From caed8614b762f195af6007ca7f954d86405dd4a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: iseulde Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:46:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/7] Add reporter --- package.json | 1 + .../e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js | 23 +++++++ packages/e2e-tests/specs/.gitignore | 1 + packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js | 69 +++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 94 insertions(+) create mode 100644 packages/e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js create mode 100644 packages/e2e-tests/specs/.gitignore create mode 100644 packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js diff --git a/package.json b/package.json index f43c1e4cf08645..f51354f2c60058 100644 --- a/package.json +++ b/package.json @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ "pretest-e2e": "cross-env SCRIPT_DEBUG=false ./bin/reset-local-e2e-tests.sh", "test-e2e": "wp-scripts test-e2e --config packages/e2e-tests/jest.config.js", "test-e2e:watch": "npm run test-e2e -- --watch", + "test-perf": "npm run test-e2e packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js -- --verbose=false", "test-php": "npm run lint-php && npm run test-unit-php", "test-unit": "wp-scripts test-unit-js --config test/unit/jest.config.js", "test-unit:update": "npm run test-unit -- --updateSnapshot", diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js b/packages/e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js new file mode 100644 index 00000000000000..a975464f0ac646 --- /dev/null +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +const { readFileSync } = require( 'fs' ); + +function average( array ) { + return array.reduce( ( a, b ) => a + b ) / array.length; +} + +class PerformanceReporter { + onRunComplete() { + const results = readFileSync( __dirname + '/../specs/results.json', 'utf8' ); + const { load, domcontentloaded, type } = JSON.parse( results ); + + // eslint-disable-next-line no-console + console.log( ` +Average time to load: ${ average( load ) }ms +Average time to DOM content load: ${ average( domcontentloaded ) }ms +Average time to type character: ${ average( type ) }ms +Slowest time to type character: ${ Math.max( ...type ) }ms +Fastest time to type character: ${ Math.min( ...type ) }ms + ` ); + } +} + +module.exports = PerformanceReporter; diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/.gitignore b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 00000000000000..a6c57f5fb2ffba --- /dev/null +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/.gitignore @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +*.json diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js new file mode 100644 index 00000000000000..8f95a0b99e64fc --- /dev/null +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +/** + * External dependencies + */ + +import { writeFileSync } from 'fs'; + +/** + * WordPress dependencies + */ +import { + createNewPost, + saveDraft, + insertBlock, +} from '@wordpress/e2e-test-utils'; + +describe( 'Performance', async () => { + it( '1000 paragraphs', async () => { + await createNewPost(); + await page.evaluate( () => { + const { createBlock } = window.wp.blocks; + const { dispatch } = window.wp.data; + + dispatch( 'core/editor' ).resetBlocks( Array( 1000 ).fill( + createBlock( 'core/paragraph', { + content: 'x'.repeat( 200 ), + } ) + ) ); + } ); + await saveDraft(); + + const results = { + load: [], + domcontentloaded: [], + type: [], + }; + + let i = 10; + let startTime; + + await page.on( 'load', () => results.load.push( new Date() - startTime ) ); + await page.on( 'domcontentloaded', () => results.domcontentloaded.push( new Date() - startTime ) ); + + while ( i-- ) { + startTime = new Date(); + await page.reload( { waitUntil: [ 'domcontentloaded', 'load' ] } ); + } + + await insertBlock( 'Paragraph' ); + + const keyTimes = []; + + await page.evaluate( ( _keyTimes ) => { + document.addEventListener( 'keydown', () => _keyTimes.push( new Date() ) ); + document.addEventListener( 'keyup', () => _keyTimes[ _keyTimes.length - 1 ] = new Date() - _keyTimes[ _keyTimes.length - 1 ] ); + }, keyTimes ); + + i = 200; + + while ( i-- ) { + startTime = new Date(); + await page.keyboard.type( 'x' ); + results.type.push( new Date() - startTime ); + } + + writeFileSync( __dirname + '/results.json', JSON.stringify( results, null, 2 ) ); + + expect( true ).toBe( true ); + } ); +} ); From 037e60805d45b3b51d235c0e47fdea054550f9c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: iseulde Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:30:19 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/7] Clean up --- package.json | 1 - packages/e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js | 10 ++++++++-- packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js | 9 +-------- 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/package.json b/package.json index f51354f2c60058..f43c1e4cf08645 100644 --- a/package.json +++ b/package.json @@ -187,7 +187,6 @@ "pretest-e2e": "cross-env SCRIPT_DEBUG=false ./bin/reset-local-e2e-tests.sh", "test-e2e": "wp-scripts test-e2e --config packages/e2e-tests/jest.config.js", "test-e2e:watch": "npm run test-e2e -- --watch", - "test-perf": "npm run test-e2e packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js -- --verbose=false", "test-php": "npm run lint-php && npm run test-unit-php", "test-unit": "wp-scripts test-unit-js --config test/unit/jest.config.js", "test-unit:update": "npm run test-unit -- --updateSnapshot", diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js b/packages/e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js index a975464f0ac646..681bb60f41618e 100644 --- a/packages/e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/config/performance-reporter.js @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -const { readFileSync } = require( 'fs' ); +const { readFileSync, existsSync } = require( 'fs' ); function average( array ) { return array.reduce( ( a, b ) => a + b ) / array.length; @@ -6,7 +6,13 @@ function average( array ) { class PerformanceReporter { onRunComplete() { - const results = readFileSync( __dirname + '/../specs/results.json', 'utf8' ); + const path = __dirname + '/../specs/results.json'; + + if ( ! existsSync( path ) ) { + return; + } + + const results = readFileSync( path, 'utf8' ); const { load, domcontentloaded, type } = JSON.parse( results ); // eslint-disable-next-line no-console diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js index 8f95a0b99e64fc..e03c6126ffab02 100644 --- a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ import { } from '@wordpress/e2e-test-utils'; describe( 'Performance', async () => { - it( '1000 paragraphs', async () => { + it.skip( '1000 paragraphs', async () => { await createNewPost(); await page.evaluate( () => { const { createBlock } = window.wp.blocks; @@ -47,13 +47,6 @@ describe( 'Performance', async () => { await insertBlock( 'Paragraph' ); - const keyTimes = []; - - await page.evaluate( ( _keyTimes ) => { - document.addEventListener( 'keydown', () => _keyTimes.push( new Date() ) ); - document.addEventListener( 'keyup', () => _keyTimes[ _keyTimes.length - 1 ] = new Date() - _keyTimes[ _keyTimes.length - 1 ] ); - }, keyTimes ); - i = 200; while ( i-- ) { From b6840cd3bb9e89a4e4734b725ec8858184e19c24 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: iseulde Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 15:13:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/7] Add neuralink --- packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html | 4259 ++++++++++++++++++ packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js | 34 +- 2 files changed, 4281 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) create mode 100644 packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html b/packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000000000..b4e82eec93de2a --- /dev/null +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html @@ -0,0 +1,4259 @@ + +

Last month, I got a phone call.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Okay maybe that’s not exactly how it happened, and maybe those weren’t his exact words. But after learning about the new company Elon Musk was starting, I’ve come to realize that that’s exactly what he’s trying to do.

+ + + +

When I wrote about Tesla and SpaceX, I learned that you can only fully wrap your head around certain companies by zooming both way, way in and way, way out. In, on the technical challenges facing the engineers, out on the existential challenges facing our species. In on a snapshot of the world right now, out on the big story of how we got to this moment and what our far future could look like.

+ + + +

Not only is Elon’s new venture—Neuralink—the same type of deal, but six weeks after first learning about the company, I’m convinced that it somehow manages to eclipse Tesla and SpaceX in both the boldness of its engineering undertaking and the grandeur of its mission. The other two companies aim to redefine what future humans will do—Neuralink wants to redefine what future humans will be.

+ + + +

The mind-bending bigness of Neuralink’s mission, combined with the labyrinth of impossible complexity that is the human brain, made this the hardest set of concepts yet to fully wrap my head around—but it also made it the most exhilarating when, with enough time spent zoomed on both ends, it all finally clicked. I feel like I took a time machine to the future, and I’m here to tell you that it’s even weirder than we expect.

+ + + +

But before I can bring you in the time machine to show you what I found, we need to get in our zoom machine—because as I learned the hard way, Elon’s wizard hat plans cannot be properly understood until your head’s in the right place.

+ + + +

So wipe your brain clean of what it thinks it knows about itself and its future, put on soft clothes, and let’s jump into the vortex.

+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

Contents

+ + + +

Part 1: The Human Colossus

+ + + +

Part 2: The Brain

+ + + +

Part 3: Brain-Machine Interfaces

+ + + +

Part 4: Neuralink’s Challenge

+ + + +

Part 5: The Wizard Era

+ + + +

Part 6: The Great Merger

+ + + +
Notes key: Type 1 are fun notes for fun facts, extra thoughts, or further explanation. Type 2 are boring notes for sources and citations.
+ + + +
+ + + +

Part 1: The Human Colossus

+ + + +

600 million years ago, no one really did anything, ever.

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

The problem is that no one had any nerves. Without nerves, you can’t move, or think, or process information of any kind. So you just had to kind of exist and wait there until you died.

+ + + +

But then came the jellyfish.

+ + + +
+ + + +

The jellyfish was the first animal to figure out that nerves were an obvious thing to make sure you had, and it had the world’s first nervous system—a nerve net.

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

The jellyfish’s nerve net allowed it to collect important information from the world around it—like where there were objects, predators, or food—and pass that information along, through a big game of telephone, to all parts of its body. Being able to receive and process information meant that the jellyfish could actually react to changes in its environment in order to increase the odds of life going well, rather than just floating aimlessly and hoping for the best.

+ + + +

A little later, a new animal came around who had an even cooler idea.

+ + + +
+ + + +

The flatworm figured out that you could get a lot more done if there was someone in the nervous system who was in charge of everything—a nervous system boss. The boss lived in the flatworm’s head and had a rule that all nerves in the body had to report any new information directly to him. So instead of arranging themselves in a net shape, the flatworm’s nervous system all revolved around a central highway of messenger nerves that would pass messages back and forth between the boss and everyone else:

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

The flatworm’s boss-highway system was the world’s first central nervous system, and the boss in the flatworm’s head was the world’s first brain.

+ + + +

The idea of a nervous system boss quickly caught on with others, and soon, there were thousands of species on Earth with brains.

+ + + +

As time passed and Earth’s animals started inventing intricate new body systems, the bosses got busier.

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

A little while later came the arrival of mammals. For the Millennials of the Animal Kingdom, life was complicated. Yes, their hearts needed to beat and their lungs needed to breathe, but mammals were about a lot more than survival functions—they were in touch with complex feelings like love, anger, and fear.

+ + + +

For the reptilian brain, which had only had to deal with reptiles and other simpler creatures so far, mammals were just…a lot. So a second boss developed in mammals to pair up with the reptilian brain and take care of all of these new needs—the world’s first limbic system.

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

Over the next 100 million years, the lives of mammals grew more and more complex, and one day, the two bosses noticed a new resident in the cockpit with them.

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

What appeared to be a random infant was actually the early version of the neocortex, and though he didn’t say much at first, as evolution gave rise to primates and then great apes and then early hominids, this new boss grew from a baby into a child and eventually into a teenager with his own idea of how things should be run.

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

The new boss’s ideas turned out to be really helpful, and he became the hominid’s go-to boss for things like tool-making, hunting strategy, and cooperation with other hominids.

+ + + +

Over the next few million years, the new boss grew older and wiser, and his ideas kept getting better. He figured out how to not be naked. He figured out how to control fire. He learned how to make a spear.

+ + + +
+ + + +

But his coolest trick was thinking. He turned each human’s head into a little world of its own, making humans the first animal that could think complex thoughts, reason through decisions, and make long-term plans.

+ + + +

And then, maybe about 100,000 years ago, he came up with a breakthrough.

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

The human brain had advanced to the point where it could understand that even though the sound “rock” was not itself a rock, it could be used as a symbol of a rock—it was a sound that referred to a rock. The early human had invented language.

+ + + +

Soon there were words for all kinds of things, and by 50,000 BC, humans were speaking in full, complex language with each other.

+ + + +

The neocortex had turned humans into magicians. Not only had he made the human head a wondrous internal ocean of complex thoughts, his latest breakthrough had found a way to translate those thoughts into a symbolic set of sounds and send them vibrating through the air into the heads of other humans, who could then decode the sounds and absorb the embedded idea into their own internal thought oceans. The human neocortex had been thinking about things for a long time—and he finally had someone to talk about it all with.

+ + + +

A neocortex party ensued. Neocortexes—fine—neocortices shared everything with each other—stories from their past, funny jokes they had thought of, opinions they had formed, plans for the future.

+ + + +

But most useful was sharing what they had learned. If one human learned through trial and error that a certain type of berry led to 48 hours of your life being run by diarrhea, they could use language to share the hard-earned lesson with the rest of their tribe, like photocopying the lesson and handing it to everyone else. Tribe members would then use language to pass along that lesson to their children, and their children would pass it to their own children. Rather than the same mistake being made again and again by many different people, one person’s “stay away from that berry” wisdom could travel through space and time to protect everyone else from having their bad experience.

+ + + +

The same thing would happen when one human figured out a new clever trick. One unusually-intelligent hunter particularly attuned to both star constellations and the annual migration patterns of wildebeest1 herds could share a system he devised that used the night sky to determine exactly how many days remained until the herd would return. Even though very few hunters would have been able to come up with that system on their own, through word-of-mouth, all future hunters in the tribe would now benefit from the ingenuity of one ancestor, with that one hunter’s crowning discovery serving as every future hunter’s starting point of knowledge.

+ + + +

And let’s say this knowledge advancement makes the hunting season more efficient, which gives tribe members more time to work on their weapons—which allows one extra-clever hunter a few generations later to discover a method for making lighter, denser spears that can be thrown more accurately. And just like that, every present and future hunter in the tribe hunts with a more effective spear.

+ + + +

Language allows the best epiphanies of the very smartest people, through the generations, to accumulate into a little collective tower of tribal knowledge—a “greatest hits” of their ancestors’ best “aha!” moments. Every new generation has this knowledge tower installed in their heads as their starting point in life, leading them to new, even better discoveries that build on what their ancestors learned, as the tribe’s knowledge continues to grow bigger and wiser. Language is the difference between this:

+ + + +
minimal tribal knowledge growth before language
+ + + +

And this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

The major trajectory upgrade happens for two reasons. Each generation can learn a lot more new things when they can talk to each other, compare notes, and combine their individual learnings (that’s why the blue bars are so much higher in the second graph). And each generation can successfully pass a higher percentage of their learnings on to the next generation, so knowledge sticks better through time.

+ + + +

Knowledge, when shared, becomes like a grand, collective, inter-generational collaboration. Hundreds of generations later, what started as a pro tip about a certain berry to avoid has become an intricate system of planting long rows of the stomach-friendly berry bushes and harvesting them annually. The initial stroke of genius about wildebeest migrations has turned into a system of goat domestication. The spear innovation, through hundreds of incremental tweaks over tens of thousands of years, has become the bow and arrow.

+ + + +

Language gives a group of humans a collective intelligence far greater than individual human intelligence and allows each human to benefit from the collective intelligence as if he came up with it all himself. We think of the bow and arrow as a primitive technology, but raise Einstein in the woods with no existing knowledge and tell him to come up with the best hunting device he can, and he won’t be nearly intelligent or skilled or knowledgeable enough to invent the bow and arrow. Only a collective human effort can pull that off.

+ + + +

Being able to speak to each other also allowed humans to form complex social structures which, along with advanced technologies like farming and animal domestication, led tribes over time to begin to settle into permanent locations and merge into organized super-tribes. When this happened, each tribe’s tower of accumulated knowledge could be shared with the larger super-tribe, forming a super-tower. Mass cooperation raised the quality of life for everyone, and by 10,000 BC, the first cities had formed.

+ + + +

According to Wikipedia, there’s something called Metcalfe’s law, which states that “the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system.” And they include this little chart of old telephones:1

+ + + +
+ + + +

But the same idea applies to people. Two people can have one conversation. Three people have four unique conversation groups (three different two-person conversations and a fourth conversation between all three as a group). Five people have 26. Twenty people have 1,048,555.

+ + + +

So not only did the members of a city benefit from a huge knowledge tower as a foundation, but Metcalfe’s law means that the number of conversation possibilities now skyrocketed to an unprecedented amount of variety. More conversations meant more ideas bumping up against each other, which led to many more discoveries clicking together, and the pace of innovation soared.

+ + + +

Humans soon mastered agriculture, which freed many people up to think about all kinds of other ideas, and it wasn’t long before they stumbled upon a new, giant breakthrough: writing.

+ + + +

Historians think humans first started writing things down about 5 – 6,000 years ago. Up until that point, the collective knowledge tower was stored only in a network of people’s memories and accessed only through livestream word-of-mouth communication. This system worked in small tribes, but with a vastly larger body of knowledge shared among a vastly larger group of people, memories alone would have had a hard time supporting it all, and most of it would have ended up lost.

+ + + +

If language let humans send a thought from one brain to another, writing let them stick a thought onto a physical object, like a stone, where it could live forever. When people began writing on thin sheets of parchment or paper, huge fields of knowledge that would take weeks to be conveyed by word of mouth could be compressed into a book or a scroll you could hold in your hand. The human collective knowledge tower now lived in physical form, neatly organized on the shelves of city libraries and universities.

+ + + +

These shelves became humanity’s grand instruction manual on everything. They guided humanity toward new inventions and discoveries, and those would in turn become new books on the shelves, as the grand instruction manual built upon itself. The manual taught us the intricacies of trade and currency, of shipbuilding and architecture, of medicine and astronomy. Each generation began life with a higher floor of knowledge and technology than the last, and progress continued to accelerate.

+ + + +

But painstakingly handwritten books were treated like treasures,2 and likely only accessible to the extreme elite (in the mid 15th century, there were only 30,000 booksin all of Europe). And then came another breakthrough: the printing press.

+ + + +

In the 15th century, the beardy Johannes Gutenberg came up with a way to create multiple identical copies of the same book, much more quickly and cheaply than ever before. (Or, more accurately, when Gutenberg was born, humanity had already figured out the first 95% of how to invent the printing press, and Gutenberg, with that knowledge as his starting point, invented the last 5%.) (Oh, also, Gutenberg didn’t invent the printing press, the Chinese did a bunch of centuries earlier. Pretty reliable rule is that everything you think was invented somewhere other than China was probably actually invented in China.) Here’s how it worked:

+ + + +

It Turns Out Gutenberg Isn’t Actually Impressive Blue Box

+ + + +

To prepare to write this blue box, I found this video explaining how Gutenberg’s press worked and was surprised to find myself unimpressed. I always assumed Gutenberg had made some genius machine, but it turns out he just created a bunch of stamps of letters and punctuation and manually arranged them as the page of a book and then put ink on them and pressed a piece of paper onto the letters, and that was one book page. While he had the letters all set up for that page, he’d make a bunch of copies. Then he’d spend forever manually rearranging the stamps (this is the “movable type” part) into the next page, and then do a bunch of copies of that. His first project was 180 copies of the Bible,3which took him and his employees two years.

+ + + +

That‘s Gutenberg’s thing? A bunch of stamps? I feel like I could have come up with that pretty easily. Not really clear why it took humanity 5,000 years to go from figuring out how to write to creating a bunch of manual stamps. I guess it’s not that I’m unimpressed with Gutenberg—I’m neutral on Gutenberg, he’s fine—it’s that I’m unimpressed with everyone else.

+ + + +

Anyway, despite how disappointing Gutenberg’s press turned out to be, it was a huge leap forward for humanity’s ability to spread information. Over the coming centuries, printing technology rapidly improved, bringing the number of pages a machine could print in an hour from about 25 in Gutenberg’s time4 up 100-fold to 2,400 by the early 19th century.2

+ + + +

Mass-produced books allowed information to spread like wildfire, and with books being made increasingly affordable, no longer was education an elite privilege—millions now had access to books, and literacy rates shot upwards. One person’s thoughts could now reach millions of people. The era of mass communication had begun.

+ + + +

The avalanche of books allowed knowledge to transcend borders, as the world’s regional knowledge towers finally merged into one species-wide knowledge tower that stretched into the stratosphere.

+ + + +

The better we could communicate on a mass scale, the more our species began to function like a single organism, with humanity’s collective knowledge tower as its brain and each individual human brain like a nerve or a muscle fiber in its body. With the era of mass communication upon us, the collective human organism—the Human Colossus—rose into existence.

+ + + +
+ + + +

With the entire body of collective human knowledge in its brain, the Human Colossus began inventing things no human could have dreamed of inventing on their own—things that would have seemed like absurd science fiction to people only a few generations before.

+ + + +

It turned our ox-drawn carts into speedy locomotives and our horse-and-buggies into shiny metal cars. It turned our lanterns into lightbulbs and written letters into telephone calls and factory workers into industrial machines. It sent us soaring through the skies and out into space. It redefined the meaning of “mass communication” by giving us radio and TV, opening up a world where a thought in someone’s head could be beamed instantly into the brains of a billion people.

+ + + +

If an individual human’s core motivation is to pass its genes on, which keeps the species going, the forces of macroeconomics make the Human Colossus’s core motivation to create value, which means it tends to want to invent newer and better technology. Every time it does that, it becomes an even better inventor, which means it can invent new stuff even faster.

+ + + +

And around the middle of the 20th century, the Human Colossus began working on its most ambitious invention yet.

+ + + +

The Colossus had figured out a long time ago that the best way to create value was to invent value-creating machines. Machines were better than humans at doing many kinds of work, which generated a flood of new resources that could be put towards value creation. Perhaps even more importantly, machine labor freed up huge portions of human time and energy—i.e. huge portions of the Colossus itself—to focus on innovation. It had already outsourced the work of our arms to factory machines and the work of our legs to driving machines, and it had done so through the power of its brain—now what if, somehow, it could outsource the work of the brain itself to a machine?

+ + + +

The first digital computers sprung up in the 1940s.

+ + + +

One kind of brain labor computers could do was the work of information storage—they were remembering machines. But we already knew how to outsource our memories using books, just like we had been outsourcing our leg labor to horseslong before cars provided a far better solution. Computers were simply a memory-outsourcing upgrade.

+ + + +

Information-processing was a different story—a type of brain labor we had never figured out how to outsource. The Human Colossus had always had to do all of its own computing. Computers changed that.

+ + + +

Factory machines allowed us to outsource a physical process—we put a material in, the machines physically processed it and spit out the results. Computers could do the same thing for information processing. A software program was like a factory machine for information processes.

+ + + +

These new information-storage/organizing/processing machines proved to be useful. Computers began to play a central role in the day-to-day operation of companies and governments. By the late 1980s, it was common for individual people to own their own personal brain assistant.

+ + + +

Then came another leap.

+ + + +

In the early 90s, we taught millions of isolated machine-brains how to communicate with one another. They formed a worldwide computer network, and a new giant was born—the Computer Colossus.

+ + + +
+ + + +

The Computer Colossus and the great network it formed were like popeye spinach for the Human Colossus.

+ + + +

If individual human brains are the nerves and muscle fibers of the Human Colossus, the internet gave the giant its first legit nervous system. Each of its nodes was now interconnected to all of its other nodes, and information could travel through the system with light speed. This made the Human Colossus a faster, more fluid thinker.

+ + + +

The internet gave billions of humans instant, free, easily-searchable access to the entire human knowledge tower (which by now stretched past the moon). This made the Human Colossus a smarter, faster learner.

+ + + +

And if individual computers had served as brain extensions for individual people, companies, or governments, the Computer Colossus was a brain extension for the entire Human Colossus itself.

+ + + +
+ + + +

With its first real nervous system, an upgraded brain, and a powerful new tool, the Human Colossus took inventing to a whole new level—and noticing how useful its new computer friend was, it focused a large portion of its efforts on advancing computer technology.

+ + + +

It figured out how to make computers faster and cheaper. It made internet faster and wireless. It made computing chips smaller and smaller until there was a powerful computer in everyone’s pocket.

+ + + +

Each innovation was like a new truckload of spinach for the Human Colossus.

+ + + +

But today, the Human Colossus has its eyes set on an even bigger idea than more spinach. Computers have been a game-changer, allowing humanity to outsource many of its brain-related tasks and better function as a single organism. But there’s one kind of brain labor computers still can’t quite do. Thinking.

+ + + +

Computers can compute and organize and run complex software—software that can even learn on its own. But they can’t think in the way humans can. The Human Colossus knows that everything it’s built has originated with its ability to reason creatively and independently—and it knows that the ultimate brain extension tool would be one that can really, actually, legitimately think. It has no idea what it will be like when the Computer Colossus can think for itself—when it one day opens its eyes and becomes a real colossus—but with its core goal to create value and push technology to its limits, the Human Colossus is determined to find out.

+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

We’ll come back here in a bit. First, we have some learning to do.

+ + + +

As we’ve discussed before, knowledge works like a tree. If you try to learn a branch or a leaf of a topic before you have a solid tree trunk foundation of understanding in your head, it won’t work. The branches and leaves will have nothing to stick to, so they’ll fall right out of your head.

+ + + +

We’ve established that Elon Musk wants to build a wizard hat for the brain, and understanding why he wants to do that is the key to understanding Neuralink—and to understanding what our future might actually be like.

+ + + +

But none of that will make much sense until we really get into the truly mind-blowing concept of what a wizard hat is, what it might be like to wear one, and how we get there from where we are today.

+ + + +

The foundation for that discussion is an understanding of what brain-machine interfaces are, how they work, and where the technology is today.

+ + + +

Finally, BMIs themselves are just a larger branch—not the tree’s trunk. In order to really understand BMIs and how they work, we need to understand the brain. Getting how the brain works is our tree trunk.

+ + + +
+ + + +

So we’ll start with the brain, which will prepare us to learn about BMIs, which will teach us about what it’ll take to build a wizard hat, and that’ll set things up for an insane discussion about the future—which will get our heads right where they need to be to wrap themselves around why Elon thinks a wizard hat is such a critical piece of our future. And by the time we reach the end, this whole thing should click into place.

+ + + +

Part 2: The Brain

+ + + +
+ + + +

This post was a nice reminder of why I like working with a brain that looks nice and cute like this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Because the real brain is extremely uncute and upsetting-looking. People are gross.

+ + + +

But I’ve been living in a shimmery, oozy, blood-vessel-lined Google Images hell for the past month, and now you have to deal with it too. So just settle in.

+ + + +

We’ll start outside the head. One thing I will give to biology is that it’s sometimes very satisfying,5 and the brain has some satisfying things going on. The first of which is that there’s a real Russian doll situation going on with your head.

+ + + +

You have your hair, and under that is your scalp, and then you think your skull comes next—but it’s actually like 19 things and then your skull:3

+ + + +
+ + + +

Then below your skull,6 another whole bunch of things are going on before you get to the brain4:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Your brain has three membranes around it underneath the skull:

+ + + +

On the outside, there’s the dura mater (which means “hard mother” in Latin), a firm, rugged, waterproof layer. The dura is flush with the skull. I’ve heard it said that the brain has no pain sensory area, but the dura actually does—it’s about as sensitive as the skin on your face—and pressure on or contusions in the dura often account for people’s bad headaches.

+ + + +

Then below that there’s the arachnoid mater (“spider mother”), which is a layer of skin and then an open space with these stretchy-looking fibers. I always thought my brain was just floating aimlessly in my head in some kind of fluid, but actually, the only real space gap between the outside of the brain and the inner wall of the skull is this arachnoid business. Those fibers stabilize the brain in position so it can’t move too much, and they act as a shock absorber when your head bumps into something. This area is filled with spinal fluid, which keeps the brain mostly buoyant, since its density is similar to that of water.

+ + + +

Finally you have the pia mater (“soft mother”), a fine, delicate layer of skin that’s fused with the outside of the brain. You know how when you see a brain, it’s always covered with icky blood vessels? Those aren’t actually on the brain’s surface, they’re embedded in the pia. (For the non-squeamish, here’s a video of a professor peeling the pia off of a human brain.)

+ + + +

Here’s the full overview, using the head of what looks like probably a pig:

+ + + +
+ + + +

From the left you have the skin (the pink), then two scalp layers, then the skull, then the dura, arachnoid, and on the far right, just the brain covered by the pia.

+ + + +

Once we’ve stripped everything down, we’re left with this silly boy:5

+ + + +
+ + + +

This ridiculous-looking thing is the most complex known object in the universe—three pounds of what neuroengineer Tim Hanson calls “one of the most information-dense, structured, and self-structuring matter known.”6 All while operating on only 20 watts of power (an equivalently powerful computer runs on 24,000,000 watts).

+ + + +

It’s also what MIT professor Polina Anikeeva calls “soft pudding you could scoop with a spoon.” Brain surgeon Ben Rapoport described it to me more scientifically, as “somewhere between pudding and jello.” He explained that if you placed a brain on a table, gravity would make it lose its shape and flatten out a bit, kind of like a jellyfish. We often don’t think of the brain as so smooshy, because it’s normally suspended in water.

+ + + +

But this is what we all are. You look in the mirror and see your body and your face and you think that’s you—but that’s really just the machine you’re riding in. What you actually are is a zany-looking ball of jello. I hope that’s okay.

+ + + +

And given how weird that is, you can’t really blame Aristotle, or the ancient Egyptians, or many others, for assuming that the brain was somewhat-meaningless “cranial stuffing” (Aristotle believed the heart was the center of intelligence).7

+ + + +

Eventually, humans figured out the deal. But only kind of.

+ + + +

Professor Krishna Shenoy likens our understanding of the brain to humanity’s grasp on the world map in the early 1500s.

+ + + +

Another professor, Jeff Lichtman, is even harsher. He starts off his courses by asking his students the question, “If everything you need to know about the brain is a mile, how far have we walked in this mile?” He says students give answers like three-quarters of a mile, half a mile, a quarter of a mile, etc.—but that he believes the real answer is “about three inches.”8

+ + + +
+ + + +

A third professor, neuroscientist Moran Cerf, shared with me an old neuroscience saying that points out why trying to master the brain is a bit of a catch-22: “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.”

+ + + +

Maybe with the help of the great knowledge tower our species is building, we can get there at some point. For now, let’s go through what we do currently know about the jellyfish in our heads—starting with the big picture.

+ + + +

The brain, zoomed out

+ + + +

Let’s look at the major sections of the brain using a hemisphere cross section. So this is what the brain looks like in your head:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Now let’s take the brain out of the head and remove the left hemisphere, which gives us a good view of the inside.9

+ + + +
+ + + +

Neurologist Paul MacLean made a simple diagram that illustrates the basic idea we talked about earlier of the reptile brain coming first in evolution, then being built upon by mammals, and finally being built upon again to give us our brain trifecta.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Here’s how this essentially maps out on our real brain:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Let’s take a look at each section:

+ + + +

The Reptilian Brain: The Brain Stem (and Cerebellum)

+ + + +

This is the most ancient part of our brain:10

+ + + +
midbrain, pons, cerebellum, and medulla oblongata
+ + + +

That’s the section of our brain cross section above that the frog boss resides over. In fact, a frog’s entire brain is similar to this lower part of our brain. Here’s a real frog brain:11

+ + + +
+ + + +

When you understand the function of these parts, the fact that they’re ancient makes sense—everything these parts do, frogs and lizards can do. These are the major sections (click any of these spinning images to see a high-res version):

+ + + +
+ + + +

The medulla oblongata

+ + + +

The medulla oblongata really just wants you to not die. It does the thankless tasks of controlling involuntary things like your heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure, along with making you vomit when it thinks you’ve been poisoned.

+ + + +
+ + + +

The pons

+ + + +

The pons’s thing is that it does a little bit of this and a little bit of that. It deals with swallowing, bladder control, facial expressions, chewing, saliva, tears, and posture—really just whatever it’s in the mood for.

+ + + +
+ + + +

The midbrain

+ + + +

The midbrain is dealing with an even bigger identity crisis than the pons. You know a brain part is going through some shit when almost all its functions are already another brain part’s thing. In the case of the midbrain, it deals with vision, hearing, motor control, alertness, temperature control, and a bunch of other things that other people in the brain already do. The rest of the brain doesn’t seem very into the midbrain either, given that they created a ridiculously uneven “forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain” divide that intentionally isolates the midbrain all by itself while everyone else hangs out.12

+ + + +
+ + + +

One thing I’ll grant the pons and midbrain is that it’s the two of them that control your voluntary eye movement, which is a pretty legit job. So if right now you move your eyes around, that’s you doing something specifically with your pons and midbrain.7

+ + + +
+ + + +

The cerebellum

+ + + +

The odd-looking thing that looks like your brain’s scrotum is your cerebellum (Latin for “little brain”), which makes sure you stay a balanced, coordinated, and normal-moving person. Here’s that rad professor again showing you what a real cerebellum looks like.8

+ + + +

The Paleo-Mammalian Brain: The Limbic System

+ + + +

Above the brain stem is the limbic system—the part of the brain that makes humans so insane.13

+ + + +
limbic system diagram
+ + + +

The limbic system is a survival system. A decent rule of thumb is that whenever you’re doing something that your dog might also do—eating, drinking, having sex, fighting, hiding or running away from something scary—your limbic system is probably behind the wheel. Whether it feels like it or not, when you’re doing any of those things, you’re in primitive survival mode.

+ + + +

The limbic system is also where your emotions live, and in the end, emotions are also all about survival—they’re the more advanced mechanisms of survival, necessary for animals living in a complex social structure.

+ + + +

In other posts, when I refer to your Instant Gratification Monkey, your Social Survival Mammoth, and all your other animals—I’m usually referring to your limbic system. Anytime there’s an internal battle going on in your head, it’s likely that the limbic system’s role is urging you to do the thing you’ll later regret doing.

+ + + +

I’m pretty sure that gaining control over your limbic system is both the definition of maturity and the core human struggle. It’s not that we would be better off without our limbic systems—limbic systems are half of what makes us distinctly human, and most of the fun of life is related to emotions and/or fulfilling your animal needs—it’s just that your limbic system doesn’t get that you live in a civilization, and if you let it run your life too much, it’ll quickly ruin your life.

+ + + +

Anyway, let’s take a closer look at it. There are a lot of little parts of the limbic system, but we’ll keep it to the biggest celebrities:

+ + + +
+ + + +

The amygdala

+ + + +

The amygdala is kind of an emotional wreck of a brain structure. It deals with anxiety, sadness, and our responses to fear. There are two amygdalae, and oddly, the left one has been shown to be more balanced, sometimes producing happy feelings in addition to the usual angsty ones, while the right one is always in a bad mood.

+ + + +
+ + + +

The hippocampus

+ + + +

Your hippocampus (Greek for “seahorse” because it looks like one) is like a scratch board for memory. When rats start to memorize directions in a maze, the memory gets encoded in their hippocampus—quite literally. Different parts of the rat’s two hippocampi will fire during different parts of the maze, since each section of the maze is stored in its own section of the hippocampus. But if after learning one maze, the rat is given other tasks and is brought back to the original maze a year later, it will have a hard time remembering it, because the hippocampus scratch board has been mostly wiped of the memory so as to free itself up for new memories.

+ + + +

The condition in the movie Memento is a real thing—anterograde amnesia—and it’s caused by damage to the hippocampus. Alzheimer’s also starts in the hippocampus before working its way through many parts of the brain, which is why, of the slew of devastating effects of the disease, diminished memory happens first.

+ + + +
+ + + +

The thalamus

+ + + +

In its central position in the brain, the thalamus also serves as a sensory middleman that receives information from your sensory organs and sends them to your cortex for processing. When you’re sleeping, the thalamus goes to sleep with you, which means the sensory middleman is off duty. That’s why in a deep sleep, some sound or light or touch often will not wake you up. If you want to wake someone up who’s in a deep sleep, you have to be aggressive enough to wake their thalamus up.

+ + + +

The exception is your sense of smell, which is the one sense that bypasses the thalamus. That’s why smelling salts are used to wake up a passed-out person. While we’re here, cool fact: smell is the function of the olfactory bulb and is the most ancient of the senses. Unlike the other senses, smell is located deep in the limbic system, where it works closely with the hippocampus and amygdala—which is why smell is so closely tied to memory and emotion.

+ + + +

The Neo-Mammalian Brain: The Cortex

+ + + +

Finally, we arrive at the cortex. The cerebral cortex. The neocortex. The cerebrum. The pallium.

+ + + +

The most important part of the whole brain can’t figure out what its name is. Here’s what’s happening:

+ + + +

The What the Hell is it Actually Called Blue Box

+ + + +

The cerebrum is the whole big top/outside part of the brain but it also technically includes some of the internal parts too.

+ + + +

Cortex means “bark” in Latin and is the word used for the outer layer of many organs, not just the brain. The outside of the cerebellum is the cerebellar cortex. And the outside of the cerebrum is the cerebral cortex.Only mammals have cerebral cortices. The equivalent part of the brain in reptiles is called the pallium. 

+ + + +

The neocortex is often used interchangeably with “cerebral cortex,” but it’s technically the outer layers of the cerebral cortex that are especially developed in more advanced mammals. The other parts are called the allocortex.

+ + + +

In the rest of this post, we’ll be mostly referring to the neocortex but we’ll just call it the cortex, since that’s the least annoying way to do it for everyone.

+ + + +

The cortex is in charge of basically everything—processing what you see, hear, and feel, along with language, movement, thinking, planning, and personality.

+ + + +

It’s divided into four lobes:14

+ + + +
+ + + +

It’s pretty unsatisfying to describe what they each do, because they each do so many things and there’s a lot of overlap, but to oversimplify:

+ + + +

The frontal lobe (click the words to see a gif) handles your personality, along with a lot of what we think of as “thinking”—reasoning, planning, and executive function. In particular, a lot of your thinking takes place in the front part of the frontal lobe, called the prefrontal cortex—the adult in your head. The prefrontal cortex is the other character in those internal battles that go on in your life. The rational decision-maker trying to get you to do your work. The authentic voice trying to get you to stop worrying so much what others think and just be yourself. The higher being who wishes you’d stop sweating the small stuff.

+ + + +

As if that’s not enough to worry about, the frontal lobe is also in charge of your body’s movement. The top strip of the frontal lobe is your primary motor cortex.15

+ + + +
+ + + +

Then there’s the parietal lobe which, among other things, controls your sense of touch, particularly in the primary somatosensory cortex, the strip right next to the primary motor cortex.16

+ + + +
+ + + +

The motor and somatosensory cortices are fun because they’re well-mapped. Neuroscientists know exactly which part of each strip connects to each part of your body. Which leads us to the creepiest diagram of this post: the homunculus.

+ + + +
+ + + +

The homunculus, created by pioneer neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, visually displays how the motor and somatosensory cortices are mapped. The larger the body part in the diagram, the more of the cortex is dedicated to its movement or sense of touch. A couple interesting things about this:

+ + + +

First, it’s amazing that more of your brain is dedicated to the movement and feeling of your face and hands than to the rest of your body combined. This makes sense though—you need to make incredibly nuanced facial expressions and your hands need to be unbelievably dexterous, while the rest of your body—your shoulder, your knee, your back—can move and feel things much more crudely. This is why people can play the piano with their fingers but not with their toes.

+ + + +

Second, it’s interesting how the two cortices are basically dedicated to the same body parts, in the same proportions. I never really thought about the fact that the same parts of your body you need to have a lot of movement control over tend to also be the most sensitive to touch.

+ + + +

Finally, I came across this shit and I’ve been living with it ever since—so now you have to too. A 3-dimensional homunculus man.17

+ + + +
+ + + +

Moving on—

+ + + +

The temporal lobe is where a lot of your memory lives, and being right next to your ears, it’s also the home of your auditory cortex. 

+ + + +

Last, at the back of your head is the occipital lobe, which houses your visual cortexand is almost entirely dedicated to vision.

+ + + +

Now for a long time, I thought these major lobes were chunks of the brain—like, segments of the whole 3D structure. But actually, the cortex is just the outer twomillimeters of the brain—the thickness of a nickel—and the meat of the space underneath is mostly just wiring.

+ + + +

The Why Brains Are So Wrinkly Blue Box

+ + + +

As we’ve discussed, the evolution of our brain happened by building outwards, adding newer, fancier features on top of the existing model. But building outwards has its limits, because the need for humans to emerge into the world through someone’s vagina puts a cap on how big our heads could be.9

+ + + +

So evolution got innovative. Because the cortex is so thin, it scales by increasing its surface area. That means that by creating lots of folds (including both sides folding down into the gap between the two hemispheres), you can more than triple the area of the brain’s surface without increasing the volume too much. When the brain first develops in the womb, the cortex is smooth—the folds form mostly in the last two months of pregnancy:18

+ + + +
+ + + +

Cool explainer of how the folds form here.

+ + + +
+ + + +

If you could take the cortex off the brain, you’d end up with a 2mm-thick sheet with an area of 2,000-2,400cm2—about the size of a 48cm x 48cm (19in x 19in) square.10A dinner napkin. 

+ + + +

This napkin is where most of the action in your brain happens—it’s why you can think, move, feel, see, hear, remember, and speak and understand language. Best napkin ever.

+ + + +

And remember before when I said that you were a jello ball? Well the you you think of when you think of yourself—it’s really mainly your cortex. Which means you’re actually a napkin.

+ + + +

The magic of the folds in increasing the napkin’s size is clear when we put another brain on top of our stripped-off cortex:

+ + + +
+ + + +

So while it’s not perfect, modern science has a decent understanding of the big picture when it comes to the brain. We also have a decent understanding of the little picture. Let’s check it out:

+ + + +

The brain, zoomed in

+ + + +

Even though we figured out that the brain was the seat of our intelligence a long time ago, it wasn’t until pretty recently that science understood what the brain was made of. Scientists knew that the body was made of cells, but in the late 19th century, Italian physician Camillo Golgi figured out how to use a staining method to see what brain cells actually looked like. The result was surprising:

+ + + +
+ + + +

That wasn’t what a cell was supposed to look like. Without quite realizing it yet,11Golgi had discovered the neuron.

+ + + +

Scientists realized that the neuron was the core unit in the vast communication network that makes up the brains and nervous systems of nearly all animals.

+ + + +

But it wasn’t until the 1950s that scientists worked out how neurons communicate with each other.

+ + + +

An axon, the long strand of a neuron that carries information, is normally microscopic in diameter—too small for scientists to test on until recently. But in the 1930s, English zoologist J. Z. Young discovered that the squid, randomly, could change everything for our understanding, because squids have an unusually huge axon in their bodies that could be experimented on. A couple decades later, using the squid’s giant axon, scientists Alan Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley definitively figured out how neurons send information: the action potential. Here’s how it works.

+ + + +

So there are a lot of different kinds of neurons—19

+ + + +
+ + + +

—but for simplicity, we’ll discuss the cliché textbook neuron—a pyramidal cell, like one you might find in your motor cortex. To make a neuron diagram, we can start with a guy:

+ + + +
+ + + +

And then if we just give him a few extra legs, some hair, take his arms off, and stretch him out—we have a neuron.

+ + + +
+ + + +

And let’s add in a few more neurons.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Rather than launch into the full, detailed explanation for how action potentials work—which involves a lot of unnecessary and uninteresting technical information you already dealt with in 9th-grade biology—I’ll link to this great Khan Academy explainer article for those who want the full story. We’ll go through the very basic ideas that are relevant for our purposes.

+ + + +

So our guy’s body stem—the neuron’s axon—has a negative “resting potential,” which means that when it’s at rest, its electrical charge is slightly negative. At all times, a bunch of people’s feet keep touching12 our guy’s hair—the neuron’s dendrites—whether he likes it or not. Their feet drop chemicals called neurotransmitters13 onto his hair—which pass through his head (the cell body, orsoma) and, depending on the chemical, raise or lower the charge in his body a little bit. It’s a little unpleasant for our neuron guy, but not a huge deal—and nothing else happens.

+ + + +
+ + + +

But if enough chemicals touch his hair to raise his charge over a certain point—the neuron’s “threshold potential”—then it triggers an action potential, and our guy is electrocuted.

+ + + +
+ + + +

This is a binary situation—either nothing happens to our guy, or he’s fully electrocuted. He can’t be kind of electrocuted, or extra electrocuted—he’s either not electrocuted at all, or he’s fully electrocuted to the exact same degree every time.

+ + + +

When this happens, a pulse of electricity (in the form of a brief reversal of his body’s normal charge from negative to positive and then rapidly back down to his normal negative) zips down his body (the axon) and into his feet—the neuron’s axon terminals—which themselves touch a bunch of other people’s hair (the points of contact are called synapses). When the action potential reaches his feet, it causes them to release chemicals onto the people’s hair they’re touching, which may or may not cause those people to be electrocuted, just like he was.

+ + + +
+ + + +

This is usually how info moves through the nervous system—chemical information sent in the tiny gap between neurons triggers electrical information to pass through the neuron—but sometimes, in situations when the body needs to move a signal extra quickly, neuron-to-neuron connections can themselves be electric.

+ + + +

Action potentials move at between 1 and 100 meters/second. Part of the reason for this large range is that another type of cell in the nervous system—a Schwann cell—acts like a super nurturing grandmother and constantly wraps some types of axons in layers of fat blankets called myelin sheath. Like this (takes a second to start):20

+ + + +
+ + + +

On top of its protection and insulation benefits, the myelin sheath is a major factor in the pace of communication—action potentials travel much faster through axons when they’re covered in myelin sheath:1421

+ + + +
+ + + +

One nice example of the speed difference created by myelin: You know how when you stub your toe, your body gives you that one second of reflection time to think about what you just did and what you’re about to feel, before the pain actually kicks in? What’s happening is you feel both the sensation of your toe hitting against something and the sharp part of the pain right away, because sharp pain information is sent to the brain via types of axons that are myelinated. It takes a second or two for the dull pain to kick in because dull pain is sent via unmyelinated“C fibers”—at only around one meter/second.

+ + + +

Neural Networks

+ + + +

Neurons are similar to computer transistors in one way—they also transmit information in the binary language of 1’s (action potential firing) and 0’s (no action potential firing). But unlike computer transistors, the brain’s neurons are constantly changing.

+ + + +

You know how sometimes you learn a new skill and you get pretty good at it, and then the next day you try again and you suck again? That’s because what made you get good at the skill the day before was adjustments to the amount or concentration of the chemicals in the signaling between neurons. Repetition caused chemicals to adjust, which helped you improve, but the next day the chemicals were back to normal so the improvement went away.

+ + + +

But then if you keep practicing, you eventually get good at something in a lasting way. What’s happened is you’ve told the brain, “this isn’t just something I need in a one-off way,” and the brain’s neural network has responded by making structural changes to itself that last. Neurons have shifted shape and location and strengthened or weakened various connections in a way that has built a hard-wired set of pathways that know how to do that skill.

+ + + +

Neurons’ ability to alter themselves chemically, structurally, and even functionally, allow your brain’s neural network to optimize itself to the external world—a phenomenon called neuroplasticity. Babies’ brains are the most neuroplastic of all. When a baby is born, its brain has no idea if it needs to accommodate the life of a medieval warrior who will need to become incredibly adept at sword-fighting, a 17th-century musician who will need to develop fine-tuned muscle memory for playing the harpsichord, or a modern-day intellectual who will need to store and organize a tremendous amount of information and master a complex social fabric—but the baby’s brain is ready to shape itself to handle whatever life has in store for it.

+ + + +

Babies are the neuroplasticity superstars, but neuroplasticity remains throughout our whole lives, which is why humans can grow and change and learn new things. And it’s why we can form new habits and break old ones—your habits are reflective of the existing circuitry in your brain. If you want to change your habits, you need to exert a lot of willpower to override your brain’s neural pathways, but if you can keep it going long enough, your brain will eventually get the hint and alter those pathways, and the new behavior will stop requiring willpower. Your brain will have physically built the changes into a new habit.

+ + + +

Altogether, there are around 100 billion neurons in the brain that make up this unthinkably vast network—similar to the number of stars in the Milky Way and over 10 times the number of people in the world. Around 15 – 20 billion of those neurons are in the cortex, and the rest are in the animal parts of your brain (surprisingly, the random cerebellum has more than three times as many neurons as the cortex).

+ + + +

Let’s zoom back out and look at another cross section of the brain—this time cut not from front to back to show a single hemisphere, but from side to side:22

+ + + +
+ + + +

Brain material can be divided into what’s called gray matter and white matter.Gray matter actually looks darker in color and is made up of the cell bodies (somas) of the brain’s neurons and their thicket of dendrites and axons—along with a lot of other stuff. White matter is made up primarily of wiring—axons carrying information from somas to other somas or to destinations in the body. White matter is white because those axons are usually wrapped in myelin sheath, which is fatty white tissue.

+ + + +

There are two main regions of gray matter in the brain—the internal cluster of limbic system and brain stem parts we discussed above, and the nickel-thick layer of cortex around the outside. The big chunk of white matter in between is made up mostly of the axons of cortical neurons. The cortex is like a great command center, and it beams many of its orders out through the mass of axons making up the white matter beneath it.

+ + + +

The coolest illustration of this concept that I’ve come across15 is a beautiful set of artistic representations done by Dr. Greg A. Dunn and Dr. Brian Edwards. Check out the distinct difference between the structure of the outer layer of gray matter cortex and the white matter underneath it (click to view in high res):

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

Those cortical axons might be taking information to another part of the cortex, to the lower part of the brain, or through the spinal cord—the nervous system’s superhighway—and into the rest of the body.16

+ + + +

Let’s look at the whole nervous system:23

+ + + +
+ + + +

The nervous system is divided into two parts: the central nervous system—your brain and spinal cord—and the peripheral nervous system—made up of the neurons that radiate outwards from the spinal cord into the rest of the body.

+ + + +

Most types of neurons are interneurons—neurons that communicate with other neurons. When you think, it’s a bunch of interneurons talking to each other. Interneurons are mostly contained to the brain.

+ + + +

The two other kinds of neurons are sensory neurons and motor neurons—those are the neurons that head down into your spinal cord and make up the peripheral nervous system. These neurons can be up to a meter long.17 Here’s a typical structure of each type:24

+ + + +
+ + + +

Remember our two strips?25

+ + + +
+ + + +

These strips are where your peripheral nervous system originates. The axons of sensory neurons head down from the somatosensory cortex, through the brain’s white matter, and into the spinal cord (which is just a massive bundle of axons). From the spinal cord, they head out to all parts of your body. Each part of your skin is lined with nerves that originate in the somatosensory cortex. A nerve, by the way, is a few bundles of axons wrapped together in a little cord. Here’s a nerve up close:26

+ + + +
+ + + +

The nerve is the whole thing circled in purple, and those four big circles inside are bundles of many axons (here’s a helpful cartoony drawing).

+ + + +

So if a fly lands on your arm, here’s what happens:

+ + + +

The fly touches your skin and stimulates a bunch of sensory nerves. The axon terminals in the nerves have a little fit and start action potential-ing, sending the signal up to the brain to tell on the fly. The signals head into the spinal cord and up to the somas in the somatosensory cortex.18 The somatosensory cortex then taps the motor cortex on the shoulder and tells it that there’s a fly on your arm and that it needs to deal with it (lazy). The particular somas in your motor cortex that connect to the muscles in your arm then start action potential-ing, sending the signals back into the spinal cord and then out to the muscles of the arm. The axon terminals at the end of those neurons stimulate your arm muscles, which constrict to shake your arm to get the fly off (by now the fly has already thrown up on your arm), and the fly (whose nervous system now goes through its own whole thing) flies off.

+ + + +

Then your amygdala looks over and realizes there was a bug on you, and it tells your motor cortex to jump embarrassingly, and if it’s a spider instead of a fly, it also tells your vocal cords to yell out involuntarily and ruin your reputation.

+ + + +

So it seems so far like we do kind of actually understand the brain, right? But then why did that professor ask that question—If everything you need to know about the brain is a mile, how far have we walked in this mile?—and say the answer was three inches?

+ + + +

Well here’s the thing.

+ + + +

You know how we totally get how an individual computer sends an email and we totally understand the broad concepts of the internet, like how many people are on it and what the biggest sites are and what the major trends are—but all the stuff in the middle—the inner workings of the internet—are pretty confusing?

+ + + +

And you know how economists can tell you all about how an individual consumer functions and they can also tell you about the major concepts of macroeconomics and the overarching forces at play—but no one can really tell you all the ins and outs of how the economy works or predict what will happen with the economy next month or next year?

+ + + +

The brain is kind of like those things. We get the little picture—we know all about how a neuron fires. And we get the big picture—we know how many neurons are in the brain and what the major lobes and structures control and how much energy the whole system uses. But the stuff in between—all that middle stuff about how each part of the brain actually does its thing?

+ + + +

Yeah we don’t get that.

+ + + +

What really makes it clear how confounded we are is hearing a neuroscientist talk about the parts of the brain we understand best.

+ + + +

Like the visual cortex. We understand the visual cortex pretty well because it’s easy to map.

+ + + +

Research scientist Paul Merolla described it to me:

+ + + +

The visual cortex has very nice anatomical function and structure. When you look at it, you literally see a map of the world. So when something in your visual field is in a certain region of space, you’ll see a little patch in the cortex that represents that region of space, and it’ll light up. And as that thing moves over, there’s a topographic mapping where the neighboring cells will represent that. It’s almost like having Cartesian coordinates of the real world that will map to polar coordinates in the visual cortex. And you can literally trace from your retina, through your thalamus, to your visual cortex, and you’ll see an actual mapping from this point in space to this point in the visual cortex.

+ + + +

So far so good. But then he went on:

+ + + +

So that mapping is really useful if you want to interact with certain parts of the visual cortex, but there’s many regions of vision, and as you get deeper into the visual cortex, it becomes a little bit more nebulous, and this topographic representation starts to break down. … There’s all these levels of things going on in the brain, and visual perception is a great example of that. We look at the world, and there’s just this physical 3D world out there—like you look at a cup, and you just see a cup—but what your eyes are seeing is really just a bunch of pixels. And when you look in the visual cortex, you see that there are roughly 20-40 different maps. V1 is the first area, where it’s tracking little edges and colors and things like that. And there’s other areas looking at more complicated objects, and there’s all these different visual representations on the surface of your brain, that you can see. And somehow all of that information is being bound together in this information stream that’s being coded in a way that makes you believe you’re just seeing a simple object.

+ + + +

And the motor cortex, another one of the best-understood areas of the brain, might be even more difficult to understand on a granular level than the visual cortex. Because even though we know which general areas of the motor cortex map to which areas of the body, the individual neurons in these motor cortex areas aren’ttopographically set up, and the specific way they work together to create movement in the body is anything but clear. Here’s Paul again:

+ + + +

The neural chatter in everyone’s arm movement part of the brain is a little bit different—it’s not like the neurons speak English and say “move”—it’s a pattern of electrical activity, and in everyone it’s a little bit different. … And you want to be able to seamlessly understand that it means “Move the arm this way” or “move the arm toward the target” or “move the arm to the left, move it up, grasp, grasp with a certain kind of force, reach with a certain speed,” and so on. We don’t think about these things when we move—it just happens seamlessly. So each brain has a unique code with which it talks to the muscles in the arm and hand.

+ + + +

The neuroplasticity that makes our brains so useful to us also makes them incredibly difficult to understand—because the way each of our brains works is based on how that brain has shaped itself, based on its particular environment and life experience.

+ + + +

And again, those are the areas of the brain we understand the best. “When it comes to more sophisticated computation, like language, memory, mathematics,” one expert told me, “we really don’t understand how the brain works.” He lamented that, for example, the concept of one’s mother is coded in a different way, and in different parts of the brain, for every person. And in the frontal lobe—you know, that part of the brain where you really live—”there’s no topography at all.”

+ + + +

But somehow, none of this is why building effective brain-computer interfaces is so hard, or so daunting. What makes BMIs so hard is that the engineering challenges are monumental. It’s physically working with the brain that makes BMIs among the hardest engineering endeavors in the world.

+ + + +

So with our brain background tree trunk built, we’re ready to head up to our first branch.

+ + + +

Part 3: Brain-Machine Interfaces

+ + + +
+ + + +

Let’s zip back in time for a second to 50,000 BC and kidnap someone and bring him back here to 2017.

+ + + +
+ + + +

This is Bok. Bok, we’re really thankful that you and your people invented language.

+ + + +
+ + + +

As a way to thank you, we want to show you all the amazing things we were able to build because of your invention.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Alright, first let’s take Bok on a plane, and into a submarine, and to the top of the Burj Khalifa. Now we’ll show him a telescope and a TV and an iPhone. And now we’ll let him play around on the internet for a while.

+ + + +

Okay that was fun. How’d it go, Bok?

+ + + +
+ + + +

Yeah we figured that you’d be pretty surprised. To wrap up, let’s show him how we communicate with each other.

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

Bok would be shocked to learn that despite all the magical powers humans have gained as a result of having learned to speak to each other, when it comes to actually speaking to each other, we’re no more magical than the people of his day. When two people are together and talking, they’re using 50,000-year-old technology.

+ + + +

Bok might also be surprised that in a world run by fancy machines, the people who made all the machines are walking around with the same biological bodies that Bok and his friends walk around with. How can that be?

+ + + +
+ + + +

This is why brain-machine interfaces—a subset of the broader field of neural engineering, which itself is a subset of biotechnology—are such a tantalizing new industry. We’ve conquered the world many times over with our technology, but when it comes to our brains—our most central tool—the tech world has for the most part been too daunted to dive in.

+ + + +

That’s why we still communicate using technology Bok invented, it’s why I’m typing this sentence at about a 20th of the speed that I’m thinking it, and it’s why brain-related ailments still leave so many lives badly impaired or lost altogether.

+ + + +

But 50,000 years after the brain’s great “aha!” moment, that may finally be about to change. The brain’s next great frontier may be itself.

+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

There are many kinds of potential brain-machine interface (sometimes called a brain-computer interface) that will serve many different functions. But everyone working on BMIs is grappling with either one or both of these two questions:

+ + + +

1) How do I get the right information out of the brain?

+ + + +

2) How do I send the right information into the brain?

+ + + +

The first is about capturing the brain’s output—it’s about recording what neurons are saying.

+ + + +

The second is about inputting information into the brain’s natural flow or altering that natural flow in some other way—it’s about stimulating neurons.

+ + + +

These two things are happening naturally in your brain all the time. Right now, your eyes are making a specific set of horizontal movements that allow you to read this sentence. That’s the brain’s neurons outputting information to a machine (your eyes) and the machine receiving the command and responding. And as your eyes move in just the right way, the photons from the screen are entering your retinas and stimulating neurons in the occipital lobe of your cortex in a way that allows the image of the words to enter your mind’s eye. That image then stimulates neurons in another part of your brain that allows you to process the information embedded in the image and absorb the sentence’s meaning.

+ + + +

Inputting and outputting information is what the brain’s neurons do. All the BMI industry wants to do is get in on the action.

+ + + +

At first, this seems like maybe not that difficult a task? The brain is just a jello ball, right? And the cortex—the part of the brain in which we want to do most of our recording and stimulating—is just a napkin, located conveniently right on the outside of the brain where it can be easily accessed. Inside the cortex are around 20 billion firing neurons—20 billion oozy little transistors that if we can just learn to work with, will give us an entirely new level of control over our life, our health, and the world. Can’t we figure that out? Neurons are small, but we know how to split an atom. A neuron’s diameter is about 100,000 times as large as an atom’s—if an atom were a marble, a neuron would be a kilometer across—so we should probably be able to handle the smallness. Right?

+ + + +

So what’s the issue here?

+ + + +

Well on one hand, there’s something to that line of thinking, in that because of those facts, this is an industry where immense progress can happen. We can do this.

+ + + +

But only when you understand what actually goes on in the brain do you realize why this is probably the hardest human endeavor in the world.

+ + + +

So before we talk about BMIs themselves, we need to take a closer look at what the people trying to make BMIs are dealing with here. I find that the best way to illustrate things is to scale the brain up by exactly 1,000X and look at what’s going on.

+ + + +

Remember our cortex-is-a-napkin demonstration earlier?

+ + + +
+ + + +

Well if we scale that up by 1,000X, the cortex napkin—which was about 48cm / 19in on each side—now has a side the length of six Manhattan street blocks (or two avenue blocks). It would take you about 25 minutes to walk around the perimeter. And the brain as a whole would now fit snugly inside a two block by two block square—just about the size of Madison Square Garden (this works in length and width, but the brain would be about double the height of MSG).

+ + + +
+ + + +

So let’s lay it out in the actual city. I’m sure the few hundred thousand people who live there will understand.

+ + + +
+ + + +

I chose 1,000X as our multiplier for a couple reasons. One is that we can all instantly convert the sizes in our heads. Every millimeter of the actual brain is now a meter. And in the much smaller world of neurons, every micron is now an easy-to-conceptualize millimeter. Secondly, it conveniently brings the cortex up to human size—its 2mm thickness is now two meters—the height of a tall (6’6”) man.

+ + + +

So we could walk up to 29th street, to the edge of our giant cortex napkin, and easily look at what was going on inside those two meters of thickness. For our demonstration, let’s pull out a cubic meter of our giant cortex to examine, which will show us what goes on in a typical cubic millimeter of real cortex.

+ + + +
+ + + +

What we’d see in that cubic meter would be a mess. Let’s empty it out and put it back together.

+ + + +

First, let’s put the somas19 in—the little bodies of all the neurons that live in that cube.

+ + + +

Somas range in size, but the neuroscientists I spoke with said that the somas of neurons in the cortex are often around 10 or 15µm in diameter (µm = micrometer, or micron: 1/1,000th of a millimeter). That means that if you laid out 7 or 10 of them in a line, that line would be about the diameter of a human hair (which is about 100µm). On our scale, that makes a soma 1 – 1.5cm in diameter. A marble.

+ + + +

The volume of the whole cortex is in the ballpark of 500,000 cubic millimeters, and in that space are about 20 billion somas. That means an average cubic millimeter of cortex contains about 40,000 neurons. So there are 40,000 marbles in our cubic meter box. If we divide our box into about 40,000 cubic spaces, each with a side of 3cm (or about a cubic inch), it means each of our soma marbles is at the center of its own little 3cm cube, with other somas about 3cm away from it in all directions.

+ + + +

With me so far? Can you visualize our meter cube with those 40,000 floating marbles in it?

+ + + +

Here’s a microscope image of the somas in an actual cortex, using techniques that block out the other stuff around them:27

+ + + +
+ + + +

Okay not too crazy so far. But the soma is only a tiny piece of each neuron. Radiating out from each of our marble-sized somas are twisty, branchy dendrites that in our scaled-up brain can stretch out for three or four meters in many different directions, and from the other end an axon that can be over 100 meters long (when heading out laterally to another part of the cortex) or as long as a kilometer (when heading down into the spinal cord and body). Each of them only about a millimeter thick, these cords turn the cortex into a dense tangle of electrical spaghetti.

+ + + +

And there’s a lot going on in that mash of spaghetti. Each neuron has synaptic connections to as many as 1,000—sometimes as high as 10,000—other neurons. With around 20 billion neurons in the cortex, that means there are over 20 trillion individual neural connections in the cortex (and as high as a quadrillion connections in the entire brain). In our cubic meter alone, there will be over 20 million synapses.

+ + + +

To further complicate things, not only are there many spaghetti strands coming out of each of the 40,000 marbles in our cube, but there are thousands of other spaghetti strings passing through our cube from other parts of the cortex. That means that if we were trying to record signals or stimulate neurons in this particular cubic area, we’d have a lot of difficulty, because in the mess of spaghetti, it would be very hard to figure out which spaghetti strings belonged to our soma marbles (and god forbid there are Purkinje cells in the mix).

+ + + +

And of course, there’s the whole neuroplasticity thing. The voltages of each neuron would be constantly changing, as many as hundreds of times per second. And the tens of millions of synapse connections in our cube would be regularly changing sizes, disappearing, and reappearing.

+ + + +

If only that were the end of it.

+ + + +

It turns out there are other cells in the brain called glial cells—cells that come in many different varieties and perform many different functions, like mopping up chemicals released into synapses, wrapping axons in myelin, and serving as the brain’s immune system. Here are some common types of glial cell:28

+ + + +
+ + + +

And how many glial cells are in the cortex? About the same number as there are neurons.20 So add about 40,000 of these wacky things into our cube.

+ + + +

Finally, there are the blood vessels. In every cubic millimeter of cortex, there’s a total of a meter of tiny blood vessels. On our scale, that means that in our cubic meter, there’s a kilometer of blood vessels. Here’s what the blood vessels in a space about that size look like:29

+ + + +
+ + + +

The Connectome Blue Box

+ + + +

There’s an amazing project going on right now in the neuroscience world called the Human Connectome Project (pronounced “connec-tome”) in which scientists are trying to create a complete detailed map of the entire human brain. Nothing close to this scale of brain mapping has ever been done.21

+ + + +

The project entails slicing a human brain into outrageously thin slices—around 30-nanometer-thick slices. That’s 1/33,000th of a millimeter (here’s a machine slicing up a mouse brain).

+ + + +

Anyway, in addition to producing some gorgeous images of the “ribbon” formations axons with similar functions often form inside white matter, like—

+ + + +
+ + + +

—the connectome project has helped people visualize just how packed the brain is with all this stuff. Here’s a breakdown of all the different things going on in one tiny snippet of mouse brain (and this doesn’t even include the blood vessels):30

+ + + +
+ + + +

(In the image, E is the complete brain snippet, and F–N show the separate components that make up E.)

+ + + +

So our meter box is a jam-packed, oozy, electrified mound of dense complexity—now let’s recall that in reality, everything in our box actually fits in a cubic millimeter.

+ + + +

And the brain-machine interface engineers need to figure out what the microscopic somas buried in that millimeter are saying, and other times, to stimulate just the right somas to get them to do what the engineers want. Good luck with that.

+ + + +

We’d have a super hard time doing that on our 1,000X brain. Our 1,000X brain that also happens to be a nice flat napkin. That’s not how it normally works—usually, the napkin is up on top of our Madison Square Garden brain and full of deep folds (on our scale, between five and 30 meters deep). In fact, less than a third of the cortex napkin is up on the surface of the brain—most is buried inside the folds.

+ + + +

Also, engineers are not operating on a bunch of brains in a lab. The brain is covered with all those Russian doll layers, including the skull—which at 1,000X would be around seven meters thick. And since most people don’t really want you opening up their skull for very long—and ideally not at all—you have to try to work with those tiny marbles as non-invasively as possible.

+ + + +

And this is all assuming you’re dealing with the cortex—but a lot of cool BMI ideas deal with the structures down below, which if you’re standing on top of our MSG brain, are buried 50 or 100 meters under the surface.

+ + + +

The 1,000X game also hammers home the sheer scope of the brain. Think about how much was going on in our cube—and now remember that that’s only one 500,000th of the cortex. If we broke our whole giant cortex into similar meter cubes and lined them up, they’d stretch 500km / 310mi—all the way to Boston and beyond. And if you made the trek—which would take over 100 hours of brisk walking—at any point you could pause and look at the cube you happened to be passing by and it would have all of this complexity inside of it. All of this is currently in your brain.

+ + + +

Part 3A: How Happy Are You That This Isn’t Your Problem

+ + + +

Totes.

+ + + +

Back to Part 3: Brain-Machine Interfaces

+ + + +

So how do scientists and engineers begin to manage this situation?

+ + + +

Well they do the best they can with the tools they currently have—tools used to record or stimulate neurons (we’ll focus on the recording side for the time being). Let’s take a look at the options:

+ + + +

BMI Tools

+ + + +

With the current work that’s being done, three broad criteria seem to stand out when evaluating a type of recording tool’s pros and cons:

+ + + +

1) Scale – how many neurons can be simultaneously recorded

+ + + +

2) Resolution – how detailed is the information the tool receives—there are two types of resolution, spatial (how closely your recordings come to telling you how individual neurons are firing) and temporal (how well you can determine when the activity you record happened)

+ + + +

3) Invasiveness – is surgery needed, and if so, how extensively

+ + + +

The long-term goal is to have all three of your cakes and eat them all. But for now, it’s always a question of “which one (or two) of these criteria are you willing to completely fail?” Going from one tool to another isn’t an overall upgrade or downgrade—it’s a tradeoff.

+ + + +

Let’s examine the types of tools currently being used:

+ + + +

fMRI

+ + + +

Scale: high (it shows you information across the whole brain)

+ + + +

Resolution: medium-low spatial, very low temporal

+ + + +

Invasiveness: non-invasive

+ + + +

fMRI isn’t typically used for BMIs, but it is a classic recording tool—it gives you information about what’s going on inside the brain.

+ + + +

fMRI uses MRI—magnetic resonance imaging—technology. MRIs, invented in the 1970s, were an evolution of the x-ray-based CAT scan. Instead of using x-rays, MRIs use magnetic fields (along with radio waves and other signals) to generate images of the body and brain. Like this:31

+ + + +
+ + + +

And this full set of cross sections, allowing you to see through an entire head.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Pretty amazing technology.

+ + + +

fMRI (“functional” MRI) uses similar technology to track changes in blood flow. Why? Because when areas of the brain become more active, they use more energy, so they need more oxygen—so blood flow increases to the area to deliver that oxygen. Blood flow indirectly indicates where activity is happening. Here’s what an fMRI scan might show:32

+ + + +
+ + + +

Of course, there’s always blood throughout the brain—what this image shows is where blood flow has increased (red/orange/yellow) and where it has decreased (blue). And because fMRI can scan through the whole brain, results are 3-dimensional:

+ + + +
+ + + +

fMRI has many medical uses, like informing doctors whether or not certain parts of the brain are functioning properly after a stroke, and fMRI has taught neuroscientists a ton about which regions of the brain are involved with which functions. Scans also have the benefit of providing info about what’s going on in the whole brain at any given time, and it’s safe and totally non-invasive.

+ + + +

The big drawback is resolution. fMRI scans have a literal resolution, like a computer screen has with pixels, except the pixels are three-dimensional, cubic volume pixels—or “voxels.”

+ + + +

fMRI voxels have gotten smaller as the technology has improved, bringing the spatial resolution up. Today’s fMRI voxels can be as small as a cubic millimeter. The brain has a volume of about 1,200,000mm3, so a high-resolution fMRI scan divides the brain into about one million little cubes. The problem is that on neuron scale, that’s still pretty huge (the same size as our scaled-up cubic meter above)—each voxel contains tens of thousands of neurons. So what the fMRI is showing you, at best, is the average blood flow drawn in by each group of 40,000 or so neurons.

+ + + +

The even bigger problem is temporal resolution. fMRI tracks blood flow, which is both imprecise and comes with a delay of about a second—an eternity in the world of neurons.

+ + + +

EEG

+ + + +

Scale: high

+ + + +

Resolution: very low spatial, medium-high temporal

+ + + +

Invasiveness: non-invasive

+ + + +

Dating back almost a century, EEG (electroencephalography) puts an array of electrodes on your head. You know, this whole thing:33

+ + + +
+ + + +

EEG is definitely technology that will look hilariously primitive to a 2050 person, but for now, it’s one of the only tools that can be used with BMIs that’s totally non-invasive. EEGs record electrical activity in different regions of the brain, displaying the findings like this:34

+ + + +
+ + + +

EEG graphs can uncover information about medical issues like epilepsy, track sleep patterns, or be used to determine something like the status of a dose of anesthesia.

+ + + +

And unlike fMRI, EEG has pretty good temporal resolution, getting electrical signals from the brain right as they happen—though the skull blurs the temporal accuracy considerably (bone is a bad conductor).

+ + + +

The major drawback is spatial resolution. EEG has none. Each electrode only records a broad average—a vector sum of the charges from millions or billions of neurons (and a blurred one because of the skull).

+ + + +

Imagine that the brain is a baseball stadium, its neurons are the members of the crowd, and the information we want is, instead of electrical activity, vocal cord activity. In that case, EEG would be like a group of microphones placed outside the stadium, against the stadium’s outer walls. You’d be able to hear when the crowd was cheering and maybe predict the type of thing they were cheering about. You’d be able to hear telltale signs that it was between innings and maybe whether or not it was a close game. You could probably detect when something abnormal happened. But that’s about it.

+ + + +

ECoG

+ + + +

Scale: high

+ + + +

Resolution: low spatial, high temporal

+ + + +

Invasiveness: kind of invasive

+ + + +

ECoG (electrocorticography) is a similar idea to EEG, also using surface electrodes—except they put them under the skull, on the surface of the brain.35

+ + + +
+ + + +

Ick. But effective—at least much more effective than EEG. Without the interference of the skull blurring things, ECoG picks up both higher spatial (about 1cm) and temporal resolution (5 milliseconds). ECoG electrodes can either be placed above or below the dura:36

+ + + +
+ + + +

Bringing back our stadium analogy, ECoG microphones are inside the stadium and a bit closer to the crowd. So the sound is much crisper than what EEG mics get from outside the stadium, and ECoG mics can better distinguish the sounds of individual sections of the crowd. But the improvement comes at a cost—it requires invasive surgery. In the scheme of invasive surgeries, though, it’s not so bad. As one neurosurgeon described to me, “You can slide stuff underneath the dura relatively non-invasively. You still have to make a hole in the head, but it’s relatively non-invasive.”

+ + + +

Local Field Potential

+ + + +

Scale: low

+ + + +

Resolution: medium-low spatial, high temporal

+ + + +

Invasiveness: very invasive

+ + + +

Okay here’s where we shift from surface electrode discs to microelectrodes—tiny needles surgeons stick into the brain.

+ + + +

Brain surgeon Ben Rapoport described to me how his father (a neurologist) used to make microelectrodes:

+ + + +

When my father was making electrodes, he’d make them by hand. He’d take a very fine wire—like a gold or platinum or iridium wire, that was 10-30 microns in diameter, and he’d insert that wire in a glass capillary tube that was maybe a millimeter in diameter. Then they’d take that piece of glass over a flame and rotate it until the glass became soft. They’d stretch out the capillary tube until it’s incredibly thin, and then take it out of the flame and break it. Now the capillary tube is flush with and pinching the wire. The glass is an insulator and the wire is a conductor. So what you end up with is a glass-insulated stiff electrode that is maybe a few 10s of microns at the tip.

+ + + +

Today, while some electrodes are still made by hand, newer techniques use silicon wafers and manufacturing technology borrowed from the integrated circuits industry.

+ + + +

The way local field potentials (LFP) work is simple—you take one of these super thin needles with an electrode tip and stick it one or two millimeters into the cortex. There it picks up the average of the electrical charges from all of the neurons within a certain radius of the electrode.

+ + + +

LFP gives you the not-that-bad spatial resolution of the fMRI combined with the instant temporal resolution of an ECoG. Kind of the best of all the worlds described above when it comes to resolution.

+ + + +

Unfortunately, it does badly on both other criteria.

+ + + +

Unlike fMRI, EEG, and ECoG, microelectrode LFP does not have scale—it only tells you what the little sphere surrounding it is doing. And it’s far more invasive, actually entering the brain.

+ + + +

In the baseball stadium, LFP is a single microphone hanging over a single section of seats, picking up a crisp feed of the sounds in that area, and maybe picking out an individual voice for a second here and there—but otherwise only getting the general vibe.

+ + + +

A more recent development is the multielectrode array, which is the same idea as the LFP except it’s about 100 LFPs all at once, in a single area of the cortex. A multielectrode array looks like this:37

+ + + +
+ + + +

A tiny 4mm x 4mm square with 100 tiny silicon electrodes on it. Here’s another image where you can see just how sharp the electrodes are—just a few microns across at the very tip:38

+ + + +
+ + + +

Single-Unit Recording

+ + + +

Scale: tiny

+ + + +

Resolution: super high

+ + + +

Invasiveness: very invasive

+ + + +

To record a broader LFP, the electrode tip is a bit rounded to give the electrode more surface area, and they turn the resistance down with the intent of allowing very faint signals from a wide range of locations to be picked up. The end result is the electrode picks up a chorus of activity from the local field.

+ + + +

Single-unit recording also uses a needle electrode, but they make the tip super sharp and crank up the resistance. This wipes out most of the noise and leaves the electrode picking up almost nothing—until it finds itself so close to a neuron (maybe 50µm away) that the signal from that neuron is strong enough to make it past the electrode’s high resistance wall. With distinct signals from one neuron and no background noise, this electrode can now voyeur in on the private life of a single neuron. Lowest possible scale, highest possible resolution.

+ + + +

By the way, you can listen to a neuron fire here (what you’re actually hearing is the electro-chemical firing of a neuron, converted to audio).

+ + + +

Some electrodes want to take the relationship to the next level and will go for a technique called the patch clamp, whereby it’ll get rid of its electrode tip, leaving just a tiny little tube called a glass pipette,22 and it’ll actually directly assault a neuron by sucking a “patch” of its membrane into the tube, allowing for even finer measurements:39

+ + + +
+ + + +

A patch clamp also has the benefit that, unlike all the other methods we’ve discussed, because it’s physically touching the neuron, it can not only record but stimulate the neuron,23 injecting current or holding voltage at a set level to do specific tests (other methods can stimulate neurons, but only entire groups together).

+ + + +

Finally, electrodes can fully defile the neuron and actually penetrate through the membrane, which is called sharp electrode recording. If the tip is sharp enough, this won’t destroy the cell—the membrane will actually seal around the electrode, making it very easy to stimulate the neuron or record the voltage difference between the inside and outside of the neuron. But this is a short-term technique—a punctured neuron won’t survive long.

+ + + +

In our stadium, a single unit recording is a one-directional microphone clipped to a single crowd member’s collar. A patch clamp or sharp recording is a mic in someone’s throat, registering the exact movement of their vocal cords. This is a great way to learn about that person’s experience at the game, but it also gives you no context, and you can’t really tell if the sounds and reactions of that person are representative of what’s going on in the game.

+ + + +

And that’s about what we’ve got, at least in common usage. These tools are simultaneously unbelievably advanced and what will seem like Stone Age technology to future humans, who won’t believe you had to choose either high-res or a wide field and that you actually had to open someone’s skull to get high-quality brain readouts or write-ins.

+ + + +

But given their limitations, these tools have taught us worlds about the brain and led to the creation of some amazing early BMIs. Here’s what’s already out there—

+ + + +

The BMIs we already have

+ + + +

In 1969, a researcher named Eberhard Fetz connected a single neuron in a monkey’s brain to a dial in front of the monkey’s face. The dial would move when the neuron was fired. When the monkey would think in a way that fired the neuron and the dial would move, he’d get a banana-flavored pellet. Over time, the monkey started getting better at the game because he wanted more delicious pellets. The monkey had learned to make the neuron fire and inadvertently became the subject of the first real brain-machine interface.

+ + + +

Progress was slow over the next few decades, but by the mid-90s, things had started to move, and it’s been quietly accelerating ever since.

+ + + +

Given that both our understanding of the brain and the electrode hardware we’ve built are pretty primitive, our efforts have typically focused on building straightforward interfaces to be used with the areas of the brain we understand the best, like the motor cortex and the visual cortex.

+ + + +

And given that human experimentation is only really possible for people who are trying to use BMIs to alleviate an impairment—and because that’s currently where the market demand is—our efforts have focused so far almost entirely on restoring lost function to people with disabilities.

+ + + +

The major BMI industries of the future that will give all humans magical superpowers and transform the world are in their fetal stage right now—and we should look at what’s being worked on as a set of clues about what the mind-boggling worlds of 2040 and 2060 and 2100 might be like.

+ + + +

Like, check this out:

+ + + +
+ + + +

That’s a computer built by Alan Turing in 1950 called the Pilot ACE. Truly cutting edge in its time.

+ + + +

Now check this out:

+ + + +
+ + + +

As you read through the examples below, I want you to think about this analogy—

+ + + +

Pilot ACE is to iPhone 7 

+ + + +

as 

+ + + +

Each BMI example below is to _____

+ + + +

—and try to imagine what the blank looks like. And we’ll come back to the blank later in the post.

+ + + +

Anyway, from everything I’ve read about and discussed with people in the field, there seem to be three major categories of brain-machine interface being heavily worked on right now:

+ + + +

Early BMI type #1: Using the motor cortex as a remote control

+ + + +

In case you forgot this from 9,000 words ago, the motor cortex is this guy:

+ + + +
+ + + +

All areas of the brain confuse us, but the motor cortex confuses us less than almost all the other areas. And most importantly, it’s well-mapped, meaning specific parts of it control specific parts of the body (remember the upsetting homunculus?).

+ + + +

Also importantly, it’s one of the major areas of the brain in charge of our output. When a human does something, the motor cortex is almost always the one pulling the strings (at least for the physical part of the doing). So the human brain doesn’t really have to learn to use the motor cortex as a remote control, because the brain already uses the motor cortex as its remote control.

+ + + +

Lift your hand up. Now put it down. See? Your hand is like a little toy drone, and your brain just picked up the motor cortex remote control and used it to make the drone fly up and then back down.

+ + + +

The goal of motor cortex-based BMIs is to tap into the motor cortex, and then when the remote control fires a command, to hear that command and then send it to some kind of machine that can respond to it the way, say, your hand would. A bundle of nerves is the middleman between your motor cortex and your hand. BMIs are the middleman between your motor cortex and a computer. Simple.

+ + + +

One barebones type of interface allows a human—often a person paralyzed from the neck down or someone who has had a limb amputated—to move a cursor on a screen with only their thoughts.

+ + + +

This begins with a 100-pin multielectrode array being implanted in the person’s motor cortex. The motor cortex in a paralyzed person usually works just fine—it’s just that the spinal cord, which had served as the middleman between the cortex and the body, stopped doing its job. So with the electrode array implanted, researchers have the person try to move their arm in different directions. Even though they can’t do that, the motor cortex still fires normally, as if they can.

+ + + +

When someone moves their arm, their motor cortex bursts into a flurry of activity—but each neuron is usually only interested in one type of movement. So one neuron might fire whenever the person moves their arm to the right—but it’s bored by other directions and is less active in those cases. That neuron alone, then, could tell a computer when the person wants to move their arm to the right and when they don’t. But that’s all. But with an electrode array, 100 single-unit electrodes each listen to a different neuron.24 So when they do testing, they’ll ask the person to try to move their arm to the right, and maybe 38 of the 100 electrodes detect their neuron firing. When the person tries to go left with their arm, maybe 41 others fire. After going through a bunch of different movements and directions and speeds, a computer takes the data from the electrodes and synthesizes it into a general understanding of which firing patterns correspond to which movement intentions on an X-Y axis.

+ + + +

Then when they link up that data to a computer screen, the person can use their mind, via “trying” to move the cursor, to really control the cursor. And this actually works. Through the work of motor-cortex-BMI pioneer company BrainGate, here’s a guy playing a video game using only his mind.

+ + + +
+ + + +

And if 100 neurons can tell you where they want to move a cursor, why couldn’t they tell you when they want to pick up a mug of coffee and take a sip? That’s what this quadriplegic woman did:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Another quadriplegic woman flew an F-35 fighter jet in a simulation, and a monkey recently used his mind to ride around in a wheelchair.

+ + + +

And why stop with arms? Brazilian BMI pioneer Miguel Nicolelis and his team built an entire exoskeleton that allowed a paralyzed man to make the opening kick of the World Cup.25

+ + + +

The Proprioception Blue Box

+ + + +

Moving these kinds of “neuroprosthetics” is all about the recording of neurons, but for these devices to be truly effective, this needs to not be a one-way street, but a loop that includes recording and stimulation pathways. We don’t really think about this, but a huge part of your ability to pick up an object is all of the incoming sensory information your hand’s skin and muscles send back in (called “proprioception”). In one video I saw, a woman with numbed fingers tried to light a match, and it was almost impossible for her to do it, despite having no other disabilities. And the beginning of this video shows the physical struggles of a man with a perfectly functional motor cortex but impaired proprioception. So for something like a bionic arm to really feel like an arm, and to really be useful, it needs to be able to send sensory information back in.

+ + + +

Stimulating neurons is even harder than recording them. As researcher Flip Sabes explained to me:

+ + + +

If I record a pattern of activity, it doesn’t mean I can readily recreate that pattern of activity by just playing it back. You can compare it to the planets in the Solar System. You can watch the planets move around and record their movements. But then if you jumble them all up and later want to recreate the original motion of one of the planets, you can’t just take that one planet and put it back into its orbit, because it’ll be influenced by all the other planets. Likewise, neurons aren’t just working in isolation—so there’s a fundamental irreversibility there. On top of that, with all of the axons and dendrites, it’s hard to just stimulate the neurons you want to—because when you try, you’ll hit a whole jumble of them.

+ + + +

Flip’s lab tries to deal with these challenges by getting the brain to help out. It turns out that if you reward a monkey with a succulent sip of orange juice when a single neuron fires, eventually the monkey will learn to make the neuron fire on demand. The neuron could then act as another kind of remote control. This means that normal motor cortex commands are only one possibility as a control mechanism. Likewise, until BMI technology gets good enough to perfect stimulation, you can use the brain’s neuroplasticity as a shortcut. If it’s too hard to make someone’s bionic fingertip touch something and send back information that feels just like the kind of sensation their own fingertip used to give them, the arm could instead send some other signal into the brain. At first, this would seem odd to the patient—but eventually the brain can learn to treat that signal as a new sense of touch. This concept is called “sensory substitution” and makes the brain a collaborator in BMI efforts.

+ + + +

In these developments are the seeds of other future breakthrough technologies—like brain-to-brain communication.

+ + + +

Nicolelis created an experiment where the motor cortex of one rat in Brazil was wired, via the internet, to the motor cortex of another rat in the US. The rat in Brazil was presented with two transparent boxes, each with a lever attached to it, and inside one of the boxes would be a treat. To attempt to get the treat, the rat would press the lever of the box that held the treat. Meanwhile, the rat in the US was in a similar cage with two similar boxes, except unlike the rat in Brazil, the boxes weren’t transparent and offered him no information about which of his two levers would yield a treat and which wouldn’t. The only info the US rat had were the signals his brain received from the Brazil rat’s motor cortex. The Brazil rat had the key knowledge—but the way the experiment worked, the rats only received treats when the US rat pressed the correct lever. If he pulled the wrong one, neither would. The amazing thing is that over time, the rats got better at this and began to work together, almost like a single nervous system—even though neither had any idea the other rat existed. The US rat’s success rate at choosing the correct lever with no information would have been 50%. With the signals coming from the Brazil rat’s brain, the success rate jumped to 64%. (Here’s a video of the rats doing their thing.)

+ + + +

This has even worked, crudely, in people. Two people, in separate buildings, worked together to play a video game. One could see the game, the other had the controller. Using simple EEG headsets, the player who could see the game would, without moving his hand, think about moving his hand to press the “shoot” button on a controller. Because their brains’ devices were communicating with each other, the player with the controller would then feel a twitch in his finger and press the shoot button.

+ + + +

Early BMI type #2: Artificial ears and eyes

+ + + +

There are a couple reasons giving sound to the deaf and sight to the blind is among the more manageable BMI categories.

+ + + +

The first is that like the motor cortex, the sensory cortices are parts of the brain we tend to understand pretty well, partly because they too tend to be well-mapped.

+ + + +

The second is that in many early applications, we don’t really need to deal with the brain—we can just deal with the place where ears and eyes connect to the brain, since that’s often where the impairment is based.

+ + + +

And while the motor cortex stuff was mostly about recording neurons to get information out of the brain, artificial senses go the other way—stimulation of neurons to send information in.

+ + + +

On the ears side of things, recent decades have seen the development of the groundbreaking cochlear implant. 

+ + + +

The How Hearing Works Blue Box

+ + + +

When you think you’re “hearing” “sound,” here’s what’s actually happening:

+ + + +

What we think of as sound is actually patterns of vibrations in the air molecules around your head. When a guitar string or someone’s vocal cords or the wind or anything else makes a sound, it’s because it’s vibrating, which pushes nearby air molecules into a similar vibration and that pattern expands outward in a sphere, kind of like the surface of water expands outward in a circular ripple when something touches it.26

+ + + +

Your ear is a machine that converts those air vibrations into electrical impulses. Whenever air (or water, or any other medium whose molecules can vibrate) enters your ear, your ear translates the precise way it’s vibrating into an electrical code that it sends into the nerve endings that touch it. This causes those nerves to fire a pattern of action potentials that send the code into your auditory cortex for processing. Your brain receives the information, and we call the experience of receiving that particular type of information “hearing.”

+ + + +

Most people who are deaf or hard of hearing don’t have a nerve problem or an auditory cortex problem—they usually have an ear problem. Their brain is as ready as anyone else’s to turn electrical impulses into hearing—it’s just that their auditory cortex isn’t receiving any electrical impulses in the first place, because the machine that converts air vibrations into those impulses isn’t doing its job.

+ + + +

The ear has a lot of parts, but it’s the cochlea in particular that makes the key conversion. When vibrations enter the fluid in the cochlea, it causes thousands of tiny hairs lining the cochlea to vibrate, and the cells those hairs are attached to transform the mechanical energy of the vibrations into electrical signals that then excite the auditory nerve. Here’s what it all looks like:40

+ + + +
+ + + +

The cochlea also sorts the incoming sound by frequency. Here’s a cool chart that shows why lower sounds are processed at the end of the cochlea and high sounds are processed at the beginning (and also why there’s a minimum and maximum frequency on what the ear can hear):41

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

A cochlear implant is a little computer that has a microphone coming out of one end (which sits on the ear) and a wire coming out of the other that connects to an array of electrodes that line the cochlea. 

+ + + +

So sound comes into the microphone (the little hook on top of the ear), and goes into the brown thing, which processes the sound to filter out the less useful frequencies. Then the brown thing transmits the information through the skin, through electrical induction, to the computer’s other component, which converts the info into electric impulses and sends them into the cochlea. The electrodes filter the impulses by frequency just like the cochlea and stimulate the auditory nerve just like the hairs on the cochlea do. This is what it looks like from the outside:

+ + + +
+ + + +

In other words, an artificial ear, performing the same sound-to-impulses-to-auditory-nerve function the ear does.

+ + + +

Check out what sound sounds like to someone with the implant.

+ + + +

Not great. Why? Because to send sound into the brain with the richness the ear hears with, you’d need 3,500 electrodes. Most cochlear implants have about 16.27Crude.

+ + + +

But we’re in the Pilot ACE era—so of course it’s crude.

+ + + +

Still, today’s cochlear implant allows deaf people to hear speech and have conversations, which is a groundbreaking development.28

+ + + +

Many parents of deaf babies are now having a cochlear implant put in when the baby’s about one year old. Like this baby, whose reaction to hearing for the first time is cute.

+ + + +
+ + + +

There’s a similar revolution underway in the world of blindness, in the form of the retinal implant.

+ + + +

Blindness is often the result of a retinal disease. When this is the case, a retinal implant can perform a similar function for sight as a cochlear implant does for hearing (though less directly). It performs the normal duties of the eye and hands things off to nerves in the form of electrical impulses, just like the eye does.

+ + + +

A more complicated interface than the cochlear implant, the first retinal implant was approved by the FDA in 2011—the Argus II implant, made by Second Sight. The retinal implant looks like this:42

+ + + +
+ + + +

And it works like this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

The retinal implant has 60 sensors. The retina has around a million neurons. Crude. But seeing vague edges and shapes and patterns of light and dark sure beats seeing nothing at all. What’s encouraging is that you don’t need a million sensors to gain a reasonable amount of sight—simulations suggest that 600-1,000 electrodes would be enough for reading and facial recognition.

+ + + +

Early BMI type #3: Deep brain stimulation

+ + + +

Dating back to the late 1980s, deep brain stimulation is yet another crude tool that is also still pretty life-changing for a lot of people.

+ + + +

It’s also a type of category of BMI that doesn’t involve communication with the outside world—it’s about using brain-machine interfaces to treat or enhance yourself by altering something internally.

+ + + +

What happens here is one or two electrode wires, usually with four separate electrode sites, are inserted into the brain, often ending up somewhere in the limbic system. Then a little pacemaker computer is implanted in the upper chest and wired to the electrodes. Like this unpleasant man:43

+ + + +
+ + + +

The electrodes can then give a little zap when called for, which can do a variety of important things. Like:

+ + + +
  • Reduce the tremors of people with Parkinson’s Disease
  • Reduce the severity of seizures
  • Chill people with OCD out
+ + + +

It’s also experimentally (not yet FDA approved) been able to mitigate certain kinds of chronic pain like migraines or phantom limb pain, treat anxiety or depression or PTSD, or even be combined with muscle stimulation elsewhere in the body to restore and retrain circuits that were broken down from stroke or a neurological disease.

+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

This is the state of the early BMI industry, and it’s the moment when Elon Musk is stepping into it. For him, and for Neuralink, today’s BMI industry is Point A. We’ve spent the whole post so far in the past, building up to the present moment. Now it’s time to step into the future—to figure out what Point B is and how we’re going to get there.

+ + + +

Part 4: Neuralink’s Challenge

+ + + +
+ + + +

Having already written about two of Elon Musk’s companies—Tesla and SpaceX—I think I understand his formula. It looks like this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

And his initial thinking about a new company always starts on the right and works its way left.

+ + + +

He decides that some specific change in the world will increase the likelihood of humanity having the best possible future. He knows that large-scale world change happens quickest when the whole world—the Human Colossus—is working on it. And he knows that the Human Colossus will work toward a goal if (and only if) there’s an economic forcing function in place—if it’s a good business decision to spend resources innovating toward that goal.

+ + + +

Often, before a booming industry starts booming, it’s like a pile of logs—it has all the ingredients of a fire and it’s ready to go—but there’s no match. There’s some technological shortcoming that’s preventing the industry from taking off.

+ + + +

So when Elon builds a company, its core initial strategy is usually to create the match that will ignite the industry and get the Human Colossus working on the cause. This, in turn, Elon believes, will lead to developments that will change the world in the way that increases the likelihood of humanity having the best possible future. But you have to look at his companies from a zoomed-out perspective to see all of this. If you don’t, you’ll mistake what they do as their business for what they do—when in fact, what they do as their business is usually a mechanism to sustain the company while it innovates to try to make that critical match.

+ + + +

Back when I was working on the Tesla and SpaceX posts, I asked Elon why he went into engineering and not science, and he explained that when it comes to progress, “engineering is the limiting factor.” In other words, the progress of science, business, and industry are all at the whim of the progress of engineering. If you look at history, this makes sense—behind each of the greatest revolutions in human progress is an engineering breakthrough. A match.

+ + + +
+ + + +

So to understand an Elon Musk company, you need to think about the match he’s trying to create—along with three other variables:

+ + + +
+ + + +

I know what’s in these boxes with the other companies:

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

And when I started trying to figure out what Neuralink was all about, I knew those were the variables I needed to fill in. At the time, I had only had the chance to get a very vague idea of one of the variables—that the goal of the company was “to accelerate the advent of a whole-brain interface.” Or what I’ve come to think of as a wizard hat.

+ + + +
+ + + +

As I understood it, a whole-brain interface was what a brain-machine interface would be in an ideal world—a super-advanced concept where essentially all the neurons in your brain are able to communicate seamlessly with the outside world. It was a concept loosely based on the science fiction idea of a “neural lace,” described in Iain Banks’ Culture series—a massless, volumeless, whole-brain interface that can be teleported into the brain.

+ + + +

I had a lot of questions.

+ + + +

Luckily, I was on my way to San Francisco, where I had plans to sit down with half of Neuralink’s founding team and be the dumbest person in the room.

+ + + +
+ + + +

The I’m Not Being Self-Deprecating I Really Was Definitely the Dumbest Person in the Room Just Look at This Shit Blue Box

+ + + +

The Neuralink team:

+ + + +

Paul Merolla, who spent the last seven years as the lead chip designer at IBM on their SyNAPSE program, where he led the development of the TrueNorth chip—one of the largest CMOS devices ever designed by transistor count nbd. Paul told me his field was called neuromorphic, where the goal is to design transistor circuits based on principles of brain architecture.

+ + + +

Vanessa Tolosa, Neuralink’s microfabrication expert and one of the world’s foremost researchers on biocompatible materials. Vanessa’s work involves designing biocompatible materials based on principles from the integrated circuits industry.

+ + + +

Max Hodak, who worked on the development of some groundbreaking BMI technology at Miguel Nicolelis’s lab at Duke while also commuting across the country twice a week in college to run Transcriptic, the “robotic cloud laboratory for the life sciences” he founded.

+ + + +

DJ Seo, who while at UC Berkeley in his mid-20s designed a cutting-edge new BMI concept called neural dust—tiny ultrasound sensors that could provide a new way to record brain activity.

+ + + +

Tim Hanson, whom a colleague described as “one of the best all-around engineers on the planet” and who self-taught himself enough about materials science and microfabrication methods to develop some of the core technology that’ll be used at Neuralink.

+ + + +

Flip Sabes, a leading researcher whose lab at UCSF has pioneered new ground in BMIs by combining “cortical physiology, computational and theoretical modeling, and human psychophysics and physiology.”

+ + + +

Tim Gardner, a leading researcher at BU, whose lab works on implanting BMIs in birds, in order to study “how complex songs are assembled from elementary neural units” and learn about “the relationships between patterns of neural activity on different time-scales.” Both Tim and Flip have left tenured positions to join the Neuralink team—pretty good testament to the promise they believe this company has.

+ + + +

And then there’s Elon, both as their CEO/Founder and a fellow team member. Elon being CEO makes this different from other recent things he’s started and puts Neuralink on the top tier for him, where only SpaceX and Tesla have lived. When it comes to neuroscience, Elon has the least technical knowledge on the team—but he also started SpaceX without very much technical knowledge and quickly became a certifiable rocket science expert by reading and by asking questions of the experts on the team. That’ll probably happen again here. (And for good reason—he pointed out: “Without a strong technical understanding, I think it’s hard to make the right decisions.”)

+ + + +

I asked Elon about how he brought this team together. He said that he met with literally over 1,000 people in order to assemble this group, and that part of the challenge was the large number of totally separate areas of expertise required when you’re working on technology that involves neuroscience, brain surgery, microscopic electronics, clinical trials, etc. Because it was such a cross-disciplinary area, he looked for cross-disciplinary experts. And you can see that in those bios—everyone brings their own unique crossover combination to a group that together has the rare ability to think as a single mega-expert. Elon also wanted to find people who were totally on board with the zoomed-out mission—who were more focused on industrial results than producing white papers. Not an easy group to assemble.

+ + + +

But there they were, sitting around the table looking at me, as it hit me 40 seconds in that I should have done a lot more research before coming here.

+ + + +
+ + + +

They took the hint and dumbed it down about four notches, and as the discussion went on, I started to wrap my head around things. Throughout the next few weeks, I met with each of the remaining Neuralink team members as well, each time playing the role of the dumbest person in the room. In these meetings, I focused on trying to form a comprehensive picture of the challenges at hand and what the road to a wizard hat might look like. I really wanted to understand these two boxes:

+ + + +
+ + + +

The first one was easy. The business side of Neuralink is a brain-machine interface development company. They want to create cutting-edge BMIs—what one of them referred to as “micron-sized devices.” Doing this will support the growth of the company while also providing a perfect vehicle for putting their innovations into practice (the same way SpaceX uses their launches both to sustain the company and experiment with their newest engineering developments).

+ + + +

As for what kind of interface they’re planning to work on first, here’s what Elon said:

+ + + +

We are aiming to bring something to market that helps with certain severe brain injuries (stroke, cancer lesion, congenital) in about four years. 

+ + + +

The second box was a lot hazier. It seems obvious to us today that using steam engine technology to harness the power of fire was the thing that had to happen to ignite the Industrial Revolution. But if you talked to someone in 1760 about it, they would have had a lot less clarity—on exactly which hurdles they were trying to get past, what kinds of innovations would allow them to leap over those hurdles, or how long any of this would take. And that’s where we are here—trying to figure out what the match looks like that will ignite the neuro revolution and how to create it.

+ + + +

The starting place for a discussion about innovation is a discussion about hurdles—what are you even trying to innovate past? In Neuralink’s case, a whole lot of things. But given that, here too, engineering will likely prove to be the limiting factor, here are some seemingly large challenges that probably won’t end up being the major roadblock:

+ + + +

Public skepticism 

+ + + +

Pew recently conducted a survey asking Americans about which future biotechnologies give them the shits the most. It turns out BMIs worry Americans even more than gene editing:44

+ + + +
+ + + +

Flip Sabes, one of Neuralink’s ground floor members, doesn’t get it.

+ + + +

To a scientist, to think about changing the fundamental nature of life—creating viruses, eugenics, etc.—it raises a specter that many biologists find quite worrisome, whereas the neuroscientists that I know, when they think about chips in the brain, it doesn’t seem that foreign, because we already have chips in the brain. We have deep brain stimulation to alleviate the symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease, we have early trials of chips to restore vision, we have the cochlear implant—so to us it doesn’t seem like that big of a stretch to put devices into a brain to read information out and to read information back in.

+ + + +

And after learning all about chips in the brain, I agree—and when Americans eventually learn about it, I think they’ll change their minds.

+ + + +

History supports this prediction. People were super timid about Lasik eye surgery when it first became a thing—20 years ago, 20,000 people a year had the procedure done. Then everyone got used to it and now 2,000,000 people a year get laser eye surgery. Similar story with pacemakers. And defibrillators. And organ transplants—which people at first considered a freakish Frankenstein-esque concept. Brain implants will probably be the same story.

+ + + +

Our non-understanding of the brain

+ + + +

You know, the whole “if understanding the brain is a mile, we’re currently three inches in” thing. Flip weighed in on this topic too:

+ + + +

If it were a prerequisite to understand the brain in order to interact with the brain in a substantive way, we’d have trouble. But it’s possible to decode all of those things in the brain without truly understanding the dynamics of the computation in the brain. Being able to read it out is an engineering problem. Being able to understand its origin and the organization of the neurons in fine detail in a way that would satisfy a neuroscientist to the core—that’s a separate problem. And we don’t need to solve all of those scientific problems in order to make progress.

+ + + +

If we can just use engineering to get neurons to talk to computers, we’ll have done our job, and machine learning can do much of the rest. Which then, ironically, will teach us about the brain. As Flip points out:

+ + + +

The flip side of saying, “We don’t need to understand the brain to make engineering progress,” is that making engineering progress will almost certainly advance our scientific knowledge—kind of like the way Alpha Go ended up teaching the world’s best players better strategies for the game. Then this scientific progress can lead to more engineering progress. The engineering and the science are gonna ratchet each other up here.

+ + + +

Angry giants

+ + + +

Tesla and SpaceX are both stepping on some very big toes (like the auto industry, the oil and gas industry, and the military-industrial complex). Big toes don’t like being stepped on, so they’ll usually do whatever they can to hinder the stepper’s progress. Luckily, Neuralink doesn’t really have this problem. There aren’t any massive industries that Neuralink is disrupting (at least not in the foreseeable future—an eventual neuro revolution would disrupt almost every industry).

+ + + +

Neuralink’s hurdles are technology hurdles—and there are many. But two challenges stand out as the largest—challenges that, if conquered, may be impactful enough to trigger all the other hurdles to fall and totally change the trajectory of our future.

+ + + +

Major Hurdle 1: Bandwidth

+ + + +

There have never been more than a couple hundred electrodes in a human brain at once. When it comes to vision, that equals a super low-res image. When it comes to motor, that limits the possibilities to simple commands with little control. When it comes to your thoughts, a few hundred electrodes won’t be enough to communicate more than the simplest spelled-out message.

+ + + +

We need higher bandwidth if this is gonna become a big thing. Way higher bandwidth.

+ + + +

The Neuralink team threw out the number “one million simultaneously recorded neurons” when talking about an interface that could really change the world. I’ve also heard 100,000 as a number that would allow for the creation of a wide range of incredibly useful BMIs with a variety of applications.

+ + + +

Early computers had a similar problem. Primitive transistors took up a lot of space and didn’t scale easily. Then in 1959 came the integrated circuit—the computer chip. Now there was a way to scale the number of transistors in a computer, and Moore’s Law—the concept that the number of transistors that can fit onto a computer chip doubles every 18 months—was born.

+ + + +

Until the 90s, electrodes for BMIs were all made by hand. Then we started figuring out how to manufacture those little 100-electrode multielectrode arrays using conventional semiconductor technologies. Neurosurgeon Ben Rapoport believes that “the move from hand manufacturing to Utah Array electrodes was the first hint that BMIs were entering a realm where Moore’s Law could become relevant.”

+ + + +

This is everything for the industry’s potential. Our maximum today is a couple hundred electrodes able to measure about 500 neurons at once—which is either super far from a million or really close, depending on the kind of growth pattern we’re in. If we add 500 more neurons to our maximum every 18 months, we’ll get to a million in the year 5017. If we double our total every 18 months, like we do with computer transistors, we’ll get to a million in the year 2034.

+ + + +

Currently, we seem to be somewhere in between. Ian Stevenson and Konrad Kording published a paper that looked at the maximum number of neurons that could be simultaneously recorded at various points throughout the last 50 years (in any animal), and put the results on this graph:45

+ + + +
+ + + +

Sometimes called Stevenson’s Law, this research suggests that the number of neurons we can simultaneously record seems to consistently double every 7.4 years. If that rate continues, it’ll take us till the end of this century to reach a million, and until 2225 to record every neuron in the brain and get our totally complete wizard hat.

+ + + +

Whatever the equivalent of the integrated circuit is for BMIs isn’t here yet, because 7.4 years is too big a number to start a revolution. The breakthrough here isn’t the device that can record a million neurons—it’s the paradigm shift that makes the future of that graph look more like Moore’s Law and less like Stevenson’s Law. Once that happens, a million neurons will follow.

+ + + +

Major Hurdle 2: Implantation

+ + + +

BMIs won’t sweep the world as long as you need to go in for skull-opening surgery to get involved.

+ + + +

This is a major topic at Neuralink. I think the word “non-invasive” or “non-invasively” came out of someone’s mouth like 42 times in my discussions with the team.

+ + + +

On top of being both a major barrier to entry and a major safety issue, invasive brain surgery is expensive and in limited supply. Elon talked about an eventual BMI implantation process that could be automated: “The machine to accomplish this would need to be something like Lasik, an automated process—because otherwise you just get constrained by the limited number of neural surgeons, and the costs are very high. You’d need a Lasik-like machine ultimately to be able to do this at scale.”

+ + + +

Making BMIs high-bandwidth alone would be a huge deal, as would developing a way to non-invasively implant devices. But doing both would start a revolution.

+ + + +

Other hurdles

+ + + +

Today’s BMI patients have a wire coming out of their head. In the future, that certainly won’t fly. Neuralink plans to work on devices that will be wireless. But that brings a lot of new challenges with it. You’ll now need your device to be able to send and receive a lot of data wirelessly. Which means the implant also has to take care of things like signal amplification, analog-to-digital conversion, and data compression on its own. Oh and it needs to be powered inductively.

+ + + +

Another big one—biocompatibility. Delicate electronics tend to not do well inside a jello ball. And the human body tends to not like having foreign objects in it. But the brain interfaces of the future are intended to last forever without any problems. This means that the device will likely need to be hermetically sealed and robust enough to survive decades of the oozing and shifting of the neurons around it. And the brain—which treats today’s devices like invaders and eventually covers them in scar tissue—will need to somehow be tricked into thinking the device is just a normal brain part doing its thing.29

+ + + +

Then there’s the space issue. Where exactly are you gonna put your device that can interface with a million neurons in a skull that’s already dealing with making space for 100 billion neurons? A million electrodes using today’s multielectrode arrays would be the size of a baseball. So further miniaturization is another dramatic innovation to add to the list.

+ + + +

There’s also the fact that today’s electrodes are mostly optimized for simple electrical recording or simple electrical stimulation. If we really want an effective brain interface, we’ll need something other than single-function, stiff electrodes—something with the mechanical complexity of neural circuits, that can both record and stimulate, and that can interact with neurons chemically and mechanically as well as electrically.

+ + + +

And just say all of this comes together perfectly—a high-bandwidth, long-lasting, biocompatible, bidirectional communicative, non-invasively-implanted device. Now we can speak back and forth with a million neurons at once! Except this little thing where we actually don’t know how to talk to neurons. It’s complicated enough to decode the static-like firings of 100 neurons, but all we’re really doing is learning what a set of specific firings corresponds to and matching them up to simple commands. That won’t work with millions of signals. It’s like how Google Translate essentially uses two dictionaries to swap words from one dictionary to another—which is very different than understanding language. We’ll need a pretty big leap in machine learning before a computer will be able to actually know a language, and we’ll need just as big a leap for machines to understand the language of the brain—because humans certainly won’t be learning to decipher the code of millions of simultaneously chattering neurons.

+ + + +

How easy does colonizing Mars seem right now.

+ + + +

But I bet the telephone and the car and the moon landing would have seemed like insurmountable technological challenges to people a few decades earlier. Just like I bet this—

+ + + +
+ + + +

—would have seemed utterly inconceivable to people at the time of this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

And yet, there it is in your pocket. If there’s one thing we should learn from the past, it’s that there will always be ubiquitous technology of the future that’s inconceivable to people of the past. We don’t know which technologies that seem positively impossible to us will turn out to be ubiquitous later in our lives—but there will be some. People always underestimate the Human Colossus.

+ + + +

If everyone you know in 40 years has electronics in their skull, it’ll be because a paradigm shift took place that caused a fundamental shift in this industry. That shift is what the Neuralink team will try to figure out. Other teams are working on it too, and some cool ideas are being developed:

+ + + +

Current BMI innovations

+ + + +

A team at the University of Illinois is developing an interface made of silk:46

+ + + +
+ + + +

Silk can be rolled up into a thin bundle and inserted into the brain relatively non-invasively. There, it would theoretically spread out around the brain and melt into the contours like shrink wrap. On the silk would be flexible silicon transistor arrays.

+ + + +

In his TEDx Talk, Hong Yeo demonstrated an electrode array printed on his skin, like a temporary tattoo, and researchers say this kind of technique could potentially be used on the brain:47

+ + + +
+ + + +

Another group is working on a kind of nano-scale, electrode-lined neural mesh so tiny it can be injected into the brain with a syringe:48

+ + + +
+ + + +

For scale—that red tube on the right is the tip of a syringe. Extreme Tech has a nice graphic illustrating the concept:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Other non-invasive techniques involve going in through veins and arteries. Elon mentioned this: “The least invasive way would be something that comes in like a hard stent like through a femoral artery and ultimately unfolds in the vascular system to interface with the neurons. Neurons use a lot of energy, so there’s basically a road network to every neuron.”

+ + + +

DARPA, the technology innovation arm of the US military,30 through their recently funded BRAIN program, is working on tiny, “closed-loop” neural implants that could replace medication.49

+ + + +
+ + + +

A second DARPA project aims to fit a million electrodes into a device the size of two nickels stacked.

+ + + +

Another idea being worked on is transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), in which a magnetic coil outside the head can create electrical pulses inside the brain.50

+ + + +
+ + + +

The pulses can stimulate targeted neuron areas, providing a type of deep brain stimulation that’s totally non-invasive.

+ + + +

One of Neuralink’s ground floor members, DJ Seo, led an effort to design an even cooler interface called “neural dust.” Neural dust refers to tiny, 100µm silicon sensors (about the same as the width of a hair) that would be sprinkled through the cortex. Right nearby, above the pia, would be a 3mm-sized device that could communicate with the dust sensors via ultrasound.

+ + + +

This is another example of the innovation benefits that come from an interdisciplinary team. DJ explained to me that “there are technologies that are not really thought about in this domain, but we can bring in some principles of their work.” He says that neural dust is inspired both by microchip technology and RFID (the thing that allows hotel key cards to communicate with the door lock without making physical contact) principles. And you can easily see the multi-field influence in how it works:51

+ + + +
+ + + +

Others are working on even more out-there ideas, like optogenetics (where you inject a virus that attaches to a brain cell, causing it to thereafter be stimulated by light) or even using carbon nanotubes—a million of which could be bundled together and sent to the brain via the bloodstream.

+ + + +

These people are all working on this arrow:

+ + + +
+ + + +

It’s a relatively small group right now, but when the breakthrough spark happens, that’ll quickly change. Developments will begin to happen rapidly. Brain interface bandwidth will get better and better as the procedures to implant them become simpler and cheaper. Public interest will pick up. And when public interest picks up, the Human Colossus notices an opportunity—and then the rate of development skyrockets. Just like the breakthroughs in computer hardware caused the software industry to explode, major industries will pop up working on cutting-edge machines and intelligent apps to be used in conjunction with brain interfaces, and you’ll tell some little kid in 2052 all about how when you grew up, no one could do any of the things she can do with her brain, and she’ll be bored.

+ + + +

I tried to get the Neuralink team to talk about 2052 with me. I wanted to know what life was going to be like once this all became a thing. I wanted to know what went in the [Pilot ACE : iPhone 7 :: Early BMIs : ____] blank. But it wasn’t easy—this was a team built specifically because of their focus on concrete results, not hype, and I was doing the equivalent of talking to people in the late 1700s who were feverishly trying to create a breakthrough steam engine and prodding them about when they thought there would be airplanes.

+ + + +

But I’d keep pulling teeth until they’d finally talk about their thoughts on the far future to get my hand off their tooth. I also focused a large portion of my talks with Elon on the far future possibilities and had other helpful discussions with Moran Cerf, a neuroscientist friend of mine who works on BMIs and thinks a lot about the long-term outlook. Finally, one reluctant-to-talk-about-his-predictions Neuralink team member told me that of course, he and his colleagues were dreamers—otherwise they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing—and that many of them were inspired to get into this industry by science fiction. He recommended I talk to Ramez Naam, writer of the popular Nexus Trilogy, a series all about the future of BMIs, and also someone with a hard tech background that includes 19 software-related patents. So I had a chat with Ramez to round out the picture and ask him the 435 remaining questions I had about everything.

+ + + +

And I came out of all of it utterly blown away. I wrote once about how I think if you went back to 1750—a time when there was no electricity or motorized vehicles or telecommunication—and retrieved, say, George Washington, and brought him to today and showed him our world, he’d be so shocked by everything that he’d die. You’d have killed George Washington and messed everything up. Which got me thinking about the concept of how many years one would need to go into the future such that the ensuing shock from the level of progress would kill you. I called it a Die Progress Unit, or DPU.

+ + + +

Ever since the Human Colossus was born, our world has had a weird property to it—it gets more magical as time goes on. That’s why DPUs are a thing. And because advancement begets more rapid advancement, the trend is that as time passes, the DPUs get shorter. For George Washington, a DPU was a couple hundred years, which is outrageously short in the scheme of human history. But we now live in a time where things are moving so fast that we might experience one or even multiple DPUs in our lifetime. The amount that changed between 1750 and 2017 might happen again between now and another time when you’re still alive. This is a ridiculous time to be alive—it’s just hard for us to notice because we live life so zoomed in.

+ + + +

Anyway, I think about DPUs a lot and I always wonder what it would feel like to go forward in a time machine and experience what George would experience coming here. What kind of future could blow my mind so hard that it would kill me? We can talk about things like AI and gene editing—and I have no doubt that progress in those areas could make me die of shock—but it’s always, “Who knows what it’ll be like!” Never a descriptive picture.

+ + + +

I think I might finally have a descriptive picture of a piece of our shocking future. Let me paint it for you.

+ + + +

Part 5: The Wizard Era

+ + + +
+ + + +

The budding industry of brain-machine interfaces is the seed of a revolution that will change just about everything. But in many ways, the brain-interface future isn’t really a new thing that’s happening. If you take a step back, it looks more like the next big chapter in a trend that’s been going on for a long time. Language took forever to turn into writing, which then took forever to turn into printing, and that’s where things were when George Washington was around. Then came electricity and the pace picked up. Telephone. Radio. Television. Computers. And just like that, everyone’s homes became magical. Then phones became cordless. Then mobile. Computers went from being devices for work and games to windows into a digital world we all became a part of. Then phones and computers merged into an everything device that brought the magic out of our homes and put it into our hands. And on our wrists. We’re now in the early stages of a virtual and augmented reality revolution that will wrap the magic around our eyes and ears and bring our whole being into the digital world.

+ + + +

You don’t need to be a futurist to see where this is going.

+ + + +

Magic has worked its way from industrial facilities to our homes to our hands and soon it’ll be around our heads. And then it’ll take the next natural step. The magic is heading into our brains.

+ + + +

It will happen by way of a “whole-brain interface,” or what I’ve been calling a wizard hat—a brain interface so complete, so smooth, so biocompatible, and so high-bandwidth that it feels as much a part of you as your cortex and limbic system. A whole-brain interface would give your brain the ability to communicate wirelessly with the cloud, with computers, and with the brains of anyone with a similar interface in their head. This flow of information between your brain and the outside world would be so effortless, it would feel similar to the thinking that goes on in your head today. And though we’ve used the term brain-machine interface so far, I kind of think of a BMI as a specific brain interface to be used for a specific purpose, and the term doesn’t quite capture the everything-of-everything concept of the whole-brain interface. So I’ll call that a wizard hat instead.

+ + + +

Now, to fully absorb the implications of having a wizard hat installed in your head and what that would change about you, you’ll need to wrap your head around (no pun intended) two things:

+ + + +

1) The intensely mind-bending idea

+ + + +

2) The super ridiculously intensely mind-bending idea

+ + + +

We’ll tackle #1 in this section and save #2 for the last section after you’ve had time to absorb #1.

+ + + +

Elon calls the whole-brain interface and its many capabilities a “digital tertiary layer,” a term that has two levels of meaning that correspond to our two mind-bending ideas above.

+ + + +

The first meaning gets at the idea of physical brain parts. We discussed three layers of brain parts—the brain stem (run by the frog), the limbic system (run by the monkey), and the cortex (run by the rational thinker). We were being thorough, but for the rest of this post, we’re going to leave the frog out of the discussion, since he’s entirely functional and lives mostly behind the scenes.

+ + + +

When Elon refers to a “digital tertiary layer,” he’s considering our existing brain having two layers—our animal limbic system (which could be called our primary layer) and our advanced cortex (which could be called our secondary layer). The wizard hat interface, then, would be our tertiary layer—a new physical brain part to complement the other two.

+ + + +

If thinking about this concept is giving you the willies, Elon has news for you:

+ + + +

We already have a digital tertiary layer in a sense, in that you have your computer or your phone or your applications. You can ask a question via Google and get an answer instantly. You can access any book or any music. With a spreadsheet, you can do incredible calculations. If you had an Empire State building filled with people—even if they had calculators, let alone if they had to do it with a pencil and paper—one person with a laptop could outdo the Empire State Building filled with people with calculators. You can video chat with someone in freaking Timbuktu for free. This would’ve gotten you burnt for witchcraft in the old days. You can record as much video with sound as you want, take a zillion pictures, have them tagged with who they are and when it took place. You can broadcast communications through social media to millions of people simultaneously for free. These are incredible superpowers that the President of the United States didn’t have twenty years ago.

+ + + +

The thing that people, I think, don’t appreciate right now is that they are already a cyborg. You’re already a different creature than you would have been twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. You’re already a different creature. You can see this when they do surveys of like, “how long do you want to be away from your phone?” and—particularly if you’re a teenager or in your 20s—even a day hurts. If you leave your phone behind, it’s like missing limb syndrome. I think people—they’re already kind of merged with their phone and their laptop and their applications and everything.

+ + + +

This is a hard point to really absorb, because we don’t feel like cyborgs. We feel like humans who use devices to do things. But think about your digital self—you when you’re interacting with someone on the internet or over FaceTime or when you’re in a YouTube video. Digital you is fully you—as much as in-person you is you—right? The only difference is that you’re not there in person—you’re using magic powers to send yourself to somewhere far away, at light speed, through wires and satellites and electromagnetic waves. The difference is the medium.

+ + + +

Before language, there wasn’t a good way to get a thought from your brain into my brain. Then early humans invented the technology of language, transforming vocal cords and ears into the world’s first communication devices and air as the first communication medium. We use these devices every time we talk to each other in person. It goes:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Then we built upon that with another leap, inventing a second layer of devices, with its own medium, allowing us to talk long distance:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Or maybe:

+ + + +
+ + + +

In that sense, your phone is as much “you” as your vocal cords or your ears or your eyes. All of these things are simply tools to move thoughts from brain to brain—so who cares if the tool is held in your hand, your throat, or your eye sockets? The digital age has made us a dual entity—a physical creature who interacts with its physical environment using its biological parts and a digital creature whose digital devices—whose digital parts—allow it to interact with the digital world.

+ + + +

But because we don’t think of it like that, we’d consider someone with a phone in their head or throat a cyborg and someone else with a phone in their hand, pressed up against their head, not a cyborg. Elon’s point is that the thing that makes a cyborg a cyborg is their capabilities—not from which side of the skull those capabilities are generated.

+ + + +

We’re already a cyborg, we already have superpowers, and we already spend a huge part of our lives in the digital world. And when you think of it like that, you realize how obvious it is to want to upgrade the medium that connects us to that world. This is the change Elon believes is actually happening when the magic goes into our brains:

+ + + +

You’re already digitally superhuman. The thing that would change is the interface—having a high-bandwidth interface to your digital enhancements. The thing is that today, the interface all necks down to this tiny straw, which is, particularly in terms of output, it’s like poking things with your meat sticks, or using words—either speaking or tapping things with fingers. And in fact, output has gone backwards. It used to be, in your most frequent form, output would be ten-finger typing. Now, it’s like, two-thumb typing. That’s crazy slow communication. We should be able to improve that by many orders of magnitude with a direct neural interface.

+ + + +

In other words, putting our technology into our brains isn’t about whether it’s good or bad to become cyborgs. It’s that we are cyborgs and we will continue to be cyborgs—so it probably makes sense to upgrade ourselves from primitive, low-bandwidth cyborgs to modern, high-bandwidth cyborgs.

+ + + +

A whole-brain interface is that upgrade. It changes us from creatures whose primary and secondary layers live inside their heads and whose tertiary layer lives in their pocket, in their hand, or on their desk—

+ + + +
+ + + +

—to creatures whose three layers all live together.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Your life is full of devices, including the one you’re currently using to read this. A wizard hat makes your brain into the device, allowing your thoughts to go straight from your head into the digital world.

+ + + +

Which doesn’t only revolutionize human-computer communication.

+ + + +

Right now humans communicate with each other like this:

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

And that’s how it’s been ever since we could communicate. But in a wizard hat world, it would look more like this:

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

Elon always emphasizes bandwidth when he talks about Neuralink’s wizard hat goals. Interface bandwidth allows incoming images to be HD, incoming sound to be hi-fi, and motor movement commands to be tightly controlled—but it’s also a huge factor in communication. If information were a milkshake, bandwidth would be the width of the straw. Today, the bandwidth-of-communication graph looks something like this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

So computers can suck up the milkshake through a giant pipe, a human thinking would be using a large, pleasant-to-use straw, while language would be a frustratingly tiny coffee stirrer straw and typing (let alone texting) would be like trying to drink a milkshake through a syringe needle—you might be able to get a drop out once a minute.

+ + + +

Moran Cerf has gathered data on the actual bandwidth of different parts of the nervous system and on this graph, he compares them to equivalent bandwidths in the computer world:

+ + + +
+ + + +

You can see here on Moran’s graph that the disparity in bandwidth between the ways we communicate and our thinking (which is at 30 bits/second on this graph) is even starker than my graph above depicts.

+ + + +

But making our brains the device cuts out those tiny straws, turning all of these:

+ + + +
+ + + +

To this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Which preserves all the meaning with none of the fuss—and changes the graph to this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

We’d still be using straws, but far bigger, more effective ones.

+ + + +

But it’s not just about the speed of communication. As Elon points out, it’s about the nuance and accuracy of communication as well:

+ + + +

There are a bunch of concepts in your head that then your brain has to try to compress into this incredibly low data rate called speech or typing. That’s what language is—your brain has executed a compression algorithm on thought, on concept transfer. And then it’s got to listen as well, and decompress what’s coming at it. And this is very lossy as well. So, then when you’re doing the decompression on those, trying to understand, you’re simultaneously trying to model the other person’s mind state to understand where they’re coming from, to recombine in your head what concepts they have in their head that they’re trying to communicate to you. … If you have two brain interfaces, you could actually do an uncompressed direct conceptual communication with another person.

+ + + +

This makes sense—nuance is like a high-resolution thought, which makes the file simply too big to transfer quickly through a coffee straw. The coffee straw gives you two bad options when it comes to nuance: take a lot of time saying a lot of words to really depict the nuanced thought or imagery you want to convey to me, or save time by using succinct language—but inevitably fail to transfer over the nuance. Compounding the effect is the fact that language itself is a low-resolution medium. A word is simply an approximation of a thought—buckets that a whole category of similar-but-distinct thoughts can all be shoved into. If I watch a horror movie and want to describe it to you in words, I’m stuck with a few simple low-res buckets—“scary” or “creepy” or “chilling” or “intense.” My actual impression of that movie is very specific and not exactly like any other movie I’ve seen—but the crude tools of language force my brain to “round to the nearest bucket” and choose the word that most closely resembles my actual impression, and that’s the information you’ll receive from me. You won’t receive the thought—you’ll receive the bucket—and now you’ll have to guess which of the many nuanced impressions that all approximate to that bucket is the most similar to my impression of the movie. You’ll decompress my description—“scary as shit”—into a high-res, nuanced thought that you associate with “scary as shit,” which will inevitably be based on your own experience watching other horror movies, and your own personality. The end result is that a lot has been lost in translation—which is exactly what you’d expect when you try to transfer a high-res file over a low-bandwidth medium, quickly, using low-res tools. That’s why Elon calls language data transfer “lossy.”

+ + + +

We do the best we can with these limitations—and over time, we’ve supplemented language with slightly higher-resolution formats like video to better convey nuanced imagery, or music to better convey nuanced emotion. But compared to the richness and uniqueness of the ideas in our heads, and the large-bandwidth straw our internal thoughts flow through, all human-to-human communication is very lossy.

+ + + +

Thinking about the phenomenon of communication as what it is—brains trying to share things with each other—you see the history of communication not as this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

As much as this:

+ + + +
+ + + +

Or it could be put this way:

+ + + +
+ + + +

It really may be that the second major era of communication—the 100,000-year Era of Indirect Communication—is in its very last moments. If we zoom out on the timeline, it’s possible the entire last 150 years, during which we’ve suddenly been rapidly improving our communication media, will look to far-future humans like one concept: the transition from Era 2 to Era 3. We might be living on the line that divides timeline sections.

+ + + +
+ + + +

And because indirect communication requires third-party body parts or digital parts, the end of Era 2 may be looked back upon as the era of physical devices. In an era where your brain is the device, there will be no need to carry anything around. You’ll have your body and, if you want, clothes—and that’s it.

+ + + +

When Elon thinks about wizard hats, this is usually the stuff he’s thinking about—communication bandwidth and resolution. And we’ll explore why in Part 6 of this post.

+ + + +

First, let’s dig into the mind-boggling concept of your brain becoming a device and talk about what a wizard hat world might be like.

+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

One thing to keep in mind as we think about all of this is that none of it will take you by surprise. You won’t go from having nothing in your brain to a digital tertiary layer in your head, just like people didn’t go from the Apple IIGS to using Tinder overnight. The Wizard Era will come gradually, and by the time the shift actually begins to happen, we’ll all be very used to the technology, and it’ll seem normal.

+ + + +

Supporting this point is the fact the staircase up to the Wizard Era has already started, and you haven’t even noticed. But there are thousands of people currently walking around with electrodes in their brain, like those with cochlear implants, retinal implants, and deep brain implants—all benefiting from early BMIs.

+ + + +

The next few steps on the staircase will continue to focus on restoring lost function in different parts of the body—the first people to have their lives transformed by digital brain technology will be the disabled. As specialized BMIs serve more and more forms of disability, the concept of brain implants will work its way in from the fringes and become something we’re all used to—just like no one blinks an eye when you say your friend just got Lasik surgery or your grandmother just got a pacemaker installed.

+ + + +

Elon talks about some types of people early BMIs could help:

+ + + +

The first use of the technology will be to repair brain injuries as a result of stroke or cutting out a cancer lesion, where somebody’s fundamentally lost a certain cognitive element. It could help with people who are quadriplegics or paraplegics by providing a neural shunt from the motor cortex down to where the muscles are activated. It can help with people who, as they get older, have memory problems and can’t remember the names of their kids, through memory enhancement, which could allow them to function well to a much later time in life—the medically advantageous elements of this for dealing with mental disablement of one kind or another, which of course happens to all of us when we get old enough, are very significant.

+ + + +

As someone who lost a grandfather to dementia five years before losing him to death, I’m excited to hear this.

+ + + +

And as interface bandwidth improves, disabilities that hinder millions today will start to drop like flies. The concepts of complete blindness and deafness—whether centered in the sensory organs or in the brain31—are already on the way out. And with enough time, perfect vision or hearing will be restorable.

+ + + +

Prosthetic limbs—and eventually sleek, full-body exoskeletons underneath your clothes—will work so well, providing both outgoing motor functions and an incoming sense of touch, that paralysis or amputations will only have a minor long-term effect on people’s lives.

+ + + +

In Alzheimer’s patients, memories themselves are often not lost—only the bridge to those memories. Advanced BMIs could help restore that bridge or serve as a new one.

+ + + +

While this is happening, BMIs will begin to emerge that people without disabilities want. The very early adopters will probably be pretty rich. But so were the early cell phone adopters.52

+ + + +
+ + + +

That’s Gordon Gekko, and that 1983, two-pound cell phone cost almost $9,000 in today’s dollars. And now over half of living humans own a mobile phone—all of them far less shitty than Gordon Gekko’s.

+ + + +

As mobile phones got cheaper, and better, they went from new and fancy and futuristic to ubiquitous. As we go down the same road with brain interfaces, things are going to get really cool.

+ + + +

Based on what I learned from my conversations with Elon, Ramez, and a dozen neuroscientists, let’s look at what the world might look like in a few decades. The timeline is uncertain, including the order in which the below developments may become a reality. And, of course, some of the below predictions are sure to be way off the mark, just as there will be other developments in this field that won’t be mentioned here because people today literally can’t imagine them yet.

+ + + +

But some version of a lot of this stuff probably will happen, at some point, and a lot of it could be in your lifetime.

+ + + +

Looking at all the predictions I heard, they seemed to fall into two broad categories: communication capabilities and internal enhancements.

+ + + +

The Wizard Era: Communication

+ + + +
+ + + +

Motor communication

+ + + +

“Communication” in this section can mean human-to-human or human-to-computer. Motor communication is all about human-to-computer—the whole “motor cortex as remote control” thing from earlier, but now the unbelievably rad version.

+ + + +

Like many future categories of brain interface possibility, motor communication will start with restoration applications for the disabled, and as those development efforts continually advance the possibilities, the technology will begin to be used to create augmentation applications for the non-disabled as well. The same technologies that will allow a quadriplegic to use their thoughts as a remote control to move a bionic limb can let anyone use their thoughts as a remote control…to move anything. Well not anything—I’m not talking about telekinesis—anything built to be used with a brain remote. But in the Wizard Era, lots of things will be built that way.

+ + + +

Your car (or whatever people use for transportation at that point) will pull up to your house and your mind will open the car door. You’ll walk up to the house and your mind will unlock and open the front door (all doors at that point will be built with sensors to receive motor cortex commands). You’ll think about wanting coffee and the coffee maker will get that going. As you head to the fridge the door will open and after getting what you need it’ll close as you walk away. When it’s time for bed, you’ll decide you want the heat turned down and the lights turned off, and those systems will feel you make that decision and adjust themselves.

+ + + +

None of this stuff will take any effort or thought—we’ll all get very good at it and it’ll feel as automatic and subconscious as moving your eyes to read this sentence does to you now.

+ + + +

People will play the piano with their thoughts. And do building construction. And steer vehicles. In fact, today, if you’re driving somewhere and something jumps out in the road in front of you, what neuroscientists know is that your brain sees it and begins to react well before your consciousness knows what’s going on or your arms move to steer out of the way. But when your brain is the one steering the car, you’ll have swerved out of the way before you even realize what happened.

+ + + +

Thought communication

+ + + +

This is what we discussed up above—but you have to resist the natural instinct to equate a thought conversation with a normal language conversation where you simply hear each other’s voices in your head. As we discussed, words are compressed approximations of uncompressed thoughts, so why would you ever bother with any of that, or deal with lossiness, if you didn’t have to? When you watch a movie, your head is buzzing with thoughts—but do you have a compressed spoken word dialogue going on in your head? Probably not—you’re just thinking. Thought conversations will be like that.

+ + + +

Elon says:

+ + + +

If I were to communicate a concept to you, you would essentially engage in consensual telepathy. You wouldn’t need to verbalize unless you want to add a little flair to the conversation or something (laughs), but the conversation would be conceptual interaction on a level that’s difficult to conceive of right now.

+ + + +

That’s the thing—it’s difficult to really understand what it would be like to think with someone. We’ve never been able to try. We communicate with ourselves through thought and with everyone else through symbolic representations of thought, and that’s all we can imagine.

+ + + +

Even weirder is the concept of a group thinking together. This is what a group brainstorm could look like in the Wizard Era.

+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +

And of course, they wouldn’t need to be in the same room. This group could have been in four different countries while this was happening—with no external devices in sight.

+ + + +

Ramez has written about the effect group thinking might have on the world:

+ + + +

That type of communication would have a huge impact on the pace of innovation, as scientists and engineers could work more fluidly together. And it’s just as likely to have a transformative effect on the public sphere, in the same way that email, blogs, and Twitter have successively changed public discourse.

+ + + +

The idea of collaboration today is supposed to be two or more brains working together to come up with things none of them could have on their own. And a lot of the time, it works pretty well—but when you consider the “lost in transmission” phenomenon that happens with language, you realize how much more effective group thinking would be.

+ + + +

I asked Elon a question that pops into everyone’s mind when they first hear about thought communication:

+ + + +

“So, um, will everyone be able to know what I’m thinking?”

+ + + +

He assured me they would not. “People won’t be able to read your thoughts—you would have to will it. If you don’t will it, it doesn’t happen. Just like if you don’t will your mouth to talk, it doesn’t talk.” Phew.

+ + + +

You can also think with a computer. Not just to issue a command, but to actually brainstorm something with a computer. You and a computer could strategize something together. You could compose a piece of music together. Ramez talked about using a computer as an imagination collaborator: “You could imagine something, and the computer, which can better forward predict or analyze physical models, could fill in constraints—and that allows you to get feedback.”

+ + + +

One concern that comes up when people hear about thought communication in particular is a potential loss of individuality. Would this make us one great hive mind with each individual brain as just another bee? Almost across the board, the experts I talked to believed it would be the opposite. We could act as one in a collaboration when it served us, but technology has thus far enhanced human individuality. Think of how much easier it is for people today to express their individuality and customize life to themselves than it was 50 or 100 or 500 years ago. There’s no reason to believe that trend won’t continue with more progress.

+ + + +

Multimedia communication

+ + + +

Similar to thought communication, but imagine how much easier it would be to describe a dream you had or a piece of music stuck in your head or a memory you’re thinking about if you could just beam the thing into someone’s head, like showing them on your computer screen. Or as Elon said, “I could think of a bouquet of flowers and have a very clear picture in my head of what that is. It would take a lot of words for you to even have an approximation of what that bouquet of flowers looks like.”

+ + + +

How much faster could a team of engineers or architects or designers plan out a new bridge or a new building or a new dress if they could beam the vision in their head onto a screen and others could adjust it with their minds, versus sketching things out—which not only takes far longer, but probably is inevitably lossy?

+ + + +

How many symphonies could Mozart have written if he had been able to think the music in his head onto the page? How many Mozarts are out there right now who never learned how to play instruments well enough to get their talent out?

+ + + +

I watched this delightful animated short movie the other day, and below the video the creator, Felix Colgrave, said the video took him two years. How much of that time was spent dreaming up the art versus painstakingly getting it from his head into the software? Maybe in a few decades, I’ll be able to watch animation streaming live out of Felix’s head.

+ + + +

Emotional communication

+ + + +

Emotions are the quintessential example of a concept that words are poorly-equipped to accurately describe. If ten people say, “I’m sad,” it actually means ten different things. In the Wizard Era, we’ll probably learn pretty quickly that the specific emotions people feel are as unique to people as their appearance or sense of humor.

+ + + +

This could work as communication—when one person communicates just what they’re feeling, the other person would be able to access the feeling in their own emotional centers. Obvious implications for a future of heightened empathy. But emotional communication could also be used for things like entertainment, where a movie, say, could also project out to the audience—directly into their limbic systems—certain feelings it wants the audience to feel as they watch. This is already what the film score does—another hack—and now it could be done directly.

+ + + +

Sensory communication

+ + + +

This one is intense.

+ + + +

Right now, the only two microphones that can act as inputs for the “speaker” in your head—your auditory cortex—are your two ears. The only two cameras that can be hooked up to the projector in your head—your visual cortex—are your two eyes. The only sensory surface that you can feel is your skin. The only thing that lets you experience taste is your tongue.

+ + + +

But in the same way we can currently hook an implant, for example, into someone’s cochlea—which connects a different mic to their auditory cortex—down the road we’ll be able to let sensory input information stream into your wizard hat wirelessly, from anywhere, and channel right into your sensory cortices the same way your bodily sensory organs do today. In the future, sensory organs will be only one set of inputs into your senses—and compared to what our senses will have access to, not a very exciting one.

+ + + +

Now what about output?

+ + + +

Currently, the only speaker your ear inputs can play out of is your auditory cortex. Only you can see what your eye cameras capture and only you can feel what touches your skin—because only you have access to the particular cortices those inputs are wired to. With a wizard hat, it would be a breeze for your brain to beam those input signals out of your head.

+ + + +

So you’ll have sensory input capabilities and sensory output capabilities—or both at the same time. This will open up all kinds of amazing possibilities.

+ + + +

Say you’re on a beautiful hike and you want to show your husband the view. No problem—just think out to him to request a brain connection. When he accepts, connect your retina feed to his visual cortex. Now his vision is filled with exactly what your eyes see, as if he’s there. He asks for the other senses to get the full picture, so you connect those too and now he hears the waterfall in the distance and feels the breeze and smells the trees and jumps when a bug lands on your arm. You two share the equivalent of a five-minute discussion about the scene—your favorite parts, which other places it reminds you of, etc. along with a shared story from his day—in a 30-second thought session. He says he has to get back to what he was working on, so he cuts off the sense connections except for vision, which he reduces to a little picture-in-picture window on the side of his visual field so he can check out more of the hike from time to time.

+ + + +

A surgeon could control a machine scalpel with her motor cortex instead of holding one in her hand, and she could receive sensory input from that scalpel so that it would feel like an 11th finger to her. So it would be as if one of her fingers was a scalpel and she could do the surgery without holding any tools, giving her much finer control over her incisions. An inexperienced surgeon performing a tough operation could bring a couple of her mentors into the scene as she operates to watch her work through her eyes and think instructions or advice to her. And if something goes really wrong, one of them could “take the wheel” and connect their motor cortex to her outputs to take control of her hands.

+ + + +

There would be no more need for screens of course—because you could just make a virtual screen appear in your visual cortex. Or jump into a VR movie with all your senses. Speaking of VR—Facebook, the maker of the Oculus Rift, is diving into this too. In an interview with Mark Zuckerberg about VR (for an upcoming post), the conversation at one point turned to BMIs. He said: “Touch gives you input and it’s a little bit of haptic feedback. Over the long term, it’s not clear that we won’t just like to have our hands in no controller, and maybe, instead of having buttons that we press, we would just think something.”

+ + + +

The ability to record sensory input means you can also record your memories, or share them—since a memory in the first place is just a not-so-accurate playback of previous sensory input. Or you could play them back as live experiences. In other words, that Black Mirror episode will probably actually happen.

+ + + +

An NBA player could send out a livestream invitation to his fans before a game, which would let them see and hear through his eyes and ears while he plays. Those who miss it could jump into the recording later.

+ + + +

You could save a great sex experience in the cloud to enjoy again later—or, if you’re not too private a person, you could send it over to a friend to experience. (Needless to say, the porn industry will thrive in the digital brain world.)

+ + + +

Right now, you can go on YouTube and watch a first-hand account of almost anything, for free. This would have blown George Washington’s mind—but in the Wizard Era, you’ll be able to actually experience almost anything for free. The days of fancy experiences being limited to rich people will be long over.

+ + + +

Another idea, via the imagination of Moran Cerf: Maybe player brain injuries will drive the NFL to alter the rules so that the players’ biological bodies stay on the sidelines, while they play the game with an artificial body whose motor cortex they control and whose eyes and ears they see and hear through. I like this idea and think it would be closer to the current NFL than it seems at first. In one way, you’ll still need to be a great athlete to play, since most of what makes a great athlete great is their motor cortex, their muscle memory, and their decision-making. But the other component of being a great athlete—the physical body itself—would now be artificial. The NFL could make all of the artificial playing bodies identical—this would be a cool way to see whose skills were actually best—or they could insist that artificial body matches in every way the biological body of the athlete, to mimic as closely as possible how the game would go if players used their biological bodies like in the old days. Either way, if this rule change happened, you can imagine how crazyit would seem to people that players used to have their actual, fragile brains on the field.

+ + + +

I could go on. The communication possibilities in a wizard hat world, especially when you combine them with each other, are endless—and damn fun to think about.

+ + + +

The Wizard Era: Internal Control

+ + + +
+ + + +

Communication—the flow of information into and out of your brain—is only one way your wizard hat will be able to serve you.

+ + + +

A whole-brain interface can stimulate any part of your brain in any way—it has to have this capability for the input half of all the communication examples above. But that capability also gives you a whole new level of control over your brain. Here are some ways people of the future might take advantage of that:

+ + + +

Win the battle in your head for both sides

+ + + +

Often, the battle in our heads between our prefrontal cortex and limbic system comes down to the fact that both parties are trying to do what’s best for us—it’s just that our limbic system is wrong about what’s best for us because it thinks we live in a tribe 50,000 years ago.

+ + + +

Your limbic system isn’t making you eat your ninth Starburst candy in a row because it’s a dick—it’s making you eat it because it thinks that A) any fruit that sweet and densely chewy must be super rich in calories and B) you might not find food again for the next four days so it’s a good idea to load up on a high-calorie food whenever the opportunity arises.

+ + + +

Meanwhile, your prefrontal cortex is just watching in horror like “WHY ARE WE DOING THIS.”

+ + + +

But Moran believes that a good brain interface could fix this problem:53

+ + + +

Consider eating a chocolate cake. While eating, we feed data to our cognitive apparatus. These data provide the enjoyment of the cake. The enjoyment isn’t in the cake, per se, but in our neural experience of it. Decoupling our sensory desire (the experience of cake) from the underlying survival purpose (nutrition) will soon be within our reach.

+ + + +

This concept of “sensory decoupling” would make so much sense if we could pull it off. You could get the enjoyment of eating like shit without actually putting shit in your body. Instead, Moran says, what would go in your body would be “nutrition inputs customized for each person based on genomes, microbiomes or other factors. Physical diets released from the tyranny of desire.”54

+ + + +

The same principle could apply to things like sex, drugs, alcohol, and other pleasures that get people into trouble, healthwise or otherwise.

+ + + +

Ramez Naam talks about how a brain interface could also help us win the discipline battle when it comes to time:55

+ + + +

We know that stimulating the right centers in the brain can induce sleep or alertness, hunger or satiation, ease or stimulation, as quick as the flip of a switch. Or, if you’re running code, on a schedule. (Siri: Put me to sleep until 7:30, high priority interruptions only. And let’s get hungry for lunch around noon. Turn down the sugar cravings, though.)

+ + + +

Take control of mood disorders

+ + + +

Ramez also emphasized that a great deal of scientific evidence suggests that moods and disorders are tied to what the chemicals in your brain are doing. Right now, we take drugs to alter those chemicals, and Ramez explains why direct neural stimulation is a far better option:56

+ + + +

Pharmaceuticals enter the brain and then spread out randomly, hitting whatever receptor they work on all across your brain. Neural interfaces, by contrast, can stimulate just one area at a time, can be tuned in real-time, and can carry information out about what’s happening.

+ + + +

Depression, anxiety, OCD, and other disorders may be easy to eradicate once we can take better control of what goes on in our brain.

+ + + +

Mess with your senses

+ + + +

Want to hear what a dog hears? That’s easy. The pitch range we can hear is limited by the dimensions of our cochlea—but pitches out of the ear’s range can be sent straight into our auditory nerve.32

+ + + +

Or maybe you want a new sense. You love bird watching and want to be able to sense when there’s a bird nearby. So you buy an infrared camera that can detect bird locations by their heat signals and you link it to your brain interface, which stimulates neurons in a certain way to alert you to the presence of a bird and tell you its location. I can’t describe what you’d experience when it alerts you, so I’ll just say words like “feel” or “see,” because I can only imagine the five senses we have. But in the future, there will be more words for new, useful types of senses.

+ + + +

You could also dim or shut off parts of a sense, like pain perhaps. Pain is the body’s way of telling us we need to address something, but in the future, we’ll elect to get that information in much less unpleasant formats.33

+ + + +

Increase your knowledge 

+ + + +

There’s evidence from experiments with rats that it’s possible to boost how fast a brain can learn—sometimes by 2x or even 3x—just by priming certain neurons to prepare to make a long-term connection.

+ + + +

Your brain would also have access to all the knowledge in the world, at all times. I talked to Ramez about how accessing information in the cloud might work. We parsed it out into four layers of capability, each requiring a more advanced brain interface than the last:

+ + + +

Level 1: I want to know a fact. I call on the cloud for that info—like Googling something with my brain—and the answer, in text, appears in my mind’s eye. Basically what I do now except it all happens in my head.

+ + + +

Level 2: I want to know a fact. I call on the cloud for that info, and then a second later I just know it. No reading was involved—it was more like the way I’d recall something from memory.

+ + + +

Level 3: I just know the fact I want to know the second I want it. I don’t even know if it came from the cloud or if it was stored in my brain. I can essentially treat the whole cloud like my brain. I don’t know all the info—my brain could never fit it all—but any time I want to know something it downloads into my consciousness so seamlessly and quickly, it’s as if it were there all along.

+ + + +

Level 4: Beyond just knowing facts, I can deeply understand anything I want to, in a complex way. We discussed the example of Moby Dick. Could I download Moby Dickfrom the cloud into my memory and then suddenly have it be the same as if I had read the whole book? Where I’d have thoughts and opinions and I could cite passages and have discussions about the themes?

+ + + +

Ramez thinks all four of these are possible with enough time, but that the fourth in particular will take a very long time to happen, if ever.

+ + + +

So there are about 50 delightful potential things about putting a wizard hat on your brain. Now for the undelightful part.

+ + + +

The scary thing about wizard hats

+ + + +

As is always the case with the advent of new technologies, when the Wizard Era rolls around, the dicks of the world will do their best to ruin everything.

+ + + +

And this time, the stakes are extra high. Here are some things that could suck:

+ + + +

Trolls can have an even fielder day. The troll-type personalities of the world have been having a field day ever since the internet came out. They literally can’t believe their luck. But with brain interfaces, they’ll have an even fielder day. Being more connected to each other means a lot of good things—like empathy going up as a result of more exposure to all kinds of people—but it also means a lot of bad things. Just like the internet. Bad guys will have more opportunity to spread hate or build hateful coalitions. The internet has been a godsend for ISIS, and a brain-connected world would be an even more helpful recruiting tool.

+ + + +

Computers crash. And they have bugs. And normally that’s not the end of the world, because you can try restarting, and if it’s really being a piece of shit, you can just get a new computer. You can’t get a new head. There will have to be a way way higher number of precautions taken here.

+ + + +

Computers can be hacked. Except this time they have access to your thoughts, sensory input, and memories. Bad times.

+ + + +

Holy shit computers can be hacked. In the last item I was thinking about bad guys using hacking to steal information from my brain. But brain interfaces can also put information in. Meaning a clever hacker might be able to change your thoughts or your vote or your identity or make you want to do something terrible you normally wouldn’t ever consider. And you wouldn’t know it ever happened. You could feel strongly about voting for a candidate and a little part of you would wonder if someone manipulated your thoughts so you’d feel that way. The darkest possible scenario would be an ISIS-type organization actually influencing millions of people to join their cause by altering their thoughts. This is definitely the scariest paragraph in this post. Let’s get out of here.

+ + + +

Why the Wizard Era will be a good thing anyway even though there are a lot of dicks

+ + + +

Physics advancements allow bad guys to make nuclear bombs. Biological advancements allow bad guys to make bioweapons. The invention of cars and planes led to crashes that kill over a million people a year. The internet enabled the spread of fake news, made us vulnerable to cyberattack, made terrorist recruiting efforts easier, and allowed predators to flourish.

+ + + +

And yet—

+ + + +

Would people choose to reverse our understanding of science, go back to the days of riding horses across land and boats across the ocean, or get rid of the internet?

+ + + +

Probably not.

+ + + +

New technology also comes along with real dangers and it always does end up harming a lot of people. But it also always seems to help a lot more people than it harms. Advancing technology almost always proves to be a net positive.

+ + + +

People also love to hate the concept of new technology—because they worry it’s unhealthy and makes us less human. But those same people, if given the option, usually wouldn’t consider going back to George Washington’s time, when half of children died before the age of 5, when traveling to other parts of the world was impossible for almost everyone, when a far greater number of humanitarian atrocities were being committed than there are today, when women and ethnic minorities had far fewer rights across the world than they do today, when far more people were illiterate and far more people were living under the poverty line than there are today. They wouldn’t go back 250 years—a time right before the biggest explosion of technology in human history happened. Sounds like people who are immensely grateful for technology. And yet their opinion holds—our technology is ruining our lives, people in the old days were much wiser, our world’s going to shit, etc. I don’t think they’ve thought about it hard enough.

+ + + +

So when it comes to what will be a long list of dangers of the Wizard Era—they suck, and they’ll continue to suck as some of them play out into sickening atrocities and catastrophes. But a vastly larger group of good guys will wage war back, as they always do, and a giant “brain security” industry will be born. And I bet, if given the option, people in the Wizard Era wouldn’t for a second consider coming back to 2017.

+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

The Timeline

+ + + +

I always know when humanity doesn’t know what the hell is going on with something when all the experts are contradicting each other about it.34

+ + + +

The timeline for our road to the Wizard Era is one of those times—in large part because no one knows to what extent we’ll be able to make Stevenson’s Law look more like Moore’s Law.

+ + + +

My conversations yielded a wide range of opinions on the timeline. One neuroscientist predicted that I’d have a whole-brain interface in my lifetime. Mark Zuckerberg said: “I would be pretty disappointed if in 25 years we hadn’t made some progress towards thinking things to computers.” One prediction on the longer end came from Ramez Naam, who thought the time of people beginning to install BMIs for reasons other than disability might not come for 50 years and that mass adoption would take even longer.

+ + + +

“I hope I’m wrong,” he said. “I hope that Elon bends the curve on this.”

+ + + +

When I asked Elon about his timeline, he said:

+ + + +

I think we are about 8 to 10 years away from this being usable by people with no disability … It is important to note that this depends heavily on regulatory approval timing and how well our devices work on people with disabilities.

+ + + +

During another discussion, I had asked him about why he went into this branch of biotech and not into genetics. He responded:

+ + + +

Genetics is just too slow, that’s the problem. For a human to become an adult takes twenty years. We just don’t have that amount of time.

+ + + +

A lot of people working on this challenge have a lot of different motivations for doing so, but rarely did I talk to people who felt motivated by urgency.

+ + + +

Elon’s urgency to get us into the Wizard Era is the final piece of the Neuralink puzzle. Our last box to fill in:

+ + + +
+ + + +

With Elon’s companies, there’s always some “result of the goal” that’s his real reason for starting the company—the piece that ties the company’s goal into humanity’s better future. In the case of Neuralink, it’s a piece that takes a lot of tree climbing to understand. But with the view from all the way up here, we’ve got everything we need for our final stretch of the road.

+ + + +

Part 6: The Great Merger

+ + + +
+ + + +

Imagine an alien explorer is visiting a new star and finds three planets circling it, all with life on them. The first happens to be identical to the way Earth was in 10 million BC. The second happens to be identical to Earth in 50,000 BC. And the third happens to be identical to Earth in 2017 AD.

+ + + +

The alien is no expert on primitive biological life but circles around all three planets, peering down at each with his telescope. On the first, he sees lots of water and trees and mountains and some little signs of animal life. He makes out a herd of elephants on an African plain, a group of dolphins skipping along the ocean’s surface, and a few other scattered critters living out their Tuesday.

+ + + +

He moves on to the second planet and looks around. More critters, not too much different. He notices one new thing—occasional little points of flickering light dotting the land.

+ + + +

Bored, he moves on to the third planet. Whoa. He sees planes crawling around above the land, vast patches of gray land with towering buildings on them, ships of all kinds sprinkled across the seas, long railways stretching across continents, and he has to jerk his spaceship out of the way when a satellite soars by him.

+ + + +

When he heads home, he reports on what he found: “Two planets with primitive life and one planet with intelligent life.”

+ + + +

You can understand why that would be his conclusion—but he’d be wrong.

+ + + +

In fact, it’s the first planet that’s the odd one out. Both the second and third planets have intelligent life on them—equally intelligent life. So equal that you could kidnap a newborn baby from Planet 2 and swap it with a newborn on Planet 3 and both would grow up as normal people on the other’s planet, fitting in seamlessly. Same people.

+ + + +

And yet, how could that be?

+ + + +
+ + + +

The Human Colossus. That’s how.

+ + + +

Ever wonder why you’re so often unimpressed by humans and yet so blown away by the accomplishments of humanity?

+ + + +

It’s because humans are still, deep down, those people on Planet 2.

+ + + +

Plop a baby human into a group of chimps and ask them to raise him, Tarzan style, and the human as an adult will know how to run around the forest, climb trees, find food, and masturbate. That’s who each of us actually is.

+ + + +

Humanity, on the other hand, is a superintelligent, tremendously-knowledgeable, millennia-old Colossus, with 7.5 billion neurons. And that’s who built Planet 3.

+ + + +

The invention of language allowed each human brain to dump its knowledge onto a pile before its death, and the pile became a tower and grew taller and taller until one day, it became the brain of a great Colossus that built us a civilization. The Human Colossus has been inventing things ever since, getting continually better at it with time. Driven only by the desire to create value, the Colossus is now moving at an unprecedented pace—which is why we live in an unprecedented and completely anomalous time in history.

+ + + +

You know how I said we might be living literally on the line between two vast eras of communication?

+ + + +

Well the truth is, we seem to be on a lot of historic timeline boundaries. After 1,000 centuries of human life and 3.8 billion years of Earthly life, it seems like this century will be the one where Earth life makes the leap from the Single-Planetary Era to the Multi-Planetary Era. This century may be the one when an Earthly species finally manages to wrest the genetic code from the forces of evolution and learns to reprogram itself. People alive today could witness the moment when biotechnology finally frees the human lifespan from the will of nature and hands it over to the will of each individual.

+ + + +

The Human Colossus has reached an entirely new level of power—the kind of power that can overthrow 3.8-billion-year eras—positioning us on the verge of multiple tipping points that will lead to unimaginable change. And if our alien friend finds a fourth planet one day that happens to be identical to Earth in 2100, you can be pretty damn sure it’ll look nothing to him like Planet 3.

+ + + +

I hope you enjoyed Planet 3, because we’re leaving it. Planet 4 is where we’re headed, whether we like it or not.

+ + + +
+ + + +

__________

+ + + +

If I had to sum up the driving theme behind everything Elon Musk does, it would be pretty simple:

+ + + +

He wants to prepare us for Planet 4.

+ + + +

He lives in the big picture, and his only lens is the maximum zoom-out. That’s why he’s such an unusual visionary. It’s also why he’s so worried.

+ + + +

It’s not that he thinks Planet 4 is definitely a bad place—it’s that he thinks it could be a bad place, and he recognizes that the generations alive today, whether they realize it or not, are the first in history to face real, hardcore existential risk.

+ + + +

At the same time, the people alive today also are the first who can live with the actually realistic hope for a genuinely utopian future—one that defies even death and taxes. Planet 4 could be our promised land.

+ + + +

When you zoom way out, you realize how unfathomably high the stakes actually are.

+ + + +

And the outcome isn’t at the whim of chance—it’s at the whim of the Human Colossus. Planet 4 is only coming because the Colossus is building it. And whether that future is like heaven or hell depends on what the Colossus does—maybe over the next 150 years, maybe over only the next 50. Or 25.

+ + + +

But the unfortunate thing is that the Human Colossus isn’t optimized to maximize the chances of a safe transition to the best possible Planet 4 for the most possible humans—it’s optimized to build Planet 4, in any way possible, as quickly as possible.

+ + + +

Understanding all of this, Elon has dedicated his life to trying to influence the Human Colossus to bring its motivation more in line with the long-term interests of humans. He knows it’s not possible to rewire the Human Colossus—not unless existential risk were suddenly directly in front of each human’s face, which normally doesn’t happen until it’s already too late—so he treats the Colossus like a pet.

+ + + +

If you want your dog to sit, you correlate sitting on command with getting a treat. For the Human Colossus, a treat is a ripe new industry simultaneously exploding in both supply and demand.

+ + + +

Elon saw the Human Colossus dog peeing on the floor in the form of continually adding ancient, deeply-buried carbon into the carbon cycle—and rather than plead with the Colossus to stop peeing on the floor (which a lot of people waste their breath doing) or try to threaten the Colossus into behaving (which governments try to do, with limited success), he’s creating an electric car so rad that everyone will want one. The auto industry sees the shift in consumer preferences this is beginning to create, and in the nine years since Tesla released its first car, the number of major car companies with an electric car in their line went from zero to almost all of them. The Colossus seems to be taking the treat, and a change in behavior may follow.

+ + + +

Elon saw the Human Colossus dog running into traffic in the form of humanity keeping all of its eggs on one planet, despite all of those tipping points on the horizon, so he built SpaceX to learn to land a rocket, which will cut the cost of space travel by about 99% and make dedicating resources to the space industry a much tastier morsel for the Colossus. His plan with Mars isn’t to try to convince humanity that it’s a good idea to build a civilization there in order to buy life insurance for the species—it’s to create an affordable regular cargo and human transit route to Mars, knowing that once that happens, there will be enough value-creation opportunity in Mars development that the Colossus will become determined to make it happen.

+ + + +

But to Elon, the scariest thing the Human Colossus is doing is teaching the Computer Colossus to think. To Elon, and many others, the development of superintelligent AI poses by far the greatest existential threat to humanity. It’s not that hard to see why. Intelligence gives us godlike powers over all other creatures on Earth—which has not been a fun time for the creatures. If any of their body parts are possible value creators, we have major industries processing and selling those body parts. We sometimes kill them for sport. But we’re probably the least fun all the times we’re just doing our thing, for our own reasons, with no hate in our hearts or desire to hurt anyone, and there are creatures, or ecosystems, that just happen to be in our way or in the line of fire of the side effects of what we’re doing. People like to get all mad at humanity about this, but really, we’re just doing what species do—being selfish, first and foremost.

+ + + +

The issue for other creatures isn’t our selfishness—it’s the immense damage our selfishness can do because of the tremendous power we have over them. Power that comes from our intelligence advantage.

+ + + +

So it’s pretty logical to be apprehensive about the prospect of intentionally creating something that will have (perhaps far) more intelligence than we do—especially since every human on the planet is an amateur at creating something like that, because no one has ever done it before.

+ + + +

And things are progressing quickly. Elon talked about the rapid progress made by Google’s game-playing AI:

+ + + +

I mean, you’ve got these two things where AlphaGo crushes these human players head-on-head, beats Lee Sedol 4 out of 5 games and now it will beat a human every game all the time, while playing the 50 best players, and beating them always, all the time. You know, that’s like one year later. 

+ + + +

And it’s on a harmless thing like AlphaGo right now. But the degrees of freedom at which the AI can win are increasing. So, Go has many more degrees of freedom than Chess, but if you take something like one of the real-time strategy competitive games like League of Legends or Dota 2, that has vastly more degrees of freedom than Go, so it can’t win at that yet. But it will be able to. And then there’s reality, which has the ultimate number of degrees of freedom.35

+ + + +

And for reasons discussed above, that kind of thing worries him:

+ + + +

What I came to realize in recent years—the last couple years—is that AI is obviously going to surpass human intelligence by a lot. … There’s some risk at that point that something bad happens, something that we can’t control, that humanity can’t control after that point—either a small group of people monopolize AI power, or the AI goes rogue, or something like that. It may not, but it could.

+ + + +

But in typical Human Colossus form, “the collective will is not attuned to the danger of AI.”

+ + + +

When I interviewed Elon in 2015, I asked him if he would ever join the effort to build superintelligent AI. He said, “My honest opinion is that we shouldn’t build it.” And when I later commented that building something smarter than yourself did seem like a basic Darwinian error (a phrase I stole from Nick Bostrom), Elon responded, “We’re gonna win the Darwin Award, collectively.”

+ + + +

Now, two years later, here’s what he says:

+ + + +

I was trying to really sound the alarm on the AI front for quite a while, but it was clearly having no impact (laughs) so I was like, “Oh fine, okay, then we’ll have to try to help develop it in a way that’s good.”

+ + + +

He’s accepted reality—the Human Colossus is not going to quit until the Computer Colossus, one day, wakes up. This is happening.

+ + + +
+ + + +

No matter what anyone tells you, no one knows what will happen when the Computer Colossus learns to think. In my long AI explainer, I explored the reasoning of both those who are convinced that superintelligent AI will be the solution to every problem we have, and those who see humanity as a bunch of kids playing with a bomb they don’t understand. I’m personally still torn about which camp I find more convincing, but it seems pretty rational to plan for the worst and do whatever we can to increase our odds. Many experts agree with that logic, but there’s little consensus on the best strategy for creating superintelligent AI safely—just a whole lot of ideas from people who acknowledge they don’t really know the answer. How could anyone know how to take precautions for a future world they have no way to understand?

+ + + +

Elon also acknowledges he doesn’t know the answer—but he’s working on a plan he thinks will give us our best shot.

+ + + +

Elon’s Plan

+ + + +

Abraham Lincoln was pleased with himself when he came up with the line:

+ + + +

—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

+ + + +

Fair—it’s a good line.

+ + + +

The whole idea of “of the people, by the people, for the people” is the centerpiece of democracy.

+ + + +

Unfortunately, “the people” are unpleasant. So democracy ends up being unpleasant. But unpleasant tends to be a dream compared to the alternatives. Elon talked about this:

+ + + +

I think that the protection of the collective is important. I think it was Churchill who said, “Democracy’s the worst of all systems of government, except for all the others.” It’s fine if you have Plato’s incredible philosopher king as the king, sure. That would be fine. Now, most dictators do not turn out that way. They tend to be quite horrible.

+ + + +

In other words, democracy is like escaping from a monster by hiding in a sewer.

+ + + +

There are plenty of times in life when it’s a good strategy to take a risk in order to give yourself a chance for the best possible outcome, but when the stakes are at their absolute highest, the right move is usually to play it safe. Power is one of those times. That’s why, even though democracy essentially guarantees a certain level of mediocrity, Elon says, “I think you’re hard-pressed to find many people in the United States who, no matter what they think of any given president, would advocate for a dictatorship.”

+ + + +

And since Elon sees AI as the ultimate power, he sees AI development as the ultimate “play it safe” situation. Which is why his strategy for minimizing existential AI risk seems to essentially be that AI power needs to be of the people, by the people, for the people.

+ + + +

To try to implement that concept in the realm of AI, Elon has approached the situation from multiple angles.

+ + + +

For the by the people and for the people parts, he and Sam Altman created OpenAI—a self-described “non-profit AI research company, discovering and enacting the path to safe artificial general intelligence.”

+ + + +

Normally, when humanity is working on something new, it starts with the work of a few innovative pioneers. When they succeed, an industry is born and the Human Colossus jumps on board to build upon what the pioneers started, en masse.

+ + + +

But what if the thing those pioneers were working on was a magic wand that might give whoever owned it immense, unbreakable power over everyone else—including the power to prevent anyone else from making a magic wand? That would be kinda stressful, right?

+ + + +

Well that’s how Elon views today’s early AI development efforts. And since he can’t stop people from trying to make a magic wand, his solution is to create an open, collaborative, transparent magic wand development lab. When a new breakthrough innovation is discovered in the lab, instead of making it a tightly-kept secret like the other magic wand companies, the lab publishes the innovation for anyone to see or borrow for their own magic-wand-making efforts.

+ + + +

On one hand, this could have drawbacks. Bad guys are out there trying to make a magic wand too, and you really don’t want the first magic wand to end up in the hands of a bad guy. And now the bad guys’ development efforts can benefit from all of the innovations being published by the lab. This is a serious concern.

+ + + +

But the lab also boosts the efforts of millions of other people trying to create magic wands. This generates a ton of competition for the secretive early pioneers, and it becomes less likely that any one inventor can create a magic wand long before others also do. More likely is that when the first magic wand is eventually created, there are thousands of others near completion as well—different wands, with different capabilities, made by different people, for different reasons. If we have to have magic wands on Earth, Elon thinks, let’s at least make sure they’re in the hands of a large number of people across the world—not one all-powerful sorcerer. Or as he puts it:

+ + + +

Essentially, if everyone’s from planet Krypton, that’s great. But if only one of them is Superman and Superman also has the personality of Hitler, then we’ve got a problem.

+ + + +

More broadly, a single pioneer’s magic wand would likely have been built to serve that inventor’s own needs and purposes. But by turning the future magic wand industry into a collective effort, a wide variety of needs and purposes will have a wand made for them, making it more likely that the capabilities of the world’s aggregate mass of magic wands will overarchingly represent the needs of the masses.

+ + + +

You know, like democracy.

+ + + +

It worked fine for Nikola Tesla and Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers and Alan Turing to jump-start revolutions by jumping way out ahead of the pack. But when you’re dealing with the invention of something unthinkably powerful, you can’t sit back and let the pioneers kick things off—it’s leaving too much to chance.

+ + + +

OpenAI is an effort to democratize the creation of AI, to get the entire Human Colossus working on it during its pioneer phase. Elon sums it up:

+ + + +

AI is definitely going to vastly surpass human abilities. To the degree that it is linked to human will, particularly the sum of a large number of humans, it would be an outcome that is desired by a large number of humans, because it would be a function of their will.

+ + + +

So now you’ve maybe got early human-level-or-higher AI superpower being made by the people, for the people—which brings down the likelihood that the world’s AI ends up in the hands of a single bad guy or a tightly-controlled monopoly.

+ + + +

Now all we’ve got left is of the people.

+ + + +

This one should be easy. Remember, the Human Colossus is creating superintelligent AI for the same reason it created cars, factory machines, and computers—to serve as an extension of itself to which it can outsource work. Cars do our walking, factory machines do our manufacturing, and computers take care of information storage, organization, and computation.

+ + + +

Creating computers that can think will be our greatest invention yet—they’ll allow us to outsource our most important and high-impact work. Thinking is what built everything we have, so just imagine the power that will come from building ourselves a superintelligent thinking extension. And extensions of the people by definition belong to the people—they’re of the people.

+ + + +

There’s just this one thing—

+ + + +

High-caliber AI isn’t quite like those other inventions. The rest of our technology is great at the thing it’s built to do, but in the end, it’s a mindless machine with narrow intelligence. The AI we’re trying to build will be smart, like a person—like a ridiculously smart person. It’s a fundamentally different thing than we’ve ever made before—so why would we expect normal rules to apply?

+ + + +

It’s always been an automatic thing that the technology we make inherently belongs to us—it’s such an obvious point that it almost seems silly to make it. But could it be that if we make something smarter than a person, it might not be so easy to control?

+ + + +

Could it be that a creation that’s better at thinking than any human on Earth might not be fully content to serve as a human extension, even if that’s what it was built to do?

+ + + +

We don’t know how issues will actually manifest—but it seems pretty safe to say that yes, these possibilities could be.

+ + + +

And if what could be turns out to actually be, we may have a serious problem on our hands.

+ + + +

Because, as the human history case study suggests, when there’s something on the planet way smarter than everyone else, it can be a really bad thing for everyone else. And if AI becomes the new thing on the planet that’s way smarter than everyone else, and it turns out not to clearly belong to us—it means that it’s its own thing. Which drops us into the category of “everyone else.”

+ + + +

So people gaining monopolistic control of AI is its own problem—and one that OpenAI is hoping to solve. But it’s a problem that may pale in comparison to the prospect of AI being uncontrollable.

+ + + +

This is what keeps Elon up at night. He sees it as only a matter of time before superintelligent AI rises up on this planet—and when that happens, he believes that it’s critical that we don’t end up as part of “everyone else.”

+ + + +

That’s why, in a future world made up of AI and everyone else, he thinks we have only one good option:

+ + + +

To be AI.

+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

Remember before when I said that there were two things about wizard hats we had to wrap our heads around?

+ + + +

1) The intensely mind-bending idea

+ + + +

2) The super ridiculously intensely mind-bending idea

+ + + +

This is where #2 comes in.

+ + + +
+ + + +

These two ideas are the two things Elon means when he refers to the wizard hat as a digital tertiary layer in our brains. The first, as we discussed, is the concept that a whole-brain interface is kind of the same thing as putting our devices in our heads—effectively making your brain the device. Like this: 

+ + + +

Your devices give you cyborg superpowers and a window into the digital world. Your brain’s wizard hat electrode array is a new brain structure, joining your limbic system and cortex.

+ + + +

But your limbic system, cortex, and wizard hat are just the hardware systems. When you experience your limbic system, it’s not the physical system you’re interacting with—it’s the information flow within it. It’s the activity of the physical system that bubbles up in your consciousness, making you feel angry, scared, horny, or hungry.

+ + + +

Same thing for your cortex. The napkin wrapped around your brain stores and organizes information, but it’s the information itself that you experience when you think something, see something, hear something, or feel something. The visual cortex in itself does nothing for you—it’s the stream of photon information flowing through it that gives you the experience of having a visual cortex. When you dig in your memory to find something, you’re not searching for neurons, you’re searching for information stored in the neurons.

+ + + +

The limbic system and cortex themselves are just gray matter. The flow of activity within the gray matter is what forms your familiar internal characters, the monkey brain and the rational human brain.

+ + + +

So what does that mean about your digital tertiary layer?

+ + + +

It means that while what’s actually in your brain is the physical device—the electrode array itself—the component of the tertiary layer that you’ll experience and get to know as a character is the information that flows through the array.

+ + + +

And just like the feelings and urges of the limbic system and the thoughts and chattering voice of the cortex all feel to you like parts of you—like your inner essence—the activity that flows through your wizard hat will feel like a part of you and your essence.

+ + + +

Elon’s vision for the Wizard Era is that among the wizard hat’s many uses, one of its core purposes will be to serve as the interface between your brain and a cloud-based customized AI system. That AI system, he believes, will become as present a character in your mind as your monkey and your human characters—and it will feel like you every bit as much as the others do. He says:

+ + + +

I think that, conceivably, there’s a way for there to be a tertiary layer that feels like it’s part of you. It’s not some thing that you offload to, it’s you.

+ + + +

This makes sense on paper. You do most of your “thinking” with your cortex, but then when you get hungry, you don’t say, “My limbic system is hungry,” you say, “I’m hungry.” Likewise, Elon thinks, when you’re trying to figure out the solution to a problem and your AI comes up with the answer, you won’t say, “My AI got it,” you’ll say, “Aha! I got it.” When your limbic system wants to procrastinate and your cortex wants to work, a situation I might be familiar with, it doesn’t feel like you’re arguing with some external being, it feels like a singular you is struggling to be disciplined. Likewise, when you think up a strategy at work and your AI disagrees, that’ll be a genuine disagreement and a debate will ensue—but it will feel like an internal debate, not a debate between you and someone else that just happens to take place in your thoughts. The debate will feel like thinking. 

+ + + +

It makes sense on paper.

+ + + +

But when I first heard Elon talk about this concept, it didn’t really feel right. No matter how hard I tried to get it, I kept framing the idea as something familiar—like an AI system whose voice I could hear in my head, or even one that I could think together with. But in those instances, the AI still seemed like an external system I was communicating with. It didn’t seem like me.

+ + + +

But then, one night while working on the post, I was rereading some of Elon’s quotes about this, and it suddenly clicked. The AI would be me. Fully. I got it.

+ + + +

Then I lost it. The next day, I tried to explain the epiphany to a friend and I left us both confused. I was back in “Wait, but it kind of wouldn’t really be me, it would be communicating with me” land. Since then, I’ve dipped into and out of the idea, never quite able to hold it for long. The best thing I can compare it to is having a moment when it actually makes sense that time is relative and space-time is a single fabric. For a second, it seems intuitive that time moves slower when you’re moving really fast. And then I lose it. As I typed those sentences just now, it did not seem intuitive.

+ + + +

The idea of being AI is especially tough because it combines two mind-numbing concepts—the brain interface and the abilities it would give you, and artificial general intelligence. Humans today are simply not equipped to understand either of those things, because as imaginative as we think we are, our imaginations only really have our life experience as their toolkit, and these concepts are both totally novel. It’s like trying to imagine a color you’ve never seen.

+ + + +

That’s why when I hear Elon talk with conviction about this stuff, I’m somewhere in between deeply believing it myself and taking his word for it. I go back and forth. But given that he’s someone who probably found space-time intuitive when he was seven, and given that he’s someone who knows how to colonize Mars, I’m inclined to listen hard to what he says.

+ + + +

And what he says is that this is all about bandwidth. It’s obvious why bandwidth matters when it comes to making a wizard hat useful. But Elon believes that when it comes to interfacing with AI, high bandwidth isn’t just preferred, but actually fundamental to the prospect of being AI, versus simply using AI. Here he is walking me through his thoughts:

+ + + +

The challenge is the communication bandwidth is extremely slow, particularly output. When you’re outputting on a phone, you’re moving two thumbs very slowly. That’s crazy slow communication. … If the bandwidth is too low, then your integration with AI would be very weak. Given the limits of very low bandwidth, it’s kind of pointless. The AI is just going to go by itself, because it’s too slow to talk to. The faster the communication, the more you’ll be integrated—the slower the communication, the less. And the more separate we are—the more the AI is “other”—the more likely it is to turn on us. If the AIs are all separate, and vastly more intelligent than us, how do you ensure that they don’t have optimization functions that are contrary to the best interests of humanity? … If we achieve tight symbiosis, the AI wouldn’t be “other”—it would be you and with a relationship to your cortex analogous to the relationship your cortex has with your limbic system.

+ + + +

Elon sees communication bandwidth as the key factor in determining our level of integration with AI, and he sees that level of integration as the key factor in how we’ll fare in the AI world of our future:

+ + + +

We’re going to have the choice of either being left behind and being effectively useless or like a pet—you know, like a house cat or something—or eventually figuring out some way to be symbiotic and merge with AI.

+ + + +

Then, a second later:

+ + + +

A house cat’s a good outcome, by the way.

+ + + +

Without really understanding what kinds of AI will be around when we reach the age of superintelligent AI, the idea that human-AI integration will lend itself to the protection of the species makes intuitive sense. Our vulnerabilities in the AI era will come from bad people in control of AI or rogue AI not aligned with human values. In a world in which millions of people control a little piece of the world’s aggregate AI power—people who can think with AI, can defend themselves with AI, and who fundamentally understand AI because of their own integration with it—humans are less vulnerable. People will be a lot more powerful, which is scary, but like Elon said, if everyone is Superman, it’s harder for any one Superman to cause harm on a mass scale—there are lots of checks and balances. And we’re less likely to lose control of AI in general because the AI on the planet will be so widely distributed and varied in its goals. 

+ + + +

But time is of the essence here—something Elon emphasized:

+ + + +

The pace of progress in this direction matters a lot. We don’t want to develop digital superintelligence too far before being able to do a merged brain-computer interface.

+ + + +

When I thought about all of this, one reservation I had was whether a whole-brain interface would be enough of a change to make integration likely. I brought this up with Elon, noting that there would still be a vast difference between our thinking speed and a computer’s thinking speed. He said:

+ + + +

Yes, but increasing bandwidth by orders of magnitude would make it better. And it’s directionally correct. Does it solve all problems? No. But is it directionally correct? Yes. If you’re going to go in some direction, well, why would you go in any direction other than this?

+ + + +

And that’s why Elon started Neuralink.

+ + + +
+ + + +

He started Neuralink to accelerate our pace into the Wizard Era—into a world where he says that “everyone who wants to have this AI extension of themselves could have one, so there would be billions of individual human-AI symbiotes who, collectively, make decisions about the future.” A world where AI really could be of the people, by the people, for the people.

+ + + +
+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

I’ll guess that right now, some part of you believes this insane world we’ve been living in for the past 38,000 words could really maybe be the future—and another part of you refuses to believe it. I’ve got a little of both of those going on too.

+ + + +

But the insanity part of it shouldn’t be the reason it’s hard to believe. Remember—George Washington died when he saw 2017. And our future will be unfathomably shocking to us. The only difference is that things are moving even faster now than they were in George’s time.

+ + + +

The concept of being blown away by the future speaks to the magic of our collective intelligence—but it also speaks to the naivety of our intuition. Our minds evolved in a time when progress moved at a snail’s pace, so that’s what our hardware is calibrated to. And if we don’t actively override our intuition—the part of us that reads about a future this outlandish and refuses to believe it’s possible—we’re living in denial.

+ + + +

The reality is that we’re whizzing down a very intense road to a very intense place, and no one knows what it’ll be like when we get there. A lot of people find it scary to think about, but I think it’s exciting. Because of when we happened to be born, instead of just living in a normal world like normal people, we’re living inside of a thriller movie. Some people take this information and decide to be like Elon, doing whatever they can to help the movie have a happy ending—and thank god they do. Because I’d rather just be a gawking member of the audience, watching the movie from the edge of my seat and rooting for the good guys.

+ + + +

Either way, I think it’s good to climb a tree from time to time to look out at the view and remind ourselves what a time this is to be alive. And there are a lot of trees around here. Meet you at another one sometime soon.

+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

If you’re into Wait But Why, sign up for the Wait But Why email list and we’ll send you the new posts right when they come out. That’s the only thing we use the list for—and since my posting schedule isn’t exactly…regular…this is the best way to stay up-to-date with WBW posts.

+ + + +

If you’d like to support Wait But Why, here’s our Patreon.

+ + + +

The clean version of this post, appropriate for all ages, is free to read here.

+ + + +

To print this post or read it offline, try the PDF.

+ + + +

___________

+ + + +

More Wait But Why stuff:

+ + + +

If you want to understand AI better, here’s my big AI explainer.

+ + + +

And here’s the full Elon Musk post series:

+ + + +

Part 1, on Elon: Elon Musk: The World’s Raddest Man
Part 2, on Tesla: How Tesla Will Change the World
Part 3, on SpaceX: How (and Why) SpaceX Will Colonize Mars
Part 4, on the thing that makes Elon so effective: The Chef and the Cook: Musk’s Secret Sauce

+ + + +

If you’re sick of science and tech, check these out instead:

+ + + +

Why Procrastinators Procrastinate

+ + + +

Religion for the Nonreligious

+ + + +

The Tail End

+ + + +

Thanks to the Neuralink team for answering my 1,200 questions and explaining things to me like I’m five. Extra thanks to Ben Rapoport, Flip Sabes, and Moran Cerf for being my question-asking go-tos in my many dark moments of despair.

+ diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js index e03c6126ffab02..2c93b80a5226c7 100644 --- a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ /** * External dependencies */ - -import { writeFileSync } from 'fs'; +import { join } from 'path'; +import { existsSync, readFileSync, writeFileSync } from 'fs'; /** * WordPress dependencies @@ -13,19 +13,29 @@ import { insertBlock, } from '@wordpress/e2e-test-utils'; +function readFile( filePath ) { + return existsSync( filePath ) ? readFileSync( filePath, 'utf8' ).trim() : ''; +} + describe( 'Performance', async () => { - it.skip( '1000 paragraphs', async () => { + it( '1000 paragraphs', async () => { + const html = readFile( join( __dirname, '../assets/neuralink.html' ) ); + await createNewPost(); - await page.evaluate( () => { - const { createBlock } = window.wp.blocks; + await page.evaluate( ( _html ) => { + const { parse } = window.wp.blocks; const { dispatch } = window.wp.data; + const blocks = parse( _html ); + + blocks.forEach( ( block ) => { + if ( block.name === 'core/image' ) { + delete block.attributes.id; + delete block.attributes.url; + } + } ); - dispatch( 'core/editor' ).resetBlocks( Array( 1000 ).fill( - createBlock( 'core/paragraph', { - content: 'x'.repeat( 200 ), - } ) - ) ); - } ); + dispatch( 'core/editor' ).resetBlocks( blocks ); + }, html ); await saveDraft(); const results = { @@ -34,7 +44,7 @@ describe( 'Performance', async () => { type: [], }; - let i = 10; + let i = 1; let startTime; await page.on( 'load', () => results.load.push( new Date() - startTime ) ); From 4b682f56142ecd6bf81f934a81d5d45a920dd499 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Riad Benguella Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:07:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/7] Add a CLI command to run the performance tests --- package.json | 1 + packages/e2e-tests/jest.config.js | 3 +++ packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js | 21 +++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+) create mode 100644 packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js diff --git a/package.json b/package.json index f43c1e4cf08645..7d63ea82073970 100644 --- a/package.json +++ b/package.json @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ "pretest-e2e": "cross-env SCRIPT_DEBUG=false ./bin/reset-local-e2e-tests.sh", "test-e2e": "wp-scripts test-e2e --config packages/e2e-tests/jest.config.js", "test-e2e:watch": "npm run test-e2e -- --watch", + "test-performance": "wp-scripts test-e2e --config packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js", "test-php": "npm run lint-php && npm run test-unit-php", "test-unit": "wp-scripts test-unit-js --config test/unit/jest.config.js", "test-unit:update": "npm run test-unit -- --updateSnapshot", diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/jest.config.js b/packages/e2e-tests/jest.config.js index eeb88d9aa0daf0..5a4e0a5416a617 100644 --- a/packages/e2e-tests/jest.config.js +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/jest.config.js @@ -9,4 +9,7 @@ module.exports = { '@wordpress/jest-puppeteer-axe', 'expect-puppeteer', ], + testPathIgnorePatterns: [ + 'e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js', + ], }; diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js b/packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js new file mode 100644 index 00000000000000..466e0b5a40e68d --- /dev/null +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +module.exports = { + ...require( '@wordpress/scripts/config/jest-e2e.config' ), + testMatch: [ + '**/performance.test.js', + ], + setupFiles: [ + '/config/gutenberg-phase.js', + ], + setupFilesAfterEnv: [ + '/config/setup-test-framework.js', + 'expect-puppeteer', + ], + transformIgnorePatterns: [ + 'node_modules', + 'scripts/config/puppeteer.config.js', + ], + reporters: [ + 'default', + '/config/performance-reporter.js', + ], +}; From a50569a2511440d340a76b427f48123831025ea6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Duthie Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 14:22:05 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 5/7] Update packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js Co-Authored-By: youknowriad --- packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js index 2c93b80a5226c7..4b9cd3c9033e20 100644 --- a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ function readFile( filePath ) { return existsSync( filePath ) ? readFileSync( filePath, 'utf8' ).trim() : ''; } -describe( 'Performance', async () => { +describe( 'Performance', () => { it( '1000 paragraphs', async () => { const html = readFile( join( __dirname, '../assets/neuralink.html' ) ); From 453a551f6ab990555bbe5988ed1de6132ba86fce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Duthie Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 15:12:38 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 6/7] Testing: Use substitute randomly-generated performance fixture --- packages/e2e-tests/assets/large-post.html | 3989 ++++++++++++++++ packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html | 4259 ------------------ packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js | 2 +- 3 files changed, 3990 insertions(+), 4260 deletions(-) create mode 100644 packages/e2e-tests/assets/large-post.html delete mode 100644 packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/assets/large-post.html b/packages/e2e-tests/assets/large-post.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000000000..16a314c5ba60f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/assets/large-post.html @@ -0,0 +1,3989 @@ + +

At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet.

+ + + +

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sit enim idem caecus, debilis. Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles? Age sane, inquam. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Nam ante Aristippus, et ille melius. Sed quamvis comis in amicis tuendis fuerit, tamen, si haec vera sunt-nihil enim affirmo-, non satis acutus fuit.

+ + + +
  • At habetur! Et ego id scilicet nesciebam! Sed ut sit, etiamne post mortem coletur?
  • Totum genus hoc Zeno et qui ab eo sunt aut non potuerunt aut noluerunt, certe reliquerunt.
  • At quicum ioca seria, ut dicitur, quicum arcana, quicum occulta omnia?
+ + + +

Non igitur bene. Quod si ita se habeat, non possit beatam praestare vitam sapientia. Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus. Quod cum ille dixisset et satis disputatum videretur, in oppidum ad Pomponium perreximus omnes. Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas? Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas?

+ + + +

Nummus in Croesi divitiis obscuratur, pars est tamen divitiarum.

+ + + +

Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. De vacuitate doloris eadem sententia erit. Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit. Sit, inquam, tam facilis, quam vultis, comparatio voluptatis, quid de dolore dicemus? Si longus, levis dictata sunt. Sed ea mala virtuti magnitudine obruebantur. Non quam nostram quidem, inquit Pomponius iocans; Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate.

+ + + +

Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia? Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Quae contraria sunt his, malane? Sed hoc sane concedamus. Re mihi non aeque satisfacit, et quidem locis pluribus. Quantam rem agas, ut Circeis qui habitet totum hunc mundum suum municipium esse existimet? Nulla erit controversia.

+ + + +
+ + + +

+ Quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere? +

+ + + +
Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem;
+ + + +

Immo istud quidem, inquam, quo loco quidque, nisi iniquum postulo, arbitratu meo. Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Quae est igitur causa istarum angustiarum? Pollicetur certe. Nihil enim hoc differt. Iam enim adesse poterit. Nobis aliter videtur, recte secusne, postea;

+ + + +

Efficiens dici potest.

+ + + +

Prodest, inquit, mihi eo esse animo. Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Quo tandem modo? Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Quo invento omnis ab eo quasi capite de summo bono et malo disputatio ducitur. Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis? Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Nos paucis ad haec additis finem faciamus aliquando;

+ + + +

Non enim ipsa genuit hominem, sed accepit a natura inchoatum.

+ + + +

Memini me adesse P. Qua igitur re ab deo vincitur, si aeternitate non vincitur? Atque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio. Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam?

+ + + +

Quis negat? Quod autem satis est, eo quicquid accessit, nimium est; Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Sin ea non neglegemus neque tamen ad finem summi boni referemus, non multum ab Erilli levitate aberrabimus. An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. At coluit ipse amicitias. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Quid de Pythagora? Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Quae cum praeponunt, ut sit aliqua rerum selectio, naturam videntur sequi;

+ + + +

Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio.

+ + + +

Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Cuius quidem, quoniam Stoicus fuit, sententia condemnata mihi videtur esse inanitas ista verborum. Bonum valitudo: miser morbus. Itaque rursus eadem ratione, qua sum paulo ante usus, haerebitis. Zenonis est, inquam, hoc Stoici. Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta. Si est nihil nisi corpus, summa erunt illa: valitudo, vacuitas doloris, pulchritudo, cetera. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret.

+ + + +
Mihi enim erit isdem istis fortasse iam utendum.
+ + + +

An potest, inquit ille, quicquam esse suavius quam nihil dolere? Venit enim mihi Platonis in mentem, quem accepimus primum hic disputare solitum; Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes; Sed tamen intellego quid velit. Sed ad rem redeamus; Ea possunt paria non esse. Mene ergo et Triarium dignos existimas, apud quos turpiter loquare? Summus dolor plures dies manere non potest?

+ + + +

Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Itaque in rebus minime obscuris non multus est apud eos disserendi labor. Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus. Nam, ut paulo ante docui, augendae voluptatis finis est doloris omnis amotio. Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Sed haec omittamus; Quo modo autem philosophus loquitur? Te ipsum, dignissimum maioribus tuis, voluptasne induxit, ut adolescentulus eriperes P. Terram, mihi crede, ea lanx et maria deprimet.

+ + + +

+ Nam et a te perfici istam disputationem volo, nec tua mihi oratio longa videri potest. +

+ + + +
  • Alterum significari idem, ut si diceretur, officia media omnia aut pleraque servantem vivere.
  • Quid enim tanto opus est instrumento in optimis artibus comparandis?
  • At cum de plurimis eadem dicit, tum certe de maximis.
+ + + +

Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Theophrastus mediocriterne delectat, cum tractat locos ab Aristotele ante tractatos? Ille incendat? Ex eorum enim scriptis et institutis cum omnis doctrina liberalis, omnis historia. Quae duo sunt, unum facit. Deinde prima illa, quae in congressu solemus: Quid tu, inquit, huc?

+ + + +

+ Praeclare, inquit, facis, cum et eorum memoriam tenes, quorum uterque tibi testamento liberos suos commendavit, et puerum diligis. +

+ + + +

Sed nimis multa. Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? Quae cum ita sint, effectum est nihil esse malum, quod turpe non sit. Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere? Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas?

+ + + +
Magna laus.
+ + + +

Dici enim nihil potest verius. Satisne ergo pudori consulat, si quis sine teste libidini pareat? Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Quod dicit Epicurus etiam de voluptate, quae minime sint voluptates, eas obscurari saepe et obrui. Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur. Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum. Quae adhuc, Cato, a te dicta sunt, eadem, inquam, dicere posses, si sequerere Pyrrhonem aut Aristonem. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi?

+ + + +

Quis est, qui non oderit libidinosam, protervam adolescentiam? Quae animi affectio suum cuique tribuens atque hanc, quam dico. Faceres tu quidem, Torquate, haec omnia; An tu me de L. Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum. Me igitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri sumus. Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.

+ + + +

An dolor longissimus quisque miserrimus, voluptatem non optabiliorem diuturnitas facit?

+ + + +

Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Aut, Pylades cum sis, dices te esse Orestem, ut moriare pro amico? Sed quanta sit alias, nunc tantum possitne esse tanta. Ac tamen hic mallet non dolere. Atque haec coniunctio confusioque virtutum tamen a philosophis ratione quadam distinguitur.

+ + + +

+ Completur enim et ex eo genere vitae, quod virtute fruitur, et ex iis rebus, quae sunt secundum naturam neque sunt in nostra potestate. +

+ + + +

Hoc est dicere: Non reprehenderem asotos, si non essent asoti.

+ + + +

At enim hic etiam dolore. Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere. Certe, nisi voluptatem tanti aestimaretis. At quanta conantur! Mundum hunc omnem oppidum esse nostrum! Incendi igitur eos, qui audiunt, vides. Et non ex maxima parte de tota iudicabis? Sed ego in hoc resisto; Roges enim Aristonem, bonane ei videantur haec: vacuitas doloris, divitiae, valitudo;

+ + + +

Stulti autem malorum memoria torquentur, sapientes bona praeterita grata recordatione renovata delectant. Sunt autem, qui dicant foedus esse quoddam sapientium, ut ne minus amicos quam se ipsos diligant. Nescio quo modo praetervolavit oratio. Memini vero, inquam; Quae hic rei publicae vulnera inponebat, eadem ille sanabat. Omnis enim est natura diligens sui.

+ + + +
  • Etsi qui potest intellegi aut cogitari esse aliquod animal, quod se oderit?
  • Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris;
  • Satisne ergo pudori consulat, si quis sine teste libidini pareat?
  • Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit.
+ + + +

Quem si tenueris, non modo meum Ciceronem, sed etiam me ipsum abducas licebit. Quem ad modum quis ambulet, sedeat, qui ductus oris, qui vultus in quoque sit? Sint ista Graecorum; At hoc in eo M. Qui est in parvis malis.

+ + + +

Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis;

+ + + +

Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Eaedem res maneant alio modo. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Quarum ambarum rerum cum medicinam pollicetur, luxuriae licentiam pollicetur. Hic ego: Pomponius quidem, inquam, noster iocari videtur, et fortasse suo iure. Hinc ceteri particulas arripere conati suam quisque videro voluit afferre sententiam. Cum autem venissemus in Academiae non sine causa nobilitata spatia, solitudo erat ea, quam volueramus. Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus; Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare. Morbo gravissimo affectus, exul, orbus, egens, torqueatur eculeo: quem hunc appellas, Zeno? Ea possunt paria non esse. Itaque sensibus rationem adiunxit et ratione effecta sensus non reliquit.

+ + + +

+ Si est nihil nisi corpus, summa erunt illa: valitudo, vacuitas doloris, pulchritudo, cetera. +

+ + + +

+ Utrum igitur percurri omnem Epicuri disciplinam placet an de una voluptate quaeri, de qua omne certamen est? +

+ + + +

+ Atqui reperiemus asotos primum ita non religiosos, ut edint de patella, deinde ita mortem non timentes, ut illud in ore habeant ex Hymnide: Mihi sex menses satis sunt vitae, septimum Orco spondeo. +

+ + + +

Quorum altera prosunt, nocent altera. Virtutis, magnitudinis animi, patientiae, fortitudinis fomentis dolor mitigari solet. Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas? Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Et quidem Arcesilas tuus, etsi fuit in disserendo pertinacior, tamen noster fuit; Velut ego nunc moveor. Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi?

+ + + +

Nam quid possumus facere melius? Qua tu etiam inprudens utebare non numquam. Sit sane ista voluptas. Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus. Nec mihi illud dixeris: Haec enim ipsa mihi sunt voluptati, et erant illa Torquatis. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Tu quidem reddes; Nonne videmus quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio? Falli igitur possumus. Non ego tecum iam ita iocabor, ut isdem his de rebus, cum L.

+ + + +

Tibi hoc incredibile, quod beatissimum. Quid censes in Latino fore? Aut unde est hoc contritum vetustate proverbium: quicum in tenebris? Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate. Dolere malum est: in crucem qui agitur, beatus esse non potest.

+ + + +

Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Quis est, qui non oderit libidinosam, protervam adolescentiam? Verum tamen cum de rebus grandioribus dicas, ipsae res verba rapiunt; Sit enim idem caecus, debilis.

+ + + +

+ Quare istam quoque aggredere tractatam praesertim et ab aliis et a te ipso saepe, ut tibi deesse non possit oratio. +

+ + + +

Sin autem est in ea, quod quidam volunt, nihil impedit hanc nostram comprehensionem summi boni. Nec vero pietas adversus deos nec quanta iis gratia debeatur sine explicatione naturae intellegi potest.

+ + + +

Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Primum divisit ineleganter; Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Aliter homines, aliter philosophos loqui putas oportere? In schola desinis. Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? Proclivi currit oratio. Quod autem ratione actum est, id officium appellamus. Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat.

+ + + +

Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam? Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes; Gloriosa ostentatio in constituendo summo bono. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. Haec igitur Epicuri non probo, inquam. Ad quorum et cognitionem et usum iam corroborati natura ipsa praeeunte deducimur. Quid ait Aristoteles reliquique Platonis alumni? Audax negotium, dicerem impudens, nisi hoc institutum postea translatum ad philosophos nostros esset. At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus.

+ + + +

Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Polycratem Samium felicem appellabant.

+ + + +
  • Ubi ut eam caperet aut quando?
  • Quod autem ratione actum est, id officium appellamus.
  • Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat.
  • Qui igitur convenit ab alia voluptate dicere naturam proficisci, in alia summum bonum ponere?
+ + + +

Si qua in iis corrigere voluit, deteriora fecit. Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Primum cur ista res digna odio est, nisi quod est turpis? Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest.

+ + + +

+ Nos cum te, M. +

+ + + +

Me igitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri sumus. Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas? Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas. Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam. Collatio igitur ista te nihil iuvat.

+ + + +

Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest.

+ + + +

Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Cetera illa adhibebat, quibus demptis negat se Epicurus intellegere quid sit bonum. Nam si amitti vita beata potest, beata esse non potest. Illa tamen simplicia, vestra versuta. Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur. Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus. Peccata paria. An haec ab eo non dicuntur?

+ + + +

Tu autem negas fortem esse quemquam posse, qui dolorem malum putet. Nunc vides, quid faciat. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Atque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio. Vestri haec verecundius, illi fortasse constantius. Quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere? Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Sed ad rem redeamus; Sed ea mala virtuti magnitudine obruebantur. Quae cum dixisset, finem ille. Ut aliquid scire se gaudeant?

+ + + +

Hoc simile tandem est?

+ + + +

Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Utrum igitur tibi litteram videor an totas paginas commovere? Dici enim nihil potest verius. Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt. Rhetorice igitur, inquam, nos mavis quam dialectice disputare?

+ + + +

An potest, inquit ille, quicquam esse suavius quam nihil dolere? Ea possunt paria non esse. Nos quidem Virtutes sic natae sumus, ut tibi serviremus, aliud negotii nihil habemus. Cur ipse Pythagoras et Aegyptum lustravit et Persarum magos adiit? Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Nam illud vehementer repugnat, eundem beatum esse et multis malis oppressum.

+ + + +

Hoc dixerit potius Ennius: Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali.

+ + + +

Quorum altera prosunt, nocent altera. Dat enim intervalla et relaxat. Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Hanc quoque iucunditatem, si vis, transfer in animum; Quare attende, quaeso. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit;

+ + + +

Fortasse id optimum, sed ubi illud: Plus semper voluptatis?

+ + + +

Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit. Confecta res esset. Idne consensisse de Calatino plurimas gentis arbitramur, primarium populi fuisse, quod praestantissimus fuisset in conficiendis voluptatibus? Post enim Chrysippum eum non sane est disputatum. Pudebit te, inquam, illius tabulae, quam Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Falli igitur possumus.

+ + + +

Semper enim ex eo, quod maximas partes continet latissimeque funditur, tota res appellatur. Sed haec nihil sane ad rem; Confecta res esset. Quare conare, quaeso. Quae autem natura suae primae institutionis oblita est? Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit?

+ + + +

In quo etsi est magnus, tamen nova pleraque et perpauca de moribus. Te ipsum, dignissimum maioribus tuis, voluptasne induxit, ut adolescentulus eriperes P. Hoc est dicere: Non reprehenderem asotos, si non essent asoti. An me, inquis, tam amentem putas, ut apud imperitos isto modo loquar?

+ + + +

Cuius quidem, quoniam Stoicus fuit, sententia condemnata mihi videtur esse inanitas ista verborum. Sed ego in hoc resisto; At, si voluptas esset bonum, desideraret.

+ + + +

Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta. Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Cum id quoque, ut cupiebat, audivisset, evelli iussit eam, qua erat transfixus, hastam. Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Ergo id est convenienter naturae vivere, a natura discedere. Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus?

+ + + +
+ + + +

+ Ex quo intellegi debet homini id esse in bonis ultimum, secundum naturam vivere, quod ita interpretemur: vivere ex hominis natura undique perfecta et nihil requirente. +

+ + + +

Itaque rursus eadem ratione, qua sum paulo ante usus, haerebitis. Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet. Quid ergo hoc loco intellegit honestum? Satis est ad hoc responsum. Quod ea non occurrentia fingunt, vincunt Aristonem; Eam si varietatem diceres, intellegerem, ut etiam non dicente te intellego; Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur. Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum.

+ + + +
Themistocles quidem, cum ei Simonides an quis alius artem memoriae polliceretur, Oblivionis, inquit, mallem.
+ + + +

Tria genera bonorum; Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur. Nam de isto magna dissensio est. Dicimus aliquem hilare vivere;

+ + + +
  • Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto.
  • Iam enim adesse poterit.
  • Haec et tu ita posuisti, et verba vestra sunt.
  • Utrum igitur tibi litteram videor an totas paginas commovere?
  • Haec bene dicuntur, nec ego repugno, sed inter sese ipsa pugnant.
  • Quod si ita sit, cur opera philosophiae sit danda nescio.
+ + + +

Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Aliena dixit in physicis nec ea ipsa, quae tibi probarentur; Quid, quod res alia tota est? Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? Nullus est igitur cuiusquam dies natalis. Aut haec tibi, Torquate, sunt vituperanda aut patrocinium voluptatis repudiandum. Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose.

+ + + +

Quonam, inquit, modo? Eodem modo is enim tibi nemo dabit, quod, expetendum sit, id esse laudabile. Et ego: Piso, inquam, si est quisquam, qui acute in causis videre soleat quae res agatur. Immo videri fortasse. Etenim semper illud extra est, quod arte comprehenditur.

+ + + +

De quibus cupio scire quid sentias. At ego quem huic anteponam non audeo dicere; Quid, cum fictas fabulas, e quibus utilitas nulla elici potest, cum voluptate legimus? Nam Metrodorum non puto ipsum professum, sed, cum appellaretur ab Epicuro, repudiare tantum beneficium noluisse; Falli igitur possumus. Magni enim aestimabat pecuniam non modo non contra leges, sed etiam legibus partam. Idemne, quod iucunde? Si alia sentit, inquam, alia loquitur, numquam intellegam quid sentiat; Et quod est munus, quod opus sapientiae? At, si voluptas esset bonum, desideraret.

+ + + +

Etsi qui potest intellegi aut cogitari esse aliquod animal, quod se oderit? Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Sed ea mala virtuti magnitudine obruebantur. Ille incendat? Suam denique cuique naturam esse ad vivendum ducem. Nam de isto magna dissensio est.

+ + + +

Verum hoc idem saepe faciamus. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Sed fortuna fortis; Nam diligi et carum esse iucundum est propterea, quia tutiorem vitam et voluptatem pleniorem efficit. Hoc ipsum elegantius poni meliusque potuit.

+ + + +

Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum?

+ + + +

Sed nonne merninisti licere mihi ista probare, quae sunt a te dicta? Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Minime vero istorum quidem, inquit.

+ + + +

Odium autem et invidiam facile vitabis. Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Ego vero isti, inquam, permitto. Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc. Rapior illuc, revocat autem Antiochus, nec est praeterea, quem audiamus. Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus;

+ + + +
  • Quod idem cum vestri faciant, non satis magnam tribuunt inventoribus gratiam.
  • Quae enim adhuc protulisti, popularia sunt, ego autem a te elegantiora desidero.
  • Si longus, levis dictata sunt.
  • Sed virtutem ipsam inchoavit, nihil amplius.
  • Suo genere perveniant ad extremum;
+ + + +

Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Si de re disceptari oportet, nulla mihi tecum, Cato, potest esse dissensio. Murenam te accusante defenderem. Quam tu ponis in verbis, ego positam in re putabam. Est enim tanti philosophi tamque nobilis audacter sua decreta defendere. Sit enim idem caecus, debilis. Eaedem enim utilitates poterunt eas labefactare atque pervertere. Quid enim de amicitia statueris utilitatis causa expetenda vides. Si id dicis, vicimus.

+ + + +

+ Quod dicit Epicurus etiam de voluptate, quae minime sint voluptates, eas obscurari saepe et obrui. +

+ + + +

+ Omnesque eae sunt genere quattuor, partibus plures, aegritudo, formido, libido, quamque Stoici communi nomine corporis et animi ¾donÆn appellant, ego malo laetitiam appellare, quasi gestientis animi elationem voluptariam. +

+ + + +

+ Nec enim figura corporis nec ratio excellens ingenii humani significat ad unam hanc rem natum hominem, ut frueretur voluptatibus. +

+ + + +

Quod si ita sit, cur opera philosophiae sit danda nescio. Scrupulum, inquam, abeunti; Superiores tres erant, quae esse possent, quarum est una sola defensa, eaque vehementer. Tria genera cupiditatum, naturales et necessariae, naturales et non necessariae, nec naturales nec necessariae. In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam? Mihi enim erit isdem istis fortasse iam utendum. Utilitatis causa amicitia est quaesita.

+ + + +

Videmus igitur ut conquiescere ne infantes quidem possint. Sic enim maiores nostri labores non fugiendos tristissimo tamen verbo aerumnas etiam in deo nominaverunt. Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Sed haec omittamus; Quae ista amicitia est?

+ + + +

+ Quod enim testimonium maius quaerimus, quae honesta et recta sint, ipsa esse optabilia per sese, cum videamus tanta officia morientis? +

+ + + +

Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Id mihi magnum videtur. Non risu potius quam oratione eiciendum? Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate.

+ + + +

Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Gerendus est mos, modo recte sentiat. Cum praesertim illa perdiscere ludus esset. Sed quanta sit alias, nunc tantum possitne esse tanta. Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus;

+ + + +

Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Inscite autem medicinae et gubernationis ultimum cum ultimo sapientiae comparatur. Vide igitur ne non debeas verbis nostris uti, sententiis tuis. Ad eas enim res ab Epicuro praecepta dantur. Eodem modo is enim tibi nemo dabit, quod, expetendum sit, id esse laudabile.

+ + + +

Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Itaque ad tempus ad Pisonem omnes. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. At certe gravius. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. At, si voluptas esset bonum, desideraret.

+ + + +

Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare.

+ + + +

Quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget. Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. Restatis igitur vos; Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris; Quare ad ea primum, si videtur; Erat enim Polemonis.

+ + + +
  • Disserendi artem nullam habuit.
  • Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret.
  • Et certamen honestum et disputatio splendida! omnis est enim de virtutis dignitate contentio.
  • Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam, quae est moderatio cupiditatum rationi oboediens.
  • Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus;
+ + + +

+ Nemo enim est, qui aliter dixerit quin omnium naturarum simile esset id, ad quod omnia referrentur, quod est ultimum rerum appetendarum. +

+ + + +

Qui enim existimabit posse se miserum esse beatus non erit.

+ + + +

Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Qui enim voluptatem ipsam contemnunt, iis licet dicere se acupenserem maenae non anteponere. Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Nemo nostrum istius generis asotos iucunde putat vivere. An me, inquis, tam amentem putas, ut apud imperitos isto modo loquar?

+ + + +

Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus; Eam stabilem appellas. Quacumque enim ingredimur, in aliqua historia vestigium ponimus. Quamquam id quidem licebit iis existimare, qui legerint. Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Num igitur eum postea censes anxio animo aut sollicito fuisse? Aut haec tibi, Torquate, sunt vituperanda aut patrocinium voluptatis repudiandum. Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum. Reguli reiciendam;

+ + + +
  • Non potes ergo ista tueri, Torquate, mihi crede, si te ipse et tuas cogitationes et studia perspexeris;
  • Quod si ita sit, cur opera philosophiae sit danda nescio.
  • Occultum facinus esse potuerit, gaudebit;
+ + + +

Hoc enim identidem dicitis, non intellegere nos quam dicatis voluptatem. Prodest, inquit, mihi eo esse animo. Non igitur de improbo, sed de callido improbo quaerimus, qualis Q. An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus; Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Quae hic rei publicae vulnera inponebat, eadem ille sanabat. Quamquam ab iis philosophiam et omnes ingenuas disciplinas habemus; Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret? Quae ista amicitia est? Portenta haec esse dicit, neque ea ratione ullo modo posse vivi; Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit?

+ + + +

Suam denique cuique naturam esse ad vivendum ducem. Summae mihi videtur inscitiae.

+ + + +

Non quam nostram quidem, inquit Pomponius iocans;

+ + + +

Quod autem ratione actum est, id officium appellamus. Quorum sine causa fieri nihil putandum est. Idemque diviserunt naturam hominis in animum et corpus. Facile est hoc cernere in primis puerorum aetatulis.

+ + + +
Ad eas enim res ab Epicuro praecepta dantur.
+ + + +

Ergo et avarus erit, sed finite, et adulter, verum habebit modum, et luxuriosus eodem modo. Sed tempus est, si videtur, et recta quidem ad me. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? Sin aliud quid voles, postea. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius.

+ + + +
  • Utilitatis causa amicitia est quaesita.
  • Cuius similitudine perspecta in formarum specie ac dignitate transitum est ad honestatem dictorum atque factorum.
  • Mihi quidem Homerus huius modi quiddam vidisse videatur in iis, quae de Sirenum cantibus finxerit.
+ + + +

Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Peccata paria. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Beatum, inquit. Ne vitationem quidem doloris ipsam per se quisquam in rebus expetendis putavit, nisi etiam evitare posset. Et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat;

+ + + +

Duae sunt enim res quoque, ne tu verba solum putes. Quo tandem modo? Itaque contra est, ac dicitis; Dicet pro me ipsa virtus nec dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Hunc vos beatum; Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur.

+ + + +

Quorum sine causa fieri nihil putandum est. Ego vero isti, inquam, permitto. Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt. Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. Aufidio, praetorio, erudito homine, oculis capto, saepe audiebam, cum se lucis magis quam utilitatis desiderio moveri diceret. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. Num quid tale Democritus?

+ + + +

+ Quam ob rem utique idem faciunt, ut si laevam partem neglegerent, dexteram tuerentur, aut ipsius animi, ut fecit Erillus, cognitionem amplexarentur, actionem relinquerent. +

+ + + +

Isto modo, ne si avia quidem eius nata non esset. An, partus ancillae sitne in fructu habendus, disseretur inter principes civitatis, P. Quod idem cum vestri faciant, non satis magnam tribuunt inventoribus gratiam. Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Expressa vero in iis aetatibus, quae iam confirmatae sunt.

+ + + +
  • Sit hoc ultimum bonorum, quod nunc a me defenditur;
  • Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere.
  • Ipse Epicurus fortasse redderet, ut Sextus Peducaeus, Sex.
  • Non est igitur summum malum dolor.
+ + + +

Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? Isto modo, ne si avia quidem eius nata non esset. Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. Quae si potest singula consolando levare, universa quo modo sustinebit? Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora. Hoc loco discipulos quaerere videtur, ut, qui asoti esse velint, philosophi ante fiant. Sapientem locupletat ipsa natura, cuius divitias Epicurus parabiles esse docuit.

+ + + +

Quis Aristidem non mortuum diligit?

+ + + +

Non igitur de improbo, sed de callido improbo quaerimus, qualis Q. Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit. Venit ad extremum; Conferam avum tuum Drusum cum C.

+ + + +

Sed quot homines, tot sententiae; Sed quod proximum fuit non vidit. Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? Idem adhuc; Quonam modo? Materiam vero rerum et copiam apud hos exilem, apud illos uberrimam reperiemus. At eum nihili facit; Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. Tibi hoc incredibile, quod beatissimum. Sed haec nihil sane ad rem;

+ + + +

Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? Quid ait Aristoteles reliquique Platonis alumni? Qui autem diffidet perpetuitati bonorum suorum, timeat necesse est, ne aliquando amissis illis sit miser.

+ + + +

+ Earum etiam rerum, quas terra gignit, educatio quaedam et perfectio est non dissimilis animantium. +

+ + + +

Sed nimis multa. At enim hic etiam dolore. Nihilo magis. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt. Ita similis erit ei finis boni, atque antea fuerat, neque idem tamen; Sedulo, inquam, faciam. Is ita vivebat, ut nulla tam exquisita posset inveniri voluptas, qua non abundaret.

+ + + +

Ut id aliis narrare gestiant? Quam multa vitiosa! summum enim bonum et malum vagiens puer utra voluptate diiudicabit, stante an movente? Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? In eo enim positum est id, quod dicimus esse expetendum. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est.

+ + + +

Ad eos igitur converte te, quaeso. Ut aliquid scire se gaudeant? Itaque e contrario moderati aequabilesque habitus, affectiones ususque corporis apti esse ad naturam videntur. Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior;

+ + + +

Quae quo sunt excelsiores, eo dant clariora indicia naturae.

+ + + +

Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus. Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Immo alio genere; Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Iam in altera philosophiae parte. Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem.

+ + + +

Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Simus igitur contenti his.

+ + + +

+ Utrum enim sit voluptas in iis rebus, quas primas secundum naturam esse diximus, necne sit ad id, quod agimus, nihil interest. +

+ + + +

+ Nam si dicent ab illis has res esse tractatas, ne ipsos quidem Graecos est cur tam multos legant, quam legendi sunt. +

+ + + +

Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus.

+ + + +

Experiamur igitur, inquit, etsi habet haec Stoicorum ratio difficilius quiddam et obscurius. Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Res enim concurrent contrariae. Scientiam pollicentur, quam non erat mirum sapientiae cupido patria esse cariorem. Eiuro, inquit adridens, iniquum, hac quidem de re;

+ + + +

Itaque et manendi in vita et migrandi ratio omnis iis rebus, quas supra dixi, metienda. Non quaeritur autem quid naturae tuae consentaneum sit, sed quid disciplinae. Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Aeque enim contingit omnibus fidibus, ut incontentae sint. Iis igitur est difficilius satis facere, qui se Latina scripta dicunt contemnere. Sedulo, inquam, faciam. Eorum enim omnium multa praetermittentium, dum eligant aliquid, quod sequantur, quasi curta sententia;

+ + + +

Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Tanta vis admonitionis inest in locis; Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos. Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Itaque contra est, ac dicitis; Nihil est enim, de quo aliter tu sentias atque ego, modo commutatis verbis ipsas res conferamus. Occultum facinus esse potuerit, gaudebit; Quod cum accidisset ut alter alterum necopinato videremus, surrexit statim. Quare attende, quaeso.

+ + + +

+ Sed quid minus probandum quam esse aliquem beatum nec satis beatum? +

+ + + +

At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit;

+ + + +

Suam denique cuique naturam esse ad vivendum ducem. At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit; Quid adiuvas? Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Negare non possum. Heri, inquam, ludis commissis ex urbe profectus veni ad vesperum. Quid enim ab antiquis ex eo genere, quod ad disserendum valet, praetermissum est? Quid iudicant sensus? Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit.

+ + + +

Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata.

+ + + +

An potest cupiditas finiri? Sic igitur in homine perfectio ista in eo potissimum, quod est optimum, id est in virtute, laudatur. Scisse enim te quis coarguere possit? Fortasse id optimum, sed ubi illud: Plus semper voluptatis? Hanc se tuus Epicurus omnino ignorare dicit quam aut qualem esse velint qui honestate summum bonum metiantur. Non ego tecum iam ita iocabor, ut isdem his de rebus, cum L. Superiores tres erant, quae esse possent, quarum est una sola defensa, eaque vehementer. Erat enim Polemonis.

+ + + +

Compensabatur, inquit, cum summis doloribus laetitia. An tu me de L. Alterum significari idem, ut si diceretur, officia media omnia aut pleraque servantem vivere. Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Et si turpitudinem fugimus in statu et motu corporis, quid est cur pulchritudinem non sequamur? At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Sed fac ista esse non inportuna; Nam de isto magna dissensio est. Illa tamen simplicia, vestra versuta. An tu me de L.

+ + + +

Quodcumque in mentem incideret, et quodcumque tamquam occurreret.

+ + + +

Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Iam illud quale tandem est, bona praeterita non effluere sapienti, mala meminisse non oportere? Nam et complectitur verbis, quod vult, et dicit plane, quod intellegam; Quid ad utilitatem tantae pecuniae? Easdemne res? Superiores tres erant, quae esse possent, quarum est una sola defensa, eaque vehementer. Nonne igitur tibi videntur, inquit, mala? Sine ea igitur iucunde negat posse se vivere?

+ + + +
  • Cuius quidem, quoniam Stoicus fuit, sententia condemnata mihi videtur esse inanitas ista verborum.
  • Vulgo enim dicitur: Iucundi acti labores, nec male Euripidesconcludam, si potero, Latine;
  • Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt.
  • Sed tu, ut dignum est tua erga me et philosophiam voluntate ab adolescentulo suscepta, fac ut Metrodori tueare liberos.
+ + + +

Peccata paria. Quae si potest singula consolando levare, universa quo modo sustinebit? Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. Hinc ceteri particulas arripere conati suam quisque videro voluit afferre sententiam. Portenta haec esse dicit, neque ea ratione ullo modo posse vivi; Etsi qui potest intellegi aut cogitari esse aliquod animal, quod se oderit? Multa sunt dicta ab antiquis de contemnendis ac despiciendis rebus humanis; Quod autem in homine praestantissimum atque optimum est, id deseruit.

+ + + +

+ Admirantes quaeramus ab utroque, quonam modo vitam agere possimus, si nihil interesse nostra putemus, valeamus aegrine simus, vacemus an cruciemur dolore, frigus, famem propulsare possimus necne possimus. +

+ + + +

Quae cum ita sint, effectum est nihil esse malum, quod turpe non sit. Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost; Faceres tu quidem, Torquate, haec omnia; Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Res tota, Torquate, non doctorum hominum, velle post mortem epulis celebrari memoriam sui nominis. Numquam facies. Illi enim inter se dissentiunt.

+ + + +

Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem.

+ + + +

Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat; Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem. Placet igitur tibi, Cato, cum res sumpseris non concessas, ex illis efficere, quod velis? Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.

+ + + +

Sin autem est in ea, quod quidam volunt, nihil impedit hanc nostram comprehensionem summi boni. Satis est ad hoc responsum. Quonam, inquit, modo? Quo tandem modo? Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Eam si varietatem diceres, intellegerem, ut etiam non dicente te intellego; Deinde dolorem quem maximum? Ex rebus enim timiditas, non ex vocabulis nascitur. Laelius clamores sofòw ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Laboro autem non sine causa;

+ + + +

Nam aliquando posse recte fieri dicunt nulla expectata nec quaesita voluptate.

+ + + +

Cenasti in vita numquam bene, cum omnia in ista Consumis squilla atque acupensere cum decimano. Cave putes quicquam esse verius. Tum Piso: Atqui, Cicero, inquit, ista studia, si ad imitandos summos viros spectant, ingeniosorum sunt; Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Minime vero istorum quidem, inquit.

+ + + +
  • Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere?
  • Quae quidem vel cum periculo est quaerenda vobis;
  • Si longus, levis.
  • Fortitudinis quaedam praecepta sunt ac paene leges, quae effeminari virum vetant in dolore.
+ + + +

+ Nec vero potest quisquam de bonis et malis vere iudicare nisi omni cognita ratione naturae et vitae etiam deorum, et utrum conveniat necne natura hominis cum universa. +

+ + + +
  • Ergo et avarus erit, sed finite, et adulter, verum habebit modum, et luxuriosus eodem modo.
  • Magno hic ingenio, sed res se tamen sic habet, ut nimis imperiosi philosophi sit vetare meminisse.
  • Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest.
  • Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam;
  • Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus?
  • Nec lapathi suavitatem acupenseri Galloni Laelius anteponebat, sed suavitatem ipsam neglegebat;
  • Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum.
+ + + +

Ut in voluptate sit, qui epuletur, in dolore, qui torqueatur. Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt. Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Non potes, nisi retexueris illa. Si est nihil nisi corpus, summa erunt illa: valitudo, vacuitas doloris, pulchritudo, cetera. Et ais, si una littera commota sit, fore tota ut labet disciplina. Nam illud quidem adduci vix possum, ut ea, quae senserit ille, tibi non vera videantur. Hoc positum in Phaedro a Platone probavit Epicurus sensitque in omni disputatione id fieri oportere.

+ + + +
  • Eiuro, inquit adridens, iniquum, hac quidem de re;
  • At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate.
  • Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus?
  • Itaque vides, quo modo loquantur, nova verba fingunt, deserunt usitata.
+ + + +

Quid vero? Aut, Pylades cum sis, dices te esse Orestem, ut moriare pro amico? Si longus, levis; Aut unde est hoc contritum vetustate proverbium: quicum in tenebris? Immo alio genere; Sunt enim prima elementa naturae, quibus auctis vírtutis quasi germen efficitur. Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Inde igitur, inquit, ordiendum est.

+ + + +

Nihilne te delectat umquam -video, quicum loquar-, te igitur, Torquate, ipsum per se nihil delectat?

+ + + +

Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est? Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Conclusum est enim contra Cyrenaicos satis acute, nihil ad Epicurum. Itaque haec cum illis est dissensio, cum Peripateticis nulla sane. Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit; Primum cur ista res digna odio est, nisi quod est turpis?

+ + + +
  • Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest.
  • An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit?
  • Sit sane ista voluptas.
  • -delector enim, quamquam te non possum, ut ais, corrumpere, delector, inquam, et familia vestra et nomine.
+ + + +

Intrandum est igitur in rerum naturam et penitus quid ea postulet pervidendum; Nemo igitur esse beatus potest. Quicquid enim a sapientia proficiscitur, id continuo debet expletum esse omnibus suis partibus; Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Summum a vobis bonum voluptas dicitur. Ergo et avarus erit, sed finite, et adulter, verum habebit modum, et luxuriosus eodem modo. Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata.

+ + + +
Egone quaeris, inquit, quid sentiam?
+ + + +

Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas? Cum audissem Antiochum, Brute, ut solebam, cum M. Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Primum cur ista res digna odio est, nisi quod est turpis? Sed hoc sane concedamus. Deinde prima illa, quae in congressu solemus: Quid tu, inquit, huc?

+ + + +

Quid ergo hoc loco intellegit honestum? Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit. Occultum facinus esse potuerit, gaudebit; Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas. Quid ergo hoc loco intellegit honestum? Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Tria genera bonorum; Quasi vero, inquit, perpetua oratio rhetorum solum, non etiam philosophorum sit. Qua igitur re ab deo vincitur, si aeternitate non vincitur?

+ + + +

Nullus est igitur cuiusquam dies natalis. Etenim nec iustitia nec amicitia esse omnino poterunt, nisi ipsae per se expetuntur. Sic vester sapiens magno aliquo emolumento commotus cicuta, si opus erit, dimicabit. Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Et quod est munus, quod opus sapientiae? Quod totum contra est.

+ + + +

Quid ad utilitatem tantae pecuniae? Nos commodius agimus. Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt. Ad eas enim res ab Epicuro praecepta dantur. Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam.

+ + + +

Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Ita similis erit ei finis boni, atque antea fuerat, neque idem tamen; Qui autem esse poteris, nisi te amor ipse ceperit? An vero displicuit ea, quae tributa est animi virtutibus tanta praestantia?

+ + + +

Videamus igitur sententias eorum, tum ad verba redeamus. Qui cum praetor quaestionem inter sicarios exercuisset, ita aperte cepit pecunias ob rem iudicandam, ut anno proximo P. Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod autem principium officii quaerunt, melius quam Pyrrho; Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Hoc est dicere: Non reprehenderem asotos, si non essent asoti.

+ + + +

Addidisti ad extremum etiam indoctum fuisse. Quid, quod res alia tota est? In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt. Bonum liberi: misera orbitas. Primum cur ista res digna odio est, nisi quod est turpis? Deprehensus omnem poenam contemnet. Luxuriam non reprehendit, modo sit vacua infinita cupiditate et timore. Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. At quanta conantur! Mundum hunc omnem oppidum esse nostrum! Incendi igitur eos, qui audiunt, vides.

+ + + +

Quis negat? Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Non minor, inquit, voluptas percipitur ex vilissimis rebus quam ex pretiosissimis. Nec vero hoc oratione solum, sed multo magis vita et factis et moribus comprobavit. Ne amores quidem sanctos a sapiente alienos esse arbitrantur. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D.

+ + + +
Callipho ad virtutem nihil adiunxit nisi voluptatem, Diodorus vacuitatem doloris.
+ + + +

Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam. Quis Aristidem non mortuum diligit? Quae qui non vident, nihil umquam magnum ac cognitione dignum amaverunt. Quam nemo umquam voluptatem appellavit, appellat; Quam si explicavisset, non tam haesitaret.

+ + + +

Hic Speusippus, hic Xenocrates, hic eius auditor Polemo, cuius illa ipsa sessio fuit, quam videmus. Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. Atque ab his initiis profecti omnium virtutum et originem et progressionem persecuti sunt. Omnis enim est natura diligens sui.

+ + + +
Nam his libris eum malo quam reliquo ornatu villae delectari.
+ + + +

Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Esse enim quam vellet iniquus iustus poterat inpune. Non enim solum Torquatus dixit quid sentiret, sed etiam cur. Nullus est igitur cuiusquam dies natalis. Haec et tu ita posuisti, et verba vestra sunt. Satis est ad hoc responsum. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Qui est in parvis malis.

+ + + +

An potest cupiditas finiri? Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit; Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Cum autem negant ea quicquam ad beatam vitam pertinere, rursus naturam relinquunt. Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam. Quod vestri non item. Quorum sine causa fieri nihil putandum est.

+ + + +
  • Sed haec in pueris;
  • Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum?
  • Sed non alienum est, quo facilius vis verbi intellegatur, rationem huius verbi faciendi Zenonis exponere.
  • Graecum enim hunc versum nostis omnes-: Suavis laborum est praeteritorum memoria.
+ + + +

Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Aliud igitur esse censet gaudere, aliud non dolere. Sic enim censent, oportunitatis esse beate vivere. Sumenda potius quam expetenda. Tum Torquatus: Prorsus, inquit, assentior; Haec et tu ita posuisti, et verba vestra sunt.

+ + + +

Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare. Oratio me istius philosophi non offendit; Post enim Chrysippum eum non sane est disputatum. Aut unde est hoc contritum vetustate proverbium: quicum in tenebris? Vestri haec verecundius, illi fortasse constantius. Cur ipse Pythagoras et Aegyptum lustravit et Persarum magos adiit? Mihi vero, inquit, placet agi subtilius et, ut ipse dixisti, pressius. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit?

+ + + +

Hoc enim identidem dicitis, non intellegere nos quam dicatis voluptatem. Aliud igitur esse censet gaudere, aliud non dolere. Cum audissem Antiochum, Brute, ut solebam, cum M. Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur. Quibus ego vehementer assentior.

+ + + +
  • Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim.
  • Omnes enim iucundum motum, quo sensus hilaretur.
+ + + +

+ Posuisti etiam dicere alios foedus quoddam inter se facere sapientis, ut, quem ad modum sint in se ipsos animati, eodem modo sint erga amicos; +

+ + + +

Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia. Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Iam doloris medicamenta illa Epicurea tamquam de narthecio proment: Si gravis, brevis; Faceres tu quidem, Torquate, haec omnia; Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris.

+ + + +
Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate.
+ + + +

An tu me de L. Quod autem satis est, eo quicquid accessit, nimium est; Paria sunt igitur. Respondeat totidem verbis.

+ + + +

Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam;

+ + + +

Hic ego: Pomponius quidem, inquam, noster iocari videtur, et fortasse suo iure. Simus igitur contenti his. Quod si ita sit, cur opera philosophiae sit danda nescio. Quae iam oratio non a philosopho aliquo, sed a censore opprimenda est. Parvi enim primo ortu sic iacent, tamquam omnino sine animo sint. Nullus est igitur cuiusquam dies natalis.

+ + + +
  • Quid enim dicis omne animal, simul atque sit ortum, applicatum esse ad se diligendum esseque in se conservando occupatum?
  • Ampulla enim sit necne sit, quis non iure optimo irrideatur, si laboret?
  • Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis?
  • Ergo omni animali illud, quod appetiti positum est in eo, quod naturae est accommodatum.
+ + + +
Ita graviter et severe voluptatem secrevit a bono.
+ + + +

Nec vero intermittunt aut admirationem earum rerum, quae sunt ab antiquis repertae, aut investigationem novarum. Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus; Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Animum autem reliquis rebus ita perfecit, ut corpus; Aliud igitur esse censet gaudere, aliud non dolere.

+ + + +
  • Sunt enim quasi prima elementa naturae, quibus ubertas orationis adhiberi vix potest, nec equidem eam cogito consectari.
  • Praeterea et appetendi et refugiendi et omnino rerum gerendarum initia proficiscuntur aut a voluptate aut a dolore.
  • Parvi enim primo ortu sic iacent, tamquam omnino sine animo sint.
  • Atqui, inquam, Cato, si istud optinueris, traducas me ad te totum licebit.
+ + + +
Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus.
+ + + +

Itaque sensibus rationem adiunxit et ratione effecta sensus non reliquit. Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias? Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere. Cupiditates non Epicuri divisione finiebat, sed sua satietate. At eum nihili facit; Tum ille timide vel potius verecunde: Facio, inquit. Qua tu etiam inprudens utebare non numquam.

+ + + +

Zenonis est, inquam, hoc Stoici. Sint modo partes vitae beatae. Alterum significari idem, ut si diceretur, officia media omnia aut pleraque servantem vivere. Sine ea igitur iucunde negat posse se vivere? Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius.

+ + + +
  • Sic, et quidem diligentius saepiusque ista loquemur inter nos agemusque communiter.
  • Dolere malum est: in crucem qui agitur, beatus esse non potest.
  • Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus.
  • Eodem modo is enim tibi nemo dabit, quod, expetendum sit, id esse laudabile.
  • Quid, cum volumus nomina eorum, qui quid gesserint, nota nobis esse, parentes, patriam, multa praeterea minime necessaria?
+ + + +

Quid censes in Latino fore? Haec et tu ita posuisti, et verba vestra sunt. Respondeat totidem verbis. Quis est, qui non oderit libidinosam, protervam adolescentiam? Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn. Non laboro, inquit, de nomine. Sed quod proximum fuit non vidit. Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis.

+ + + +

Sed quia studebat laudi et dignitati, multum in virtute processerat. Hoc enim constituto in philosophia constituta sunt omnia. Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Nam de isto magna dissensio est. Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare.

+ + + +

Suo genere perveniant ad extremum; Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus; Potius ergo illa dicantur: turpe esse, viri non esse debilitari dolore, frangi, succumbere. Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Nam ista vestra: Si gravis, brevis; Cenasti in vita numquam bene, cum omnia in ista Consumis squilla atque acupensere cum decimano. Sed quia studebat laudi et dignitati, multum in virtute processerat. Sine ea igitur iucunde negat posse se vivere?

+ + + +

Non igitur de improbo, sed de callido improbo quaerimus, qualis Q. Et ais, si una littera commota sit, fore tota ut labet disciplina. Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Eorum enim omnium multa praetermittentium, dum eligant aliquid, quod sequantur, quasi curta sententia; Quis hoc dicit? At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Consequentia exquirere, quoad sit id, quod volumus, effectum. Nos paucis ad haec additis finem faciamus aliquando;

+ + + +
  • In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt.
  • Graccho, eius fere, aequalí?
  • Quacumque enim ingredimur, in aliqua historia vestigium ponimus.
+ + + +

+ Idque testamento cavebit is, qui nobis quasi oraculum ediderit nihil post mortem ad nos pertinere? +

+ + + +

Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret.

+ + + +

Scaevola tribunus plebis ferret ad plebem vellentne de ea re quaeri. Quid censes in Latino fore? Paria sunt igitur. Conclusum est enim contra Cyrenaicos satis acute, nihil ad Epicurum. Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias; Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris;

+ + + +

Tubulo putas dicere?

+ + + +

Et quod est munus, quod opus sapientiae? Quae hic rei publicae vulnera inponebat, eadem ille sanabat. Sed ne, dum huic obsequor, vobis molestus sim. Ex rebus enim timiditas, non ex vocabulis nascitur. Hic Speusippus, hic Xenocrates, hic eius auditor Polemo, cuius illa ipsa sessio fuit, quam videmus. Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora. Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest.

+ + + +

Occultum facinus esse potuerit, gaudebit; Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. Ergo et avarus erit, sed finite, et adulter, verum habebit modum, et luxuriosus eodem modo. Si alia sentit, inquam, alia loquitur, numquam intellegam quid sentiat; Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam. Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate. Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia? Non est igitur voluptas bonum. Non enim iam stirpis bonum quaeret, sed animalis. Cur, nisi quod turpis oratio est?

+ + + +

Quae hic rei publicae vulnera inponebat, eadem ille sanabat. Quis istum dolorem timet? Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas? Haec igitur Epicuri non probo, inquam. Ea, quae dialectici nunc tradunt et docent, nonne ab illis instituta sunt aut inventa sunt? Quod eo liquidius faciet, si perspexerit rerum inter eas verborumne sit controversia. Quid vero?

+ + + +

Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Polemoni et iam ante Aristoteli ea prima visa sunt, quae paulo ante dixi. Sit sane ista voluptas. Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Sed nimis multa. Sed quid sentiat, non videtis. Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit.

+ + + +

Cuius etiam illi hortuli propinqui non memoriam solum mihi afferunt, sed ipsum videntur in conspectu meo ponere. Et tamen ego a philosopho, si afferat eloquentiam, non asperner, si non habeat, non admodum flagitem. Haec dicuntur fortasse ieiunius; Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias? Hoc est non modo cor non habere, sed ne palatum quidem. Ergo adhuc, quantum equidem intellego, causa non videtur fuisse mutandi nominis. Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet.

+ + + +

Graecum enim hunc versum nostis omnes-: Suavis laborum est praeteritorum memoria. Idemne potest esse dies saepius, qui semel fuit? Rapior illuc, revocat autem Antiochus, nec est praeterea, quem audiamus. Ita cum ea volunt retinere, quae superiori sententiae conveniunt, in Aristonem incidunt; Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Non quam nostram quidem, inquit Pomponius iocans; Memini vero, inquam;

+ + + +

+ Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. +

+ + + +

Sed residamus, inquit, si placet.

+ + + +

Itaque in rebus minime obscuris non multus est apud eos disserendi labor. Si quae forte-possumus. Itaque sensibus rationem adiunxit et ratione effecta sensus non reliquit. Si id dicis, vicimus. Poterat autem inpune; Erit enim mecum, si tecum erit. Immo vero, inquit, ad beatissime vivendum parum est, ad beate vero satis. Inde igitur, inquit, ordiendum est. Quis contra in illa aetate pudorem, constantiam, etiamsi sua nihil intersit, non tamen diligat?

+ + + +

Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Quasi vero, inquit, perpetua oratio rhetorum solum, non etiam philosophorum sit. Si sapiens, ne tum quidem miser, cum ab Oroete, praetore Darei, in crucem actus est. Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum.

+ + + +

Quid enim de amicitia statueris utilitatis causa expetenda vides.

+ + + +

Nihilo beatiorem esse Metellum quam Regulum. Virtutibus igitur rectissime mihi videris et ad consuetudinem nostrae orationis vitia posuisse contraria. Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus; Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Sedulo, inquam, faciam. Ita credo. Sed tamen intellego quid velit. Quo igitur, inquit, modo?

+ + + +

Bonum negas esse divitias, praeposìtum esse dicis? Ita cum ea volunt retinere, quae superiori sententiae conveniunt, in Aristonem incidunt; Eam si varietatem diceres, intellegerem, ut etiam non dicente te intellego; Quid est enim aliud esse versutum? Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Quis tibi ergo istud dabit praeter Pyrrhonem, Aristonem eorumve similes, quos tu non probas? Sin aliud quid voles, postea. Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum.

+ + + +

Parvi enim primo ortu sic iacent, tamquam omnino sine animo sint.

+ + + +

Illud urgueam, non intellegere eum quid sibi dicendum sit, cum dolorem summum malum esse dixerit. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Theophrasti igitur, inquit, tibi liber ille placet de beata vita? Quid, si etiam iucunda memoria est praeteritorum malorum?

+ + + +
  • Atque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio.
  • Cupiditates non Epicuri divisione finiebat, sed sua satietate.
  • Atque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio.
  • Etenim si delectamur, cum scribimus, quis est tam invidus, qui ab eo nos abducat?
  • Sed quid minus probandum quam esse aliquem beatum nec satis beatum?
+ + + +

+ Sin autem ad animum, falsum est, quod negas animi ullum esse gaudium, quod non referatur ad corpus. +

+ + + +

Si enim ad populum me vocas, eum.

+ + + +

Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Nulla erit controversia. Cum autem in quo sapienter dicimus, id a primo rectissime dicitur. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas. Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat.

+ + + +

Itaque a sapientia praecipitur se ipsam, si usus sit, sapiens ut relinquat. At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit; Aliam vero vim voluptatis esse, aliam nihil dolendi, nisi valde pertinax fueris, concedas necesse est. Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis; Facit enim ille duo seiuncta ultima bonorum, quae ut essent vera, coniungi debuerunt; Quamquam in hac divisione rem ipsam prorsus probo, elegantiam desidero.

+ + + +

Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar?

+ + + +
+ + + +

Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret? Scientiam pollicentur, quam non erat mirum sapientiae cupido patria esse cariorem. Claudii libidini, qui tum erat summo ne imperio, dederetur.

+ + + +

Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur?

+ + + +

Etiam beatissimum? Gloriosa ostentatio in constituendo summo bono. Parvi enim primo ortu sic iacent, tamquam omnino sine animo sint. Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Res enim se praeclare habebat, et quidem in utraque parte.

+ + + +

Videsne quam sit magna dissensio?

+ + + +

Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Nam illud quidem adduci vix possum, ut ea, quae senserit ille, tibi non vera videantur.

+ + + +
  • Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem;
  • Contemnit enim disserendi elegantiam, confuse loquitur.
  • Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt.
+ + + +

Verum hoc idem saepe faciamus. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus; Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Quare si potest esse beatus is, qui est in asperis reiciendisque rebus, potest is quoque esse. Sic enim censent, oportunitatis esse beate vivere. Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam?

+ + + +

Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret?

+ + + +

Ad quorum et cognitionem et usum iam corroborati natura ipsa praeeunte deducimur. Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones. Cum id quoque, ut cupiebat, audivisset, evelli iussit eam, qua erat transfixus, hastam. Sed ne, dum huic obsequor, vobis molestus sim. Verum tamen cum de rebus grandioribus dicas, ipsae res verba rapiunt; Saepe ab Aristotele, a Theophrasto mirabiliter est laudata per se ipsa rerum scientia; Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur.

+ + + +

Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur. Atque haec coniunctio confusioque virtutum tamen a philosophis ratione quadam distinguitur. Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit. Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Longum est enim ad omnia respondere, quae a te dicta sunt.

+ + + +

+ Nullis enim partitionibus, nullis definitionibus utuntur ipsique dicunt ea se modo probare, quibus natura tacita adsentiatur. +

+ + + +

Sit hoc ultimum bonorum, quod nunc a me defenditur; Sin te auctoritas commovebat, nobisne omnibus et Platoni ipsi nescio quem illum anteponebas? Ex rebus enim timiditas, non ex vocabulis nascitur. Primum cur ista res digna odio est, nisi quod est turpis?

+ + + +

Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Hoc etsi multimodis reprehendi potest, tamen accipio, quod dant. Sed potestne rerum maior esse dissensio? Sunt enim prima elementa naturae, quibus auctis vírtutis quasi germen efficitur.

+ + + +

Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Quare attendo te studiose et, quaecumque rebus iis, de quibus hic sermo est, nomina inponis, memoriae mando; Cur, nisi quod turpis oratio est? Eam si varietatem diceres, intellegerem, ut etiam non dicente te intellego; Cum autem venissemus in Academiae non sine causa nobilitata spatia, solitudo erat ea, quam volueramus. Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Erat enim res aperta. Sed tempus est, si videtur, et recta quidem ad me.

+ + + +

+ Atque ut reliqui fures earum rerum, quas ceperunt, signa commutant, sic illi, ut sententiis nostris pro suis uterentur, nomina tamquam rerum notas mutaverunt. +

+ + + +

Sequitur disserendi ratio cognitioque naturae; Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit; Idemne, quod iucunde?

+ + + +

Aliud igitur esse censet gaudere, aliud non dolere.

+ + + +

Unum est sine dolore esse, alterum cum voluptate. At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Portenta haec esse dicit, neque ea ratione ullo modo posse vivi; Ergo infelix una molestia, fellx rursus, cum is ipse anulus in praecordiis piscis inventus est? Ac ne plura complectar-sunt enim innumerabilia-, bene laudata virtus voluptatis aditus intercludat necesse est. Nec mihi illud dixeris: Haec enim ipsa mihi sunt voluptati, et erant illa Torquatis. Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam.

+ + + +

Nos quidem Virtutes sic natae sumus, ut tibi serviremus, aliud negotii nihil habemus. Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. Est autem etiam actio quaedam corporis, quae motus et status naturae congruentis tenet; Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -;

+ + + +

+ Idque testamento cavebit is, qui nobis quasi oraculum ediderit nihil post mortem ad nos pertinere? +

+ + + +

Respondeat totidem verbis. Nihilo beatiorem esse Metellum quam Regulum. Non igitur de improbo, sed de callido improbo quaerimus, qualis Q. Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? Nobis Heracleotes ille Dionysius flagitiose descivisse videtur a Stoicis propter oculorum dolorem. Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. De quibus cupio scire quid sentias. Laboro autem non sine causa; Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes; Diodorus, eius auditor, adiungit ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D.

+ + + +

An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Cupit enim dícere nihil posse ad beatam vitam deesse sapienti. Cur id non ita fit? Quod ea non occurrentia fingunt, vincunt Aristonem; At certe gravius. Nihil illinc huc pervenit. Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur. Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto.

+ + + +

Sumenda potius quam expetenda. Quare conare, quaeso. Murenam te accusante defenderem. Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis? Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit; At multis malis affectus. Sic enim censent, oportunitatis esse beate vivere.

+ + + +

Laboro autem non sine causa; Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Quis istum dolorem timet? Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo.

+ + + +

Id Sextilius factum negabat. Audeo dicere, inquit.

+ + + +

Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius. Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Sic vester sapiens magno aliquo emolumento commotus cicuta, si opus erit, dimicabit. Quae quo sunt excelsiores, eo dant clariora indicia naturae. Non igitur potestis voluptate omnia dirigentes aut tueri aut retinere virtutem. Certe non potest. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia.

+ + + +

Urgent tamen et nihil remittunt. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Tria genera cupiditatum, naturales et necessariae, naturales et non necessariae, nec naturales nec necessariae. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio. Tum Quintus: Est plane, Piso, ut dicis, inquit. Etenim si delectamur, cum scribimus, quis est tam invidus, qui ab eo nos abducat? Post enim Chrysippum eum non sane est disputatum.

+ + + +

Quod equidem non reprehendo; Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? Non enim ipsa genuit hominem, sed accepit a natura inchoatum. Urgent tamen et nihil remittunt. At ego quem huic anteponam non audeo dicere; Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret?

+ + + +

Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia.

+ + + +

Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Ne amores quidem sanctos a sapiente alienos esse arbitrantur. Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Ut non sine causa ex iis memoriae ducta sit disciplina. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus.

+ + + +

Aeque enim contingit omnibus fidibus, ut incontentae sint. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Quod praeceptum quia maius erat, quam ut ab homine videretur, idcirco assignatum est deo. Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur? Et ais, si una littera commota sit, fore tota ut labet disciplina. Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Sed tamen intellego quid velit. Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? Minime vero istorum quidem, inquit. Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt.

+ + + +

Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur. Possumusne ergo in vita summum bonum dicere, cum id ne in cena quidem posse videamur? Aliter autem vobis placet. Optime, inquam. Ne amores quidem sanctos a sapiente alienos esse arbitrantur.

+ + + +

+ Hoc autem loco tantum explicemus haec honesta, quae dico, praeterquam quod nosmet ipsos diligamus, praeterea suapte natura per se esse expetenda. +

+ + + +

Cum audissem Antiochum, Brute, ut solebam, cum M. Dat enim intervalla et relaxat. Numquam facies. Totum autem id externum est, et quod externum, id in casu est. Iubet igitur nos Pythius Apollo noscere nosmet ipsos. Bonum liberi: misera orbitas.

+ + + +

Quis enim est, qui non videat haec esse in natura rerum tria? Quae cum praeponunt, ut sit aliqua rerum selectio, naturam videntur sequi; Et quidem iure fortasse, sed tamen non gravissimum est testimonium multitudinis. Cum sciret confestim esse moriendum eamque mortem ardentiore studio peteret, quam Epicurus voluptatem petendam putat. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Istic sum, inquit. Cum praesertim illa perdiscere ludus esset. Et quidem iure fortasse, sed tamen non gravissimum est testimonium multitudinis.

+ + + +

Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Hoc ipsum elegantius poni meliusque potuit. Nam et complectitur verbis, quod vult, et dicit plane, quod intellegam; Optime, inquam. Ita credo. Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus;

+ + + +
Compensabatur, inquit, cum summis doloribus laetitia.
+ + + +

Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas. Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? Id enim natura desiderat.

+ + + +
  • Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt.
  • Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit.
  • Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc.
  • Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant?
  • Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta.
+ + + +

+ Quod enim testimonium maius quaerimus, quae honesta et recta sint, ipsa esse optabilia per sese, cum videamus tanta officia morientis? +

+ + + +

+ Quod idem Peripatetici non tenent, quibus dicendum est, quae et honesta actio sit et sine dolore, eam magis esse expetendam, quam si esset eadem actio cum dolore. +

+ + + +
  • Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat?
  • Hoc loco discipulos quaerere videtur, ut, qui asoti esse velint, philosophi ante fiant.
  • Omnis enim est natura diligens sui.
+ + + +

Praeclare hoc quidem. Id et fieri posse et saepe esse factum et ad voluptates percipiendas maxime pertinere. Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus; Quae animi affectio suum cuique tribuens atque hanc, quam dico. At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit; Quasi vero, inquit, perpetua oratio rhetorum solum, non etiam philosophorum sit.

+ + + +

+ Nec vero id satis est, neminem esse, qui ipse se oderit, sed illud quoque intellegendum est, neminem esse, qui,quo modo se habeat, nihil sua censeat inte resse. +

+ + + +

Paupertas si malum est, mendicus beatus esse nemo potest, quamvis sit sapiens.

+ + + +

Nunc vides, quid faciat. Multa sunt dicta ab antiquis de contemnendis ac despiciendis rebus humanis; Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Vide, ne etiam menses! nisi forte eum dicis, qui, simul atque arripuit, interficit.

+ + + +

Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Ut pulsi recurrant? Isto modo, ne si avia quidem eius nata non esset. Cum audissem Antiochum, Brute, ut solebam, cum M. Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones. Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus. Frater et T. Graecis hoc modicum est: Leonidas, Epaminondas, tres aliqui aut quattuor; Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam, quae est moderatio cupiditatum rationi oboediens.

+ + + +

+ Is cum arderet podagrae doloribus visitassetque hominem Charmides Epicureus perfamiliaris et tristis exiret, Mane, quaeso, inquit, Charmide noster; +

+ + + +

Non laboro, inquit, de nomine.

+ + + +

Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas. Tu quidem reddes; Certe, nisi voluptatem tanti aestimaretis. Terram, mihi crede, ea lanx et maria deprimet. Quantam rem agas, ut Circeis qui habitet totum hunc mundum suum municipium esse existimet? Si enim ita est, vide ne facinus facias, cum mori suadeas.

+ + + +
Ex quo illud efficitur, qui bene cenent omnis libenter cenare, qui libenter, non continuo bene.
+ + + +

Dicet pro me ipsa virtus nec dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Hoc dixerit potius Ennius: Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali. Frater et T. Nam quid possumus facere melius? Qualis ista philosophia est, quae non interitum afferat pravitatis, sed sit contenta mediocritate vitiorum? Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? At multis se probavit.

+ + + +

Quis enim est, qui non videat haec esse in natura rerum tria? Ergo, si semel tristior effectus est, hilara vita amissa est? Eaedem res maneant alio modo. Quid enim est a Chrysippo praetermissum in Stoicis? Cum praesertim illa perdiscere ludus esset. Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem. Utilitatis causa amicitia est quaesita.

+ + + +

Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam, quae est moderatio cupiditatum rationi oboediens.

+ + + +

Hoc ne statuam quidem dicturam pater aiebat, si loqui posset. In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam?

+ + + +
  • Intrandum est igitur in rerum naturam et penitus quid ea postulet pervidendum;
  • Cuius quidem, quoniam Stoicus fuit, sententia condemnata mihi videtur esse inanitas ista verborum.
  • Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat?
  • Rationis enim perfectio est virtus;
+ + + +

Aliter homines, aliter philosophos loqui putas oportere?

+ + + +

Si est nihil nisi corpus, summa erunt illa: valitudo, vacuitas doloris, pulchritudo, cetera. Quid autem habent admirationis, cum prope accesseris? Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit.

+ + + +

Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere. Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam? Itaque vides, quo modo loquantur, nova verba fingunt, deserunt usitata. Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Stoici scilicet. Ne amores quidem sanctos a sapiente alienos esse arbitrantur. Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis?

+ + + +
Quis contra in illa aetate pudorem, constantiam, etiamsi sua nihil intersit, non tamen diligat?
+ + + +

Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Si longus, levis. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Recte dicis; Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus. In qua si nihil est praeter rationem, sit in una virtute finis bonorum;

+ + + +

+ Ita fit beatae vitae domina fortuna, quam Epicurus ait exiguam intervenire sapienti. +

+ + + +

+ Nam illud quidem adduci vix possum, ut ea, quae senserit ille, tibi non vera videantur. +

+ + + +

Iis igitur est difficilius satis facere, qui se Latina scripta dicunt contemnere.

+ + + +

Quid ait Aristoteles reliquique Platonis alumni? Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse? Hoc enim constituto in philosophia constituta sunt omnia. Ergo instituto veterum, quo etiam Stoici utuntur, hinc capiamus exordium. Hanc quoque iucunditatem, si vis, transfer in animum; Alia quaedam dicent, credo, magna antiquorum esse peccata, quae ille veri investigandi cupidus nullo modo ferre potuerit. Omnis enim est natura diligens sui. Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit;

+ + + +

Qui enim existimabit posse se miserum esse beatus non erit. Sextilio Rufo, cum is rem ad amicos ita deferret, se esse heredem Q. Quare si potest esse beatus is, qui est in asperis reiciendisque rebus, potest is quoque esse. Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus. Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Ut scias me intellegere, primum idem esse dico voluptatem, quod ille don. Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse? Et si turpitudinem fugimus in statu et motu corporis, quid est cur pulchritudinem non sequamur?

+ + + +
  • Laelius clamores sofòw ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros.
  • Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata.
  • Quamquam ab iis philosophiam et omnes ingenuas disciplinas habemus;
  • Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae.
  • Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit;
  • Hoc dixerit potius Ennius: Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali.
+ + + +

Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Dici enim nihil potest verius. Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? Sin tantum modo ad indicia veteris memoriae cognoscenda, curiosorum. Ut id aliis narrare gestiant? Negare non possum. Graecum enim hunc versum nostis omnes-: Suavis laborum est praeteritorum memoria. Deque his rebus satis multa in nostris de re publica libris sunt dicta a Laelio.

+ + + +

Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? Etiam beatissimum? Qua tu etiam inprudens utebare non numquam. Sit enim idem caecus, debilis. Qui autem diffidet perpetuitati bonorum suorum, timeat necesse est, ne aliquando amissis illis sit miser. Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit.

+ + + +

Cur ipse Pythagoras et Aegyptum lustravit et Persarum magos adiit? Quae contraria sunt his, malane? Nihil acciderat ei, quod nollet, nisi quod anulum, quo delectabatur, in mari abiecerat.

+ + + +

+ Epicurei num desistunt de isdem, de quibus et ab Epicuro scriptum est et ab antiquis, ad arbitrium suum scribere? +

+ + + +

Immo videri fortasse. His singulis copiose responderi solet, sed quae perspicua sunt longa esse non debent. Septem autem illi non suo, sed populorum suffragio omnium nominati sunt. Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster? Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Nihil acciderat ei, quod nollet, nisi quod anulum, quo delectabatur, in mari abiecerat.

+ + + +
  • Quid enim est a Chrysippo praetermissum in Stoicis?
  • Quo modo autem philosophus loquitur?
  • Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis?
+ + + +
Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est.
+ + + +

Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Iam doloris medicamenta illa Epicurea tamquam de narthecio proment: Si gravis, brevis; Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus. Sit enim idem caecus, debilis. Facile est hoc cernere in primis puerorum aetatulis. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. De malis autem et bonis ab iis animalibus, quae nondum depravata sint, ait optime iudicari. Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones.

+ + + +

Suo genere perveniant ad extremum;

+ + + +

Nam et complectitur verbis, quod vult, et dicit plane, quod intellegam; Non quam nostram quidem, inquit Pomponius iocans; Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem. Res enim se praeclare habebat, et quidem in utraque parte. Cur iustitia laudatur? Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat? Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius.

+ + + +

Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Ita multa dicunt, quae vix intellegam. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Quid adiuvas? Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Animum autem reliquis rebus ita perfecit, ut corpus; Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum.

+ + + +

+ Quod quidem pluris est haud paulo magisque ipsum propter se expetendum quam aut sensus aut corporis ea, quae diximus, quibus tantum praestat mentis excellens perfectio, ut vix cogitari possit quid intersit. +

+ + + +

Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata. Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere?

+ + + +

+ Cognitis autem rerum finibus, cum intellegitur, quid sit et bonorum extremum et malorum, inventa vitae via est conformatioque omnium officiorum, cum quaeritur, quo quodque referatur; +

+ + + +

Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Qui autem esse poteris, nisi te amor ipse ceperit? Commoda autem et incommoda in eo genere sunt, quae praeposita et reiecta diximus; Non quaeritur autem quid naturae tuae consentaneum sit, sed quid disciplinae. Si id dicis, vicimus. Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet.

+ + + +

Sed quid minus probandum quam esse aliquem beatum nec satis beatum?

+ + + +

Fortasse id optimum, sed ubi illud: Plus semper voluptatis? Itaque ab his ordiamur. Summum a vobis bonum voluptas dicitur. Respondeat totidem verbis. Qui potest igitur habitare in beata vita summi mali metus? Quid me istud rogas?

+ + + +

Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam. Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit. Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur? Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit; Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. Quantam rem agas, ut Circeis qui habitet totum hunc mundum suum municipium esse existimet? Nos quidem Virtutes sic natae sumus, ut tibi serviremus, aliud negotii nihil habemus. Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Easdemne res?

+ + + +

Iam contemni non poteris. Incommoda autem et commoda-ita enim estmata et dustmata appello-communia esse voluerunt, paria noluerunt. Urgent tamen et nihil remittunt. Fortemne possumus dicere eundem illum Torquatum? Sit, inquam, tam facilis, quam vultis, comparatio voluptatis, quid de dolore dicemus? Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam.

+ + + +
  • Hoc Hieronymus summum bonum esse dixit.
  • Etenim nec iustitia nec amicitia esse omnino poterunt, nisi ipsae per se expetuntur.
+ + + +

Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Ecce aliud simile dissimile. Sed eum qui audiebant, quoad poterant, defendebant sententiam suam. Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere.

+ + + +

Quo tandem modo? Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam? Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam. Idemque diviserunt naturam hominis in animum et corpus.

+ + + +

Sed quanta sit alias, nunc tantum possitne esse tanta. Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn. Quorum altera prosunt, nocent altera. Quae cum praeponunt, ut sit aliqua rerum selectio, naturam videntur sequi; Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum. Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Duae sunt enim res quoque, ne tu verba solum putes.

+ + + +

Quis Aristidem non mortuum diligit?

+ + + +

Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Urgent tamen et nihil remittunt. Huius, Lyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ielunior. Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret? Cui Tubuli nomen odio non est? Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum.

+ + + +

Haeret in salebra.

+ + + +

Bonum negas esse divitias, praeposìtum esse dicis? Facete M. Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas. Quam nemo umquam voluptatem appellavit, appellat; De malis autem et bonis ab iis animalibus, quae nondum depravata sint, ait optime iudicari. Facit igitur Lucius noster prudenter, qui audire de summo bono potissimum velit; Tollenda est atque extrahenda radicitus. Theophrasti igitur, inquit, tibi liber ille placet de beata vita?

+ + + +

Quamquam in hac divisione rem ipsam prorsus probo, elegantiam desidero. Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Ut pulsi recurrant? Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? Perge porro; Ecce aliud simile dissimile. Longum est enim ad omnia respondere, quae a te dicta sunt. Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam.

+ + + +

+ Vides igitur, si amicitiam sua caritate metiare, nihil esse praestantius, sin emolumento, summas familiaritates praediorum fructuosorum mercede superari. +

+ + + +

Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet. Disserendi artem nullam habuit. Septem autem illi non suo, sed populorum suffragio omnium nominati sunt. Certe non potest. Similiter sensus, cum accessit ad naturam, tuetur illam quidem, sed etiam se tuetur; An haec ab eo non dicuntur? Summum a vobis bonum voluptas dicitur. Sed haec in pueris; Restinguet citius, si ardentem acceperit.

+ + + +

Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Eam si varietatem diceres, intellegerem, ut etiam non dicente te intellego; Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Nam illud quidem adduci vix possum, ut ea, quae senserit ille, tibi non vera videantur. Non igitur bene. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas.

+ + + +
Si qua in iis corrigere voluit, deteriora fecit.
+ + + +

Non risu potius quam oratione eiciendum? Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Is es profecto tu. Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat.

+ + + +

+ Atqui reperiemus asotos primum ita non religiosos, ut edint de patella, deinde ita mortem non timentes, ut illud in ore habeant ex Hymnide: Mihi sex menses satis sunt vitae, septimum Orco spondeo. +

+ + + +
  • Quem Tiberina descensio festo illo die tanto gaudio affecit, quanto L.
  • In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt.
  • Omnes enim iucundum motum, quo sensus hilaretur.
  • Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est?
  • His enim rebus detractis negat se reperire in asotorum vita quod reprehendat.
  • Profectus in exilium Tubulus statim nec respondere ausus;
  • Sin kakan malitiam dixisses, ad aliud nos unum certum vitium consuetudo Latina traduceret.
+ + + +
  • At cum de plurimis eadem dicit, tum certe de maximis.
  • Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones.
  • Nam si propter voluptatem, quae est ista laus, quae possit e macello peti?
  • Ut pulsi recurrant?
+ + + +

Sed tamen enitar et, si minus multa mihi occurrent, non fugiam ista popularia. Idemne, quod iucunde? Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Sed plane dicit quod intellegit. Quo modo autem philosophus loquitur?

+ + + +

Dicimus aliquem hilare vivere;

+ + + +

Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Ea possunt paria non esse. Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas?

+ + + +

Tu vero, inquam, ducas licet, si sequetur; Nosti, credo, illud: Nemo pius est, qui pietatem-; Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam? At cum de plurimis eadem dicit, tum certe de maximis. Hoc positum in Phaedro a Platone probavit Epicurus sensitque in omni disputatione id fieri oportere. At eum nihili facit; Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. Sapiens autem semper beatus est et est aliquando in dolore;

+ + + +

+ Iam vero animus non esse solum, sed etiam cuiusdam modi debet esse, ut et omnis partis suas habeat incolumis et de virtutibus nulla desit. +

+ + + +

Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Hoc tu nunc in illo probas. Summum a vobis bonum voluptas dicitur. Dicet pro me ipsa virtus nec dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Sed quot homines, tot sententiae;

+ + + +

Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Age, inquies, ista parva sunt. Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas? Nosti, credo, illud: Nemo pius est, qui pietatem-; Nemo igitur esse beatus potest. Nam si quae sunt aliae, falsum est omnis animi voluptates esse e corporis societate. Num igitur eum postea censes anxio animo aut sollicito fuisse? Hoc dixerit potius Ennius: Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali.

+ + + +

Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat? Tu vero, inquam, ducas licet, si sequetur; Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis.

+ + + +

Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Ita cum ea volunt retinere, quae superiori sententiae conveniunt, in Aristonem incidunt; Cum praesertim illa perdiscere ludus esset. Ne in odium veniam, si amicum destitero tueri. Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Haec dicuntur inconstantissime.

+ + + +

At quanta conantur! Mundum hunc omnem oppidum esse nostrum! Incendi igitur eos, qui audiunt, vides. Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Hoc positum in Phaedro a Platone probavit Epicurus sensitque in omni disputatione id fieri oportere. Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Non enim quaero quid verum, sed quid cuique dicendum sit. Quamquam in hac divisione rem ipsam prorsus probo, elegantiam desidero.

+ + + +

Quid ad utilitatem tantae pecuniae? Non quam nostram quidem, inquit Pomponius iocans; At certe gravius. Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Ergo infelix una molestia, fellx rursus, cum is ipse anulus in praecordiis piscis inventus est? Aeque enim contingit omnibus fidibus, ut incontentae sint. Peccata paria. Ita nemo beato beatior. An potest cupiditas finiri? Suo genere perveniant ad extremum;

+ + + +

+ Audax negotium, dicerem impudens, nisi hoc institutum postea translatum ad philosophos nostros esset. +

+ + + +

Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere?

+ + + +

Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose. Itaque contra est, ac dicitis; Hanc quoque iucunditatem, si vis, transfer in animum; Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Certe nihil nisi quod possit ipsum propter se iure laudari. Deque his rebus satis multa in nostris de re publica libris sunt dicta a Laelio. Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius.

+ + + +

Itaque haec cum illis est dissensio, cum Peripateticis nulla sane. At quicum ioca seria, ut dicitur, quicum arcana, quicum occulta omnia? Ille vero, si insipiens-quo certe, quoniam tyrannus -, numquam beatus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Nam et complectitur verbis, quod vult, et dicit plane, quod intellegam; Non est igitur voluptas bonum.

+ + + +

Nonne videmus quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio? Deinde prima illa, quae in congressu solemus: Quid tu, inquit, huc? Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus. Quid, si non sensus modo ei sit datus, verum etiam animus hominis? Restinguet citius, si ardentem acceperit. Nobis Heracleotes ille Dionysius flagitiose descivisse videtur a Stoicis propter oculorum dolorem. Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones. Summum a vobis bonum voluptas dicitur. Mihi enim erit isdem istis fortasse iam utendum. Ergo adhuc, quantum equidem intellego, causa non videtur fuisse mutandi nominis.

+ + + +

+ Etsi hoc quidem est in vitio, dissolutionem naturae tam valde perhorrescere-quod item est reprehendendum in dolore -, sed quia fere sic afficiuntur omnes, satis argomenti est ab interitu naturam abhorrere; +

+ + + +

+ Perfecto enim et concluso neque virtutibus neque amicitiis usquam locum esse, si ad voluptatem omnia referantur, nihil praeterea est magnopere dicendum. +

+ + + +

Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost; Tibi hoc incredibile, quod beatissimum. Quos quidem tibi studiose et diligenter tractandos magnopere censeo. Sed hoc sane concedamus. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus;

+ + + +

+ Sapientem locupletat ipsa natura, cuius divitias Epicurus parabiles esse docuit. +

+ + + +

Nam et complectitur verbis, quod vult, et dicit plane, quod intellegam; Quodcumque in mentem incideret, et quodcumque tamquam occurreret. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas? Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Sed eum qui audiebant, quoad poterant, defendebant sententiam suam. Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Sed quanta sit alias, nunc tantum possitne esse tanta.

+ + + +

+ Num igitur utiliorem tibi hunc Triarium putas esse posse, quam si tua sint Puteolis granaria? +

+ + + +

+ Quo minus animus a se ipse dissidens secumque discordans gustare partem ullam liquidae voluptatis et liberae potest. +

+ + + +

Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo.

+ + + +

Praeclarae mortes sunt imperatoriae; At certe gravius. Ad eas enim res ab Epicuro praecepta dantur. Confecta res esset. Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum. Non semper, inquam;

+ + + +

Dolor ergo, id est summum malum, metuetur semper, etiamsi non aderit; A mene tu? Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. Quid loquor de nobis, qui ad laudem et ad decus nati, suscepti, instituti sumus?

+ + + +

Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Intrandum est igitur in rerum naturam et penitus quid ea postulet pervidendum; Sin autem eos non probabat, quid attinuit cum iis, quibuscum re concinebat, verbis discrepare? Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia. At enim hic etiam dolore. Inde igitur, inquit, ordiendum est. Sit hoc ultimum bonorum, quod nunc a me defenditur; Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Nihilo beatiorem esse Metellum quam Regulum.

+ + + +

Quis est, qui non oderit libidinosam, protervam adolescentiam?

+ + + +

Themistocles quidem, cum ei Simonides an quis alius artem memoriae polliceretur, Oblivionis, inquit, mallem. Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Claudii libidini, qui tum erat summo ne imperio, dederetur. Superiores tres erant, quae esse possent, quarum est una sola defensa, eaque vehementer. Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius. Sed tamen est aliquid, quod nobis non liceat, liceat illis. Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias; Polemoni et iam ante Aristoteli ea prima visa sunt, quae paulo ante dixi. Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum. Quae quidem vel cum periculo est quaerenda vobis; De ingenio eius in his disputationibus, non de moribus quaeritur. Hoc dixerit potius Ennius: Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali.

+ + + +

Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Laboro autem non sine causa; Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Quoniam, si dis placet, ab Epicuro loqui discimus. Verum hoc idem saepe faciamus. Non potes, nisi retexueris illa. Tertium autem omnibus aut maximis rebus iis, quae secundum naturam sint, fruentem vivere.

+ + + +

At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt. Hoc ipsum elegantius poni meliusque potuit. Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones. Hic ambiguo ludimur.

+ + + +

Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur. Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas. Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est. Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Quis Aristidem non mortuum diligit? Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Nummus in Croesi divitiis obscuratur, pars est tamen divitiarum.

+ + + +

Quae quo sunt excelsiores, eo dant clariora indicia naturae.

+ + + +

Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Aufert enim sensus actionemque tollit omnem. Certe non potest. Sed quae tandem ista ratio est? Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat? Quis suae urbis conservatorem Codrum, quis Erechthei filias non maxime laudat? Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo?

+ + + +
  • Et quod est munus, quod opus sapientiae?
  • Quid, si non sensus modo ei sit datus, verum etiam animus hominis?
  • Quid vero?
  • Quamquam non negatis nos intellegere quid sit voluptas, sed quid ille dicat.
+ + + +

+ Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. +

+ + + +

+ Ut necesse sit omnium rerum, quae natura vigeant, similem esse finem, non eundem. +

+ + + +
Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit?
+ + + +

Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Nemo igitur esse beatus potest. At multis se probavit. Qui enim existimabit posse se miserum esse beatus non erit. Erat enim Polemonis. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Inscite autem medicinae et gubernationis ultimum cum ultimo sapientiae comparatur. Hoc etsi multimodis reprehendi potest, tamen accipio, quod dant. Nemo igitur esse beatus potest.

+ + + +

Quae in controversiam veniunt, de iis, si placet, disseramus. Non enim in selectione virtus ponenda erat, ut id ipsum, quod erat bonorum ultimum, aliud aliquid adquireret. Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere? Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere. Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? At coluit ipse amicitias. Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Quantam rem agas, ut Circeis qui habitet totum hunc mundum suum municipium esse existimet?

+ + + +

Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur.

+ + + +

Quae cum ita sint, effectum est nihil esse malum, quod turpe non sit. Quod autem satis est, eo quicquid accessit, nimium est; At hoc in eo M. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Quid sequatur, quid repugnet, vident. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Quod autem principium officii quaerunt, melius quam Pyrrho; Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias;

+ + + +

Ostendit pedes et pectus. Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit. Idemne potest esse dies saepius, qui semel fuit? Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Conclusum est enim contra Cyrenaicos satis acute, nihil ad Epicurum. Nos commodius agimus.

+ + + +

Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas?

+ + + +

Sumenda potius quam expetenda. Ita graviter et severe voluptatem secrevit a bono. Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas. Quae quo sunt excelsiores, eo dant clariora indicia naturae. At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Nam et a te perfici istam disputationem volo, nec tua mihi oratio longa videri potest. Somnum denique nobis, nisi requietem corporibus et is medicinam quandam laboris afferret, contra naturam putaremus datum; Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta. Quo modo?

+ + + +

Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit.

+ + + +

Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Haec igitur Epicuri non probo, inquam. In quo etsi est magnus, tamen nova pleraque et perpauca de moribus. Itaque eos id agere, ut a se dolores, morbos, debilitates repellant. Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Sin autem est in ea, quod quidam volunt, nihil impedit hanc nostram comprehensionem summi boni. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit.

+ + + +
Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam.
+ + + +

Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos. Tuo vero id quidem, inquam, arbitratu. Est autem officium, quod ita factum est, ut eius facti probabilis ratio reddi possit. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas?

+ + + +
  • Se omnia, quae secundum naturam sint, b o n a appellare, quae autem contra, m a l a.
  • Inscite autem medicinae et gubernationis ultimum cum ultimo sapientiae comparatur.
  • Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit.
  • Vulgo enim dicitur: Iucundi acti labores, nec male Euripidesconcludam, si potero, Latine;
  • Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto.
+ + + +
Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata.
+ + + +

Ita prorsus, inquam; Quam nemo umquam voluptatem appellavit, appellat; Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit. An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. Nihilo beatiorem esse Metellum quam Regulum. Dolere malum est: in crucem qui agitur, beatus esse non potest. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Inscite autem medicinae et gubernationis ultimum cum ultimo sapientiae comparatur. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius.

+ + + +

+ Sive hoc difficile est, tamen nec modus est ullus investigandi veri, nisi inveneris, et quaerendi defatigatio turpis est, cum id, quod quaeritur, sit pulcherrimum. +

+ + + +

Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest.

+ + + +

Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; Servari enim iustitia nisi a forti viro, nisi a sapiente non potest. Hunc vos beatum; Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt. Vadem te ad mortem tyranno dabis pro amico, ut Pythagoreus ille Siculo fecit tyranno? Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest.

+ + + +

Vide, ne etiam menses! nisi forte eum dicis, qui, simul atque arripuit, interficit. Age, inquies, ista parva sunt. Quae adhuc, Cato, a te dicta sunt, eadem, inquam, dicere posses, si sequerere Pyrrhonem aut Aristonem. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Immo alio genere; Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Bonum liberi: misera orbitas. Ita fit beatae vitae domina fortuna, quam Epicurus ait exiguam intervenire sapienti. Nosti, credo, illud: Nemo pius est, qui pietatem-; Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Id est enim, de quo quaerimus. Quoniam, si dis placet, ab Epicuro loqui discimus. Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Haec dicuntur inconstantissime.

+ + + +
  • Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem.
  • Deinde prima illa, quae in congressu solemus: Quid tu, inquit, huc?
  • Cuius similitudine perspecta in formarum specie ac dignitate transitum est ad honestatem dictorum atque factorum.
  • Si enim non fuit eorum iudicii, nihilo magis hoc non addito illud est iudicatum-.
  • Et hanc quidem primam exigam a te operam, ut audias me quae a te dicta sunt refellentem.
+ + + +
  • At hoc in eo M.
  • Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur.
  • In qua si nihil est praeter rationem, sit in una virtute finis bonorum;
  • Hoc etsi multimodis reprehendi potest, tamen accipio, quod dant.
  • Atque haec coniunctio confusioque virtutum tamen a philosophis ratione quadam distinguitur.
  • Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt.
+ + + +

Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Audio equidem philosophi vocem, Epicure, sed quid tibi dicendum sit oblitus es. Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere. Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones. Haeret in salebra. Est igitur officium eius generis, quod nec in bonis ponatur nec in contrariis. Praeteritis, inquit, gaudeo.

+ + + +

Hic, qui utrumque probat, ambobus debuit uti, sicut facit re, neque tamen dividit verbis. Sed ego in hoc resisto; Si enim, ut mihi quidem videtur, non explet bona naturae voluptas, iure praetermissa est; Mihi quidem Homerus huius modi quiddam vidisse videatur in iis, quae de Sirenum cantibus finxerit. Quid sequatur, quid repugnet, vident. In schola desinis.

+ + + +

A primo, ut opinor, animantium ortu petitur origo summi boni. Re mihi non aeque satisfacit, et quidem locis pluribus. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Cum praesertim illa perdiscere ludus esset. Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas. Te ipsum, dignissimum maioribus tuis, voluptasne induxit, ut adolescentulus eriperes P. Atque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio. Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius.

+ + + +

Si enim ad populum me vocas, eum. Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Stoici autem, quod finem bonorum in una virtute ponunt, similes sunt illorum; Gloriosa ostentatio in constituendo summo bono. Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; Maximas vero virtutes iacere omnis necesse est voluptate dominante.

+ + + +

Ut aliquid scire se gaudeant? Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus.

+ + + +

Quae cum dixisset, finem ille. Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus.

+ + + +

Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed hoc sane concedamus. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Tria genera cupiditatum, naturales et necessariae, naturales et non necessariae, nec naturales nec necessariae. De quibus cupio scire quid sentias. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster? Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Cur id non ita fit?

+ + + +

+ Tantum dico, magis fuisse vestrum agere Epicuri diem natalem, quam illius testamento cavere ut ageretur. +

+ + + +
Atqui haec patefactio quasi rerum opertarum, cum quid quidque sit aperitur, definitio est.
+ + + +

In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt. Non quaeritur autem quid naturae tuae consentaneum sit, sed quid disciplinae. Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? Quid affers, cur Thorius, cur Caius Postumius, cur omnium horum magister, Orata, non iucundissime vixerit? Neutrum vero, inquit ille. Sextilio Rufo, cum is rem ad amicos ita deferret, se esse heredem Q. Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. Facillimum id quidem est, inquam. Qui est in parvis malis.

+ + + +

Igitur ne dolorem quidem.

+ + + +

An est aliquid, quod te sua sponte delectet? Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico.

+ + + +
  • His similes sunt omnes, qui virtuti student levantur vitiis, levantur erroribus, nisi forte censes Ti.
  • Ergo omni animali illud, quod appetiti positum est in eo, quod naturae est accommodatum.
  • Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus.
  • Tum ille: Ain tandem?
+ + + +

Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora. Itaque dicunt nec dubitant: mihi sic usus est, tibi ut opus est facto, fac. Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. Deinde dolorem quem maximum? Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Ita multa dicunt, quae vix intellegam. Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit. Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Id enim volumus, id contendimus, ut officii fructus sit ipsum officium. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Itaque contra est, ac dicitis; Hanc quoque iucunditatem, si vis, transfer in animum;

+ + + +

Sequitur disserendi ratio cognitioque naturae; Zenonis est, inquam, hoc Stoici. Themistocles quidem, cum ei Simonides an quis alius artem memoriae polliceretur, Oblivionis, inquit, mallem. Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? Aliis esse maiora, illud dubium, ad id, quod summum bonum dicitis, ecquaenam possit fieri accessio. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Si enim ita est, vide ne facinus facias, cum mori suadeas. Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Hoc dictum in una re latissime patet, ut in omnibus factis re, non teste moveamur. Esse enim, nisi eris, non potes.

+ + + +

Non igitur de improbo, sed de callido improbo quaerimus, qualis Q. Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis; Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare. Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur. Quare conare, quaeso. Tu autem negas fortem esse quemquam posse, qui dolorem malum putet. Sin ea non neglegemus neque tamen ad finem summi boni referemus, non multum ab Erilli levitate aberrabimus.

+ + + +

Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Hunc vos beatum; Quis istum dolorem timet?

+ + + +

Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Tubulo putas dicere? Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Summus dolor plures dies manere non potest? Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. Ac tamen hic mallet non dolere. Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Ea possunt paria non esse. Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit;

+ + + +

Itaque eos id agere, ut a se dolores, morbos, debilitates repellant.

+ + + +

Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Nihilo beatiorem esse Metellum quam Regulum. Ut alios omittam, hunc appello, quem ille unum secutus est. Eaedem enim utilitates poterunt eas labefactare atque pervertere. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. At iste non dolendi status non vocatur voluptas. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. Itaque eos id agere, ut a se dolores, morbos, debilitates repellant.

+ + + +

Quae contraria sunt his, malane? Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? Eam stabilem appellas. Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. A mene tu? Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate. Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus.

+ + + +
Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum.
+ + + +

Inquit, respondet: Quia, nisi quod honestum est, nullum est aliud bonum! Non quaero iam verumne sit; Quae cum dixisset, finem ille. Res enim se praeclare habebat, et quidem in utraque parte. Nosti, credo, illud: Nemo pius est, qui pietatem-; Nos cum te, M. Intrandum est igitur in rerum naturam et penitus quid ea postulet pervidendum;

+ + + +

+ Quid paulo ante, inquit, dixerim nonne meministi, cum omnis dolor detractus esset, variari, non augeri voluptatem? +

+ + + +

Cum salvum esse flentes sui respondissent, rogavit essentne fusi hostes.

+ + + +

At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate. Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. Si sapiens, ne tum quidem miser, cum ab Oroete, praetore Darei, in crucem actus est. Praeclare hoc quidem.

+ + + +

Graecum enim hunc versum nostis omnes-: Suavis laborum est praeteritorum memoria. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Nihil ad rem! Ne sit sane; Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Quid iudicant sensus? Age, inquies, ista parva sunt. Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt.

+ + + +

Moriatur, inquit. Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Haec igitur Epicuri non probo, inquam. Contemnit enim disserendi elegantiam, confuse loquitur. Age sane, inquam. Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat?

+ + + +
  • Qui est in parvis malis.
  • Sapientem locupletat ipsa natura, cuius divitias Epicurus parabiles esse docuit.
  • Quid, si reviviscant Platonis illi et deinceps qui eorum auditores fuerunt, et tecum ita loquantur?
  • Non est igitur summum malum dolor.
  • In quo etsi est magnus, tamen nova pleraque et perpauca de moribus.
  • Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas;
+ + + +

Quo plebiscito decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio Cn. Quae quidem vel cum periculo est quaerenda vobis;

+ + + +

Nam ista vestra: Si gravis, brevis; Si quae forte-possumus.

+ + + +

Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius.

+ + + +

Sint modo partes vitae beatae. Iam doloris medicamenta illa Epicurea tamquam de narthecio proment: Si gravis, brevis; Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Inde igitur, inquit, ordiendum est. Velut ego nunc moveor. Ex quo illud efficitur, qui bene cenent omnis libenter cenare, qui libenter, non continuo bene.

+ + + +

Verum esto: verbum ipsum voluptatis non habet dignitatem, nec nos fortasse intellegimus. Huius, Lyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ielunior. Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. An potest, inquit ille, quicquam esse suavius quam nihil dolere? Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere.

+ + + +

Qui enim voluptatem ipsam contemnunt, iis licet dicere se acupenserem maenae non anteponere. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Ergo et avarus erit, sed finite, et adulter, verum habebit modum, et luxuriosus eodem modo. Et quidem iure fortasse, sed tamen non gravissimum est testimonium multitudinis. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Quis istud possit, inquit, negare? Age, inquies, ista parva sunt. Incommoda autem et commoda-ita enim estmata et dustmata appello-communia esse voluerunt, paria noluerunt. Si de re disceptari oportet, nulla mihi tecum, Cato, potest esse dissensio.

+ + + +

+ Ita, quae mutat, ea corrumpit, quae sequitur sunt tota Democriti, atomi, inane, imagines, quae eidola nominant, quorum incursione non solum videamus, sed etiam cogitemus; +

+ + + +
Sin laboramus, quis est, qui alienae modum statuat industriae?
+ + + +

Quid enim possumus hoc agere divinius? Sapiens autem semper beatus est et est aliquando in dolore; Memini vero, inquam; In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Mihi quidem Antiochum, quem audis, satis belle videris attendere. Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare.

+ + + +

Quis est enim, in quo sit cupiditas, quin recte cupidus dici possit? Haec bene dicuntur, nec ego repugno, sed inter sese ipsa pugnant. Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; At certe gravius.

+ + + +
Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum.
+ + + +

Dicet pro me ipsa virtus nec dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Eiuro, inquit adridens, iniquum, hac quidem de re; Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles? Equidem e Cn.

+ + + +
  • Quem Tiberina descensio festo illo die tanto gaudio affecit, quanto L.
  • Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur?
  • Quodcumque in mentem incideret, et quodcumque tamquam occurreret.
  • Itaque primos congressus copulationesque et consuetudinum instituendarum voluntates fieri propter voluptatem;
  • Virtutibus igitur rectissime mihi videris et ad consuetudinem nostrae orationis vitia posuisse contraria.
  • Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest.
+ + + +

Hic ambiguo ludimur.

+ + + +

Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Oculorum, inquit Plato, est in nobis sensus acerrimus, quibus sapientiam non cernimus. Animadverti, ínquam, te isto modo paulo ante ponere, et scio ab Antiocho nostro dici sic solere; Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis.

+ + + +

Tria genera bonorum; Nihilne te delectat umquam -video, quicum loquar-, te igitur, Torquate, ipsum per se nihil delectat? Ne in odium veniam, si amicum destitero tueri. Equidem e Cn. Et hunc idem dico, inquieta sed ad virtutes et ad vitia nihil interesse. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Age, inquies, ista parva sunt.

+ + + +

Non ego tecum iam ita iocabor, ut isdem his de rebus, cum L.

+ + + +

Sic consequentibus vestris sublatis prima tolluntur. Suo genere perveniant ad extremum; Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare. Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Putabam equidem satis, inquit, me dixisse. Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet.

+ + + +

Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest. Quo plebiscito decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio Cn. Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem.

+ + + +

Sed fac ista esse non inportuna; Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere? Eaedem res maneant alio modo. Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas? Quid ergo? Ut alios omittam, hunc appello, quem ille unum secutus est. Scripta sane et multa et polita, sed nescio quo pacto auctoritatem oratio non habet. An est aliquid, quod te sua sponte delectet? Sed hoc sane concedamus.

+ + + +

Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus;

+ + + +

An dolor longissimus quisque miserrimus, voluptatem non optabiliorem diuturnitas facit? Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Quorum sine causa fieri nihil putandum est. Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Nos paucis ad haec additis finem faciamus aliquando; Quod mihi quidem visus est, cum sciret, velle tamen confitentem audire Torquatum.

+ + + +

Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Quid enim tanto opus est instrumento in optimis artibus comparandis? Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. At modo dixeras nihil in istis rebus esse, quod interesset. Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum.

+ + + +

Efficiens dici potest.

+ + + +

Isto modo ne improbos quidem, si essent boni viri. An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? Satisne vobis videor pro meo iure in vestris auribus commentatus? Frater et T. Sed vos squalidius, illorum vides quam niteat oratio.

+ + + +
Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit;
+ + + +

Sit hoc ultimum bonorum, quod nunc a me defenditur; Animum autem reliquis rebus ita perfecit, ut corpus; Quae sequuntur igitur? Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Non potes, nisi retexueris illa. In quo etsi est magnus, tamen nova pleraque et perpauca de moribus. Occultum facinus esse potuerit, gaudebit;

+ + + +

Illa tamen simplicia, vestra versuta.

+ + + +

Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere? Sin tantum modo ad indicia veteris memoriae cognoscenda, curiosorum. Bonum patria: miserum exilium. Atqui haec patefactio quasi rerum opertarum, cum quid quidque sit aperitur, definitio est. Quid, cum volumus nomina eorum, qui quid gesserint, nota nobis esse, parentes, patriam, multa praeterea minime necessaria? Quem si tenueris, non modo meum Ciceronem, sed etiam me ipsum abducas licebit.

+ + + +

+ Hic si Peripateticus fuisset, permansisset, credo, in sententia, qui dolorem malum dicunt esse, de asperitate autem eius fortiter ferenda praecipiunt eadem, quae Stoici. +

+ + + +

+ Equidem etiam curiam nostram-Hostiliam dico, non hanc novam, quae minor mihi esse videtur, posteaquam est maior-solebam intuens Scipionem, Catonem, Laelium, nostrum vero in primis avum cogitare; +

+ + + +

Themistocles quidem, cum ei Simonides an quis alius artem memoriae polliceretur, Oblivionis, inquit, mallem. Nobis Heracleotes ille Dionysius flagitiose descivisse videtur a Stoicis propter oculorum dolorem. Theophrasti igitur, inquit, tibi liber ille placet de beata vita? Vide, ne etiam menses! nisi forte eum dicis, qui, simul atque arripuit, interficit. Tuo vero id quidem, inquam, arbitratu. Deprehensus omnem poenam contemnet. Age nunc isti doceant, vel tu potius quis enim ista melius? Cur igitur easdem res, inquam, Peripateticis dicentibus verbum nullum est, quod non intellegatur?

+ + + +

Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto.

+ + + +

Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere. Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis; Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. Primum Theophrasti, Strato, physicum se voluit; Satis est tibi in te, satis in legibus, satis in mediocribus amicitiis praesidii. Omnia peccata paria dicitis.

+ + + +

+ Ut ad minora veniam, mathematici, poëtae, musici, medici denique ex hac tamquam omnium artificum officina profecti sunt. +

+ + + +
  • Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere.
  • Ne in odium veniam, si amicum destitero tueri.
  • Progredientibus autem aetatibus sensim tardeve potius quasi nosmet ipsos cognoscimus.
  • Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia.
+ + + +

Quo tandem modo?

+ + + +

Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Consequens enim est et post oritur, ut dixi. Sed plane dicit quod intellegit. Et quod est munus, quod opus sapientiae? Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus?

+ + + +
Quid enim tanto opus est instrumento in optimis artibus comparandis?
+ + + +

Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. At eum nihili facit; Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Ne tum quidem te respicies et cogitabis sibi quemque natum esse et suis voluptatibus? Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur? Quid, quod res alia tota est?

+ + + +
Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit.
+ + + +
+ + + +

Isto modo ne improbos quidem, si essent boni viri. Nescio quo modo praetervolavit oratio. Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Serpere anguiculos, nare anaticulas, evolare merulas, cornibus uti videmus boves, nepas aculeis. Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Fortasse id optimum, sed ubi illud: Plus semper voluptatis? Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. -, sed ut hoc iudicaremus, non esse in iis partem maximam positam beate aut secus vivendi. Aufert enim sensus actionemque tollit omnem. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit.

+ + + +
  • Sit, inquam, tam facilis, quam vultis, comparatio voluptatis, quid de dolore dicemus?
  • Progredientibus autem aetatibus sensim tardeve potius quasi nosmet ipsos cognoscimus.
+ + + +

Numquam facies. Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia? Quod, inquit, quamquam voluptatibus quibusdam est saepe iucundius, tamen expetitur propter voluptatem. Verum hoc idem saepe faciamus. Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Nos cum te, M. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia.

+ + + +

Tuo vero id quidem, inquam, arbitratu. Apud ceteros autem philosophos, qui quaesivit aliquid, tacet; A mene tu? Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Qui enim existimabit posse se miserum esse beatus non erit. Potius ergo illa dicantur: turpe esse, viri non esse debilitari dolore, frangi, succumbere. Quam nemo umquam voluptatem appellavit, appellat; Atque haec coniunctio confusioque virtutum tamen a philosophis ratione quadam distinguitur.

+ + + +
Quam illa ardentis amores excitaret sui! Cur tandem?
+ + + +

In motu et in statu corporis nihil inest, quod animadvertendum esse ipsa natura iudicet? Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Quod, inquit, quamquam voluptatibus quibusdam est saepe iucundius, tamen expetitur propter voluptatem. At enim hic etiam dolore. Quarum ambarum rerum cum medicinam pollicetur, luxuriae licentiam pollicetur. Ea possunt paria non esse.

+ + + +

Tu vero, inquam, ducas licet, si sequetur; Eadem fortitudinis ratio reperietur. Atque ego: Scis me, inquam, istud idem sentire, Piso, sed a te opportune facta mentio est. In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Primum Theophrasti, Strato, physicum se voluit; Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Quae contraria sunt his, malane?

+ + + +

Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit;

+ + + +

Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas. Urgent tamen et nihil remittunt. Non enim quaero quid verum, sed quid cuique dicendum sit. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Age nunc isti doceant, vel tu potius quis enim ista melius? Satis est ad hoc responsum. Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Ergo in gubernando nihil, in officio plurimum interest, quo in genere peccetur. Haec dicuntur inconstantissime.

+ + + +

Ecce aliud simile dissimile. Quasi vero, inquit, perpetua oratio rhetorum solum, non etiam philosophorum sit. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. In schola desinis. Quo tandem modo? Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Et nemo nimium beatus est; Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere?

+ + + +

Verum hoc idem saepe faciamus. Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Propter nos enim illam, non propter eam nosmet ipsos diligimus. Si de re disceptari oportet, nulla mihi tecum, Cato, potest esse dissensio. Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Quae quo sunt excelsiores, eo dant clariora indicia naturae.

+ + + +
  • Hic nihil fuit, quod quaereremus.
  • Quid ergo attinet dicere: Nihil haberem, quod reprehenderem, si finitas cupiditates haberent?
  • Sin kakan malitiam dixisses, ad aliud nos unum certum vitium consuetudo Latina traduceret.
+ + + +

Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Sin aliud quid voles, postea.

+ + + +
  • At Zeno eum non beatum modo, sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est.
  • Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius.
  • Minime vero istorum quidem, inquit.
  • Experiamur igitur, inquit, etsi habet haec Stoicorum ratio difficilius quiddam et obscurius.
+ + + +

Atqui eorum nihil est eius generis, ut sit in fine atque extrerno bonorum. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. At tu eadem ista dic in iudicio aut, si coronam times, dic in senatu. Quis enim est, qui non videat haec esse in natura rerum tria? In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam?

+ + + +

Sin aliud quid voles, postea.

+ + + +

Inquit, dasne adolescenti veniam? Iam in altera philosophiae parte. Aliud igitur esse censet gaudere, aliud non dolere. Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est. Summum a vobis bonum voluptas dicitur.

+ + + +

Tum Torquatus: Prorsus, inquit, assentior; Ut pulsi recurrant? Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur?

+ + + +

Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. Videmus igitur ut conquiescere ne infantes quidem possint. Naturales divitias dixit parabiles esse, quod parvo esset natura contenta. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sed plane dicit quod intellegit. Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Quia, si mala sunt, is, qui erit in iis, beatus non erit. Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Sunt autem, qui dicant foedus esse quoddam sapientium, ut ne minus amicos quam se ipsos diligant.

+ + + +
  • Nobis Heracleotes ille Dionysius flagitiose descivisse videtur a Stoicis propter oculorum dolorem.
  • In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt.
  • Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus.
+ + + +

Sic consequentibus vestris sublatis prima tolluntur.

+ + + +

Hoc tu nunc in illo probas. Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt. Sed quoniam et advesperascit et mihi ad villam revertendum est, nunc quidem hactenus; Hunc vos beatum; Nos commodius agimus. Quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget. Sic exclusis sententiis reliquorum cum praeterea nulla esse possit, haec antiquorum valeat necesse est.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est? Idemne, quod iucunde? Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Venit enim mihi Platonis in mentem, quem accepimus primum hic disputare solitum; Eorum enim omnium multa praetermittentium, dum eligant aliquid, quod sequantur, quasi curta sententia; Hi curatione adhibita levantur in dies, valet alter plus cotidie, alter videt.

+ + + +

In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt.

+ + + +

O magnam vim ingenii causamque iustam, cur nova existeret disciplina! Perge porro. Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia.

+ + + +

Hoc non est positum in nostra actione.

+ + + +

Ac tamen hic mallet non dolere. Ergo et avarus erit, sed finite, et adulter, verum habebit modum, et luxuriosus eodem modo. Hoc enim constituto in philosophia constituta sunt omnia. Cur id non ita fit? Quid enim mihi potest esse optatius quam cum Catone, omnium virtutum auctore, de virtutibus disputare? Tertium autem omnibus aut maximis rebus iis, quae secundum naturam sint, fruentem vivere.

+ + + +

Animum autem reliquis rebus ita perfecit, ut corpus; Equidem e Cn. Sed utrum hortandus es nobis, Luci, inquit, an etiam tua sponte propensus es? Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Quae qui non vident, nihil umquam magnum ac cognitione dignum amaverunt. Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Ac tamen hic mallet non dolere. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus.

+ + + +
Cupit enim dícere nihil posse ad beatam vitam deesse sapienti.
+ + + +

Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Nemo igitur esse beatus potest. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Quippe: habes enim a rhetoribus; Respondeat totidem verbis. Quae est igitur causa istarum angustiarum? Tum ille: Ain tandem? Venit ad extremum; Et non ex maxima parte de tota iudicabis? Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas.

+ + + +

+ Itaque illa non dico me expetere, sed legere, nec optare, sed sumere, contraria autem non fugere, sed quasi secernere. +

+ + + +
  • Sed haec ab Antiocho, familiari nostro, dicuntur multo melius et fortius, quam a Stasea dicebantur.
  • Tamen aberramus a proposito, et, ne longius, prorsus, inquam, Piso, si ista mala sunt, placet.
  • Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum.
+ + + +

Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam.

+ + + +

Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam. Itaque eos id agere, ut a se dolores, morbos, debilitates repellant. Praeclare enim Plato: Beatum, cui etiam in senectute contigerit, ut sapientiam verasque opiniones assequi possit. Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost; Quis est enim, in quo sit cupiditas, quin recte cupidus dici possit? Cur ipse Pythagoras et Aegyptum lustravit et Persarum magos adiit? Gracchum patrem non beatiorem fuisse quam fillum, cum alter stabilire rem publicam studuerit, alter evertere.

+ + + +
  • Perturbationes autem nulla naturae vi commoventur, omniaque ea sunt opiniones ac iudicia levitatis.
  • Ne in odium veniam, si amicum destitero tueri.
  • Ita redarguitur ipse a sese, convincunturque scripta eius probitate ipsius ac moribus.
  • Non minor, inquit, voluptas percipitur ex vilissimis rebus quam ex pretiosissimis.
+ + + +
  • Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia?
  • At habetur! Et ego id scilicet nesciebam! Sed ut sit, etiamne post mortem coletur?
  • Introduci enim virtus nullo modo potest, nisi omnia, quae leget quaeque reiciet, unam referentur ad summam.
  • Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum.
  • Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego.
  • Multa sunt dicta ab antiquis de contemnendis ac despiciendis rebus humanis;
+ + + +

Sed tamen intellego quid velit.

+ + + +

Eiuro, inquit adridens, iniquum, hac quidem de re; Tollenda est atque extrahenda radicitus. Stoici autem, quod finem bonorum in una virtute ponunt, similes sunt illorum; Diodorus, eius auditor, adiungit ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris. Est autem a te semper dictum nec gaudere quemquam nisi propter corpus nec dolere. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Haec bene dicuntur, nec ego repugno, sed inter sese ipsa pugnant. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum. Ad eas enim res ab Epicuro praecepta dantur.

+ + + +
Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris.
+ + + +

Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Est autem etiam actio quaedam corporis, quae motus et status naturae congruentis tenet; Sumenda potius quam expetenda. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Quid est enim aliud esse versutum? Sin laboramus, quis est, qui alienae modum statuat industriae?

+ + + +

Si de re disceptari oportet, nulla mihi tecum, Cato, potest esse dissensio. Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est? Idcirco enim non desideraret, quia, quod dolore caret, id in voluptate est.

+ + + +
  • Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat.
  • Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit.
  • Iam contemni non poteris.
  • Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo.
+ + + +
Venit ad extremum;
+ + + +

Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Ergo in gubernando nihil, in officio plurimum interest, quo in genere peccetur. Praeterea sublata cognitione et scientia tollitur omnis ratio et vitae degendae et rerum gerendarum. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Egone quaeris, inquit, quid sentiam? Haec dicuntur fortasse ieiunius; Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Quis est, qui non oderit libidinosam, protervam adolescentiam?

+ + + +

Et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat; An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Equidem etiam Epicurum, in physicis quidem, Democriteum puto. Prodest, inquit, mihi eo esse animo. Cur iustitia laudatur?

+ + + +

Tum ille: Tu autem cum ipse tantum librorum habeas, quos hic tandem requiris? Tu vero, inquam, ducas licet, si sequetur; Quarum ambarum rerum cum medicinam pollicetur, luxuriae licentiam pollicetur. Nemo nostrum istius generis asotos iucunde putat vivere. Ergo, inquit, tibi Q. Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Hoc est dicere: Non reprehenderem asotos, si non essent asoti. Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Certe, nisi voluptatem tanti aestimaretis. Inscite autem medicinae et gubernationis ultimum cum ultimo sapientiae comparatur.

+ + + +

Ergo, si semel tristior effectus est, hilara vita amissa est? Itaque mihi non satis videmini considerare quod iter sit naturae quaeque progressio. Qualem igitur hominem natura inchoavit? Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit. Sed ad illum redeo. Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus; Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Videmus igitur ut conquiescere ne infantes quidem possint. Quod idem cum vestri faciant, non satis magnam tribuunt inventoribus gratiam.

+ + + +

Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Quis hoc dicit? Pisone in eo gymnasio, quod Ptolomaeum vocatur, unaque nobiscum Q. An potest cupiditas finiri? Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas. Est, ut dicis, inquit; Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Et nemo nimium beatus est;

+ + + +

Satis est ad hoc responsum. Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. Haec igitur Epicuri non probo, inquam. Pollicetur certe.

+ + + +
  • Et quidem Arcesilas tuus, etsi fuit in disserendo pertinacior, tamen noster fuit;
  • Quo studio cum satiari non possint, omnium ceterarum rerum obliti níhil abiectum, nihil humile cogitant;
  • Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego.
  • Is ita vivebat, ut nulla tam exquisita posset inveniri voluptas, qua non abundaret.
  • Stulti autem malorum memoria torquentur, sapientes bona praeterita grata recordatione renovata delectant.
+ + + +
  • Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur.
  • Mihi enim erit isdem istis fortasse iam utendum.
  • Quamquam ab iis philosophiam et omnes ingenuas disciplinas habemus;
  • At enim sequor utilitatem.
  • Praetereo multos, in bis doctum hominem et suavem, Hieronymum, quem iam cur Peripateticum appellem nescio.
+ + + +
Ipse Epicurus fortasse redderet, ut Sextus Peducaeus, Sex.
+ + + +

Itaque eos id agere, ut a se dolores, morbos, debilitates repellant. Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc. Nam quid possumus facere melius? Suo genere perveniant ad extremum; Hoc est non modo cor non habere, sed ne palatum quidem. Superiores tres erant, quae esse possent, quarum est una sola defensa, eaque vehementer. Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; An me, inquis, tam amentem putas, ut apud imperitos isto modo loquar? Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Praeterea sublata cognitione et scientia tollitur omnis ratio et vitae degendae et rerum gerendarum. Quippe: habes enim a rhetoribus; Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio.

+ + + +

Haec igitur Epicuri non probo, inquam. Quorum altera prosunt, nocent altera. An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus.

+ + + +

Satis est ad hoc responsum.

+ + + +

Peccata paria. Scrupulum, inquam, abeunti; Semovenda est igitur voluptas, non solum ut recta sequamini, sed etiam ut loqui deceat frugaliter. Idemne, quod iucunde? Bonum liberi: misera orbitas. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico.

+ + + +

At enim hic etiam dolore. Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Iam in altera philosophiae parte. Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat? Nonne igitur tibi videntur, inquit, mala? Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas.

+ + + +

An tu me de L.

+ + + +

Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Nummus in Croesi divitiis obscuratur, pars est tamen divitiarum. Sed non alienum est, quo facilius vis verbi intellegatur, rationem huius verbi faciendi Zenonis exponere. Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Nunc agendum est subtilius. Optime, inquam.

+ + + +

His similes sunt omnes, qui virtuti student levantur vitiis, levantur erroribus, nisi forte censes Ti. Est autem etiam actio quaedam corporis, quae motus et status naturae congruentis tenet; Incommoda autem et commoda-ita enim estmata et dustmata appello-communia esse voluerunt, paria noluerunt. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Si sapiens, ne tum quidem miser, cum ab Oroete, praetore Darei, in crucem actus est. Quae autem natura suae primae institutionis oblita est? Quid, si etiam iucunda memoria est praeteritorum malorum? An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Sit sane ista voluptas. Aliter homines, aliter philosophos loqui putas oportere?

+ + + +

Itaque contra est, ac dicitis; Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Earum etiam rerum, quas terra gignit, educatio quaedam et perfectio est non dissimilis animantium. Sin tantum modo ad indicia veteris memoriae cognoscenda, curiosorum. Dici enim nihil potest verius. Hoc positum in Phaedro a Platone probavit Epicurus sensitque in omni disputatione id fieri oportere. Praeterea sublata cognitione et scientia tollitur omnis ratio et vitae degendae et rerum gerendarum. Tu quidem reddes; Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus.

+ + + +

Nescio quo modo praetervolavit oratio. Servari enim iustitia nisi a forti viro, nisi a sapiente non potest. Quod cum ita sit, perspicuum est omnis rectas res atque laudabilis eo referri, ut cum voluptate vivatur. Zenonis est, inquam, hoc Stoici. Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. At iste non dolendi status non vocatur voluptas. Ne discipulum abducam, times.

+ + + +

Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Audeo dicere, inquit. Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Id mihi magnum videtur. A villa enim, credo, et: Si ibi te esse scissem, ad te ipse venissem. Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Cum autem in quo sapienter dicimus, id a primo rectissime dicitur. Equidem e Cn. Sed tamen est aliquid, quod nobis non liceat, liceat illis.

+ + + +
Sed potestne rerum maior esse dissensio?
+ + + +

Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Hinc ceteri particulas arripere conati suam quisque videro voluit afferre sententiam. Cupit enim dícere nihil posse ad beatam vitam deesse sapienti. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Te enim iudicem aequum puto, modo quae dicat ille bene noris. Quid censes in Latino fore? Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt.

+ + + +

Quonam, inquit, modo?

+ + + +

Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Sed fortuna fortis; Tubulo putas dicere? Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc. Sequitur disserendi ratio cognitioque naturae; Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur.

+ + + +

+ At vero Epicurus una in domo, et ea quidem angusta, quam magnos quantaque amoris conspiratione consentientis tenuit amicorum greges! quod fit etiam nunc ab Epicureis. +

+ + + +

Inde igitur, inquit, ordiendum est. At hoc in eo M. Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Ex quo, id quod omnes expetunt, beate vivendi ratio inveniri et comparari potest. Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Minime vero istorum quidem, inquit. Ex eorum enim scriptis et institutis cum omnis doctrina liberalis, omnis historia. Aliud igitur esse censet gaudere, aliud non dolere.

+ + + +

Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Curium putes loqui, interdum ita laudat, ut quid praeterea sit bonum neget se posse ne suspicari quidem. Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare. Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere. Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Quibus ego vehementer assentior. An dolor longissimus quisque miserrimus, voluptatem non optabiliorem diuturnitas facit?

+ + + +
Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet.
+ + + +

Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Suam denique cuique naturam esse ad vivendum ducem.

+ + + +
Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria.
+ + + +

Nam Metrodorum non puto ipsum professum, sed, cum appellaretur ab Epicuro, repudiare tantum beneficium noluisse; Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Ut alios omittam, hunc appello, quem ille unum secutus est. Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus. Sed utrum hortandus es nobis, Luci, inquit, an etiam tua sponte propensus es? Ipse Epicurus fortasse redderet, ut Sextus Peducaeus, Sex.

+ + + +

Quid est igitur, inquit, quod requiras? Ille enim occurrentia nescio quae comminiscebatur; Experiamur igitur, inquit, etsi habet haec Stoicorum ratio difficilius quiddam et obscurius. Cum salvum esse flentes sui respondissent, rogavit essentne fusi hostes.

+ + + +

Memini vero, inquam; Respondeat totidem verbis. Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet. Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio. Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere.

+ + + +
Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est?
+ + + +

Quae cum ita sint, effectum est nihil esse malum, quod turpe non sit. Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est? Si de re disceptari oportet, nulla mihi tecum, Cato, potest esse dissensio. Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones. Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat? Hoc ille tuus non vult omnibusque ex rebus voluptatem quasi mercedem exigit. Eam stabilem appellas. Sed eum qui audiebant, quoad poterant, defendebant sententiam suam. Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. Suo genere perveniant ad extremum; Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose.

+ + + +

Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? Sed haec in pueris; Utrum igitur tibi litteram videor an totas paginas commovere? Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris; Memini vero, inquam; Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles?

+ + + +

Sed eum qui audiebant, quoad poterant, defendebant sententiam suam.

+ + + +

Recte dicis; Sed haec in pueris; Quid ergo hoc loco intellegit honestum? Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; Prodest, inquit, mihi eo esse animo.

+ + + +

Quis istud, quaeso, nesciebat? Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Itaque sensibus rationem adiunxit et ratione effecta sensus non reliquit. Huius, Lyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ielunior. Quod autem ratione actum est, id officium appellamus. Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Suo genere perveniant ad extremum;

+ + + +

Quod vestri non item. Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Quaeque de virtutibus dicta sunt, quem ad modum eae semper voluptatibus inhaererent, eadem de amicitia dicenda sunt. Odium autem et invidiam facile vitabis. Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit. Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt.

+ + + +

Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. Paria sunt igitur. Num quid tale Democritus? Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret? Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Itaque contra est, ac dicitis; Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda.

+ + + +

+ Quibus expositis facilis est coniectura ea maxime esse expetenda ex nostris, quae plurimum habent dignitatis, ut optimae cuiusque partis, quae per se expetatur, virtus sit expetenda maxime. +

+ + + +

Atque adhuc ea dixi, causa cur Zenoni non fuisset, quam ob rem a superiorum auctoritate discederet. Quare conare, quaeso. Familiares nostros, credo, Sironem dicis et Philodemum, cum optimos viros, tum homines doctissimos.

+ + + +

Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio?

+ + + +

Sin tantum modo ad indicia veteris memoriae cognoscenda, curiosorum. Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. Eiuro, inquit adridens, iniquum, hac quidem de re; Sed fortuna fortis; Quae duo sunt, unum facit. Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate. Quae qui non vident, nihil umquam magnum ac cognitione dignum amaverunt. Ita credo.

+ + + +

Quo plebiscito decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio Cn. Quid est igitur, cur ita semper deum appellet Epicurus beatum et aeternum? Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius. Gracchum patrem non beatiorem fuisse quam fillum, cum alter stabilire rem publicam studuerit, alter evertere. Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. Peccata paria. Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; Deprehensus omnem poenam contemnet. Haec igitur Epicuri non probo, inquam.

+ + + +

Ergo omni animali illud, quod appetiti positum est in eo, quod naturae est accommodatum. Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Quae quidem vel cum periculo est quaerenda vobis;

+ + + +

Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus.

+ + + +

Cur, nisi quod turpis oratio est? Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Sic enim censent, oportunitatis esse beate vivere. Aut unde est hoc contritum vetustate proverbium: quicum in tenebris? Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere.

+ + + +

Sed quot homines, tot sententiae; Quod si ita sit, cur opera philosophiae sit danda nescio. Cur id non ita fit? Quorum altera prosunt, nocent altera. Quippe: habes enim a rhetoribus; Amicitiae vero locus ubi esse potest aut quis amicus esse cuiquam, quem non ipsum amet propter ipsum? Parvi enim primo ortu sic iacent, tamquam omnino sine animo sint. Restinguet citius, si ardentem acceperit. Quod autem principium officii quaerunt, melius quam Pyrrho;

+ + + +

Idcirco enim non desideraret, quia, quod dolore caret, id in voluptate est.

+ + + +

Qui enim existimabit posse se miserum esse beatus non erit. Tollenda est atque extrahenda radicitus. Ergo illi intellegunt quid Epicurus dicat, ego non intellego? Si de re disceptari oportet, nulla mihi tecum, Cato, potest esse dissensio. Nos paucis ad haec additis finem faciamus aliquando; Nosti, credo, illud: Nemo pius est, qui pietatem-; Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse?

+ + + +
  • Pudebit te, inquam, illius tabulae, quam Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat.
  • Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere.
  • Quae hic rei publicae vulnera inponebat, eadem ille sanabat.
  • Hoc est non modo cor non habere, sed ne palatum quidem.
+ + + +

Haeret in salebra. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus.

+ + + +

Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles? Post enim Chrysippum eum non sane est disputatum. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Theophrastus mediocriterne delectat, cum tractat locos ab Aristotele ante tractatos? Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Simus igitur contenti his. Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? Verum hoc idem saepe faciamus. In eo enim positum est id, quod dicimus esse expetendum. At enim hic etiam dolore.

+ + + +

Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere.

+ + + +

Oratio me istius philosophi non offendit; Is ita vivebat, ut nulla tam exquisita posset inveniri voluptas, qua non abundaret. Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio. Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Nihilne est in his rebus, quod dignum libero aut indignum esse ducamus? Terram, mihi crede, ea lanx et maria deprimet.

+ + + +

Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt. Suam denique cuique naturam esse ad vivendum ducem. Dicet pro me ipsa virtus nec dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus; Quae tamen a te agetur non melior, quam illae sunt, quas interdum optines. At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate. Illi enim inter se dissentiunt.

+ + + +

Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Aut, Pylades cum sis, dices te esse Orestem, ut moriare pro amico? Nobis aliter videtur, recte secusne, postea; Quid iudicant sensus? Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Fortemne possumus dicere eundem illum Torquatum?

+ + + +

Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis.

+ + + +

Gloriosa ostentatio in constituendo summo bono. Nulla erit controversia. Nemo nostrum istius generis asotos iucunde putat vivere. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Ut pulsi recurrant? Negare non possum.

+ + + +

Quae est igitur causa istarum angustiarum?

+ + + +

Ut non sine causa ex iis memoriae ducta sit disciplina. Faceres tu quidem, Torquate, haec omnia; Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Sedulo, inquam, faciam. Recte, inquit, intellegis. Legimus tamen Diogenem, Antipatrum, Mnesarchum, Panaetium, multos alios in primisque familiarem nostrum Posidonium. Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam;

+ + + +
Heri, inquam, ludis commissis ex urbe profectus veni ad vesperum.
+ + + +

Cupit enim dícere nihil posse ad beatam vitam deesse sapienti. Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. Quae sunt igitur communia vobis cum antiquis, iis sic utamur quasi concessis; Incommoda autem et commoda-ita enim estmata et dustmata appello-communia esse voluerunt, paria noluerunt. Quid me istud rogas? Nam et complectitur verbis, quod vult, et dicit plane, quod intellegam; Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? Potius ergo illa dicantur: turpe esse, viri non esse debilitari dolore, frangi, succumbere. Sit, inquam, tam facilis, quam vultis, comparatio voluptatis, quid de dolore dicemus?

+ + + +

Pauca mutat vel plura sane;

+ + + +

An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Similiter sensus, cum accessit ad naturam, tuetur illam quidem, sed etiam se tuetur; Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles? Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Quis Aristidem non mortuum diligit? Certe non potest.

+ + + +

Ea possunt paria non esse. Quem ad modum quis ambulet, sedeat, qui ductus oris, qui vultus in quoque sit? Si longus, levis; Eodem modo is enim tibi nemo dabit, quod, expetendum sit, id esse laudabile. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. Alterum significari idem, ut si diceretur, officia media omnia aut pleraque servantem vivere. Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose. Quis est enim, in quo sit cupiditas, quin recte cupidus dici possit?

+ + + +

Collige omnia, quae soletis: Praesidium amicorum.

+ + + +

An vero displicuit ea, quae tributa est animi virtutibus tanta praestantia? Quare hoc videndum est, possitne nobis hoc ratio philosophorum dare. Quae contraria sunt his, malane? Oculorum, inquit Plato, est in nobis sensus acerrimus, quibus sapientiam non cernimus. Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur. Iis igitur est difficilius satis facere, qui se Latina scripta dicunt contemnere. Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem. Itaque vides, quo modo loquantur, nova verba fingunt, deserunt usitata.

+ + + +
Non laboro, inquit, de nomine.
+ + + +

Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Si enim ad populum me vocas, eum. Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar?

+ + + +
Quae quo sunt excelsiores, eo dant clariora indicia naturae.
+ + + +

Itaque haec cum illis est dissensio, cum Peripateticis nulla sane. Piso igitur hoc modo, vir optimus tuique, ut scis, amantissimus. Laboro autem non sine causa; Aliter homines, aliter philosophos loqui putas oportere? Quid enim mihi potest esse optatius quam cum Catone, omnium virtutum auctore, de virtutibus disputare? Est, ut dicis, inquam. Collatio igitur ista te nihil iuvat. Sic consequentibus vestris sublatis prima tolluntur. Dolor ergo, id est summum malum, metuetur semper, etiamsi non aderit; Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose.

+ + + +
  • Haec qui audierit, ut ridere non curet, discedet tamen nihilo firmior ad dolorem ferendum, quam venerat.
  • Sic, et quidem diligentius saepiusque ista loquemur inter nos agemusque communiter.
  • Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem.
  • Laelius clamores sofòw ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros.
+ + + +

Nam illud vehementer repugnat, eundem beatum esse et multis malis oppressum. Te enim iudicem aequum puto, modo quae dicat ille bene noris. Similiter sensus, cum accessit ad naturam, tuetur illam quidem, sed etiam se tuetur;

+ + + +
  • Si enim ita est, vide ne facinus facias, cum mori suadeas.
  • Quis Aristidem non mortuum diligit?
  • Quos quidem tibi studiose et diligenter tractandos magnopere censeo.
  • Sin te auctoritas commovebat, nobisne omnibus et Platoni ipsi nescio quem illum anteponebas?
+ + + +

Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt. Nec tamen ille erat sapiens quis enim hoc aut quando aut ubi aut unde? Quorum altera prosunt, nocent altera. An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? Itaque ad tempus ad Pisonem omnes. Disserendi artem nullam habuit. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Erat enim Polemonis. Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam.

+ + + +

Quem ad modum quis ambulet, sedeat, qui ductus oris, qui vultus in quoque sit?

+ + + +

Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest. Sed quid minus probandum quam esse aliquem beatum nec satis beatum? Quem si tenueris, non modo meum Ciceronem, sed etiam me ipsum abducas licebit. Themistocles quidem, cum ei Simonides an quis alius artem memoriae polliceretur, Oblivionis, inquit, mallem. Quorum sine causa fieri nihil putandum est. Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; Quare attendo te studiose et, quaecumque rebus iis, de quibus hic sermo est, nomina inponis, memoriae mando; Hoc non est positum in nostra actione. Quare hoc videndum est, possitne nobis hoc ratio philosophorum dare.

+ + + +

Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. At enim sequor utilitatem. Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Post enim Chrysippum eum non sane est disputatum. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est.

+ + + +

Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat;

+ + + +

Omnis enim est natura diligens sui. Quid ad utilitatem tantae pecuniae? Graecis hoc modicum est: Leonidas, Epaminondas, tres aliqui aut quattuor; Hic ego: Pomponius quidem, inquam, noster iocari videtur, et fortasse suo iure. Modo etiam paulum ad dexteram de via declinavi, ut ad Pericli sepulcrum accederem. Sed ad rem redeamus; In eo enim positum est id, quod dicimus esse expetendum. At quicum ioca seria, ut dicitur, quicum arcana, quicum occulta omnia?

+ + + +

Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Immo vero, inquit, ad beatissime vivendum parum est, ad beate vero satis. Hic quoque suus est de summoque bono dissentiens dici vere Peripateticus non potest. Dolere malum est: in crucem qui agitur, beatus esse non potest. Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata. Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest.

+ + + +

Quod cum accidisset ut alter alterum necopinato videremus, surrexit statim. Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Nam et a te perfici istam disputationem volo, nec tua mihi oratio longa videri potest. Aut haec tibi, Torquate, sunt vituperanda aut patrocinium voluptatis repudiandum. Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? Nescio quo modo praetervolavit oratio. Ita ceterorum sententiis semotis relinquitur non mihi cum Torquato, sed virtuti cum voluptate certatio. Qui enim voluptatem ipsam contemnunt, iis licet dicere se acupenserem maenae non anteponere.

+ + + +

Aliena dixit in physicis nec ea ipsa, quae tibi probarentur; Itaque et manendi in vita et migrandi ratio omnis iis rebus, quas supra dixi, metienda. An quod ita callida est, ut optime possit architectari voluptates? Qui enim voluptatem ipsam contemnunt, iis licet dicere se acupenserem maenae non anteponere.

+ + + +

Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Ex rebus enim timiditas, non ex vocabulis nascitur. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Reguli reiciendam;

+ + + +

+ Illud urgueam, non intellegere eum quid sibi dicendum sit, cum dolorem summum malum esse dixerit. +

+ + + +

Ergo adhuc, quantum equidem intellego, causa non videtur fuisse mutandi nominis.

+ + + +

Hic Speusippus, hic Xenocrates, hic eius auditor Polemo, cuius illa ipsa sessio fuit, quam videmus. Poterat autem inpune; Nec enim ignoras his istud honestum non summum modo, sed etiam, ut tu vis, solum bonum videri. Praeclare hoc quidem. Iam enim adesse poterit. Scientiam pollicentur, quam non erat mirum sapientiae cupido patria esse cariorem. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Restincta enim sitis stabilitatem voluptatis habet, inquit, illa autem voluptas ipsius restinctionis in motu est. At negat Epicurus-hoc enim vestrum lumen estquemquam, qui honeste non vivat, iucunde posse vivere.

+ + + +

Servari enim iustitia nisi a forti viro, nisi a sapiente non potest. Sint modo partes vitae beatae. Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. Et certamen honestum et disputatio splendida! omnis est enim de virtutis dignitate contentio.

+ + + +

Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem.

+ + + +

Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Non potes, nisi retexueris illa. Sit enim idem caecus, debilis. Ne amores quidem sanctos a sapiente alienos esse arbitrantur. Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas?

+ + + +
  • Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur?
  • Quod si ita se habeat, non possit beatam praestare vitam sapientia.
+ + + +
Easdemne res?
+ + + +

Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Cur igitur easdem res, inquam, Peripateticis dicentibus verbum nullum est, quod non intellegatur? Quod dicit Epicurus etiam de voluptate, quae minime sint voluptates, eas obscurari saepe et obrui. Est, ut dicis, inquit; Sed utrum hortandus es nobis, Luci, inquit, an etiam tua sponte propensus es? Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere. Sed videbimus. Est igitur officium eius generis, quod nec in bonis ponatur nec in contrariis. Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus.

+ + + +

Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Prave, nequiter, turpiter cenabat; Quae autem natura suae primae institutionis oblita est? Respondeat totidem verbis. Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Prave, nequiter, turpiter cenabat; Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Dicimus aliquem hilare vivere; Occultum facinus esse potuerit, gaudebit;

+ + + +
+ + + +

Tubulum fuisse, qua illum, cuius is condemnatus est rogatione, P. Profectus in exilium Tubulus statim nec respondere ausus; Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet. Sed nimis multa. Hoc mihi cum tuo fratre convenit. Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia? Quae est igitur causa istarum angustiarum?

+ + + +

Est, ut dicis, inquam. Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit; Cenasti in vita numquam bene, cum omnia in ista Consumis squilla atque acupensere cum decimano. Laboro autem non sine causa; Conferam avum tuum Drusum cum C. Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam? Quid de Pythagora? Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit?

+ + + +

Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus. Mihi vero, inquit, placet agi subtilius et, ut ipse dixisti, pressius. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Scaevola tribunus plebis ferret ad plebem vellentne de ea re quaeri. Ecce aliud simile dissimile. Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit.

+ + + +
Quae cum praeponunt, ut sit aliqua rerum selectio, naturam videntur sequi;
+ + + +

Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. Nihil enim hoc differt. Eaedem enim utilitates poterunt eas labefactare atque pervertere.

+ + + +

+ Nam quod ita positum est, quod dissolutum sit, id esse sine sensu, id eius modi est, ut non satis plane dicat quid sit dissolutum. +

+ + + +

Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit.

+ + + +

Quia voluptatem hanc esse sentiunt omnes, quam sensus accipiens movetur et iucunditate quadam perfunditur. Cum id quoque, ut cupiebat, audivisset, evelli iussit eam, qua erat transfixus, hastam. At cum de plurimis eadem dicit, tum certe de maximis. At iste non dolendi status non vocatur voluptas. Utinam quidem dicerent alium alio beatiorem! Iam ruinas videres. Quod idem cum vestri faciant, non satis magnam tribuunt inventoribus gratiam. Qua igitur re ab deo vincitur, si aeternitate non vincitur? Sic consequentibus vestris sublatis prima tolluntur.

+ + + +

Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam; Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam. Satis est tibi in te, satis in legibus, satis in mediocribus amicitiis praesidii. Quem ad modum quis ambulet, sedeat, qui ductus oris, qui vultus in quoque sit? Licet hic rursus ea commemores, quae optimis verbis ab Epicuro de laude amicitiae dicta sunt. Itaque ab his ordiamur. Dici enim nihil potest verius. Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere. Quis est tam dissimile homini.

+ + + +

Tertium autem omnibus aut maximis rebus iis, quae secundum naturam sint, fruentem vivere. Bonum patria: miserum exilium. Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat? Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. Egone quaeris, inquit, quid sentiam? Facillimum id quidem est, inquam. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Piso, familiaris noster, et alia multa et hoc loco Stoicos irridebat: Quid enim?

+ + + +
  • Quando enim Socrates, qui parens philosophiae iure dici potest, quicquam tale fecit?
  • Ne vitationem quidem doloris ipsam per se quisquam in rebus expetendis putavit, nisi etiam evitare posset.
+ + + +

Omnes enim iucundum motum, quo sensus hilaretur. Illa tamen simplicia, vestra versuta. Id mihi magnum videtur. Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. At enim hic etiam dolore. Eaedem res maneant alio modo. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Sapiens autem semper beatus est et est aliquando in dolore; Haeret in salebra. Ita graviter et severe voluptatem secrevit a bono. Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est?

+ + + +

Quarum ambarum rerum cum medicinam pollicetur, luxuriae licentiam pollicetur. Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. Utrum igitur tibi litteram videor an totas paginas commovere? Praeterea et appetendi et refugiendi et omnino rerum gerendarum initia proficiscuntur aut a voluptate aut a dolore. Nisi autem rerum natura perspecta erit, nullo modo poterimus sensuum iudicia defendere. Sed non sunt in eo genere tantae commoditates corporis tamque productae temporibus tamque multae. Hoc positum in Phaedro a Platone probavit Epicurus sensitque in omni disputatione id fieri oportere. Huius, Lyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ielunior. Sic, et quidem diligentius saepiusque ista loquemur inter nos agemusque communiter.

+ + + +

Ac tamen hic mallet non dolere.

+ + + +

Perturbationes autem nulla naturae vi commoventur, omniaque ea sunt opiniones ac iudicia levitatis. Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur. Nos commodius agimus. Quae duo sunt, unum facit. Tum ille: Tu autem cum ipse tantum librorum habeas, quos hic tandem requiris? Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt. Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias?

+ + + +

Ad corpus diceres pertinere-, sed ea, quae dixi, ad corpusne refers? Quonam, inquit, modo? Utilitatis causa amicitia est quaesita. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Hi autem ponunt illi quidem prima naturae, sed ea seiungunt a finibus et a summa bonorum;

+ + + +

Quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget.

+ + + +

Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam. Sapiens autem semper beatus est et est aliquando in dolore;

+ + + +

Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Hoc non est positum in nostra actione. Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo. Nec vero hoc oratione solum, sed multo magis vita et factis et moribus comprobavit. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Sed potestne rerum maior esse dissensio? Haec dicuntur fortasse ieiunius; Qualem igitur hominem natura inchoavit? Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere?

+ + + +

Ad eas enim res ab Epicuro praecepta dantur. Ita redarguitur ipse a sese, convincunturque scripta eius probitate ipsius ac moribus. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Prioris generis est docilitas, memoria; Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus;

+ + + +
  • Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur.
  • Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora.
  • Quae in controversiam veniunt, de iis, si placet, disseramus.
+ + + +
Rapior illuc, revocat autem Antiochus, nec est praeterea, quem audiamus.
+ + + +

Quibus ego vehementer assentior. Licet hic rursus ea commemores, quae optimis verbis ab Epicuro de laude amicitiae dicta sunt. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Quae sunt igitur communia vobis cum antiquis, iis sic utamur quasi concessis; Mihi enim erit isdem istis fortasse iam utendum. Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis? Si quae forte-possumus. Equidem etiam Epicurum, in physicis quidem, Democriteum puto. Quis negat? Equidem soleo etiam quod uno Graeci, si aliter non possum, idem pluribus verbis exponere.

+ + + +

Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas. Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata. Claudii libidini, qui tum erat summo ne imperio, dederetur. Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus.

+ + + +

Color egregius, integra valitudo, summa gratia, vita denique conferta voluptatum omnium varietate. Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est. Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Luxuriam non reprehendit, modo sit vacua infinita cupiditate et timore. Frater et T. Haec bene dicuntur, nec ego repugno, sed inter sese ipsa pugnant. Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit?

+ + + +

Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere.

+ + + +

Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere. Maximas vero virtutes iacere omnis necesse est voluptate dominante. Nam si amitti vita beata potest, beata esse non potest. Memini vero, inquam; Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est? Satis est tibi in te, satis in legibus, satis in mediocribus amicitiis praesidii.

+ + + +
  • Zenonis est, inquam, hoc Stoici.
  • Cum sciret confestim esse moriendum eamque mortem ardentiore studio peteret, quam Epicurus voluptatem petendam putat.
  • Hoc loco discipulos quaerere videtur, ut, qui asoti esse velint, philosophi ante fiant.
  • Polemoni et iam ante Aristoteli ea prima visa sunt, quae paulo ante dixi.
+ + + +

+ Maximeque eos videre possumus res gestas audire et legere velle, qui a spe gerendi absunt confecti senectute. +

+ + + +

Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias; Nihil sane. Qui est in parvis malis. Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret?

+ + + +

Restatis igitur vos; Ita graviter et severe voluptatem secrevit a bono. Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus. Ecce aliud simile dissimile. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum.

+ + + +

Iubet igitur nos Pythius Apollo noscere nosmet ipsos.

+ + + +

Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis? Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus. Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Cur, nisi quod turpis oratio est? Quam tu ponis in verbis, ego positam in re putabam. Quae cum ita sint, effectum est nihil esse malum, quod turpe non sit.

+ + + +

+ Nam quod ita positum est, quod dissolutum sit, id esse sine sensu, id eius modi est, ut non satis plane dicat quid sit dissolutum. +

+ + + +

Ubi ut eam caperet aut quando? Sin kakan malitiam dixisses, ad aliud nos unum certum vitium consuetudo Latina traduceret. Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? Parvi enim primo ortu sic iacent, tamquam omnino sine animo sint.

+ + + +
  • Quae rursus dum sibi evelli ex ordine nolunt, horridiores evadunt, asperiores, duriores et oratione et moribus.
  • In ipsa enim parum magna vis inest, ut quam optime se habere possit, si nulla cultura adhibeatur.
  • Nec vero intermittunt aut admirationem earum rerum, quae sunt ab antiquis repertae, aut investigationem novarum.
  • Itaque ab his ordiamur.
+ + + +
  • Sic enim censent, oportunitatis esse beate vivere.
  • Fortitudinis quaedam praecepta sunt ac paene leges, quae effeminari virum vetant in dolore.
  • Quod si ita se habeat, non possit beatam praestare vitam sapientia.
  • Quicquid enim a sapientia proficiscitur, id continuo debet expletum esse omnibus suis partibus;
+ + + +

Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Aperiendum est igitur, quid sit voluptas; Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos. Quis est enim, in quo sit cupiditas, quin recte cupidus dici possit? In quo etsi est magnus, tamen nova pleraque et perpauca de moribus. Iam in altera philosophiae parte. De hominibus dici non necesse est.

+ + + +

+ Haec ego non possum dicere non esse hominis quamvis et belli et humani, sapientis vero nullo modo, physici praesertim, quem se ille esse vult, putare ullum esse cuiusquam diem natalem. +

+ + + +
Qualem igitur hominem natura inchoavit?
+ + + +

In qua si nihil est praeter rationem, sit in una virtute finis bonorum; Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum.

+ + + +

Tubulo putas dicere?

+ + + +

Cum sciret confestim esse moriendum eamque mortem ardentiore studio peteret, quam Epicurus voluptatem petendam putat. Ergo illi intellegunt quid Epicurus dicat, ego non intellego? Qui igitur convenit ab alia voluptate dicere naturam proficisci, in alia summum bonum ponere? Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Quo minus animus a se ipse dissidens secumque discordans gustare partem ullam liquidae voluptatis et liberae potest.

+ + + +

Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas;

+ + + +

Certe nihil nisi quod possit ipsum propter se iure laudari. Et quidem, Cato, hanc totam copiam iam Lucullo nostro notam esse oportebit; Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Amicitiae vero locus ubi esse potest aut quis amicus esse cuiquam, quem non ipsum amet propter ipsum? Satis est ad hoc responsum. De ingenio eius in his disputationibus, non de moribus quaeritur. Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta.

+ + + +

Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn.

+ + + +

Illi enim inter se dissentiunt. Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia? Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. Hunc vos beatum; Equidem e Cn. Verum enim diceret, idque Socratem, qui voluptatem nullo loco numerat, audio dicentem, cibi condimentum esse famem, potionis sitim. An haec ab eo non dicuntur? Collatio igitur ista te nihil iuvat. Si stante, hoc natura videlicet vult, salvam esse se, quod concedimus; Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Vidit Homerus probari fabulam non posse, si cantiunculis tantus irretitus vir teneretur; Sensibus enim ornavit ad res percipiendas idoneis, ut nihil aut non multum adiumento ullo ad suam confirmationem indigerent;

+ + + +

Istic sum, inquit. Nullus est igitur cuiusquam dies natalis. Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Nam de isto magna dissensio est. At enim hic etiam dolore. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Ergo infelix una molestia, fellx rursus, cum is ipse anulus in praecordiis piscis inventus est? Sed tamen intellego quid velit.

+ + + +

Sed mehercule pergrata mihi oratio tua. Cur ipse Pythagoras et Aegyptum lustravit et Persarum magos adiit? Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Cur igitur easdem res, inquam, Peripateticis dicentibus verbum nullum est, quod non intellegatur? At modo dixeras nihil in istis rebus esse, quod interesset. Non enim, si malum est dolor, carere eo malo satis est ad bene vivendum. Quaero igitur, quo modo hae tantae commendationes a natura profectae subito a sapientia relictae sint. Huic ego, si negaret quicquam interesse ad beate vivendum quali uteretur victu, concederem, laudarem etiam; Dolere malum est: in crucem qui agitur, beatus esse non potest. Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis.

+ + + +

Quare hoc videndum est, possitne nobis hoc ratio philosophorum dare. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Quod autem satis est, eo quicquid accessit, nimium est; Res enim fortasse verae, certe graves, non ita tractantur, ut debent, sed aliquanto minutius. Si longus, levis; Quis est tam dissimile homini. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum.

+ + + +
Cur, nisi quod turpis oratio est?
+ + + +

Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Non enim in selectione virtus ponenda erat, ut id ipsum, quod erat bonorum ultimum, aliud aliquid adquireret. Sit enim idem caecus, debilis. Expressa vero in iis aetatibus, quae iam confirmatae sunt. At, illa, ut vobis placet, partem quandam tuetur, reliquam deserit. Hoc dixerit potius Ennius: Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo.

+ + + +

Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam;

+ + + +

Virtutis, magnitudinis animi, patientiae, fortitudinis fomentis dolor mitigari solet. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Laboro autem non sine causa; Quod, inquit, quamquam voluptatibus quibusdam est saepe iucundius, tamen expetitur propter voluptatem. An hoc usque quaque, aliter in vita? Sed quot homines, tot sententiae; Ut necesse sit omnium rerum, quae natura vigeant, similem esse finem, non eundem. Confecta res esset. Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio.

+ + + +

Mihi enim erit isdem istis fortasse iam utendum.

+ + + +

Non potes, nisi retexueris illa. In contemplatione et cognitione posita rerum, quae quia deorum erat vitae simillima, sapiente visa est dignissima. Sed virtutem ipsam inchoavit, nihil amplius. Sedulo, inquam, faciam. Nam constitui virtus nullo modo potesti nisi ea, quae sunt prima naturae, ut ad summam pertinentia tenebit. Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum.

+ + + +
  • Magni enim aestimabat pecuniam non modo non contra leges, sed etiam legibus partam.
  • Erit enim mecum, si tecum erit.
  • Ex rebus enim timiditas, non ex vocabulis nascitur.
+ + + +

+ Nihilne te delectat umquam -video, quicum loquar-, te igitur, Torquate, ipsum per se nihil delectat? +

+ + + +

Et quidem iure fortasse, sed tamen non gravissimum est testimonium multitudinis. Non enim quaero quid verum, sed quid cuique dicendum sit. Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam. Haec bene dicuntur, nec ego repugno, sed inter sese ipsa pugnant. Quare attende, quaeso. Tubulo putas dicere? Facillimum id quidem est, inquam.

+ + + +

At quicum ioca seria, ut dicitur, quicum arcana, quicum occulta omnia? Et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat; Virtutibus igitur rectissime mihi videris et ad consuetudinem nostrae orationis vitia posuisse contraria. Quae cum ita sint, effectum est nihil esse malum, quod turpe non sit. Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris; Itaque dicunt nec dubitant: mihi sic usus est, tibi ut opus est facto, fac. Mihi vero, inquit, placet agi subtilius et, ut ipse dixisti, pressius. Sed id ne cogitari quidem potest quale sit, ut non repugnet ipsum sibi. Fieri, inquam, Triari, nullo pacto potest, ut non dicas, quid non probes eius, a quo dissentias. Quippe: habes enim a rhetoribus; Sin aliud quid voles, postea. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro;

+ + + +

+ Scripta sane et multa et polita, sed nescio quo pacto auctoritatem oratio non habet. +

+ + + +
  • Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere.
  • Hic ambiguo ludimur.
  • Ipse Epicurus fortasse redderet, ut Sextus Peducaeus, Sex.
  • Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones.
  • Curium putes loqui, interdum ita laudat, ut quid praeterea sit bonum neget se posse ne suspicari quidem.
  • Et non ex maxima parte de tota iudicabis?
+ + + +
  • Sin laboramus, quis est, qui alienae modum statuat industriae?
  • Facit enim ille duo seiuncta ultima bonorum, quae ut essent vera, coniungi debuerunt;
  • Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis?
  • Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem;
+ + + +

Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Id enim natura desiderat. Septem autem illi non suo, sed populorum suffragio omnium nominati sunt. Ex eorum enim scriptis et institutis cum omnis doctrina liberalis, omnis historia. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Levatio igitur vitiorum magna fit in iis, qui habent ad virtutem progressionis aliquantum. Itaque et manendi in vita et migrandi ratio omnis iis rebus, quas supra dixi, metienda. Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris; Stoici scilicet. Eaedem res maneant alio modo.

+ + + +

Tu quidem reddes; Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus. Idemne potest esse dies saepius, qui semel fuit? Quae contraria sunt his, malane? Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Certe non potest. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere. Portenta haec esse dicit, neque ea ratione ullo modo posse vivi; Quid ergo attinet gloriose loqui, nisi constanter loquare?

+ + + +

Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse?

+ + + +

Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit; Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis; Quid igitur, inquit, eos responsuros putas? Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? Pauca mutat vel plura sane; At Zeno eum non beatum modo, sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est. Nobis aliter videtur, recte secusne, postea; Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. At quicum ioca seria, ut dicitur, quicum arcana, quicum occulta omnia?

+ + + +

Immo alio genere; Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Eam si varietatem diceres, intellegerem, ut etiam non dicente te intellego; Nos cum te, M. Inde igitur, inquit, ordiendum est. Hoc tu nunc in illo probas. Dat enim intervalla et relaxat. At, illa, ut vobis placet, partem quandam tuetur, reliquam deserit.

+ + + +

Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.

+ + + +

Ergo, inquit, tibi Q. Nescio quo modo praetervolavit oratio. Quid de Pythagora? Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Quae quo sunt excelsiores, eo dant clariora indicia naturae. Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Iam enim adesse poterit.

+ + + +

Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Te enim iudicem aequum puto, modo quae dicat ille bene noris. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora. Quae si potest singula consolando levare, universa quo modo sustinebit?

+ + + +
  • Nisi enim id faceret, cur Plato Aegyptum peragravit, ut a sacerdotibus barbaris numeros et caelestia acciperet?
  • Primum quid tu dicis breve?
  • Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret?
  • Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias;
+ + + +

Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Quasi vero aut concedatur in omnibus stultis aeque magna esse vitia, et eadem inbecillitate et inconstantia L. At ego quem huic anteponam non audeo dicere; Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Quos quidem tibi studiose et diligenter tractandos magnopere censeo. Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia. Qui autem esse poteris, nisi te amor ipse ceperit? Res enim se praeclare habebat, et quidem in utraque parte.

+ + + +

Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit.

+ + + +

In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Scaevola tribunus plebis ferret ad plebem vellentne de ea re quaeri. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Res enim se praeclare habebat, et quidem in utraque parte. Qua tu etiam inprudens utebare non numquam. Tanti autem aderant vesicae et torminum morbi, ut nihil ad eorum magnitudinem posset accedere. Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus?

+ + + +

His enim rebus detractis negat se reperire in asotorum vita quod reprehendat. At, si voluptas esset bonum, desideraret. Sint modo partes vitae beatae. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Satisne vobis videor pro meo iure in vestris auribus commentatus?

+ + + +

Vestri haec verecundius, illi fortasse constantius. Reguli reiciendam; Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Est tamen ea secundum naturam multoque nos ad se expetendam magis hortatur quam superiora omnia.

+ + + +

Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn. Tum ille: Tu autem cum ipse tantum librorum habeas, quos hic tandem requiris? Sed ea mala virtuti magnitudine obruebantur. Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Vidit Homerus probari fabulam non posse, si cantiunculis tantus irretitus vir teneretur; Roges enim Aristonem, bonane ei videantur haec: vacuitas doloris, divitiae, valitudo; Est, ut dicis, inquam. Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Quorum altera prosunt, nocent altera. Ita graviter et severe voluptatem secrevit a bono. Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret? Non quam nostram quidem, inquit Pomponius iocans;

+ + + +

Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Ita multa dicunt, quae vix intellegam. Si longus, levis dictata sunt. Si enim ita est, vide ne facinus facias, cum mori suadeas. Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias; Si qua in iis corrigere voluit, deteriora fecit. Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego.

+ + + +
  • Ex eorum enim scriptis et institutis cum omnis doctrina liberalis, omnis historia.
  • Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster?
  • Quae dici eadem de ceteris virtutibus possunt, quarum omnium fundamenta vos in voluptate tamquam in aqua ponitis.
  • Quae est igitur causa istarum angustiarum?
+ + + +

+ Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. +

+ + + +

+ Cuius similitudine perspecta in formarum specie ac dignitate transitum est ad honestatem dictorum atque factorum. +

+ + + +

+ Illi igitur antiqui non tam acute optabiliorem illam vitam putant, praestantiorem, beatiorem, Stoici autem tantum modo praeponendam in seligendo, non quo beatior ea vita sit, sed quod ad naturam accommodatior. +

+ + + +
+ + + +

Tum Torquatus: Prorsus, inquit, assentior; Sed fortuna fortis; Magni enim aestimabat pecuniam non modo non contra leges, sed etiam legibus partam. Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas.

+ + + +

Omnes enim iucundum motum, quo sensus hilaretur. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Quid enim de amicitia statueris utilitatis causa expetenda vides. Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere.

+ + + +

Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Itaque si aut requietem natura non quaereret aut eam posset alia quadam ratione consequi. Primum cur ista res digna odio est, nisi quod est turpis? Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam.

+ + + +
  • Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc.
  • Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus.
  • Ergo instituto veterum, quo etiam Stoici utuntur, hinc capiamus exordium.
  • Mene ergo et Triarium dignos existimas, apud quos turpiter loquare?
  • Atque etiam ad iustitiam colendam, ad tuendas amicitias et reliquas caritates quid natura valeat haec una cognitio potest tradere.
+ + + +

Si stante, hoc natura videlicet vult, salvam esse se, quod concedimus; Cave putes quicquam esse verius. Sed haec in pueris; Sed hoc sane concedamus. Terram, mihi crede, ea lanx et maria deprimet. Sint modo partes vitae beatae. Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam; Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt.

+ + + +

Ipse Epicurus fortasse redderet, ut Sextus Peducaeus, Sex. Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. Itaque sensibus rationem adiunxit et ratione effecta sensus non reliquit. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate. Cui Tubuli nomen odio non est?

+ + + +

Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Nos cum te, M. Qua igitur re ab deo vincitur, si aeternitate non vincitur? Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? A mene tu? Illa tamen simplicia, vestra versuta. Neque enim disputari sine reprehensione nec cum iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit?

+ + + +

Nemo igitur esse beatus potest. Cui Tubuli nomen odio non est? Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. Quae cum praeponunt, ut sit aliqua rerum selectio, naturam videntur sequi; Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas. Quo modo autem philosophus loquitur? Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit.

+ + + +

Pugnant Stoici cum Peripateticis. Non laboro, inquit, de nomine. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. Ita cum ea volunt retinere, quae superiori sententiae conveniunt, in Aristonem incidunt; Id mihi magnum videtur.

+ + + +

Nummus in Croesi divitiis obscuratur, pars est tamen divitiarum.

+ + + +

Tum, Quintus et Pomponius cum idem se velle dixissent, Piso exorsus est. Quae duo sunt, unum facit. Paria sunt igitur. Et quod est munus, quod opus sapientiae? Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Nonne videmus quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio? Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Quamquam ab iis philosophiam et omnes ingenuas disciplinas habemus; Sed tamen est aliquid, quod nobis non liceat, liceat illis.

+ + + +

Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Hoc etsi multimodis reprehendi potest, tamen accipio, quod dant. Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur. Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Callipho ad virtutem nihil adiunxit nisi voluptatem, Diodorus vacuitatem doloris. Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias?

+ + + +
  • Utrum igitur tibi litteram videor an totas paginas commovere?
  • Expressa vero in iis aetatibus, quae iam confirmatae sunt.
  • Cuius etiam illi hortuli propinqui non memoriam solum mihi afferunt, sed ipsum videntur in conspectu meo ponere.
  • Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest.
+ + + +

Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Atqui, inquam, Cato, si istud optinueris, traducas me ad te totum licebit. An hoc usque quaque, aliter in vita? Sed quod proximum fuit non vidit.

+ + + +
  • Tu vero, inquam, ducas licet, si sequetur;
  • Quid iudicant sensus?
  • Etenim nec iustitia nec amicitia esse omnino poterunt, nisi ipsae per se expetuntur.
  • Si enim ad populum me vocas, eum.
  • Nec tamen ille erat sapiens quis enim hoc aut quando aut ubi aut unde?
+ + + +

Id Sextilius factum negabat. Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur.

+ + + +
Rhetorice igitur, inquam, nos mavis quam dialectice disputare?
+ + + +

Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. De hominibus dici non necesse est. Quid ergo attinet dicere: Nihil haberem, quod reprehenderem, si finitas cupiditates haberent? Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Collatio igitur ista te nihil iuvat. Sin aliud quid voles, postea.

+ + + +
  • Ergo adhuc, quantum equidem intellego, causa non videtur fuisse mutandi nominis.
  • Profectus in exilium Tubulus statim nec respondere ausus;
  • Legimus tamen Diogenem, Antipatrum, Mnesarchum, Panaetium, multos alios in primisque familiarem nostrum Posidonium.
  • Verum tamen cum de rebus grandioribus dicas, ipsae res verba rapiunt;
+ + + +

Ut in voluptate sit, qui epuletur, in dolore, qui torqueatur. Quis negat? Hi autem ponunt illi quidem prima naturae, sed ea seiungunt a finibus et a summa bonorum; Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus. Quod autem magnum dolorem brevem, longinquum levem esse dicitis, id non intellego quale sit. Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam? Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Apud imperitos tum illa dicta sunt, aliquid etiam coronae datum; Nos commodius agimus.

+ + + +
  • In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam?
  • Sin te auctoritas commovebat, nobisne omnibus et Platoni ipsi nescio quem illum anteponebas?
  • Sed potestne rerum maior esse dissensio?
  • Stoici scilicet.
  • Cupit enim dícere nihil posse ad beatam vitam deesse sapienti.
+ + + +

Sequitur disserendi ratio cognitioque naturae;

+ + + +

Hos contra singulos dici est melius. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Videmus igitur ut conquiescere ne infantes quidem possint. Sapiens autem semper beatus est et est aliquando in dolore; Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Inde igitur, inquit, ordiendum est.

+ + + +

Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Sed ad illum redeo. Quae duo sunt, unum facit. Nihil acciderat ei, quod nollet, nisi quod anulum, quo delectabatur, in mari abiecerat.

+ + + +
Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem.
+ + + +

At, si voluptas esset bonum, desideraret. Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.

+ + + +
  • Compensabatur, inquit, cum summis doloribus laetitia.
  • Tu vero, inquam, ducas licet, si sequetur;
  • Addidisti ad extremum etiam indoctum fuisse.
  • Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum.
+ + + +

Qui autem esse poteris, nisi te amor ipse ceperit? Si stante, hoc natura videlicet vult, salvam esse se, quod concedimus; An tu me de L. Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum. Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Ostendit pedes et pectus. Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. Nam, ut paulo ante docui, augendae voluptatis finis est doloris omnis amotio. Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus;

+ + + +

+ Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? +

+ + + +

+ Restant Stoici, qui cum a Peripateticis et Academicis omnia transtulissent, nominibus aliis easdem res secuti sunt. +

+ + + +

Et hunc idem dico, inquieta sed ad virtutes et ad vitia nihil interesse.

+ + + +

Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est? Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta. Aperiendum est igitur, quid sit voluptas; Quid autem habent admirationis, cum prope accesseris? Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam. Videsne, ut haec concinant? Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum.

+ + + +

Et hunc idem dico, inquieta sed ad virtutes et ad vitia nihil interesse. Num igitur utiliorem tibi hunc Triarium putas esse posse, quam si tua sint Puteolis granaria? Sed haec ab Antiocho, familiari nostro, dicuntur multo melius et fortius, quam a Stasea dicebantur. Illud quaero, quid ei, qui in voluptate summum bonum ponat, consentaneum sit dicere. Nullum inveniri verbum potest quod magis idem declaret Latine, quod Graece, quam declarat voluptas. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse?

+ + + +

Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam.

+ + + +

Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Summus dolor plures dies manere non potest? At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate. Quis istud possit, inquit, negare?

+ + + +
At iste non dolendi status non vocatur voluptas.
+ + + +

Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum. Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem;

+ + + +

Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Age, inquies, ista parva sunt. Quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget. Et hunc idem dico, inquieta sed ad virtutes et ad vitia nihil interesse. Nos cum te, M. Ut id aliis narrare gestiant?

+ + + +

Septem autem illi non suo, sed populorum suffragio omnium nominati sunt. Videmus igitur ut conquiescere ne infantes quidem possint. Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Illa tamen simplicia, vestra versuta. Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Quae animi affectio suum cuique tribuens atque hanc, quam dico. Item de contrariis, a quibus ad genera formasque generum venerunt. Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn. At hoc in eo M. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Respondeat totidem verbis.

+ + + +

Aliter homines, aliter philosophos loqui putas oportere? Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Si longus, levis dictata sunt. Itaque eos id agere, ut a se dolores, morbos, debilitates repellant. Quid, si non sensus modo ei sit datus, verum etiam animus hominis? Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Non minor, inquit, voluptas percipitur ex vilissimis rebus quam ex pretiosissimis. Poterat autem inpune;

+ + + +
Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus.
+ + + +

Quod quidem nobis non saepe contingit. Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur. Quas enim kakaw Graeci appellant, vitia malo quam malitias nominare. Quodcumque in mentem incideret, et quodcumque tamquam occurreret. At certe gravius.

+ + + +
Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit;
+ + + +

Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet. Sed quoniam et advesperascit et mihi ad villam revertendum est, nunc quidem hactenus; Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas. Sed tamen enitar et, si minus multa mihi occurrent, non fugiam ista popularia. Hoc mihi cum tuo fratre convenit. Quo modo autem philosophus loquitur? Vives, inquit Aristo, magnifice atque praeclare, quod erit cumque visum ages, numquam angere, numquam cupies, numquam timebis. Pauca mutat vel plura sane;

+ + + +

His enim rebus detractis negat se reperire in asotorum vita quod reprehendat. Age sane, inquam. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. His enim rebus detractis negat se reperire in asotorum vita quod reprehendat. Is es profecto tu. Dempta enim aeternitate nihilo beatior Iuppiter quam Epicurus; At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus.

+ + + +

Idque testamento cavebit is, qui nobis quasi oraculum ediderit nihil post mortem ad nos pertinere?

+ + + +

Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Septem autem illi non suo, sed populorum suffragio omnium nominati sunt. Etenim semper illud extra est, quod arte comprehenditur. An est aliquid, quod te sua sponte delectet? Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost; Quis istum dolorem timet?

+ + + +

Compensabatur, inquit, cum summis doloribus laetitia. Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest. Ut alios omittam, hunc appello, quem ille unum secutus est.

+ + + +
  • Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia?
  • Illo enim addito iuste fit recte factum, per se autem hoc ipsum reddere in officio ponitur.
  • Quo igitur, inquit, modo?
  • Sed est forma eius disciplinae, sicut fere ceterarum, triplex: una pars est naturae, disserendi altera, vivendi tertia.
+ + + +

Num igitur dubium est, quin, si in re ipsa nihil peccatur a superioribus, verbis illi commodius utantur? Nihil sane. Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Amicitiam autem adhibendam esse censent, quia sit ex eo genere, quae prosunt. Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Quid paulo ante, inquit, dixerim nonne meministi, cum omnis dolor detractus esset, variari, non augeri voluptatem? Tum Lucius: Mihi vero ista valde probata sunt, quod item fratri puto. Hic nihil fuit, quod quaereremus. Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis.

+ + + +
  • Nam et a te perfici istam disputationem volo, nec tua mihi oratio longa videri potest.
  • Audax negotium, dicerem impudens, nisi hoc institutum postea translatum ad philosophos nostros esset.
  • Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus.
  • Itaque dicunt nec dubitant: mihi sic usus est, tibi ut opus est facto, fac.
  • Illi enim inter se dissentiunt.
  • Sed haec omittamus;
+ + + +
  • Magni enim aestimabat pecuniam non modo non contra leges, sed etiam legibus partam.
  • Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus.
  • Quodsi vultum tibi, si incessum fingeres, quo gravior viderere, non esses tui similis;
+ + + +

Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Quod ea non occurrentia fingunt, vincunt Aristonem; Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Hoc tu nunc in illo probas. Parvi enim primo ortu sic iacent, tamquam omnino sine animo sint. Quid enim de amicitia statueris utilitatis causa expetenda vides. Ergo illi intellegunt quid Epicurus dicat, ego non intellego? Quae qui non vident, nihil umquam magnum ac cognitione dignum amaverunt. Eiuro, inquit adridens, iniquum, hac quidem de re; Sic enim censent, oportunitatis esse beate vivere. An vero displicuit ea, quae tributa est animi virtutibus tanta praestantia?

+ + + +

Mihi quidem Homerus huius modi quiddam vidisse videatur in iis, quae de Sirenum cantibus finxerit. Sic consequentibus vestris sublatis prima tolluntur. Summus dolor plures dies manere non potest? Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas?

+ + + +

+ Nec enim absolvi beata vita sapientis neque ad exitum perduci poterit, si prima quaeque bene ab eo consulta atque facta ipsius oblivione obruentur. +

+ + + +

Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Huius, Lyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ielunior. Si longus, levis; Mene ergo et Triarium dignos existimas, apud quos turpiter loquare? Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere. Eadem fortitudinis ratio reperietur. Si autem id non concedatur, non continuo vita beata tollitur. Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Tubulo putas dicere? Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit.

+ + + +

Quo plebiscito decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio Cn. Utinam quidem dicerent alium alio beatiorem! Iam ruinas videres. Quare si potest esse beatus is, qui est in asperis reiciendisque rebus, potest is quoque esse. Ego vero isti, inquam, permitto. Consequens enim est et post oritur, ut dixi. Sed nimis multa. Videsne, ut haec concinant? Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas? At coluit ipse amicitias.

+ + + +

Re mihi non aeque satisfacit, et quidem locis pluribus.

+ + + +

Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Sed videbimus. Expressa vero in iis aetatibus, quae iam confirmatae sunt. Hoc positum in Phaedro a Platone probavit Epicurus sensitque in omni disputatione id fieri oportere. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. Quae est igitur causa istarum angustiarum? Eam stabilem appellas.

+ + + +

Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Stoici scilicet. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Equidem e Cn.

+ + + +
Facillimum id quidem est, inquam.
+ + + +

Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Respondeat totidem verbis. Ex rebus enim timiditas, non ex vocabulis nascitur. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Prodest, inquit, mihi eo esse animo. Paria sunt igitur. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas. Sed quae tandem ista ratio est? Similiter sensus, cum accessit ad naturam, tuetur illam quidem, sed etiam se tuetur;

+ + + +

Similiter sensus, cum accessit ad naturam, tuetur illam quidem, sed etiam se tuetur;

+ + + +

Est autem etiam actio quaedam corporis, quae motus et status naturae congruentis tenet; Erit enim mecum, si tecum erit. Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Quis istud, quaeso, nesciebat? Ita nemo beato beatior. At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate. Ille incendat? De hominibus dici non necesse est. Dolor ergo, id est summum malum, metuetur semper, etiamsi non aderit;

+ + + +

Quid, si etiam iucunda memoria est praeteritorum malorum?

+ + + +

Hoc enim constituto in philosophia constituta sunt omnia. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn. Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Si quae forte-possumus. Egone quaeris, inquit, quid sentiam? Piso, familiaris noster, et alia multa et hoc loco Stoicos irridebat: Quid enim? Laelius clamores sofòw ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros.

+ + + +
  • Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim.
  • Quod cum ille dixisset et satis disputatum videretur, in oppidum ad Pomponium perreximus omnes.
  • Nam neque virtute retinetur ille in vita, nec iis, qui sine virtute sunt, mors est oppetenda.
  • Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia.
+ + + +
  • Esse enim quam vellet iniquus iustus poterat inpune.
  • Quod cum accidisset ut alter alterum necopinato videremus, surrexit statim.
  • Quae duo sunt, unum facit.
  • Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius.
  • Quod dicit Epicurus etiam de voluptate, quae minime sint voluptates, eas obscurari saepe et obrui.
  • Tantum dico, magis fuisse vestrum agere Epicuri diem natalem, quam illius testamento cavere ut ageretur.
+ + + +

Itaque fecimus. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; Bonum valitudo: miser morbus. Sed ad rem redeamus; Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Sed nimis multa.

+ + + +

Qualem igitur hominem natura inchoavit?

+ + + +
+ + + +

Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur. Si enim, ut mihi quidem videtur, non explet bona naturae voluptas, iure praetermissa est; Praeclare hoc quidem. Theophrastus mediocriterne delectat, cum tractat locos ab Aristotele ante tractatos? Idem etiam dolorem saepe perpetiuntur, ne, si id non faciant, incidant in maiorem. Si longus, levis;

+ + + +

Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Sit enim idem caecus, debilis. Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster? Qua tu etiam inprudens utebare non numquam.

+ + + +
Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio.
+ + + +

At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Bonum liberi: misera orbitas.

+ + + +

Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur. -, sed ut hoc iudicaremus, non esse in iis partem maximam positam beate aut secus vivendi. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. Quo plebiscito decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio Cn.

+ + + +

Velut ego nunc moveor.

+ + + +

Cur haec eadem Democritus? Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Ergo in utroque exercebantur, eaque disciplina effecit tantam illorum utroque in genere dicendi copiam. Idemne, quod iucunde? Et quod est munus, quod opus sapientiae?

+ + + +
  • Hoc Hieronymus summum bonum esse dixit.
  • De malis autem et bonis ab iis animalibus, quae nondum depravata sint, ait optime iudicari.
  • Ex eorum enim scriptis et institutis cum omnis doctrina liberalis, omnis historia.
  • Hoc mihi cum tuo fratre convenit.
  • Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem.
  • Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis.
+ + + +

+ Ex quo intellegitur officium medium quiddam esse, quod neque in bonis ponatur neque in contrariis. +

+ + + +

Dat enim intervalla et relaxat. Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Hoc non est positum in nostra actione. Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? Contineo me ab exemplis. Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Nam quid possumus facere melius? Quod autem ratione actum est, id officium appellamus.

+ + + +
Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur.
+ + + +

Nam quid possumus facere melius? At multis se probavit. Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Oratio me istius philosophi non offendit; Quae in controversiam veniunt, de iis, si placet, disseramus. Haec bene dicuntur, nec ego repugno, sed inter sese ipsa pugnant.

+ + + +

+ Quam ob rem turpe putandum est, non dico dolere-nam id quidem est interdum necesse-, sed saxum illud Lemnium clamore Philocteteo funestare, Quod eiulatu, questu, gemitu, fremitibus Resonando mutum flebiles voces refert. +

+ + + +

+ Et quae per vim oblatum stuprum volontaria morte lueret inventa est et qui interficeret filiam, ne stupraretur. +

+ + + +

Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Te autem hortamur omnes, currentem quidem, ut spero, ut eos, quos novisse vis, imitari etiam velis. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Aliter homines, aliter philosophos loqui putas oportere? Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? Moriatur, inquit. Non enim, si malum est dolor, carere eo malo satis est ad bene vivendum. Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias? Sic, et quidem diligentius saepiusque ista loquemur inter nos agemusque communiter. Sed fortuna fortis; Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes;

+ + + +

Quonam modo? Itaque eos id agere, ut a se dolores, morbos, debilitates repellant. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Ne in odium veniam, si amicum destitero tueri. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas.

+ + + +

Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere. Vulgo enim dicitur: Iucundi acti labores, nec male Euripidesconcludam, si potero, Latine; Isto modo ne improbos quidem, si essent boni viri. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi?

+ + + +
Expressa vero in iis aetatibus, quae iam confirmatae sunt.
+ + + +

Cum ageremus, inquit, vitae beatum et eundem supremum diem, scribebamus haec. Sunt enim quasi prima elementa naturae, quibus ubertas orationis adhiberi vix potest, nec equidem eam cogito consectari. Atque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio. Tamen aberramus a proposito, et, ne longius, prorsus, inquam, Piso, si ista mala sunt, placet. Istic sum, inquit. Quid affers, cur Thorius, cur Caius Postumius, cur omnium horum magister, Orata, non iucundissime vixerit? Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. Quis est tam dissimile homini. Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Atqui eorum nihil est eius generis, ut sit in fine atque extrerno bonorum.

+ + + +

Ut id aliis narrare gestiant? Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret.

+ + + +

Nam si beatus umquam fuisset, beatam vitam usque ad illum a Cyro extructum rogum pertulisset. Si est nihil nisi corpus, summa erunt illa: valitudo, vacuitas doloris, pulchritudo, cetera. Num igitur utiliorem tibi hunc Triarium putas esse posse, quam si tua sint Puteolis granaria? Unum est sine dolore esse, alterum cum voluptate. Quid affers, cur Thorius, cur Caius Postumius, cur omnium horum magister, Orata, non iucundissime vixerit? Cur id non ita fit? Tanti autem aderant vesicae et torminum morbi, ut nihil ad eorum magnitudinem posset accedere.

+ + + +

Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? Dici enim nihil potest verius. At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus. Tum ille: Ain tandem? Simus igitur contenti his. Easdemne res? Sine ea igitur iucunde negat posse se vivere?

+ + + +

Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; Quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere? Quid autem habent admirationis, cum prope accesseris? Res enim fortasse verae, certe graves, non ita tractantur, ut debent, sed aliquanto minutius. Non minor, inquit, voluptas percipitur ex vilissimis rebus quam ex pretiosissimis. Quod cum dixissent, ille contra.

+ + + +

+ Ipse negat, ut ante dixi, luxuriosorum vitam reprehendendam, nisi plane fatui sint, id est nisi aut cupiant aut metuant. +

+ + + +
Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade?
+ + + +

Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Egone quaeris, inquit, quid sentiam? Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. At hoc in eo M. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas. Cur id non ita fit?

+ + + +

Scrupulum, inquam, abeunti; Quippe: habes enim a rhetoribus; Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Quasi vero, inquit, perpetua oratio rhetorum solum, non etiam philosophorum sit. An hoc usque quaque, aliter in vita? Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Itaque fecimus. Quamquam non negatis nos intellegere quid sit voluptas, sed quid ille dicat.

+ + + +
Homines optimi non intellegunt totam rationem everti, si ita res se habeat.
+ + + +

Quippe: habes enim a rhetoribus; Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Compensabatur, inquit, cum summis doloribus laetitia. Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Dolere malum est: in crucem qui agitur, beatus esse non potest. Quis istud possit, inquit, negare?

+ + + +

Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? Tria genera bonorum; Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster? Equidem soleo etiam quod uno Graeci, si aliter non possum, idem pluribus verbis exponere. Est, ut dicis, inquit; Post enim Chrysippum eum non sane est disputatum.

+ + + +
Negabat igitur ullam esse artem, quae ipsa a se proficisceretur;
+ + + +

Mihi quidem Antiochum, quem audis, satis belle videris attendere. Haec igitur Epicuri non probo, inquam. Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos. Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae.

+ + + +

Ea possunt paria non esse. Ita multa dicunt, quae vix intellegam. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis? Ergo instituto veterum, quo etiam Stoici utuntur, hinc capiamus exordium. Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Idemne, quod iucunde? Egone quaeris, inquit, quid sentiam?

+ + + +

Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis? Quid, quod res alia tota est? Sed ne, dum huic obsequor, vobis molestus sim. Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam, quae est moderatio cupiditatum rationi oboediens. Nescio quo modo praetervolavit oratio. Isto modo ne improbos quidem, si essent boni viri. Vide, ne etiam menses! nisi forte eum dicis, qui, simul atque arripuit, interficit. Id enim natura desiderat. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes; Idemque diviserunt naturam hominis in animum et corpus. Quod autem ratione actum est, id officium appellamus.

+ + + +

Dicimus aliquem hilare vivere; Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Semper enim ex eo, quod maximas partes continet latissimeque funditur, tota res appellatur. Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Hoc enim constituto in philosophia constituta sunt omnia. Tu autem inter haec tantam multitudinem hominum interiectam non vides nec laetantium nec dolentium? Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam;

+ + + +

Cur, nisi quod turpis oratio est? Quare ad ea primum, si videtur; Quod autem principium officii quaerunt, melius quam Pyrrho; Dat enim intervalla et relaxat. Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost; Quod si ita se habeat, non possit beatam praestare vitam sapientia.

+ + + +

+ Id autem eius modi est, ut additum ad virtutem auctoritatem videatur habiturum et expleturum cumulate vitam beatam, de quo omnis haec quaestio est. +

+ + + +

Suam denique cuique naturam esse ad vivendum ducem. Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus. Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster? Ut necesse sit omnium rerum, quae natura vigeant, similem esse finem, non eundem. Non risu potius quam oratione eiciendum? Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto.

+ + + +

+ Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem. +

+ + + +

Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis.

+ + + +

Cur haec eadem Democritus? Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Semper enim ex eo, quod maximas partes continet latissimeque funditur, tota res appellatur. Ego vero isti, inquam, permitto. Quis istud possit, inquit, negare? Quam illa ardentis amores excitaret sui! Cur tandem?

+ + + +
Itaque vides, quo modo loquantur, nova verba fingunt, deserunt usitata.
+ + + +

Quo studio cum satiari non possint, omnium ceterarum rerum obliti níhil abiectum, nihil humile cogitant; Sin kakan malitiam dixisses, ad aliud nos unum certum vitium consuetudo Latina traduceret. Nam et a te perfici istam disputationem volo, nec tua mihi oratio longa videri potest. Sapientem locupletat ipsa natura, cuius divitias Epicurus parabiles esse docuit. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Quarum ambarum rerum cum medicinam pollicetur, luxuriae licentiam pollicetur. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.

+ + + +
  • Non modo carum sibi quemque, verum etiam vehementer carum esse?
  • Et quoniam haec deducuntur de corpore quid est cur non recte pulchritudo etiam ipsa propter se expetenda ducatur?
  • Cum autem venissemus in Academiae non sine causa nobilitata spatia, solitudo erat ea, quam volueramus.
+ + + +

+ Itaque omnis honos, omnis admiratio, omne studium ad virtutem et ad eas actiones, quae virtuti sunt consentaneae, refertur, eaque omnia, quae aut ita in animis sunt aut ita geruntur, uno nomine honesta dicuntur. +

+ + + +

Polemoni et iam ante Aristoteli ea prima visa sunt, quae paulo ante dixi. Tum Quintus: Est plane, Piso, ut dicis, inquit. Igitur ne dolorem quidem. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Luxuriam non reprehendit, modo sit vacua infinita cupiditate et timore. Nec enim, dum metuit, iustus est, et certe, si metuere destiterit, non erit; An vero displicuit ea, quae tributa est animi virtutibus tanta praestantia?

+ + + +

Quis est tam dissimile homini. Hoc loco discipulos quaerere videtur, ut, qui asoti esse velint, philosophi ante fiant. In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt. Quid nunc honeste dicit? Quam tu ponis in verbis, ego positam in re putabam.

+ + + +

Oratio me istius philosophi non offendit; Hic ambiguo ludimur. Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Nummus in Croesi divitiis obscuratur, pars est tamen divitiarum. Neutrum vero, inquit ille. Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Parvi enim primo ortu sic iacent, tamquam omnino sine animo sint.

+ + + +

Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Memini me adesse P. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Isto modo ne improbos quidem, si essent boni viri. His singulis copiose responderi solet, sed quae perspicua sunt longa esse non debent. Scrupulum, inquam, abeunti;

+ + + +

Qui enim voluptatem ipsam contemnunt, iis licet dicere se acupenserem maenae non anteponere.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Nec enim, dum metuit, iustus est, et certe, si metuere destiterit, non erit; Partim cursu et peragratione laetantur, congregatione aliae coetum quodam modo civitatis imitantur; Ergo et avarus erit, sed finite, et adulter, verum habebit modum, et luxuriosus eodem modo. Quid enim? Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit;

+ + + +

Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Id est enim, de quo quaerimus. Quid autem habent admirationis, cum prope accesseris? Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Semovenda est igitur voluptas, non solum ut recta sequamini, sed etiam ut loqui deceat frugaliter. Sextilio Rufo, cum is rem ad amicos ita deferret, se esse heredem Q. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Nihilo magis. Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia.

+ + + +

Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est?

+ + + +

Duae sunt enim res quoque, ne tu verba solum putes. Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate. Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia. Poterat autem inpune; Eaedem enim utilitates poterunt eas labefactare atque pervertere.

+ + + +

+ Lege laudationes, Torquate, non eorum, qui sunt ab Homero laudati, non Cyri, non Agesilai, non Aristidi aut Themistocli, non Philippi aut Alexandri, lege nostrorum hominum, lege vestrae familiae; +

+ + + +

Neque enim disputari sine reprehensione nec cum iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest. Hunc vos beatum; Callipho ad virtutem nihil adiunxit nisi voluptatem, Diodorus vacuitatem doloris. Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos. Hoc est non modo cor non habere, sed ne palatum quidem. Ipse Epicurus fortasse redderet, ut Sextus Peducaeus, Sex. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Cum autem negant ea quicquam ad beatam vitam pertinere, rursus naturam relinquunt. Bonum negas esse divitias, praeposìtum esse dicis?

+ + + +

+ An potest, inquit ille, quicquam esse suavius quam nihil dolere? +

+ + + +

Tu quidem reddes; Efficiens dici potest. Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Hic ego: Pomponius quidem, inquam, noster iocari videtur, et fortasse suo iure. A primo, ut opinor, animantium ortu petitur origo summi boni.

+ + + +
  • At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit;
  • Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum.
  • Pisone in eo gymnasio, quod Ptolomaeum vocatur, unaque nobiscum Q.
  • Apud ceteros autem philosophos, qui quaesivit aliquid, tacet;
+ + + +
  • Sextilio Rufo, cum is rem ad amicos ita deferret, se esse heredem Q.
  • Ergo id est convenienter naturae vivere, a natura discedere.
  • Dici enim nihil potest verius.
+ + + +

Putabam equidem satis, inquit, me dixisse. Et quidem Arcesilas tuus, etsi fuit in disserendo pertinacior, tamen noster fuit; Audax negotium, dicerem impudens, nisi hoc institutum postea translatum ad philosophos nostros esset. Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Nam ante Aristippus, et ille melius. Sed tamen intellego quid velit.

+ + + +
  • Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt.
  • Sit hoc ultimum bonorum, quod nunc a me defenditur;
+ + + +
  • Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur.
  • Satisne igitur videor vim verborum tenere, an sum etiam nunc vel Graece loqui vel Latine docendus?
+ + + +

Quid affers, cur Thorius, cur Caius Postumius, cur omnium horum magister, Orata, non iucundissime vixerit? Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Equidem soleo etiam quod uno Graeci, si aliter non possum, idem pluribus verbis exponere.

+ + + +

Nos cum te, M. Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt. Esse enim, nisi eris, non potes. At hoc in eo M. Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Virtutibus igitur rectissime mihi videris et ad consuetudinem nostrae orationis vitia posuisse contraria. Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit;

+ + + +
  • Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus.
  • Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit.
  • Aliter homines, aliter philosophos loqui putas oportere?
  • Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem.
  • Sed non alienum est, quo facilius vis verbi intellegatur, rationem huius verbi faciendi Zenonis exponere.
  • Tum Quintus: Est plane, Piso, ut dicis, inquit.
+ + + +
  • Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas.
  • Tu quidem reddes;
+ + + +
Neque enim disputari sine reprehensione nec cum iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest.
+ + + +

Laboro autem non sine causa; Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret? Aperiendum est igitur, quid sit voluptas; Quid enim possumus hoc agere divinius? Theophrasti igitur, inquit, tibi liber ille placet de beata vita? Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. Quid loquor de nobis, qui ad laudem et ad decus nati, suscepti, instituti sumus? Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus;

+ + + +
  • Huic ego, si negaret quicquam interesse ad beate vivendum quali uteretur victu, concederem, laudarem etiam;
  • Quod praeceptum quia maius erat, quam ut ab homine videretur, idcirco assignatum est deo.
  • Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur?
  • Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint;
  • Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum.
+ + + +

Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis.

+ + + +

Quare conare, quaeso. Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Si longus, levis. Nam et complectitur verbis, quod vult, et dicit plane, quod intellegam; Cupiditates non Epicuri divisione finiebat, sed sua satietate.

+ + + +

Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum.

+ + + +

Idemne, quod iucunde? Sin kakan malitiam dixisses, ad aliud nos unum certum vitium consuetudo Latina traduceret. Ac tamen hic mallet non dolere. Praeclare hoc quidem. Neque enim disputari sine reprehensione nec cum iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest. Quicquid enim a sapientia proficiscitur, id continuo debet expletum esse omnibus suis partibus; Sed ad rem redeamus; Quasi vero, inquit, perpetua oratio rhetorum solum, non etiam philosophorum sit.

+ + + +

Restincta enim sitis stabilitatem voluptatis habet, inquit, illa autem voluptas ipsius restinctionis in motu est. Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Tum Torquatus: Prorsus, inquit, assentior; Quis enim confidit semper sibi illud stabile et firmum permansurum, quod fragile et caducum sit? Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis?

+ + + +

Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. At coluit ipse amicitias. Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt. Tenent mordicus. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere.

+ + + +
Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus.
+ + + +

Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Nam illud vehementer repugnat, eundem beatum esse et multis malis oppressum. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas. Quae duo sunt, unum facit. Conferam avum tuum Drusum cum C.

+ + + +

Primum divisit ineleganter; Sullae consulatum? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Ne amores quidem sanctos a sapiente alienos esse arbitrantur. Ex quo, id quod omnes expetunt, beate vivendi ratio inveniri et comparari potest. In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta.

+ + + +
Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora.
+ + + +

Ergo instituto veterum, quo etiam Stoici utuntur, hinc capiamus exordium. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Tu autem negas fortem esse quemquam posse, qui dolorem malum putet.

+ + + +

Atqui eorum nihil est eius generis, ut sit in fine atque extrerno bonorum. In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt. Deinde prima illa, quae in congressu solemus: Quid tu, inquit, huc? Quod cum ille dixisset et satis disputatum videretur, in oppidum ad Pomponium perreximus omnes. Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere. Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem. Tum ille timide vel potius verecunde: Facio, inquit. Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit?

+ + + +
Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare.
+ + + +

Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem. Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Aut haec tibi, Torquate, sunt vituperanda aut patrocinium voluptatis repudiandum. Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata. Fortitudinis quaedam praecepta sunt ac paene leges, quae effeminari virum vetant in dolore. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas? Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam.

+ + + +

Etenim semper illud extra est, quod arte comprehenditur. Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret? Experiamur igitur, inquit, etsi habet haec Stoicorum ratio difficilius quiddam et obscurius. Virtutis, magnitudinis animi, patientiae, fortitudinis fomentis dolor mitigari solet.

+ + + +
  • Sed quid ages tandem, si utilitas ab amicitia, ut fit saepe, defecerit?
  • Sed nunc, quod agimus;
  • Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest.
  • An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit?
  • Sedulo, inquam, faciam.
+ + + +

Morbo gravissimo affectus, exul, orbus, egens, torqueatur eculeo: quem hunc appellas, Zeno? Ergo instituto veterum, quo etiam Stoici utuntur, hinc capiamus exordium. Restinguet citius, si ardentem acceperit. Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere. Primum Theophrasti, Strato, physicum se voluit; Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Summus dolor plures dies manere non potest? Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose.

+ + + +

Quid ergo attinet gloriose loqui, nisi constanter loquare? Ut id aliis narrare gestiant? Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Graecis hoc modicum est: Leonidas, Epaminondas, tres aliqui aut quattuor; Non enim iam stirpis bonum quaeret, sed animalis. Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Ita graviter et severe voluptatem secrevit a bono. Ostendit pedes et pectus. At modo dixeras nihil in istis rebus esse, quod interesset. Praeclarae mortes sunt imperatoriae; Eam stabilem appellas.

+ + + +
  • Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt.
  • Quae sunt igitur communia vobis cum antiquis, iis sic utamur quasi concessis;
  • Tamen aberramus a proposito, et, ne longius, prorsus, inquam, Piso, si ista mala sunt, placet.
  • Sit hoc ultimum bonorum, quod nunc a me defenditur;
  • Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere?
  • Nam si propter voluptatem, quae est ista laus, quae possit e macello peti?
+ + + +

Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias? Praeclare hoc quidem. Quid ait Aristoteles reliquique Platonis alumni? Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Urgent tamen et nihil remittunt. Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris;

+ + + +

Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam, quae est moderatio cupiditatum rationi oboediens. Ergo id est convenienter naturae vivere, a natura discedere.

+ + + +
Profectus in exilium Tubulus statim nec respondere ausus;
+ + + +

Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet. Semovenda est igitur voluptas, non solum ut recta sequamini, sed etiam ut loqui deceat frugaliter. An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? Quae in controversiam veniunt, de iis, si placet, disseramus. Quid iudicant sensus? Quonam, inquit, modo? Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam?

+ + + +

Scaevolam M. Prodest, inquit, mihi eo esse animo. Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. De quibus cupio scire quid sentias.

+ + + +

Laboro autem non sine causa; Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles? Sedulo, inquam, faciam. Summum a vobis bonum voluptas dicitur. Qui igitur convenit ab alia voluptate dicere naturam proficisci, in alia summum bonum ponere? Illi enim inter se dissentiunt. Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis; Idemque diviserunt naturam hominis in animum et corpus.

+ + + +

Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. Laboro autem non sine causa; Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Falli igitur possumus. Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn. Sit hoc ultimum bonorum, quod nunc a me defenditur; Ne discipulum abducam, times. Prodest, inquit, mihi eo esse animo. Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster?

+ + + +
Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret?
+ + + +

Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Inde igitur, inquit, ordiendum est. Nonne igitur tibi videntur, inquit, mala? Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Est tamen ea secundum naturam multoque nos ad se expetendam magis hortatur quam superiora omnia. Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus;

+ + + +
  • Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit.
  • Sunt enim quasi prima elementa naturae, quibus ubertas orationis adhiberi vix potest, nec equidem eam cogito consectari.
  • At coluit ipse amicitias.
  • Ex quo illud efficitur, qui bene cenent omnis libenter cenare, qui libenter, non continuo bene.
  • Diodorus, eius auditor, adiungit ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris.
+ + + +
+ + + +
Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum.
+ + + +

At Zeno eum non beatum modo, sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est. Quid de Pythagora? Non enim quaero quid verum, sed quid cuique dicendum sit. Sint ista Graecorum; Non ego tecum iam ita iocabor, ut isdem his de rebus, cum L. Cupit enim dícere nihil posse ad beatam vitam deesse sapienti. Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam.

+ + + +

+ Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. +

+ + + +

Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Oratio me istius philosophi non offendit; Totum genus hoc Zeno et qui ab eo sunt aut non potuerunt aut noluerunt, certe reliquerunt. Quacumque enim ingredimur, in aliqua historia vestigium ponimus. Expressa vero in iis aetatibus, quae iam confirmatae sunt. Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt. Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster? Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Que Manilium, ab iisque M. At multis malis affectus.

+ + + +
  • Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris.
  • Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur.
+ + + +

Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus?

+ + + +

Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Si longus, levis dictata sunt. Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Quid Zeno? Nam et a te perfici istam disputationem volo, nec tua mihi oratio longa videri potest. Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas?

+ + + +

Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior;

+ + + +

Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris; At cum de plurimis eadem dicit, tum certe de maximis. Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est. Qua tu etiam inprudens utebare non numquam. Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Multa sunt dicta ab antiquis de contemnendis ac despiciendis rebus humanis; In omni enim arte vel studio vel quavis scientia vel in ipsa virtute optimum quidque rarissimum est. Maximas vero virtutes iacere omnis necesse est voluptate dominante.

+ + + +

Tantum dico, magis fuisse vestrum agere Epicuri diem natalem, quam illius testamento cavere ut ageretur. Si stante, hoc natura videlicet vult, salvam esse se, quod concedimus; Ut in voluptate sit, qui epuletur, in dolore, qui torqueatur. Eaedem res maneant alio modo. Itaque si aut requietem natura non quaereret aut eam posset alia quadam ratione consequi.

+ + + +

In eo enim positum est id, quod dicimus esse expetendum.

+ + + +

Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Sed quanta sit alias, nunc tantum possitne esse tanta. Idemne potest esse dies saepius, qui semel fuit? At Zeno eum non beatum modo, sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est. Nemo nostrum istius generis asotos iucunde putat vivere. Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum.

+ + + +
Efficiens dici potest.
+ + + +

Num igitur eum postea censes anxio animo aut sollicito fuisse? Nec vero pietas adversus deos nec quanta iis gratia debeatur sine explicatione naturae intellegi potest. Quod ea non occurrentia fingunt, vincunt Aristonem; Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Sed tamen enitar et, si minus multa mihi occurrent, non fugiam ista popularia. Isto modo ne improbos quidem, si essent boni viri. Non semper, inquam; Quid interest, nisi quod ego res notas notis verbis appello, illi nomina nova quaerunt, quibus idem dicant? Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Ergo in gubernando nihil, in officio plurimum interest, quo in genere peccetur.

+ + + +
  • Immo istud quidem, inquam, quo loco quidque, nisi iniquum postulo, arbitratu meo.
  • Cur ipse Pythagoras et Aegyptum lustravit et Persarum magos adiit?
  • Ergo illi intellegunt quid Epicurus dicat, ego non intellego?
+ + + +

Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus. Collige omnia, quae soletis: Praesidium amicorum. At ego quem huic anteponam non audeo dicere; Sed hoc sane concedamus. At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Fatebuntur Stoici haec omnia dicta esse praeclare, neque eam causam Zenoni desciscendi fuisse. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate.

+ + + +
Quae duo sunt, unum facit.
+ + + +

Quid sequatur, quid repugnet, vident. Tu autem, si tibi illa probabantur, cur non propriis verbis ea tenebas? Piso, familiaris noster, et alia multa et hoc loco Stoicos irridebat: Quid enim? Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas?

+ + + +

+ Quod et posse fieri intellegimus et saepe etiam videmus, et perspicuum est nihil ad iucunde vivendum reperiri posse, quod coniunctione tali sit aptius. +

+ + + +

Tu autem, si tibi illa probabantur, cur non propriis verbis ea tenebas? Portenta haec esse dicit, neque ea ratione ullo modo posse vivi; Sed hoc sane concedamus. Si alia sentit, inquam, alia loquitur, numquam intellegam quid sentiat; Vestri haec verecundius, illi fortasse constantius. Nam aliquando posse recte fieri dicunt nulla expectata nec quaesita voluptate. A quibus propter discendi cupiditatem videmus ultimas terras esse peragratas. Quid ergo hoc loco intellegit honestum? Propter nos enim illam, non propter eam nosmet ipsos diligimus.

+ + + +

Faceres tu quidem, Torquate, haec omnia;

+ + + +

Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus; Si autem id non concedatur, non continuo vita beata tollitur. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Iam in altera philosophiae parte. At multis malis affectus. Quae cum ita sint, effectum est nihil esse malum, quod turpe non sit.

+ + + +

Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. Nos paucis ad haec additis finem faciamus aliquando; Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. At multis se probavit. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. Satis est ad hoc responsum. Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio.

+ + + +

Quid censes in Latino fore? Superiores tres erant, quae esse possent, quarum est una sola defensa, eaque vehementer. Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam; Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt.

+ + + +
  • Et ais, si una littera commota sit, fore tota ut labet disciplina.
  • Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis.
  • Sic vester sapiens magno aliquo emolumento commotus cicuta, si opus erit, dimicabit.
  • Satisne igitur videor vim verborum tenere, an sum etiam nunc vel Graece loqui vel Latine docendus?
  • Tum Torquatus: Prorsus, inquit, assentior;
  • Sed quoniam et advesperascit et mihi ad villam revertendum est, nunc quidem hactenus;
+ + + +

Nam ista vestra: Si gravis, brevis; Hic Speusippus, hic Xenocrates, hic eius auditor Polemo, cuius illa ipsa sessio fuit, quam videmus. Laboro autem non sine causa; Recte, inquit, intellegis. Quare obscurentur etiam haec, quae secundum naturam esse dicimus, in vita beata;

+ + + +

+ Quibus autem in rebus tanta obscuratio non fit, fieri tamen potest, ut id ipsum, quod interest, non sit magnum. +

+ + + +

Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Et quidem iure fortasse, sed tamen non gravissimum est testimonium multitudinis. Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas. Eadem fortitudinis ratio reperietur. Age, inquies, ista parva sunt. Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Etsi ea quidem, quae adhuc dixisti, quamvis ad aetatem recte isto modo dicerentur.

+ + + +

Ergo id est convenienter naturae vivere, a natura discedere. Si de re disceptari oportet, nulla mihi tecum, Cato, potest esse dissensio. Quod si ita sit, cur opera philosophiae sit danda nescio. Conferam avum tuum Drusum cum C. Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Facile est hoc cernere in primis puerorum aetatulis. Mihi quidem Antiochum, quem audis, satis belle videris attendere. Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. Sed non alienum est, quo facilius vis verbi intellegatur, rationem huius verbi faciendi Zenonis exponere. Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Sit sane ista voluptas.

+ + + +

Quo tandem modo? Quos quidem tibi studiose et diligenter tractandos magnopere censeo. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Sed tamen est aliquid, quod nobis non liceat, liceat illis. Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat? Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Cui Tubuli nomen odio non est? Non est igitur summum malum dolor.

+ + + +

Sed quid ages tandem, si utilitas ab amicitia, ut fit saepe, defecerit?

+ + + +

Quod cum accidisset ut alter alterum necopinato videremus, surrexit statim. Ut non sine causa ex iis memoriae ducta sit disciplina. Satis est tibi in te, satis in legibus, satis in mediocribus amicitiis praesidii. Quo plebiscito decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio Cn. In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus. Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus.

+ + + +

Aeque enim contingit omnibus fidibus, ut incontentae sint.

+ + + +

Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum. Dat enim intervalla et relaxat. Sed tamen enitar et, si minus multa mihi occurrent, non fugiam ista popularia. Scrupulum, inquam, abeunti; Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Et quidem iure fortasse, sed tamen non gravissimum est testimonium multitudinis. Quid, de quo nulla dissensio est? Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? An nisi populari fama? Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam, quae est moderatio cupiditatum rationi oboediens.

+ + + +
  • Nec enim, dum metuit, iustus est, et certe, si metuere destiterit, non erit;
  • Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta.
  • Si enim ita est, vide ne facinus facias, cum mori suadeas.
  • Nec enim ignoras his istud honestum non summum modo, sed etiam, ut tu vis, solum bonum videri.
  • Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere.
  • Idcirco enim non desideraret, quia, quod dolore caret, id in voluptate est.
+ + + +

Nam cui proposito sit conservatio sui, necesse est huic partes quoque sui caras suo genere laudabiles. Mihi quidem Antiochum, quem audis, satis belle videris attendere.

+ + + +

Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. An hoc usque quaque, aliter in vita? Roges enim Aristonem, bonane ei videantur haec: vacuitas doloris, divitiae, valitudo; Nemo igitur esse beatus potest. Efficiens dici potest. Ut scias me intellegere, primum idem esse dico voluptatem, quod ille don. Nihil illinc huc pervenit.

+ + + +
  • Pisone in eo gymnasio, quod Ptolomaeum vocatur, unaque nobiscum Q.
  • Non igitur bene.
+ + + +

Videsne quam sit magna dissensio?

+ + + +

Quare conare, quaeso. Ad corpus diceres pertinere-, sed ea, quae dixi, ad corpusne refers? Qualem igitur hominem natura inchoavit? Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum.

+ + + +

+ Cuius etiam illi hortuli propinqui non memoriam solum mihi afferunt, sed ipsum videntur in conspectu meo ponere. +

+ + + +

Perge porro;

+ + + +

Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Tum Quintus: Est plane, Piso, ut dicis, inquit. Sextilio Rufo, cum is rem ad amicos ita deferret, se esse heredem Q. Etiam beatissimum? Certe nihil nisi quod possit ipsum propter se iure laudari. Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. Dat enim intervalla et relaxat.

+ + + +

+ Restat locus huic disputationi vel maxime necessarius de amicitia, quam, si voluptas summum sit bonum, affirmatis nullam omnino fore. +

+ + + +

Quid dubitas igitur mutare principia naturae?

+ + + +

Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn. Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Age sane, inquam. Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos. Qui potest igitur habitare in beata vita summi mali metus? Dolor ergo, id est summum malum, metuetur semper, etiamsi non aderit; Certe non potest. Graecis hoc modicum est: Leonidas, Epaminondas, tres aliqui aut quattuor;

+ + + +

Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae.

+ + + +

Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Simus igitur contenti his. Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Proclivi currit oratio.

+ + + +
Quid enim tanto opus est instrumento in optimis artibus comparandis?
+ + + +

Ne in odium veniam, si amicum destitero tueri. At quanta conantur! Mundum hunc omnem oppidum esse nostrum! Incendi igitur eos, qui audiunt, vides. Tu vero, inquam, ducas licet, si sequetur; Et nunc quidem quod eam tuetur, ut de vite potissimum loquar, est id extrinsecus; Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt. Sed nimis multa. Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Nam si beatus umquam fuisset, beatam vitam usque ad illum a Cyro extructum rogum pertulisset. Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere.

+ + + +

+ Quae possunt eadem contra Carneadeum illud summum bonum dici, quod is non tam, ut probaret, protulit, quam ut Stoicis, quibuscum bellum gerebat, opponeret. +

+ + + +

Nihil sane. At multis se probavit. Sed est forma eius disciplinae, sicut fere ceterarum, triplex: una pars est naturae, disserendi altera, vivendi tertia. Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Minime id quidem, inquam, alienum, multumque ad ea, quae quaerimus, explicatio tua ista profecerit. Quibusnam praeteritis? Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes;

+ + + +
At quicum ioca seria, ut dicitur, quicum arcana, quicum occulta omnia?
+ + + +

Hoc loco discipulos quaerere videtur, ut, qui asoti esse velint, philosophi ante fiant. Sint ista Graecorum; Si quae forte-possumus. Servari enim iustitia nisi a forti viro, nisi a sapiente non potest. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Piso, familiaris noster, et alia multa et hoc loco Stoicos irridebat: Quid enim?

+ + + +
  • Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum.
  • Sed quae tandem ista ratio est?
  • Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster?
  • Nihil minus, contraque illa hereditate dives ob eamque rem laetus.
+ + + +

+ Quis enim tam inimicus paene nomini Romano est, qui Ennii Medeam aut Antiopam Pacuvii spernat aut reiciat, quod se isdem Euripidis fabulis delectari dicat, Latinas litteras oderit? +

+ + + +

Deinde qui fit, ut ego nesciam, sciant omnes, quicumque Epicurei esse voluerunt? Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. Ergo adhuc, quantum equidem intellego, causa non videtur fuisse mutandi nominis.

+ + + +

Non quam nostram quidem, inquit Pomponius iocans; Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Neque enim disputari sine reprehensione nec cum iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest. Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet.

+ + + +

+ Etsi dedit talem mentem, quae omnem virtutem accipere posset, ingenuitque sine doctrina notitias parvas rerum maximarum et quasi instituit docere et induxit in ea, quae inerant, tamquam elementa virtutis. +

+ + + +

Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Quorum sine causa fieri nihil putandum est. Quis animo aequo videt eum, quem inpure ac flagitiose putet vivere? Unum est sine dolore esse, alterum cum voluptate. Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus; Iam quae corporis sunt, ea nec auctoritatem cum animi partibus, comparandam et cognitionem habent faciliorem.

+ + + +

Gerendus est mos, modo recte sentiat.

+ + + +

Ergo instituto veterum, quo etiam Stoici utuntur, hinc capiamus exordium. Immo vero, inquit, ad beatissime vivendum parum est, ad beate vero satis. Si stante, hoc natura videlicet vult, salvam esse se, quod concedimus; Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Ut pulsi recurrant? Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes; Ne discipulum abducam, times.

+ + + +

Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Tollenda est atque extrahenda radicitus. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas. Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam.

+ + + +
  • Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit;
  • Eodem modo is enim tibi nemo dabit, quod, expetendum sit, id esse laudabile.
  • Quarum ambarum rerum cum medicinam pollicetur, luxuriae licentiam pollicetur.
+ + + +

Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Ne amores quidem sanctos a sapiente alienos esse arbitrantur.

+ + + +

Quis hoc dicit? Quis est enim, in quo sit cupiditas, quin recte cupidus dici possit? Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas. An nisi populari fama? Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit?

+ + + +

Nos commodius agimus.

+ + + +

Hanc in motu voluptatem -sic enim has suaves et quasi dulces voluptates appellat-interdum ita extenuat, ut M. Itaque rursus eadem ratione, qua sum paulo ante usus, haerebitis. Nonne videmus quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est. Deprehensus omnem poenam contemnet. Hoc Hieronymus summum bonum esse dixit.

+ + + +
+ + + +

Compensabatur, inquit, cum summis doloribus laetitia. Urgent tamen et nihil remittunt. Tu vero, inquam, ducas licet, si sequetur; Sedulo, inquam, faciam.

+ + + +

Quis enim confidit semper sibi illud stabile et firmum permansurum, quod fragile et caducum sit?

+ + + +

Audax negotium, dicerem impudens, nisi hoc institutum postea translatum ad philosophos nostros esset. Sin autem eos non probabat, quid attinuit cum iis, quibuscum re concinebat, verbis discrepare? Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias;

+ + + +

Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Qui bonum omne in virtute ponit, is potest dicere perfici beatam vitam perfectione virtutis; Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere. His enim rebus detractis negat se reperire in asotorum vita quod reprehendat. Non quaero, quid dicat, sed quid convenienter possit rationi et sententiae suae dicere. Non enim iam stirpis bonum quaeret, sed animalis.

+ + + +

Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus. Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit. Tum Quintus: Est plane, Piso, ut dicis, inquit. Quid autem habent admirationis, cum prope accesseris? Res enim concurrent contrariae. Satisne vobis videor pro meo iure in vestris auribus commentatus? Videmus in quodam volucrium genere non nulla indicia pietatis, cognitionem, memoriam, in multis etiam desideria videmus. Quis istud possit, inquit, negare?

+ + + +

Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes; Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. De hominibus dici non necesse est. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; At enim sequor utilitatem. Quod autem principium officii quaerunt, melius quam Pyrrho;

+ + + +
  • Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur.
  • Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest.
  • Quod si ita est, sequitur id ipsum, quod te velle video, omnes semper beatos esse sapientes.
  • A villa enim, credo, et: Si ibi te esse scissem, ad te ipse venissem.
+ + + +

Sed potestne rerum maior esse dissensio?

+ + + +

Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur. Rem unam praeclarissimam omnium maximeque laudandam, penitus viderent, quonam gaudio complerentur, cum tantopere eius adumbrata opinione laetentur? Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Atqui eorum nihil est eius generis, ut sit in fine atque extrerno bonorum.

+ + + +

At multis se probavit. Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus. Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum. Cetera illa adhibebat, quibus demptis negat se Epicurus intellegere quid sit bonum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? An vero displicuit ea, quae tributa est animi virtutibus tanta praestantia? Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Nunc vides, quid faciat. Frater et T. Tanti autem aderant vesicae et torminum morbi, ut nihil ad eorum magnitudinem posset accedere.

+ + + +

Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas;

+ + + +

Te enim iudicem aequum puto, modo quae dicat ille bene noris. Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Ita cum ea volunt retinere, quae superiori sententiae conveniunt, in Aristonem incidunt; Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sic, et quidem diligentius saepiusque ista loquemur inter nos agemusque communiter. Hoc est non modo cor non habere, sed ne palatum quidem. Nobis Heracleotes ille Dionysius flagitiose descivisse videtur a Stoicis propter oculorum dolorem.

+ + + +

Tu autem negas fortem esse quemquam posse, qui dolorem malum putet. Portenta haec esse dicit, neque ea ratione ullo modo posse vivi; Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata. Qui autem esse poteris, nisi te amor ipse ceperit? Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam; Cur fortior sit, si illud, quod tute concedis, asperum et vix ferendum putabit? Si stante, hoc natura videlicet vult, salvam esse se, quod concedimus;

+ + + +
+ + + +

+ Quos ille, di inmortales, cum omnes artus ardere viderentur, cruciatus perferebat! nec tamen miser esse, quia summum id malum non erat, tantum modo laboriosus videbatur; +

+ + + +

Intrandum est igitur in rerum naturam et penitus quid ea postulet pervidendum; Vide, quaeso, rectumne sit. Est enim tanti philosophi tamque nobilis audacter sua decreta defendere. Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster? Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Quae sequuntur igitur?

+ + + +
  • Eadem fortitudinis ratio reperietur.
  • Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia?
  • Cum ageremus, inquit, vitae beatum et eundem supremum diem, scribebamus haec.
  • Scientiam pollicentur, quam non erat mirum sapientiae cupido patria esse cariorem.
  • Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat.
  • Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere.
+ diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html b/packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html deleted file mode 100644 index b4e82eec93de2a..00000000000000 --- a/packages/e2e-tests/assets/neuralink.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4259 +0,0 @@ - -

Last month, I got a phone call.

- - - -
- - - -

Okay maybe that’s not exactly how it happened, and maybe those weren’t his exact words. But after learning about the new company Elon Musk was starting, I’ve come to realize that that’s exactly what he’s trying to do.

- - - -

When I wrote about Tesla and SpaceX, I learned that you can only fully wrap your head around certain companies by zooming both way, way in and way, way out. In, on the technical challenges facing the engineers, out on the existential challenges facing our species. In on a snapshot of the world right now, out on the big story of how we got to this moment and what our far future could look like.

- - - -

Not only is Elon’s new venture—Neuralink—the same type of deal, but six weeks after first learning about the company, I’m convinced that it somehow manages to eclipse Tesla and SpaceX in both the boldness of its engineering undertaking and the grandeur of its mission. The other two companies aim to redefine what future humans will do—Neuralink wants to redefine what future humans will be.

- - - -

The mind-bending bigness of Neuralink’s mission, combined with the labyrinth of impossible complexity that is the human brain, made this the hardest set of concepts yet to fully wrap my head around—but it also made it the most exhilarating when, with enough time spent zoomed on both ends, it all finally clicked. I feel like I took a time machine to the future, and I’m here to tell you that it’s even weirder than we expect.

- - - -

But before I can bring you in the time machine to show you what I found, we need to get in our zoom machine—because as I learned the hard way, Elon’s wizard hat plans cannot be properly understood until your head’s in the right place.

- - - -

So wipe your brain clean of what it thinks it knows about itself and its future, put on soft clothes, and let’s jump into the vortex.

- - - -

___________

- - - -

Contents

- - - -

Part 1: The Human Colossus

- - - -

Part 2: The Brain

- - - -

Part 3: Brain-Machine Interfaces

- - - -

Part 4: Neuralink’s Challenge

- - - -

Part 5: The Wizard Era

- - - -

Part 6: The Great Merger

- - - -
Notes key: Type 1 are fun notes for fun facts, extra thoughts, or further explanation. Type 2 are boring notes for sources and citations.
- - - -
- - - -

Part 1: The Human Colossus

- - - -

600 million years ago, no one really did anything, ever.

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

The problem is that no one had any nerves. Without nerves, you can’t move, or think, or process information of any kind. So you just had to kind of exist and wait there until you died.

- - - -

But then came the jellyfish.

- - - -
- - - -

The jellyfish was the first animal to figure out that nerves were an obvious thing to make sure you had, and it had the world’s first nervous system—a nerve net.

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

The jellyfish’s nerve net allowed it to collect important information from the world around it—like where there were objects, predators, or food—and pass that information along, through a big game of telephone, to all parts of its body. Being able to receive and process information meant that the jellyfish could actually react to changes in its environment in order to increase the odds of life going well, rather than just floating aimlessly and hoping for the best.

- - - -

A little later, a new animal came around who had an even cooler idea.

- - - -
- - - -

The flatworm figured out that you could get a lot more done if there was someone in the nervous system who was in charge of everything—a nervous system boss. The boss lived in the flatworm’s head and had a rule that all nerves in the body had to report any new information directly to him. So instead of arranging themselves in a net shape, the flatworm’s nervous system all revolved around a central highway of messenger nerves that would pass messages back and forth between the boss and everyone else:

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

The flatworm’s boss-highway system was the world’s first central nervous system, and the boss in the flatworm’s head was the world’s first brain.

- - - -

The idea of a nervous system boss quickly caught on with others, and soon, there were thousands of species on Earth with brains.

- - - -

As time passed and Earth’s animals started inventing intricate new body systems, the bosses got busier.

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

A little while later came the arrival of mammals. For the Millennials of the Animal Kingdom, life was complicated. Yes, their hearts needed to beat and their lungs needed to breathe, but mammals were about a lot more than survival functions—they were in touch with complex feelings like love, anger, and fear.

- - - -

For the reptilian brain, which had only had to deal with reptiles and other simpler creatures so far, mammals were just…a lot. So a second boss developed in mammals to pair up with the reptilian brain and take care of all of these new needs—the world’s first limbic system.

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

Over the next 100 million years, the lives of mammals grew more and more complex, and one day, the two bosses noticed a new resident in the cockpit with them.

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

What appeared to be a random infant was actually the early version of the neocortex, and though he didn’t say much at first, as evolution gave rise to primates and then great apes and then early hominids, this new boss grew from a baby into a child and eventually into a teenager with his own idea of how things should be run.

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

The new boss’s ideas turned out to be really helpful, and he became the hominid’s go-to boss for things like tool-making, hunting strategy, and cooperation with other hominids.

- - - -

Over the next few million years, the new boss grew older and wiser, and his ideas kept getting better. He figured out how to not be naked. He figured out how to control fire. He learned how to make a spear.

- - - -
- - - -

But his coolest trick was thinking. He turned each human’s head into a little world of its own, making humans the first animal that could think complex thoughts, reason through decisions, and make long-term plans.

- - - -

And then, maybe about 100,000 years ago, he came up with a breakthrough.

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

The human brain had advanced to the point where it could understand that even though the sound “rock” was not itself a rock, it could be used as a symbol of a rock—it was a sound that referred to a rock. The early human had invented language.

- - - -

Soon there were words for all kinds of things, and by 50,000 BC, humans were speaking in full, complex language with each other.

- - - -

The neocortex had turned humans into magicians. Not only had he made the human head a wondrous internal ocean of complex thoughts, his latest breakthrough had found a way to translate those thoughts into a symbolic set of sounds and send them vibrating through the air into the heads of other humans, who could then decode the sounds and absorb the embedded idea into their own internal thought oceans. The human neocortex had been thinking about things for a long time—and he finally had someone to talk about it all with.

- - - -

A neocortex party ensued. Neocortexes—fine—neocortices shared everything with each other—stories from their past, funny jokes they had thought of, opinions they had formed, plans for the future.

- - - -

But most useful was sharing what they had learned. If one human learned through trial and error that a certain type of berry led to 48 hours of your life being run by diarrhea, they could use language to share the hard-earned lesson with the rest of their tribe, like photocopying the lesson and handing it to everyone else. Tribe members would then use language to pass along that lesson to their children, and their children would pass it to their own children. Rather than the same mistake being made again and again by many different people, one person’s “stay away from that berry” wisdom could travel through space and time to protect everyone else from having their bad experience.

- - - -

The same thing would happen when one human figured out a new clever trick. One unusually-intelligent hunter particularly attuned to both star constellations and the annual migration patterns of wildebeest1 herds could share a system he devised that used the night sky to determine exactly how many days remained until the herd would return. Even though very few hunters would have been able to come up with that system on their own, through word-of-mouth, all future hunters in the tribe would now benefit from the ingenuity of one ancestor, with that one hunter’s crowning discovery serving as every future hunter’s starting point of knowledge.

- - - -

And let’s say this knowledge advancement makes the hunting season more efficient, which gives tribe members more time to work on their weapons—which allows one extra-clever hunter a few generations later to discover a method for making lighter, denser spears that can be thrown more accurately. And just like that, every present and future hunter in the tribe hunts with a more effective spear.

- - - -

Language allows the best epiphanies of the very smartest people, through the generations, to accumulate into a little collective tower of tribal knowledge—a “greatest hits” of their ancestors’ best “aha!” moments. Every new generation has this knowledge tower installed in their heads as their starting point in life, leading them to new, even better discoveries that build on what their ancestors learned, as the tribe’s knowledge continues to grow bigger and wiser. Language is the difference between this:

- - - -
minimal tribal knowledge growth before language
- - - -

And this:

- - - -
- - - -

The major trajectory upgrade happens for two reasons. Each generation can learn a lot more new things when they can talk to each other, compare notes, and combine their individual learnings (that’s why the blue bars are so much higher in the second graph). And each generation can successfully pass a higher percentage of their learnings on to the next generation, so knowledge sticks better through time.

- - - -

Knowledge, when shared, becomes like a grand, collective, inter-generational collaboration. Hundreds of generations later, what started as a pro tip about a certain berry to avoid has become an intricate system of planting long rows of the stomach-friendly berry bushes and harvesting them annually. The initial stroke of genius about wildebeest migrations has turned into a system of goat domestication. The spear innovation, through hundreds of incremental tweaks over tens of thousands of years, has become the bow and arrow.

- - - -

Language gives a group of humans a collective intelligence far greater than individual human intelligence and allows each human to benefit from the collective intelligence as if he came up with it all himself. We think of the bow and arrow as a primitive technology, but raise Einstein in the woods with no existing knowledge and tell him to come up with the best hunting device he can, and he won’t be nearly intelligent or skilled or knowledgeable enough to invent the bow and arrow. Only a collective human effort can pull that off.

- - - -

Being able to speak to each other also allowed humans to form complex social structures which, along with advanced technologies like farming and animal domestication, led tribes over time to begin to settle into permanent locations and merge into organized super-tribes. When this happened, each tribe’s tower of accumulated knowledge could be shared with the larger super-tribe, forming a super-tower. Mass cooperation raised the quality of life for everyone, and by 10,000 BC, the first cities had formed.

- - - -

According to Wikipedia, there’s something called Metcalfe’s law, which states that “the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system.” And they include this little chart of old telephones:1

- - - -
- - - -

But the same idea applies to people. Two people can have one conversation. Three people have four unique conversation groups (three different two-person conversations and a fourth conversation between all three as a group). Five people have 26. Twenty people have 1,048,555.

- - - -

So not only did the members of a city benefit from a huge knowledge tower as a foundation, but Metcalfe’s law means that the number of conversation possibilities now skyrocketed to an unprecedented amount of variety. More conversations meant more ideas bumping up against each other, which led to many more discoveries clicking together, and the pace of innovation soared.

- - - -

Humans soon mastered agriculture, which freed many people up to think about all kinds of other ideas, and it wasn’t long before they stumbled upon a new, giant breakthrough: writing.

- - - -

Historians think humans first started writing things down about 5 – 6,000 years ago. Up until that point, the collective knowledge tower was stored only in a network of people’s memories and accessed only through livestream word-of-mouth communication. This system worked in small tribes, but with a vastly larger body of knowledge shared among a vastly larger group of people, memories alone would have had a hard time supporting it all, and most of it would have ended up lost.

- - - -

If language let humans send a thought from one brain to another, writing let them stick a thought onto a physical object, like a stone, where it could live forever. When people began writing on thin sheets of parchment or paper, huge fields of knowledge that would take weeks to be conveyed by word of mouth could be compressed into a book or a scroll you could hold in your hand. The human collective knowledge tower now lived in physical form, neatly organized on the shelves of city libraries and universities.

- - - -

These shelves became humanity’s grand instruction manual on everything. They guided humanity toward new inventions and discoveries, and those would in turn become new books on the shelves, as the grand instruction manual built upon itself. The manual taught us the intricacies of trade and currency, of shipbuilding and architecture, of medicine and astronomy. Each generation began life with a higher floor of knowledge and technology than the last, and progress continued to accelerate.

- - - -

But painstakingly handwritten books were treated like treasures,2 and likely only accessible to the extreme elite (in the mid 15th century, there were only 30,000 booksin all of Europe). And then came another breakthrough: the printing press.

- - - -

In the 15th century, the beardy Johannes Gutenberg came up with a way to create multiple identical copies of the same book, much more quickly and cheaply than ever before. (Or, more accurately, when Gutenberg was born, humanity had already figured out the first 95% of how to invent the printing press, and Gutenberg, with that knowledge as his starting point, invented the last 5%.) (Oh, also, Gutenberg didn’t invent the printing press, the Chinese did a bunch of centuries earlier. Pretty reliable rule is that everything you think was invented somewhere other than China was probably actually invented in China.) Here’s how it worked:

- - - -

It Turns Out Gutenberg Isn’t Actually Impressive Blue Box

- - - -

To prepare to write this blue box, I found this video explaining how Gutenberg’s press worked and was surprised to find myself unimpressed. I always assumed Gutenberg had made some genius machine, but it turns out he just created a bunch of stamps of letters and punctuation and manually arranged them as the page of a book and then put ink on them and pressed a piece of paper onto the letters, and that was one book page. While he had the letters all set up for that page, he’d make a bunch of copies. Then he’d spend forever manually rearranging the stamps (this is the “movable type” part) into the next page, and then do a bunch of copies of that. His first project was 180 copies of the Bible,3which took him and his employees two years.

- - - -

That‘s Gutenberg’s thing? A bunch of stamps? I feel like I could have come up with that pretty easily. Not really clear why it took humanity 5,000 years to go from figuring out how to write to creating a bunch of manual stamps. I guess it’s not that I’m unimpressed with Gutenberg—I’m neutral on Gutenberg, he’s fine—it’s that I’m unimpressed with everyone else.

- - - -

Anyway, despite how disappointing Gutenberg’s press turned out to be, it was a huge leap forward for humanity’s ability to spread information. Over the coming centuries, printing technology rapidly improved, bringing the number of pages a machine could print in an hour from about 25 in Gutenberg’s time4 up 100-fold to 2,400 by the early 19th century.2

- - - -

Mass-produced books allowed information to spread like wildfire, and with books being made increasingly affordable, no longer was education an elite privilege—millions now had access to books, and literacy rates shot upwards. One person’s thoughts could now reach millions of people. The era of mass communication had begun.

- - - -

The avalanche of books allowed knowledge to transcend borders, as the world’s regional knowledge towers finally merged into one species-wide knowledge tower that stretched into the stratosphere.

- - - -

The better we could communicate on a mass scale, the more our species began to function like a single organism, with humanity’s collective knowledge tower as its brain and each individual human brain like a nerve or a muscle fiber in its body. With the era of mass communication upon us, the collective human organism—the Human Colossus—rose into existence.

- - - -
- - - -

With the entire body of collective human knowledge in its brain, the Human Colossus began inventing things no human could have dreamed of inventing on their own—things that would have seemed like absurd science fiction to people only a few generations before.

- - - -

It turned our ox-drawn carts into speedy locomotives and our horse-and-buggies into shiny metal cars. It turned our lanterns into lightbulbs and written letters into telephone calls and factory workers into industrial machines. It sent us soaring through the skies and out into space. It redefined the meaning of “mass communication” by giving us radio and TV, opening up a world where a thought in someone’s head could be beamed instantly into the brains of a billion people.

- - - -

If an individual human’s core motivation is to pass its genes on, which keeps the species going, the forces of macroeconomics make the Human Colossus’s core motivation to create value, which means it tends to want to invent newer and better technology. Every time it does that, it becomes an even better inventor, which means it can invent new stuff even faster.

- - - -

And around the middle of the 20th century, the Human Colossus began working on its most ambitious invention yet.

- - - -

The Colossus had figured out a long time ago that the best way to create value was to invent value-creating machines. Machines were better than humans at doing many kinds of work, which generated a flood of new resources that could be put towards value creation. Perhaps even more importantly, machine labor freed up huge portions of human time and energy—i.e. huge portions of the Colossus itself—to focus on innovation. It had already outsourced the work of our arms to factory machines and the work of our legs to driving machines, and it had done so through the power of its brain—now what if, somehow, it could outsource the work of the brain itself to a machine?

- - - -

The first digital computers sprung up in the 1940s.

- - - -

One kind of brain labor computers could do was the work of information storage—they were remembering machines. But we already knew how to outsource our memories using books, just like we had been outsourcing our leg labor to horseslong before cars provided a far better solution. Computers were simply a memory-outsourcing upgrade.

- - - -

Information-processing was a different story—a type of brain labor we had never figured out how to outsource. The Human Colossus had always had to do all of its own computing. Computers changed that.

- - - -

Factory machines allowed us to outsource a physical process—we put a material in, the machines physically processed it and spit out the results. Computers could do the same thing for information processing. A software program was like a factory machine for information processes.

- - - -

These new information-storage/organizing/processing machines proved to be useful. Computers began to play a central role in the day-to-day operation of companies and governments. By the late 1980s, it was common for individual people to own their own personal brain assistant.

- - - -

Then came another leap.

- - - -

In the early 90s, we taught millions of isolated machine-brains how to communicate with one another. They formed a worldwide computer network, and a new giant was born—the Computer Colossus.

- - - -
- - - -

The Computer Colossus and the great network it formed were like popeye spinach for the Human Colossus.

- - - -

If individual human brains are the nerves and muscle fibers of the Human Colossus, the internet gave the giant its first legit nervous system. Each of its nodes was now interconnected to all of its other nodes, and information could travel through the system with light speed. This made the Human Colossus a faster, more fluid thinker.

- - - -

The internet gave billions of humans instant, free, easily-searchable access to the entire human knowledge tower (which by now stretched past the moon). This made the Human Colossus a smarter, faster learner.

- - - -

And if individual computers had served as brain extensions for individual people, companies, or governments, the Computer Colossus was a brain extension for the entire Human Colossus itself.

- - - -
- - - -

With its first real nervous system, an upgraded brain, and a powerful new tool, the Human Colossus took inventing to a whole new level—and noticing how useful its new computer friend was, it focused a large portion of its efforts on advancing computer technology.

- - - -

It figured out how to make computers faster and cheaper. It made internet faster and wireless. It made computing chips smaller and smaller until there was a powerful computer in everyone’s pocket.

- - - -

Each innovation was like a new truckload of spinach for the Human Colossus.

- - - -

But today, the Human Colossus has its eyes set on an even bigger idea than more spinach. Computers have been a game-changer, allowing humanity to outsource many of its brain-related tasks and better function as a single organism. But there’s one kind of brain labor computers still can’t quite do. Thinking.

- - - -

Computers can compute and organize and run complex software—software that can even learn on its own. But they can’t think in the way humans can. The Human Colossus knows that everything it’s built has originated with its ability to reason creatively and independently—and it knows that the ultimate brain extension tool would be one that can really, actually, legitimately think. It has no idea what it will be like when the Computer Colossus can think for itself—when it one day opens its eyes and becomes a real colossus—but with its core goal to create value and push technology to its limits, the Human Colossus is determined to find out.

- - - -

___________

- - - -

We’ll come back here in a bit. First, we have some learning to do.

- - - -

As we’ve discussed before, knowledge works like a tree. If you try to learn a branch or a leaf of a topic before you have a solid tree trunk foundation of understanding in your head, it won’t work. The branches and leaves will have nothing to stick to, so they’ll fall right out of your head.

- - - -

We’ve established that Elon Musk wants to build a wizard hat for the brain, and understanding why he wants to do that is the key to understanding Neuralink—and to understanding what our future might actually be like.

- - - -

But none of that will make much sense until we really get into the truly mind-blowing concept of what a wizard hat is, what it might be like to wear one, and how we get there from where we are today.

- - - -

The foundation for that discussion is an understanding of what brain-machine interfaces are, how they work, and where the technology is today.

- - - -

Finally, BMIs themselves are just a larger branch—not the tree’s trunk. In order to really understand BMIs and how they work, we need to understand the brain. Getting how the brain works is our tree trunk.

- - - -
- - - -

So we’ll start with the brain, which will prepare us to learn about BMIs, which will teach us about what it’ll take to build a wizard hat, and that’ll set things up for an insane discussion about the future—which will get our heads right where they need to be to wrap themselves around why Elon thinks a wizard hat is such a critical piece of our future. And by the time we reach the end, this whole thing should click into place.

- - - -

Part 2: The Brain

- - - -
- - - -

This post was a nice reminder of why I like working with a brain that looks nice and cute like this:

- - - -
- - - -

Because the real brain is extremely uncute and upsetting-looking. People are gross.

- - - -

But I’ve been living in a shimmery, oozy, blood-vessel-lined Google Images hell for the past month, and now you have to deal with it too. So just settle in.

- - - -

We’ll start outside the head. One thing I will give to biology is that it’s sometimes very satisfying,5 and the brain has some satisfying things going on. The first of which is that there’s a real Russian doll situation going on with your head.

- - - -

You have your hair, and under that is your scalp, and then you think your skull comes next—but it’s actually like 19 things and then your skull:3

- - - -
- - - -

Then below your skull,6 another whole bunch of things are going on before you get to the brain4:

- - - -
- - - -

Your brain has three membranes around it underneath the skull:

- - - -

On the outside, there’s the dura mater (which means “hard mother” in Latin), a firm, rugged, waterproof layer. The dura is flush with the skull. I’ve heard it said that the brain has no pain sensory area, but the dura actually does—it’s about as sensitive as the skin on your face—and pressure on or contusions in the dura often account for people’s bad headaches.

- - - -

Then below that there’s the arachnoid mater (“spider mother”), which is a layer of skin and then an open space with these stretchy-looking fibers. I always thought my brain was just floating aimlessly in my head in some kind of fluid, but actually, the only real space gap between the outside of the brain and the inner wall of the skull is this arachnoid business. Those fibers stabilize the brain in position so it can’t move too much, and they act as a shock absorber when your head bumps into something. This area is filled with spinal fluid, which keeps the brain mostly buoyant, since its density is similar to that of water.

- - - -

Finally you have the pia mater (“soft mother”), a fine, delicate layer of skin that’s fused with the outside of the brain. You know how when you see a brain, it’s always covered with icky blood vessels? Those aren’t actually on the brain’s surface, they’re embedded in the pia. (For the non-squeamish, here’s a video of a professor peeling the pia off of a human brain.)

- - - -

Here’s the full overview, using the head of what looks like probably a pig:

- - - -
- - - -

From the left you have the skin (the pink), then two scalp layers, then the skull, then the dura, arachnoid, and on the far right, just the brain covered by the pia.

- - - -

Once we’ve stripped everything down, we’re left with this silly boy:5

- - - -
- - - -

This ridiculous-looking thing is the most complex known object in the universe—three pounds of what neuroengineer Tim Hanson calls “one of the most information-dense, structured, and self-structuring matter known.”6 All while operating on only 20 watts of power (an equivalently powerful computer runs on 24,000,000 watts).

- - - -

It’s also what MIT professor Polina Anikeeva calls “soft pudding you could scoop with a spoon.” Brain surgeon Ben Rapoport described it to me more scientifically, as “somewhere between pudding and jello.” He explained that if you placed a brain on a table, gravity would make it lose its shape and flatten out a bit, kind of like a jellyfish. We often don’t think of the brain as so smooshy, because it’s normally suspended in water.

- - - -

But this is what we all are. You look in the mirror and see your body and your face and you think that’s you—but that’s really just the machine you’re riding in. What you actually are is a zany-looking ball of jello. I hope that’s okay.

- - - -

And given how weird that is, you can’t really blame Aristotle, or the ancient Egyptians, or many others, for assuming that the brain was somewhat-meaningless “cranial stuffing” (Aristotle believed the heart was the center of intelligence).7

- - - -

Eventually, humans figured out the deal. But only kind of.

- - - -

Professor Krishna Shenoy likens our understanding of the brain to humanity’s grasp on the world map in the early 1500s.

- - - -

Another professor, Jeff Lichtman, is even harsher. He starts off his courses by asking his students the question, “If everything you need to know about the brain is a mile, how far have we walked in this mile?” He says students give answers like three-quarters of a mile, half a mile, a quarter of a mile, etc.—but that he believes the real answer is “about three inches.”8

- - - -
- - - -

A third professor, neuroscientist Moran Cerf, shared with me an old neuroscience saying that points out why trying to master the brain is a bit of a catch-22: “If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t.”

- - - -

Maybe with the help of the great knowledge tower our species is building, we can get there at some point. For now, let’s go through what we do currently know about the jellyfish in our heads—starting with the big picture.

- - - -

The brain, zoomed out

- - - -

Let’s look at the major sections of the brain using a hemisphere cross section. So this is what the brain looks like in your head:

- - - -
- - - -

Now let’s take the brain out of the head and remove the left hemisphere, which gives us a good view of the inside.9

- - - -
- - - -

Neurologist Paul MacLean made a simple diagram that illustrates the basic idea we talked about earlier of the reptile brain coming first in evolution, then being built upon by mammals, and finally being built upon again to give us our brain trifecta.

- - - -
- - - -

Here’s how this essentially maps out on our real brain:

- - - -
- - - -

Let’s take a look at each section:

- - - -

The Reptilian Brain: The Brain Stem (and Cerebellum)

- - - -

This is the most ancient part of our brain:10

- - - -
midbrain, pons, cerebellum, and medulla oblongata
- - - -

That’s the section of our brain cross section above that the frog boss resides over. In fact, a frog’s entire brain is similar to this lower part of our brain. Here’s a real frog brain:11

- - - -
- - - -

When you understand the function of these parts, the fact that they’re ancient makes sense—everything these parts do, frogs and lizards can do. These are the major sections (click any of these spinning images to see a high-res version):

- - - -
- - - -

The medulla oblongata

- - - -

The medulla oblongata really just wants you to not die. It does the thankless tasks of controlling involuntary things like your heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure, along with making you vomit when it thinks you’ve been poisoned.

- - - -
- - - -

The pons

- - - -

The pons’s thing is that it does a little bit of this and a little bit of that. It deals with swallowing, bladder control, facial expressions, chewing, saliva, tears, and posture—really just whatever it’s in the mood for.

- - - -
- - - -

The midbrain

- - - -

The midbrain is dealing with an even bigger identity crisis than the pons. You know a brain part is going through some shit when almost all its functions are already another brain part’s thing. In the case of the midbrain, it deals with vision, hearing, motor control, alertness, temperature control, and a bunch of other things that other people in the brain already do. The rest of the brain doesn’t seem very into the midbrain either, given that they created a ridiculously uneven “forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain” divide that intentionally isolates the midbrain all by itself while everyone else hangs out.12

- - - -
- - - -

One thing I’ll grant the pons and midbrain is that it’s the two of them that control your voluntary eye movement, which is a pretty legit job. So if right now you move your eyes around, that’s you doing something specifically with your pons and midbrain.7

- - - -
- - - -

The cerebellum

- - - -

The odd-looking thing that looks like your brain’s scrotum is your cerebellum (Latin for “little brain”), which makes sure you stay a balanced, coordinated, and normal-moving person. Here’s that rad professor again showing you what a real cerebellum looks like.8

- - - -

The Paleo-Mammalian Brain: The Limbic System

- - - -

Above the brain stem is the limbic system—the part of the brain that makes humans so insane.13

- - - -
limbic system diagram
- - - -

The limbic system is a survival system. A decent rule of thumb is that whenever you’re doing something that your dog might also do—eating, drinking, having sex, fighting, hiding or running away from something scary—your limbic system is probably behind the wheel. Whether it feels like it or not, when you’re doing any of those things, you’re in primitive survival mode.

- - - -

The limbic system is also where your emotions live, and in the end, emotions are also all about survival—they’re the more advanced mechanisms of survival, necessary for animals living in a complex social structure.

- - - -

In other posts, when I refer to your Instant Gratification Monkey, your Social Survival Mammoth, and all your other animals—I’m usually referring to your limbic system. Anytime there’s an internal battle going on in your head, it’s likely that the limbic system’s role is urging you to do the thing you’ll later regret doing.

- - - -

I’m pretty sure that gaining control over your limbic system is both the definition of maturity and the core human struggle. It’s not that we would be better off without our limbic systems—limbic systems are half of what makes us distinctly human, and most of the fun of life is related to emotions and/or fulfilling your animal needs—it’s just that your limbic system doesn’t get that you live in a civilization, and if you let it run your life too much, it’ll quickly ruin your life.

- - - -

Anyway, let’s take a closer look at it. There are a lot of little parts of the limbic system, but we’ll keep it to the biggest celebrities:

- - - -
- - - -

The amygdala

- - - -

The amygdala is kind of an emotional wreck of a brain structure. It deals with anxiety, sadness, and our responses to fear. There are two amygdalae, and oddly, the left one has been shown to be more balanced, sometimes producing happy feelings in addition to the usual angsty ones, while the right one is always in a bad mood.

- - - -
- - - -

The hippocampus

- - - -

Your hippocampus (Greek for “seahorse” because it looks like one) is like a scratch board for memory. When rats start to memorize directions in a maze, the memory gets encoded in their hippocampus—quite literally. Different parts of the rat’s two hippocampi will fire during different parts of the maze, since each section of the maze is stored in its own section of the hippocampus. But if after learning one maze, the rat is given other tasks and is brought back to the original maze a year later, it will have a hard time remembering it, because the hippocampus scratch board has been mostly wiped of the memory so as to free itself up for new memories.

- - - -

The condition in the movie Memento is a real thing—anterograde amnesia—and it’s caused by damage to the hippocampus. Alzheimer’s also starts in the hippocampus before working its way through many parts of the brain, which is why, of the slew of devastating effects of the disease, diminished memory happens first.

- - - -
- - - -

The thalamus

- - - -

In its central position in the brain, the thalamus also serves as a sensory middleman that receives information from your sensory organs and sends them to your cortex for processing. When you’re sleeping, the thalamus goes to sleep with you, which means the sensory middleman is off duty. That’s why in a deep sleep, some sound or light or touch often will not wake you up. If you want to wake someone up who’s in a deep sleep, you have to be aggressive enough to wake their thalamus up.

- - - -

The exception is your sense of smell, which is the one sense that bypasses the thalamus. That’s why smelling salts are used to wake up a passed-out person. While we’re here, cool fact: smell is the function of the olfactory bulb and is the most ancient of the senses. Unlike the other senses, smell is located deep in the limbic system, where it works closely with the hippocampus and amygdala—which is why smell is so closely tied to memory and emotion.

- - - -

The Neo-Mammalian Brain: The Cortex

- - - -

Finally, we arrive at the cortex. The cerebral cortex. The neocortex. The cerebrum. The pallium.

- - - -

The most important part of the whole brain can’t figure out what its name is. Here’s what’s happening:

- - - -

The What the Hell is it Actually Called Blue Box

- - - -

The cerebrum is the whole big top/outside part of the brain but it also technically includes some of the internal parts too.

- - - -

Cortex means “bark” in Latin and is the word used for the outer layer of many organs, not just the brain. The outside of the cerebellum is the cerebellar cortex. And the outside of the cerebrum is the cerebral cortex.Only mammals have cerebral cortices. The equivalent part of the brain in reptiles is called the pallium. 

- - - -

The neocortex is often used interchangeably with “cerebral cortex,” but it’s technically the outer layers of the cerebral cortex that are especially developed in more advanced mammals. The other parts are called the allocortex.

- - - -

In the rest of this post, we’ll be mostly referring to the neocortex but we’ll just call it the cortex, since that’s the least annoying way to do it for everyone.

- - - -

The cortex is in charge of basically everything—processing what you see, hear, and feel, along with language, movement, thinking, planning, and personality.

- - - -

It’s divided into four lobes:14

- - - -
- - - -

It’s pretty unsatisfying to describe what they each do, because they each do so many things and there’s a lot of overlap, but to oversimplify:

- - - -

The frontal lobe (click the words to see a gif) handles your personality, along with a lot of what we think of as “thinking”—reasoning, planning, and executive function. In particular, a lot of your thinking takes place in the front part of the frontal lobe, called the prefrontal cortex—the adult in your head. The prefrontal cortex is the other character in those internal battles that go on in your life. The rational decision-maker trying to get you to do your work. The authentic voice trying to get you to stop worrying so much what others think and just be yourself. The higher being who wishes you’d stop sweating the small stuff.

- - - -

As if that’s not enough to worry about, the frontal lobe is also in charge of your body’s movement. The top strip of the frontal lobe is your primary motor cortex.15

- - - -
- - - -

Then there’s the parietal lobe which, among other things, controls your sense of touch, particularly in the primary somatosensory cortex, the strip right next to the primary motor cortex.16

- - - -
- - - -

The motor and somatosensory cortices are fun because they’re well-mapped. Neuroscientists know exactly which part of each strip connects to each part of your body. Which leads us to the creepiest diagram of this post: the homunculus.

- - - -
- - - -

The homunculus, created by pioneer neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, visually displays how the motor and somatosensory cortices are mapped. The larger the body part in the diagram, the more of the cortex is dedicated to its movement or sense of touch. A couple interesting things about this:

- - - -

First, it’s amazing that more of your brain is dedicated to the movement and feeling of your face and hands than to the rest of your body combined. This makes sense though—you need to make incredibly nuanced facial expressions and your hands need to be unbelievably dexterous, while the rest of your body—your shoulder, your knee, your back—can move and feel things much more crudely. This is why people can play the piano with their fingers but not with their toes.

- - - -

Second, it’s interesting how the two cortices are basically dedicated to the same body parts, in the same proportions. I never really thought about the fact that the same parts of your body you need to have a lot of movement control over tend to also be the most sensitive to touch.

- - - -

Finally, I came across this shit and I’ve been living with it ever since—so now you have to too. A 3-dimensional homunculus man.17

- - - -
- - - -

Moving on—

- - - -

The temporal lobe is where a lot of your memory lives, and being right next to your ears, it’s also the home of your auditory cortex. 

- - - -

Last, at the back of your head is the occipital lobe, which houses your visual cortexand is almost entirely dedicated to vision.

- - - -

Now for a long time, I thought these major lobes were chunks of the brain—like, segments of the whole 3D structure. But actually, the cortex is just the outer twomillimeters of the brain—the thickness of a nickel—and the meat of the space underneath is mostly just wiring.

- - - -

The Why Brains Are So Wrinkly Blue Box

- - - -

As we’ve discussed, the evolution of our brain happened by building outwards, adding newer, fancier features on top of the existing model. But building outwards has its limits, because the need for humans to emerge into the world through someone’s vagina puts a cap on how big our heads could be.9

- - - -

So evolution got innovative. Because the cortex is so thin, it scales by increasing its surface area. That means that by creating lots of folds (including both sides folding down into the gap between the two hemispheres), you can more than triple the area of the brain’s surface without increasing the volume too much. When the brain first develops in the womb, the cortex is smooth—the folds form mostly in the last two months of pregnancy:18

- - - -
- - - -

Cool explainer of how the folds form here.

- - - -
- - - -

If you could take the cortex off the brain, you’d end up with a 2mm-thick sheet with an area of 2,000-2,400cm2—about the size of a 48cm x 48cm (19in x 19in) square.10A dinner napkin. 

- - - -

This napkin is where most of the action in your brain happens—it’s why you can think, move, feel, see, hear, remember, and speak and understand language. Best napkin ever.

- - - -

And remember before when I said that you were a jello ball? Well the you you think of when you think of yourself—it’s really mainly your cortex. Which means you’re actually a napkin.

- - - -

The magic of the folds in increasing the napkin’s size is clear when we put another brain on top of our stripped-off cortex:

- - - -
- - - -

So while it’s not perfect, modern science has a decent understanding of the big picture when it comes to the brain. We also have a decent understanding of the little picture. Let’s check it out:

- - - -

The brain, zoomed in

- - - -

Even though we figured out that the brain was the seat of our intelligence a long time ago, it wasn’t until pretty recently that science understood what the brain was made of. Scientists knew that the body was made of cells, but in the late 19th century, Italian physician Camillo Golgi figured out how to use a staining method to see what brain cells actually looked like. The result was surprising:

- - - -
- - - -

That wasn’t what a cell was supposed to look like. Without quite realizing it yet,11Golgi had discovered the neuron.

- - - -

Scientists realized that the neuron was the core unit in the vast communication network that makes up the brains and nervous systems of nearly all animals.

- - - -

But it wasn’t until the 1950s that scientists worked out how neurons communicate with each other.

- - - -

An axon, the long strand of a neuron that carries information, is normally microscopic in diameter—too small for scientists to test on until recently. But in the 1930s, English zoologist J. Z. Young discovered that the squid, randomly, could change everything for our understanding, because squids have an unusually huge axon in their bodies that could be experimented on. A couple decades later, using the squid’s giant axon, scientists Alan Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley definitively figured out how neurons send information: the action potential. Here’s how it works.

- - - -

So there are a lot of different kinds of neurons—19

- - - -
- - - -

—but for simplicity, we’ll discuss the cliché textbook neuron—a pyramidal cell, like one you might find in your motor cortex. To make a neuron diagram, we can start with a guy:

- - - -
- - - -

And then if we just give him a few extra legs, some hair, take his arms off, and stretch him out—we have a neuron.

- - - -
- - - -

And let’s add in a few more neurons.

- - - -
- - - -

Rather than launch into the full, detailed explanation for how action potentials work—which involves a lot of unnecessary and uninteresting technical information you already dealt with in 9th-grade biology—I’ll link to this great Khan Academy explainer article for those who want the full story. We’ll go through the very basic ideas that are relevant for our purposes.

- - - -

So our guy’s body stem—the neuron’s axon—has a negative “resting potential,” which means that when it’s at rest, its electrical charge is slightly negative. At all times, a bunch of people’s feet keep touching12 our guy’s hair—the neuron’s dendrites—whether he likes it or not. Their feet drop chemicals called neurotransmitters13 onto his hair—which pass through his head (the cell body, orsoma) and, depending on the chemical, raise or lower the charge in his body a little bit. It’s a little unpleasant for our neuron guy, but not a huge deal—and nothing else happens.

- - - -
- - - -

But if enough chemicals touch his hair to raise his charge over a certain point—the neuron’s “threshold potential”—then it triggers an action potential, and our guy is electrocuted.

- - - -
- - - -

This is a binary situation—either nothing happens to our guy, or he’s fully electrocuted. He can’t be kind of electrocuted, or extra electrocuted—he’s either not electrocuted at all, or he’s fully electrocuted to the exact same degree every time.

- - - -

When this happens, a pulse of electricity (in the form of a brief reversal of his body’s normal charge from negative to positive and then rapidly back down to his normal negative) zips down his body (the axon) and into his feet—the neuron’s axon terminals—which themselves touch a bunch of other people’s hair (the points of contact are called synapses). When the action potential reaches his feet, it causes them to release chemicals onto the people’s hair they’re touching, which may or may not cause those people to be electrocuted, just like he was.

- - - -
- - - -

This is usually how info moves through the nervous system—chemical information sent in the tiny gap between neurons triggers electrical information to pass through the neuron—but sometimes, in situations when the body needs to move a signal extra quickly, neuron-to-neuron connections can themselves be electric.

- - - -

Action potentials move at between 1 and 100 meters/second. Part of the reason for this large range is that another type of cell in the nervous system—a Schwann cell—acts like a super nurturing grandmother and constantly wraps some types of axons in layers of fat blankets called myelin sheath. Like this (takes a second to start):20

- - - -
- - - -

On top of its protection and insulation benefits, the myelin sheath is a major factor in the pace of communication—action potentials travel much faster through axons when they’re covered in myelin sheath:1421

- - - -
- - - -

One nice example of the speed difference created by myelin: You know how when you stub your toe, your body gives you that one second of reflection time to think about what you just did and what you’re about to feel, before the pain actually kicks in? What’s happening is you feel both the sensation of your toe hitting against something and the sharp part of the pain right away, because sharp pain information is sent to the brain via types of axons that are myelinated. It takes a second or two for the dull pain to kick in because dull pain is sent via unmyelinated“C fibers”—at only around one meter/second.

- - - -

Neural Networks

- - - -

Neurons are similar to computer transistors in one way—they also transmit information in the binary language of 1’s (action potential firing) and 0’s (no action potential firing). But unlike computer transistors, the brain’s neurons are constantly changing.

- - - -

You know how sometimes you learn a new skill and you get pretty good at it, and then the next day you try again and you suck again? That’s because what made you get good at the skill the day before was adjustments to the amount or concentration of the chemicals in the signaling between neurons. Repetition caused chemicals to adjust, which helped you improve, but the next day the chemicals were back to normal so the improvement went away.

- - - -

But then if you keep practicing, you eventually get good at something in a lasting way. What’s happened is you’ve told the brain, “this isn’t just something I need in a one-off way,” and the brain’s neural network has responded by making structural changes to itself that last. Neurons have shifted shape and location and strengthened or weakened various connections in a way that has built a hard-wired set of pathways that know how to do that skill.

- - - -

Neurons’ ability to alter themselves chemically, structurally, and even functionally, allow your brain’s neural network to optimize itself to the external world—a phenomenon called neuroplasticity. Babies’ brains are the most neuroplastic of all. When a baby is born, its brain has no idea if it needs to accommodate the life of a medieval warrior who will need to become incredibly adept at sword-fighting, a 17th-century musician who will need to develop fine-tuned muscle memory for playing the harpsichord, or a modern-day intellectual who will need to store and organize a tremendous amount of information and master a complex social fabric—but the baby’s brain is ready to shape itself to handle whatever life has in store for it.

- - - -

Babies are the neuroplasticity superstars, but neuroplasticity remains throughout our whole lives, which is why humans can grow and change and learn new things. And it’s why we can form new habits and break old ones—your habits are reflective of the existing circuitry in your brain. If you want to change your habits, you need to exert a lot of willpower to override your brain’s neural pathways, but if you can keep it going long enough, your brain will eventually get the hint and alter those pathways, and the new behavior will stop requiring willpower. Your brain will have physically built the changes into a new habit.

- - - -

Altogether, there are around 100 billion neurons in the brain that make up this unthinkably vast network—similar to the number of stars in the Milky Way and over 10 times the number of people in the world. Around 15 – 20 billion of those neurons are in the cortex, and the rest are in the animal parts of your brain (surprisingly, the random cerebellum has more than three times as many neurons as the cortex).

- - - -

Let’s zoom back out and look at another cross section of the brain—this time cut not from front to back to show a single hemisphere, but from side to side:22

- - - -
- - - -

Brain material can be divided into what’s called gray matter and white matter.Gray matter actually looks darker in color and is made up of the cell bodies (somas) of the brain’s neurons and their thicket of dendrites and axons—along with a lot of other stuff. White matter is made up primarily of wiring—axons carrying information from somas to other somas or to destinations in the body. White matter is white because those axons are usually wrapped in myelin sheath, which is fatty white tissue.

- - - -

There are two main regions of gray matter in the brain—the internal cluster of limbic system and brain stem parts we discussed above, and the nickel-thick layer of cortex around the outside. The big chunk of white matter in between is made up mostly of the axons of cortical neurons. The cortex is like a great command center, and it beams many of its orders out through the mass of axons making up the white matter beneath it.

- - - -

The coolest illustration of this concept that I’ve come across15 is a beautiful set of artistic representations done by Dr. Greg A. Dunn and Dr. Brian Edwards. Check out the distinct difference between the structure of the outer layer of gray matter cortex and the white matter underneath it (click to view in high res):

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

Those cortical axons might be taking information to another part of the cortex, to the lower part of the brain, or through the spinal cord—the nervous system’s superhighway—and into the rest of the body.16

- - - -

Let’s look at the whole nervous system:23

- - - -
- - - -

The nervous system is divided into two parts: the central nervous system—your brain and spinal cord—and the peripheral nervous system—made up of the neurons that radiate outwards from the spinal cord into the rest of the body.

- - - -

Most types of neurons are interneurons—neurons that communicate with other neurons. When you think, it’s a bunch of interneurons talking to each other. Interneurons are mostly contained to the brain.

- - - -

The two other kinds of neurons are sensory neurons and motor neurons—those are the neurons that head down into your spinal cord and make up the peripheral nervous system. These neurons can be up to a meter long.17 Here’s a typical structure of each type:24

- - - -
- - - -

Remember our two strips?25

- - - -
- - - -

These strips are where your peripheral nervous system originates. The axons of sensory neurons head down from the somatosensory cortex, through the brain’s white matter, and into the spinal cord (which is just a massive bundle of axons). From the spinal cord, they head out to all parts of your body. Each part of your skin is lined with nerves that originate in the somatosensory cortex. A nerve, by the way, is a few bundles of axons wrapped together in a little cord. Here’s a nerve up close:26

- - - -
- - - -

The nerve is the whole thing circled in purple, and those four big circles inside are bundles of many axons (here’s a helpful cartoony drawing).

- - - -

So if a fly lands on your arm, here’s what happens:

- - - -

The fly touches your skin and stimulates a bunch of sensory nerves. The axon terminals in the nerves have a little fit and start action potential-ing, sending the signal up to the brain to tell on the fly. The signals head into the spinal cord and up to the somas in the somatosensory cortex.18 The somatosensory cortex then taps the motor cortex on the shoulder and tells it that there’s a fly on your arm and that it needs to deal with it (lazy). The particular somas in your motor cortex that connect to the muscles in your arm then start action potential-ing, sending the signals back into the spinal cord and then out to the muscles of the arm. The axon terminals at the end of those neurons stimulate your arm muscles, which constrict to shake your arm to get the fly off (by now the fly has already thrown up on your arm), and the fly (whose nervous system now goes through its own whole thing) flies off.

- - - -

Then your amygdala looks over and realizes there was a bug on you, and it tells your motor cortex to jump embarrassingly, and if it’s a spider instead of a fly, it also tells your vocal cords to yell out involuntarily and ruin your reputation.

- - - -

So it seems so far like we do kind of actually understand the brain, right? But then why did that professor ask that question—If everything you need to know about the brain is a mile, how far have we walked in this mile?—and say the answer was three inches?

- - - -

Well here’s the thing.

- - - -

You know how we totally get how an individual computer sends an email and we totally understand the broad concepts of the internet, like how many people are on it and what the biggest sites are and what the major trends are—but all the stuff in the middle—the inner workings of the internet—are pretty confusing?

- - - -

And you know how economists can tell you all about how an individual consumer functions and they can also tell you about the major concepts of macroeconomics and the overarching forces at play—but no one can really tell you all the ins and outs of how the economy works or predict what will happen with the economy next month or next year?

- - - -

The brain is kind of like those things. We get the little picture—we know all about how a neuron fires. And we get the big picture—we know how many neurons are in the brain and what the major lobes and structures control and how much energy the whole system uses. But the stuff in between—all that middle stuff about how each part of the brain actually does its thing?

- - - -

Yeah we don’t get that.

- - - -

What really makes it clear how confounded we are is hearing a neuroscientist talk about the parts of the brain we understand best.

- - - -

Like the visual cortex. We understand the visual cortex pretty well because it’s easy to map.

- - - -

Research scientist Paul Merolla described it to me:

- - - -

The visual cortex has very nice anatomical function and structure. When you look at it, you literally see a map of the world. So when something in your visual field is in a certain region of space, you’ll see a little patch in the cortex that represents that region of space, and it’ll light up. And as that thing moves over, there’s a topographic mapping where the neighboring cells will represent that. It’s almost like having Cartesian coordinates of the real world that will map to polar coordinates in the visual cortex. And you can literally trace from your retina, through your thalamus, to your visual cortex, and you’ll see an actual mapping from this point in space to this point in the visual cortex.

- - - -

So far so good. But then he went on:

- - - -

So that mapping is really useful if you want to interact with certain parts of the visual cortex, but there’s many regions of vision, and as you get deeper into the visual cortex, it becomes a little bit more nebulous, and this topographic representation starts to break down. … There’s all these levels of things going on in the brain, and visual perception is a great example of that. We look at the world, and there’s just this physical 3D world out there—like you look at a cup, and you just see a cup—but what your eyes are seeing is really just a bunch of pixels. And when you look in the visual cortex, you see that there are roughly 20-40 different maps. V1 is the first area, where it’s tracking little edges and colors and things like that. And there’s other areas looking at more complicated objects, and there’s all these different visual representations on the surface of your brain, that you can see. And somehow all of that information is being bound together in this information stream that’s being coded in a way that makes you believe you’re just seeing a simple object.

- - - -

And the motor cortex, another one of the best-understood areas of the brain, might be even more difficult to understand on a granular level than the visual cortex. Because even though we know which general areas of the motor cortex map to which areas of the body, the individual neurons in these motor cortex areas aren’ttopographically set up, and the specific way they work together to create movement in the body is anything but clear. Here’s Paul again:

- - - -

The neural chatter in everyone’s arm movement part of the brain is a little bit different—it’s not like the neurons speak English and say “move”—it’s a pattern of electrical activity, and in everyone it’s a little bit different. … And you want to be able to seamlessly understand that it means “Move the arm this way” or “move the arm toward the target” or “move the arm to the left, move it up, grasp, grasp with a certain kind of force, reach with a certain speed,” and so on. We don’t think about these things when we move—it just happens seamlessly. So each brain has a unique code with which it talks to the muscles in the arm and hand.

- - - -

The neuroplasticity that makes our brains so useful to us also makes them incredibly difficult to understand—because the way each of our brains works is based on how that brain has shaped itself, based on its particular environment and life experience.

- - - -

And again, those are the areas of the brain we understand the best. “When it comes to more sophisticated computation, like language, memory, mathematics,” one expert told me, “we really don’t understand how the brain works.” He lamented that, for example, the concept of one’s mother is coded in a different way, and in different parts of the brain, for every person. And in the frontal lobe—you know, that part of the brain where you really live—”there’s no topography at all.”

- - - -

But somehow, none of this is why building effective brain-computer interfaces is so hard, or so daunting. What makes BMIs so hard is that the engineering challenges are monumental. It’s physically working with the brain that makes BMIs among the hardest engineering endeavors in the world.

- - - -

So with our brain background tree trunk built, we’re ready to head up to our first branch.

- - - -

Part 3: Brain-Machine Interfaces

- - - -
- - - -

Let’s zip back in time for a second to 50,000 BC and kidnap someone and bring him back here to 2017.

- - - -
- - - -

This is Bok. Bok, we’re really thankful that you and your people invented language.

- - - -
- - - -

As a way to thank you, we want to show you all the amazing things we were able to build because of your invention.

- - - -
- - - -

Alright, first let’s take Bok on a plane, and into a submarine, and to the top of the Burj Khalifa. Now we’ll show him a telescope and a TV and an iPhone. And now we’ll let him play around on the internet for a while.

- - - -

Okay that was fun. How’d it go, Bok?

- - - -
- - - -

Yeah we figured that you’d be pretty surprised. To wrap up, let’s show him how we communicate with each other.

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

Bok would be shocked to learn that despite all the magical powers humans have gained as a result of having learned to speak to each other, when it comes to actually speaking to each other, we’re no more magical than the people of his day. When two people are together and talking, they’re using 50,000-year-old technology.

- - - -

Bok might also be surprised that in a world run by fancy machines, the people who made all the machines are walking around with the same biological bodies that Bok and his friends walk around with. How can that be?

- - - -
- - - -

This is why brain-machine interfaces—a subset of the broader field of neural engineering, which itself is a subset of biotechnology—are such a tantalizing new industry. We’ve conquered the world many times over with our technology, but when it comes to our brains—our most central tool—the tech world has for the most part been too daunted to dive in.

- - - -

That’s why we still communicate using technology Bok invented, it’s why I’m typing this sentence at about a 20th of the speed that I’m thinking it, and it’s why brain-related ailments still leave so many lives badly impaired or lost altogether.

- - - -

But 50,000 years after the brain’s great “aha!” moment, that may finally be about to change. The brain’s next great frontier may be itself.

- - - -

___________

- - - -

There are many kinds of potential brain-machine interface (sometimes called a brain-computer interface) that will serve many different functions. But everyone working on BMIs is grappling with either one or both of these two questions:

- - - -

1) How do I get the right information out of the brain?

- - - -

2) How do I send the right information into the brain?

- - - -

The first is about capturing the brain’s output—it’s about recording what neurons are saying.

- - - -

The second is about inputting information into the brain’s natural flow or altering that natural flow in some other way—it’s about stimulating neurons.

- - - -

These two things are happening naturally in your brain all the time. Right now, your eyes are making a specific set of horizontal movements that allow you to read this sentence. That’s the brain’s neurons outputting information to a machine (your eyes) and the machine receiving the command and responding. And as your eyes move in just the right way, the photons from the screen are entering your retinas and stimulating neurons in the occipital lobe of your cortex in a way that allows the image of the words to enter your mind’s eye. That image then stimulates neurons in another part of your brain that allows you to process the information embedded in the image and absorb the sentence’s meaning.

- - - -

Inputting and outputting information is what the brain’s neurons do. All the BMI industry wants to do is get in on the action.

- - - -

At first, this seems like maybe not that difficult a task? The brain is just a jello ball, right? And the cortex—the part of the brain in which we want to do most of our recording and stimulating—is just a napkin, located conveniently right on the outside of the brain where it can be easily accessed. Inside the cortex are around 20 billion firing neurons—20 billion oozy little transistors that if we can just learn to work with, will give us an entirely new level of control over our life, our health, and the world. Can’t we figure that out? Neurons are small, but we know how to split an atom. A neuron’s diameter is about 100,000 times as large as an atom’s—if an atom were a marble, a neuron would be a kilometer across—so we should probably be able to handle the smallness. Right?

- - - -

So what’s the issue here?

- - - -

Well on one hand, there’s something to that line of thinking, in that because of those facts, this is an industry where immense progress can happen. We can do this.

- - - -

But only when you understand what actually goes on in the brain do you realize why this is probably the hardest human endeavor in the world.

- - - -

So before we talk about BMIs themselves, we need to take a closer look at what the people trying to make BMIs are dealing with here. I find that the best way to illustrate things is to scale the brain up by exactly 1,000X and look at what’s going on.

- - - -

Remember our cortex-is-a-napkin demonstration earlier?

- - - -
- - - -

Well if we scale that up by 1,000X, the cortex napkin—which was about 48cm / 19in on each side—now has a side the length of six Manhattan street blocks (or two avenue blocks). It would take you about 25 minutes to walk around the perimeter. And the brain as a whole would now fit snugly inside a two block by two block square—just about the size of Madison Square Garden (this works in length and width, but the brain would be about double the height of MSG).

- - - -
- - - -

So let’s lay it out in the actual city. I’m sure the few hundred thousand people who live there will understand.

- - - -
- - - -

I chose 1,000X as our multiplier for a couple reasons. One is that we can all instantly convert the sizes in our heads. Every millimeter of the actual brain is now a meter. And in the much smaller world of neurons, every micron is now an easy-to-conceptualize millimeter. Secondly, it conveniently brings the cortex up to human size—its 2mm thickness is now two meters—the height of a tall (6’6”) man.

- - - -

So we could walk up to 29th street, to the edge of our giant cortex napkin, and easily look at what was going on inside those two meters of thickness. For our demonstration, let’s pull out a cubic meter of our giant cortex to examine, which will show us what goes on in a typical cubic millimeter of real cortex.

- - - -
- - - -

What we’d see in that cubic meter would be a mess. Let’s empty it out and put it back together.

- - - -

First, let’s put the somas19 in—the little bodies of all the neurons that live in that cube.

- - - -

Somas range in size, but the neuroscientists I spoke with said that the somas of neurons in the cortex are often around 10 or 15µm in diameter (µm = micrometer, or micron: 1/1,000th of a millimeter). That means that if you laid out 7 or 10 of them in a line, that line would be about the diameter of a human hair (which is about 100µm). On our scale, that makes a soma 1 – 1.5cm in diameter. A marble.

- - - -

The volume of the whole cortex is in the ballpark of 500,000 cubic millimeters, and in that space are about 20 billion somas. That means an average cubic millimeter of cortex contains about 40,000 neurons. So there are 40,000 marbles in our cubic meter box. If we divide our box into about 40,000 cubic spaces, each with a side of 3cm (or about a cubic inch), it means each of our soma marbles is at the center of its own little 3cm cube, with other somas about 3cm away from it in all directions.

- - - -

With me so far? Can you visualize our meter cube with those 40,000 floating marbles in it?

- - - -

Here’s a microscope image of the somas in an actual cortex, using techniques that block out the other stuff around them:27

- - - -
- - - -

Okay not too crazy so far. But the soma is only a tiny piece of each neuron. Radiating out from each of our marble-sized somas are twisty, branchy dendrites that in our scaled-up brain can stretch out for three or four meters in many different directions, and from the other end an axon that can be over 100 meters long (when heading out laterally to another part of the cortex) or as long as a kilometer (when heading down into the spinal cord and body). Each of them only about a millimeter thick, these cords turn the cortex into a dense tangle of electrical spaghetti.

- - - -

And there’s a lot going on in that mash of spaghetti. Each neuron has synaptic connections to as many as 1,000—sometimes as high as 10,000—other neurons. With around 20 billion neurons in the cortex, that means there are over 20 trillion individual neural connections in the cortex (and as high as a quadrillion connections in the entire brain). In our cubic meter alone, there will be over 20 million synapses.

- - - -

To further complicate things, not only are there many spaghetti strands coming out of each of the 40,000 marbles in our cube, but there are thousands of other spaghetti strings passing through our cube from other parts of the cortex. That means that if we were trying to record signals or stimulate neurons in this particular cubic area, we’d have a lot of difficulty, because in the mess of spaghetti, it would be very hard to figure out which spaghetti strings belonged to our soma marbles (and god forbid there are Purkinje cells in the mix).

- - - -

And of course, there’s the whole neuroplasticity thing. The voltages of each neuron would be constantly changing, as many as hundreds of times per second. And the tens of millions of synapse connections in our cube would be regularly changing sizes, disappearing, and reappearing.

- - - -

If only that were the end of it.

- - - -

It turns out there are other cells in the brain called glial cells—cells that come in many different varieties and perform many different functions, like mopping up chemicals released into synapses, wrapping axons in myelin, and serving as the brain’s immune system. Here are some common types of glial cell:28

- - - -
- - - -

And how many glial cells are in the cortex? About the same number as there are neurons.20 So add about 40,000 of these wacky things into our cube.

- - - -

Finally, there are the blood vessels. In every cubic millimeter of cortex, there’s a total of a meter of tiny blood vessels. On our scale, that means that in our cubic meter, there’s a kilometer of blood vessels. Here’s what the blood vessels in a space about that size look like:29

- - - -
- - - -

The Connectome Blue Box

- - - -

There’s an amazing project going on right now in the neuroscience world called the Human Connectome Project (pronounced “connec-tome”) in which scientists are trying to create a complete detailed map of the entire human brain. Nothing close to this scale of brain mapping has ever been done.21

- - - -

The project entails slicing a human brain into outrageously thin slices—around 30-nanometer-thick slices. That’s 1/33,000th of a millimeter (here’s a machine slicing up a mouse brain).

- - - -

Anyway, in addition to producing some gorgeous images of the “ribbon” formations axons with similar functions often form inside white matter, like—

- - - -
- - - -

—the connectome project has helped people visualize just how packed the brain is with all this stuff. Here’s a breakdown of all the different things going on in one tiny snippet of mouse brain (and this doesn’t even include the blood vessels):30

- - - -
- - - -

(In the image, E is the complete brain snippet, and F–N show the separate components that make up E.)

- - - -

So our meter box is a jam-packed, oozy, electrified mound of dense complexity—now let’s recall that in reality, everything in our box actually fits in a cubic millimeter.

- - - -

And the brain-machine interface engineers need to figure out what the microscopic somas buried in that millimeter are saying, and other times, to stimulate just the right somas to get them to do what the engineers want. Good luck with that.

- - - -

We’d have a super hard time doing that on our 1,000X brain. Our 1,000X brain that also happens to be a nice flat napkin. That’s not how it normally works—usually, the napkin is up on top of our Madison Square Garden brain and full of deep folds (on our scale, between five and 30 meters deep). In fact, less than a third of the cortex napkin is up on the surface of the brain—most is buried inside the folds.

- - - -

Also, engineers are not operating on a bunch of brains in a lab. The brain is covered with all those Russian doll layers, including the skull—which at 1,000X would be around seven meters thick. And since most people don’t really want you opening up their skull for very long—and ideally not at all—you have to try to work with those tiny marbles as non-invasively as possible.

- - - -

And this is all assuming you’re dealing with the cortex—but a lot of cool BMI ideas deal with the structures down below, which if you’re standing on top of our MSG brain, are buried 50 or 100 meters under the surface.

- - - -

The 1,000X game also hammers home the sheer scope of the brain. Think about how much was going on in our cube—and now remember that that’s only one 500,000th of the cortex. If we broke our whole giant cortex into similar meter cubes and lined them up, they’d stretch 500km / 310mi—all the way to Boston and beyond. And if you made the trek—which would take over 100 hours of brisk walking—at any point you could pause and look at the cube you happened to be passing by and it would have all of this complexity inside of it. All of this is currently in your brain.

- - - -

Part 3A: How Happy Are You That This Isn’t Your Problem

- - - -

Totes.

- - - -

Back to Part 3: Brain-Machine Interfaces

- - - -

So how do scientists and engineers begin to manage this situation?

- - - -

Well they do the best they can with the tools they currently have—tools used to record or stimulate neurons (we’ll focus on the recording side for the time being). Let’s take a look at the options:

- - - -

BMI Tools

- - - -

With the current work that’s being done, three broad criteria seem to stand out when evaluating a type of recording tool’s pros and cons:

- - - -

1) Scale – how many neurons can be simultaneously recorded

- - - -

2) Resolution – how detailed is the information the tool receives—there are two types of resolution, spatial (how closely your recordings come to telling you how individual neurons are firing) and temporal (how well you can determine when the activity you record happened)

- - - -

3) Invasiveness – is surgery needed, and if so, how extensively

- - - -

The long-term goal is to have all three of your cakes and eat them all. But for now, it’s always a question of “which one (or two) of these criteria are you willing to completely fail?” Going from one tool to another isn’t an overall upgrade or downgrade—it’s a tradeoff.

- - - -

Let’s examine the types of tools currently being used:

- - - -

fMRI

- - - -

Scale: high (it shows you information across the whole brain)

- - - -

Resolution: medium-low spatial, very low temporal

- - - -

Invasiveness: non-invasive

- - - -

fMRI isn’t typically used for BMIs, but it is a classic recording tool—it gives you information about what’s going on inside the brain.

- - - -

fMRI uses MRI—magnetic resonance imaging—technology. MRIs, invented in the 1970s, were an evolution of the x-ray-based CAT scan. Instead of using x-rays, MRIs use magnetic fields (along with radio waves and other signals) to generate images of the body and brain. Like this:31

- - - -
- - - -

And this full set of cross sections, allowing you to see through an entire head.

- - - -
- - - -

Pretty amazing technology.

- - - -

fMRI (“functional” MRI) uses similar technology to track changes in blood flow. Why? Because when areas of the brain become more active, they use more energy, so they need more oxygen—so blood flow increases to the area to deliver that oxygen. Blood flow indirectly indicates where activity is happening. Here’s what an fMRI scan might show:32

- - - -
- - - -

Of course, there’s always blood throughout the brain—what this image shows is where blood flow has increased (red/orange/yellow) and where it has decreased (blue). And because fMRI can scan through the whole brain, results are 3-dimensional:

- - - -
- - - -

fMRI has many medical uses, like informing doctors whether or not certain parts of the brain are functioning properly after a stroke, and fMRI has taught neuroscientists a ton about which regions of the brain are involved with which functions. Scans also have the benefit of providing info about what’s going on in the whole brain at any given time, and it’s safe and totally non-invasive.

- - - -

The big drawback is resolution. fMRI scans have a literal resolution, like a computer screen has with pixels, except the pixels are three-dimensional, cubic volume pixels—or “voxels.”

- - - -

fMRI voxels have gotten smaller as the technology has improved, bringing the spatial resolution up. Today’s fMRI voxels can be as small as a cubic millimeter. The brain has a volume of about 1,200,000mm3, so a high-resolution fMRI scan divides the brain into about one million little cubes. The problem is that on neuron scale, that’s still pretty huge (the same size as our scaled-up cubic meter above)—each voxel contains tens of thousands of neurons. So what the fMRI is showing you, at best, is the average blood flow drawn in by each group of 40,000 or so neurons.

- - - -

The even bigger problem is temporal resolution. fMRI tracks blood flow, which is both imprecise and comes with a delay of about a second—an eternity in the world of neurons.

- - - -

EEG

- - - -

Scale: high

- - - -

Resolution: very low spatial, medium-high temporal

- - - -

Invasiveness: non-invasive

- - - -

Dating back almost a century, EEG (electroencephalography) puts an array of electrodes on your head. You know, this whole thing:33

- - - -
- - - -

EEG is definitely technology that will look hilariously primitive to a 2050 person, but for now, it’s one of the only tools that can be used with BMIs that’s totally non-invasive. EEGs record electrical activity in different regions of the brain, displaying the findings like this:34

- - - -
- - - -

EEG graphs can uncover information about medical issues like epilepsy, track sleep patterns, or be used to determine something like the status of a dose of anesthesia.

- - - -

And unlike fMRI, EEG has pretty good temporal resolution, getting electrical signals from the brain right as they happen—though the skull blurs the temporal accuracy considerably (bone is a bad conductor).

- - - -

The major drawback is spatial resolution. EEG has none. Each electrode only records a broad average—a vector sum of the charges from millions or billions of neurons (and a blurred one because of the skull).

- - - -

Imagine that the brain is a baseball stadium, its neurons are the members of the crowd, and the information we want is, instead of electrical activity, vocal cord activity. In that case, EEG would be like a group of microphones placed outside the stadium, against the stadium’s outer walls. You’d be able to hear when the crowd was cheering and maybe predict the type of thing they were cheering about. You’d be able to hear telltale signs that it was between innings and maybe whether or not it was a close game. You could probably detect when something abnormal happened. But that’s about it.

- - - -

ECoG

- - - -

Scale: high

- - - -

Resolution: low spatial, high temporal

- - - -

Invasiveness: kind of invasive

- - - -

ECoG (electrocorticography) is a similar idea to EEG, also using surface electrodes—except they put them under the skull, on the surface of the brain.35

- - - -
- - - -

Ick. But effective—at least much more effective than EEG. Without the interference of the skull blurring things, ECoG picks up both higher spatial (about 1cm) and temporal resolution (5 milliseconds). ECoG electrodes can either be placed above or below the dura:36

- - - -
- - - -

Bringing back our stadium analogy, ECoG microphones are inside the stadium and a bit closer to the crowd. So the sound is much crisper than what EEG mics get from outside the stadium, and ECoG mics can better distinguish the sounds of individual sections of the crowd. But the improvement comes at a cost—it requires invasive surgery. In the scheme of invasive surgeries, though, it’s not so bad. As one neurosurgeon described to me, “You can slide stuff underneath the dura relatively non-invasively. You still have to make a hole in the head, but it’s relatively non-invasive.”

- - - -

Local Field Potential

- - - -

Scale: low

- - - -

Resolution: medium-low spatial, high temporal

- - - -

Invasiveness: very invasive

- - - -

Okay here’s where we shift from surface electrode discs to microelectrodes—tiny needles surgeons stick into the brain.

- - - -

Brain surgeon Ben Rapoport described to me how his father (a neurologist) used to make microelectrodes:

- - - -

When my father was making electrodes, he’d make them by hand. He’d take a very fine wire—like a gold or platinum or iridium wire, that was 10-30 microns in diameter, and he’d insert that wire in a glass capillary tube that was maybe a millimeter in diameter. Then they’d take that piece of glass over a flame and rotate it until the glass became soft. They’d stretch out the capillary tube until it’s incredibly thin, and then take it out of the flame and break it. Now the capillary tube is flush with and pinching the wire. The glass is an insulator and the wire is a conductor. So what you end up with is a glass-insulated stiff electrode that is maybe a few 10s of microns at the tip.

- - - -

Today, while some electrodes are still made by hand, newer techniques use silicon wafers and manufacturing technology borrowed from the integrated circuits industry.

- - - -

The way local field potentials (LFP) work is simple—you take one of these super thin needles with an electrode tip and stick it one or two millimeters into the cortex. There it picks up the average of the electrical charges from all of the neurons within a certain radius of the electrode.

- - - -

LFP gives you the not-that-bad spatial resolution of the fMRI combined with the instant temporal resolution of an ECoG. Kind of the best of all the worlds described above when it comes to resolution.

- - - -

Unfortunately, it does badly on both other criteria.

- - - -

Unlike fMRI, EEG, and ECoG, microelectrode LFP does not have scale—it only tells you what the little sphere surrounding it is doing. And it’s far more invasive, actually entering the brain.

- - - -

In the baseball stadium, LFP is a single microphone hanging over a single section of seats, picking up a crisp feed of the sounds in that area, and maybe picking out an individual voice for a second here and there—but otherwise only getting the general vibe.

- - - -

A more recent development is the multielectrode array, which is the same idea as the LFP except it’s about 100 LFPs all at once, in a single area of the cortex. A multielectrode array looks like this:37

- - - -
- - - -

A tiny 4mm x 4mm square with 100 tiny silicon electrodes on it. Here’s another image where you can see just how sharp the electrodes are—just a few microns across at the very tip:38

- - - -
- - - -

Single-Unit Recording

- - - -

Scale: tiny

- - - -

Resolution: super high

- - - -

Invasiveness: very invasive

- - - -

To record a broader LFP, the electrode tip is a bit rounded to give the electrode more surface area, and they turn the resistance down with the intent of allowing very faint signals from a wide range of locations to be picked up. The end result is the electrode picks up a chorus of activity from the local field.

- - - -

Single-unit recording also uses a needle electrode, but they make the tip super sharp and crank up the resistance. This wipes out most of the noise and leaves the electrode picking up almost nothing—until it finds itself so close to a neuron (maybe 50µm away) that the signal from that neuron is strong enough to make it past the electrode’s high resistance wall. With distinct signals from one neuron and no background noise, this electrode can now voyeur in on the private life of a single neuron. Lowest possible scale, highest possible resolution.

- - - -

By the way, you can listen to a neuron fire here (what you’re actually hearing is the electro-chemical firing of a neuron, converted to audio).

- - - -

Some electrodes want to take the relationship to the next level and will go for a technique called the patch clamp, whereby it’ll get rid of its electrode tip, leaving just a tiny little tube called a glass pipette,22 and it’ll actually directly assault a neuron by sucking a “patch” of its membrane into the tube, allowing for even finer measurements:39

- - - -
- - - -

A patch clamp also has the benefit that, unlike all the other methods we’ve discussed, because it’s physically touching the neuron, it can not only record but stimulate the neuron,23 injecting current or holding voltage at a set level to do specific tests (other methods can stimulate neurons, but only entire groups together).

- - - -

Finally, electrodes can fully defile the neuron and actually penetrate through the membrane, which is called sharp electrode recording. If the tip is sharp enough, this won’t destroy the cell—the membrane will actually seal around the electrode, making it very easy to stimulate the neuron or record the voltage difference between the inside and outside of the neuron. But this is a short-term technique—a punctured neuron won’t survive long.

- - - -

In our stadium, a single unit recording is a one-directional microphone clipped to a single crowd member’s collar. A patch clamp or sharp recording is a mic in someone’s throat, registering the exact movement of their vocal cords. This is a great way to learn about that person’s experience at the game, but it also gives you no context, and you can’t really tell if the sounds and reactions of that person are representative of what’s going on in the game.

- - - -

And that’s about what we’ve got, at least in common usage. These tools are simultaneously unbelievably advanced and what will seem like Stone Age technology to future humans, who won’t believe you had to choose either high-res or a wide field and that you actually had to open someone’s skull to get high-quality brain readouts or write-ins.

- - - -

But given their limitations, these tools have taught us worlds about the brain and led to the creation of some amazing early BMIs. Here’s what’s already out there—

- - - -

The BMIs we already have

- - - -

In 1969, a researcher named Eberhard Fetz connected a single neuron in a monkey’s brain to a dial in front of the monkey’s face. The dial would move when the neuron was fired. When the monkey would think in a way that fired the neuron and the dial would move, he’d get a banana-flavored pellet. Over time, the monkey started getting better at the game because he wanted more delicious pellets. The monkey had learned to make the neuron fire and inadvertently became the subject of the first real brain-machine interface.

- - - -

Progress was slow over the next few decades, but by the mid-90s, things had started to move, and it’s been quietly accelerating ever since.

- - - -

Given that both our understanding of the brain and the electrode hardware we’ve built are pretty primitive, our efforts have typically focused on building straightforward interfaces to be used with the areas of the brain we understand the best, like the motor cortex and the visual cortex.

- - - -

And given that human experimentation is only really possible for people who are trying to use BMIs to alleviate an impairment—and because that’s currently where the market demand is—our efforts have focused so far almost entirely on restoring lost function to people with disabilities.

- - - -

The major BMI industries of the future that will give all humans magical superpowers and transform the world are in their fetal stage right now—and we should look at what’s being worked on as a set of clues about what the mind-boggling worlds of 2040 and 2060 and 2100 might be like.

- - - -

Like, check this out:

- - - -
- - - -

That’s a computer built by Alan Turing in 1950 called the Pilot ACE. Truly cutting edge in its time.

- - - -

Now check this out:

- - - -
- - - -

As you read through the examples below, I want you to think about this analogy—

- - - -

Pilot ACE is to iPhone 7 

- - - -

as 

- - - -

Each BMI example below is to _____

- - - -

—and try to imagine what the blank looks like. And we’ll come back to the blank later in the post.

- - - -

Anyway, from everything I’ve read about and discussed with people in the field, there seem to be three major categories of brain-machine interface being heavily worked on right now:

- - - -

Early BMI type #1: Using the motor cortex as a remote control

- - - -

In case you forgot this from 9,000 words ago, the motor cortex is this guy:

- - - -
- - - -

All areas of the brain confuse us, but the motor cortex confuses us less than almost all the other areas. And most importantly, it’s well-mapped, meaning specific parts of it control specific parts of the body (remember the upsetting homunculus?).

- - - -

Also importantly, it’s one of the major areas of the brain in charge of our output. When a human does something, the motor cortex is almost always the one pulling the strings (at least for the physical part of the doing). So the human brain doesn’t really have to learn to use the motor cortex as a remote control, because the brain already uses the motor cortex as its remote control.

- - - -

Lift your hand up. Now put it down. See? Your hand is like a little toy drone, and your brain just picked up the motor cortex remote control and used it to make the drone fly up and then back down.

- - - -

The goal of motor cortex-based BMIs is to tap into the motor cortex, and then when the remote control fires a command, to hear that command and then send it to some kind of machine that can respond to it the way, say, your hand would. A bundle of nerves is the middleman between your motor cortex and your hand. BMIs are the middleman between your motor cortex and a computer. Simple.

- - - -

One barebones type of interface allows a human—often a person paralyzed from the neck down or someone who has had a limb amputated—to move a cursor on a screen with only their thoughts.

- - - -

This begins with a 100-pin multielectrode array being implanted in the person’s motor cortex. The motor cortex in a paralyzed person usually works just fine—it’s just that the spinal cord, which had served as the middleman between the cortex and the body, stopped doing its job. So with the electrode array implanted, researchers have the person try to move their arm in different directions. Even though they can’t do that, the motor cortex still fires normally, as if they can.

- - - -

When someone moves their arm, their motor cortex bursts into a flurry of activity—but each neuron is usually only interested in one type of movement. So one neuron might fire whenever the person moves their arm to the right—but it’s bored by other directions and is less active in those cases. That neuron alone, then, could tell a computer when the person wants to move their arm to the right and when they don’t. But that’s all. But with an electrode array, 100 single-unit electrodes each listen to a different neuron.24 So when they do testing, they’ll ask the person to try to move their arm to the right, and maybe 38 of the 100 electrodes detect their neuron firing. When the person tries to go left with their arm, maybe 41 others fire. After going through a bunch of different movements and directions and speeds, a computer takes the data from the electrodes and synthesizes it into a general understanding of which firing patterns correspond to which movement intentions on an X-Y axis.

- - - -

Then when they link up that data to a computer screen, the person can use their mind, via “trying” to move the cursor, to really control the cursor. And this actually works. Through the work of motor-cortex-BMI pioneer company BrainGate, here’s a guy playing a video game using only his mind.

- - - -
- - - -

And if 100 neurons can tell you where they want to move a cursor, why couldn’t they tell you when they want to pick up a mug of coffee and take a sip? That’s what this quadriplegic woman did:

- - - -
- - - -

Another quadriplegic woman flew an F-35 fighter jet in a simulation, and a monkey recently used his mind to ride around in a wheelchair.

- - - -

And why stop with arms? Brazilian BMI pioneer Miguel Nicolelis and his team built an entire exoskeleton that allowed a paralyzed man to make the opening kick of the World Cup.25

- - - -

The Proprioception Blue Box

- - - -

Moving these kinds of “neuroprosthetics” is all about the recording of neurons, but for these devices to be truly effective, this needs to not be a one-way street, but a loop that includes recording and stimulation pathways. We don’t really think about this, but a huge part of your ability to pick up an object is all of the incoming sensory information your hand’s skin and muscles send back in (called “proprioception”). In one video I saw, a woman with numbed fingers tried to light a match, and it was almost impossible for her to do it, despite having no other disabilities. And the beginning of this video shows the physical struggles of a man with a perfectly functional motor cortex but impaired proprioception. So for something like a bionic arm to really feel like an arm, and to really be useful, it needs to be able to send sensory information back in.

- - - -

Stimulating neurons is even harder than recording them. As researcher Flip Sabes explained to me:

- - - -

If I record a pattern of activity, it doesn’t mean I can readily recreate that pattern of activity by just playing it back. You can compare it to the planets in the Solar System. You can watch the planets move around and record their movements. But then if you jumble them all up and later want to recreate the original motion of one of the planets, you can’t just take that one planet and put it back into its orbit, because it’ll be influenced by all the other planets. Likewise, neurons aren’t just working in isolation—so there’s a fundamental irreversibility there. On top of that, with all of the axons and dendrites, it’s hard to just stimulate the neurons you want to—because when you try, you’ll hit a whole jumble of them.

- - - -

Flip’s lab tries to deal with these challenges by getting the brain to help out. It turns out that if you reward a monkey with a succulent sip of orange juice when a single neuron fires, eventually the monkey will learn to make the neuron fire on demand. The neuron could then act as another kind of remote control. This means that normal motor cortex commands are only one possibility as a control mechanism. Likewise, until BMI technology gets good enough to perfect stimulation, you can use the brain’s neuroplasticity as a shortcut. If it’s too hard to make someone’s bionic fingertip touch something and send back information that feels just like the kind of sensation their own fingertip used to give them, the arm could instead send some other signal into the brain. At first, this would seem odd to the patient—but eventually the brain can learn to treat that signal as a new sense of touch. This concept is called “sensory substitution” and makes the brain a collaborator in BMI efforts.

- - - -

In these developments are the seeds of other future breakthrough technologies—like brain-to-brain communication.

- - - -

Nicolelis created an experiment where the motor cortex of one rat in Brazil was wired, via the internet, to the motor cortex of another rat in the US. The rat in Brazil was presented with two transparent boxes, each with a lever attached to it, and inside one of the boxes would be a treat. To attempt to get the treat, the rat would press the lever of the box that held the treat. Meanwhile, the rat in the US was in a similar cage with two similar boxes, except unlike the rat in Brazil, the boxes weren’t transparent and offered him no information about which of his two levers would yield a treat and which wouldn’t. The only info the US rat had were the signals his brain received from the Brazil rat’s motor cortex. The Brazil rat had the key knowledge—but the way the experiment worked, the rats only received treats when the US rat pressed the correct lever. If he pulled the wrong one, neither would. The amazing thing is that over time, the rats got better at this and began to work together, almost like a single nervous system—even though neither had any idea the other rat existed. The US rat’s success rate at choosing the correct lever with no information would have been 50%. With the signals coming from the Brazil rat’s brain, the success rate jumped to 64%. (Here’s a video of the rats doing their thing.)

- - - -

This has even worked, crudely, in people. Two people, in separate buildings, worked together to play a video game. One could see the game, the other had the controller. Using simple EEG headsets, the player who could see the game would, without moving his hand, think about moving his hand to press the “shoot” button on a controller. Because their brains’ devices were communicating with each other, the player with the controller would then feel a twitch in his finger and press the shoot button.

- - - -

Early BMI type #2: Artificial ears and eyes

- - - -

There are a couple reasons giving sound to the deaf and sight to the blind is among the more manageable BMI categories.

- - - -

The first is that like the motor cortex, the sensory cortices are parts of the brain we tend to understand pretty well, partly because they too tend to be well-mapped.

- - - -

The second is that in many early applications, we don’t really need to deal with the brain—we can just deal with the place where ears and eyes connect to the brain, since that’s often where the impairment is based.

- - - -

And while the motor cortex stuff was mostly about recording neurons to get information out of the brain, artificial senses go the other way—stimulation of neurons to send information in.

- - - -

On the ears side of things, recent decades have seen the development of the groundbreaking cochlear implant. 

- - - -

The How Hearing Works Blue Box

- - - -

When you think you’re “hearing” “sound,” here’s what’s actually happening:

- - - -

What we think of as sound is actually patterns of vibrations in the air molecules around your head. When a guitar string or someone’s vocal cords or the wind or anything else makes a sound, it’s because it’s vibrating, which pushes nearby air molecules into a similar vibration and that pattern expands outward in a sphere, kind of like the surface of water expands outward in a circular ripple when something touches it.26

- - - -

Your ear is a machine that converts those air vibrations into electrical impulses. Whenever air (or water, or any other medium whose molecules can vibrate) enters your ear, your ear translates the precise way it’s vibrating into an electrical code that it sends into the nerve endings that touch it. This causes those nerves to fire a pattern of action potentials that send the code into your auditory cortex for processing. Your brain receives the information, and we call the experience of receiving that particular type of information “hearing.”

- - - -

Most people who are deaf or hard of hearing don’t have a nerve problem or an auditory cortex problem—they usually have an ear problem. Their brain is as ready as anyone else’s to turn electrical impulses into hearing—it’s just that their auditory cortex isn’t receiving any electrical impulses in the first place, because the machine that converts air vibrations into those impulses isn’t doing its job.

- - - -

The ear has a lot of parts, but it’s the cochlea in particular that makes the key conversion. When vibrations enter the fluid in the cochlea, it causes thousands of tiny hairs lining the cochlea to vibrate, and the cells those hairs are attached to transform the mechanical energy of the vibrations into electrical signals that then excite the auditory nerve. Here’s what it all looks like:40

- - - -
- - - -

The cochlea also sorts the incoming sound by frequency. Here’s a cool chart that shows why lower sounds are processed at the end of the cochlea and high sounds are processed at the beginning (and also why there’s a minimum and maximum frequency on what the ear can hear):41

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

A cochlear implant is a little computer that has a microphone coming out of one end (which sits on the ear) and a wire coming out of the other that connects to an array of electrodes that line the cochlea. 

- - - -

So sound comes into the microphone (the little hook on top of the ear), and goes into the brown thing, which processes the sound to filter out the less useful frequencies. Then the brown thing transmits the information through the skin, through electrical induction, to the computer’s other component, which converts the info into electric impulses and sends them into the cochlea. The electrodes filter the impulses by frequency just like the cochlea and stimulate the auditory nerve just like the hairs on the cochlea do. This is what it looks like from the outside:

- - - -
- - - -

In other words, an artificial ear, performing the same sound-to-impulses-to-auditory-nerve function the ear does.

- - - -

Check out what sound sounds like to someone with the implant.

- - - -

Not great. Why? Because to send sound into the brain with the richness the ear hears with, you’d need 3,500 electrodes. Most cochlear implants have about 16.27Crude.

- - - -

But we’re in the Pilot ACE era—so of course it’s crude.

- - - -

Still, today’s cochlear implant allows deaf people to hear speech and have conversations, which is a groundbreaking development.28

- - - -

Many parents of deaf babies are now having a cochlear implant put in when the baby’s about one year old. Like this baby, whose reaction to hearing for the first time is cute.

- - - -
- - - -

There’s a similar revolution underway in the world of blindness, in the form of the retinal implant.

- - - -

Blindness is often the result of a retinal disease. When this is the case, a retinal implant can perform a similar function for sight as a cochlear implant does for hearing (though less directly). It performs the normal duties of the eye and hands things off to nerves in the form of electrical impulses, just like the eye does.

- - - -

A more complicated interface than the cochlear implant, the first retinal implant was approved by the FDA in 2011—the Argus II implant, made by Second Sight. The retinal implant looks like this:42

- - - -
- - - -

And it works like this:

- - - -
- - - -

The retinal implant has 60 sensors. The retina has around a million neurons. Crude. But seeing vague edges and shapes and patterns of light and dark sure beats seeing nothing at all. What’s encouraging is that you don’t need a million sensors to gain a reasonable amount of sight—simulations suggest that 600-1,000 electrodes would be enough for reading and facial recognition.

- - - -

Early BMI type #3: Deep brain stimulation

- - - -

Dating back to the late 1980s, deep brain stimulation is yet another crude tool that is also still pretty life-changing for a lot of people.

- - - -

It’s also a type of category of BMI that doesn’t involve communication with the outside world—it’s about using brain-machine interfaces to treat or enhance yourself by altering something internally.

- - - -

What happens here is one or two electrode wires, usually with four separate electrode sites, are inserted into the brain, often ending up somewhere in the limbic system. Then a little pacemaker computer is implanted in the upper chest and wired to the electrodes. Like this unpleasant man:43

- - - -
- - - -

The electrodes can then give a little zap when called for, which can do a variety of important things. Like:

- - - -
  • Reduce the tremors of people with Parkinson’s Disease
  • Reduce the severity of seizures
  • Chill people with OCD out
- - - -

It’s also experimentally (not yet FDA approved) been able to mitigate certain kinds of chronic pain like migraines or phantom limb pain, treat anxiety or depression or PTSD, or even be combined with muscle stimulation elsewhere in the body to restore and retrain circuits that were broken down from stroke or a neurological disease.

- - - -

___________

- - - -

This is the state of the early BMI industry, and it’s the moment when Elon Musk is stepping into it. For him, and for Neuralink, today’s BMI industry is Point A. We’ve spent the whole post so far in the past, building up to the present moment. Now it’s time to step into the future—to figure out what Point B is and how we’re going to get there.

- - - -

Part 4: Neuralink’s Challenge

- - - -
- - - -

Having already written about two of Elon Musk’s companies—Tesla and SpaceX—I think I understand his formula. It looks like this:

- - - -
- - - -

And his initial thinking about a new company always starts on the right and works its way left.

- - - -

He decides that some specific change in the world will increase the likelihood of humanity having the best possible future. He knows that large-scale world change happens quickest when the whole world—the Human Colossus—is working on it. And he knows that the Human Colossus will work toward a goal if (and only if) there’s an economic forcing function in place—if it’s a good business decision to spend resources innovating toward that goal.

- - - -

Often, before a booming industry starts booming, it’s like a pile of logs—it has all the ingredients of a fire and it’s ready to go—but there’s no match. There’s some technological shortcoming that’s preventing the industry from taking off.

- - - -

So when Elon builds a company, its core initial strategy is usually to create the match that will ignite the industry and get the Human Colossus working on the cause. This, in turn, Elon believes, will lead to developments that will change the world in the way that increases the likelihood of humanity having the best possible future. But you have to look at his companies from a zoomed-out perspective to see all of this. If you don’t, you’ll mistake what they do as their business for what they do—when in fact, what they do as their business is usually a mechanism to sustain the company while it innovates to try to make that critical match.

- - - -

Back when I was working on the Tesla and SpaceX posts, I asked Elon why he went into engineering and not science, and he explained that when it comes to progress, “engineering is the limiting factor.” In other words, the progress of science, business, and industry are all at the whim of the progress of engineering. If you look at history, this makes sense—behind each of the greatest revolutions in human progress is an engineering breakthrough. A match.

- - - -
- - - -

So to understand an Elon Musk company, you need to think about the match he’s trying to create—along with three other variables:

- - - -
- - - -

I know what’s in these boxes with the other companies:

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

And when I started trying to figure out what Neuralink was all about, I knew those were the variables I needed to fill in. At the time, I had only had the chance to get a very vague idea of one of the variables—that the goal of the company was “to accelerate the advent of a whole-brain interface.” Or what I’ve come to think of as a wizard hat.

- - - -
- - - -

As I understood it, a whole-brain interface was what a brain-machine interface would be in an ideal world—a super-advanced concept where essentially all the neurons in your brain are able to communicate seamlessly with the outside world. It was a concept loosely based on the science fiction idea of a “neural lace,” described in Iain Banks’ Culture series—a massless, volumeless, whole-brain interface that can be teleported into the brain.

- - - -

I had a lot of questions.

- - - -

Luckily, I was on my way to San Francisco, where I had plans to sit down with half of Neuralink’s founding team and be the dumbest person in the room.

- - - -
- - - -

The I’m Not Being Self-Deprecating I Really Was Definitely the Dumbest Person in the Room Just Look at This Shit Blue Box

- - - -

The Neuralink team:

- - - -

Paul Merolla, who spent the last seven years as the lead chip designer at IBM on their SyNAPSE program, where he led the development of the TrueNorth chip—one of the largest CMOS devices ever designed by transistor count nbd. Paul told me his field was called neuromorphic, where the goal is to design transistor circuits based on principles of brain architecture.

- - - -

Vanessa Tolosa, Neuralink’s microfabrication expert and one of the world’s foremost researchers on biocompatible materials. Vanessa’s work involves designing biocompatible materials based on principles from the integrated circuits industry.

- - - -

Max Hodak, who worked on the development of some groundbreaking BMI technology at Miguel Nicolelis’s lab at Duke while also commuting across the country twice a week in college to run Transcriptic, the “robotic cloud laboratory for the life sciences” he founded.

- - - -

DJ Seo, who while at UC Berkeley in his mid-20s designed a cutting-edge new BMI concept called neural dust—tiny ultrasound sensors that could provide a new way to record brain activity.

- - - -

Tim Hanson, whom a colleague described as “one of the best all-around engineers on the planet” and who self-taught himself enough about materials science and microfabrication methods to develop some of the core technology that’ll be used at Neuralink.

- - - -

Flip Sabes, a leading researcher whose lab at UCSF has pioneered new ground in BMIs by combining “cortical physiology, computational and theoretical modeling, and human psychophysics and physiology.”

- - - -

Tim Gardner, a leading researcher at BU, whose lab works on implanting BMIs in birds, in order to study “how complex songs are assembled from elementary neural units” and learn about “the relationships between patterns of neural activity on different time-scales.” Both Tim and Flip have left tenured positions to join the Neuralink team—pretty good testament to the promise they believe this company has.

- - - -

And then there’s Elon, both as their CEO/Founder and a fellow team member. Elon being CEO makes this different from other recent things he’s started and puts Neuralink on the top tier for him, where only SpaceX and Tesla have lived. When it comes to neuroscience, Elon has the least technical knowledge on the team—but he also started SpaceX without very much technical knowledge and quickly became a certifiable rocket science expert by reading and by asking questions of the experts on the team. That’ll probably happen again here. (And for good reason—he pointed out: “Without a strong technical understanding, I think it’s hard to make the right decisions.”)

- - - -

I asked Elon about how he brought this team together. He said that he met with literally over 1,000 people in order to assemble this group, and that part of the challenge was the large number of totally separate areas of expertise required when you’re working on technology that involves neuroscience, brain surgery, microscopic electronics, clinical trials, etc. Because it was such a cross-disciplinary area, he looked for cross-disciplinary experts. And you can see that in those bios—everyone brings their own unique crossover combination to a group that together has the rare ability to think as a single mega-expert. Elon also wanted to find people who were totally on board with the zoomed-out mission—who were more focused on industrial results than producing white papers. Not an easy group to assemble.

- - - -

But there they were, sitting around the table looking at me, as it hit me 40 seconds in that I should have done a lot more research before coming here.

- - - -
- - - -

They took the hint and dumbed it down about four notches, and as the discussion went on, I started to wrap my head around things. Throughout the next few weeks, I met with each of the remaining Neuralink team members as well, each time playing the role of the dumbest person in the room. In these meetings, I focused on trying to form a comprehensive picture of the challenges at hand and what the road to a wizard hat might look like. I really wanted to understand these two boxes:

- - - -
- - - -

The first one was easy. The business side of Neuralink is a brain-machine interface development company. They want to create cutting-edge BMIs—what one of them referred to as “micron-sized devices.” Doing this will support the growth of the company while also providing a perfect vehicle for putting their innovations into practice (the same way SpaceX uses their launches both to sustain the company and experiment with their newest engineering developments).

- - - -

As for what kind of interface they’re planning to work on first, here’s what Elon said:

- - - -

We are aiming to bring something to market that helps with certain severe brain injuries (stroke, cancer lesion, congenital) in about four years. 

- - - -

The second box was a lot hazier. It seems obvious to us today that using steam engine technology to harness the power of fire was the thing that had to happen to ignite the Industrial Revolution. But if you talked to someone in 1760 about it, they would have had a lot less clarity—on exactly which hurdles they were trying to get past, what kinds of innovations would allow them to leap over those hurdles, or how long any of this would take. And that’s where we are here—trying to figure out what the match looks like that will ignite the neuro revolution and how to create it.

- - - -

The starting place for a discussion about innovation is a discussion about hurdles—what are you even trying to innovate past? In Neuralink’s case, a whole lot of things. But given that, here too, engineering will likely prove to be the limiting factor, here are some seemingly large challenges that probably won’t end up being the major roadblock:

- - - -

Public skepticism 

- - - -

Pew recently conducted a survey asking Americans about which future biotechnologies give them the shits the most. It turns out BMIs worry Americans even more than gene editing:44

- - - -
- - - -

Flip Sabes, one of Neuralink’s ground floor members, doesn’t get it.

- - - -

To a scientist, to think about changing the fundamental nature of life—creating viruses, eugenics, etc.—it raises a specter that many biologists find quite worrisome, whereas the neuroscientists that I know, when they think about chips in the brain, it doesn’t seem that foreign, because we already have chips in the brain. We have deep brain stimulation to alleviate the symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease, we have early trials of chips to restore vision, we have the cochlear implant—so to us it doesn’t seem like that big of a stretch to put devices into a brain to read information out and to read information back in.

- - - -

And after learning all about chips in the brain, I agree—and when Americans eventually learn about it, I think they’ll change their minds.

- - - -

History supports this prediction. People were super timid about Lasik eye surgery when it first became a thing—20 years ago, 20,000 people a year had the procedure done. Then everyone got used to it and now 2,000,000 people a year get laser eye surgery. Similar story with pacemakers. And defibrillators. And organ transplants—which people at first considered a freakish Frankenstein-esque concept. Brain implants will probably be the same story.

- - - -

Our non-understanding of the brain

- - - -

You know, the whole “if understanding the brain is a mile, we’re currently three inches in” thing. Flip weighed in on this topic too:

- - - -

If it were a prerequisite to understand the brain in order to interact with the brain in a substantive way, we’d have trouble. But it’s possible to decode all of those things in the brain without truly understanding the dynamics of the computation in the brain. Being able to read it out is an engineering problem. Being able to understand its origin and the organization of the neurons in fine detail in a way that would satisfy a neuroscientist to the core—that’s a separate problem. And we don’t need to solve all of those scientific problems in order to make progress.

- - - -

If we can just use engineering to get neurons to talk to computers, we’ll have done our job, and machine learning can do much of the rest. Which then, ironically, will teach us about the brain. As Flip points out:

- - - -

The flip side of saying, “We don’t need to understand the brain to make engineering progress,” is that making engineering progress will almost certainly advance our scientific knowledge—kind of like the way Alpha Go ended up teaching the world’s best players better strategies for the game. Then this scientific progress can lead to more engineering progress. The engineering and the science are gonna ratchet each other up here.

- - - -

Angry giants

- - - -

Tesla and SpaceX are both stepping on some very big toes (like the auto industry, the oil and gas industry, and the military-industrial complex). Big toes don’t like being stepped on, so they’ll usually do whatever they can to hinder the stepper’s progress. Luckily, Neuralink doesn’t really have this problem. There aren’t any massive industries that Neuralink is disrupting (at least not in the foreseeable future—an eventual neuro revolution would disrupt almost every industry).

- - - -

Neuralink’s hurdles are technology hurdles—and there are many. But two challenges stand out as the largest—challenges that, if conquered, may be impactful enough to trigger all the other hurdles to fall and totally change the trajectory of our future.

- - - -

Major Hurdle 1: Bandwidth

- - - -

There have never been more than a couple hundred electrodes in a human brain at once. When it comes to vision, that equals a super low-res image. When it comes to motor, that limits the possibilities to simple commands with little control. When it comes to your thoughts, a few hundred electrodes won’t be enough to communicate more than the simplest spelled-out message.

- - - -

We need higher bandwidth if this is gonna become a big thing. Way higher bandwidth.

- - - -

The Neuralink team threw out the number “one million simultaneously recorded neurons” when talking about an interface that could really change the world. I’ve also heard 100,000 as a number that would allow for the creation of a wide range of incredibly useful BMIs with a variety of applications.

- - - -

Early computers had a similar problem. Primitive transistors took up a lot of space and didn’t scale easily. Then in 1959 came the integrated circuit—the computer chip. Now there was a way to scale the number of transistors in a computer, and Moore’s Law—the concept that the number of transistors that can fit onto a computer chip doubles every 18 months—was born.

- - - -

Until the 90s, electrodes for BMIs were all made by hand. Then we started figuring out how to manufacture those little 100-electrode multielectrode arrays using conventional semiconductor technologies. Neurosurgeon Ben Rapoport believes that “the move from hand manufacturing to Utah Array electrodes was the first hint that BMIs were entering a realm where Moore’s Law could become relevant.”

- - - -

This is everything for the industry’s potential. Our maximum today is a couple hundred electrodes able to measure about 500 neurons at once—which is either super far from a million or really close, depending on the kind of growth pattern we’re in. If we add 500 more neurons to our maximum every 18 months, we’ll get to a million in the year 5017. If we double our total every 18 months, like we do with computer transistors, we’ll get to a million in the year 2034.

- - - -

Currently, we seem to be somewhere in between. Ian Stevenson and Konrad Kording published a paper that looked at the maximum number of neurons that could be simultaneously recorded at various points throughout the last 50 years (in any animal), and put the results on this graph:45

- - - -
- - - -

Sometimes called Stevenson’s Law, this research suggests that the number of neurons we can simultaneously record seems to consistently double every 7.4 years. If that rate continues, it’ll take us till the end of this century to reach a million, and until 2225 to record every neuron in the brain and get our totally complete wizard hat.

- - - -

Whatever the equivalent of the integrated circuit is for BMIs isn’t here yet, because 7.4 years is too big a number to start a revolution. The breakthrough here isn’t the device that can record a million neurons—it’s the paradigm shift that makes the future of that graph look more like Moore’s Law and less like Stevenson’s Law. Once that happens, a million neurons will follow.

- - - -

Major Hurdle 2: Implantation

- - - -

BMIs won’t sweep the world as long as you need to go in for skull-opening surgery to get involved.

- - - -

This is a major topic at Neuralink. I think the word “non-invasive” or “non-invasively” came out of someone’s mouth like 42 times in my discussions with the team.

- - - -

On top of being both a major barrier to entry and a major safety issue, invasive brain surgery is expensive and in limited supply. Elon talked about an eventual BMI implantation process that could be automated: “The machine to accomplish this would need to be something like Lasik, an automated process—because otherwise you just get constrained by the limited number of neural surgeons, and the costs are very high. You’d need a Lasik-like machine ultimately to be able to do this at scale.”

- - - -

Making BMIs high-bandwidth alone would be a huge deal, as would developing a way to non-invasively implant devices. But doing both would start a revolution.

- - - -

Other hurdles

- - - -

Today’s BMI patients have a wire coming out of their head. In the future, that certainly won’t fly. Neuralink plans to work on devices that will be wireless. But that brings a lot of new challenges with it. You’ll now need your device to be able to send and receive a lot of data wirelessly. Which means the implant also has to take care of things like signal amplification, analog-to-digital conversion, and data compression on its own. Oh and it needs to be powered inductively.

- - - -

Another big one—biocompatibility. Delicate electronics tend to not do well inside a jello ball. And the human body tends to not like having foreign objects in it. But the brain interfaces of the future are intended to last forever without any problems. This means that the device will likely need to be hermetically sealed and robust enough to survive decades of the oozing and shifting of the neurons around it. And the brain—which treats today’s devices like invaders and eventually covers them in scar tissue—will need to somehow be tricked into thinking the device is just a normal brain part doing its thing.29

- - - -

Then there’s the space issue. Where exactly are you gonna put your device that can interface with a million neurons in a skull that’s already dealing with making space for 100 billion neurons? A million electrodes using today’s multielectrode arrays would be the size of a baseball. So further miniaturization is another dramatic innovation to add to the list.

- - - -

There’s also the fact that today’s electrodes are mostly optimized for simple electrical recording or simple electrical stimulation. If we really want an effective brain interface, we’ll need something other than single-function, stiff electrodes—something with the mechanical complexity of neural circuits, that can both record and stimulate, and that can interact with neurons chemically and mechanically as well as electrically.

- - - -

And just say all of this comes together perfectly—a high-bandwidth, long-lasting, biocompatible, bidirectional communicative, non-invasively-implanted device. Now we can speak back and forth with a million neurons at once! Except this little thing where we actually don’t know how to talk to neurons. It’s complicated enough to decode the static-like firings of 100 neurons, but all we’re really doing is learning what a set of specific firings corresponds to and matching them up to simple commands. That won’t work with millions of signals. It’s like how Google Translate essentially uses two dictionaries to swap words from one dictionary to another—which is very different than understanding language. We’ll need a pretty big leap in machine learning before a computer will be able to actually know a language, and we’ll need just as big a leap for machines to understand the language of the brain—because humans certainly won’t be learning to decipher the code of millions of simultaneously chattering neurons.

- - - -

How easy does colonizing Mars seem right now.

- - - -

But I bet the telephone and the car and the moon landing would have seemed like insurmountable technological challenges to people a few decades earlier. Just like I bet this—

- - - -
- - - -

—would have seemed utterly inconceivable to people at the time of this:

- - - -
- - - -

And yet, there it is in your pocket. If there’s one thing we should learn from the past, it’s that there will always be ubiquitous technology of the future that’s inconceivable to people of the past. We don’t know which technologies that seem positively impossible to us will turn out to be ubiquitous later in our lives—but there will be some. People always underestimate the Human Colossus.

- - - -

If everyone you know in 40 years has electronics in their skull, it’ll be because a paradigm shift took place that caused a fundamental shift in this industry. That shift is what the Neuralink team will try to figure out. Other teams are working on it too, and some cool ideas are being developed:

- - - -

Current BMI innovations

- - - -

A team at the University of Illinois is developing an interface made of silk:46

- - - -
- - - -

Silk can be rolled up into a thin bundle and inserted into the brain relatively non-invasively. There, it would theoretically spread out around the brain and melt into the contours like shrink wrap. On the silk would be flexible silicon transistor arrays.

- - - -

In his TEDx Talk, Hong Yeo demonstrated an electrode array printed on his skin, like a temporary tattoo, and researchers say this kind of technique could potentially be used on the brain:47

- - - -
- - - -

Another group is working on a kind of nano-scale, electrode-lined neural mesh so tiny it can be injected into the brain with a syringe:48

- - - -
- - - -

For scale—that red tube on the right is the tip of a syringe. Extreme Tech has a nice graphic illustrating the concept:

- - - -
- - - -

Other non-invasive techniques involve going in through veins and arteries. Elon mentioned this: “The least invasive way would be something that comes in like a hard stent like through a femoral artery and ultimately unfolds in the vascular system to interface with the neurons. Neurons use a lot of energy, so there’s basically a road network to every neuron.”

- - - -

DARPA, the technology innovation arm of the US military,30 through their recently funded BRAIN program, is working on tiny, “closed-loop” neural implants that could replace medication.49

- - - -
- - - -

A second DARPA project aims to fit a million electrodes into a device the size of two nickels stacked.

- - - -

Another idea being worked on is transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), in which a magnetic coil outside the head can create electrical pulses inside the brain.50

- - - -
- - - -

The pulses can stimulate targeted neuron areas, providing a type of deep brain stimulation that’s totally non-invasive.

- - - -

One of Neuralink’s ground floor members, DJ Seo, led an effort to design an even cooler interface called “neural dust.” Neural dust refers to tiny, 100µm silicon sensors (about the same as the width of a hair) that would be sprinkled through the cortex. Right nearby, above the pia, would be a 3mm-sized device that could communicate with the dust sensors via ultrasound.

- - - -

This is another example of the innovation benefits that come from an interdisciplinary team. DJ explained to me that “there are technologies that are not really thought about in this domain, but we can bring in some principles of their work.” He says that neural dust is inspired both by microchip technology and RFID (the thing that allows hotel key cards to communicate with the door lock without making physical contact) principles. And you can easily see the multi-field influence in how it works:51

- - - -
- - - -

Others are working on even more out-there ideas, like optogenetics (where you inject a virus that attaches to a brain cell, causing it to thereafter be stimulated by light) or even using carbon nanotubes—a million of which could be bundled together and sent to the brain via the bloodstream.

- - - -

These people are all working on this arrow:

- - - -
- - - -

It’s a relatively small group right now, but when the breakthrough spark happens, that’ll quickly change. Developments will begin to happen rapidly. Brain interface bandwidth will get better and better as the procedures to implant them become simpler and cheaper. Public interest will pick up. And when public interest picks up, the Human Colossus notices an opportunity—and then the rate of development skyrockets. Just like the breakthroughs in computer hardware caused the software industry to explode, major industries will pop up working on cutting-edge machines and intelligent apps to be used in conjunction with brain interfaces, and you’ll tell some little kid in 2052 all about how when you grew up, no one could do any of the things she can do with her brain, and she’ll be bored.

- - - -

I tried to get the Neuralink team to talk about 2052 with me. I wanted to know what life was going to be like once this all became a thing. I wanted to know what went in the [Pilot ACE : iPhone 7 :: Early BMIs : ____] blank. But it wasn’t easy—this was a team built specifically because of their focus on concrete results, not hype, and I was doing the equivalent of talking to people in the late 1700s who were feverishly trying to create a breakthrough steam engine and prodding them about when they thought there would be airplanes.

- - - -

But I’d keep pulling teeth until they’d finally talk about their thoughts on the far future to get my hand off their tooth. I also focused a large portion of my talks with Elon on the far future possibilities and had other helpful discussions with Moran Cerf, a neuroscientist friend of mine who works on BMIs and thinks a lot about the long-term outlook. Finally, one reluctant-to-talk-about-his-predictions Neuralink team member told me that of course, he and his colleagues were dreamers—otherwise they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing—and that many of them were inspired to get into this industry by science fiction. He recommended I talk to Ramez Naam, writer of the popular Nexus Trilogy, a series all about the future of BMIs, and also someone with a hard tech background that includes 19 software-related patents. So I had a chat with Ramez to round out the picture and ask him the 435 remaining questions I had about everything.

- - - -

And I came out of all of it utterly blown away. I wrote once about how I think if you went back to 1750—a time when there was no electricity or motorized vehicles or telecommunication—and retrieved, say, George Washington, and brought him to today and showed him our world, he’d be so shocked by everything that he’d die. You’d have killed George Washington and messed everything up. Which got me thinking about the concept of how many years one would need to go into the future such that the ensuing shock from the level of progress would kill you. I called it a Die Progress Unit, or DPU.

- - - -

Ever since the Human Colossus was born, our world has had a weird property to it—it gets more magical as time goes on. That’s why DPUs are a thing. And because advancement begets more rapid advancement, the trend is that as time passes, the DPUs get shorter. For George Washington, a DPU was a couple hundred years, which is outrageously short in the scheme of human history. But we now live in a time where things are moving so fast that we might experience one or even multiple DPUs in our lifetime. The amount that changed between 1750 and 2017 might happen again between now and another time when you’re still alive. This is a ridiculous time to be alive—it’s just hard for us to notice because we live life so zoomed in.

- - - -

Anyway, I think about DPUs a lot and I always wonder what it would feel like to go forward in a time machine and experience what George would experience coming here. What kind of future could blow my mind so hard that it would kill me? We can talk about things like AI and gene editing—and I have no doubt that progress in those areas could make me die of shock—but it’s always, “Who knows what it’ll be like!” Never a descriptive picture.

- - - -

I think I might finally have a descriptive picture of a piece of our shocking future. Let me paint it for you.

- - - -

Part 5: The Wizard Era

- - - -
- - - -

The budding industry of brain-machine interfaces is the seed of a revolution that will change just about everything. But in many ways, the brain-interface future isn’t really a new thing that’s happening. If you take a step back, it looks more like the next big chapter in a trend that’s been going on for a long time. Language took forever to turn into writing, which then took forever to turn into printing, and that’s where things were when George Washington was around. Then came electricity and the pace picked up. Telephone. Radio. Television. Computers. And just like that, everyone’s homes became magical. Then phones became cordless. Then mobile. Computers went from being devices for work and games to windows into a digital world we all became a part of. Then phones and computers merged into an everything device that brought the magic out of our homes and put it into our hands. And on our wrists. We’re now in the early stages of a virtual and augmented reality revolution that will wrap the magic around our eyes and ears and bring our whole being into the digital world.

- - - -

You don’t need to be a futurist to see where this is going.

- - - -

Magic has worked its way from industrial facilities to our homes to our hands and soon it’ll be around our heads. And then it’ll take the next natural step. The magic is heading into our brains.

- - - -

It will happen by way of a “whole-brain interface,” or what I’ve been calling a wizard hat—a brain interface so complete, so smooth, so biocompatible, and so high-bandwidth that it feels as much a part of you as your cortex and limbic system. A whole-brain interface would give your brain the ability to communicate wirelessly with the cloud, with computers, and with the brains of anyone with a similar interface in their head. This flow of information between your brain and the outside world would be so effortless, it would feel similar to the thinking that goes on in your head today. And though we’ve used the term brain-machine interface so far, I kind of think of a BMI as a specific brain interface to be used for a specific purpose, and the term doesn’t quite capture the everything-of-everything concept of the whole-brain interface. So I’ll call that a wizard hat instead.

- - - -

Now, to fully absorb the implications of having a wizard hat installed in your head and what that would change about you, you’ll need to wrap your head around (no pun intended) two things:

- - - -

1) The intensely mind-bending idea

- - - -

2) The super ridiculously intensely mind-bending idea

- - - -

We’ll tackle #1 in this section and save #2 for the last section after you’ve had time to absorb #1.

- - - -

Elon calls the whole-brain interface and its many capabilities a “digital tertiary layer,” a term that has two levels of meaning that correspond to our two mind-bending ideas above.

- - - -

The first meaning gets at the idea of physical brain parts. We discussed three layers of brain parts—the brain stem (run by the frog), the limbic system (run by the monkey), and the cortex (run by the rational thinker). We were being thorough, but for the rest of this post, we’re going to leave the frog out of the discussion, since he’s entirely functional and lives mostly behind the scenes.

- - - -

When Elon refers to a “digital tertiary layer,” he’s considering our existing brain having two layers—our animal limbic system (which could be called our primary layer) and our advanced cortex (which could be called our secondary layer). The wizard hat interface, then, would be our tertiary layer—a new physical brain part to complement the other two.

- - - -

If thinking about this concept is giving you the willies, Elon has news for you:

- - - -

We already have a digital tertiary layer in a sense, in that you have your computer or your phone or your applications. You can ask a question via Google and get an answer instantly. You can access any book or any music. With a spreadsheet, you can do incredible calculations. If you had an Empire State building filled with people—even if they had calculators, let alone if they had to do it with a pencil and paper—one person with a laptop could outdo the Empire State Building filled with people with calculators. You can video chat with someone in freaking Timbuktu for free. This would’ve gotten you burnt for witchcraft in the old days. You can record as much video with sound as you want, take a zillion pictures, have them tagged with who they are and when it took place. You can broadcast communications through social media to millions of people simultaneously for free. These are incredible superpowers that the President of the United States didn’t have twenty years ago.

- - - -

The thing that people, I think, don’t appreciate right now is that they are already a cyborg. You’re already a different creature than you would have been twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. You’re already a different creature. You can see this when they do surveys of like, “how long do you want to be away from your phone?” and—particularly if you’re a teenager or in your 20s—even a day hurts. If you leave your phone behind, it’s like missing limb syndrome. I think people—they’re already kind of merged with their phone and their laptop and their applications and everything.

- - - -

This is a hard point to really absorb, because we don’t feel like cyborgs. We feel like humans who use devices to do things. But think about your digital self—you when you’re interacting with someone on the internet or over FaceTime or when you’re in a YouTube video. Digital you is fully you—as much as in-person you is you—right? The only difference is that you’re not there in person—you’re using magic powers to send yourself to somewhere far away, at light speed, through wires and satellites and electromagnetic waves. The difference is the medium.

- - - -

Before language, there wasn’t a good way to get a thought from your brain into my brain. Then early humans invented the technology of language, transforming vocal cords and ears into the world’s first communication devices and air as the first communication medium. We use these devices every time we talk to each other in person. It goes:

- - - -
- - - -

Then we built upon that with another leap, inventing a second layer of devices, with its own medium, allowing us to talk long distance:

- - - -
- - - -

Or maybe:

- - - -
- - - -

In that sense, your phone is as much “you” as your vocal cords or your ears or your eyes. All of these things are simply tools to move thoughts from brain to brain—so who cares if the tool is held in your hand, your throat, or your eye sockets? The digital age has made us a dual entity—a physical creature who interacts with its physical environment using its biological parts and a digital creature whose digital devices—whose digital parts—allow it to interact with the digital world.

- - - -

But because we don’t think of it like that, we’d consider someone with a phone in their head or throat a cyborg and someone else with a phone in their hand, pressed up against their head, not a cyborg. Elon’s point is that the thing that makes a cyborg a cyborg is their capabilities—not from which side of the skull those capabilities are generated.

- - - -

We’re already a cyborg, we already have superpowers, and we already spend a huge part of our lives in the digital world. And when you think of it like that, you realize how obvious it is to want to upgrade the medium that connects us to that world. This is the change Elon believes is actually happening when the magic goes into our brains:

- - - -

You’re already digitally superhuman. The thing that would change is the interface—having a high-bandwidth interface to your digital enhancements. The thing is that today, the interface all necks down to this tiny straw, which is, particularly in terms of output, it’s like poking things with your meat sticks, or using words—either speaking or tapping things with fingers. And in fact, output has gone backwards. It used to be, in your most frequent form, output would be ten-finger typing. Now, it’s like, two-thumb typing. That’s crazy slow communication. We should be able to improve that by many orders of magnitude with a direct neural interface.

- - - -

In other words, putting our technology into our brains isn’t about whether it’s good or bad to become cyborgs. It’s that we are cyborgs and we will continue to be cyborgs—so it probably makes sense to upgrade ourselves from primitive, low-bandwidth cyborgs to modern, high-bandwidth cyborgs.

- - - -

A whole-brain interface is that upgrade. It changes us from creatures whose primary and secondary layers live inside their heads and whose tertiary layer lives in their pocket, in their hand, or on their desk—

- - - -
- - - -

—to creatures whose three layers all live together.

- - - -
- - - -

Your life is full of devices, including the one you’re currently using to read this. A wizard hat makes your brain into the device, allowing your thoughts to go straight from your head into the digital world.

- - - -

Which doesn’t only revolutionize human-computer communication.

- - - -

Right now humans communicate with each other like this:

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

And that’s how it’s been ever since we could communicate. But in a wizard hat world, it would look more like this:

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

Elon always emphasizes bandwidth when he talks about Neuralink’s wizard hat goals. Interface bandwidth allows incoming images to be HD, incoming sound to be hi-fi, and motor movement commands to be tightly controlled—but it’s also a huge factor in communication. If information were a milkshake, bandwidth would be the width of the straw. Today, the bandwidth-of-communication graph looks something like this:

- - - -
- - - -

So computers can suck up the milkshake through a giant pipe, a human thinking would be using a large, pleasant-to-use straw, while language would be a frustratingly tiny coffee stirrer straw and typing (let alone texting) would be like trying to drink a milkshake through a syringe needle—you might be able to get a drop out once a minute.

- - - -

Moran Cerf has gathered data on the actual bandwidth of different parts of the nervous system and on this graph, he compares them to equivalent bandwidths in the computer world:

- - - -
- - - -

You can see here on Moran’s graph that the disparity in bandwidth between the ways we communicate and our thinking (which is at 30 bits/second on this graph) is even starker than my graph above depicts.

- - - -

But making our brains the device cuts out those tiny straws, turning all of these:

- - - -
- - - -

To this:

- - - -
- - - -

Which preserves all the meaning with none of the fuss—and changes the graph to this:

- - - -
- - - -

We’d still be using straws, but far bigger, more effective ones.

- - - -

But it’s not just about the speed of communication. As Elon points out, it’s about the nuance and accuracy of communication as well:

- - - -

There are a bunch of concepts in your head that then your brain has to try to compress into this incredibly low data rate called speech or typing. That’s what language is—your brain has executed a compression algorithm on thought, on concept transfer. And then it’s got to listen as well, and decompress what’s coming at it. And this is very lossy as well. So, then when you’re doing the decompression on those, trying to understand, you’re simultaneously trying to model the other person’s mind state to understand where they’re coming from, to recombine in your head what concepts they have in their head that they’re trying to communicate to you. … If you have two brain interfaces, you could actually do an uncompressed direct conceptual communication with another person.

- - - -

This makes sense—nuance is like a high-resolution thought, which makes the file simply too big to transfer quickly through a coffee straw. The coffee straw gives you two bad options when it comes to nuance: take a lot of time saying a lot of words to really depict the nuanced thought or imagery you want to convey to me, or save time by using succinct language—but inevitably fail to transfer over the nuance. Compounding the effect is the fact that language itself is a low-resolution medium. A word is simply an approximation of a thought—buckets that a whole category of similar-but-distinct thoughts can all be shoved into. If I watch a horror movie and want to describe it to you in words, I’m stuck with a few simple low-res buckets—“scary” or “creepy” or “chilling” or “intense.” My actual impression of that movie is very specific and not exactly like any other movie I’ve seen—but the crude tools of language force my brain to “round to the nearest bucket” and choose the word that most closely resembles my actual impression, and that’s the information you’ll receive from me. You won’t receive the thought—you’ll receive the bucket—and now you’ll have to guess which of the many nuanced impressions that all approximate to that bucket is the most similar to my impression of the movie. You’ll decompress my description—“scary as shit”—into a high-res, nuanced thought that you associate with “scary as shit,” which will inevitably be based on your own experience watching other horror movies, and your own personality. The end result is that a lot has been lost in translation—which is exactly what you’d expect when you try to transfer a high-res file over a low-bandwidth medium, quickly, using low-res tools. That’s why Elon calls language data transfer “lossy.”

- - - -

We do the best we can with these limitations—and over time, we’ve supplemented language with slightly higher-resolution formats like video to better convey nuanced imagery, or music to better convey nuanced emotion. But compared to the richness and uniqueness of the ideas in our heads, and the large-bandwidth straw our internal thoughts flow through, all human-to-human communication is very lossy.

- - - -

Thinking about the phenomenon of communication as what it is—brains trying to share things with each other—you see the history of communication not as this:

- - - -
- - - -

As much as this:

- - - -
- - - -

Or it could be put this way:

- - - -
- - - -

It really may be that the second major era of communication—the 100,000-year Era of Indirect Communication—is in its very last moments. If we zoom out on the timeline, it’s possible the entire last 150 years, during which we’ve suddenly been rapidly improving our communication media, will look to far-future humans like one concept: the transition from Era 2 to Era 3. We might be living on the line that divides timeline sections.

- - - -
- - - -

And because indirect communication requires third-party body parts or digital parts, the end of Era 2 may be looked back upon as the era of physical devices. In an era where your brain is the device, there will be no need to carry anything around. You’ll have your body and, if you want, clothes—and that’s it.

- - - -

When Elon thinks about wizard hats, this is usually the stuff he’s thinking about—communication bandwidth and resolution. And we’ll explore why in Part 6 of this post.

- - - -

First, let’s dig into the mind-boggling concept of your brain becoming a device and talk about what a wizard hat world might be like.

- - - -

___________

- - - -

One thing to keep in mind as we think about all of this is that none of it will take you by surprise. You won’t go from having nothing in your brain to a digital tertiary layer in your head, just like people didn’t go from the Apple IIGS to using Tinder overnight. The Wizard Era will come gradually, and by the time the shift actually begins to happen, we’ll all be very used to the technology, and it’ll seem normal.

- - - -

Supporting this point is the fact the staircase up to the Wizard Era has already started, and you haven’t even noticed. But there are thousands of people currently walking around with electrodes in their brain, like those with cochlear implants, retinal implants, and deep brain implants—all benefiting from early BMIs.

- - - -

The next few steps on the staircase will continue to focus on restoring lost function in different parts of the body—the first people to have their lives transformed by digital brain technology will be the disabled. As specialized BMIs serve more and more forms of disability, the concept of brain implants will work its way in from the fringes and become something we’re all used to—just like no one blinks an eye when you say your friend just got Lasik surgery or your grandmother just got a pacemaker installed.

- - - -

Elon talks about some types of people early BMIs could help:

- - - -

The first use of the technology will be to repair brain injuries as a result of stroke or cutting out a cancer lesion, where somebody’s fundamentally lost a certain cognitive element. It could help with people who are quadriplegics or paraplegics by providing a neural shunt from the motor cortex down to where the muscles are activated. It can help with people who, as they get older, have memory problems and can’t remember the names of their kids, through memory enhancement, which could allow them to function well to a much later time in life—the medically advantageous elements of this for dealing with mental disablement of one kind or another, which of course happens to all of us when we get old enough, are very significant.

- - - -

As someone who lost a grandfather to dementia five years before losing him to death, I’m excited to hear this.

- - - -

And as interface bandwidth improves, disabilities that hinder millions today will start to drop like flies. The concepts of complete blindness and deafness—whether centered in the sensory organs or in the brain31—are already on the way out. And with enough time, perfect vision or hearing will be restorable.

- - - -

Prosthetic limbs—and eventually sleek, full-body exoskeletons underneath your clothes—will work so well, providing both outgoing motor functions and an incoming sense of touch, that paralysis or amputations will only have a minor long-term effect on people’s lives.

- - - -

In Alzheimer’s patients, memories themselves are often not lost—only the bridge to those memories. Advanced BMIs could help restore that bridge or serve as a new one.

- - - -

While this is happening, BMIs will begin to emerge that people without disabilities want. The very early adopters will probably be pretty rich. But so were the early cell phone adopters.52

- - - -
- - - -

That’s Gordon Gekko, and that 1983, two-pound cell phone cost almost $9,000 in today’s dollars. And now over half of living humans own a mobile phone—all of them far less shitty than Gordon Gekko’s.

- - - -

As mobile phones got cheaper, and better, they went from new and fancy and futuristic to ubiquitous. As we go down the same road with brain interfaces, things are going to get really cool.

- - - -

Based on what I learned from my conversations with Elon, Ramez, and a dozen neuroscientists, let’s look at what the world might look like in a few decades. The timeline is uncertain, including the order in which the below developments may become a reality. And, of course, some of the below predictions are sure to be way off the mark, just as there will be other developments in this field that won’t be mentioned here because people today literally can’t imagine them yet.

- - - -

But some version of a lot of this stuff probably will happen, at some point, and a lot of it could be in your lifetime.

- - - -

Looking at all the predictions I heard, they seemed to fall into two broad categories: communication capabilities and internal enhancements.

- - - -

The Wizard Era: Communication

- - - -
- - - -

Motor communication

- - - -

“Communication” in this section can mean human-to-human or human-to-computer. Motor communication is all about human-to-computer—the whole “motor cortex as remote control” thing from earlier, but now the unbelievably rad version.

- - - -

Like many future categories of brain interface possibility, motor communication will start with restoration applications for the disabled, and as those development efforts continually advance the possibilities, the technology will begin to be used to create augmentation applications for the non-disabled as well. The same technologies that will allow a quadriplegic to use their thoughts as a remote control to move a bionic limb can let anyone use their thoughts as a remote control…to move anything. Well not anything—I’m not talking about telekinesis—anything built to be used with a brain remote. But in the Wizard Era, lots of things will be built that way.

- - - -

Your car (or whatever people use for transportation at that point) will pull up to your house and your mind will open the car door. You’ll walk up to the house and your mind will unlock and open the front door (all doors at that point will be built with sensors to receive motor cortex commands). You’ll think about wanting coffee and the coffee maker will get that going. As you head to the fridge the door will open and after getting what you need it’ll close as you walk away. When it’s time for bed, you’ll decide you want the heat turned down and the lights turned off, and those systems will feel you make that decision and adjust themselves.

- - - -

None of this stuff will take any effort or thought—we’ll all get very good at it and it’ll feel as automatic and subconscious as moving your eyes to read this sentence does to you now.

- - - -

People will play the piano with their thoughts. And do building construction. And steer vehicles. In fact, today, if you’re driving somewhere and something jumps out in the road in front of you, what neuroscientists know is that your brain sees it and begins to react well before your consciousness knows what’s going on or your arms move to steer out of the way. But when your brain is the one steering the car, you’ll have swerved out of the way before you even realize what happened.

- - - -

Thought communication

- - - -

This is what we discussed up above—but you have to resist the natural instinct to equate a thought conversation with a normal language conversation where you simply hear each other’s voices in your head. As we discussed, words are compressed approximations of uncompressed thoughts, so why would you ever bother with any of that, or deal with lossiness, if you didn’t have to? When you watch a movie, your head is buzzing with thoughts—but do you have a compressed spoken word dialogue going on in your head? Probably not—you’re just thinking. Thought conversations will be like that.

- - - -

Elon says:

- - - -

If I were to communicate a concept to you, you would essentially engage in consensual telepathy. You wouldn’t need to verbalize unless you want to add a little flair to the conversation or something (laughs), but the conversation would be conceptual interaction on a level that’s difficult to conceive of right now.

- - - -

That’s the thing—it’s difficult to really understand what it would be like to think with someone. We’ve never been able to try. We communicate with ourselves through thought and with everyone else through symbolic representations of thought, and that’s all we can imagine.

- - - -

Even weirder is the concept of a group thinking together. This is what a group brainstorm could look like in the Wizard Era.

- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -

And of course, they wouldn’t need to be in the same room. This group could have been in four different countries while this was happening—with no external devices in sight.

- - - -

Ramez has written about the effect group thinking might have on the world:

- - - -

That type of communication would have a huge impact on the pace of innovation, as scientists and engineers could work more fluidly together. And it’s just as likely to have a transformative effect on the public sphere, in the same way that email, blogs, and Twitter have successively changed public discourse.

- - - -

The idea of collaboration today is supposed to be two or more brains working together to come up with things none of them could have on their own. And a lot of the time, it works pretty well—but when you consider the “lost in transmission” phenomenon that happens with language, you realize how much more effective group thinking would be.

- - - -

I asked Elon a question that pops into everyone’s mind when they first hear about thought communication:

- - - -

“So, um, will everyone be able to know what I’m thinking?”

- - - -

He assured me they would not. “People won’t be able to read your thoughts—you would have to will it. If you don’t will it, it doesn’t happen. Just like if you don’t will your mouth to talk, it doesn’t talk.” Phew.

- - - -

You can also think with a computer. Not just to issue a command, but to actually brainstorm something with a computer. You and a computer could strategize something together. You could compose a piece of music together. Ramez talked about using a computer as an imagination collaborator: “You could imagine something, and the computer, which can better forward predict or analyze physical models, could fill in constraints—and that allows you to get feedback.”

- - - -

One concern that comes up when people hear about thought communication in particular is a potential loss of individuality. Would this make us one great hive mind with each individual brain as just another bee? Almost across the board, the experts I talked to believed it would be the opposite. We could act as one in a collaboration when it served us, but technology has thus far enhanced human individuality. Think of how much easier it is for people today to express their individuality and customize life to themselves than it was 50 or 100 or 500 years ago. There’s no reason to believe that trend won’t continue with more progress.

- - - -

Multimedia communication

- - - -

Similar to thought communication, but imagine how much easier it would be to describe a dream you had or a piece of music stuck in your head or a memory you’re thinking about if you could just beam the thing into someone’s head, like showing them on your computer screen. Or as Elon said, “I could think of a bouquet of flowers and have a very clear picture in my head of what that is. It would take a lot of words for you to even have an approximation of what that bouquet of flowers looks like.”

- - - -

How much faster could a team of engineers or architects or designers plan out a new bridge or a new building or a new dress if they could beam the vision in their head onto a screen and others could adjust it with their minds, versus sketching things out—which not only takes far longer, but probably is inevitably lossy?

- - - -

How many symphonies could Mozart have written if he had been able to think the music in his head onto the page? How many Mozarts are out there right now who never learned how to play instruments well enough to get their talent out?

- - - -

I watched this delightful animated short movie the other day, and below the video the creator, Felix Colgrave, said the video took him two years. How much of that time was spent dreaming up the art versus painstakingly getting it from his head into the software? Maybe in a few decades, I’ll be able to watch animation streaming live out of Felix’s head.

- - - -

Emotional communication

- - - -

Emotions are the quintessential example of a concept that words are poorly-equipped to accurately describe. If ten people say, “I’m sad,” it actually means ten different things. In the Wizard Era, we’ll probably learn pretty quickly that the specific emotions people feel are as unique to people as their appearance or sense of humor.

- - - -

This could work as communication—when one person communicates just what they’re feeling, the other person would be able to access the feeling in their own emotional centers. Obvious implications for a future of heightened empathy. But emotional communication could also be used for things like entertainment, where a movie, say, could also project out to the audience—directly into their limbic systems—certain feelings it wants the audience to feel as they watch. This is already what the film score does—another hack—and now it could be done directly.

- - - -

Sensory communication

- - - -

This one is intense.

- - - -

Right now, the only two microphones that can act as inputs for the “speaker” in your head—your auditory cortex—are your two ears. The only two cameras that can be hooked up to the projector in your head—your visual cortex—are your two eyes. The only sensory surface that you can feel is your skin. The only thing that lets you experience taste is your tongue.

- - - -

But in the same way we can currently hook an implant, for example, into someone’s cochlea—which connects a different mic to their auditory cortex—down the road we’ll be able to let sensory input information stream into your wizard hat wirelessly, from anywhere, and channel right into your sensory cortices the same way your bodily sensory organs do today. In the future, sensory organs will be only one set of inputs into your senses—and compared to what our senses will have access to, not a very exciting one.

- - - -

Now what about output?

- - - -

Currently, the only speaker your ear inputs can play out of is your auditory cortex. Only you can see what your eye cameras capture and only you can feel what touches your skin—because only you have access to the particular cortices those inputs are wired to. With a wizard hat, it would be a breeze for your brain to beam those input signals out of your head.

- - - -

So you’ll have sensory input capabilities and sensory output capabilities—or both at the same time. This will open up all kinds of amazing possibilities.

- - - -

Say you’re on a beautiful hike and you want to show your husband the view. No problem—just think out to him to request a brain connection. When he accepts, connect your retina feed to his visual cortex. Now his vision is filled with exactly what your eyes see, as if he’s there. He asks for the other senses to get the full picture, so you connect those too and now he hears the waterfall in the distance and feels the breeze and smells the trees and jumps when a bug lands on your arm. You two share the equivalent of a five-minute discussion about the scene—your favorite parts, which other places it reminds you of, etc. along with a shared story from his day—in a 30-second thought session. He says he has to get back to what he was working on, so he cuts off the sense connections except for vision, which he reduces to a little picture-in-picture window on the side of his visual field so he can check out more of the hike from time to time.

- - - -

A surgeon could control a machine scalpel with her motor cortex instead of holding one in her hand, and she could receive sensory input from that scalpel so that it would feel like an 11th finger to her. So it would be as if one of her fingers was a scalpel and she could do the surgery without holding any tools, giving her much finer control over her incisions. An inexperienced surgeon performing a tough operation could bring a couple of her mentors into the scene as she operates to watch her work through her eyes and think instructions or advice to her. And if something goes really wrong, one of them could “take the wheel” and connect their motor cortex to her outputs to take control of her hands.

- - - -

There would be no more need for screens of course—because you could just make a virtual screen appear in your visual cortex. Or jump into a VR movie with all your senses. Speaking of VR—Facebook, the maker of the Oculus Rift, is diving into this too. In an interview with Mark Zuckerberg about VR (for an upcoming post), the conversation at one point turned to BMIs. He said: “Touch gives you input and it’s a little bit of haptic feedback. Over the long term, it’s not clear that we won’t just like to have our hands in no controller, and maybe, instead of having buttons that we press, we would just think something.”

- - - -

The ability to record sensory input means you can also record your memories, or share them—since a memory in the first place is just a not-so-accurate playback of previous sensory input. Or you could play them back as live experiences. In other words, that Black Mirror episode will probably actually happen.

- - - -

An NBA player could send out a livestream invitation to his fans before a game, which would let them see and hear through his eyes and ears while he plays. Those who miss it could jump into the recording later.

- - - -

You could save a great sex experience in the cloud to enjoy again later—or, if you’re not too private a person, you could send it over to a friend to experience. (Needless to say, the porn industry will thrive in the digital brain world.)

- - - -

Right now, you can go on YouTube and watch a first-hand account of almost anything, for free. This would have blown George Washington’s mind—but in the Wizard Era, you’ll be able to actually experience almost anything for free. The days of fancy experiences being limited to rich people will be long over.

- - - -

Another idea, via the imagination of Moran Cerf: Maybe player brain injuries will drive the NFL to alter the rules so that the players’ biological bodies stay on the sidelines, while they play the game with an artificial body whose motor cortex they control and whose eyes and ears they see and hear through. I like this idea and think it would be closer to the current NFL than it seems at first. In one way, you’ll still need to be a great athlete to play, since most of what makes a great athlete great is their motor cortex, their muscle memory, and their decision-making. But the other component of being a great athlete—the physical body itself—would now be artificial. The NFL could make all of the artificial playing bodies identical—this would be a cool way to see whose skills were actually best—or they could insist that artificial body matches in every way the biological body of the athlete, to mimic as closely as possible how the game would go if players used their biological bodies like in the old days. Either way, if this rule change happened, you can imagine how crazyit would seem to people that players used to have their actual, fragile brains on the field.

- - - -

I could go on. The communication possibilities in a wizard hat world, especially when you combine them with each other, are endless—and damn fun to think about.

- - - -

The Wizard Era: Internal Control

- - - -
- - - -

Communication—the flow of information into and out of your brain—is only one way your wizard hat will be able to serve you.

- - - -

A whole-brain interface can stimulate any part of your brain in any way—it has to have this capability for the input half of all the communication examples above. But that capability also gives you a whole new level of control over your brain. Here are some ways people of the future might take advantage of that:

- - - -

Win the battle in your head for both sides

- - - -

Often, the battle in our heads between our prefrontal cortex and limbic system comes down to the fact that both parties are trying to do what’s best for us—it’s just that our limbic system is wrong about what’s best for us because it thinks we live in a tribe 50,000 years ago.

- - - -

Your limbic system isn’t making you eat your ninth Starburst candy in a row because it’s a dick—it’s making you eat it because it thinks that A) any fruit that sweet and densely chewy must be super rich in calories and B) you might not find food again for the next four days so it’s a good idea to load up on a high-calorie food whenever the opportunity arises.

- - - -

Meanwhile, your prefrontal cortex is just watching in horror like “WHY ARE WE DOING THIS.”

- - - -

But Moran believes that a good brain interface could fix this problem:53

- - - -

Consider eating a chocolate cake. While eating, we feed data to our cognitive apparatus. These data provide the enjoyment of the cake. The enjoyment isn’t in the cake, per se, but in our neural experience of it. Decoupling our sensory desire (the experience of cake) from the underlying survival purpose (nutrition) will soon be within our reach.

- - - -

This concept of “sensory decoupling” would make so much sense if we could pull it off. You could get the enjoyment of eating like shit without actually putting shit in your body. Instead, Moran says, what would go in your body would be “nutrition inputs customized for each person based on genomes, microbiomes or other factors. Physical diets released from the tyranny of desire.”54

- - - -

The same principle could apply to things like sex, drugs, alcohol, and other pleasures that get people into trouble, healthwise or otherwise.

- - - -

Ramez Naam talks about how a brain interface could also help us win the discipline battle when it comes to time:55

- - - -

We know that stimulating the right centers in the brain can induce sleep or alertness, hunger or satiation, ease or stimulation, as quick as the flip of a switch. Or, if you’re running code, on a schedule. (Siri: Put me to sleep until 7:30, high priority interruptions only. And let’s get hungry for lunch around noon. Turn down the sugar cravings, though.)

- - - -

Take control of mood disorders

- - - -

Ramez also emphasized that a great deal of scientific evidence suggests that moods and disorders are tied to what the chemicals in your brain are doing. Right now, we take drugs to alter those chemicals, and Ramez explains why direct neural stimulation is a far better option:56

- - - -

Pharmaceuticals enter the brain and then spread out randomly, hitting whatever receptor they work on all across your brain. Neural interfaces, by contrast, can stimulate just one area at a time, can be tuned in real-time, and can carry information out about what’s happening.

- - - -

Depression, anxiety, OCD, and other disorders may be easy to eradicate once we can take better control of what goes on in our brain.

- - - -

Mess with your senses

- - - -

Want to hear what a dog hears? That’s easy. The pitch range we can hear is limited by the dimensions of our cochlea—but pitches out of the ear’s range can be sent straight into our auditory nerve.32

- - - -

Or maybe you want a new sense. You love bird watching and want to be able to sense when there’s a bird nearby. So you buy an infrared camera that can detect bird locations by their heat signals and you link it to your brain interface, which stimulates neurons in a certain way to alert you to the presence of a bird and tell you its location. I can’t describe what you’d experience when it alerts you, so I’ll just say words like “feel” or “see,” because I can only imagine the five senses we have. But in the future, there will be more words for new, useful types of senses.

- - - -

You could also dim or shut off parts of a sense, like pain perhaps. Pain is the body’s way of telling us we need to address something, but in the future, we’ll elect to get that information in much less unpleasant formats.33

- - - -

Increase your knowledge 

- - - -

There’s evidence from experiments with rats that it’s possible to boost how fast a brain can learn—sometimes by 2x or even 3x—just by priming certain neurons to prepare to make a long-term connection.

- - - -

Your brain would also have access to all the knowledge in the world, at all times. I talked to Ramez about how accessing information in the cloud might work. We parsed it out into four layers of capability, each requiring a more advanced brain interface than the last:

- - - -

Level 1: I want to know a fact. I call on the cloud for that info—like Googling something with my brain—and the answer, in text, appears in my mind’s eye. Basically what I do now except it all happens in my head.

- - - -

Level 2: I want to know a fact. I call on the cloud for that info, and then a second later I just know it. No reading was involved—it was more like the way I’d recall something from memory.

- - - -

Level 3: I just know the fact I want to know the second I want it. I don’t even know if it came from the cloud or if it was stored in my brain. I can essentially treat the whole cloud like my brain. I don’t know all the info—my brain could never fit it all—but any time I want to know something it downloads into my consciousness so seamlessly and quickly, it’s as if it were there all along.

- - - -

Level 4: Beyond just knowing facts, I can deeply understand anything I want to, in a complex way. We discussed the example of Moby Dick. Could I download Moby Dickfrom the cloud into my memory and then suddenly have it be the same as if I had read the whole book? Where I’d have thoughts and opinions and I could cite passages and have discussions about the themes?

- - - -

Ramez thinks all four of these are possible with enough time, but that the fourth in particular will take a very long time to happen, if ever.

- - - -

So there are about 50 delightful potential things about putting a wizard hat on your brain. Now for the undelightful part.

- - - -

The scary thing about wizard hats

- - - -

As is always the case with the advent of new technologies, when the Wizard Era rolls around, the dicks of the world will do their best to ruin everything.

- - - -

And this time, the stakes are extra high. Here are some things that could suck:

- - - -

Trolls can have an even fielder day. The troll-type personalities of the world have been having a field day ever since the internet came out. They literally can’t believe their luck. But with brain interfaces, they’ll have an even fielder day. Being more connected to each other means a lot of good things—like empathy going up as a result of more exposure to all kinds of people—but it also means a lot of bad things. Just like the internet. Bad guys will have more opportunity to spread hate or build hateful coalitions. The internet has been a godsend for ISIS, and a brain-connected world would be an even more helpful recruiting tool.

- - - -

Computers crash. And they have bugs. And normally that’s not the end of the world, because you can try restarting, and if it’s really being a piece of shit, you can just get a new computer. You can’t get a new head. There will have to be a way way higher number of precautions taken here.

- - - -

Computers can be hacked. Except this time they have access to your thoughts, sensory input, and memories. Bad times.

- - - -

Holy shit computers can be hacked. In the last item I was thinking about bad guys using hacking to steal information from my brain. But brain interfaces can also put information in. Meaning a clever hacker might be able to change your thoughts or your vote or your identity or make you want to do something terrible you normally wouldn’t ever consider. And you wouldn’t know it ever happened. You could feel strongly about voting for a candidate and a little part of you would wonder if someone manipulated your thoughts so you’d feel that way. The darkest possible scenario would be an ISIS-type organization actually influencing millions of people to join their cause by altering their thoughts. This is definitely the scariest paragraph in this post. Let’s get out of here.

- - - -

Why the Wizard Era will be a good thing anyway even though there are a lot of dicks

- - - -

Physics advancements allow bad guys to make nuclear bombs. Biological advancements allow bad guys to make bioweapons. The invention of cars and planes led to crashes that kill over a million people a year. The internet enabled the spread of fake news, made us vulnerable to cyberattack, made terrorist recruiting efforts easier, and allowed predators to flourish.

- - - -

And yet—

- - - -

Would people choose to reverse our understanding of science, go back to the days of riding horses across land and boats across the ocean, or get rid of the internet?

- - - -

Probably not.

- - - -

New technology also comes along with real dangers and it always does end up harming a lot of people. But it also always seems to help a lot more people than it harms. Advancing technology almost always proves to be a net positive.

- - - -

People also love to hate the concept of new technology—because they worry it’s unhealthy and makes us less human. But those same people, if given the option, usually wouldn’t consider going back to George Washington’s time, when half of children died before the age of 5, when traveling to other parts of the world was impossible for almost everyone, when a far greater number of humanitarian atrocities were being committed than there are today, when women and ethnic minorities had far fewer rights across the world than they do today, when far more people were illiterate and far more people were living under the poverty line than there are today. They wouldn’t go back 250 years—a time right before the biggest explosion of technology in human history happened. Sounds like people who are immensely grateful for technology. And yet their opinion holds—our technology is ruining our lives, people in the old days were much wiser, our world’s going to shit, etc. I don’t think they’ve thought about it hard enough.

- - - -

So when it comes to what will be a long list of dangers of the Wizard Era—they suck, and they’ll continue to suck as some of them play out into sickening atrocities and catastrophes. But a vastly larger group of good guys will wage war back, as they always do, and a giant “brain security” industry will be born. And I bet, if given the option, people in the Wizard Era wouldn’t for a second consider coming back to 2017.

- - - -

___________

- - - -

The Timeline

- - - -

I always know when humanity doesn’t know what the hell is going on with something when all the experts are contradicting each other about it.34

- - - -

The timeline for our road to the Wizard Era is one of those times—in large part because no one knows to what extent we’ll be able to make Stevenson’s Law look more like Moore’s Law.

- - - -

My conversations yielded a wide range of opinions on the timeline. One neuroscientist predicted that I’d have a whole-brain interface in my lifetime. Mark Zuckerberg said: “I would be pretty disappointed if in 25 years we hadn’t made some progress towards thinking things to computers.” One prediction on the longer end came from Ramez Naam, who thought the time of people beginning to install BMIs for reasons other than disability might not come for 50 years and that mass adoption would take even longer.

- - - -

“I hope I’m wrong,” he said. “I hope that Elon bends the curve on this.”

- - - -

When I asked Elon about his timeline, he said:

- - - -

I think we are about 8 to 10 years away from this being usable by people with no disability … It is important to note that this depends heavily on regulatory approval timing and how well our devices work on people with disabilities.

- - - -

During another discussion, I had asked him about why he went into this branch of biotech and not into genetics. He responded:

- - - -

Genetics is just too slow, that’s the problem. For a human to become an adult takes twenty years. We just don’t have that amount of time.

- - - -

A lot of people working on this challenge have a lot of different motivations for doing so, but rarely did I talk to people who felt motivated by urgency.

- - - -

Elon’s urgency to get us into the Wizard Era is the final piece of the Neuralink puzzle. Our last box to fill in:

- - - -
- - - -

With Elon’s companies, there’s always some “result of the goal” that’s his real reason for starting the company—the piece that ties the company’s goal into humanity’s better future. In the case of Neuralink, it’s a piece that takes a lot of tree climbing to understand. But with the view from all the way up here, we’ve got everything we need for our final stretch of the road.

- - - -

Part 6: The Great Merger

- - - -
- - - -

Imagine an alien explorer is visiting a new star and finds three planets circling it, all with life on them. The first happens to be identical to the way Earth was in 10 million BC. The second happens to be identical to Earth in 50,000 BC. And the third happens to be identical to Earth in 2017 AD.

- - - -

The alien is no expert on primitive biological life but circles around all three planets, peering down at each with his telescope. On the first, he sees lots of water and trees and mountains and some little signs of animal life. He makes out a herd of elephants on an African plain, a group of dolphins skipping along the ocean’s surface, and a few other scattered critters living out their Tuesday.

- - - -

He moves on to the second planet and looks around. More critters, not too much different. He notices one new thing—occasional little points of flickering light dotting the land.

- - - -

Bored, he moves on to the third planet. Whoa. He sees planes crawling around above the land, vast patches of gray land with towering buildings on them, ships of all kinds sprinkled across the seas, long railways stretching across continents, and he has to jerk his spaceship out of the way when a satellite soars by him.

- - - -

When he heads home, he reports on what he found: “Two planets with primitive life and one planet with intelligent life.”

- - - -

You can understand why that would be his conclusion—but he’d be wrong.

- - - -

In fact, it’s the first planet that’s the odd one out. Both the second and third planets have intelligent life on them—equally intelligent life. So equal that you could kidnap a newborn baby from Planet 2 and swap it with a newborn on Planet 3 and both would grow up as normal people on the other’s planet, fitting in seamlessly. Same people.

- - - -

And yet, how could that be?

- - - -
- - - -

The Human Colossus. That’s how.

- - - -

Ever wonder why you’re so often unimpressed by humans and yet so blown away by the accomplishments of humanity?

- - - -

It’s because humans are still, deep down, those people on Planet 2.

- - - -

Plop a baby human into a group of chimps and ask them to raise him, Tarzan style, and the human as an adult will know how to run around the forest, climb trees, find food, and masturbate. That’s who each of us actually is.

- - - -

Humanity, on the other hand, is a superintelligent, tremendously-knowledgeable, millennia-old Colossus, with 7.5 billion neurons. And that’s who built Planet 3.

- - - -

The invention of language allowed each human brain to dump its knowledge onto a pile before its death, and the pile became a tower and grew taller and taller until one day, it became the brain of a great Colossus that built us a civilization. The Human Colossus has been inventing things ever since, getting continually better at it with time. Driven only by the desire to create value, the Colossus is now moving at an unprecedented pace—which is why we live in an unprecedented and completely anomalous time in history.

- - - -

You know how I said we might be living literally on the line between two vast eras of communication?

- - - -

Well the truth is, we seem to be on a lot of historic timeline boundaries. After 1,000 centuries of human life and 3.8 billion years of Earthly life, it seems like this century will be the one where Earth life makes the leap from the Single-Planetary Era to the Multi-Planetary Era. This century may be the one when an Earthly species finally manages to wrest the genetic code from the forces of evolution and learns to reprogram itself. People alive today could witness the moment when biotechnology finally frees the human lifespan from the will of nature and hands it over to the will of each individual.

- - - -

The Human Colossus has reached an entirely new level of power—the kind of power that can overthrow 3.8-billion-year eras—positioning us on the verge of multiple tipping points that will lead to unimaginable change. And if our alien friend finds a fourth planet one day that happens to be identical to Earth in 2100, you can be pretty damn sure it’ll look nothing to him like Planet 3.

- - - -

I hope you enjoyed Planet 3, because we’re leaving it. Planet 4 is where we’re headed, whether we like it or not.

- - - -
- - - -

__________

- - - -

If I had to sum up the driving theme behind everything Elon Musk does, it would be pretty simple:

- - - -

He wants to prepare us for Planet 4.

- - - -

He lives in the big picture, and his only lens is the maximum zoom-out. That’s why he’s such an unusual visionary. It’s also why he’s so worried.

- - - -

It’s not that he thinks Planet 4 is definitely a bad place—it’s that he thinks it could be a bad place, and he recognizes that the generations alive today, whether they realize it or not, are the first in history to face real, hardcore existential risk.

- - - -

At the same time, the people alive today also are the first who can live with the actually realistic hope for a genuinely utopian future—one that defies even death and taxes. Planet 4 could be our promised land.

- - - -

When you zoom way out, you realize how unfathomably high the stakes actually are.

- - - -

And the outcome isn’t at the whim of chance—it’s at the whim of the Human Colossus. Planet 4 is only coming because the Colossus is building it. And whether that future is like heaven or hell depends on what the Colossus does—maybe over the next 150 years, maybe over only the next 50. Or 25.

- - - -

But the unfortunate thing is that the Human Colossus isn’t optimized to maximize the chances of a safe transition to the best possible Planet 4 for the most possible humans—it’s optimized to build Planet 4, in any way possible, as quickly as possible.

- - - -

Understanding all of this, Elon has dedicated his life to trying to influence the Human Colossus to bring its motivation more in line with the long-term interests of humans. He knows it’s not possible to rewire the Human Colossus—not unless existential risk were suddenly directly in front of each human’s face, which normally doesn’t happen until it’s already too late—so he treats the Colossus like a pet.

- - - -

If you want your dog to sit, you correlate sitting on command with getting a treat. For the Human Colossus, a treat is a ripe new industry simultaneously exploding in both supply and demand.

- - - -

Elon saw the Human Colossus dog peeing on the floor in the form of continually adding ancient, deeply-buried carbon into the carbon cycle—and rather than plead with the Colossus to stop peeing on the floor (which a lot of people waste their breath doing) or try to threaten the Colossus into behaving (which governments try to do, with limited success), he’s creating an electric car so rad that everyone will want one. The auto industry sees the shift in consumer preferences this is beginning to create, and in the nine years since Tesla released its first car, the number of major car companies with an electric car in their line went from zero to almost all of them. The Colossus seems to be taking the treat, and a change in behavior may follow.

- - - -

Elon saw the Human Colossus dog running into traffic in the form of humanity keeping all of its eggs on one planet, despite all of those tipping points on the horizon, so he built SpaceX to learn to land a rocket, which will cut the cost of space travel by about 99% and make dedicating resources to the space industry a much tastier morsel for the Colossus. His plan with Mars isn’t to try to convince humanity that it’s a good idea to build a civilization there in order to buy life insurance for the species—it’s to create an affordable regular cargo and human transit route to Mars, knowing that once that happens, there will be enough value-creation opportunity in Mars development that the Colossus will become determined to make it happen.

- - - -

But to Elon, the scariest thing the Human Colossus is doing is teaching the Computer Colossus to think. To Elon, and many others, the development of superintelligent AI poses by far the greatest existential threat to humanity. It’s not that hard to see why. Intelligence gives us godlike powers over all other creatures on Earth—which has not been a fun time for the creatures. If any of their body parts are possible value creators, we have major industries processing and selling those body parts. We sometimes kill them for sport. But we’re probably the least fun all the times we’re just doing our thing, for our own reasons, with no hate in our hearts or desire to hurt anyone, and there are creatures, or ecosystems, that just happen to be in our way or in the line of fire of the side effects of what we’re doing. People like to get all mad at humanity about this, but really, we’re just doing what species do—being selfish, first and foremost.

- - - -

The issue for other creatures isn’t our selfishness—it’s the immense damage our selfishness can do because of the tremendous power we have over them. Power that comes from our intelligence advantage.

- - - -

So it’s pretty logical to be apprehensive about the prospect of intentionally creating something that will have (perhaps far) more intelligence than we do—especially since every human on the planet is an amateur at creating something like that, because no one has ever done it before.

- - - -

And things are progressing quickly. Elon talked about the rapid progress made by Google’s game-playing AI:

- - - -

I mean, you’ve got these two things where AlphaGo crushes these human players head-on-head, beats Lee Sedol 4 out of 5 games and now it will beat a human every game all the time, while playing the 50 best players, and beating them always, all the time. You know, that’s like one year later. 

- - - -

And it’s on a harmless thing like AlphaGo right now. But the degrees of freedom at which the AI can win are increasing. So, Go has many more degrees of freedom than Chess, but if you take something like one of the real-time strategy competitive games like League of Legends or Dota 2, that has vastly more degrees of freedom than Go, so it can’t win at that yet. But it will be able to. And then there’s reality, which has the ultimate number of degrees of freedom.35

- - - -

And for reasons discussed above, that kind of thing worries him:

- - - -

What I came to realize in recent years—the last couple years—is that AI is obviously going to surpass human intelligence by a lot. … There’s some risk at that point that something bad happens, something that we can’t control, that humanity can’t control after that point—either a small group of people monopolize AI power, or the AI goes rogue, or something like that. It may not, but it could.

- - - -

But in typical Human Colossus form, “the collective will is not attuned to the danger of AI.”

- - - -

When I interviewed Elon in 2015, I asked him if he would ever join the effort to build superintelligent AI. He said, “My honest opinion is that we shouldn’t build it.” And when I later commented that building something smarter than yourself did seem like a basic Darwinian error (a phrase I stole from Nick Bostrom), Elon responded, “We’re gonna win the Darwin Award, collectively.”

- - - -

Now, two years later, here’s what he says:

- - - -

I was trying to really sound the alarm on the AI front for quite a while, but it was clearly having no impact (laughs) so I was like, “Oh fine, okay, then we’ll have to try to help develop it in a way that’s good.”

- - - -

He’s accepted reality—the Human Colossus is not going to quit until the Computer Colossus, one day, wakes up. This is happening.

- - - -
- - - -

No matter what anyone tells you, no one knows what will happen when the Computer Colossus learns to think. In my long AI explainer, I explored the reasoning of both those who are convinced that superintelligent AI will be the solution to every problem we have, and those who see humanity as a bunch of kids playing with a bomb they don’t understand. I’m personally still torn about which camp I find more convincing, but it seems pretty rational to plan for the worst and do whatever we can to increase our odds. Many experts agree with that logic, but there’s little consensus on the best strategy for creating superintelligent AI safely—just a whole lot of ideas from people who acknowledge they don’t really know the answer. How could anyone know how to take precautions for a future world they have no way to understand?

- - - -

Elon also acknowledges he doesn’t know the answer—but he’s working on a plan he thinks will give us our best shot.

- - - -

Elon’s Plan

- - - -

Abraham Lincoln was pleased with himself when he came up with the line:

- - - -

—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

- - - -

Fair—it’s a good line.

- - - -

The whole idea of “of the people, by the people, for the people” is the centerpiece of democracy.

- - - -

Unfortunately, “the people” are unpleasant. So democracy ends up being unpleasant. But unpleasant tends to be a dream compared to the alternatives. Elon talked about this:

- - - -

I think that the protection of the collective is important. I think it was Churchill who said, “Democracy’s the worst of all systems of government, except for all the others.” It’s fine if you have Plato’s incredible philosopher king as the king, sure. That would be fine. Now, most dictators do not turn out that way. They tend to be quite horrible.

- - - -

In other words, democracy is like escaping from a monster by hiding in a sewer.

- - - -

There are plenty of times in life when it’s a good strategy to take a risk in order to give yourself a chance for the best possible outcome, but when the stakes are at their absolute highest, the right move is usually to play it safe. Power is one of those times. That’s why, even though democracy essentially guarantees a certain level of mediocrity, Elon says, “I think you’re hard-pressed to find many people in the United States who, no matter what they think of any given president, would advocate for a dictatorship.”

- - - -

And since Elon sees AI as the ultimate power, he sees AI development as the ultimate “play it safe” situation. Which is why his strategy for minimizing existential AI risk seems to essentially be that AI power needs to be of the people, by the people, for the people.

- - - -

To try to implement that concept in the realm of AI, Elon has approached the situation from multiple angles.

- - - -

For the by the people and for the people parts, he and Sam Altman created OpenAI—a self-described “non-profit AI research company, discovering and enacting the path to safe artificial general intelligence.”

- - - -

Normally, when humanity is working on something new, it starts with the work of a few innovative pioneers. When they succeed, an industry is born and the Human Colossus jumps on board to build upon what the pioneers started, en masse.

- - - -

But what if the thing those pioneers were working on was a magic wand that might give whoever owned it immense, unbreakable power over everyone else—including the power to prevent anyone else from making a magic wand? That would be kinda stressful, right?

- - - -

Well that’s how Elon views today’s early AI development efforts. And since he can’t stop people from trying to make a magic wand, his solution is to create an open, collaborative, transparent magic wand development lab. When a new breakthrough innovation is discovered in the lab, instead of making it a tightly-kept secret like the other magic wand companies, the lab publishes the innovation for anyone to see or borrow for their own magic-wand-making efforts.

- - - -

On one hand, this could have drawbacks. Bad guys are out there trying to make a magic wand too, and you really don’t want the first magic wand to end up in the hands of a bad guy. And now the bad guys’ development efforts can benefit from all of the innovations being published by the lab. This is a serious concern.

- - - -

But the lab also boosts the efforts of millions of other people trying to create magic wands. This generates a ton of competition for the secretive early pioneers, and it becomes less likely that any one inventor can create a magic wand long before others also do. More likely is that when the first magic wand is eventually created, there are thousands of others near completion as well—different wands, with different capabilities, made by different people, for different reasons. If we have to have magic wands on Earth, Elon thinks, let’s at least make sure they’re in the hands of a large number of people across the world—not one all-powerful sorcerer. Or as he puts it:

- - - -

Essentially, if everyone’s from planet Krypton, that’s great. But if only one of them is Superman and Superman also has the personality of Hitler, then we’ve got a problem.

- - - -

More broadly, a single pioneer’s magic wand would likely have been built to serve that inventor’s own needs and purposes. But by turning the future magic wand industry into a collective effort, a wide variety of needs and purposes will have a wand made for them, making it more likely that the capabilities of the world’s aggregate mass of magic wands will overarchingly represent the needs of the masses.

- - - -

You know, like democracy.

- - - -

It worked fine for Nikola Tesla and Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers and Alan Turing to jump-start revolutions by jumping way out ahead of the pack. But when you’re dealing with the invention of something unthinkably powerful, you can’t sit back and let the pioneers kick things off—it’s leaving too much to chance.

- - - -

OpenAI is an effort to democratize the creation of AI, to get the entire Human Colossus working on it during its pioneer phase. Elon sums it up:

- - - -

AI is definitely going to vastly surpass human abilities. To the degree that it is linked to human will, particularly the sum of a large number of humans, it would be an outcome that is desired by a large number of humans, because it would be a function of their will.

- - - -

So now you’ve maybe got early human-level-or-higher AI superpower being made by the people, for the people—which brings down the likelihood that the world’s AI ends up in the hands of a single bad guy or a tightly-controlled monopoly.

- - - -

Now all we’ve got left is of the people.

- - - -

This one should be easy. Remember, the Human Colossus is creating superintelligent AI for the same reason it created cars, factory machines, and computers—to serve as an extension of itself to which it can outsource work. Cars do our walking, factory machines do our manufacturing, and computers take care of information storage, organization, and computation.

- - - -

Creating computers that can think will be our greatest invention yet—they’ll allow us to outsource our most important and high-impact work. Thinking is what built everything we have, so just imagine the power that will come from building ourselves a superintelligent thinking extension. And extensions of the people by definition belong to the people—they’re of the people.

- - - -

There’s just this one thing—

- - - -

High-caliber AI isn’t quite like those other inventions. The rest of our technology is great at the thing it’s built to do, but in the end, it’s a mindless machine with narrow intelligence. The AI we’re trying to build will be smart, like a person—like a ridiculously smart person. It’s a fundamentally different thing than we’ve ever made before—so why would we expect normal rules to apply?

- - - -

It’s always been an automatic thing that the technology we make inherently belongs to us—it’s such an obvious point that it almost seems silly to make it. But could it be that if we make something smarter than a person, it might not be so easy to control?

- - - -

Could it be that a creation that’s better at thinking than any human on Earth might not be fully content to serve as a human extension, even if that’s what it was built to do?

- - - -

We don’t know how issues will actually manifest—but it seems pretty safe to say that yes, these possibilities could be.

- - - -

And if what could be turns out to actually be, we may have a serious problem on our hands.

- - - -

Because, as the human history case study suggests, when there’s something on the planet way smarter than everyone else, it can be a really bad thing for everyone else. And if AI becomes the new thing on the planet that’s way smarter than everyone else, and it turns out not to clearly belong to us—it means that it’s its own thing. Which drops us into the category of “everyone else.”

- - - -

So people gaining monopolistic control of AI is its own problem—and one that OpenAI is hoping to solve. But it’s a problem that may pale in comparison to the prospect of AI being uncontrollable.

- - - -

This is what keeps Elon up at night. He sees it as only a matter of time before superintelligent AI rises up on this planet—and when that happens, he believes that it’s critical that we don’t end up as part of “everyone else.”

- - - -

That’s why, in a future world made up of AI and everyone else, he thinks we have only one good option:

- - - -

To be AI.

- - - -

___________

- - - -

Remember before when I said that there were two things about wizard hats we had to wrap our heads around?

- - - -

1) The intensely mind-bending idea

- - - -

2) The super ridiculously intensely mind-bending idea

- - - -

This is where #2 comes in.

- - - -
- - - -

These two ideas are the two things Elon means when he refers to the wizard hat as a digital tertiary layer in our brains. The first, as we discussed, is the concept that a whole-brain interface is kind of the same thing as putting our devices in our heads—effectively making your brain the device. Like this: 

- - - -

Your devices give you cyborg superpowers and a window into the digital world. Your brain’s wizard hat electrode array is a new brain structure, joining your limbic system and cortex.

- - - -

But your limbic system, cortex, and wizard hat are just the hardware systems. When you experience your limbic system, it’s not the physical system you’re interacting with—it’s the information flow within it. It’s the activity of the physical system that bubbles up in your consciousness, making you feel angry, scared, horny, or hungry.

- - - -

Same thing for your cortex. The napkin wrapped around your brain stores and organizes information, but it’s the information itself that you experience when you think something, see something, hear something, or feel something. The visual cortex in itself does nothing for you—it’s the stream of photon information flowing through it that gives you the experience of having a visual cortex. When you dig in your memory to find something, you’re not searching for neurons, you’re searching for information stored in the neurons.

- - - -

The limbic system and cortex themselves are just gray matter. The flow of activity within the gray matter is what forms your familiar internal characters, the monkey brain and the rational human brain.

- - - -

So what does that mean about your digital tertiary layer?

- - - -

It means that while what’s actually in your brain is the physical device—the electrode array itself—the component of the tertiary layer that you’ll experience and get to know as a character is the information that flows through the array.

- - - -

And just like the feelings and urges of the limbic system and the thoughts and chattering voice of the cortex all feel to you like parts of you—like your inner essence—the activity that flows through your wizard hat will feel like a part of you and your essence.

- - - -

Elon’s vision for the Wizard Era is that among the wizard hat’s many uses, one of its core purposes will be to serve as the interface between your brain and a cloud-based customized AI system. That AI system, he believes, will become as present a character in your mind as your monkey and your human characters—and it will feel like you every bit as much as the others do. He says:

- - - -

I think that, conceivably, there’s a way for there to be a tertiary layer that feels like it’s part of you. It’s not some thing that you offload to, it’s you.

- - - -

This makes sense on paper. You do most of your “thinking” with your cortex, but then when you get hungry, you don’t say, “My limbic system is hungry,” you say, “I’m hungry.” Likewise, Elon thinks, when you’re trying to figure out the solution to a problem and your AI comes up with the answer, you won’t say, “My AI got it,” you’ll say, “Aha! I got it.” When your limbic system wants to procrastinate and your cortex wants to work, a situation I might be familiar with, it doesn’t feel like you’re arguing with some external being, it feels like a singular you is struggling to be disciplined. Likewise, when you think up a strategy at work and your AI disagrees, that’ll be a genuine disagreement and a debate will ensue—but it will feel like an internal debate, not a debate between you and someone else that just happens to take place in your thoughts. The debate will feel like thinking. 

- - - -

It makes sense on paper.

- - - -

But when I first heard Elon talk about this concept, it didn’t really feel right. No matter how hard I tried to get it, I kept framing the idea as something familiar—like an AI system whose voice I could hear in my head, or even one that I could think together with. But in those instances, the AI still seemed like an external system I was communicating with. It didn’t seem like me.

- - - -

But then, one night while working on the post, I was rereading some of Elon’s quotes about this, and it suddenly clicked. The AI would be me. Fully. I got it.

- - - -

Then I lost it. The next day, I tried to explain the epiphany to a friend and I left us both confused. I was back in “Wait, but it kind of wouldn’t really be me, it would be communicating with me” land. Since then, I’ve dipped into and out of the idea, never quite able to hold it for long. The best thing I can compare it to is having a moment when it actually makes sense that time is relative and space-time is a single fabric. For a second, it seems intuitive that time moves slower when you’re moving really fast. And then I lose it. As I typed those sentences just now, it did not seem intuitive.

- - - -

The idea of being AI is especially tough because it combines two mind-numbing concepts—the brain interface and the abilities it would give you, and artificial general intelligence. Humans today are simply not equipped to understand either of those things, because as imaginative as we think we are, our imaginations only really have our life experience as their toolkit, and these concepts are both totally novel. It’s like trying to imagine a color you’ve never seen.

- - - -

That’s why when I hear Elon talk with conviction about this stuff, I’m somewhere in between deeply believing it myself and taking his word for it. I go back and forth. But given that he’s someone who probably found space-time intuitive when he was seven, and given that he’s someone who knows how to colonize Mars, I’m inclined to listen hard to what he says.

- - - -

And what he says is that this is all about bandwidth. It’s obvious why bandwidth matters when it comes to making a wizard hat useful. But Elon believes that when it comes to interfacing with AI, high bandwidth isn’t just preferred, but actually fundamental to the prospect of being AI, versus simply using AI. Here he is walking me through his thoughts:

- - - -

The challenge is the communication bandwidth is extremely slow, particularly output. When you’re outputting on a phone, you’re moving two thumbs very slowly. That’s crazy slow communication. … If the bandwidth is too low, then your integration with AI would be very weak. Given the limits of very low bandwidth, it’s kind of pointless. The AI is just going to go by itself, because it’s too slow to talk to. The faster the communication, the more you’ll be integrated—the slower the communication, the less. And the more separate we are—the more the AI is “other”—the more likely it is to turn on us. If the AIs are all separate, and vastly more intelligent than us, how do you ensure that they don’t have optimization functions that are contrary to the best interests of humanity? … If we achieve tight symbiosis, the AI wouldn’t be “other”—it would be you and with a relationship to your cortex analogous to the relationship your cortex has with your limbic system.

- - - -

Elon sees communication bandwidth as the key factor in determining our level of integration with AI, and he sees that level of integration as the key factor in how we’ll fare in the AI world of our future:

- - - -

We’re going to have the choice of either being left behind and being effectively useless or like a pet—you know, like a house cat or something—or eventually figuring out some way to be symbiotic and merge with AI.

- - - -

Then, a second later:

- - - -

A house cat’s a good outcome, by the way.

- - - -

Without really understanding what kinds of AI will be around when we reach the age of superintelligent AI, the idea that human-AI integration will lend itself to the protection of the species makes intuitive sense. Our vulnerabilities in the AI era will come from bad people in control of AI or rogue AI not aligned with human values. In a world in which millions of people control a little piece of the world’s aggregate AI power—people who can think with AI, can defend themselves with AI, and who fundamentally understand AI because of their own integration with it—humans are less vulnerable. People will be a lot more powerful, which is scary, but like Elon said, if everyone is Superman, it’s harder for any one Superman to cause harm on a mass scale—there are lots of checks and balances. And we’re less likely to lose control of AI in general because the AI on the planet will be so widely distributed and varied in its goals. 

- - - -

But time is of the essence here—something Elon emphasized:

- - - -

The pace of progress in this direction matters a lot. We don’t want to develop digital superintelligence too far before being able to do a merged brain-computer interface.

- - - -

When I thought about all of this, one reservation I had was whether a whole-brain interface would be enough of a change to make integration likely. I brought this up with Elon, noting that there would still be a vast difference between our thinking speed and a computer’s thinking speed. He said:

- - - -

Yes, but increasing bandwidth by orders of magnitude would make it better. And it’s directionally correct. Does it solve all problems? No. But is it directionally correct? Yes. If you’re going to go in some direction, well, why would you go in any direction other than this?

- - - -

And that’s why Elon started Neuralink.

- - - -
- - - -

He started Neuralink to accelerate our pace into the Wizard Era—into a world where he says that “everyone who wants to have this AI extension of themselves could have one, so there would be billions of individual human-AI symbiotes who, collectively, make decisions about the future.” A world where AI really could be of the people, by the people, for the people.

- - - -
- - - -

___________

- - - -

I’ll guess that right now, some part of you believes this insane world we’ve been living in for the past 38,000 words could really maybe be the future—and another part of you refuses to believe it. I’ve got a little of both of those going on too.

- - - -

But the insanity part of it shouldn’t be the reason it’s hard to believe. Remember—George Washington died when he saw 2017. And our future will be unfathomably shocking to us. The only difference is that things are moving even faster now than they were in George’s time.

- - - -

The concept of being blown away by the future speaks to the magic of our collective intelligence—but it also speaks to the naivety of our intuition. Our minds evolved in a time when progress moved at a snail’s pace, so that’s what our hardware is calibrated to. And if we don’t actively override our intuition—the part of us that reads about a future this outlandish and refuses to believe it’s possible—we’re living in denial.

- - - -

The reality is that we’re whizzing down a very intense road to a very intense place, and no one knows what it’ll be like when we get there. A lot of people find it scary to think about, but I think it’s exciting. Because of when we happened to be born, instead of just living in a normal world like normal people, we’re living inside of a thriller movie. Some people take this information and decide to be like Elon, doing whatever they can to help the movie have a happy ending—and thank god they do. Because I’d rather just be a gawking member of the audience, watching the movie from the edge of my seat and rooting for the good guys.

- - - -

Either way, I think it’s good to climb a tree from time to time to look out at the view and remind ourselves what a time this is to be alive. And there are a lot of trees around here. Meet you at another one sometime soon.

- - - -

___________

- - - -

If you’re into Wait But Why, sign up for the Wait But Why email list and we’ll send you the new posts right when they come out. That’s the only thing we use the list for—and since my posting schedule isn’t exactly…regular…this is the best way to stay up-to-date with WBW posts.

- - - -

If you’d like to support Wait But Why, here’s our Patreon.

- - - -

The clean version of this post, appropriate for all ages, is free to read here.

- - - -

To print this post or read it offline, try the PDF.

- - - -

___________

- - - -

More Wait But Why stuff:

- - - -

If you want to understand AI better, here’s my big AI explainer.

- - - -

And here’s the full Elon Musk post series:

- - - -

Part 1, on Elon: Elon Musk: The World’s Raddest Man
Part 2, on Tesla: How Tesla Will Change the World
Part 3, on SpaceX: How (and Why) SpaceX Will Colonize Mars
Part 4, on the thing that makes Elon so effective: The Chef and the Cook: Musk’s Secret Sauce

- - - -

If you’re sick of science and tech, check these out instead:

- - - -

Why Procrastinators Procrastinate

- - - -

Religion for the Nonreligious

- - - -

The Tail End

- - - -

Thanks to the Neuralink team for answering my 1,200 questions and explaining things to me like I’m five. Extra thanks to Ben Rapoport, Flip Sabes, and Moran Cerf for being my question-asking go-tos in my many dark moments of despair.

- diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js index 4b9cd3c9033e20..1d547f8075139c 100644 --- a/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/specs/performance.test.js @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ function readFile( filePath ) { describe( 'Performance', () => { it( '1000 paragraphs', async () => { - const html = readFile( join( __dirname, '../assets/neuralink.html' ) ); + const html = readFile( join( __dirname, '../assets/large-post.html' ) ); await createNewPost(); await page.evaluate( ( _html ) => { From caf65199e716ed77a9fce622dcba23b311cce285 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Riad Benguella Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 09:02:03 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 7/7] Fix performance jest config --- packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js b/packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js index 466e0b5a40e68d..f8fe4cf8ff1ff6 100644 --- a/packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js +++ b/packages/e2e-tests/jest.performance.config.js @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ module.exports = { ], setupFilesAfterEnv: [ '/config/setup-test-framework.js', + '@wordpress/jest-console', + '@wordpress/jest-puppeteer-axe', 'expect-puppeteer', ], transformIgnorePatterns: [