Field Journal #023: I Had a Vision Last Night
From the QIF Field Journal
Date: 2026-03-07, ~23:50 State: Up late. Had a vision the night before that crystallized everything. The story arc became clear — starts with neuroethics, ends with BCI vision. Started writing raw, no filter, just following where my mind wanted to go. Mood: Clarity. Purpose. The kind where you stop second-guessing the direction and start building the road.
Disclaimer: These notes are raw brainstorming — me typing without much filtering to see where my mind’s direction would go. There is a lot more to unpack here than just the neuroethics principles I started writing. There are also implementation ideas for my BCI vision of the future — sensor-to-cortex pipelines, compression, Runemate connections, Kinect visualizations. Neuroethics remains the core to get me there — to do it safely, securely, and ethically. Any final content derived from the below must pass through neuroethics guardrails (Morse’s overstatement concerns, neuromodesty checks, evidence classification) before it becomes outward-facing. This is the raw ore, not the refined metal.
If BCIs can help cure blindness, then it is our rights as our rights, duties, responsibilities, and sole proprietorships of those who are protected under the neuroethics act(s) to help those who are vulnerable. Under [section X of Y article, page #, and cite it as an academic would], in neurorights and neuroethics publications [list related], it is our duty as fellow people who are willing and able to help others. Where “willing and able” is defined as those who want to and aspire to make a change from their heart, mind, and soul to help those vulnerable and physically deemed clinical-use FDA for BCIs — such as loss of vision and other uses in research that’s approved today — we should protect their neurorights. I hope one day this becomes influence for some policy work and actual lawyers writing from it. There are so many angles this can be addressed as policies, hopefully after much-needed strict collaboration and review, to UNESCO. Needs a lot of work. This is my thesis too.
What I forgot to add is the purpose I started mentioning above is a basic simple question: if blind people are starting to see, how do we let them see the world AND the internet clearly? I ponder this philosophically as well, because what we learned from LLM model advancements lately is that AI was first able to identify letters, then images better than context initially, back in year X (reference MIT OCW 9.13). Then images for image generation models seemed to be different because of the LLMs being trained on a different set of datasets and algorithms. I wonder why image rendering isn’t a separate module for some AI models, and then build compression so it runs like a compressed side process. When I say compression I mean like vector image scaling (vector in the image conversion sense) so it scales down while remaining lossless. Can use existing compression that already exists.
Wow — this also answers my idea of Runemate.
All of this ultimately leads to one day finding a way to allow blind people to see the internet, as I believe that’s the next step as neuroethicists — to come together and collaborate to help those who need it the most (needs defining this scope, because where does the boundary lie). Also ethically, which groups are to say, if any at all?
I must write this as carefully as possible using my neuroethics guardrails.
What is an overstatement per Morse’s [include citation] if technological trends, research space, industry intel, and financial funding all allude to the medical advancements? For instance, BCIs are curing vision, there are different ways — what is vision, and how do we make it inclusive for them? At what point also does it become supervision?
Vision is already being repaired, and if we can map 3D environments using phones today — with wifi, lidar, anything waves and frequency, even sound like sonar — and that’s how lidar on cars works, then that’s probably what’s already the direction most companies are heading. What would that look like in the visual cortex if it’s a signal stimulated by your own neurons but with the assistance of a BCI? I presume having a car company that uses lidar and makes BCIs is totally doing this already, thus the other way to help them do it quicker is to look at angles where we know how Microsoft Kinect works [make one of the visualizations on the BCI site show the Three.js of Microsoft Kinect of a dog, and text showing “for blind and seeing eye dog,” and examples using AI OCR to render more realistic-looking faces in real time]. Idea I just had was to make it easier to use Kinect to test, probably because there are already blogs. But I do know our eyes can generate what we can actually see because that’s how the visual cortex works. It’s more of a matter of how, and at what point does it become dangerous? That’s what I tried to answer with TARA, and I needed a framework to try to see what the implications are from both sides. At what point do the risks outweigh the cons — I intentionally did not weigh this or do any math because it is not my say. NISS was phase 1 as it was the lowest-hanging fruit from a security perspective I could tackle with a higher confidence of having the proper framework for equation. However, I’m just basing it off of what security implications and only referencing DSM potentials as probable but not definitive derivatives. The probability is greater than 0, hence it warrants investigation per my hypothesis. There are many other factors.
I had a vision last night. Now I know how to paint the story and get to the finish line. Starts with neuroethics and ends with my BCI vision. I started writing what I call neuroethics bylaw. I’m not sure if that’s the proper naming for it, but given the neuroethics neurorights which aim to provide equal access, it is implicit that those who are willing and able in neurotechnology research should start with equity — by giving those who live in a world so connected the same freedom to explore our magnificent real world through the technological tools that allow us to connect first.
My main concern is at which point does this become too much of an advantage, like a superhuman vision that can be used for inhumane reasons. Per social pressure: there is concern that “equal access” might inadvertently create a “right to be enhanced,” pressuring individuals to use these technologies just to remain competitive in work or education.
What came out of this brainstorm:
- Five neuroethics principles synthesized into
drafts/Neuroethics-Principles-DRAFT.md - The enhancement trap and dual obligation (equitable access + protected refusal)
- The supervision boundary question
- The Runemate/compression connection to cortical content delivery
- Color science deep dive — phosphenes are monochrome white, color is unsolved
Connected derivation entries:
This entry is part of the QIF Field Journal, a living, append-only research journal documenting first-person observations at the intersection of neurosecurity, BCI engineering, and neurorights. The journal exists because neural privacy is a right, not a feature. Tools like macshield protect digital identity on networks; this research works toward protecting cognitive identity at the neural interface.