Neurohacking: Ethical and Philosophical Problems

Affiliation:
INION RAS
Pirogov RNIMU
Address: 51/21 Nakhimovsky Prospekt, Moscow 117418, Russian Federation; 1 Ostrovityanova Str., Moscow 117997, Russian Federation

Journal name

Chelovek

Edition

Volume 33 Issue 1

Pages

47-60

Abstract

Neurohacking is a form of biohacking that aims to interfere with the structure or function of neurons to restore or improve the functioning of the brain and the central nervous system. The author focuses on the problems of using neurohacking methods by healthy people and on the prospects of using neurohacking for purposes other than medicine, considering them from the point of view of neuroethics. It is noted that neurotechnologies can be "dual-purpose" tools, that is, they can be used not only to solve medical problems, but also for other purposes, including malicious ones. The article discusses two types of neurohacking technologies: invasive, based on surgical interventions to restore or improve the functions of the body, and non-invasive, modifying the body without such interventions. Both of these types, originally developed for medical use, have the potential to be used by healthy people to improve and expand cognitive and sensory abilities. However, by seeking to improve cognitive abilities through neurohacking, a person can make their brain vulnerable to manipulation, subject to external control and management. This threatens him with the loss of free will, privacy and personal dignity. Uncontrolled use of neurohacking is dangerous not only for the subject who uses it, but also for society. The increased use of these technologies can lead to unpredictable consequences, including a new stratification of society and social segregation. A deep intrusion into the subtle structures of the brain, affecting its cognitive and sensitive abilities, sharpens the search for answers to the question of the essence of consciousness, and the inevitable existential risks for both the individual and humanity with the uncontrolled introduction of neurohacking require its ethical and philosophical understanding, evaluation and regulation.

Keywords

biohacking, neuroethics, invasive neurohacking, noninvasive neurohacking, enhancement, free will, cyborgization, posthuman, "dual-use" tools, transformation of society

Received

14.03.2022

Publication date

14.03.2022

Number of characters

23022

Cite

GOST	Vvedenskaya E. Neurohacking: Ethical and Philosophical Problems // Chelovek – 2022. – V. 33. – Issue 1 C. 47-60 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://chelovek-journal.ru/S023620070019074-8-1 (circulation date: 25.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S023620070019074-8
MLA	Vvedenskaya, Elena V "Neurohacking: Ethical and Philosophical Problems." Chelovek 33.1 (2022):47-60. DOI: 10.31857/S023620070019074-8
APA	Vvedenskaya E. (2022). Neurohacking: Ethical and Philosophical Problems. Chelovek 33(1), pp.47-60 DOI: 10.31857/S023620070019074-8

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 405

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Belyaletdinov R.R. Moral'noe biouluchshenie i avtonomiya: risk vizualizatsii blaga // ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. 2019. №4. S. 254–267.

2. Belyaletdinov R.R. Moral'noe biouluchshenie i avtonomiya: risk vizualizacii blag. [Moral bioenhancement and autonomy: the risk of visualized good]. Praksema. 2019. №4. S. 254–267.

3. Bodrijyar Zh. Obschestvo potrebleniya. Ego mify i struktury / per. s fr. E.A. Samarskoj. M: Kul'turnaya revolyutsiya; Respublika. 2006. C. 180.

4. Bodrijyar ZH. Obshchestvo potrebleniya. Ego mify i struktury. [Consumer society. Its myths and structures]. Transl. from French by E.A. Samarskoj. M: Kul'turnaya revolyuciya; Respublika. 2006.

5. Bodrijyar Zh. Prozrachnost' zla. M.: Dobrosvet. 2000. C. 76.

6. Bodrijyar ZH. Prozrachnost' zla. [The transparency of evil] M.: Dobrosvet. 2000.

7. Mettsinger T. Nauka o mozge i mif o svoem Ya. Tonnel' ehgo, per. s angl.: G. Solov'eva. M.: AST. 2017. C. 420.

8. Metcinger T. Nauka o mozge i mif o svoem YA. Tonnel' ego. [The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and The Myth of the Self]. Transl. from Engl. by G. Solov'eva. M.: AST. 2017.

9. Rekvart T. Vot vash mozg. A vot vash mozg kak oruzhie // Foreign Policy. 2015. URL: https://inosmi.ru/world/20150922/230398000.html (data obrascheniya: 20.06.2021).

10. Rekvart T. Vot vash mozg. A vot vash mozg kak oruzhie. [This Is Your Brain. This Is Your Brain as a Weapon]. Foreign Policy, 2015. URL: https://inosmi.ru/world/20150922/230398000.html (date of access: 20.06.2021).

11. Sidorova T.A. Nejroehtika mezhdu ehtikoj i moral'yu // Idei i Idealy. 2018. № 2(36). S. 81.

12. Sidorova T.A. Nejroetika mezhdu etikoj i moral 'yu. [Neuroethics between Ethics and Morality]. Idei i Idealy. 2018 № 2(36), T. 1.

13. Fromm Eh. Psikhoanaliz i religiya; Iskusstvo lyubit': Imet' ili byt'? Kiev: Nika-Tsentr. 1998. C. 189.

14. Fromm E. Psihoanaliz i religiya; Iskusstvo lyubit'; Imet' ili byt'? [Psychoanalysis and religion; The art of loving; To have or to be?]. Transl. from Engl. Kiev: Nika-Centr. 1998.

15. Yudin B.G. Transgumanizm: sverkhgumaniazm ili antigumanizm? // Chelovek: vykhod za predely. M.: Progress. 2018. C. 354.

16. YUdin B.G. Transgumanizm: sverhgumaniazm ili antigumanizm? [Transhumanism: superhumanism or antihumanism?]. CHelovek: vyhod za predely. M.: Progress. 2018.

17. Academy of Medical Sciences. “Human Enhancement and the Future of Work: Report from a joint workshop hosted by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society”. London: Academy of Medical Sciences. 2012.

18. Adee S. Zap your brain into the zone: Fast track to pure focus. New Scientist. 2012, February 1.

19. Bostrom N., Roache R. “Smart Policy: Cognitive Enhancement and the Public Interest”. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice. 2010. Vol. 2, N 1. P. 68–84.

20. CNN. Moon Ribas: The cyborg dancer who can detect earthquakes. 2018. URL:https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/moon-ribas-cyborg-smart-creativity/index.html (date of access: 20.06.2021).

21. Cruse A. Operational Neuroscience// Intelligence Community forum. 2008. URL: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/intell/kruse.pdf (date of access: 20.06.2021).

22. Deadwyler S., Berger T, Sweatt A. et al. Donor/recipient enhancement of memory in rat hippocampus. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2013. Vol. 7.

23. Dresler M., Sandlberg A., Bublitz C. et al. Hacking the brain: Dimensions of cognitive enhancement. ACS Chemical Neuroscience. 2019. Vol. 10, N 3. P.1137–1148. Gage G. How to control someone else's arm with your brain. 2015. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=312&v=rSQNi5sAwuc (date of access: 20.06.2021).

24. Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. December 2012. NIC 2012-001. URL: https://info.publicintelligence.net (date of access: 20.06.2021).

25. Jeffries S., Harbisson N. The world's first cyborg artist. 2014. The Guardian. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/may/06/neil-harbisson-worlds-first-cyborg-artist (date of access: 20.06.2021).

26. Kass L. “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Human Improvement”, President’s Council on Bioethics. Washington, DC. 2003.

27. Lagorio-Chafkin C. Computers Can't Read Minds Yet, but This Headset Developed by MIT Researchers Is Getting Close. Elsevier Inc. 2018. https://www.inc.com/christine-lagorio/computers-cant-read-minds-yet-but-this-headset-developed-by-mit-researchers-is-getting-close.html. (date of access: 20.06.2021).

28. Lenca M., Scheibner J. What is neurohacking? Defining the conceptual, ethical and legal boundaries. Developments in neuroethics and bioethics. Elsevier Inc. 2020.

29. Lieb K. «Hirndoping». Warum wir nicht alles schlucken sollten. Artemis&WinklerVerlag. 2010. S. 132–156.

30. Marcus S. (ed.). Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, 1st edition. New York: Dana Press. 2002.

31. Maslen H., Faulmüller N., and Savulescu J. “Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement—how Neuroscientific Research Could Advance Ethical Debate”. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2014. Vol. 8.

32. Musk E. An integrated brain machine interface platform with thousands of channels. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2019, Vol. 21, N 10. URL: https://www.jmir.org/2019/10/e16194/ (date of access: 20.06.2021).

33. Pandika M. What is neurohacking and can it actually rewire your brain? 2019. URL: https://www.mic.com/p/what-is-neurohacking-can-it-actually-rewire-your-brain-18496733 (date of access: 20.06.2021).

34. Park J.S., Ahn H.-Y. Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Antidepressant Advertising and Consumer Misperceptions aboutthe ChemicalImbalance Theory of Depression: The Moderating Role of Skepticism. Health Marketing Quarterly. 2013. Vol. 30. P. 362–378.

35. Rasmussen N. Americas first amfetamine epidemic 1929–1971. American Journal of Public Health. 2008. Vol. 98, N 6. P. 974–985.

36. Schneider S. Merging with AI would be suicide for the human mind. The Financial Times. 2019. URL: https://www.ft.com/content/0c4fac58-bd15-11e9-9381-78bab8a70848 (date of access: 20.06.2021).

37. Stagg C.J., & Nitsche M.A. Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. The Neuroscientist. 2011. Vol. 17, N 1. P. 37–53.

38. Teunisse W., Youssef S., Schmidt M. Human enhancement through the lens of experimental and speculative neurotechnologies. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Vol. 1, N 4. Special Issue: Emerging technologies, Emerging Risks: Current Approaches on the Future Risks of Human Enhancement Technologies. October 2019. P. 361–372.

39. Wróblewski M. The DSM as a Moving Laboratory: The Role of the Diagnostic Manual in the Stabilizing and Objectivization of Pharmaceutical Reason. Polish Sociological Review. 2015. Vol. 189, N 1. P. 85–106.

40. Zhao W., Garcia-Oscos F., Dinh D., Roberts T. Inception of memories that guide vocal learning in the songbird. Science. 2019. Vol. 366, N 6461. P. 83–89.