PUBLISHED: 10 JANUARY 2017 | VOLUME: 1 | ARTICLE NUMBER: 0008

comment

Are we at risk of becoming

biological digital machines?
Miguel A. L. Nicolelis
The brain can be viewed as an organic computer that can be reprogrammed to incorporate external
elements, such as artificial tools. But is there a risk that our increasing reliance on digital devices, such
as smartphones, could also be reprogramming our brains and blunting our human attributes?

I
n Neal Stephenson’s science-fiction novel device altogether, which we referred to as an
Snow Crash1, Hiro Protagonist, “a warrior organic computer. One of the distinctions
prince in the metaverse” and one of the between digital and organic computers is
most skilful hackers of his generation, that higher animal brains use a recursive
CREATIVE-IDEA/DIGITALVISION VECTORS/GETTY

is on a mission to save humanity from mix of analogue and digital processing to

its true neurophysiological doomsday. compute and are not only capable of, but
Hiro’s herculean task is to try to stop a highly specialized in, handling semantic-
new type of virus, Snow Crash, from rich information, which differs markedly
infecting the minds of people all over the from the classic syntactically rigid type of
world and transforming them into mere information on which digital machines rely.
biological automata, devoid of any trace Furthermore, in our brains, the concepts of
of real consciousness, free will, agency software and hardware cannot be dissociated
or individuality. Once uploaded into the from each other; both are welded together
brainstem, Snow Crash insidiously hacks in the very organic matter that defines the
the basic machine code that runs in our organic computer. As such, brains utilize the
subcortical limbic system, leading to a coherent blending of their multiple levels of
complete halt of neocortical subroutines. organization — from intracellular protein
All this neurobiological mayhem turns The brain as an organic computer complexes, to cell membranes, to individual
the infected person into a perfect zombie, Since Alan Turing’s original proposition in whole cells, to neuronal circuits, all the way
someone incapable of reasoning critically the late 1930s of what became known as the to the entire system — to compute.
or maintaining his/her natural state universal Turing machine, the debate on
of consciousness. whether an animal brain, and in particular Programming the human brain
Are contemporary humans running the human central nervous system, can But there is an important caveat. Even
a similar risk? Could our constant be considered a digital computer has though organic computers cannot be
reciprocal interaction with digital logic raged. Artificial-intelligence researchers reduced to a Turing machine, they can be
(through laptops, tablets, smartphones, who believe that digital machines can programmed by many distinct biological
all the way to highly immersive virtual acquire human-like intelligence have processes. For instance, at the most basic
reality environments), particularly when it no qualms in accepting this view at face level, the expression of numerous genes in
leads to powerfully hedonic experiences, value. Surprisingly, a few neuroscientists the human genome, selected by a multitude
result in the slow compromise or even tend to agree with this position and even of evolutionary events, interact as part of a
elimination of some of the behaviours and suggest that animal brains, including ours, ‘genetic programme’ that is responsible for
cognitive aptitudes that represent the most can be fully simulated in a digital device. assembling the brain’s natural 3D structure
exquisite and cherished attributes of the On the other hand, many philosophers, during prenatal and postnatal life. This
human condition? Attributes such as our neuroscientists and physicists have staunchly genetic programming guarantees that our
multifaceted social skills, empathy, linguistic disagreed with this proposition, labelling it brain’s initial physical configuration reflects
semantics, aesthetic sense, artistic expression, as nothing more than wishful thinking or, the same basic neural architecture that
intuition, creativity and the ability to worse, a form of mystical belief. evolved in anatomically modern humans
improvise solutions to novel contingencies, to Recently, Ronald Cicurel and about 100,000 years ago. Once we are
name just a few. In other words, could opting I2 summarized the evolutionary, born, the brain’s programming continues
for the fast lane of the never-ending highway neurobiological, computational and as we grow and learn, through interactions
to full digital immersion and automation — mathematical arguments that challenge the with our social and physical environment.
an obvious current trend in our modern notion that the operation of the human brain Continuous immersion in human culture
society — produce a reduction in human can be reduced to the algorithmic nature and its cornucopia of social interactions
cognitive capabilities that resembles, even if of Turing machines. Instead, we proposed further programmes the central nervous
only remotely, the less-than-enticing fate of that higher-order brains, including ours, system. Indeed, the so-called social brain
those infected by Snow Crash? constitute a different type of computation hypothesis3,4 proposes that the tremendous

NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 1, 0008 (2017) | DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0008 | www.nature.com/nathumbehav 1

©
2
0
1
7
M
a
c
m
i
l
l
a
n
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
,
p
a
r
t
o
f
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
N
a
t
u
r
e
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
comment

growth in neocortical volume, experienced
during the evolution of anthropoid primates
into Homo sapiens, is intimately related
to the concomitant increase in social
complexity that these species experience
in their daily routine living in groups. This
correlation can be readily visualized when
the cortical volume of several primates is
plotted against the typical social group size
of each species. Accordingly, the significant
growth in human cortical volume would
explain why our species developed the
capacity to handle close social interactions
in groups of about 150 individuals, while
chimpanzees and baboons limit their bands
to 50–55 individuals4.
Reprogramming the human brain
But this is not all. There are other possible
ways to programme or even reprogramme
the primate brain that we carry between our
ears. A decade and a half of intense basic
and clinical research with brain/machine
interfaces (BMIs) has clearly demonstrated
that the primate brain, including our own,
is capable of assimilating artificial tools —
like robotic or even avatar limbs — as
extensions of the brain-built representation
of the subject’s own body5, through the
phenomenon of cortical plasticity. This
means that neuronal space is dedicated to
representing the operation of artificial tools5.
These findings, together with other results
from various studies, indicate that our
sense of self can be readily reprogrammed
to incorporate external elements. We have
recently documented such an extension
of the sense of self in severely paralyzed
patients trained to employ a BMI to
control the movements of an avatar body6.
Indeed, such reprogramming through
cortical, and probably subcortical, plastic
changes might also account for the partial
neurological clinical recovery experienced
by these patients7.
That brings us back to the central issue
of this brief Comment article. Even though
the brain cannot be reduced to a digital
machine, could the human brain simply
assimilate and begin to mimic the rigid
binary logic and algorithmic mode of
operation of digital machines due to the
growing overexposure to digital devices
and the hedonic response triggered by these
interactions, and become a biological digital
system? Given the ominous introduction
of digital automation in almost all aspects
of human life, it is not surprising that a
large literature exists describing the impact
of the introduction of digital systems on
human behaviour and mental skills. In his
book8, The Glass Cage: Automation and Us,
Nicholas Carr reviews some of these studies,
showing that continuous exposure to digital
systems can have profound effects on
human performance, from the flying skills
of airplane pilots, to the pattern recognition
ability of radiologists, to the broad sense of
creativity of architects.
In our brains, the concepts
of software and hardware
cannot be dissociated from
each other.
If I had to propose a hypothesis to account
for all these findings, I would volunteer
the notion that passive immersion in the
digital systems of modern airplanes (in the
case of pilots), digital imaging diagnostics
(radiologists) and computer-assisted design
(architects) may gradually curtail the range
and acuity of some mental functions and
cognitive skills, such as creativity, insight and
the ability to solve novel problems.
A study by Betsy Sparrow et al.9 showed
that when people believe that a series
of statements that they have been asked
to remember will be stored online, they
perform worse than a control group that
relies only on their own biological memory
to remember the statements. This suggests
that subcontracting some simple mental
searches to Google may, after all, reduce
our own brain’s ability to store and recall
memories reliably.
The impact of online social media on our
natural social skills is another area in which
we may be able to measure the true effects of
digital systems on human behaviour. In her
book10, Alone Together: Why We Expect More
from Technology and Less from Each Other,
Sherry Turkle describes her experience
interviewing teenagers and adults who
are heavy users of texting, social media
and other online virtual environments.
An intense presence on social media and
virtual reality environments can produce
significant anxiety, a reduction in real
social interactions, lack of social skills and
human empathy, and difficulties in handling
solitude. Moreover, symptoms and signs of
addiction to virtual life are often reported
almost casually by some of the interviewees.
After reading Turkle’s interviews, I
began wondering whether the new ‘always
connected’ routine is overtaxing our cerebral
cortex by dramatically expanding the
number of people with whom we can closely
communicate, almost instantaneously, via the
multitude of social media outlets available
on the internet. Instead of respecting the
group size limit (about 150 individuals)
afforded by our cortical volume, we are now
in continuous contact with a group of people
that could far exceed that neurobiological
limit. What are the consequences of this
cortical overtaxing? Anxiety, attention,
cognitive and even memory deficits?
Homo digitalis
Is the above scenario something we should
pay attention to? I think so. If not because of
the potential impact on the mental health of
this and future generations, but also because
of the far-reaching consequences of our
increasing interaction with digital systems.
For example, at the far limit, I can conceive
that this staggering expansion in our online
social connectivity is capable of providing
a completely new type of selective pressure
that may, eventually, bias the evolutionary
future of our species. One may begin
wondering whether the dawn of ‘Homo
digitalis’ is upon us or, more surprisingly,
whether he/she is already around, texting
and tweeting without being noticed.
Evidently, much more research will be
needed to address these intriguing questions
and the true impact of digital technology on
shaping key functions of the human brain.
Meanwhile, just in case we need his services
in the near future, next time I meet Neal
Stephenson, I will be sure to ask for Hiro
Protagonist’s phone number and e-mail,
Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn addresses.
That is, if I remember to ask. ❐
Miguel A. L. Nicolelis is in the Department of
Neurobiology, Box 3209 Duke University, Durham,
North Carolina 27710, USA.
e-mail: nicoleli@neuro.duke.edu
References
1. Stephenson, N. Snow Crash (Bantam Books, 2008).
2. Cicurel, R. M. & Nicolelis, M. A. L. The Relativistic Brain: How
It Works and Why It Cannot Be Simulated by a Turing Machine
(Kios Press, 2015).
3. Dunbar, R. I. M. & Shultz, S. Science 317, 1344–1347 (2007).
4. Dunbar, R. Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language
(Harvard Univ. Press, 1996).
5. Carmena, J. M. et al. PLoS Biol. 1, e42 (2003).
6. Shokur, S. et al. Sci. Rep. 6, 32293 (2016).
7. Donati, A. R. C. et al. Sci. Rep. 6, 30383 (2016).
8. Carr, N. G. The Glass Cage: Automation and Us (W. W. Norton &
Company, 2014).
9. Sparrow, B., Liu, J. & Wegner, D. M. Science 333, 776–778 (2011).
10. Turkle, S. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology
and Less from Each Other (Basic Books, 2011).

2 NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 1, 0008 (2017) | DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0008 | www.nature.com/nathumbehav

©
2
0
1
7
M
a
c
m
i
l
l
a
n
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
,
p
a
r
t
o
f
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
N
a
t
u
r
e
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.