AI, Brain Augmentation And Our Identities
Source: COGNITIVE WORLD on FORBES
By Jun Wu, Contributor
Image credit: Depositphotos enhanced by CogWorld
Do you know who you are? If so, do you direct your own actions? These are two questions that we ask ourselves when someone asks us about our identities. In the west, individualism is valued. We like to think that we have agency in our own actions. We like to think that our identities are not affected by the world. We are distinct. We are unique.
The history of identity theory
There are two classes of identity theory: mind-brain identity theory (from philosophy) and social identity theory (from psychology). Mind-brain identity theory, originated in the 1930’s with psychologist E. G. Boring, also known as type physicalism states that mental events can be grouped into types that correlate with physical events in the brain. Over time, psychologists Feigel and Smart distinguished sensations from brain processes but asserted that they refer to the same physical phenomenon. Mind-brain identity theory makes us think that identity is an individual construct and an independent construct.
In contrast, social identity theory, originated in the 1970’s and 80’s with psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner, states that one’s self-concept comes from membership in social groups such as family, school, and community. In this construct, membership mobility, competition and creativity affect the individual’s identity. Social identity theory makes us think that we have less agency than we do since our identity is formed from interactions in social groups and environments.
Chances are our identities are developed and maintained by a mix of these two identity theories. Our brain’s network determines how we respond to social situations. The reflections of our identities in social situations help our brain to recognize and form judgments about who we really are. Our true identities are formed from the interaction between the mechanisms defined in these theories.
Brain augmentation and identity theory
Today In: Innovation
Brain augmentation is not a new concept. From the 1950’s, ever since Robert G. Heath demonstrated that you can use electrical stimulation to treat patients with mental illnesses, there were waves of physicians following suit to treat their patients with brain stimulation. From that point onwards, the US military experimented with mind control techniques for the use of the military. Eventually, in the 2000’s, military programs developed implants on animal’s brains via a Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems that could effectively control the animals. “Cyborg Insects” and “Cyborg Sharks” were the results of such research. It’s important to note that brain stimulation in the form of ECT (Electroconvulsive Therapy) and recently, TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) are being used widely for the treatment of mood disorders.
It’s not hard to see the origins of brain augmentation in Mind-brain identity theory. In a sense, brain augmentation realized the core concepts of mind-brain identity theory: mental events can relate to physical events in the brain. By identifying these events, they can be monitored, controlled or even modified to elicit the desired physical response. This is essentially brain augmentation.
Ethical Implications of Brain Augmentation
It’s not hard to see the ethical implications of brain augmentation. With the power of artificial intelligence, if the brain can be controlled, then any responses from the individual can also be controlled. This is when we start to lose our human agency.
Innovation often contain a certain element of risk. Managing that risk is critical to help with the advancement of innovation. There are three areas of focus on setting the right ethical boundaries of brain augmentation:
Human testing strictly regulated by the FDA and NIH, completely voluntary for the participant. As seen in clinical trials recently performed, removal of the implants is paid for by the companies conducting the research. However, in cases where participants choose to keep the implants, they have to bear the burden of the cost of maintenance. There are also strict criteria for eligibility.
Finding the right use cases for brain augmentation by prioritizing societal needs. For instance, solving illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease would probably take precedence over any brain enhancement issues. Likely, with insights regarding the gains of treating mental illnesses with brain augmentation and brain implants, other types of brain augmentation can be accomplished safely and securely.
Allowing for human agency every step of the way is critical in the process. When someone elects to have an implant, then this person is personally responsible for this choice. But, if it is normalized too quickly, then people lose the ability to choose an outcome that is suitable or preferred. Striking a balance between human and AI agency is difficult but not impossible.
Neuralink and Elon Musk
When Elon Musk released his white paper showcasing the research from the Neuralink project, the element that received the most attention was the Neural Lace implant. The implant would theoretically grow inside the brain with the brain and become an AI layer on top of the brain to enhance the brain’s activities.
In his presentation, Elon Musk demonstrated how we can converge with AI with the possibilities of an implant that can be safe to insert and maintain. He alluded to alleviating symptoms of mental illnesses and illnesses affecting the brain’s activities.
After the presentation, scientists debated the possibilities of “curing” diseases with this type of device. Artificial Intelligence enthusiasts contemplated the possibilities of humans enhanced by artificial intelligence. Essentially, to adapt to the age of artificial intelligence, we may need an implant to help us enhance our “abilities”. This is as evolutionists like to call “human-machine” evolution. We will evolve with the help of our machine counterparts.
What’s scientific and what’s real?
Even though extensive research and progress have been made in the area of brain augmentation with artificial intelligence, we still have a long way to go before a viable implant is tested and can be used by humans to treat certain diseases. Without the first proof of concept, we will have to wait and see. In the meantime, ethical considerations must be elicited and thoroughly discussed.
What new research did was to give us a vision of future possibilities that raises many questions in our lives. It makes us think about human agency, ethical conflicts, security concerns, privacy concerns, and health hazards.
Rather than focusing on the small steps of innovation we take to get there, we need some time and resources to process these implications first.
Conclusion
The future is as uncertain as ever. The timeline is uncertain as well. However, it’s a real accomplishment just to be able to see the vision of human-machine evolution. In the age of artificial intelligence, this vision may finally be realizable. Do we want this vision to be realized? Have we thought about the implications? These are the questions we’ll be asking in the new year, and undoubtedly, the years ahead.