Page - 233 - in Cyborg Mind - What Brain–Computer and Mind–Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics

Conclusion • 233 that human bodies (including the brains) are beginning to be seen as things to master, take control over, redesign and enhance according to humanity’s own desires. It is also worth noting that any influence of technology on the human brain goes to the very core of who a person is in society. As Blank explains: ‘Neuroscience findings require a reevaluation of democratic con- cepts of equality, individual autonomy, freedom, and responsibility.’17 Yet, with respect to the way in which autonomy may be changed, the British social commentators Ed Brooks and Pete Nicholas explain that the virtual world may become attractive to individuals because they may be able to shape their own identity and be the person they want to be: In this world you are free from the constraints of your past and commitments of the present. You must decide for yourself who you are and what path you will follow. Let nothing get in the way. You are free to direct your own journey through life. You can avoid all those places that you would rather not travel to: places called failure and frustration and loneliness and loss and grief and guilt and disappointment.18 But risks also exist. For instance, if a government decided to influence and even control the way in which some members of the general public make decisions, this could be seen as a form of personal abuse. Moreover, if it is possible to read the intentions of a person to commit a crime, why should it not then be possible to act pre-emptively through a procedure where future criminals are arrested based on foreknowledge? Yet, at the same time, there will always be limits to neurotechnology. As Cheshire points out: ‘Although neuroscience has shed considerable light on the functions of the brain, it lacks the ability to explain the phenom- ena of consciousness, personal agency, conscience, moral responsibility, the continuity of identity over time, or human purpose.’19 It follows that if certain human aspects, such as free will and autonomy, involve more than the ability to just perform certain functions, then neu- ronal interface implants, whether they be therapeutic or enhancing, would not necessarily influence these aspects. This means that if a person’s cogni- tive faculties, such as intelligence or memory, are enhanced through neu- ronal interface implants, this may give him or her more abilities, but not necessarily more free will. A depressed patient may be made to feel better through brain stimulation using a neuronal interface and this may represent a mood enhancement, but it does not modify his or her capacity to make independent decisions.20 Thus, full control of the human brain is unlikely to be achieved. It is only if an individual is completely taken over by a machine or another person in cyberspace that he or she would eventually become an automaton. But at the same time, caution is required since neuronal interfaces may still be able This open access edition has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license thanks to the support of Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.