You're assuming the status quo of input and then suggesting that it is a given, and thus any technology will in the end by identical to the status quo. Let's c

You're assuming the status quo of input and then suggesting that it is a given, and thus any technology will in the end by identical to the status quo. Let's consider chess for a minute. When a strong player looks at a chess position they see something very different than what a casual player sees and, in fact, they actually use different parts of their brain. They will be able to see ideas and concepts in a fraction of a second that a casual player could spend hours searching for, and failing to find. Yet paradoxically, show these ideas to the weaker player and they'll understand them easily - it's not magical. I find chess a good example since most people are not very good, but do know how to play so they can understand the analog from the amateur side easily. But you can also see things from the side of the 'master' in language. Look at your post. It's made up of 1,499 characters and hundreds of different combinations of these characters. Yet I'm able to parse it very little time and you wrote it with no significant effort. Think about the immense amount of processing that's going on there, without ever really realizing it. So I see no reason to believe that this sort of invisible processing need be limited. Is there any reason I can't consume the entirety of e.g. Wikipedia or the entire catalog of astrophyics journals? Even going full Neo, the difference between a master jiujitsu practitioner and somebody who's never done it at all is almost entirely in the brain. Why can't that information be consumed in direct fashion? It doesn't really seem all that much more spectacular than consuming the entirety of dictionaries and the countless nuanced exceptions and rules of construction between those words, or somehow being able to instantaneously grasp, to at least a very good degree, a practically infinite variety of chess positions. I also remain cynical on the neural lace, but because I think it's reach far exceeds its grasp. I think to really make progress you would effectively need to begin breaking down the man-machine interface in ways beyond clever signal correlation, and we haven't even scratched the surface there. By analog it'd be like trying to become a fluent speaker, without accent, in Ancient Egyptian by studying hieroglyphics.