Elon Muskthe visionary entrepreneur known for his innovative initiatives, has once again shaken up the scientific and philosophical community with Neuralink.
The company, founded by Musk, aims to develop brain-machine interfaces that promise to revolutionize how we interact with technology and treat complex medical conditions.
Specifically in March this year, the Neuralink made history by testing chips on human brains, marking a significant advance in the field of neurotechnology.
One of the individuals who participated in these tests was Noland Arbaugh, whose inspiring story gained prominence.
Image: Cinegnosis/Reproduction
After eight years of living with paralysis, Arbaugh regained the ability to perform tasks that were impossible for him due to the brain implant developed by Neuralink.
The striking example of this was his ability to play chess using only his mind, demonstrating the transformative potential of this technology.
But there are still questions that require answers
The emergence of the chip Neuralink has generated heated debates, especially among philosophers of mind.
Dvija Mehta, a renowned philosopher and artificial intelligence ethics researcher in Cambridge, UK, raises important questions about responsibility and the limits of mind-machine integration.
One of the main dilemmas in this debate is: who is responsible for the actions carried out with the help of the chip Neuralink? Is it the human individual or the chip itself?
This question generates different answers: some say that the responsibility should fall solely on the human being, others argue that the responsibility would lie with the chip and still others question whether this debate is really necessary.
Mehta warns that not considering this debate is not wise, as questions may still arise such as: who will be held responsible for violent actions carried out by people who have brain implants?
Study began decades ago
These questions are not new, but quite old about the integration between mind and machine, dating back decades.
In 1998, philosophers David Chalmers and Andy Clark proposed the idea that machines could be an extension of the human mind, forming a single entity in the future. And it seems that this future has indeed arrived.
Where does the brain and the machine begin and end? – Image: Getty Images/Reproduction
This theory is based on the fact that when it comes to our mind and our actions, there is no separate thing; In other words, without the chip, we think and then act.
The point is that, with the Neuralink chip, you have to imagine the action and, from then on, the chip processes it and then sends the commands to the brain.
In addition to the response time being longer than the natural human mind, another question arises: what happens if the mind changes its mind before execution?
Therefore, many argue that this theory fails, as it is impossible for machine and mind to become one. So, the question returns: who should be truly responsible for the actions: brain or machine?
While brain chips promise a range of benefits, these unresolved questions represent just the beginning of a broader debate about mind-machine integration.
As we continue to explore the limits of technologyit is essential that we address these philosophical dilemmas to ensure responsible and ethical integration of brain-machine interfaces in the future.
Tags: Musks implant faces ethical challenges
--
