Tourette’s syndrome. Many new indications are being studied experimentally, ranging from severe obsessive-compulsive disorders, addictions, and obesity to Alzheimer’s disease and depression. The use of this technique raises a number of ethical issues, like informed consent from vulnerable research subjects, the risks and side-effects, including effects on the patient’s mood and behaviour [].

More spectacular, and at an even earlier stage of development, is the third form of brain-machine interaction in which the brain controls a computer directly. This technology, called neuroprosthetics, enables people to use thought to control objects in the outside world such as the cursor of a computer or a robotic arm. It is being developed so that people with a high spinal cord lesion, like Matt Nagel mentioned in the introduction, can act and communicate again. An electrode in the brain receives the electrical impulses that the neurons in the motor cerebral cortex give off when the patient wants to make a specific movement. It then sends these impulses to a computer where they are translated into instructions to move the cursor or a robot that is connected to the computer. This technology offers the prospect that paraplegics or patients with locked in syndrome could move their own wheelchair with the aid of thought-control, communicate with others through written text or voice synthesis, pick up things with the aid of artificial limbs et cetera.

In future, the direct cortical control described above could also be used in the further development of artificial limbs (robotic arms or legs) for people who have had limbs amputated. It is already possible to receive the signals from other muscles and control a robotic arm with them (a myoelectrical prosthesis); whether the patient’s own remaining nerves can be connected directly to a prosthesis to enable it to move as though it is the patient’s own arm is now being examined. Wireless control by the cortex would be a great step in prosthetics, further enabling patient rehabilitation. Next to motor control of the prosthesis, tactile sensors are being developed and placed in artificial hands to pass on the feeling to the patient’s own remaining nerves, thus creating a sense of touch. It is claimed that this meeting of the (micro)technological and (neuro)biological sciences will in the future lead to a significant reduction in invalidity due to amputation or even its total elimination [, ].

In the fourth form of brain-machine interaction, use is made of neurofeedback. By detecting brain activity with the aid of electroencephalography (EEG) equipment, it can be made visible to the person involved. This principle is used, for instance, in a new method for preventing epileptic attacks with the aid of Vagal Nerve Stimulation (VNS). Changes in brainwaves can be detected and used to predict an oncoming epileptic attack. This ‘warning system’ can then generate an automatic reaction from the VNS system which stimulates the vagal nerve to prevent the attack. In time, the detection electrodes could be implanted under the skull, and perhaps the direct electrical stimulation of the cerebral cortex could be used instead of the vagal nerve []. Another type of feedback system is being developed by the American army and concerns a helmet with binoculars that can draw a soldier’s attention to a danger that his brain has subconsciously detected enabling him to react faster and more adequately. The idea is that EEG can spot ‘neural signatures’ for target detection before the conscious mind becomes aware of a potential threat or target [].

Finally, yet another technology that is currently making rapid advances is the so-called exoskeleton. Although this is not a form of brain-machine interaction in itself, it is a technology that will perhaps be eminently suitable for combination with said interaction in the future. An exoskeleton is an external structure that is worn around the body, or parts of it, to provide strength and power that the body does not intrinsically possess. It is chiefly being developed for applications in the army and in the health care sector.3 Theoretically, the movements of exoskeletons could also be controlled directly by thought if the technology of the aforementioned ‘neuroprostheses’ was to be developed further. If, in the future, the exoskeleton could also give feedback on feelings (touch, temperature and suchlike), the possibilities could be expanded still further.

Ethical Issues and Shifts in Our Symbolic Order

The developments described above raise various ethical questions, for instance about the safety, possible risks and side effects of new technologies. There are also speculations as to the moral problems or dangers that may arise in connection with further advances in this type of technologies. The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), an influential European advisory body, warns for the risk that ICT implants will be used to control and locate people, or that they could provide third parties with access to information about the body and mind of those involved, without their permission EGE []. There are also concerns about about the position of vulnerable research subjects, patient selection and informed consent, the effects on personal identity, resource allocation and about the use of such technologies for human enhancement Over the past few years, the neuroethical discussion on such topics has been booming (e.g. [, , , , , , ]).

It has been argued that while these ethical issues are real, they do not present anything really new []. The point of departure of this article, however, is that it is not so easy to deal adequately with the moral questions raised by these new technologies because they also challenge some of the central concepts and categories that we use in understanding and answering moral questions. Hansson, for example, states that brain implants may be “reason to reconsider our criteria for personal identity and personality changes” [; p. 523]. Moreover, these new technologies may also change some elements of our common morality itself, just like the birth control pill once helped to change sexual morality []. In brief: new technologies not only influence the ways we can act, but also the symbolic order: our organizing categories and the associated views on norms and values.

The concepts and categories we, as ordinary people, use to classify our world to make it manageable and comprehensible are subject to change. These categories also play an important part in moral judgement, since they often have a normative next to a descriptive dimension. Categories such as human and machine, body and mind, sick and healthy, nature and culture, real and unreal are difficult to define precisely and the boundaries of such notions are always vague and movable. Time and again it takes ‘symbolic labour’ to reinterpret these categories and to re-conceptualise them and make them manageable in new situations. In part, this symbolic labour is being done by philosophers who explicitly work with concepts and definitions, refining and adjusting them; in part it is also a diffuse socio-cultural process of adaptation and emerging changes in symbolic order.4 Boundaries are repeatedly negotiated or won, and new concepts arise where old ones no longer fit the bill An example is the new concept of ‘brain dead’ which arose a few decades ago as a consequence of the concurrent developments in electroencephalography, artificial respiration and organ transplantation. Here the complex interplay of technology, popular categories of life and death, and scientific and philosophical understandings of these concepts is clearly demonstrated [; p. 16].

Morality, defined as our more or less shared system of norms, values and moral judgements, is also subject to change It is not a static ‘tool’ that we can apply to all kinds of new technologically induced moral problems. Technological and social developments influence and change our morality, although this does not apply equally to all its elements. Important values such as justice, well-being or personal autonomy are reasonably stable, but they are also such abstract notions that they are open to various and changing interpretations. The norms we observe in order to protect and promote our values depend on these interpretations and may require adjustment under new circumstances. Some norms are relatively fixed, others more contingent and changing []. The detailed and concrete moral rules of conduct derived from the general norms are the most contingent and changeable. The introduction of the notion brain death, for example, led to adaptations in ethical norms and regulations. Likewise, the new developments in genomics research are now challenging and changing existing rules of informed consent as well as notions of privacy and rules for privacy protection [].

In the field of brain-machine interaction we can therefore also expect that certain fixed categories that we classify our world with and that structure our thinking, will evolve alongside the new technologies. This will have consequences for the ethical questions these technologies raise and for the way in which we handle both new and familiar moral issues. A first shift that can be expected concerns the distinction between human and machine. This distinction might fade as more parts of the body can be replaced with mechanical or artificial parts that become more and more ‘real’. Secondly, we might expect a blurring of boundaries between our familiar concepts of body and mind when neuroscience and neurotechnologies increasingly present the brain as an ordinary part of our body and the mind as simply one of its ‘products’. The following sections analyse these possible shifts in the symbolic order and the associated moral questions in more detail.

Symbolic Order in Motion: The Human Machine

The blurring of the boundary between human and machine brought about by brain-machine interaction forms the first challenge to the familiar categories with which we think. The more artificial parts are inserted in and added to the human body, the more uncertainty there is about where the human stops and the machine begins. Instead of human or machine, we increasingly seem to be looking at cyborgs: human and machine in a single being.

For a long time it was easy to distinguish between people and the tools, machines or devices that they used. Gradually, however, our lives have become increasingly entangled with machines—or, in the broader sense, with technology—and we have become dependent on them for practically every facet of our daily lives. Increasingly, parts of the human body itself are replaced or supplemented by technology.5 Of course, the notion that the human body works as a machine has been a leitmotiv in western culture since Descartes; this vision has enabled modern medicine while the successes achieved substantiate the underlying beliefs about the body at the same time. The emergence of transplantation medicine was a clear step in the development of popular views on the body as a machine. Since the first kidney transplantation in 1954 and the first heart transplantation in 1967, lungs, liver, pancreas and even hands and faces have become transplantable, thus enforcing the image of the human body as a collection of replaceable parts. Some have criticised transplantation medicine because of the ensuing mechanization and commodification of the human body.

Besides organs, more and more artefacts are now being implanted in the human body: artificial heart valves, pacemakers, knees, arterial stents and subcutaneous medicine pumps. Prostheses that are attached to the body, such as artificial limbs, are becoming increasingly advanced, and are no longer easy to detach—unlike the old-fashioned wooden leg. Experiences of patients who wear prostheses seem to indicate that people rapidly adapt to using them and fuse with them to the extent that they perceive them as natural parts of themselves. Artificial parts are rapidly included in the body scheme and come to be felt as ‘ones own’.6

In a certain sense, then, we are familiar with the perception of the body as a sort of machine, and with the fact that fusing the human body with artificial parts is possible. Do technologies like neuroprostheses, artificial limbs and exoskeletons break through the boundary between human and machine in a fundamentally new, different fashion? Should the conceptual distinction between human and machine perhaps be revised? Many publications, both popular and more academic, suggest that the answer has to be yes. A notion that is often used in this connection is that of the cyborg: the human machine.


The term ‘cyborg’—derived from cybernetic organism—was coined in 1960 by Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline, American researchers who wrote about the ways in which the vulnerable human body could be technologically modified to meet the requirements of space travel and exploration. The figure of the cyborg appealed to the imagination and was introduced into popular culture by science fiction writers, filmmakers, cartoonists and game designers; famous cyborgs include The Six Million Dollar Man, Darth Vader and RoboCop. In the popular image, the cyborg thus stands for the merging of the human and the machine.

In recent literature, both popular and scientific, the cyborg has come to stand for all sorts of man-machine combinations and all manner of technological and biotechnological enhancements or modifications of the human body. With the publication of books like I, Cyborg or Cyborg Citizen, the concept now covers a whole area of biopolitical questions. Everything that is controversial around biotechnological interventions, that raises moral questions and controversy, that evokes simultaneous horror and admiration, is now clustered under the designation ‘cyborg’ [, , ].

The concept of the cyborg indicates that something is the matter, that boundaries are transgressed, familiar categorizations challenged, creating unease and uncertainty. For Donna Haraway, well-known for her Cyborg Manifesto [], the concept of the cyborg stands for all the breaches of boundaries and disruptions of order, not merely for the specific breaking through of the distinction between human and machine which concerns me here. The term cyborg can thus be used to describe our inability to categorize some new forms of human life or human bodies. The use of the term compels us to delay categorization—in familiar terms of human or machine—at least for the moment and so creates a space for further exploration.


Following Mary Douglas, Martijntje Smits has called these kind of entities that defy categorization and challenge the familiar symbolic order monsters []. Smits discusses four strategies for treating these monsters, four ways of cultural adaptation to these new entities and the disruption they bring about.

The first strategy, embracing the monster, is clearly reflected in the pronouncements of adherents of the transhumanist movement. They welcome all manner of biotechnological enhancements of humans, believe in the exponential development of the possibilities to this end and place the cyborg, almost literally, on a pedestal. The second strategy is the opposite of the first and entails exorcizing the monster. Neo-Luddites or bioconservatives see biotechnology in general and the biotechnological enhancement of people in particular, as a threat to the existing natural order. They frequently refer to human nature, traditional categories and values and norms when attacking and trying to curb the new possibilities. To them, the cyborg is a real monster that has to be stopped and exorcized.

The third strategy is that of adaptation of the monster. Endeavours are made to classify the new phenomenon in terms of existing categories after all. Adaptation seems to be what is happening with regard to existing brain-machine interaction. The conceptual framework here is largely formed by the familiar medical context of prostheses and aids. The designation of the electrodes and chips implanted in the brain as neuroprostheses, places them in the ethical area of therapy, medical treatment, the healing of the sick and support of the handicapped. As long as something that was naturally present but is now lost due to sickness or an accident is being replaced, brain-machine interaction can be understood as therapy and therefore accepted within the ethical limits normally assigned to medical treatments. However, for non-medical applications the problem of classifications remains. Prostheses to replace functions that have been lost may be accepted relatively easily, but how are we going to regard enhancements or qualitative changes in functions such as the addition of infrared vision to the human visual faculty? Are we only going to allow the creation of cyborgs for medical purposes, or also for military goals, or for relaxation and entertainment?

Finally, the fourth strategy is assimilation of the monster, whereby existing categories and concepts are adjusted or new ones introduced.7 In the following I will suggest that the concept of the person—in the sense in which it is used in ethics, rather than in common language—may be useful for this purpose.

Morality of Persons

In the empirical sense, cyborgs, or blends of human bodies with mechanical parts, are gradually becoming less exceptional. It therefore seems exaggerated to view people with prostheses or implants as something very exceptional or to designate them as a separate class. And this raises the question of why we should really worry about the blurring of the distinction between human and machine? This is not merely because the mixing of the flesh with steel or silicone intuitively bothers us, or because the confusion about categories scares us. More fundamentally, I believe this is because the distinction between the human and the machine also points to a significant moral distinction. The difference between the two concepts is important because it indicates a moral dividing line between two different normative categories. For most of our practices and everyday dealings the normative distinction between human and machine matters. You just treat people differently to machines—with more respect and care—and you expect something else from people than you expect from machines—responsibility and understanding, for example. Human beings deserve praise and blame for their actions while machines cannot. The important question is therefore whether brain-machine interfaces will somehow affect the moral status of the people using them []. Do we still regard a paralysed patient with a brain implant and an exoskeleton as a human being, or do we see him as a machine? Will we consider someone with two bionic legs to be a human being or a machine?

I belief that in part this also depends on the context and the reasons for wanting to make the distinction. In the context of athletic competition, the bionic runner may be disqualified because of his supra-human capacities. In this context, he is ‘too much of a machine’ to grant fair competition with fully biological human beings. However, in the context of everyday interaction with others, a person with bionic legs is just as morally responsible for his actions as any other person. In this sense he clearly is human and not a machine. This is because, with regard to moral status, the human being as an acting, responsible moral agent is identified more with the mind than with the body. The mind is what matters in the moral sense. Whether this mind controls a wheelchair with the aid of hands, or electrical brain-generated pulses, is irrelevant to the question of who controls the wheelchair: the answer in both cases is the person concerned. Whether someone is paralysed or not does not alter the question of whether he or she is a person or not; it will of course affect the kind of person he or she is but whether he or she is a person depends on his or her mental capacities. Ethical theories consider the possession of some minimal set of cognitive, conative and affective capacities as a condition for personhood. This means that, ethically speaking, under certain conditions, intelligent primates or Martians could be considered persons while human babies or extremely demented old people would not. Whatever the exact criteria one applies, there is no reason to doubt the fact that someone who is paralysed, someone who controls a robot by remote or someone who has a DBS electrode is a person. Certain moral entitlements, obligations and responsibilities are connected to that state of ‘being a person’. This notion therefore helps to resolve the confusion surrounding the cyborg. Rather than classifying him as either man or machine, we should be looking at personhood. Personhood is what really matters morally and this is not necessarily affected by brain-machine interfaces. As long as they do not affect personhood, brain-machine interfaces are no more special than other types of prosthesis, implants or instrumental aids that we have already grown used to.

New Views on Physical Integrity?

Nevertheless, brain-machine interfaces may in some cases cause new moral issues. A concrete example that can illustrate how shifting catagories can affect concepts and ethics is that of physical integrity. How should this important ethical and legal principle be interpreted when applied to cyborgs? The principle itself is not under discussion. We want to continue to guard and protect physical integrity. The question is, however, how to define the concept ‘body’ now that biological human bodies are becoming increasingly fused with technology and where to draw the line between those plastic, metal or silicone parts that do belong to that body and the parts that do not.

In the spring of 2007 the Dutch media paid attention to an asylum seeker who had lost an arm as a result of torture in his native country and had received a new myoelectrical prosthesis in the Netherlands. He just got used to the arm and was trained in using it naturally when it became apparent that there were problems with the insurance and he would have to return the prosthesis. Evidently, according to the regulations a prosthesis does not belong to the body of the person in question and it does not enjoy the protection of physical integrity. However, the loss of an arm causes a great deal of damage to the person, whether the arm is natural or a well-functioning prosthesis. If prostheses become more intimately connected to and integrated with the body (also through tactile sensors) such that they become incorporated in the body scheme and are deemed a natural part of the body by the person concerned, it seems there must come a point at which such a prosthesis should be seen as belonging to the (body of the) person concerned from the moral and legal point of view. It has even been questioned whether the interception of signals that are transmitted by a wireless link from the brain to a computer or artificial limb, should perhaps also fall under the protection of physical integrity []

Symbolic Order in Motion: Body-Mind

In the previous section I assumed the distinction between body and mind to be clear-cut. The common view is that the mind controls the body (whether this body is natural or artificial) and that the mind is the seat of our personhood, and of consciousness, freedom and responsibility. In this section I examine how this view might change under the influence of new brain-machine interactions and neuroscientific developments in general and what implications this may have for ethics. I will concentrate on DBS, since this brain-machine technique has at present the clearest impact on human mind and behaviour.8 Of course, however, our categories and common views will not change because of one single new technique—rather, it is the whole constellation of neuroscientific research and (emerging) applications that may change the ways in which we understand our minds and important related concepts.

The Mind as Machine

Neuroprostheses and other brain-machine interactions call into question the demarcation between body and mind, at least in the popular perception. Technologies such as neuroprosthetics and DBS make very clear the fact that physical intervention in the brain has a direct effect on the mind of the person in question. By switching the DBS electrode on or off, the behaviour, feelings and thoughts of the patient can be changed instantly. Thoughts of a paralysed person can be translated directly into electrical pulses and physical processes. As a result of neuroscience and its applications the human mind comes to be seen more and more as a collection of neurones, a system of synapses, neurotransmitters and electrical conductors. A very complex system perhaps, but a physical system nonetheless, that can be connected directly to other systems.

For some, this causes moral concern, since it may lead us to see ourselves merely in mechanical terms:

‘The obvious temptation will be to see advances in neuroelectronics as final evidence that man is just a complex machine after all, that the brain is just a computer, that our thoughts and identity are just software. But in reality, our new powers should lead us to a different conclusion: even though we can make the brain compatible with machines to serve specific functions, the thinking being is a being of very different sorts.’ [; p. 40–41]

I believe this change in our popular view of the mind that Keiper fears is actually already taking place. Neuroscientific knowledge and understanding penetrate increasingly into our everyday lives, and it is becoming more normal to understand our behaviour and ourselves in neurobiological terms. This shift is for example noticeable in the rise of biological psychiatry. Many psychiatric syndromes that were still understood in psychoanalytical or psychodynamic terms until well into the second half of the twentieth century, are now deemed biological brain diseases. The shift is also noticeable in the discussion on the biological determinants of criminal behaviour (and opportunities to change such behaviour by intervening in the brain) or in the increased attention for the biological and evolutionary roots of morality. Also in popular magazines and books, our behaviour and ourselves are increasingly presented as the direct result of our brains’ anatomy and physiology.

Scientific and technological developments have contributed to this shift. The development of EEG in the first half of the last century revealed the electrical activity of the brain for the first time, thus creating the vision of the brain as the wiring of the mind. The development of psychiatric drugs in the second half of the last century also helped naturalize our vision of the mind, picturing the brain as a neurochemical ‘soup’, a collection of synapses, neurotransmitters and receptors []. More recently the PET scan and the fMRI have made it possible to look, as it were, inside the active brain. The fact that fMRI produces such wonderful pictures of brains ‘in action’ contributes to our mechanical view of the relation between brain and behaviour. Certain areas of the brain light up if we make plans, others if an emotional memory is evoked; damage in one area explains why the psychopath has no empathy, a lesion in another correlates with poor impulse control or hot-headedness. While neurophilosophers have warned against the oversimplified idea that images are just like photographs that show us directly how the brain works, these beautiful, colourful images appeal to scientists and laymen alike [].

According to Nikolas Rose, we have come to understand ourselves increasingly in terms of a biomedical body, and our personalities and behaviour increasingly in terms of the brain. He says that a new way of thinking has taken shape: ‘In this way of thinking, all explanations of mental pathology must ‘pass through’ the brain and its neurochemistry—neurones, synapses, membranes, receptors, ion channels, neurotransmitters, enzymes, etc.’ [; p. 57]

We are experiencing what he calls a ‘neurochemical reshaping of personhood’ [; p. 59]. Likewise, Mooij has argued that the naturalistic determinism of the neurosciences is also catching on in philosophy and has now spread broadly in the current culture ‘that is to a large extent steeped in this biological thinking, in which brain and person more or less correspond’ [; p.77].

The mind is being seen more and more as a physical, bodily object (the ‘the mind = the brain’ idea), and given that the human body, as described above, has long been understood in mechanical terms, the equal status of the mind and brain means that the mind can also be understood in mechanical terms. As the basic distinction between mind and machine seems to drop away the distinction between human and machine once more raises its head, but now on a more fundamental and extremely relevant level, morally speaking. If in fact our mind, the seat of our humanity, is also a machine, how should we understand personhood in the morally relevant sense? How can we hold on to notions such as free will and moral responsibility?

Neuroscientific Revisionism

A recent notion amongst many neuroscientists and some neurophilosophers is that our experience of having a self, a free will or agency, is based on a misconception. The self as a regulating, controlling authority does not exist, but is only an illusion produced by the brain.9 From this notion it seems to follow that there is no such thing as free will and that there can therefore be no real moral responsibility. Within philosophy revisionists, who claim that our retributive intuitions and practices are unwarranted under determinism, claim that this view obliges us to revise our responsibility-attributing practices, including our legal system. Revisionism implies the need to replace some of our ordinary concepts with new ones. It has, for example, been suggested to substitute blame with ‘dispraise’ [] or to eliminate concepts connected to desert like blame, moral praise, guilt and remorse, altogether []. On a revisionist account, praise, blame and punishment are just devices that modify conduct, and that can be more or less effective, but not more or less deserved.

Greene and Cohen assume that because of the visible advances in the neurosciences—and I take brain-machine interfaces to be part of those—the naturalistic deterministic view on human behaviour will by degrees be accepted by more and more people, and revisionism will catch on []. To their way of thinking, our moral intuitions and our folk psychology will slowly adapt to the overwhelming evidence the neurosciences present us with. The technologies enabled on the basis of neuroscientific understanding, such as DBS, neurofeedback, psychiatric drugs, and perhaps also intelligent systems or intelligent robots, can contribute to this. Little by little we will hold people less responsible and liable for their actions, according to Greene and Cohen, but will see them increasingly as determined beings who can be regulated, more or less effectively, by sanctions or rewards. They allege that questions concerning free will and responsibility will lose their power in an age in which the mechanistic nature of the human decision process will be totally understood. This will also have consequences for the legal system. ‘The law will continue to punish misdeeds, as it must for practical reasons, but the idea of distinguishing the truly, deeply guilty from those who are merely victims of neuronal circumstances will, we submit, seem pointless.’ ([; p. 1781])

Greene and Cohen, like other revisionists, advocate a shift in the nature of our criminal justice system, from a retributive to a consequentialistic system. This means a shift from a system based on liability and retribution to one based on effects and effectiveness of punishment. A consequentialistic system of this kind is, in their opinion, in keeping with the true scientific vision of hard determinism and the non-existence of free will. Greene and Cohen recognize that many people will intuitively continue to think in terms of free will and responsibility. What is more, they think that this intuitive reflex has arisen through evolution and is deeply rooted in our brains. We can hardly help thinking in these sorts of terms, despite the fact that we know better, scientifically speaking. Nonetheless, Greene and Cohen insist that we should base important, complex matters such as the criminal justice system10 on the scientific truth about ourselves and not allow ourselves to be controlled by persistent, but incorrect, intuitions.

Moral Responsibility Reconsidered

A whole body of literature has accumulated refuting this thesis and arguing that new neuroscientific evidence need not influence our moral and legal notions of responsibility (e.g. []). This literature reflects the dominant position in the determinism debate nowadays, that of compatibilism. According to compatibilism determinism is reconcilable with the existence of a free will, and with responsibility. As long as we can act on the basis of reasons and as long as we are not coerced, we are sufficiently free to carry responsibility and the naturalistic neuroscientific explanatory model of behaviour is therefore not necessarily a threat to our free will and responsibility, according to the compatibilist. The question is, however, whether the compatibilist’s philosophical argumentation also convinces the average layman or neuroscientist, certainly in the light of new experimental findings and technical possibilities. How popular views on this topic will develop remains to be seen.

At the moment even adherents of the revisionist view seem convinced that we will never be able to stop thinking, or even think less, in terms of intentions, reasons, free will and responsibility. It seems almost inconceivable not to hold one another responsible for deeds and behaviour [].

Nevertheless, neuroscientific research does challenge our view of ourselves as rational, autonomous and moral beings []. Research shows us, for example, that many if not most of our actions automatic, unconsciously initiated and only some of our actions are deliberate and consciously based on reasons. Our rationality, moreover, is limited by various biases, like confirmation bias, hyperbolic discounting, false memories et cetera. New findings in neuroscience, such as the fact that immaturity of the frontal lobes impedes the capacities for reasoning, decision making and impulse control in adolescents, or that exercise of self-constraint eventually leads to exhaustion of the capacity for self-control (ego-depletion), do necessitate us to re-think the ways in which or the degrees to which we are actually morally responsible is specific situations and circumstances (see for example the series of articles on addiction and responsibility in AJOB Neuroscience 2007).

A more naturalized view of the human mind could thus still have important consequences, even if we do not jettison the notion of moral responsibility altogether. More grounds for ‘absence of criminal responsibility’ could, for example, be acknowledged in criminal law, whereby new technologies could play a role. Functional brain scans might provide more clarity on the degree to which an individual has control over his or her own behaviour.

Prosthetic Responsibility?

Due to their ability to directly influence complex human behaviour by intervening in the brain, brain-machine interfaces may raise interesting issues of responsibility, even when we reject revisionism, as can be illustrated by the following case of a 62 year old Parkinson patient treated with DBS.11

After implantation of the electrodes, this patient became euphoric and demonstrated unrestrained behaviour: he bought several houses that he could not really pay for; he bought various cars and got involved in traffic accidents; he started a relationship with a married woman and showed unacceptable and deviant sexual behaviour towards nurses; he suffered from megalomania and, furthermore, did not understand his illness at all. He was totally unaware of any problem. Attempts to improve his condition by changing the settings of the DBS failed as the manic characteristics disappeared but the patient’s severe Parkinson’s symptoms reappeared. The patient was either in a reasonable motor state but in a manic condition lacking any self reflection and understanding of his illness, or bedridden in a non-deviant mental state. The mania could not be treated by medication [].

Who was responsible for the uninhibited behaviour of the patient in this case? Was that still the patient himself, was it the stimulator or the neurosurgeon who implanted and adjusted the device? In a sense, the patient was ‘not himself’ during the stimulation; he behaved in a way that he never would have done without the stimulator.12 That behaviour was neither the intended nor the predicted result of the stimulation and it therefore looks as though no one can be held morally responsible for it. However, in his non-manic state when, according to his doctors, he was competent to express his will and had a good grasp of the situation, the patient chose to have the stimulator switched on again. After lengthy deliberations the doctors complied with his wishes. To what extent were his doctors also responsible for his manic behaviour? After all, they knew the consequences of switching on the stimulator again. To what extent was the patient himself subsequently to blame for getting into debt and bothering nurses?

For such decisions, the notion of ‘diachronic responsibility’ [] can be of use, indicating that a person can take responsibility for his future behaviour by taking certain actions. Suppose, for example, that DBS would prove an effective treatment for addiction, helping people to stay off drugs, alcohol or gambling, could it then rightly be considered a ‘prosthesis for willpower’ [], or even a prosthesis for responsibility? I believe that technologies that enable us to control our own behaviour better—as DBS might do in the case of addiction, or in the treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder—can be understood in terms of diachronic responsibility and self-control, and thus enhance autonomy and responsibility [].

Future applications of brain-machine interaction may raise further questions: suppose a doctor would adjust the settings of DBS without consent from the patient and cause behaviour the patient claimed not to identify with—who would then be responsible? As Clausen has pointed out, neuroprostheses may challenge our traditional concept of responsibility when imperfections in the system lead to involuntary actions of the patient []. Likewise, if the wireless signals of a neuroprosthesis were incidentally or deliberately disrupted, it would be questionable who would be responsible for the ensuing ‘actions’ of the patient.

Clearly, even without major shifts in our views on free will and responsibility, brain-machine interfaces will require us to consider questions of responsibility.


The convergence of neuroscientific knowledge with bio-, nano-, and information technology is already beginning to be fruitful in the field of brain-machine interaction, with applications like DBS, neuroprosthesis and neurofeedback. It is hard to predict the specific applications awaiting us in the future, although there is no shortage of wild speculations. The emergence of new technical possibilities also gives rise to shifts in our popular understanding of basic categories, and to some new moral issues. The boundaries of the human body are blurring and must be laid down anew; our views on what it is to be a person, to have a free will and to have responsibility are once more up for discussion. In this article I have explored how these shifts in categories and concepts might work out.

I have argued that the distinction between human and machine, insofar as it concerns a morally relevant distinction, does not have to be given up immediately because increasingly far-reaching physical combinations are now being made between human and mechanical parts. Depending on the context and the reasons we have for wanting to make a distinction, we will draw the line between human and machine differently. In the context of sports, a bionic limb may disqualify its user for being too much of a ‘machine’ while in another context such a limb may be qualified as an integral part of a human being and be protected under the right to physical integrity. Important general moral questions that lie behind the confusion about categories of human and machine concern moral responsibility and moral status. The concept of a person, as used in ethical theory to designate moral actors, is more precise and more useful in this context than the general category of the ‘human’ or the poly-interpretable notion of the ‘cyborg’.

In the most radical scenario of shifts in our symbolic order, the concept of ‘person’ may also come under pressure. As I have shown based on Greene and Cohen’s vision, the person as a being with a free will and moral responsibility, and as a moral actor, should, according to some, disappear from the stage altogether. Implementing such a neuroreductionistic vision on the mind and free will would have clear consequences for criminal law: it would have to be revised to a consequentialist, neo-behaviouristic system. People would then barely be considered to be morally responsible beings but be seen as systems that respond to praise and blame in a mechanical fashion. I believe it is unlikely that such a shift in our popular views will come about, because the intuitive appeal of the notion of responsibility, and because there are many good arguments to resist this shift. Even if we do not jettison responsibility altogether, however, brain-machine interactions raise many interesting questions regarding distribution and attribution of responsibility.

A general lesson for ethics of emerging technologies is that such technologies necessitate renewed consideration and reinterpretation of important organizing concepts and distinctions that are crucial to moral judgement. The symbolic labour required to answer such conceptual and normative questions is at least as important for the development of converging technologies as the technical-scientific labour involved.


Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


1See his website www.kurzweilAI.net for these and other future forecasts

2A lot of research in the field of brain-machine interaction and other converging technologies is carried out by DARPA, the American Ministry of Defence research institute. In 2003, for example, DARPA subsidized research into brain-machine interfaces to the tune of 24 million dollars [, ].

3In the former case, these applications might enable soldiers to carry heavy rucksacks more easily, in the latter they could, for example, help a nurse to lift a heavy patient on his or her own.

4How these processes interact with one another and how socio-cultural changes influence philosophical thinking and vice versa is an interesting and complicated question, that I cannot start to answer here.

5Not that this is an entirely new phenomenon, seeing that all sorts of bodily prostheses have existed for centuries; the first artificial leg dates back to 300 before Christ. Other prostheses that we more or less attach to our bodies are, for instance, spectacles, hairpieces and hearing aids. But the insertion of external parts into the human body is more recent.

6More attention has recently been paid to the importance of the body for the development and working of our consciousness. In the Embodied Mind model, body and mind are seen far more as interwoven than in the past (e.g. []). This can have even further implications for brain-machine interaction; if for example, neuroprostheses change our physical, bodily dealings with the world, this may also have consequences for the development of the brain and for our consciousness. Neuroscientists have even claimed that: ‘It may sound like science fiction but if human brain regions involved in bodily self-consciousness were to be monitored and manipulated online via a machine, then not only will the boundary between user and robot become unclear, but human identity may change, as such bodily signals are crucial for the self and the ‘I’ of conscious experience’ []

7The distinction between adaptation and assimilation is not very clear—it depends on what one would wish to call an ‘adaptation’ or ‘adjustment’ of a concept.

8By contrast, in the case of the neuroprosthesis discussed in the previous section, it is mainly the mind that influences the body, through the interface.

9‘Obviously we have thoughts. Ad nauseam, one might say. What is deceptive, is the idea that these thoughts control our behaviour. In my opinion, that idea is no more than a side effect of our social behaviour. […] The idea that we control our deeds with our thoughts, that is an illusion’, says cognitive neuroscientist Victor Lamme, echoing his collegue Wegner. [; p. 22, ].

10Likewise, moral views on responsibility may change. An instrumental, neo-behaviouristic vision on morality and the moral practice of holding one another responsible might arise. Holding one another responsible may still prove a very effective way of regulating behaviour, even if it is not based on the actual existence of responsibility and free will. As long people change their behaviour under the influence of moral praise and blame, there is no reason to throw the concept of responsibility overboard. From this point of view, there would be no relevant difference anymore between a human being and any other system that would be sensitive to praise and blame, such as an intelligent robot or computer system. If such a system would be sensitive to moral judgements and respond to them with the desired behaviour on this view they would qualify as much as moral actors as human beings would.

11This case also been discussed by [, , ].

12Of course, this problem is not exclusive for DBS; some medications can have similar effects. However, with DBS the changes are more rapid and more specific and can be controlled literally by a remote control (theoretically, the patients behaviour can thus be influenced without the patient’s approval once the electrode is in his brain). These characteristics do make DBS different from more traditional means of behaviour influencing, though I agree with an anonymous reviewer that this is more a matter of degree than an absolute qualitative difference.


1. Anonymus Kunstarm met gevoel. Med Contact. 2007;62:246.
2. Bell EW, Mathieu G, Racine E. Preparing the ethical future of deep brain stimulation. Surg Neurol. 2009 [PubMed]
3. Berghmans R, Wert G. Wilsbekwaamheid in de context van elektrostimulatie van de hersenen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004;148:1373–75. [PubMed]
4. Blanke O, Aspell JE (2009) Brain technologies raise unprecedented ethical challenges. Nature, l458, 703 [PubMed]
5. Blume S. Histories of cochlear implantation. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:1257–68. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00164-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
6. Burg W. Dynamic Ethics. J Value Inq. 2003;37:13–34. doi: 10.1023/A:1024009125065. [CrossRef]
7. Clausen J. Moving minds: ehical aspects of neural motor prostheses. Biotechnol J. 2008;3:1493–1501. doi: 10.1002/biot.200800244. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
8. Clausen J. Man, machine and in between. Nature. 2009;457:1080–1081. doi: 10.1038/4571080a. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
9. EGE—European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2005) Ethical aspects of ICT implants in the human body. opinion no. 20. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/avis20_en.pdf
10. Ford PJ. Neurosurgical implants: clinical protocol considerations. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2007;16:308–311. doi: 10.1017/S096318010707034X. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
11. Ford P, Kubu C. Ameliorating or exacerbating: surgical ‘prosthesis’ in addiction. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7:29–32. [PubMed]
12. Foster KR. Engineering the brain. In: Illes J, editor. Neuroethics. Defining issues in theory, practice and policy. Oxford: Oxford University; 2006. pp. 185–200.
13. Gillet G. Cyborgs and moral identity. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:79–83. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.012583. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
14. Glannon W. Bioethics and the brain. Oxford: Oxford University; 2007.
15. Glannon W. Our brains are not us. Bioethics. 2009;23:321–329. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01727.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
16. Glannon W. Stimulating brains, altering minds. J Med Ethics. 2009;35:289–292. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.027789. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
17. Graham-Rowe D (2006) Catching seizures before they occur. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.technologyreview.com/biotech/17124/
18. Gray CH. Cyborg ctizen: politics in the posthuman age. New York: Routledge; 2001.
19. Greene J, Cohen J. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond B. 2004;359:1775–1785. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1546. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
20. Hansson SO. Implant ethics. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:519–525. doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.009803. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
21. Haraway D. A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In: Haraway D, editor. Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge; 1991. pp. 149–181.
22. Healy D. The creation of psychopharmacology. Cambridge: Harvard University; 2000.
23. Hochberg L, Taylor D. Intuitive prosthetic limb control. Lancet. 2007;369:345–346. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60164-0. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
24. Hochberg L, et al. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature. 2006;442:164–171. doi: 10.1038/nature04970. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
25. Hughes J. Citizen cyborg: why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Cambridge: Westview; 2004.
26. Keiper A. The age of neuroelectronics. The New Atlantis Winter. 2006;2006:4–41. [PubMed]
27. Keulartz JM, Korthals MS, Swierstra T, editors. Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2002.
28. Keulartz J, Schermer M, Korthals M, Swierstra T. Ethics in technological culture: a programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Sci Technol human values. 2004;29(1):3–29. doi: 10.1177/0162243903259188. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
29. Koops B, van Schooten H, Prinsen B (2004) Recht naar binnen kijken: een toekomstverkenning van huisrecht, lichamelijke integriteit en nieuwe opsporingstechnieken, eJure, ITER series 70. Retrieved from http://www.ejure.nl/mode=display/downloads/dossier_id=296/id=301/Deel_70_Koops.pdf
30. Lamme V. De geest uit de fles. Dies rede. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 2006.
31. Levy N. Neuroethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University; 2007.
32. Leentjes AFG, et al. Manipuleerbare wilsbekwaamheid: een ethisch probleem bij elektrostimulatie van de nucleaus subthalamicus voor een ernstige ziekte van Parkinson. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004;148:1394–1397. [PubMed]
33. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GB. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:406–411. doi: 10.1038/nrg2360. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
34. Mooij A. Toerekeningsvatbaarheid. Over handelingsvrijheid. Amsterdam: Boom; 2004.
35. Moreno JD. DARPA on your mind. Cerebrum. 2004;6:91–99. [PubMed]
36. Morse S. Voluntary control of behavior and responsibility. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7:12–13. [PubMed]
37. Morse SJ. Determinism and the death of folk psychology: two challenges to responsibility from neuroscience. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology. 2008;9:1–35.
38. Rabins P, et al. Scientific and ethical issues related to deep brain stimulation for disorders of mood, behavior and thought. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66:931–37. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.113. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
39. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS. Converging technologies for improving human performance. Arlington: National Science Foundation; 2002.
40. Rose N. Neurochemical selves. Society. 2003;41:46–59. doi: 10.1007/BF02688204. [CrossRef]
41. Roskies A. Neuroimaging and inferential distance. Neuroethics. 2008;1:19–30. doi: 10.1007/s12152-007-9003-3. [CrossRef]
42. Schermer M. Gedraag Je! Ethische aspecten van gedragsbeïnvloeding door nieuwe technologie in de gezondheidszorg. Rotterdam: NVBE; 2007.
43. Smart JJC. Free will, praise and blame. In: Watson G, editor. Free will. 2. New York: Oxford University; 2003. pp. 58–71.
44. Smits M. Taming monsters: the cultural domestication of new technology. Tech Soc. 2006;28:489–504. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.09.008. [CrossRef]
45. Strawson P. Freedom and resentment. In: Watson G, editor. Free will. 2. New York: Oxford University; 2003. pp. 72–93.
46. Synofzik M, Schlaepfer TE. Stimulating personality: ethical criteria for deep brain stimulation in psychiatric patients for enhancement purposes. Biotechnol J. 2008;3:1511–1520. doi: 10.1002/biot.200800187. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
47. Vargas M. The revisionist’s guide to responsibility. Philos Stud. 2005;125:399–429. doi: 10.1007/s11098-005-7783-z. [CrossRef]
48. Warwick K. I, cyborg. London: Century; 2004.
49. Wegner DM. The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge: MIT; 2002.
50. Weinberger S (2007) Pentagon to merge the next-gen binoculars with soldiers’ brain. Retrieved September 15 2009 from http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2007/05/binoculars

Remote Control of the Brain and Human Nervous System

Remote Control of the Brain and Human Nervous System

The USA and the European Union invest since the beginning of the millenium billions of dollars and euros into brain research. As a result of this research perfect maps of the brain were developed, including the areas of the brain that control the activity of different body organs or parts where higher brain activities, such as speech and thoughts, are taking place. The brain activities corresponding to different actions in those areas were also deciphered.

Thanks to the knowledge of specific locations of different centers in the brain and frequencies of the neuronal activity in them, teams of physicians are now capable of helping many people who were in the past, for different reasons, unable to participate in a normal life. There exist prostheses, which are controlled directly from the brain centers that normally control the movement of the limbs (see this) and enable people, who lost them, to use the prosthesis in a way similar to the way normal people use their limbs. Higher brain activities were produced as well. In 2006 scientists placed into the brain of a completely paralyzed man an implant, which transferred the activity of his brain into different devices and enabled him to open his e-mail, control his TV set and control his robotic arm. Other paralyzed people were able to search the Internet, play computer games and drive their electrical wheelchairs (see this).

Thanks to extensive brain research, computers were taught to understand the neuronal activity so much so that they are now capable of using the activity of our brain to reproduce our perceptions. Canadian scientists demonstrated an experiment, where the computer could interpret the electroencephalographical recordings from the brain to produce the painting of a face that the subject of experiment was perceiving (see this).

In the opposite way the data, processed by the computer in the way that will make them intelligible for the nervous system, can be transmitted into the brain and produce there a new reality. When an implant is placed in the brain and connected to a camera, placed on spectacles, for people whose photoreceptors in their retina stopped working, the sight is at least partially restored. In this case the camera on the spectacles is transmitting into the implant light frequencies and the implant re-transmits them in frequencies which “understand” the neurons processing the visual perceptions (see this).

In California scientists developed a device, which can register the brain waves and, using analysis, find among them consonants and vowels and in this way transform our thoughts to words. A paralyzed man could use this device to write without using a keyboard. Presently the accuracy of the device reaches 90%.  Scientists believe that within five years they will manage to develop a smartphone, to which their device could be connected (see this).

Just like in the case of visual perception it is possible, when knowing the algorithms of brain processing of words, to generate algorithms of different words in the computer and transmit them into the brain in ultrasound frequencies and in this way produce in the human brain particular “thoughts”.

Everybody will easily fall victim to the proposal that, instead of typing or searching with the use of mouse, his computer or cell phone could react directly to his brain’s activity and take down his thoughts directly to the documents or carry out operations that has just occurred to him.

As a matter of fact Apple and Samsung companies have already developed prototypes of necessary electroencephalographical equipment, which can be placed on top of a head and transmit electromagnetic waves produced by the brain into the prototypes of new smart phones. The smart phones should analyze those waves, find out what are the intentions of their owners and carry them out. Apple and Samsung companies expect that the direct connection with brains will gradually replace computer keyboards, touch screens, mouse and voice orders (see this). When the system is complete, it will be feasible for hackers, government agencies and foreign government’s agencies to implant thoughts and emotions in people’s minds and “hearts“, when they will be connected to internet or cell phone systems.

In 2013 scientists in the USA could infer from the brain activity the political views of people and distinguish democrats from republicans and in 2016 scientists used transcranial magnetic stimulation to make subjects of experiment more positive towards criticism to their country, than the participants whose brains were unaffected (see this).

Last year historian Juval Noah Harari was invited to deliver a speech at the World economic Forum in Davos. The editor of the British daily Financial Times stressed, when introducing him, that it is not usual to invite a historian to speak to most important world economists and politicians. Juval Noah Harari warned in his speech against the rise of new totality, based on the access to human brain. He said:

“Once we have algorithms that can understand you better than you understand yourself, they could predict my desires, manipulate my feelings and even make decisions on my behalf. And if we are not careful the outcome can be the rise of digital dictatorships. In the 21st century we may be enslaved under digital dictatorships”

In a similar way the Stanford University researcher in neurology and Dolby Labs’ chief scientist Poppy Crum warned at the conference in Las Vegas:

“Your devices will know more about you than you will. I believe we need to think about how [this data] could be used“.

In April 2017 neuroethicist at the University of Basel Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno, a human rights lawyer at the University of Zurich, writing in the journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy, published the article “Toward new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology“ where they called for the creation of legislation which would protect human right to freedom and other human rights from the abuse of technologies opening access to the human brain. In the article they wrote that “the mind is a kind of last refuge of personal freedom and self-determination” and “at present, no specific legal or technical safeguard protects brain data from being subject to the same data-mining and privacy intruding measures as other types of information“. Among the world media only the British newspaper The Guardian wrote about their proposal (see this). This fact suggests that in the actual democratic world there exists no political will to forbid remote control of human thoughts and feelings, no matter that such perspective breaks elementary principles of democracy.

In 2016 and 2017 10 European organizations tried to convince the European Parliament and the European Commission to enact the legislation that would ban the remote control of activity of the human nervous system, since pulsed microwaves could be used to manipulate the human nervous system at a distance at present time already (see this). Then in 2017, 19 world organizations addressed the G20 meeting with the same proposal. They received no positive response to their effort.

To achieve the ban of the use of remote mind control technologies it is necessary to work out an international agreement. In the past century the USA and Russia built systems (HAARP and Sura), capable to produce, by manipulation of the ionosphere, extra long electromagnetic waves in frequencies corresponding to frequencies of the activity of the human nervous system and in this way to control the brain activity of populations of vast areas of this planet (See this, “Psychoelectronic Threat to Democracy“). At the beginning of this year China announced the building of a similar, more advanced, system. The Chinese daily The South China Morning Post admitted in its article that the system could be used to control the activity of the human nervous system.

The politicians should, instead of classifying those weapons of mass destruction, make effort to create more democratic system of international politics to replace the current system of struggle for military power. Only in this way conditions could be provided for the ban of use of   If this does not happen, in a few years there will be no chance to preserve democracy.

By Mojmir Babacek

Mojmir Babacek is the founder of the International Movement for the Ban of the Manipulation of the Human Nervous System by Technical Means,  He is the author of numerous articles on the issue of mind manipulation. 


Now declassified & available! Russian Quantum Leap technology enhances RNA/DNA, cures diseases, stops Bio hacking

Now declassified & available online! Russian Quantum Leap enhances RNA, DNA & health, cures diseases ( e.g. diabetes, cancer 2), stops TI targeting. 

Now declassified & available online! Russian Quantum Leap technology enhances RNA, DNA & health, cures diseases (e.g. diabetes, cancer 2), stops TI targeting.

By Alfred Lambremont Webre






Watch Russian Television RT Interview with Magnus Olsson [Seen by 34 million persons]

Mind Control – Remote Neural Monitoring: Daniel Estulin and Magnus Olsson on Russia Today

You Tube:      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9bd-B2dqCM  

VANCOUVER, BC – Newly arrived from Russian Quantum Leap by the American Reaserch and Development. Founder and Sole Owner Irene Caesar Ph.D. Magnus Olsson and Madlen Namro, are joined by their colleagues Mårten Hernebring to launch the public version of Quantum Leap technology of Wave Genome Irene Caesar Ph.D, a declassified technology used by Russian Special Forces to enhance DNA, RNA, personal health profile and performance, eye and vision health, as well as provide personal protection against Transhumanist agenda weaponry including remote directed energy weapon [DEW] and psychetronic attacks, such as “V2K (Voice To Skull) and cancer guns, subliminal advertising and psychic attacks”.

ZHARP, authorized distributors outside Russia for the ULTIMATE TESLA GENERATOR

“The information-wave technology of the Laser Bioholography has been perfected by decades of research experience and clinical trials; it has been patented, licensed and certified by the Russian Ministry of Health; and, at the present moment, it is widely commercialized all over Russia. The information-wave technology of Laser Bioholography is based upon the application of Quantum Physics to Genetics, a new theory of Genetics, which is called Structuralist Genetics, and the application of the stabilized He-Ne lasers with internal mirrors.”

ZHARP-Enterprises Website


Full details of this first-ever public roll-out of Russian classified protective and health-status enhancing technology are set out in the above Panel interview and at Quantum Leap’s distributors website at:


Quantum Leap Scalar Technology online

Quantum Leap technology, now available online through mini-Tesla Psi generators from the https://www.zharp.net/ website and through smart-phone apps, reportedly enhances the user’s RNA, DNA & health profile, prevents and cures diseases such as diabetes, Stage 2 cancer, and stops Transhumanist Agenda weapons such as Voice to Skull and electromagnetic remote targeting.

The Quantum Leap technology’s Mini-Tesla Generators come with Digital Pharmacy and a subscription service.

Quantum Leap technology, in applications developed in conjunction with Russian scientist Irene Caesar PhD. According to Dr. Caesar, the technology results in “Rejuvenation of all the Physiological systems, including endocrine system, digestive system, cardiovascular system, hearing / eye sight, reproductive system, intellectual abilities, improvement of memory.”

Some features of the Quantum Leap Ultimate Generator

According to Wave Genome Irene Caesar Ph.D, “The device is easy to wear in the form of a pendant cased in pearl, completely unobtrusive, and people can’t tell exactly what it is because it is cased in pearl and does not look too unusual or like a “medical device”, etc. The device is indestructible.  The device is waterproof for basic small splashes, but should not be immersed in water.

Global Brain

The team uses a high resolution picture of yourself from early childhood (around 4-6 years of age) to develop sophisticated holography matrices from the picture using laser technologies and quantum technologies including scalar waves.  They are able to recreate your energy field from when you were a child in a personal digital wave matrix and then use the device to continuously feed your current energy field with information from your childhood energy field.  This helps to restore your current energy field to healthier conditions.  This newer model has logarithmically more powerful protection features compared to the older versions of this device. 

This new model still comes with all the health features of the older model including the E-Pharmacy, and ongoing health monitoring by professionals.  The older more generic version of the device has been worn by members of parliament and Special Forces in Russia as well as the Russian Olympic Team. Over 5000 scientists/researchers from Russia have collaborated to work on this special project developing this device using the most advanced science in the world.

Some benefits of the Ultimate Generator:

The advanced technologies in the device can neutralize psychotronic/electronic attacks.  The device is able to eliminate V2K.   You can sign up for a monthly membership service to have the expert professional staff at the Moscow clinic in Russia monitor your health on an ongoing basis.  If anything goes wrong with your health they are able to correct deviations from normal even before you notice symptoms of any actual medical condition.  If medical conditions exist, many of them can be completely healed. You can receive medications remotely administered through the device.  They get filtered through your own energy field and are guaranteed to never cause any adverse side effects. 

The device helps to boost your immune system to diminish susceptibility to any illness.  The device can help neutralize the negative effects of cosmic radiation when you fly in an airplane long distances.  It can also reduce jet lag as well as keep you healthy while traveling. The device can help boost your energy, can help you sleep better, and can help you recover from any stressful events, sleep deprivation, etc., much faster.  It can help you think more clearly and improve overall cognitive function. ( Irene Caesar Ph.D.)

How purchasing works:

You can buy online at the website.  Please see


Choose which version of the product you want to purchase.  We recommend the Ultimate Generator as it is the most powerful version.  Payments are processed using Paypal and other methods.  You will be contacted to send a high resolution childhood picture of yourself.  You will receive the device in the mail within 6 weeks.  It takes this long to produce this device and to customize it for each individual.  But don’t worry, it will be worth the wait!

Tesla Glasses


The Panel also discusses Tesla glasses that have been developed and successfully used by Russian Security Forces for prevention and correction of:

  • Stress and its consequences;
  • Deterioration of the physical and mental performance;
  • Reduction of immunity and the bodily defenses;
  • Eye diseases;
  • Diseases of the internal organs and physiological systems

Tesla Glasses

Tesla Glasses

According to Wave Genome Tesla Glasses use the method of Polarized Holography. Polarized Holography is the application of Quantum Physics for the purpose of rejuvenating all organs of the person through the Eye Crystal (Eye Lens and Iris). It is proven to provide significant physical and mental improvement, including a significant improvement in brain functions: decision speed, attention and memory.

The method consists in the control of the brain via triggering the holographic signal in the eye, and its modulation. This control overwrites any verbal and mental imperatives, is non-local (can be used for instantaneous transmission of information at infinitely large distances), instantaneous (exceeds speed of light), and simultaneously reaching out towards every cell in the body.

The method is based upon Quantum Physics, specifically, upon the theory and technology of Polarized Holography, which uses the modulation of the holographic signal according to the Kozyrev Mirror principle.

The method is based upon the special ability of an eye to convert any linear signal into the holographic signal. The process of this conversion consists in the emergence of the scalar wave diffraction grating, polarization and refraction toward the zero center of the wave crystal (torus). Since the universe is holographic, we can record and transmit information only via the holographic signal, and through the zero center of the wave crystal. The zero center of every toroidal wave crystal coincides from the zero center of every chromosome on the cellular level, and every atom and subatomic particle on the subatomic level to the zero center of our galaxy.

Any healing, rejuvenation, and mental, psychic, and physical enhancement are based upon the ability to produce, control and enhance the holographic signal. The holographic signal instantaneously reaches the zero center of every wave crystal in our body, from the subatomic and atomic to the molecular levels – from the zero center of our skull and every bone to the zero center of every metacentric chromosome. Our eyes, skull, bones and chromosomes are centered and focused similar to our eye crystal according to the laws of the geometrical optics.

Hence, the eye is a very unique receiver, transmitter, and producer of the holographic signal. And that is precisely why vision is a trigger of brain activity. Via correct triggering the holographic signal in the zero center of the eye crystal, we can immediately reach the zero center of the toroidal wave crystal of our brain, thus delivering controlling information instantaneously into the zero center of the wave crystal of every metacentric chromosome in cell division, and into the zero center of the wave crystal of every bone, so that stem cells are programmed in a correct way in the bone marrow.

Correct triggering consists in the modulation of the holographic signal in the eye. The modulation of the holographic signal in Tesla Glasses consists in (1) modulation by the Schumann holographic signal; (2) modulation by human Brain holographic signal; (3) modulation by the holographic signal of a healthy organ and physiological system, recorded upon the chip in the glasses. It is combined with the modulation by the narrowband light-emitting diode sources of five colors. Research had shown that five colors, used by the glasses, benefit organs and physiological systems. The signal for every color is produced from the holographic signal of healthy organs and physiological systems, and, then, it is matched with the color. The signal of the color is not simply the color frequency.

The carrier holographic signal is the individual holographic signal of the user – the unique [indestructible and uncreated] non-local wave matrix of the user. This is the primary holographic signal. The modulation holographic signals are the holographic enhancers, which help the unique [indestructible and uncreated] non-local wave matrix of the user get centered and focused in this dimension (on this planet). These are secondary holographic signals.

The advantage of the glasses over other Quantum Leap Polarized Holography devices is that glasses use an eye as a filter for filtering out all harmful linear signals, which unseal wave crystals. For example, microwave radiation shortens brain waves via “unsealing” the involuted wave crystals, thus, literally lowering the intellectual potential of people.


Thus, the effect of the Tesla Glasses is based not simply upon the superficial stimulation of innervation. The stimulation of innervation, tone of the eye muscles, blood circulation, regeneration, and enhancement of all other biochemical and bioelectrical processes in the body are based upon the structural efficacy of Polarized Holography, which centers and focuses chromosomes, and prevents the transformation of metacentric chromosomes into acrocentric chromosomes.

The modulation via secondary holographic signals (see above) allows for the emergence of the most coherent and sophisticated scalar wave diffraction grating that produces the more clear zero focus within the wave crystal (of a wave torus on every level from the atomic, subatomic to cellular and molecular levels).

The modulation occurs through the designated areas of Iris, each one corresponding to a specific organ in the body. As a result, the user achieves the stimulation of the projection zones in the Iris, each one being connected to a specific organ in the body.

In addition, Tesla Glasses use the same effect as the binaural therapy. Binaural therapy uses the stereo effect, when signal in one ear gets into the brain with delay in relation to signal in the other ear. This produces the emergence of the complex scalar wave diffraction grating in the skull, based upon Kozyrev Mirror principle (polarization, refraction and emergence of the zero center of the wave crystal). Similar to this, Tesla Glasses use the stereo effect of color signal, when color signal in one eye gets into the brain with delay in relation to signal in the other eye.

Ophthalmologists have found that all healthy people have rhythmic alternation visual perception. Man sees in turn by the right eye, and, then, by the left eye at regular intervals.

These intervals last for 2-3 seconds. The research was conducted using modern 3D technologies. And if one eye is covered by a blue filter, and the other eyes is covered by the red filter, the healthy person sees both colors simultaneously and separately. The left eye sees 20% of the image, and the right eye sees 80% of the image.

With age, these rhythms get broken. But the restoration of the “biological clock” is possible using Polarized Holography, modulated by color signals, with the frequency of the alpha rhythm of the brain of a healthy person. And, as the positive effect, we can achieve a significant rejuvenation of the body.

More information on Tesla Glasses is available, and Tesla Glasses can be purchased at:







Send A Message.


Alfred Lambremont Webre Contact/News:

Assassination is the murder of a person, often (but not or ruler, usually for political reasons or paymen. Or the common man.

Assassination is the murder of a person, often (but not always) or ruler, usually for political reasons or paymen. Or the common man.

brain control

An assassination may be prompted by, political, or military motives; it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security or insurgent group’s command to carry out the homicide.

The World Coalition against Covert Harassment is committed to raising awareness to the legal systems as well as to the medical and scientific community to the crime of illegal biomedical and weaponry research committed on citizens in the European Union and beyond. As a European network, EUCACH acts as a lobbying and advocacy platform towards the EU. Using our international network of scientific and technology experts, partner civil and human rights organisations as well as important stakeholders in civil society, we provide consultancy services to the EU Institutions based on our expertise. EUCACH’s organisational goal is to influence EU legislation and the decision-making process in calling for a worldwide ban on weapons that might enable any form of manipulation of human beings.

Online-connected brains and neural networks.

“ICT” = Information and Communication Technologies

“BMI” = Brain Machine Interface, brain-computer interconnection

“FET” = Future and Emerging Technologies

“S.T.” = Synthetic Telepathy

“A.I.” = Artificial Intelligence.

On the road to mind control: DARPA’s new program will use a chip to connect brains.For additional background to the latest press release from DARPA posted in full below, I encourage you to read the following selection of linked articles
where I discuss the scope and chronology of what is being studied. Therein, you will find that the U.S. BRAIN Initiative and its European counterpart, the Human Brain Project, are not spending multi-billions of dollars on neuroscience research
simply to help people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and organic brain dysfunction. It is, perhaps first and foremost, a military endeavor that has wide ramifications if even 1/10th of what is being studied comes to fruition. In short, it’s more about mind control than it is about brain restoration and improvement. Please keep this in mind when you read DARPA’s emphasis on “new therapies.” •Obama Doubles Down on BRAIN Project and Military Mind Control

•Mind Control Scientists Find New Memory Manipulation Technology
•Secret DARPA Mind Control Project Revealed: Leaked Document
•The 9 Goals of Mind Control: Interim Report
•New Mind Reading Research Aims to Synchronize Humans
•Nanoparticles Enable Remote Control Brains Via Magnetic Field: New Study

DARPA Press Release:

Darpa mind

A new DARPA program aims to develop an implantable neural interface able to provide unprecedented signal resolution and data-transfer bandwidth between the human brain and the digital world. The interface would serve as a translator, converting between the electrochemical language used by neurons in the brain and the ones and zeros that constitute the language of information technology. The goal is to achieve this communications link in a biocompatible device no larger than one cubic centimeter in size, roughly the volume of two nickels stacked back to back.

The program, Neural Engineering System Design (NESD), stands to dramatically enhance research capabilities in neurotechnology and provide a foundation for new therapies.

“Today’s best brain-computer interface systems are like two supercomputers trying to talk to each other using an old 300-baud modem,” said Phillip Alvelda, the NESD program manager. “Imagine what will become possible when we upgrade our tools to really open the channel between the human brain and modern electronics.”

Among the program’s potential applications are devices that could compensate for deficits in sight or hearing by feeding digital auditory or visual information into the brain at a resolution and experiential quality far higher than is possible with current technology.

Neural interfaces currently approved for human use squeeze a tremendous amount of information through just 100 channels, with each channel aggregating signals from tens of thousands of neurons at a time. The result is noisy and imprecise. In contrast, the NESD program aims to develop systems that can communicate clearly and individually with any of up to one million neurons in a given region of the brain.

Achieving the program’s ambitious goals and ensuring that the envisioned devices will have the potential to be practical outside of a research setting will require integrated breakthroughs across numerous disciplines including neuroscience, synthetic biology, low-power electronics, photonics, medical device packaging and manufacturing, systems engineering, and clinical testing. In addition to the program’s hardware challenges, NESD researchers will be required to develop advanced mathematical and neuro-computation techniques to first transcode high-definition sensory information between electronic and cortical neuron representations and then compress and represent those data with minimal loss of fidelity and functionality.

To accelerate that integrative process, the NESD program aims to recruit a diverse roster of leading industry stakeholders willing to offer state-of-the-art prototyping and manufacturing services and intellectual property to NESD researchers on a pre-competitive basis. In later phases of the program, these partners could help transition the resulting technologies into research and commercial application spaces.

To familiarize potential participants with the technical objectives of NESD, DARPA will host a Proposers Day meeting that runs Tuesday and Wednesday, February 2-3, 2016, in Arlington, Va. The Special Notice announcing the Proposers Day meeting is available athttps://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/DARPA-SN-16-16/listing.html. More details about the Industry Group that will support NESD is available athttps://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/DARPA-SN-16-17/listing.html. A Broad Agency Announcement describing the specific capabilities sought is available at: http://go.usa.gov/cP474.

DARPA anticipates investing up to $60 million in the NESD program over four years.

NESD is part of a broader portfolio of programs within DARPA that support President Obama’s brain initiative. For more information about DARPA’s work in that domain, please visit:http://www.darpa.mil/…/our-r…/darpa-and-the-brain-initiative.

FET and ICT research and development (of the new “computer – brain language”) allows computers to read and learn human thought patterns by using injectable brain – machine – interface.

About the same brain-machine interface has has been used to cure Parkinson’s disease , Alzheimer’s and depression can also be used for accessing the brain’s memory.

brain mind

Digital Mind


Link to document

The new software for the brain-machine interface in nano electronics combined with “Europe’s new information technology” provides the researchers with the possibillities for reading and taking “software images” of the brain’s neuron network.

A method that provides high-resolution copies of the brains cognitive behavior and human perception.

Tomorrow’s high-speed computers and related research has evolved into a sophisticated “computer game” with “mind reading” on real people….

These research methods are unknown to our society’s legal system!

So how can research on the brain by “serious” (criminal) organizations in ICT-FET be stopped?

SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY for medicine or mind reading is a direct communication with nanoelectronics between computer and human brain.

Synthetic telepathy is a communication system based on thought, not speech.

It can be used to control for example a prosthesis and cure diseases such as Parkinson’s disease but can also decode the patterns used to study cognitive behavior such as memory, learning and emotion. With nano technology, the digital information can be recorded using the new quantum-inspired computers.

Simulation of behavior can be identified and provide diagnostic data for identifying the precursors to diseases such as dementia, stroke and myocardial infarction

This letter is intended to demonstrate a paradox in the Swedish so-called “protection of human rights” and thus the entire Swedish justice system. Synthetic telepathy could, as practiced in Sweden, lie behind an unknown number of violent crimes and suicides due to research deliberately kept hidden from regulators.

Doctors and psychiatrics diagnose people with “voices in his head” following their “manuals”. DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) published by the American Psychiatric Association and the ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Disorders and Related Health Problems).

This is an old-fashioned black and white and diagnose when the EU priority FET ICT research and develop new information technologies adapted to nano-electronics.


Ulf Gorman writes in the book that with nano technology, we open the doors to an unknown area where we do not know how to apply ethics. What should be and what should not be allowed when you implant a chip that can both read and influence the brain? He takes the example of studying learning and memory.

Micro Implants can provide unprecedented opportunities to understand how we learn and remember things, and hence why we forget and find it difficult to learn. And it can be understood as a form of abuse to look like that into our most private mental world.

Lund University writes about the development of nano-electrodes that can both listen and communicate with neuronal synapses and their cell membranes.

EU priority ICT and FET research are talking about a “A whole new communication technology in Europe” “It will help us understand and exploit the ways in which social and biological systems, organization and evolution, will pave the way for the development of new opportunities for next-generation software and network technologies “.
To understand how the human brain works not only leads to innovations in medicine but also provides new models for energy, fault-tolerant and adaptive computing technologies “.
An initiative of the Virtual Human Physiology that are individually tailored and virtual simulations of the human body where you would expect enormous progress in disease prevention and health care.
The pioneering work carried out also on new ideas such as artificial living cells, synthetic biology, chemical communication, collective intelligence and two-way interface between brain and machine.

New Brain

Brain reading

Other sources, e.g The UCI (University of California Irvin. Department of Cognitive Science) describes the development of Synthetic Telepathy:

Collaboration between cognitive science, neuro-science, specialists in speech recognition and brain imaging will develop a brain-machine interface. This device could help paralyzed and soldiers would be able to send messages directly from the brain to a computer.

Researcher Michael D’Zmura, President of the UCI describes that the system begins with “the little voice in your head“.

How can a medical diagnosis unequivocally describe people’s perception of voices in their head and that no alternative can exist except mental disease.

Why? -because it is a prerequisite to be able to “hear” voices for the use of new information technology?

This is why these researchers must be forced to go public and announce this new scientific communication technology.

This paradox must be investigated immediately.With the exclusion of the development of a Swedish and European military force with superior two-way “radio” communication with the brain.


A number of past court cases are more or less directly caused by S.T. This “voice to skull” technology must immediately be taken into consideration as an alternative for triggering a number of previously committed violent crimes and suicides.

During the development of BMI, software and network technologies are also computerized and long distance imaging of peoples cognitive behavior and perception. Material that is recorded in the computer that runs the real time simulation and creation of artificial intelligence (for initializing A.I. and computerized decision making.)

The image of the brain’s “machine-code” is probably the most comprehensive and advanced ever made. Cognitive behavior depicted and simulated, language and meaning of the words for the subjects are identified. Human perception and mapping how the brain handles information, the image of mathematics reached its perfection.

neuron wave A new research scandal and the fatal consequences for the wider community.

Around the clock the computerized study goes on using collective, artificial intelligence and self-learning systems. The victims testimonies tells us that you can sadly conclude unequivocally that the studies will not be completed until the victim in one way or another has been broken down and / or otherwise inactivated.

This provides power to simulate decomposition for the digital copy thus the fact that the criminal research will not end and is never disclosed.

Descriptions to the vulnerable people who eat psychotropic drugs due to their experiences the experiments and testing goes on, various medicines can affect the “test objects” (or guinea pigs) everything is recorded and compared with previous values (from the multi-annual copy of their real-time neural network and thus the registration of their behavior.)

Obviously this is a disgusting and illegal way to meet the advanced development of tomorrow’s medicine.

The “studies” have resulted in enormous damage to many subjects.The number of unrecorded victims/subjects is probably very high.Families are fragmented, the children of these families are suffering tremendously. One of the subjects have recently been hospitalized with a cracked skull, caused by disconnecting the balance system remotely. The accident occurred in public settings.

A new research scandal and the fatal consequences for the wider community.

To influence the balance system is another typical example of how technology is used against the victim to incapacitate them for society. Direct assassination attempts on several previous occasions orchestrated by the brain control deliberately strikes out the human balance system, Why this happens is likely as an alternative to the mentally ill to be treated (as “possessed”) or having a neurological disease.

brain world

Brain – copying with BMI and broadband access is definitely no longer a marginal research.Employers have over the years lost millions of dollars and cut-downs is to be expected due to excluded employees. Broken families, children who, years later can not study or work is now forced to seek psychiatric care.

Siblings, grandparents and their closest friends are suffering tremendously. Advanced Medical and hospital care due to study design is a mockery of health-care and doctors who are not familiar with this research. Insurance in the multi-million figures was raised through direct damage caused by brain control. Property for millions of dollars are lost.

Injuries and privacy intrusion of thousands of people is done through “volunteers” that serve as multimedia machines i.e node for the recording of all contacts they have, such as politicians, scientists, lawyers, friends, acquaintances, relatives, international business relations, etc..

Security codes, access codes, etc. is with the new technology no longer private.How can we know that people are not equipped with the new brain-machine interface which makes the person a multimedia application with a function as a live missile is already deployed as nodes in the political and financial world of illegal recording of their conversations with the world?

A sinister JOY seems to embrace the researchers and perpetrators over this superior and powerful tool for mind control and copying brainwave patterns. The tool is, without a doubt, a weapon of offense and stealth.

Implant technology in these forms should immediately be classified as a lethal weapon! It communicates directly with the brain’s neurons and can bring the entire neural nervous system to a halt.(Exclusion of balance can be immediately implied on a victim.)

The technology is now used for purposes of breaking down the persons psyche, with serious accusations, threats, mock execution, incitement to suicide, physical violence, e.g, decrease and increase heart rate, pain in and around the heart, severe chest pains, sudden and painful headaches, difficulty to breathe, tampering with rectum, prostate and muscles to name a few.

The macabre in the use of this technology is that subjects are exposed to these atrocities while the society is not legally able to influence the situation. Sweden is in this matter a lawless country where the researchers grossly exploit the situation.

brain war

Face mind

This ultimate humiliation has reached a whole new level. The researchers tries with the enforced communication and slow decomposition enslave people with exhortations to try to see the individual results of the brain control. One can calculate due to the nature and perennial perspective that there are naturally a unrecorded number of people who have been driven to madness and death with this technology.

There is nowhere the victims can hide or escape the access signals to their thoughts. Scientists simulate with computers, 24/7 365 days a year to break down the subjects and stop them from trying to understand what’s happening to them…

A series of grotesque roles played in order to manipulate the brain, threats and statements that are mixed with modern technology. It is also in the researchers’ strategy to make the picture unclear for the subjects if they attempt to get an overall picture of who the perpetrator is and the real goals of the research, a military strategy conducted by veterans and experts in the matters.

The disrespectful research performed and visualized in a 3D virtual game world in the researchers’ computers, with no ethical boundaries and human rights but with real living human beings as “avatars”. It is quite similar to the popular interactive game “The Sims‘, But this game delivers human reality-based measurement data for research.

Cover-up of brain monitoring technologies means that the crime is waterproof, human rights laws and manipulated by a hidden militant regime researcher with expertise in information technology. In addition, the researchers say they in the dialogue to be the police power which in itself is an extremely serious offense.

For the victims– former high-performance hard-working people with families, children, an orderly life and social contacts. People who all his life been performing taxpayers. Because of a work-related mental fatigue and time on medical therapy sessions with the scientists the opportunity to take advantage of the situation of persons for investigation and contemporary development of the new BMI and brain monitoring technologies.

As these technologies and opportunities are not announced, but several instances re-written, must be able to use knowledge and skills which are available. Sweden is a small country and the people engaged in this activity may not be so difficult to identify and stop.

The researchers in these studies have assumed the right that during the permanent reproduction of human neurotransmitters in the long term also destroy them and their life’s work. The issue is called for; How affected society to know that the violent crime and suicide has been performed in the Stockholm area and Europe in recent years and clearly diagnosed as being caused by mental illness with the voices in heads is an expression of pure brain research!

By: Magnus Olsson



Awareness-raising campaigns to disseminate information and mobilise public opinion on the issue of covert technologies and techniques that enable the manipulation of human beings

Providing expert consultancy to key decision-makers on the creation of appropriate EU legislation to protect citizens from this kind of covert crimes.

Organising networking events (workshops, seminars, conferences) involving all actors concerned to exchange experiences and best practices for the establishment of clear ethical boundaries to strictly regulate the use of systems enabling the manipulation and control of human beings.

It is our philosophy that all men are equal before the law. Everybody’s right to life shall be protected. Nobody shall be subjected to torture or held in slavery. Any technologies and techniques capable of endangering the human physical and/or psychological health, to modify the individuals’ autonomy and affect their dignity should be strictly prohibited.

Read more about ICT – implants at the European Group on Ethics and New Technologies:


Terminology used in the document:

Cybernetics,,,,,, // Magnus Olsson

By: Magnus Olsson  (Sweden)

Humans Will Have Cloud-Connected Hybrid Brains by 2030, Ray Kurzweil Says

Humans Will Have Cloud-Connected Hybrid Brains by 2030, Ray Kurzweil Says


So, you think you’ve seen it all? You haven’t seen anything yet. By the year 2030, advancements will excel anything we’ve seen before concerning human intelligence. In fact, predictions offer glimpses of something truly amazing – the development of a human hybrid, a mind that thinks in artificial intelligence.

Ray Kurzweil, director of engineering at Google, spoke openly about this idea at the Exponential Finance Conference in New York. He predicts that humans will have hybrid brains able to connect to the cloud, just as with computers. In this cloud, there will be thousands of computers which will update human intelligence. The larger the cloud, the more complicated the thinking. This will all be connected using DNA strands called Nanobots. Sounds like a Sci-Fi movie, doesn’t it?

Brain mind

Kurzweil says:

“Our hybrid thinking will be a combination of biological and non-biological thought processes.”

By the end of 2030, our thinking should be almost entirely non-biological and able to function much like an external hard drive – having the ability to backup information as with technology. It seems we keep pushing further the ability of the human mind.

Kurzweil believes one of the true characteristics of the being human is the ability to continually surpass knowledge.

“We will always transcend our limitations-it’s human nature.” says Kurzweil.

Kurzweil wasn’t 100% accurate in his future predictions, but he was close enough. In 1990, he predicted several things for the year 2009, including portable computers and eyeglasses with the built-in computer screen. He didn’t, however, hit the nail on the head with self-driven cars. It was much later, this year, to be exact, that the idea touched the edge of mainstream technology. He was 86% accurate in his predictions, which is astonishing in itself.

brain wheels

Technological Takeover

No worries, there will probably not be a massive takeover by artificial intelligence. We have accounted for this long ago in other theories. For instance, fire provides a way to cook, but we have managed somehow to keep from burning everything down. The same rules apply here. We have taken the necessary precautions to safeguard ourselves from these horrors.

However, we must still play it safe. Kurzweil reminds us:

“Technology is a double-edged sword. It has its promise and its peril.”

Smart Dust: Real-time Tracking Of Everything, Everywhere…

Smart Dust: Real-time Tracking Of Everything, Everywhere

DARPA logo

TN Note: DARPA is a driver of Technocracy in the 21st Century. Its creation of computerized microscopic sensors no larger than a spec of dust will surpass the Internet of Things (IoT) by orders of magnitude. Known as “Smart Dust”, an area can be blanketed to achieve 100% real-time monitoring of everything in every nook and cranny. Also, Smart Dust can be incorporated in fabric, building materials, paint or any other substance use in construction, decoration or wearables.

brain control

The year is 2035, and Sgt. Bill Traverse and his team of commandos are performing a “sweep and clean” operation through a portion of the war-torn Mexico City. Their job is to find any hidden pockets of resistance and flush them out and back through the neutral zone or eliminate them. The drones that provide surveillance overhead cannot offer much support in the twisting alleys and passageways of the sprawling metropolis and the helmet-based HUD systems that soldiers are equipped with are useless in a city where all technical infrastructure was destroyed years ago.

Sgt. Traverse isn’t navigating blind, though. He and his team use Dust, portable packets of sensors that float in the air throughout the entire city and track movement, biometric indicators, temperature change and chemical composition of everything in their city. The Dust sensors send information back to their HUD displays through a communications receiver carried by a member of the team. Traverse can tell, from the readings that Dust gives him, if there are people around the next corner and if they are holding weapons. His team can then proceed accordingly …

This scene of Sgt. Traverse and his merry men is a fiction. The concept of Dust is not.

The idea of the Internet of Things is so passé. The general concept of the Internet of Things is that we can put a sensor on anything and have it send data back to a database through the Internet. In this way we can monitor everything, everywhere and build smarter systems that are more interactive than ever before.

Putting sensors on stuff? Boring. What if the sensors were in the air, everywhere? They could monitor everything—temperature, humidity, chemical signatures, movement, brainwaves—everything.

The technology is called Smart Dust and it’s not quite as crazy (or as new) as you might think.

Smart Dust as a concept originated out of a research project by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Research And Development Corporation (RAND) in the early 1990s. We use the military anecdote above because it was these military research groups that first conceptualized Smart Dust but the practical application of the technology can be applied to almost any industry. Dust in the fields monitoring the crops. Dust in the factories monitoring the output of machines. Dust in your body monitoring your entire state of well being. Dust in the forests tracking animal migration patterns, wind and humidity.

The entire world could be quantified with this type of ubiquitous sensor technology. But how does it really work?

READ MOORE:  http://technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/22/smart-dust-real-time-tracking-of-everything-everywhere/

They Really Do Want To Implant Microchips Into Your Brain

They Really Do Want To Implant Microchips Into Your Brain

Michael Snyder
American Dream
Aug 2, 2012

Are you ready to have a microchip implanted into your brain? That might not sound very appealing to you at this point, but this is exactly what the big pharmaceutical companies and the big technology companies have planned for our future.


They are pumping millions of dollars into researching “cutting edge” technologies that will enable implantable microchips to greatly “enhance” our health and our lives. Of course nobody is going to force you to have a microchip implanted into your brain when they are first introduced. Initially, brain implants will be marketed as “revolutionary breakthroughs” that can cure chronic diseases and that can enable the disabled to live normal lives. When the “benefits” of such technology are demonstrated to the general public, soon most people will want to become “super-abled”.

Just imagine the hype that will surround these implants when people discover that you can get rid of your extra weight in a matter of days or that you can download an entire college course into your memory in just a matter of hours. The possibilities for this kind of technology are endless, and it is just a matter of time before having microchips implanted into your brain is considered to be quite common. What was once science fiction is rapidly becoming reality, and it is going to change the world forever.

But aren’t there some very serious potential downsides to having microchips implanted into our brains?

Of course there are.

Unfortunately, this technology is not as far off as you might think, and most people are not even talking about what the negative consequences might be.

According to a recent article in the Financial Times, the pharmaceutical company of the future will include a “bioelectronics” business that “treats disease through electrical signalling in the brain and elsewhere.”

Diseases such as diabetes and epilepsy and conditions such as obesity and depression will be will be treated “through electronic implants into the brain rather than pills or injections.”

These implants will send electrical signals to cells and organs that are “malfunctioning”. People will be totally “cured” without ever having to pop a pill or go under the knife.

It sounds too good to be true, right?

Well, the Financial Times says that British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline is working very hard to develop these kinds of technologies. Moncef Slaoui, the head of research and development at GlaxoSmithKline, says that the “challenge is to integrate the work – in brain-computer interfaces, materials science, nanotechnology, micro-power generation – to provide therapeutic benefit.”

If a brain implant could cure a disease that you have been suffering from your whole life would you take it?

A lot of people are going to be faced with that kind of a decision in future years.

And this kind of technology is advancing very rapidly. In fact, some researchers have already had success treating certain diseases by implanting microchips into the brains of rats. The following is from a recent Mashable article….

Stroke and Parkinson’s Disease patients may benefit from a controversial experiment that implanted microchips into lab rats. Scientists say the tests produced effective results in brain damage research.

Rats showed motor function in formerly damaged gray matter after a neural microchip was implanted under the rat’s skull and electrodes were transferred to the rat’s brain. Without the microchip, rats with damaged brain tissue did not have motor function. Both strokes and Parkinson’s can cause permanent neurological damage to brain tissue, so this scientific research brings hope.

In addition, the U.S. government has been working on implantable microchips that would monitor the health of our soldiers and enhance their abilities in the field.

So this technology is definitely coming.

But it must be very complicated to get a microchip implanted into your brain, right?

Actually it is fairly simple.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the typical procedure is very quick and it often only requires just an overnight stay in the hospital….

Neural implants, also called brain implants, are medical devices designed to be placed under the skull, on the surface of the brain. Often as small as an aspirin, implants use thin metal electrodes to “listen” to brain activity and in some cases to stimulate activity in the brain. Attuned to the activity between neurons, a neural implant can essentially “listen” to your brain activity and then “talk” directly to your brain.

If that prospect makes you queasy, you may be surprised to learn that the installation of a neural implant is relatively simple and fast. Under anesthesia, an incision is made in the scalp, a hole is drilled in the skull, and the device is placed on the surface of the brain. Diagnostic communication with the device can take place wirelessly. When it is not an outpatient procedure, patients typically require only an overnight stay at the hospital.

But is it really safe to have a device implanted into your head that can “talk” directly to your brain?

Many large corporations are banking on the fact that in a world that is always hungry for new technology that most people will not be bothered by such things.

For example, Intel is working on sensors that will be implanted in the brain that will be able to directly control computers and cell phones. The following is an excerpt from a Computer World UK article….

By the year 2020, you won’t need a keyboard and mouse to control your computer, say Intel researchers. Instead, users will open documents and surf the web using nothing more than their brain waves.

Scientists at Intel’s research lab in Pittsburgh are working to find ways to read and harness human brain waves so they can be used to operate computers, television sets and cell phones. The brain waves would be harnessed with Intel-developed sensors implanted in people’s brains.

The scientists say the plan is not a scene from a sci-fi movie, Big Brother won’t be planting chips in your brain against your will. Researchers expect that consumers will want the freedom they will gain by using the implant.

Once again, this is not something that will be forced on you against your will.

These big corporations are banking on the fact that a lot of people will want to get these brain implants.

Even now, some video game makers are developing headsets that allow users to play games using their brain waves rather than a joystick or a control pad.

Other companies want to make it possible to directly connect your brain to the Internet.

As I have written about previously, IBM is aggressively working to develop this kind of technology. The following is from arecent IBM press release….

IBM scientists are among those researching how to link your brain to your devices, such as a computer or a smartphone. If you just need to think about calling someone, it happens. Or you can control the cursor on a computer screen just by thinking about where you want to move it.

Scientists in the field of bioinformatics have designed headsets with advanced sensors to read electrical brain activity that can recognize facial expressions, excitement and concentration levels, and thoughts of a person without them physically taking any actions.

The potential “benefits” of such technology are almost beyond imagination. An article on the website of the Science Channel put it this way….

If you could pump data directly into your gray matter at, say, 50 mbps — the top speed offered by one major U.S. internet service provider — you’d be able to read a 500-page book in just under two-tenths of a second.

How would the world change if you could download a lifetime of learning directly into your brain in a matter of weeks?

The possibilities are endless.

But so is the potential for abuse.

Implantable microchips that can “talk” directly to the brain would give a tyrannical government the ultimate form of control.

If you could download thoughts and feelings directly into the brains of your citizens, you could achieve total control and never have to worry that they would turn on you.

In fact, you could potentially program these chips to make your citizens feel good all the time. You could have these chips produce a “natural high” that never ends. That would make your citizens incredibly dependent on the chips and they would never want to give them up.

This kind of technology has the potential to be one of the greatest threats to liberty and freedom in the history of mankind.

At first these implantable microchips will be sold to us as one of the greatest “breakthroughs” ever, but in the end they could end up totally enslaving us.

So I will never be taking any kind of a brain implant, and I hope that you will not either.

Similar/Related Articles
  1. Humans ‘will be implanted with microchips’
  2. Scientists Successfully Implant Chip That Controls The Brain
  3. Brain Implant Allows Paralyzed Woman to Control a Robot with Her Thoughts
  4. After The Government Microchips Our Soldiers, How Long Will It Be Before They Want To Put A Microchip In YOU
  5. Microchip Implant to Link Your Health Records, Credit History, Social Security
  6. Animal microchips linked to causing cancer
  7. Are Populations Being Primed For Nano-Microchips Inside Vaccines?
  8. Edible Microchips, Biometric Identity Systems And Mind Reading Computers
  9. New Implantable Microchips to Medicate Patients
  10. Intel Wants Brain Implants in Its Customers’ Heads by 2020
  11. British Court Orders Singer Get “Medical Implant” for Drug Addiction
  12. Hacking The Human Brain


Mind-boggling! Science creates computer that can decode your thoughts and put them into words

Mind-boggling! Science creates computer that can decode your thoughts and put them into words

  • Technology could offer lifeline for stroke victims and people hit by degenerative diseases
  • In the study, a computer analyzed brain activity and reproduced words that people were hearing 

By Tamara Cohen
05:49 GMT, 1 February 2012

It sounds like the stuff of science fiction dreams – or nightmares.

Scientists believe they have found a way to read our minds, using a computer program that can decode brain activity in our brains and put it into words.

They say it could offer a lifeline to those whose speech has been affected by stroke or degenerative disease, but many will be concerned about the implications of a technique that can eavesdrop on thoughts and reproduce them.

Scroll down for video


Scientific breakthrough: An X-ray CT scan of the head of one of the volunteers, showing electrodes distributed over the brain's temporal lobe, where sounds are processed

Scientific breakthrough: An X-ray CT scan of the head of one of the volunteers, showing electrodes distributed over the brain’s temporal lobe, where sounds are processed


Weird science: Scientists believe the technique, shown here, could also be used to read and report what they were thinking of saying next

Weird science: Scientists believe the technique, shown here, could also be used to read and report what they were thinking of saying next

Neuroscientists at the University of California Berkeley put electrodes inside the skulls of brain surgery patients to monitor information from their temporal lobe, which is involved in the processing of speech and images.

As the patient listened to someone speaking, a computer program analysed how the brain processed and reproduced the words they had heard.



The scientists believe the technique could also be used to read and report what they were thinking of saying next.

In the journal PLoS Biology, they write that it takes attempts at mind reading to ‘a whole new level’.


Brain workings: Researchers tested 15 people who were already undergoing brain surgery to treat epilepsy or brain tumours

Brain workings: Researchers tested 15 people who were already undergoing brain surgery to treat epilepsy or brain tumours


Words with scientists: The top graphic shows a spectrogram of six isolated words (deep, jazz, cause) and pseudo-words (fook, ors, nim). At bottom, the speech segments how the words were reconstructed based on findings from the electrodes

Words with scientists: The top graphic shows a spectrogram of six isolated words (deep, jazz, cause) and pseudo-words (fook, ors, nim). At bottom, the speech segments how the words were reconstructed based on findings from the electrodes

Robert Knight, professor of psychology and neuroscience, added: ‘This is huge for patients who have damage to their speech mechanisms because of a stroke or Lou Gehrig’s [motor neurone] disease and can’t speak.

‘If you could eventually reconstruct imagined conversations from brain activity, thousands could benefit.’


The researchers tested 15 people who were already undergoing brain surgery to treat epilepsy or brain tumours.

They agreed to have up to 256 electrodes put on to the brain surface, as they listened to men and women saying individual words including nouns, verbs and names.


Testing: As a subject listened to someone speaking, a computer program analysed how the brain processed and reproduced the words they had heard

Breakthrough: The ability to scan the brain and read thoughts could offer a lifeline to those whose speech has been affected by a stroke or degenerative disease

Breakthrough: The ability to scan the brain and read thoughts could offer a lifeline to those whose speech has been affected by a stroke or degenerative disease

A computer programme analysed the activity from the electrodes, and reproduced the word they had heard or something very similar to it at the first attempt.


Co-author Brian Pasley said there is already mounting evidence that ‘perception and imagery may be pretty similar in the brain’.

Therefore with more work, brain recordings could allow scientists to ‘synthesise the actual sound a person is thinking, or just write out the words with a type of interface device.’

Their study also shows in sharp relief how the auditory system breaks down sound into its individual frequencies – a range of around 1 to 8,000 Hertz for human speech.

Pasley told ABC News: ‘This study mainly focused on lower-level acoustic characteristics of speech. But I think there’s a lot more happening in these brain areas than acoustic analysis’.

He added: ‘We sort of take it for granted, the ability to understand speech. But your brain is doing amazing computations to accomplish this feat.’


Analyzing words: This graphic breaks down the three ways the brain hears spoken words and processes sounds

Analyzing words: This graphic breaks down the three ways the brain hears spoken words and processes sounds

This information does not change inside the brain but can be accurately mapped and the original sound decoded by a computer. British expert Professor Jan Schnupp, from Oxford University who was not involved in the study said it was ‘quite remarkable’.

‘Neuroscientists have of course long believed that the brain essentially works by translating aspects of the external world, such as spoken words, into patterns of electrical activity’, he said.

‘But proving that this is true by showing that it is possible to translate these activity patterns back into the original sound (or at least a fair approximation of it) is nevertheless a great step forward, and it paves the way to rapid progress toward biomedical applications.’

He played down fears it could lead to range of ‘mind reading’ devices as the technique can only, at the moment, be done on patients willing to have surgery.

Non-invasive brain scans are not powerful enough to read this level of information so it will remain limited to ‘small numbers of willing patients’.

He added: ‘Perhaps luckily for all those of us who value the privacy of their own thoughts, we can rest assured that our skulls will remain an impenetrable barrier for any would-be technological mind hacker for any foreseeable future.’



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2094671/Mind-boggling-Science-creates-decode-thoughts-words.html#ixzz1wjAdr1ov