RSS Feed
January 22nd, 2016 
Awake Goy 
Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) really wants to implant a computer chip into the brains of soldiers in order to enable them to communicate with computers – directly.
Now the problem with current technology is that brain-to-computer interfacing is comparable to “2 supercomputers trying to talk to each other using an old 300-baud modem”. In order to overcome this hurdle, DARPA created the Neural Engineering System Design (NESD) which is being marketed as the closest thing to implanting digital data into a living human neural net that has not been confirmed to successfully work.
DARPA explains that NESD “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.”
NESD is tasked with creating the biocompatible device about 1 cubic centimeter in size; however the program will be responsible for simultaneous complimentary projects as well such as developing technology “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 [capabilities].”
With all the hype surrounding this announcement, it seems overblown because DARPA has been tinkering with implants and human brains for a while now.
Back in May of 2014, DARPA presented the new program called Systems-Based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (SUBNETS) that was developing an implant into the brain of participating patients to wirelessly monitor activity in real-time to facilitate treatments for mental illness such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression.
SUBNETS was expected to “help military personnel with psychiatric disorders”.
They employed researchers from the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) and the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) to perform the implant surgery. And the UCSF was compensated $26 million for their participation with DARPA and SUBNETS.
The device being implanted into participants was designed to “read what is happening in the brain and simulate multiple brain areas if abnormal activity is detected.”
Justin Sanchez, program manager for SUBNETS explained : “The brain is very different from all other organs because of its networking and adaptability. Real-time, closed-loop neural interfaces allow us to move beyond the traditional static view of the brain and into a realm of precision therapy.”
For many years now, scientists have voiced concern for human neurological experimentation and have called for a clarification on the precepts of bioethics.
Soldiers, they say, should have the right to refuse “experimental” brain implants and the US military should display more concern for the patients over the prestige of scientific advancements over adversaries.
Jonathan Moreno published an essay in PLos Biology, as a plea for DARPA and the Department of Defense to rethink their obsession with neuroscience and the military advantage.
Moreno warns: “Everybody agrees that conflict will be changed as new technologies are coming on . . . But nobody knows where that technology is going. The goals of national security and the goals of science may conflict. The latter employs rigorous standards of validation in the expansion of knowledge, while the former depends on the most promising deployable solutions for the defense of the nation. Neuroscientists may not consider how their work contributes to warfare.”
Likewise Peter Singer, fellow with the Brookings Institute, asked if the “Pentagon’s real-world record with things like the aboveground testing of atomic bombs, Agent Orange, and Gulf War syndrome certainly doesn’t inspire the greatest confidence among the first generation of soldiers involved [in brain enhancement research.]”
Singer added: “I was afraid I’d be dismissed as a paranoid schizophrenic when I first published the book. But then a funny thing happened—the Department of Defense and other military groups began holding panels on neuro-technology to determine how and when it should be used. I was surprised how quickly the policy questions moved forward. Questions like: ‘Can we use autonomous attack drones?’ ‘Must there be a human being in the vehicle?’ ‘How much of a payload can it have?’ There are real questions coming up in the international legal community.”
Related Posts
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OccupyCorporatism/~3/SMKTeWK3b48/
Posted in 
Tags: 
