Protecting the Mind: An Analysis of the Concept of the Mental in the Neurorights Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2022iss20pp101-117Keywords:
neurotechnologies, neurorights, mind, agency, mental intromissionAbstract
After examining some of the most fundamental aspects of the general concept of ‘neuroright’ in the current discussion, this paper analyzes the concept of ‘the mental’ contained in the very first law of neurorights in the world currently under discussion in the Senate of the Republic of Chile (Bulletin 13.828-19 of the Chilean Senate). It is claimed that the lack of specificity of the target notion might not only posit difficulties for the creation of specific legal frameworks for the protection of subjects from potential misuses of neurotechnologies with access to neural data, but it might also make very difficult the process of decision-taking when interpreting the law.
References
Alivisatos AP, Chun M, Church GM, Greenspan RJ, Roukes ML, Yuste R (2015) A national network of neurotechnology centers for the brain initiative. Neuron, 88(3), 445-448.
Alivisatos, A.P., Chun, M., Church, G.M., Deisseroth, K., Greenspan, McEuen, P., R.J, Roukes, M. L., Sejnowski, T.S., Weiss, P. and Yuste, R. (2013). The Brain Activity Map. Science, 339, 1284-1285.
Alivisatos A.P., Chun, M., Church, G.M., Greenspan, R.J., Roukes, M.L., Juste, R. (2012). The brain activity map project and the challenge of functional connectomics. Neuron, 74(6), 970-974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.006
Andrews, A., Weiss, P. (2012). Nano in the brain: nano-neuroscience. ACS Nano, 26(10), 8463-8464. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn304724q
Bennett, M.R., Hacker, P.M.S. (2003), Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. London: Blackwell.
Bublitz, J.C. (2022). Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance. Neuroethics, 15(7), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09481-3
Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford: OUP.
Chaudhary, U., Birbaumer. N., Ramos-Murguialday, A. (2016). Brain-computer interfaces for communication and rehabilitation. Nature Reviews Neurology, 12(9), 513-525. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2016.113
Collecchia G. (2021). Neurotecnologie e neurodiritti digitali: la privacy mental. Recenti Prog Med., 112(5), 343-346. https://doi.org/10.1701/3608.35871
Craig, J.N. (2016). Incarceration, Direct Brain Intervention, and the Right to Mental Integrity – a Reply to Thomas Douglas. Neuroethics, 9, 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9255-x
Crane, T. (1998). Intentionality as the Mark of the Mental. En A. O’Hear (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in the Philosophy of Mind, 229-252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511563744.013
Dresler M., Sandberg A., Bublitz C., Ohla K., Trenado C., Mroczko-Wąsowicz A., Kühn S., Repantis D. (2019). Hacking the Brain: Dimensions of Cognitive Enhancement. ACS Chem Neurosci, 10(3), 1137-1148.
Espay, A.J., Bonato, P., Nahab, F. et al (2016). Technology in Parkinson disease: challenges and opportunities. Mov Disord, 31(9), 1272-1282.
Facebook Reality Lab (2020). Imagining a new interface: Hands-free communication without saying a word. Disponible en https://tech.fb.com/imagining-a-new-interface-hands-free-communication-without-saying-a-word/
Fernández, A., Nikhil, S., Gurevitz, B., Olivier, O. (2015). Pervasive neurotechnology: A groundbreaking analysis of 10,000+ patent filings transforming medicine, health, entertainment and business. San Francisco: Sharp Brains.
Fourneret É. (2020). The Hybridization of the Human with Brain Implants: The Neuralink Project. Camb Q Healthc Ethics, 29(4), 668-672. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000419
Gobierno de España (2021). Documentado para Consulta -Carta de Derechos. Disponible en https://portal.mineco.gob.es/RecursosArticulo/mineco/ministerio/participacion_publica/audiencia/ficheros/SEDIACartaDerechosDigitales.pdf
Göering, S., Klein, E., Specker-Sullivan, L. et al. (2021). Recommendations for Responsible Development and Application of Neurotechnologies. Neuroethics, 14, 365-386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09468-6
Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Ienca, M. (2017). Preserving the Right to Cognitive Liberty. Scientific American, 317(2), 10-10.
Ienca, M. (2015). Neuroprivacy, neurosecurity and brain-hacking: Emerging issues in neural engineering. Bioethica Forum, 8(2), 51-53.
Ienca, M., Andorno, R. (2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sci Soc Policy, 13 (5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504–017–0050–1
Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary Didn’t know. The Journal of Philosophy, 83(5), 291-295.
Kellmeyer, P. (2021) Big brain data: On the responsible use of brain data from clinical and consumer directed neurotechnological devices. Neuroethics, 14, 83-98.
Lavazza A (2018) Freedom of thought and mental integrity: the moral requirements for any neural prosthesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00082
López-Silva, P. (2022). The Concept of Mind in the Neuroprotection Debate. In López-Silva, P. & Valera, L. (Eds.). Protecting the Mind: Challenges in Law, Neuroprotection, and Neurorights, pp. 9-18. Amsterdam: Springer.
López-Silva, P., Valera, L. (2022). Protecting the Mind: Challenges in Law, Neuroprotection, and Neurorights. Amsterdam: Springer.
López-Silva, P., Madrid, R. (2021). Sobre la conveniencia de incorporar los neuroderechos en la constitución o en la ley. Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, 10(1), 53-76.
López-Silva, P. (2019). Preocupaciones Neuróticas sobre la Neuroprotección y la Construcción de Leyes. Conferencia: ‘Es hora de los neuroderechos? 3 de Octubre, Centro de Innovation, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Lowe, E.J. (2003). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makin, J.G., Moses, D.A. y Chang, E.F. (2020). Machine translation of cortical activity to text with an encoder-decoder framework. Nature Neurosciences, 23, 575-582. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0608-8
McFarland, D.J. (2020). Brain-computer interfaces for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve, 61(6), 702-707.
Ministerio de Justicia de la República de Chile (2021). Código Civil. Santiago: Editorial Jurídica de Chile.
Nadal, M. (2020). Inteligencia artificial y ‘seudonimato’: el Gobierno presenta la primera versión de la Carta de Derechos Digitales. El País. Disponible en https://elpais.com/tecnologia/2020-11-17/inteligencia-artificial-y-pseudoanonimato-el-gobierno-presenta-la-primera-version-de-la-carta-de-derechos-digitales.html
Nagel, T. (2013). Mind y Cosmos. Oxford: OUP.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat?. Philosophical Review, 83,435-456.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2014). Gray Matters. Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience, Ethics and Society, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Bioethics Commission.
Quaglio, G. et. al. (2021). The International Brain Initiative: Enabling Collaborative Science. The Lancet Neurology, 20(12), 985-986.
Pugh, J., Pycroft, L., Maslen, H., Aziz, T., Savulescu, J. (2018). Evidence-based neuroethics, deep brain stimulation and personality-deflating, but not bursting, the bubble. Neuroethics, 14(Suppl 1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9 392-5
Senado de la República de Chile (2022). Boletín Nº 578/SEC/21. Disponible en https://www.senado.cl/noticias/neuroderechos/historica-aprobacion-informacion-cerebral-estara-protegida-en-la
Senado de la República de Chile (2020). Boletín 13.828-19. Disponible en https://www.diarioconstitucional.cl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/boletin-13828-19-nuroderechos.pdf
Shein, F. (2013). Neuroscience, Mental Privacy, and the Law. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 36(2), 653-713.
Skinner, B.F. (1974). About Behaviorism. New York: Vintage.
Smith, D. (2013). Why Spend a Billion Dollars to Mao the Human Brain? The Atlantic. Disponible en https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/why-spend-a-billion-dollars-to-map-the-human-brain/274594/
Sommaggio, P., Mazzocca, P., Gerola, A., Ferro, F. (2017). Cognitive liberty. A first step towards a human euro-rights declaration. BioLaw Journal, 3, 27-34.
Yuste, R. (2020a). Si puedes leer y escribir la actividad neuronal, puedes leer y escribir las mentes de la gente. El País. https://elpais.com/retina/2020/12/03/tendencias/1607024987_022417.html
Yuste, R. (2020b). Can You See a Thought? Neuronal Ensembles as Emergent Units of Cortical Function. IBM Distinguished Speaker Series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRr_2PuzTZU
Yuste, R. (2019). Everyone has the right to neuroprotection. Interview in ‘Columbia Neuroright Initiative’. https://nri.ntc.columbia.edu/news/rafael-yuste-and-brain-hacking-everyone-has-right-neuroprotection-originally-spanish
Yuste, R. et al (2017). Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature, 551(7679), 159-163. https://doi.org/10.1038/551159a
Watson, J. (1930). Behaviourism. Norton: New York.
Wajnerman-Paz, A., López-Silva, P. (2022). Mental Privacy and Neuroprotection: An Open Debate. In López-Silva, P. & Valera, L. (Eds.), Protecting the Mind: Challenges in Law, Neuroprotection, and Neurorights, pp. 141-155. Amsterdam: Springer.
Zuñiga-Fajuri, A., Miranda, L. Miralles, D. et al. (2021). Neurorights in Chile: Between neuroscience and legal science. In M. Hevia (Ed.), Regulating Neuroscience: Transnational Legal Challenges, pp. 165-179. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso y Universidad de Valparaíso
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
