Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive Liberty, Brain Implants, and Neuroprosthesis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cyber-Humans

Abstract

In previous chapters, I described several technologies that are leading humanity closer to a merger with artificially intelligent machines .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Benjamin Wittes and Jane Chong, 2014, Brookings Report, We Are All Cyborgs Now, at: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/techtank/posts/2014/10/8-we-are-all-cyborgs.

  2. 2.

    Ben Goertzel on Singularity 1 on 1: The Future Is Ours To Create, 2010, Youtube video at: https://www.singularityweblog.com/ben-goertzel-on-singularity-1-on-1/.

  3. 3.

    Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler, 2014, Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think, Free Press; Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler, 2015, Bold: How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World, Simon & Schuster.

  4. 4.

    Hans Moravec, 2000, Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind, Oxford University Press; Hans Moravec, 1990, Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence, Harvard University Press.

  5. 5.

    Eliza Strickland, 2014, DARPA Project Starts Building Human Memory Prosthetics, at: http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/darpa-project-starts-building-human-memory-prosthetics, and http://www.unwittingvictim.com/BostonGlobe.html.

  6. 6.

    Id.

  7. 7.

    Id.

  8. 8.

    Berger, T.W., Baudry, M., Brinton, R.D., Liaw, J-S., Marmarelis, V.Z., Park, Y., Sheu, B.J., and Tanguay, Jr., A.R., 2001, Brain-implantable biomimetic electronics as the next era in neural prosthetics. Proceedings of the IEEE.

  9. 9.

    See generally, Berger, T.W., Ahuja, A., Courellis, S.H., Deadwyler, S.A., Erinjippurath, G., Gerhardt, G.A., Gholmeih, G, Granacki, J.J., Hampson, R., Hsiao, M-C., LaCoss, J., Marmarelis, V.Z., Nasiatka, P., Srinivasan, V., Song, S., Tanguay, Jr., A.R., Wills, J., 2005, Hippocampal-cortical neural prostheses to restore lost cognitive function. IEEE EMBS Special Issue: Toward Biomimetic Microelectronics as Neural Prostheses, 24, 30–44.

  10. 10.

    Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation, accessed 2015, at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/casl-lcap.htm.

  11. 11.

    Id, see also infra note 13.

  12. 12.

    See generally, Woodrow Barfield, 2006, Commercial Speech, Intellectual Property Rights, and Advertising Using Virtual Images Inserted in TV, Film, and the Real World, UCLA Ent. Law Rev, Vol. 13, 154–186.

  13. 13.

    CAN-SPAM Act, Pub. L. 108–187.

  14. 14.

    Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

  15. 15.

    Jeffrey Rosen, 2007, The Brain on the Stand, New York Times, at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

  16. 16.

    Marc Goodman, 2015, Future Crimes: Everything Is Connected, Everyone Is Vulnerable and What We Can Do About It, Doubleday.

  17. 17.

    Jeffrey Rosen, Id., note 15, discussing comments by Stanford’s Henry Greely on neurolaw.

  18. 18.

    Jeffrey Rosen, Id., note 15, discussing comments by Stanford’s Henry Greely.

  19. 19.

    Jeffrey Rosen, Id., note 15, discussing comments by Stanford’s Henry Greely.

  20. 20.

    Id.

  21. 21.

    See Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 1942, (Murphy, J. dissenting), noting that while “freedom to think is absolute of its own nature,” the government may target it by targeting “freedom to communicate the minds message to others by speech and writing”.

  22. 22.

    Marc Blitz, Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancements and the Constitution, Wisconsin Law Review, 2010, 1049–1118, see p. 1075.

  23. 23.

    Id, see generally, Jones v. Opelika, id., note 21.

  24. 24.

    Bublitz, Jan Christoph; Merkel, Reinhard, 2014. “Crime Against Minds: On Mental Manipulations, Harms and a Human Right to Mental Self-Determination.” Criminal Law and Philosophy, Vol. 8: 61.

  25. 25.

    Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 1977, quoting W.Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 1943.

  26. 26.

    Mark Blitz, id., note 22.

  27. 27.

    As of April 2014, the Covenant has 74 signatories and 168 parties.

  28. 28.

    Palko v. Connecticut, 1937, 302 U.S. 319, 326–327.

  29. 29.

    Jan Christoph Bublitz and Reinhard Merkel, id, note 24.

  30. 30.

    Id.

  31. 31.

    Id.

  32. 32.

    Richard G. Boire, 2005. Searching the Brain: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Brain-Based Deception Detection Devices, The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 5, Issue 2, doi: 10.1080/15265160590960933.

  33. 33.

    Cognitive Liberty, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty.

  34. 34.

    The Pleasure Centers, at: http://www.intropsych.com/ch02_human_nervous_system/pleasure_centers.html.

  35. 35.

    Laurence Tribe, Rights of Privacy and Personhood, American Constitutional Law, Sec. 15–7, at 1322 (2nd ed. 1988).

  36. 36.

    United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351 (1971); Stanley v. Georgia 394 U.S. 557 (1969).

  37. 37.

    Judy Illes, Neuroethics in a New Era of Neuroimaging, American Journal of Neuroradiology, at: http://www.ajnr.org/content/24/9/1739.full.

  38. 38.

    Jeffrey Rosen, id, note 15, discussing Rubin Gur’s experience as an expert witness.

  39. 39.

    Jeffrey Rosen, id., note 15, quoting Michael Gazzaniga, Michael Gazzaniga, 2006, The Ethical Brain: The Science of Our Moral Dilemmas, Harper Perennial.

  40. 40.

    Communicating person to person through the power of thought alone, 2009, University of Southampton, at: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2009/oct/09_135.shtml.

  41. 41.

    Rao R. P. N, Stocco, A, Bryan, M, Sarma, D, Youngquist, T. M, Wu J, et al. 2014, A Direct Brain-to-Brain Interface in Humans, PLoS ONE 9(11): e111332. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111332.

  42. 42.

    Meeri Kim, 2013, MIT Scientists Implant a False Memory into a Mouse’s Brain, The Washington Post, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/inception-mit-scientists-implant-a-false-memory-into-a-mouses-brain/2013/07/25/47bdee7a-f49a-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html,

  43. 43.

    Id., quoting Michael J. Kahana.

  44. 44.

    Nita Farahany, 2012, Incrimination Thoughts, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 64. 351.

  45. 45.

    Id.

  46. 46.

    Id.

  47. 47.

    Id.

  48. 48.

    Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that a State may, over the suspect’s protest, have a physician extract blood from a person suspected of drunken driving without violating the suspect's rights under the Fourth or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

  49. 49.

    Nita Farahany, id. note 44.

  50. 50.

    See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1977), noting that the Internet allows for “unlimited low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds.”

  51. 51.

    Marc Blitz, 2010, Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancement and the Constitution, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2010, No. 4, 1049.

  52. 52.

    R v Hardison, 2007, 1 Cr App R (S) 37.

  53. 53.

    NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326–327 (1937).

  54. 54.

    Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) is a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried.

  55. 55.

    Lawrence H. Tribe, id., note 35.

  56. 56.

    Sell, id., note 54.

  57. 57.

    Sell, id., note 54.

  58. 58.

    Sell, id, note 54.

  59. 59.

    Cellan-Jones, Rory, 2010, First human ‘infected with computer virus, BBC News online (BBC). Retrieved 26 May 2010.

  60. 60.

    See generally, David Talbot, 2010, Computer Viruses Are “Rampant” on Medical Devices in Hospitals, MIT Technology Review, quoting Professor Fu, at: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429616/computer-viruses-are-rampant-on-medical-devices-in-hospitals/.

  61. 61.

    Mark Gasson, 2005, Extending human interaction via invasive neural implants (PhD thesis). University of Reading.

  62. 62.

    Malware (short for “malicious software”), is a file or code, typically delivered over a network that infects, explores, steals or conducts virtually any behavior an attacker wants, would be deleterious to the bodily integrity of any cyborg.

  63. 63.

    Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030; There is an obligation for prosecution under the CFAA that a non-public computer is damaged where the term “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information. Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18), 1990 CHAPTER 18. The PCI-DSS at section 5 requires that “Anti-virus software must be used on all systems commonly affected by viruses to protect systems from malicious software.” The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Products Liability) (Modification) Order 2000 (Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2771).

  64. 64.

    Computer Misuse Act, Id.

  65. 65.

    Center for Cognitive Liberties and Ethics, at: http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/faqs/faq_general.htm.

  66. 66.

    Science Daily, 2013, Human brain treats prosthetic devices as part of the body, at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130306221135.htm. Mariella Pazzaglia, Giulia Galli, Giorgio Scivoletto, Marco Molinari. A Functionally Relevant Tool for the Body following Spinal Cord Injury. PLoS ONE, 2013; 8 (3): e58312 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058312.

  67. 67.

    Benjamin Wittes and Jane Chong, id., note 1.

  68. 68.

    Michael J. Sandel, 2007, The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674036383.

  69. 69.

    Francis Fukuyama, 2003, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, Picador Press.

  70. 70.

    Id.

  71. 71.

    Achcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 2002.

  72. 72.

    California Civil Stalking Law, Cal Civ. Code § 1708.7 (2014); Stalking Cal. Pen. Code § 646.9, Stalking (2008).

  73. 73.

    Chris Gray 2002, Cyborg Citizen: Politics in the Posthuman Age, Routledge.

  74. 74.

    Id.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Woodrow Barfield

Authors
  1. Woodrow Barfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Woodrow Barfield .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barfield, W. (2015). Cognitive Liberty, Brain Implants, and Neuroprosthesis. In: Cyber-Humans. Copernicus, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25050-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25050-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Copernicus, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25048-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25050-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation