The Proof of Persona: Decoding Patent 060606 and the Mining of the Human Soul
A published blueprint for turning unconscious physiological response into economic validation—and what it reveals about the enclosure of the inner self.
TL;DR:
What it is: A 2020 Microsoft patent (WO2020060606A1) proposes using “human body activity data” (physiological signals) as proof-of-work for cryptocurrency validation—potentially even “unconsciously.”
What it converges into: Tokenization, the Internet of Bodies, and technocratic metaphysics converge into a program that treats involuntary physiological response as economic input—shifting proof-of-work toward proof-of-response and, ultimately, proof-of-compliance.
Why it matters: If access and reward depend on acceptable signatures, rights drift into permissions. This architecture opens a pathway to business models where biometric or behavioral data could be integrated into authentication, rewards, or payment systems (via blockchain or similar ledgers)—turning “who you are/what you do” into an always-on credential. Defending cognitive liberty means recovering a view of the person as real before and beyond any measuring apparatus or validation server.
Bottom line: When the body becomes the credential, the ledger becomes a referee.
Many readers will have encountered the term “biodigital convergence”—the deliberate fusion of biological systems with digital technologies, sensors, and networks. When Policy Horizons Canada released its 2020 report Exploring Biodigital Convergence, it coincided with a surge of public discussion around a strikingly numbered Microsoft patent application: WO2020060606A1, published the same year, which explicitly proposes using human body activity data (brain waves, heat, blood flow, and other physiological signals) as proof-of-work in a cryptocurrency system. At the time, the patent’s “666” numbering and its description of unconsciously harvested body signals fueled widespread theories—some dismissed as fringe, others prescient.
Today, as regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrency expand rapidly and tokenization of real-world assets (including, potentially, human data streams) moves from concept to infrastructure—as I explored in my recent Substack article (linked below) and in Chapter 3 of the book, The Final Betrayal, that I co-authored with Patrick Wood—the once-speculative blueprint feels less like conspiracy theory and more like a visible step on a longer roadmap.
That shift is no longer confined to crypto evangelists. Mainstream finance leadership is now describing tokenization as a broad, cross-asset future: BlackRock CEO has said the industry is at the beginning of “tokenization of all assets,” while Cantor Fitzgerald’s CEO has argued tokenization will become “a fundamental part” of his business—and, by extension, everyone’s. The cultural meme has a parallel institutional track: the idea is being laundered into inevitability by incumbents, not just promoted at the margins.
Unless the trajectory changes, we appear to be moving closer to the moment when involuntary physiological response can be systematically converted into economic validation. What follows is an examination of that blueprint, its mechanisms, and what it reveals about the attempted enclosure of the inner self.
The Biological Panopticon
We have crossed into what can only be called the “Biological Age of Capital”.
For decades, the digital frontier extracted our metadata—the exhaust of clicks and queries. Now the frontier moves inward: the body becomes the interface, and involuntary physiology becomes a candidate input for economic validation.
The most revealing sign of this shift is not a new gadget. It is a system design: a published patent application (WO 2020/060606 A1; applicant: Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, 2020) that treats “human body activity data” as a substitute for traditional proof-of-work—stating plainly that “human body activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system.”
Core claim: When validity conditions are tied to involuntary physiology, mining becomes conditioning.
This is a proposal, not proof of deployment, but a patent publication is still a blueprint of what institutions consider feasible, fundable, and worth enclosing.
And here’s the line that should make any sovereign person pause:
“...a user can solve the computationally difficult problem unconsciously.”
“Unconsciously”. That means the economic engine isn’t just your labor. It’s your living, breathing, existence.
In an era of ubiquitous wearables, biometric logins, and AI-generated content, tying economic validation to body signals is no longer far-fetched—it is a plausible next domain, given incentives already shaping digital life.
“Unconsciously.”
If the body can be used to satisfy validation conditions without the conscious mind, then the system doesn’t merely monetize action—it monetizes being.
Super Bowl Sunday: Proof of Attention
It’s Super Bowl LX weekend—America’s most synchronized attention ritual.
We tell ourselves we’re watching a game, yet millions are also watching for the commercial breaks. Ads aren’t interruptions; they’re events. A shared trance with a predictable rhythm:
anticipation → stimulus → reaction → social proof
That ritual is the friendly, voluntary version of a deeper architecture: engineer a stimulus environment, harvest attention, price the captive moment.
WO 2020/060606 sketches a harder form of the same idea. The filing doesn’t merely assume your attention is valuable—it provides a mechanism to measure your response and turn it into accept/reject conditions inside a reward system.
And here’s the weld between culture and infrastructure: the filing explicitly treats watching/listening—“(e.g. advertisement)”—as a task in the reward loop, alongside ordinary services like a “search engine” or “chat bot”.
Super Bowl commercials are proof-of-attention as culture. This filing is proof-of-attention as infrastructure—where attention isn’t just purchased.
It’s verified.
And what gets verified is no longer your click.
It’s you.
World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab wrote that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are”—identity itself becoming a design surface. This is one way that future looks when you turn it into code.
Pop Culture Rehearsal: “Fifteen Million Merits”
If that feels familiar, it’s because we’ve already rehearsed the shape of it in story.
In Black Mirror’s “Fifteen Million Merits,” the individual exists inside a closed loop where screens administer life, tokens quantify participation, and ads are not optional ambience but a kind of environment—avoidable only by paying, performing, or submitting to the system’s terms.
What the filing adds is colder and more specific: it proposes moving the checkpoint from what you do to what your body does—turning interior response into a pass/fail gate inside economic life.
This is a cultural analogy, not a source document. The mechanism remains anchored in the filing. However, the episode names the emotional truth: a world where the interface is not a tool—it’s a habitat.
A mainstream analogue is Netflix’s move from streaming content to operating physical, year-round “fan destinations.” Its Netflix House venues in Galleria Dallas and King of Prussia Mall are designed as immersive, regularly refreshed environments of play, food, merchandise, and branded “experiences.”
This is not a claim about biometric mining. It’s a structural observation: the platform’s world is becoming a place you enter—an engineered setting where participation is guided, monetized, and iterated. That shift matters because proof-of-response systems require the same prerequisite: a culture already accustomed to living inside administered environments.
A Glimpse into the Near Future
Elias stands in front of a smart screen that does not merely display content—it administers it.
To unlock access to a service, he must complete a “task”: a short sequence of stimuli, a verification ritual that feels like ordinary online life. The screen plays referee. His body plays the play under review.
He tries to stay neutral.
It doesn’t matter.
Because the system is not measuring his performance. It is measuring his response.
The waves, heat, pulse, micro-movements—signals he cannot fully will into silence—become data. The data becomes a pattern. The pattern becomes a gate.
When the system accepts his proof, the reward posts.
The ledger doesn’t ask what he believes—only whether his body produced an acceptable profile.
Thesis: From Work to Compliance
On its face, the publication describes a cryptocurrency mining/validation method that uses human body activity associated with a task as raw material for generating proof-of-work. It’s pitched as efficiency: replacing massive computation with human activity signals. But the deeper breach is political, spiritual, and metaphysical.
When the system defines an acceptable “target” pattern of response—and your physiology must conform to transact—proof-of-work begins to resemble proof-of-compliance. This reorders the ontological premises the Declaration of Independence treats as self-evident: that persons are real prior to systems, with unalienable rights not derived from measurement or validation. The patent’s architecture quietly elevates changeable physiological accidents (signals) over the unified human substance—treating interiority as legible outputs rather than inviolable essence. That shift, explored fully later, is the war on metaphysics enabling biodigital convergence.
And it leans on the metaphysics of emergence and complexity theory, common in technocratic philosophy: the claim that the self is a computationally legible phenomenon arising from sub-personal variables. Under that story, interiority is not received as given; it is derived—and therefore governable—because the “real” is relocated to signals rather than substance.
Once “value” is conferred by a ledger when the body matches a target, the logic transcends monetizing behavior—emulating a Creator-function. Meaning and standing no longer arrive as gifts grounded in what we are (creatures), but as permissions issued by what the system can extract and certify. Imago Dei endows humanity with sacred, inviolable dignity and agency—not doled out by markets, platforms, or servers. A regime that conditions access and reward on involuntary interior reflex treats the human being less as image-bearer and more as instrument—an organism reordered toward an alien telos.
What the Filing Explicitly Proposes
(Not interpretation—this is the mechanism.)
Tasks include ordinary digital life—ads and common web services.
“watching or listening… (e.g. advertisement)” / “search engine” / “chat bot”.Tasks can include human-verification challenges.
“CAPTCHA and reCAPTCHA”.Sensors are expansive—fMRI, EEG, NIRS, thermal sensors, cameras, and more, used to sense body activity (including blood-flow changes and brain activity).
Signals transform into compact proofs, including FFT-based histograms.
“may be transformed to a histogram… such as Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)”.Validation checks upstream-defined conditions—target ranges, pattern constraints, “leading zeros,” thresholds, or whether the output falls below a “target value,” with targets tied to the “amount of cognitive effort” required for the task.
The hinge repeats: the user can solve the problem “unconsciously.”
This is presented as proof-of-work.
In lived terms, it is a reward loop where the nervous system becomes the credential.
📌 Recap: The Mechanism in 5 Lines
A task is issued (including ads / routine services / verification challenges).
Sensors capture body activity during the task.
Signals are transformed into compact representations (e.g., FFT → histogram).
The system checks whether outputs meet validity conditions (targets / patterns / thresholds).
Reward or rejection follows—rejection loops you back into more tasks.
Translation: proof-of-work → proof-of-response → proof-of-compliance.
Once reward depends on “acceptable” reaction, the boundary between validation and conditioning collapses.
Biometric Inputs vs. Human Experience
(Translated from patent language into lived terms.)
Gamma/Beta bands → focused thought, problem-solving → used to infer effort and validate engagement
Alpha/Theta bands → relaxation, flow, daydreaming → used to model response patterns outside conscious control
Body radiation/heat → thermal stress, metabolic output → used to triangulate activation
Blood flow/pulse → cerebral activation proxies (fMRI-style) → used to map response patterns
Micro-movements → involuntary reactions → used to differentiate human presence from synthetic mimicry
Technically, it’s “signals.” Functionally, it is legible depths: private biology converted into a standardized proof primitive.
Realist metaphysics calls this a category error: signals are properties, not personhood. When the system treats biometric accidents as the gate to economic life, it implicitly trains society to regard the human substance—the unified, ensouled living being—as secondary to what can be quantified. Internal life becomes administrable, not by denying the soul outright, but by behaving as though only the measurable is real.
Where Power Concentrates
In classic proof-of-work, the machine’s interiority is irrelevant.
Here, validity depends on whether your body-derived proof satisfies conditions set by whoever governs the algorithm—thresholds, patterns, target values defined somewhere upstream.
That is the control surface.
This is the hinge between work and compliance: when rewards depend on meeting system-defined conditions through involuntary outputs, the ledger becomes a behavioral instrument.
Internet of Bodies: The Wider Trajectory
Policy and legal thinkers increasingly describe an Internet of Bodies (IoB): networked sensors and devices shifting familiar internet risks—surveillance, breach, coercion—into the physical domain.
Think fitness trackers, smart rings, emotion-sensing headsets, implanted medical devices, and digital pills—devices that literally use the human body as a technology platform.
This publication is one illuminating piece in that landscape: it ties physiological measurement to economic validation and reward. The trajectory doesn’t stop at wearables. A more radical horizon already exists in the engineering literature: the Internet of Bio-Nano Things—networks of biological and nanoscale devices (from nanobiosensors to engineered cells) designed to operate inside the body, exchange information through non-conventional channels such as molecular signaling, and interface outward to the wider internet through bio-cyber gateways. This is the same movement, just one layer deeper: the body not merely as something that wears sensors, but as something that hosts a network—where measurement becomes continuous, intervention becomes granular, and “participation” can be tethered to what the system can read and verify.
From TESCREAL to Tokenized Compliance
The IoB stack doesn’t develop in a philosophical vacuum.
With crucial nuance among the TESCREAL ideologies—Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singularitarianism, (modern) Cosmism, Rationalism, Effective Altruism, Longtermism—many proponents openly pursue personal immortality through enhancement or uploading. A significant strand, however, imagines the broader population as transient serfs—biological batteries feeding cybernetic systems until deemed obsolete—while the self‑appointed elite ascend to godlike status in a carefully architected simulacrum of their own design. The end state remains post-human: a condition in which the boundary between organism and system dissolves and “personhood” becomes a legacy category in a world governed by tokenized compliance and machine‑mediated reward.
The acceleration imperative isn’t only philosophical—it’s being branded into policy: MAHA is paired with “MABA — Make American Biotech Accelerate,” a slogan that treats speed-to-market biotech as the governing mandate. In a June 24, 2025 House health subcommittee hearing, RFK Jr. argued for universal wearable adoption “within four years,” to be advanced through a major HHS promotional campaign—an early gesture toward population-scale biosensing as governance infrastructure.
Even consumer AI is drifting in this direction. OpenAI has said its first hardware device is targeted for the second half of 2026, and reporting has circulated—still unconfirmed—that an audio‑first concept (sometimes described as “earbuds,” tagged with an internal codename like “Sweetpea”) is among the explored form factors. Earlier court‑related filings tied to the Jony Ive collaboration noted the first shipping device is not an in‑ear product or wearable—an important reminder that details are fluid even as the vector remains consistent: computing migrates off the screen and onto (and into) the person.
Soulbound tokens, non‑transferable tokens, and ledger‑native attestations sharpen this move. They propose a credential layer in which reputation, membership, and eligibility become on‑chain facts—participation filtered not by civic standing but by whatever the system can verify.
This Internet of Bodies is not merely a collection of gadgets; it is the infrastructure for a new kind of organism: sociotechnical, cyber-physical, cybernetic. Human beings are being re-engineered—through wearables, implants, ingested sensors, and constant biometric feedback loops—into living components of a planetary-scale control system. In this emerging techno-feudal order, where platform lords extract rent from every physiological signal, the trans-human phase is only a waypoint.
What I’m Projecting
(Plausible deployments, not claims of current reality.)
Monetized attention gating: rewards stall or shrink when physiological signals fail to show required engagement during ads or tasks.
Biological CAPTCHAs as default gates: access to accounts and services depends on “human-only” response signatures AI can’t reliably mimic—extending CAPTCHA logic into broader gatekeeping.
Workplace “optimization”: physiological target ranges become performance metrics wrapped in wellness language, where brain chemistry becomes a KPI.
Nothing in this document mandates implants, mandates adoption, or proves current deployment; what it does provide is a detailed, technically feasible way to monetize and validate human physiology—potentially even “unconsciously.”
A Note on Narrative Packaging
This patent often appears in broader “Great Reset,” IoB, or transhumanist storylines on advocacy sites and social media platforms. That ecosystem matters—not as a primary source for what the filing says, but as an example of how technical documents become cultural memes, political scripts, and mobilizing narratives.
The advantage of reading the primary document is simple: it keeps you anchored to the mechanism—how governance is being converted into architecture, and how rights migrate from inherent claims to system-mediated entitlements.
The Final Enclosure: Ethical and Spiritual Stakes
Beyond vectors and hashes lies the real frontier: the colonization of inner life.
The system converts your unique physiological outputs into proof-like objects that can be validated, rejected, rewarded, and stored.
We arrive at the question technical language evades:
Who possesses the coded imprint of your unwitting impulses?
Metaphorically: a hash of the soul.
Practically: a biometric signature turned financial primitive.
When automatic biological states become “work,” we move from selling labor (will) to commodifying the conditions of being alive.
If we take this architecture seriously, it leaves us with questions no purely technical answer can resolve.
Three Questions for the Sovereign Individual
If your inner focus can be assigned market value by a task server, do you still possess the right to your own silence?
In a regime where rewards condition on acceptable response, can dissent survive when the loop can be tuned around compliance?
What remains of the human spirit when private, involuntary response becomes ledger input?
The War on Metaphysics: Why Scientism Is Functional
If this sounds abstract, remember: metaphysics is simply the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and the universe—and therefore what can be legitimately governed.
A recurring feature of this class of projects is its reliance on emergence, complexity, and the insinuation that “the measurable is the real.” What makes the agenda durable is that it doesn’t only build infrastructure. It builds plausibility—an interpretive frame in which its mechanisms appear natural, inevitable, and even objective.
That is why the deeper obstacle is not technological but metaphysical—specifically, the moral realism presupposed by the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration does not treat the human person as a contingent artifact of systems, states, or measurements. It assumes an order of being that political power does not manufacture: persons are real in themselves; rights are not permissions; dignity is not an administrative output. Its argument presupposes that human nature is given, not produced—and that authority is bounded because it stands under a higher reality it did not create.
A realist metaphysics is therefore a bulwark against the biodigital program because it insists on an order of reality the system cannot author: persons are substances, not outputs; dignity is intrinsic, not conferred; the interior is not a computational artifact to be derived and managed. If that is true, then no validation server—however advanced—can rightfully become an arbiter of what counts as real, valuable, or human. It can register facts; it cannot constitute persons. It can process signals; it cannot generate moral standing.
The metaphysical ground has to be softened. That is where scientism becomes functional: not science as disciplined inquiry, but science-as-total-explanation—an ideology that treats the measurable as the most real, and the most real as the most governable. Complexity science and “emergence” language can be recruited as a kind of ontological solvent. Where the Declaration’s realism presumes a stable human nature that grounds rights prior to the state, scientism dissolves “nature” into variables. If the self is framed as an emergent phenomenon arising from sub-personal inputs, then the person becomes a pattern; the pattern becomes legible; and what is legible becomes engineerable. The metaphysical priority silently shifts from substance to signals, from intrinsic being to instrumented inference—and the Declaration’s premise that rights are inherent begins to look unintelligible or “unscientific.”
This is what I tried to elucidate in my “technocratic philosopher” analysis: the complexity-science milieu—anchored institutionally by the Santa Fe Institute—often hollows out metaphysics in order to install a new “scaffolding” for reality, one in which science and system-design do not merely describe the world but progressively supply the terms by which the world is understood, accessed, and inhabited. And it matters who funds and platforms that scaffolding. SFI later publicly acknowledged it had accepted money from Jeffrey Epstein’s foundation, a reminder that “science philanthropy” can function as elite patronage and legitimacy-making even when the patron is morally radioactive. It had also, earlier, established a Robert Maxwell Professorship in the Sciences of Complexity with an inaugural $300,000 grant from the Maxwell Foundation (notably, Christine Maxwell has been described as a former SFI trustee), underscoring how donor capital can hardwire prestige into the intellectual infrastructure itself. At the same time, SFI also moved in the techno-libertarian donor ecosystem: it presented at a Peter Thiel Foundation “Breakthrough Philanthropy” event explicitly oriented toward “radical innovations” and “the right big ideas,” alongside other “exit” projects like seasteading. Read together, this isn’t just a sociology of donors—it’s a weapon (without force): a scientific vocabulary of emergence, incentives, and complex adaptive systems that can be wielded to naturalize an extreme libertarian, laissez-faire ethos as if it were simple realism. When “the economy” is narrated as self-organizing computation, politics appears as a buggy legacy layer; government is framed as already obsolete; and “governance” is quietly redefined as protocol design. Soulbound tokens (as mentioned above) intensify this shift by framing identity as non-transferable credentials—ledger-native attestations of reputation, membership, and eligibility—so access is determined less by civic standing than by what the system can authenticate. Thiel says this logic out loud—calling for an escape from politics through technology, and describing PayPal’s founding vision as a “new world currency” beyond government control. Within that frame, SFI’s explicit work on “engineering crypto-economies” supplies the technical grammar for the transition: money as code, incentives as architecture, coordination as tokenized mechanism. In other words, the new order is sold not as a coup but as an upgrade—an engineered ecosystem conducive to techno-libertarians, in which persons are progressively refactored into compliant nodes in a cybernetic stack.
That is also why the endgame is not simply surveillance, but synthesis: the merger of man and machine into a cybernetic organism suited to a techno-feudal order—where participation in economic and social life is mediated by platforms that can set the target, read the body, and reward conformity. The Declaration’s realist metaphysics resists this because it denies the project’s quiet premise: that a system can become the ontological landlord of the human person. If persons are real prior to regimes—and endowed with rights not granted by them—then platforms may manage services, but they cannot rightfully manage standing.
The Creator–creation distinction and the imago Dei claim, function here as conceptual limits that must be blurred for the program to cohere. If human worth is received rather than system-issued—if persons possess a dignity that is not granted by markets, platforms, or validation regimes—then biometric thresholds cannot legitimately become a proxy for standing. If selfhood is reframed as an emergent, computable product, then dignity can be tacitly recoded as something conferred: access contingent on acceptable signatures, personhood treated as a status managed by metrics—with identity reduced to an attestations graph and exclusion rendered as mere “failure to meet criteria”.
If the fortress of the mind is to be seized, the first step is to convince the culture that there is no fortress—only data.
Reclaiming the Human: Closing and Call to Action
WO 2020/060606 is not prophecy. It is a roadmap—a formal design for turning physiological activity into inputs for a programmable system of value extraction.
But the spell breaks when you name the mechanism.
Actions for the Sovereign Individual
Education → Read the filing like a machine diagram: trace (1) tasks, (2) sensing, (3) transforms, (4) validity conditions. For a starting point, find the sentence: “human body activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system.” (Primary listings: World Intellectual Property Organization PATENTSCOPE entry + Google Patents listing.)
Advocacy → Push for legal recognition that biometric and neurological data are inalienable extensions of personhood—integrity data, not ordinary consumer data—with strict limits on collection, storage, sale, and conditioning-by-reward.
Community → Build on-ramps that don’t require biometric gates: offline options, local exchange, cash-equivalents, and platforms that do not demand continuous sensor verification as the price of participation.
We must safeguard the fortress of the mind. In an increasingly instrumented world, our agency, privacy, and most intimate thoughts must remain ours alone.
The human soul was never meant to be mined.
It was meant to be free.
FOOTNOTES / ENDNOTES
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. “Cryptocurrency system using body activity data.” International publication WO2020060606A1 (published Mar. 26, 2020). WIPO PATENTSCOPE entry: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2020060606
Google Patents (full text + figures): https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020060606A1/enSatoshi Nakamoto. “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” (2008). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Policy Horizons Canada. “Exploring Biodigital Convergence,” 2020 report. https://horizons.service.canada.ca/en/2020/02/11/exploring-biodigital-convergence/
Courtenay Turner. “The Tokenization of Everything,” Substack, Jan. 30, 2026. https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/the-tokenization-of-everything
Patrick M. Wood and Courtenay Turner. The Final Betrayal (book; Chapter 3 discusses tokenization and biodigital infrastructure). https://amzn.to/4azHJnI
Larry Fink, interview on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street, Oct. 14, 2025, quoted in “BlackRock CEO Larry Fink Declares ‘Tokenization of All Assets’ Era,” Yahoo Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-declares-194215457.html
Chainalysis. “Day 2 of Chainalysis Links NYC 2024,” conference recap including remarks by Howard Lutnick on tokenization as a “fundamental” part of business. https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/day-2-of-chainalysis-links-nyc-2024/
RAND Corporation. The Internet of Bodies: Opportunities, Risks, and Governance (RR-3226-RC), Oct. 29, 2020. Landing page + PDF: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3226.html
Andrea M. Matwyshyn. “The Internet of Bodies” (working paper).
https://wmlawreview.org/sites/default/files/Matwyshyn-Internet%20of%20Bodies-Final.pdf
World Economic Forum. “Tracking how our bodies work could change our lives,” June 4, 2020. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/06/internet-of-bodies-covid19-recovery-governance-health-data/
World Economic Forum. The Internet of Bodies Is Here: Tackling new challenges of technology governance (briefing paper), Aug. 6, 2020. Publication page + PDF: https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-internet-of-bodies-is-here-tackling-new-challenges-of-technology-governance/
Ian F. Akyildiz et al. “The Internet of Bio-Nano Things,” IEEE Communications Magazine(2015). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7060516
University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing – Internet of Everything, “Research Areas.” https://ioe.eng.cam.ac.uk/Research/Research-Areas
MIT Media Lab. “AlterEgo” project overview. https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/alterego/overview/
Arnav Kapur et al. “AlterEgo: A Personalized Wearable Silent Speech Interface,” 2018 (MIT). MIT News coverage: “Computer system transcribes words users ‘speak silently’,” Apr. 4, 2018. Story + PDF: https://news.mit.edu/2018/computer-system-transcribes-words-users-speak-silently-0404
Alex Gray. “Fitbit analyzed data on 6 billion nights of sleep – with fascinating results,” World Economic Forum, Feb. 15, 2018. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/02/fitbit-analyzed-data-on-6-billion-nights-of-sleep-with-fascinating-results/
Black Mirror, “Fifteen Million Merits” (Series 1, Episode 2; first aired 2011). Synopsis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits
Loureen Ayyoub. “As Super Bowl LX nears, commercials remain a main event,” CBS San Francisco, Jan. 30, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/super-bowl-commercials-remain-a-main-event/
Netflix. “Netflix House” official site, describing immersive fan destinations in Galleria Dallas and King of Prussia. https://www.netflix.com/house
World Economic Forum. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means and how to respond,” by Klaus Schwab, Jan. 14, 2016. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/
@SecKennedy. “Make American Biotech Accelerate (MABA)” tweet (MAHA / MABA framing), X, June 20, 2025.
Axios. “OpenAI plans first consumer device for 2026,” Jan. 19, 2026 (Altman / Jony Ive hardware reporting and timeline). https://www.axios.com/2026/01/19/openai-device-2026-lehane-jony-ive
Coinbase Learn. “What are soulbound tokens (SBT)?” Soulbound tokens overview. https://www.coinbase.com/learn/crypto-glossary/what-are-soulbound-tokens-sbt
Solana Docs. “Non-transferrable tokens” (token extensions). https://solana.com/docs/tokens/extensions/non-transferrable-tokens
Ledger. “Soulbound Token – Terms of Use” (example of ledger-native attestations). https://shop.ledger.com/pages/soulbound-token-terms-of-use
Cube Exchange. “What is a soulbound token (SBT)?” https://www.cube.exchange/what-is/soulbound-token
Peter Thiel. “Education of a Libertarian,” Cato Unbound, Apr. 13, 2009 (PayPal as “new world currency beyond government control”). https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/
Santa Fe Institute. “Breakthrough Philanthropy” presentation with the Thiel Foundation, SFI news page. https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/video-breakthrough-philanthropy-Thiel
Santa Fe Institute. Event description: “Engineering Crypto-Economies through the Lens of Complex Systems.” https://www.santafe.edu/events/engineering-crypto-economies-through-lens-complex-
Courtenay Turner. “The Technocratic Philosopher: How Jim Rutt’s ‘Minimum Viable Metaphysics’ Paves the Road to Technocracy and Transhumanism,” Substack, Nov. 19, 2025. https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/the-technocratic-philosopher-how
Santa Fe Institute. “SFI gives $25K to Solace Crisis Treatment Center,” community support announcement. https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/sfi-gives-25k-solace-crisis-treatment-center
“TESCREAL: transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism and longtermism,” First Monday, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2024). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636/11606
The conditioning is well underway - you have only to look at people trance watching their phones and then screenbound at work to see it. Minds fully immersed in the machine.
"...the new order is sold not as a coup but as an upgrade..."
like a thief in the night.