What if we were to find a way to store brains in vats and have them function? Could we extend our own lives through our brains? Could we perhaps train robots by programming them with our living brain cells? Is there a way we could harness this technology to enhance our limited capabilities? Could we overcome the seeming threat of artificial intelligence by harnessing biological intelligence then? While these questions bring to mind science fiction scenarios of the melding of humans and technology, such ideas were anything but far-fetched at the Shiv Nadar Foundation presented event, Synapse Conclave which convened in Gurugram, Haryana on February 24-25, 2024. India’s foremost conference that expands on the discourse around the intersection of technology, science and society brought together 40 leaders from across fields as diverse as filmmaking to life extension science to talk about this coming ‘golden age’: humanity’s tryst with technology.

As it turns out, there is actual research being done by scientists that not only aims to extend life but sees the realms of human and technology merging. While such innovation may be at least 100 years away from popular application, the rhetoric at the Synapse Conclave was of cautious optimism. That technology was here for good. As CEO of Conexus AI and former AI advisor to the 44th US President Eric Daimler reiterated in his panel, one must either embrace AI or remain oblivious. Resistance is no option. If an age where we are governed by technology is inevitable, the question then arises of the ethics of using this technology. In Being and Time (1927), Martin Heidegger talks about how technology instead of asserting its presence to humans, becomes an extension for us, receding into the background. By extension, a new subjectivity is created when humans interact with the tools around them. A new subjectivity where humans and tools act as one entity, where the tool is not only a means to an end.

Here, questions could be raised on the capacities of enhancement technology could grant us, an overarching theme at the conclave. One might ask if technology could enhance us, which technology do we use? Who gets to decide? Who gets to use this technology? Further, following Heidegger, who takes the decision to act, humanity or tools? In a sense, such a quandary of the porous boundary between humans and technology, and how each may enhance the other was spotlighted by two speakers at the conclave, Dr Anders Sandberg, a Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford and Dr Brett Kagan, Chief Scientific Officer for Cortical Labs, an Australian start-up developing a new type of artificial intelligence that combines lab-grown human brain cells with computer chips.

As Sandberg elaborated in his panel, he ascribes to the branch of philosophy known as transhumanism that believes in the continual evolution of human life, as the result of advancements in science and technology. It seeks the enhancement of the human condition through an interdisciplinary outlook. What’s interesting about transhumanist philosophy is that there are no limits to what the future holds or what can be achieved through the help of human design. Anything is possible—from cryogenics to mind uploading—as much as was highlighted in Sandberg’s conversation with Shoma Chaudhary, chief moderator of the event and founder of Lucid Lines, an international science and technology platform that organised the conference.

In the discussion, Sandberg confessed that he shies away from thinking about AI or incriminating digital technology preferring to see to what limits technology can help humans see processes of the natural world otherwise restricted to us. While he is sceptical about it, he warns the audience that the future is not something we can escape, and it is our responsibility to shape it. If the conclave did anything, it highlighted that perhaps technology is not as neutral as most assume. A worthwhile example of this veiled neutrality could be the device designed by Dr Brett Kagan’s Cortical Labs: the DishBrain project their team is working on. Essentially, we can think of the DishBrain as a human brain without the limitations of the body, something that would please someone like Dr Sandberg.

The project of developing organoid intelligence by the Australia-based company aims to harness the potential of brain cells that, according to Kagan, are continuously learning to provide an alternative to digital AI technologies. Cortical Labs claims that their invention will gain an edge over say ChatGPT or Midjourney because it requires less energy and can grow, adapt and learn faster than synthetic technology. This of course has some preliminary roadblocks. Namely, the most the DishBrain can do at the moment is play pong. As a researcher of molecular biology noted in an article, this only requires the computing capacity of a high school calculator. It would be interesting to see how the technology develops further.

Their claim that this technology will harness and attempt to understand human intuition raises a fundamental concern about consciousness. Intuition is embodied and not just limited to the brain and synapses. The question of consciousness and what truly constitutes cognition baffles Dr Sandberg as well. He talks about the possibility of leaving his memories and brain behind for his grandchildren. One could criticise that both speak here from a dualist point of view, pitting the mind against the body. The reality, as illustrated by Heidegger’s idea of being, is more muddied where humans are as much shaped by the tools we use as by our minds alone.

Further, the questionable ethics of creating a brain in a lab and then fusing it to silicon is almost intuitive. One may ask if this artificial brain has consciousness. As Kagan confesses, there are very few terms we can use to think about what their design implies for such a thought. But the things that they are claiming, of harnessing intuition in their device, presuppose that this brain is sentient, and hence feels pain. Can suffer. Is that not then unethical? As Kagan mentions in defence in his panel, sentience does not necessarily imply that the ‘brain’ has a moral status. More than anything, Dr Kagan hopes that the technology they have created will be used to cure neurological diseases, be egalitarian, and will eventually be available for commercial use.

An anecdote is worth mentioning here described in an earlier interview with Cortical Lab’s CEO Hon Wen Chong, of an inquiry he received, which was whether the cells they had created could learn to trade bitcoin eventually. Allegedly, instead of dismissing the idea, Chong offered to write the software code that would enable this. It is also worth noting here that Kagan’s endeavour is funded by In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as U.S.-based LifeX Ventures, a venture capital business that funds life extension science. Think of human reasoning capable surveillance systems, and the potential threats they may present based on who trains them. Or the ability of a certain percentage of people to get their superfast computing systems that help them enhance their lives. That may allow them to live beyond their death. None of this is to say that the technology will be ill-used for sure since the current primary goal is to use the chips to detect and help us understand neurological diseases. But, not having that conversation of where to draw the line is where the real danger lies.

While both Sandberg and Kagan present compelling cases for the interjection of technology into the human condition, it still makes one sceptical to consider who will have access to said technology and how it will be used. For both speak from a position that seems to see science and technology divorced from politics, economics, or societal issues. At one point in the conference, Sandberg comments on the fact that medicine ought to be free for all in the near future. And it probably could be, even now.

If we have the potential to make medicine free for all, why haven’t we done it yet? If we have the potential to create cleaner energy, why is it not the cheaper or more accessible option? For, in reality, technology will always betray the intent of its designer. In a conversation with STIR, Sandberg expounded on the limits humanity could reach with technology, saying, “The zenith of human civilisation in conjunction with technology will be when we merge with it when we turn into technology or it turns into us. That can happen in a lot of different ways and we better make sure that it's a high and beautiful outcome rather than a low and grimy one.” If we have the power to, we ought to consider what we design, who controls it, who it benefits, and most importantly, what kind of humans it will turn us into.

Tap the cover video to watch the speakers talk to STIR about their work.

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of STIR or its Editors.)

Synapse Conclave 2024 focuses on science, technology and society, exploring the exciting and troubling implications of age reversal, gene editing and big data. STIR as an amplification partner brings you a series of conversations from the lineup that warrant further reflection.