No abstract

Objective. Scientists, engineers, and healthcare professionals are currently developing a variety of new devices under the category of brain–computer interfaces (BCIs). Current and future applications are both medical/assistive (e.g. for communication) and non-medical (e.g. for gaming). This array of possibilities has been met with both enthusiasm and ethical concern in various media, with no clear resolution of these conflicting sentiments. Approach. To better understand how BCIs may either harm or help the user, and to investigate whether ethical guidance is required, a meeting entitled ‘BCIs and Personhood: A Deliberative Workshop’ was held in May 2018. Main results. We argue that the hopes and fears associated with BCIs can be productively understood in terms of personhood, specifically the impact of BCIs on what it means to be a person and to be recognized as such by others. Significance. Our findings suggest that the development of neural technologies raises important questions about the concept of personhood and its role in society. Accordingly, we propose recommendations for BCI development and governance.

No abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are driven essentially by algorithms; however, the ethical role of such algorithms has so far been neglected in the ethical assessment of BCIs. The goal of this article is therefore twofold: First, it aims to offer insights into whether (and how) the problems related to the ethics of BCIs (e.g., responsibility) can be better grasped with the help of already existing work on the ethics of algorithms. As a second goal, the article explores what kinds of solutions are available in that body of scholarship, and how these solutions relate to some of the ethical questions around BCIs. In short, the article asks what lessons can be learned about the ethics of BCIs from looking at the ethics of algorithms. To achieve these goals, the article proceeds as follows. First, a brief introduction into the algorithmic background of BCIs is given. Second, the debate about epistemic concerns and the ethics of algorithms is sketched. Finally, this debate is transferred to the ethics of BCIs.

Passive BCIs can be used to measure brain processes that take place without necessarily having the intention to communicate, or even while being unaware that specific information about mental states is being collected. This type of symbiotic neurotechnology has the potential to create new and philosophically fascinating cases where the question of "was that me?" will make sense from both an