Skip to main content

The Authenticity of Machine-Augmented Human Intelligence: Therapy, Enhancement, and the Extended Mind

Abstract

Ethical analyses of biomedical human enhancement often consider the issue of authenticity — to what degree can the accomplishments of those utilizing biomedical enhancements (including cognitive or athletic ones) be considered authentic or worthy of praise? As research into Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) technology progresses, it may soon be feasible to create a BCI device that enhances or augments natural human intelligence through some invasive or noninvasive biomedical means. In this article we will (1) review currently existing BCI technologies and to what extent these can be said to enhance or augment the capabilities of the respective users, (2) describe one hypothetical type of BCI device that could augment or enhance a specific aspect of human knowledge — namely, mathematical ability, and (3) relate these concepts to the active externalism view of the extended mind as espoused by Clark and Chalmers in order to (4) argue that knowledge of mathematics derived from the usage of a BCI and the application thereof constitutes authentic knowledge and achievement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is important to note that there are many different, and mutually excluding definitions of authenticity. This is why Pugh [4] defines authenticity as having a dual-basis constituent, where immutable characteristics meet existentialist ones (i.e. true self and self-creation).

  2. 2.

    For an in-depth discussion of the treatment-enhancement distinction and how it guides public policy, see [11].

  3. 3.

    In what follows we will refer to this type of hypothetical BCI as mathBCI. It should be noted here that being-in-the-loop with an implantable BCI, where a human is cognitively supported by BCI, may have positive effects, but the opposite is also true, even if the outsourcing only impacts one cognitive capacity. Some neuroethicists have reported a burden of abnormality when brain implants are effectively correlated to enhanced normal species-typical cognitive function [27]. This is an important point, but fails to refute our argument, as this may happen only in isolated pathological cases. We are grateful to anonymous reviewers for constructive comments that lead to this clarification.

  4. 4.

    It is important to note that mathBCI is offloading cognitive processes that the user’s brain is not capable of, and not simply making the brain more plastic. The mathBCI is an “external” (to the mind) device like a cochlear implant, which is crucially different from something that prompts biochemical change or neuroplasticity. Also, it should be noted that our argument relies on an analogy with trusting a cochlear implant (I am hearing a fire siren) or automatically trusting a visual-cortical implant (there is a bear in front of me). Overcoming an impairment like dyscalculia still implies limits and intersubjective confirmation. Thus, mathBCI is on par with other sources of information and inference about things in the outside world.

  5. 5.

    In the interest of space, we have focused on one specific potential ethical issue of BCI, namely, authenticity. For an in-depth discussion of other various ethical issues of BCI discussed in the literature, see [6].

References

  1. 1.

    Erler, A. 2011. Does memory modification threaten our authenticity? Neuroethics 4 (3): 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Santoni de Sio, F., N.S. Faber, J. Savulescu, and N.A. Vincent. 2016. Why less praise for enhanced performance? Moving beyond responsibility-shifting, authenticity, and cheating, towards a nature-of-activities approach. Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Policy Implications in International Perspectives.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bostrom, N., & Roache, R. 2008. Ethical issues in human enhancement. New waves in applied ethics, 120-152.

  4. 4.

    Pugh, J. 2020. Clarifying the normative significance of 'Personality Changes' following deep brain stimulation. Science and Engineering Ethics 26: 1655–1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00207-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Musk, E. 2019. An integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels. BioRxiv. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/703801v1

  6. 6.

    Burwell, S., M. Sample, and E. Racine. 2017. Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: A scoping review. BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1): 60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Shih, J. J., Krusienski, D. J., & Wolpaw, J. R. 2012. Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 268-279). Elsevier.

  8. 8.

    Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58 (1): 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Buller, T. 2013. Neurotechnology, invasiveness and the extended mind. Neuroethics 6 (3): 593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bostrom, N., and A. Sandberg. 2009. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3): 311–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Erler, A. 2017. The limits of the treatment-enhancement distinction as a guide to public policy. Bioethics 31 (8): 608–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dobelle, W.H., M.G. Mladejovsky, and J.P. Girvin. 1974. Artificial vision for the blind: Electrical stimulation of visual cortex offers hope for a functional prosthesis. Science 183 (4123): 440–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dobelle, W.H. 2000. Artificial vision for the blind by connecting a television camera to the visual cortex. ASAIO Journal 46 (1): 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Luo, Y.H.L., and L. Da Cruz. 2014. A review and update on the current status of retinal prostheses (bionic eye). British Medical Bulletin 109 (1): 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hansson, S. O. 2015. Ethical implications of sensory prostheses. In Handbook of Neuroethics (pp. 785–797). Springer, Dordrecht.

  16. 16.

    STOA. 2009. Science and technology options assessment [STOA](2009): Human Enhancement Study. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Svirsky, M. 2017. Cochlear implants and electronic hearing. Physics Today 70 (8): 52–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mudry, A., and M. Mills. 2013. The early history of the cochlear implant: A retrospective. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg 139 (5): 446–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Leeb, R., L. Tonin, M. Rohm, L. Desideri, T. Carlson, and J.D.R. Millán. 2015. Towards independence: A BCI telepresence robot for people with severe motor disabilities. Proceedings of the IEEE 103 (6): 969–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ghazaei, G., A. Alameer, P. Degenaar, G. Morgan, and K. Nazarpour. 2017. Deep learning-based artificial vision for grasp classification in myoelectric hands. Journal of Neural Engineering 14 (3): 036025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kolakowsky-Hayner, S.A., J. Crew, S. Moran, and A. Shah. 2013. Safety and feasibility of using the EksoTM bionic exoskeleton to aid ambulation after spinal cord injury. J Spine 4: 003.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Jansen, J. F. 2000. Exoskeleton for soldier enhancement systems feasibility study (no. ORNL/TM-2000/256). ORNL.

  23. 23.

    Kosc, L. 1974. Developmental dyscalculia. Journal of Learning Disabilities 7 (3): 164–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hampson, R.E., G.A. Gerhardt, V. Marmarelis, D. Song, I. Opris, L. Santos, T.W. Berger, and S.A. Deadwyler. 2012. Facilitation and restoration of cognitive function in primate prefrontal cortex by a neuroprosthesis that utilizes minicolumn-specific neural firing. Journal of Neural Engineering 9 (5): 056012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hochberg, L.R., M.D. Serruya, G.M. Friehs, J.A. Mukand, M. Saleh, A.H. Caplan, A. Branner, D. Chen, R.D. Penn, and J.P. Donoghue. 2006. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 442 (7099): 164–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lamiaux, S. L. 1978. U.S. Patent No. 4,128,873. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

  27. 27.

    Gilbert, F., and P. Tubig. 2018. Cognitive enhancement with brain implants: The burden of abnormality. J Cogn Enhanc 2: 364–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0105-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Obler, L.K., and D.E. Fein. 1988. The exceptional brain: Neuropsychology of talent and special abilities. Guilford Press.

  29. 29.

    Meier, K. 2017. The brain as computer: Bad at math, good at everything else. IEEE Spectrum 31.

  30. 30.

    Clark, A. 2010. Memento’s revenge: The extended mind, extended. The Extended Mind, 43-66.

  31. 31.

    Dubljević, V., and C.J. Ryan. 2015. Cognitive enhancement with methylphenidate and modafinil: Conceptual advances and societal implications. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics 4: 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ouchchy, L., A. Coin, and V. Dubljević. 2020. AI in the headlines: The portrayal of the ethical issues of artificial intelligence in the media. AI & SOCIETY: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00965-5

  33. 33.

    Kulshreshth, A., Anand, A., & Lakanpal, A. 2019. Neuralink-an Elon Musk start-up achieve symbiosis with artificial intelligence. In 2019 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS) (pp. 105-109). IEEE.

  34. 34.

    Winkler, R. 2017. Elon musk launches Neuralink to connect brains with computers. Wall Street Journal.

  35. 35.

    Bostrom, N., and E. Yudkowsky. 2014. The ethics of artificial intelligence. The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence 316: 334.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Muzyka, K. 2013. The outline of personhood law regarding artificial intelligences and emulated human entities. J Artif Gen Intell 4 (3): 164–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bauer, W.A., and V. Dubljević. 2019. AI assistants and the paradox of internal automaticity. Neuroethics 13: 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09423-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veljko Dubljević.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coin, A., Dubljević, V. The Authenticity of Machine-Augmented Human Intelligence: Therapy, Enhancement, and the Extended Mind. Neuroethics 14, 283–290 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09453-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Authenticity
  • Brain-computer interface
  • Brain-machine interface
  • Computer-augmented human intelligence
  • Extended mind
  • Machine-augmented human intelligence