Abstract
Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) allow people to control external devices using only the power of their thoughts. This chapter explores BCIs in terms of individual user responsibility. Firstly, BCIs are introduced. Following this, the concept of individual responsibility is discussed. After that three novel aspects of BCIs that will have an impact on user responsibility are outlined. These are the control of external things via the mind alone, the possibility of subconscious thoughts as actuators of BCI devices, and mind-melding via BCIs. Then the analysis focuses on claims regarding (a) the effect of BCIs on the extent of responsibility, and (b) the allocation of responsibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Incidentally, this might of course still result in the well-known ‘many hands’ problem, the difficulty in the identification of moral responsibility in situations in which many people were involved in collectively causing an event. This concept initially was applied to the work of public officials in the creation of a policy (Thompson 1980) but has lately been applied in engineering and computer ethics. Mistakes arising from computer errors are usually the result of an accumulation of mistakes, making it difficult to attribute the catastrophe to any one individual (programmer, engineer, manufacturer, or user).
- 2.
Of course, this assumes that the soldiers will be relatively virtuous. Enhanced communication between troops could equally benefit terrorists or any group with malevolent intentions.
- 3.
This would not mean that BCIs could not still be used in conjunction with these technologies, e.g. to inform smart cars about the mental state of the driver.
- 4.
Computer systems that combine biometric data and EEG data would of course have many civilian applications, e.g. managing stress. These data would be useful for people developing lifelog technologies.
References
Anthony, Sebastian. 2012. Hackers backdoor the human brain, successfully extract sensitive data. ExtremeTech. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134682-hackers-backdoor-the-human-brain-successfully-extract-sensitive-data
Aristotle. 1985. Nicomachean ethics. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
Clausen, J. 2009. Man, machine and in between. Nature 457(7233): 1080–1081. doi:10.1038/4571080a.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA. 2009. Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget estimates: Research, development, test and evaluation, defense-wide. http://websearch.darpa.mil/search?q=cache:sVHHsSY9hLQJ:www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D538+Silent+Talk&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&site=default_collection&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&oe=UTF-8.
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. 2011. Nissan teams up with EPFL for futurist car interfaces. EPFL News Mediacom. http://actu.epfl.ch/news/nissan-teams-up-with-epfl-for-futurist-car-interfa
Edlinger, G., C. Holzner, and C. Guger. 2011. A Hybrid Brain-Computer Interface for Smart Home Control. In Human-computer interaction. Interaction techniques and environments, ed. J.A. Jacko, 417–426. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-21605-3_46
Foster, K.R. 2006. Engineering the brain. In Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, ed. Judy Illes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
George, M.S., Z. Nahas, M. Molloy, A.M. Speer, N.C. Oliver, X.-B. Li, and J.C. Ballenger. 2000. A controlled trial of daily left prefrontal cortex TMS for treating depression. Biological Psychiatry 48(10): 962–970. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(00)01048-9.
Gordijn, B. 2006. Converging NBIC technologies for improving human performance: A critical assessment of the novelty and the prospects of the project. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34(4): 726–732.
Gordijn, B., and A.M. Buyx. 2010. Neural engineering. The challenges ahead. In Scientific and philosophical perspectives in neuroethics, ed. J. Giordano and B. Gordijn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grübler, G. 2011. Beyond the responsibility gap. Discussion note on responsibility and liability in the use of brain-computer interfaces. AI and Society 26(4): 377–382.
Halperin, D., T.S. Heydt-Benjamin, B. Ransford, S.S. Clark, B. Defend, W. Morgan, and W.H. Maisel. 2008. Pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: Software radio attacks and zero-power defenses. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 129–142. doi:10.1109/SP.2008.31.
Harris, P. 2011. BrainGate gives paralysed the power of mind control. The Guardian, Apr 17. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/17/brain-implant-paralysis-movement.
Hoag, H. 2003. Neuroengineering: Remote control. Nature 423(6942): 796–798. doi:10.1038/423796a.
Holm, S., and T.C. Voo. 2011. Brain-machine interfaces and personal responsibility for action – maybe not as complicated after all. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 4(3). doi:10.2202/1941-6008.1153.
Koberda, J.L., D.S. Hillier, B. Jones, A. Moses, and L. Koberda. 2012. Application of neurofeedback in general neurology practice. Journal of Neurotherapy 16(3): 231–234. doi:10.1080/10874208.2012.705770.
Kotchetkov, I.S., B.Y. Hwang, G. Appelboom, C.P. Kellner, and E.S. Connolly Jr. 2010. Brain-computer interfaces: Military, neurosurgical, and ethical perspective. Neurosurgical Focus 28(5): E25. doi:10.3171/2010.2.FOCUS1027.
Lang, Y., P. Du, and H.-C. Shin. 2011. Encoding-based brain-computer interface controlled by non-motor area of rat brain. Science China. Life Sciences 54(9): 841–853. doi:10.1007/s11427-011-4214-6.
Lucivero, F., and G. Tamburrini. 2008. Ethical monitoring of brain-machine interfaces. AI & Society 22(3): 449–460. doi:10.1007/s00146-007-0146-x.
Martin, Richard. 2005. Mind control. Wired, Mar 13. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/brain.html.
Martinovic, I., D. Davies, M. Frank, D. Perito, T. Ros, and D. Song. 2012. On the feasibility of side-channel attacks with brain-computer interfaces. Presented at the 21st USENIC security symposium, Bellevie, WA.
Matthias, A. 2004. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology 6(3): 175–183. doi:10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1.
McGee, E.M., and G.Q. Maguire Jr. 2007. Becoming Borg to become immortal: Regulating brain implant technologies. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, CQ, The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees 16(3): 291–302.
Schermer, M. 2009. The mind and the machine. On the conceptual and moral implications of brain-machine interaction. Nanoethics 3(3): 217–230.
Science Daily. 2009. Applause for the SmartHand. http://phys.org/news176564795.html.
Talwar, S.K., S. Xu, E.S. Hawley, S.A. Weiss, K.A. Moxon, and J.K. Chapin. 2002. Behavioural neuroscience: Rat navigation guided by remote control. Nature 417(6884): 37–38. doi:10.1038/417037a.
Tamburrini, G. 2009. Brain to computer communication: Ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics 2(3): 137–149. doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9040-1.
Thompson, Dennis F. 1980. Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. The American Political Science Review 74(4): 905–916.
Vernon, D.J. 2005. Can neurofeedback training enhance performance? An evaluation of the evidence with implications for future research. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 30(4): 347–364.
Vincent, N.A. 2009. Neuroimaging and responsibility assessments. SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1519431
Vincent, N. 2010. On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4(1): 77–98. doi:10.1007/s11572-009-9087-4.
Weaver, F.M., and F.K. Follett. 2009. Bilateral deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy for patients with advanced Parkinson disease: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 301(1): 63–73. doi:10.1001/jama.2008.929.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Brolchain, F., Gordijn, B. (2014). Brain–Computer Interfaces and User Responsibility. In: Grübler, G., Hildt, E. (eds) Brain-Computer-Interfaces in their ethical, social and cultural contexts. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8996-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8996-7_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8995-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8996-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)