Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates never wrote anything down. He warned that writing weakens the memory and that it is nothing more than a reminder of some previous thoughts. Compared to people who argue and debate, readers will be “listeners to many things and have learned nothing; They will appear to be omniscient and often know nothing.
These views may seem strange, but his fundamental fear is a timeless one: that technology threatens thought. In the 1950s, Americans panicked about the possibility of advertisers using subliminal messages hidden in movies to trick consumers into buying things they didn’t really want. Today, the US is in the midst of a similar panic over TikTok, with critics worried about its impact on viewers’ freedom of thought.
For many people, neurotechnologies seem particularly threatening, even though they are still in their infancy. In January 2024, Elon Musk announced that his company Neuralink had implanted a brain chip into its first human test subject – but the company achieved such a feat long after its competitors. Fast forward to March, and that person can already play chess with just their thoughts.
Brain-computer interfaces, called BCIs, have rightly sparked debate about the appropriate limits of technologies that interact with the nervous system. Looking forward to the day when wearable and implantable devices may be more common, the United Nations has discussed regulations and restrictions on BCIs and related neurotechnology. Chile even includes neurorights (special protections for brain activity) in its constitution, while other countries are considering doing the same.
The cornerstone of neurorights is the idea that all people have a fundamental right to determine what state their brains are in and who is allowed to access that information; just as people normally have the right to determine what will be done with their bodies and property. It is often equated with “freedom of thought”.
Many ethicists and policymakers feel that this right to mental self-determination is so fundamental that undermining it is never acceptable and that institutions should place strict limits on neurotechnology.
But as my research on neurorights shows, protecting the mind is not as easy as protecting bodies and property.
Thoughts etc. things
It is relatively simple to create rules that preserve a person’s ability to determine what is done to their body. The boundaries of the body are clear and anything that exceeds these boundaries without permission is not allowed. For example, it is normally obvious for a person to violate laws prohibiting assault or battery.
The same applies to regulations that protect a person’s property. Protection of body and property are some of the main reasons why people come together to form government.
In general, people can enjoy these protections without significantly limiting how others want to live their lives.
On the other hand, the difficulty in establishing neurorights is that, unlike bodies and property, brains and minds are constantly under the influence of external forces. It is not possible to fence a person’s mind so that nothing can get in.
Instead, one person’s thoughts are largely the product of other people’s thoughts and actions. Everything from how a person perceives colors and shapes to our most fundamental beliefs is affected by what others say and do. The human mind is like a sponge, it absorbs everything it is immersed in. Regulations can control the type of liquid in the bucket, but they cannot prevent the sponge from getting wet.
Even if this were possible—if there were a way to regulate people’s actions so that they did not in any way affect the thoughts of others—the regulations would be so burdensome that no one could do much.
If I’m not allowed to influence other people’s thoughts, I can never leave my house because by doing so I cause people to think and behave in certain ways. As the internet further expands one’s reach, not only will I not be able to leave the house, I will also be unable to “like” a post, write a product review, or comment on an article on Facebook.
In other words, protecting one aspect of freedom of thought (a person’s ability to protect themselves from outside influences) may conflict with another aspect of freedom of thought, namely freedom of expression, or the ability to express one’s ideas.
Neurotechnology and control
But there’s another concern at play: privacy. People may not be able to fully control what goes into their minds, but they need to have significant control over what goes out, and some people believe that societies need “neuro-rights” regulations to ensure this. Neurotechnology represents a new threat to our ability to control what thoughts people reveal to others.
For example, efforts are underway to develop wearable neurotechnology that will read and adjust a customer’s brain waves to help them improve their mood or get better sleep. Although such devices can be used with the user’s permission, they receive information from the brain, interpret it, store it and use it for other purposes.
It is also becoming easier to use technology to measure someone’s thoughts in experiments. Functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, can be used to measure changes in blood flow in the brain and produce images of this activity. AI can then analyze these images to interpret what a person is thinking.
Critics of neurotechnology fear that as the field develops, it will be possible to extract information about brain activity regardless of whether someone wants to disclose it. Hypothetically, this information could one day be used in a variety of contexts, from new device research to litigation.
Regulation may be necessary to protect people from neurotechnology stealing information. For example, countries could ban companies that produce commercial neurotechnology devices intended to improve user sleep from storing the brainwave data those devices collect.
However, I argue that it may not be necessary or even possible to protect against neurotechnology implanting information into our brains; But even a few years from now, it is difficult to predict what capabilities neurotechnology will have.
This is partly because I believe people tend to exaggerate the difference between neurotechnology and other external influences. Think about books. Horror novelist Stephen King said that writing is telepathy: When a writer writes a sentence, such as describing the shotgun on the fireplace, it stimulates a particular thought in the reader.
In addition, strong protections over bodies and property already exist, and I believe these could be used to prosecute anyone who forces invasive or wearable neurotechnology on another person.
How different societies will overcome these challenges is an open question. But one thing is certain: With or without neurotechnology, our control over our own minds is less absolute than most of us think.
This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent, nonprofit news organization providing facts and authoritative analysis to help you understand our complex world. Written by: Parker Crutchfield, Western Michigan University
Read more:
Parker Crutchfield does not work for, consult for, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organization that may benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond its academic duties.