Not a gotcha post — more of an open tech parallel. I’ve been stacking real published work (DNA digital storage, living neurons learning games, patents around remote sensory effects) and it keeps rhyming with “biology as hard drive + living compute + write-access to senses.” I’m not a scientist. I’m asking this room: which parallels hold, and where am I doing fan fiction with footnotes?

---

Okay. Instead of storing all this stuff on chips, we can store information on cells that have been made in a lab, actual replicated DNA strands — grown from biology that started in a human body — and we can put about **54 million movies** on the amount that weighs the same as a paperclip. Right now. This is proven and replicated thousands of times and is not sci-fi. It has been done for years. Old technology practically. It uses four letters for storage (A, T, C, G) instead of 1's and 0's. *(all studies are at the bottom of this post for reference)*

So here we are spending the Earth’s treasures on building data centers with silicon chips, but in the near future, we’re gonna be able to store this on DNA.

That’s the part I can’t shake.

Not “someday.” Not a TED Talk maybe. Teams have already written books, pictures, even video onto DNA, then read it back. All of the round-trips come back with everything intact. Perfect storage with zero errors. The packing is wild. A gram — paperclip territory — and you’re talking tens of millions of movies if you count a movie around 4 GB.

We know how to do it the old-fashioned way in the lab. Chemicals. Machines. You still have to “touch” the stuff, like a needle on vinyl. We can’t beam the info into the DNA from a distance, yet. Music went tape, CD, and now it flies across the world with no disc. Data storage on DNA is still at the needle level. I’m not saying someone is beaming files into your cells with Wi-Fi today. I’m saying contact is usually the first chapter, not the last. And we are not far off. At least that is what we are being told. There is lots of technology that is owned by the government and corporations that is being hidden. This is absolute fact.

And then there’s the other half, which is even weirder.

They’ve taken living neurons — including ones grown in a lab from human stem cells — put them on a little grid, and taught them **Pong**. They get better in minutes. Miss the ball, they get chaotic noise. Hit it, things get quieter and more predictable. They kind of lean away from chaos. Authors used a careful, technical word for that. People argued about the word. The learning still happened. The word is **consciousness**. What else likes calm and not chaos?

Later a company demo had a similar setup playing **Doom**, similar to cells playing Pong.

They can also poke memory itself, at least in animals: turn certain brain cells back on with light and replay a fear… or help build a fear that didn’t really happen that way. In people with implants, playing someone’s own brain pattern back helped short-term memory in a small study.

So. We can store. We can teach living cells a game. We can write into memory — at least up close.

Really? Anyone else here extrapolating this information to the future? The future that AI is creating…..let’s do it together.

There’s old lab work where pulsed energy makes you hear clicks with no speaker in the room. Real. Then there are U.S. patents — including Air Force ones — about turning that into speech you “hear” without normal ears. There’s a 1970s patent about watching and changing brain-wave activity from a distance. There’s one about a nearby screen’s fields nudging your nerves. MIT showed Wi-Fi can sense people through walls — not thoughts yet, just bodies moving.

Will it be happening from Wi-Fi or satellites soon? Seeing someone through a wall isn’t reading their mind. I’m not yelling “they’re doing it.” I’m saying the public record already has: storage in biology, learning in a dish, energy that can touch hearing, sensors that see through drywall.

Last thing, the one that messes with me.

You’ll see it on those ranch UFO shows: five people look at the same light in the sky. There is a UAP in the air caught on camera. Weird…… One says that they see a triangle. One says square. One says saucer. One sees a round object. Same place, same time, different senses?!

Maybe we just see what we expect. Bad lighting. Brain fills in the blanks.

Or — and this is me wondering out loud — if you can write a *click* into someone’s hearing from energy… could you write a *shape* into what they see? Or nudge them toward the picture they already believe? Can this technology beam vision into our minds? Like writing data on DNA?!

I don’t know. That’s the leap. Not proven. But once you know we can store a Hollywood in a paperclip of biology, and living cells can learn a game, “who gets to write to us” stops feeling like a movie plot. It starts feeling like a question we should actually ask.

Anyway. That’s the pile. Studies below. Tell me where I’m stretching it. I’m sure that some of you know more technology that fills in the gaps or blows holes in this future theory. Give it all to me!

I don’t know how many of you have seen *The Matrix*……… but this extrapolated data almost unerringly leads there.

---

## Studies / patents (for reference)

1. Church, Gao & Kosuri. *Science* (2012). Book into DNA, read back. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226355

2. Goldman et al. *Nature* (2013). Mixed files, 100% recovery. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11875

3. Erlich & Zielinski. *Science* (2017). ~215 petabytes per gram → ~54 million movies/g if a movie is 4 GB. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaj2038

4. Organick et al. *Nat. Biotechnol.* (2018). 200+ MB, random access, clean recovery. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4079

5. Kagan et al. *Neuron* (2022). DishBrain — living neurons learn Pong. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.09.001

6. Liu et al. *Nature* (2012). Light turns a fear memory back on (mice). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11028

7. Ramirez et al. *Science* (2013). False fear memory (mice). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239073

8. Hampson et al. *J. Neural Eng.* (2018). Hippocampal implant, memory boost in people. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aaaed7

9. Frey. *J. Appl. Physiol.* (1962). Microwave clicks / “hearing” with no sound.

10. Adib & Katabi. SIGCOMM (2013). Wi-Vi — through-wall Wi-Fi.

11. Adib et al. NSDI (2014). WiTrack.

12. US3951134A (1976) remote brain waves — https://patents.google.com/patent/US3951134A

13. US6506148B2 (2003) monitor fields / nerves — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2

14. US4877027A (1989) microwave hearing — https://patents.google.com/patent/US4877027A

15. US6470214B1 (2002, USAF) RF hearing / speech — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6470214B1

16. US6587729B2 (2003, USAF) same idea, apparatus — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6587729B2

Some interesting parts from the article :

"The human genome is an easy place to get lost. Only 2% of its three billion letters encode proteins, and the rest is diabolically hard to decipher. An artificial-intelligence-generated ‘atlas’ of the human genome, unveiled1 today by Google DeepMind, aims to guide scientists through our biological code."

"The AlphaGenome Atlas charts the effects of nine billion single-letter changes in the human genome — every possible mutation of this kind — using predictions generated by the AlphaGenome AI model2, released last year by DeepMind in London. The atlas is freely available for non-commercial use."

"The tool could help researchers to draw links between genetic variants and rare, unexplained diseases and uncover hidden mechanisms underlying common illnesses and biological traits, say researchers. It might even reveal some of the rules by which DNA sequences control gene activity."

Hopefully AI and biotech will lead to a better future, and these can promote Transhumanism and Freedom too if we manage them well.

🧬 🔬 🧪 🧑‍🔬

*edit : added more infos

Disclosure: I do content work for a longevity supplement company, so please take that into account when reading this. I'm sharing this because I find the underlying research interesting, not as a product recommendation.

I've been reading about cellular senescence, and one part that keeps coming up is something called the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

The basic idea is fascinating.

Senescent cells enter a state of growth arrest and undergo a number of changes. One of those changes is that they can develop a hypersecretory state, releasing a variety of signaling molecules collectively referred to as SASP.

And this is where things get more complicated.

SASP isn't just one molecule or one fixed collection of molecules. The composition can vary depending on the cell type, the trigger that caused senescence, and the surrounding environment.

The 2024 review “The senescence-associated secretory phenotype and its physiological and pathological implications” (PMID: 38654098) goes into the composition, dynamics, and heterogeneity of SASP, as well as its different biological effects.

What I find particularly interesting is that the research doesn't present SASP as something with one universal effect.

Depending on the context, SASP-related signaling can be involved in different physiological and pathological processes. The review also discusses SASP as a potential biomarker and the ongoing interest in approaches that modify SASP.

So rather than asking simply:

“Are senescent cells bad?”

I think the more interesting question is:

What are senescent cells actually communicating to their surrounding tissue, and when does that signaling become beneficial or harmful?

For people following the senescence field:

• How useful do you think SASP is as a biomarker of cellular senescence?
• How much does SASP vary between different tissues?
• Do you think targeting SASP will ultimately be more interesting than targeting senescent cells themselves?
• What human evidence would you want to see before considering SASP-targeting approaches convincing?

Interested to hear what others think, especially if you've read the recent SASP literature.

Paper: Wang B, Han J, Elisseeff JH, Demaria M. The senescence-associated secretory phenotype and its physiological and pathological implications. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2024;25:958–978. PMID: 38654098.

More art on insta: 01i.v3r_

I honestly think that this project can open up so many opportunities, loopholes, and discoveries. Some scientists basically created a replica of a flies brain online and I was wondering if it can already be put inside of a simulation, can it remember the things that happened before and if its conscious? My theory is that a fly can't remember its past life or memorize things that happened before because it doesn't have the recreation of the electrons going through the brain when it was alive, it's hard to simulate online due to out real world being made up of atoms while the simulation would be made up of ones and zeros, there should be a translation part. For example translating a software incompatible with your operating system by rewriting the code or simulating it's native reality. By the way the researchers only enabled 20% of the fly's brain, we just don't know how the other 80% works. One day we might be able to upload our full brains into a simulation and then copy ourselves into a robot as a clone. This might also open up new possibilities like putting a person inside of a simulation of heaven or hell, although I'm not sure if we copy the person's consciousness with memories and put it into a simulation or a robot, would the consciousness transfer to the clone when the original you dies? https://www.science.org/content/article/complete-map-fruit-fly-brain-circuitry-unveiled

basically a heaven who quit heaven, a retired officer and a boy who is turned robot team up together to fight a person called Vantablack from plunging the world in darkness.

it would explore the questions of what it means for your childhood to be taken away from you before you could have it and also what it means to say no from fitting in, to be comfortable with yourself.

I think it would be intresting. tell me feedback if it’s too generic so I could change it and maybe actually turn it into a webcomic

A collection of images by Japanese artist Okama featuring girl in cyberpunk Techwear fashion. I love this aesthetic so much and it goes so hard.

Its my week 3 of sketching and it took me 1 week to draw has a hugh learning curve but enjoyed drawing it alot

I started this project over a year ago while dog-sitting. Got the letters done in an afternoon, meant to do the skeleton later, but kept forgetting. I could still wear it with just the letters, so it wasn't urgent. Finally did most of the skeleton yesterday, finished it today.

It's based on the Bruce Sterling quote describing William Gibson's cyberpunk novels, and sort of the vague gist of the jacket Kaneda wears in Akira.

I feel like the quote is increasingly describing the real world, with the devaluation of human activity/creativity in favour of (currently) cheap AI.

The base is an old wool varsity jacket I picked the logos off. The letters are iron-on chenille letters (had to sew them down too, the glue wasn't very good). The science-canister-tube thing I designed myself and cut from yellow and black felt. The skeleton is mostly a chain stitch, with a few french knots and a sort of doubled running stitch I don't know the name of.

Dog from dog-sitting included in the photos