The Brain Chip: A Science Fiction Story

--by Robert Arvay

        It was the year 2218 when the problem was discovered.  No one knew what to do about it.

        Beginning fifty years earlier, in 2168, everyone had begun being implanted with a computerized micro-chip, in their brain.  It took ten years to insert all the chips.  This included the time it took to hunt down all the hold-outs, and to enforce compliance.  After ten years, almost everyone was a “chipper,” a person who had the chip.

        The chip was deemed to be necessary.  Life had become too complicated for most people to manage.  Suicides were on the rise.  Crime had dramatically increased.  Masses of people were either uneducated, or mis-educated, because few people could agree on what was fact, and what was opinion.  Chaos threatened to destroy society.

        Technology had empowered individuals to such a degree that it was all but impossible to maintain law and order.  A grade-school kid could figure out how to hack the computer systems of banks, nuclear missile silos, and even their own report cards.

        Something had to be done.  Something was done.

        The brain chip solved the problem.  Inserted into the brain early in life, even as soon as a month after being born, everyone could think alike, or at least, enough alike to forestall the radical disagreements which previously had threatened civil war.  The chip had its own microcomputer program, and it could in turn program, in a sense, the human brain of the recipient.  Human brains were then programmed to agree on the most controversial issues which previously had been tearing society apart.  Chippers obeyed the rules, and therefore, chippers could be trusted.

        Even better yet, the brain chips could all receive periodic updates from time to time via signals transmitted from satellites.  This allowed the government to revise failed social programs without the traditional bickering that had previously disrupted every major social program change in the pre-chip years.

        At first, many people had objected to the brain chip.  It was itself the most controversial technology that had ever been introduced.  At first, the chip had been surreptitiously inserted into the brains of children during doctor visits.  Parents were either not told what was happening, or else were given false information.  As word of this leaked out, dissent increased.

        After a few years, however, everyone could see that children with the chip did better in school than most other children.  They were better behaved, more obedient, and easier to raise.  After that, more and more parents clamored to have their own children implanted, and finally, adults themselves began asking for and receiving chip implants.  People with the chip earned much more than most people without it, because with it, they became much smarter than before.

        What no one was told, until there was no denying it, is that once the chip is implanted, it cannot be removed without tragic consequence to the recipient.  Painful deaths occurred whenever a chip was removed.

        For nearly fifty years, no one requested the removal of chip implants.  Everyone who had one was happy with it.  No chipper ever felt depressed, worried, or in doubt—about anything, not even about the chip itself. 

        Unlike as with drugs, the chip enabled the chipper to cope with problems, and to devise solutions, because the chip enhanced intelligence.  Everyone who had it had automatic encyclopedic knowledge of virtually every subject taught in any school.  Since the knowledge was stored, not in the brain, but in the chip, the knowledge did not occupy one’s thoughts until and unless he needed it.  Then, he could access the needed information immediately.  For example, anyone who needed to learn Swahili (or any other language) could instantly master it, and speak it with as much proficiency as any native speaker.

        But one day, the Great Problem was discovered.  It was discovered that the chip had an embedded error in it, an inherent and irreparable malfunction which would eventually, but inevitably, cause the chipper to go suddenly and incurably insane, and violently so.  The incidence of this form of insanity suddenly began to increase, and no one knew how much worse it might get.

        At first, there was general panic in the population, not only panic, but anger.  Who had designed the chip?  Why had it been put into patients without thorough testing beforehand?  Which government officials had authorized the surreptitious implants into children?  How dare they?  The possibility of rebellion loomed large.

        The panic suddenly ended when the next update was made via satellite transmissions.  Everyone suddenly assumed that the problem was only temporary, and that a fix had already been devised.  The fix would be implemented soon, very soon, even as soon as tomorrow.

        Nobody resented the fact that tomorrow after tomorrow came and went, with no solution, because after all, the problem would be fixed tomorrow.

Chirality (Huh?)

One might ask the question,

if you were speaking to an alien on another planet by radio,

could you explain to him, which is your right hand?

Not, unless you could establish some common point of reference.

But that is the point.  According to current physics,

there is no preferred point of reference, no preferred direction in space or time.

Yet, we know from biology that chirality is critical.

Amino acids are chiral.  Your body uses left-handed amino acids only.

If all you had to eat was food with right-handed nutrients,

you would starve to death.

It can be argued that chirality is purely relative, and therefore irrelevant.

Life forms on other planets may use right-handed amino acids.

It will be interesting to find out.

But the metaphysical question before us is whether reality has arbitrary parameters,

or is there indeed some basic principle that provides an absolute, universal reference point?

Chirality is the example, but in general, other examples could also be used.

For example, there is now evidence that the universe is "lop-sided," or anisotropic.

If so, then this might (or might not) be extremely important.

It might lead to the question, is the universe moving, or rotating,

or otherwise interacting with a larger multi-verse?

I think that chirality is an under-appreciated facet of metaphysical speculation.

Free Will: the Final Analysis

If one has no free will, then he cannot choose whether to believe he has it.  That choice is made for him. Therefore, there would be no point in debating it.  In fact, there would be no point in anything.

If one does have free will, but chooses to believe that he does not, then he is engaging in an exercise in self-contradiction.

How I Killed the Nazi Dictator Before He Ever Seized Power

A very brief science fiction story

by Robert Arvay

He was one of the evilest men ever to have lived.  His tyranny killed untold thousands of people, and he had intended to rule the world.

I took it upon myself to stop him.  You may ask, how? 

I was involved in a secret research project, one that involved the attempt to go backward in time, to the past, and thereby, to change it.  The project was being shut down.  It had been ruled too dangerous.  All of our equipment was being destroyed, and our research papers burned.

So, one night, using my special access codes, I broke into the central operations control room.  I placed myself in the module, and set the space-time coordinates to take me back to the time when the German dictator had been very young.

Soon, I found myself in Braunau am Inn, Austria.  The date was Apr 20, 1899.  I entered the house late at night, and found the young child asleep.  He looked so sweet and innocent, but I knew that he was destined to wreak havoc and destruction upon the world.  I overcame my revulsion, and killed him.  Then, I returned to the module, set it for the exact coordinates from which I had departed, and returned to the present time.  There, the research staff had me arrested, and destroyed the time-travel module.

I was relieved, however, to find that the evil dictator, Frankl Mendelheim, was no longer in the history books, and that he had not gone on to kill the hundred thousand people he would have killed, but for me.

Unfortunately, I found that Mendelheim, never having grown to power, was no longer the man who had killed an unknown German artist, the one who had thereafter become known to the world as Adolph Hitler, killer not of a hundred thousand, but of millions.

There are plans to go back in time and kill him, also.  I hope those plans will be cancelled, because if we do kill Hitler, he will be replaced by a man many times more evil than he was.

.

Overarching Principles of Physical Reality

Here are some overarching principles that are required for an explanation of physical reality.

They involve life, consciousness and free will:

1.  Consciousness is the only observed phenomenon which observes itself, and does so from within itself.  It is a fundamental reality.

2.  Free will is neither deterministic nor random. It is its own thing, a fundamental reality.

3.  Life is not its chemical reactions.  Life governs those reactions.  Life is a fundamental reality.

4.  Physical reality has purpose and meaning.  It is designed and constructed around them.

5.  Regarding #2, randomness cannot operate except within nonrandom parameters.  For example, dice are designed and manufactured with intent.

I am persuaded that these five principles, and perhaps more, are the necessary foundation of discussing the basis of physical reality.

Of course I could be wrong.

Has the Universe Always Existed?

The question as to how the universe came into being can be dismissed by the reply that it always existed, and that therefore, it did not need anything to create it.  This reply enjoys a certain amount of credibility, because the nearly identical answer is used to answer the question of, what created God?

There is, however, an important difference.  The universe, unlike the Creator, does not create; at least it does not create something from nothing.  If the physical universe always existed, it simply is.  It has no intent, no goal, and ultimately, no meaning.  It does not really do anything, unless by “doing,” we mean that its components bounce around, so to speak, interacting mindlessly with each other.

If this is true, then it is curious, that an inert universe, which itself is not a conscious, purposeful, living entity, can give rise to beings which exhibit those traits.

On the other hand, those who say that the universe is conscious (alive, etc), are in effect substituting it for the living God.  They are confusing the Creator with the creature, the artist with the painting.  That might be an attractive metaphor, but if so, it is an inferior attempt to describe reality.

Either way, a universe that is conscious or not, does not give rise to us.  A universe that has no purpose is only a series of happenstance coincidences.   At most, it might accidentally arrange atoms into a human society, but this requires that something must emerge from those atoms which was not already there.  When the arrangement decays, then that which was not, but then was, becomes once again, not.

Of course, one can argue this matter endlessly, getting to no useful conclusion.  A better route is available.

That better route is to make reasonable assumptions that fit the facts.  Some of those assumptions are self-evident.  For example, we are conscious.  Our inability to explain consciousness indicates to us that there are profound mysteries at the very foundations of nature.  Those who argue that consciousness emerges from inanimate matter have a heavy burden of proof to bear.  Their case is not even plausible, unless one accepts their axiom that reality is purely physical.  That axiom is not compelling, just convenient to their worldview.

Likewise, those who aver that the physical universe is not intentionally designed and created, bear that same, heavy burden of proof.  The available evidence shows that the physical universe has a structure that is meticulously suited to the purpose of sustaining life, and not only primitive life, but civilizations that produce technology, art, philosophy, religion and all the many accoutrements which we enjoy.

Those who dismiss that evidence, must resort to extraordinary models of reality, models which are convoluted and tailored to meeting the goal—not merely leading to it in an unbiased manner from a neutral start.

Being conscious, we have a sense of purpose and meaning.  If the universe produces those sensations, then from where does the universe get them, or at least, get the raw materials, and then assemble them into our awareness?

No, we cannot, based on mathematical formulas, persuade anyone, that the laws of nature are created, much less that nature itself is created.  Perhaps each of us is irrevocably predisposed toward one side of the argument or the other.

But, those of us who are persuaded that God is the Creator, and that the universe is His creation, need never feel that it is our belief that is the one that is irrational.

.

Hell

A typical person who believes that Hell exists, or even a typical disparager of religious belief, might describe being sent to Hell as something like this:

Once a person dies, he stands in judgment, whether by God, or Saint Peter, or some other arbiter.  The person is then confronted with the record of his sins in life.  Did you kill anyone?  Did you lie, steal, or commit adultery?  Did you speak bad words, or think bad thoughts?  Did you refrain from acts of charity?  Did you belong to the right religion?

No one will be able to plead complete innocence.  All are guilty, especially those who deny any guilt at all.  And the punishment for guilt is eternal torment in the fires of Hell.

But wait, the condemned person may point out that amid all his sins, he did do some good deeds.  He can list a great many acts of kindness, of resisting temptation, perhaps even of great sacrifice and heroism.  Certainly, those count for something.  Let us then, he pleads, weigh the good against the bad, and see which carries more weight.

The judge agrees.  Yes, you did do some good things.  Your sins imposed a great debt on you, but you made some payments on that debt.  Let’s look at the balance sheet.  Your sins, one billion dollars.  Your good deeds, five thousand dollars.  You see, the good deeds that you claim so proudly, they were required of you.  You do not get praise for paying back a minuscule amount of your debt.

The person standing in judgment then despairs.  Is there, then, no hope for me?

The judge says, hmm, let’s see here.  It seems an additional payment was made for you, on your debt.  Hmm.  It was paid in full.  It seems that someone saved you from Hell, by suffering in your place, the punishment you deserve.  You are free and clear to enter heaven.

I’ll end the story there, even though it’s not the end, but the beginning of eternal life.

But there is still some confusion.  In order for the person to avoid Hell, doesn’t he have to do something more?  Doesn’t he have to pray?  To worship?  To be truly, truly sorry for his sins?  To apologize?  To make reparations? 

The Bible tells us that salvation is the finished work of Jesus.  We cannot add to it.

But wait.  What about people who committed murder?  What about truly evil, vicious people who caused untold suffering to innocent victims?  Was their debt paid also?

Yes.  It was.

But why should that be?  Why should the guilty get the same reward as those who tried to lead a good life and failed?

Why, you ask?  Why did the workers in the vineyard all get paid the same, regardless of how long they worked?

But we’re talking about people who burned the vineyard.  If everybody gets the same reward, then why should any of us even try to be good?  Why can’t we all just live our lives in sin, if we all get rewarded the same?

You can.  Would you?  If someone paid your debt for you, would you then slap him in the face?

Well, no, I wouldn’t, but some people would.  Why should they go to heaven?

You are forgetting one thing.  Every soul can enter heaven.  But, sin cannot.  Not even one sin.  Not even the least sin.  Not even one penny of your billion-dollar debt.

Okay, but my debt is paid.  Are you saying that, in order for me to enter heaven, I must be accepting of all other people who enter heaven?

You can enter, but not your sin, not even a tiny grudge, not even a hint of prideful resentment.

Okay, I am beginning to see, but there is one more question.  The Bible makes it clear that many people do, in fact, go to Hell.  The devil will burn in Hell forever.  Doesn’t God love the devil?

Indeed, God loves all whom He created.

Then why do people get sent to Hell, if their sins are forgiven?

Nobody is sent to Hell.

Huh?

Nobody is sent to Hell, but some people send themselves there.

Even though they are forgiven?

Yes.

Why would anyone do that?

There is no answer to that, at least, not one that you would ever wish to know.  It involves the most hideous and vilest deed that can ever be committed by any person.  That deed is known as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and also as, the taking of the Mark of the Beast.  Those two are the Unforgivable Sin.  Those who commit them, spend eternity in Hell.

Unforgivable?  But I thought that God forgives all sin.

Forgiveness is freely offered.  But to be forgiven, one must accept forgiveness.  The unforgiven will never accept forgiveness.

But what if they do accept it, say, later on, when they realize that the alternative is eternity in Hell?

They won’t.  The very essence of the unforgivable sin is that, the sinner himself, transfixes himself into eternal evil.

Okay, but even so.  Suppose a person momentarily commits the unforgivable sin, and then repents?

The sinner who takes the mark of the beast, or blasphemes the Holy Spirit, never does so lightly.  Such a sin is committed knowingly, willfully, and persistently, over a long period of time.  At every moment, his soul cries out to stop this spiritual suicide.  Finally, the point is reached where the sinner knows, knows with all certainty, that he is reaching the point of no return.  Instead of turning back from it, he rages toward it, filling his heart with hatred and all manner of filth.  He inflicts infinite pain on himself, rejecting every mercy from God, slashing out at every offer of forgiveness.

Even when the sinner is in Hell, even then, he loves no one but himself, hating all others, despising them, wishing to torment them as he torments himself.

Okay, but why torment the sinner?  Why not just lock him away, or even extinguish him from existence?  Why burn him forever?

The punishment of Hell is not like that.  Hell is starvation, spiritual starvation.  The condemned soul condemns himself.  He remains free to partake of the heavenly feast, but chooses instead to throw it to the swine, if he could.  His soul yearns forever for that food, but the sinner refuses to eat.  That, more than any earthly flame, is what torments him, that, and the hatred which he cultivates in his soul.

Then why not simply make him not exist?  Wouldn’t that be better?

It would be better for the condemned sinner never to have been born.

Then why did you let him be born?  And why don’t you make him vanish from reality?

Those are good questions, and there are good answers.  But they are matters of the spirit, where you have yet to walk.  For now, you do not even understand the world in which you live, no more so than the fish of the ocean depths can understand the mountaintop.  When you are ready to receive the answer, then you will have your answer.

But be assured, it will not matter.  All your vexations will cease, and you will know eternal bliss, eternal fellowship with God, living in His house, feasting at His eternal banquet.