Why I’m meeting the “person” Noland Arbaugh, not just a Neuralink “patient” with a brain implant
Today, I will have the privilege of meeting 30-year-old Noland Arbaugh, talking to him personally, listening to his story, and sharing it with the world.
Before I continue, here’s a genuine question: How many of us know the person, Noland Arbaugh, and his story?
What if I rephrased that introduction to say: Today, I will have the privilege of meeting the first human to be implanted with Neuralink’s brain-computer interface? It’s a subtle distinction, but it makes all the difference.
For those who need a quick 30-second recap, here it is: In January, Elon Musk-owned US neurotechnology company, Neuralink, revealed that it had successfully implanted a brain-computer interface (commonly known as a “BCI”) into its first human patient - Noland Arbaugh.
The device, which was designed to “interface with several regions of the brain” to solve debilitating brain and central nervous system ailments, was an instant viral hit. Videos surfaced of Noland Arbaugh, a quadriplegic who is paralyzed from his shoulders to his feet, controlling a computer cursor and playing chess using only his brain.
I recently wrote an in-depth newsletter on this “Fitbit in your skull with tiny wires”, and other companies creating BCIs, such as Synchron and Blackrock Neurotech, discussing their potential as the “second chance” that millions of people have been praying for, and a possible cure for previously “incurable” physical and mental conditions.
Meanwhile, the world deliberated on how the implant reframes our ideas of self-identity and the overall ethical guidelines around BCIs, with some going to the extent of calling the invention a “terrifying” drift away from the course of human nature.
The discourse reached a crescendo at the start of May, when Neuralink released another blog post revealing that the “threads” in “the patient’s” (Noland’s) brain retracted in the weeks following the surgery, reducing the performance effectiveness of the implant as well as admitting to the loss of some data.
It’s not surprising that the world has plenty to say about Elon Musk, Neuralink, and BCI technology. Yet in the midst of it all, how many have paused to ask: What’s Noland Arbaugh’s take on all of this?
As the first human to have actually experienced the highs and lows of Neuralink’s implant first-hand, what’s his story?
What does he think about its future? What are his aspirations for the growth of this tech?
Let’s discuss.
The person beyond “the patient”: Noland Arbaugh
Can we go beyond the narrative of referring to him as “the first Neuralink patient” and understand the person that is Noland?
When comic-book fan Noland Arbaugh opened up about his latest capabilities in a Neuralink live video on X, he said that he plans to dress up as Marvel Comics’ X-Men superhero Charles Xavier for Halloween this year.
"I'm going to be Professor X," he said. "I think that's pretty fitting ... I'm basically telekinetic."
It’s true: The world knows about “the patient”, Noland Arbaugh, a young athlete from Arizona in the United States who dislocated his C4-C5 spinal disc in a “freak” diving accident eight years ago while working as a camp counselor, leaving him paralyzed with no sensation below the shoulders.
Yet, there’s so much more to Noland than meets the eye.
An avid gamer who genuinely loves experiencing life, Noland has been upbeat in conversation with me ever since I first contacted him to hear his side of the story.
During my initial research on Noland online, I came across a score of videos and photos of him interacting with his Neuralink, and his beaming smile and infectious optimism radiated through every one of them. While he can't move his hands, for instance, he can think about moving them. The Neuralink implant can identify what that looks like, and then transmit the intention to a nearby laptop or smartphone, allowing him to move a cursor around the screen.
“Thank you for changing my life,” he said on-camera.
“It’s so cool. I’m so freaking lucky to be a part of this… Every day, it seems like we’re learning new stuff and I just can’t even describe how cool it is to be able to do this,” he said in a conversation with Neuralink engineer Bliss Chapman.
I’ve got a score of questions for him. I won’t give too much away, but all I can say is that this has all the makings of an incredible discussion - one that could shape a better future for not just Noland Arbaugh, but could create a stepping stone for others to achieve a better quality of life and help them recover their autonomy – one of the key tenets of medical ethics.
But first, there are challenges to address. One of the biggest of these challenges is the global stigma behind brain implants.
Pacemakers vs BCIs: Seeing past the stigma
BCIs are not the first nor the last piece of technology to be met with skepticism: pacemakers had a similar early fate.
A device that would stimulate the heart? Surely that’s ‘inhuman’? Right?
This is what so many believed at first, yet pacemakers have been normalized over time because their incredible benefits far outweighed the fears.
Now, with these brain implants, are we being dismissive without actually thinking it through (pun intended)? How is having a BCI so different from a pacemaker?
Noland doesn’t deny that his Neuralink isn’t perfect, but what first model is? Not only has it given him hope and independence, but he sees himself contributing towards a science experiment, so the next version is better for the next person.
Is it time to place Musk on the shelf?
Whenever Musk tweets, gives an interview, or says anything remotely controversial (which is most days) the media is at the ready, taking notes and concocting their next clickbait piece.
The bigger problem arises when Musk’s companies are automatically associated with his volatile brand, and then are “hated” simply for being tied to him.
In my initial conversation with Noland, he seemed to concur, noting how people have been dismissive of Neuralink and BCI tech just because Musk’s name is involved.
BCIs: The good and the bad
If we place Musk on the shelf, and evaluate BCIs' potential based on their own merits, the answer is clear.
Once proven to be safe and effective, BCIs offer millions of people a second lease on life that they would have never had otherwise.
There are also plenty of other potential use cases for this technology:
As Noland showcased, BCIs enable touchless control of computers and devices, opening up plenty of utility, communication, education, and employment use cases. From playing games to learning and even accounting or design work, BCIs open up a lot of avenues for integration back into society.
BCIs can be used in neurorehabilitation programs to help individuals recover from strokes, Parkinson’s, or traumatic brain injuries, as well as those attempting to overcome mental disorders without the side effects of “brain-numbing” medication.
They can help individuals with communication disorders connect with others again.
These implants can also support people with sensory impairments, either restoring or empowering their sensory functions. This is one of Neuralink’s initial goals, in fact, with a focus on restoring vision to the blind.
No discussion is black and white
Of course, there are ethical considerations to weigh up. Some scientists believe that the “use of BCI [technology] is the greatest ethical challenge that neuroscience faces today.”
Founder Elon Musk, has said his ultimate goal for BCIs is to help humanity – including healthy people – “keep pace” with artificial intelligence, which also raises some interesting questions:
How do we protect the ‘self’? By integrating with machines, do people risk losing their identity and sense of self as they interface with and process foreign data?
Is our privacy at risk? When our very thoughts are digitized and processed, are we surrendering the last frontier of human privacy: the human mind?
Will BCI tech suffer from societal inequality in terms of access, where not all who are in dire need of it can afford or acquire it?
Will BCIs create an unfair advantage in the economy? The use of BCIs for enhancement purposes could widen the gap between those who can afford and access such technologies and those who cannot.
People commented on my previous articles and posts about BCIs concerned the whole world will be ‘bullied into’ having them implanted against their will. There is no chance of that happening today.
What is more immediately concerning is the possibility that BCIs could be life-changing for people with disabilities, but they become unavailable due to a lack of research funding, and ‘fear’ and ‘stigma’ overtake the common sense of investing in technology that could potentially improve and save millions of lives.
There is always a balance between risk and benefit, and a balance between patient safety and societal good.
What’s the worst-case scenario?
Maybe in the future, Neuralink technology could help us become smarter by connecting our brains directly to computers, allowing us to access vast amounts of information at any time or by recording memories and playing them back at a later date.
Perhaps we will see a merge of our virtual worlds, and rather than the cumbersome effort of typing on our phones we will interact with augmented reality or communicate with our thoughts.
Noland wonders if we will control robots.
I’m always hopeful about the future, optimistic and realistic. And the future and innovation will come whether we are fearful or not, just like the ocean waves lap at the sand.
That’s why it’s so important we are not dismissive. We are curious and explore.
Could we live with ourselves knowing that we let our fears get the better of us, and therefore preventing people (not patients) such as Noland Arbaugh from experiencing a better life?
What if one of the few people on this planet who has actually experienced BCIs believes that we should fund further research into this technology?
Shouldn’t his opinion be considered above most?
I’m looking forward to this conversation. Stay tuned for a wrap-up on the other side of my interview with the incredible Noland Arbaugh.
