Abstract
A brain-computer interface (BCI) designed to restore motor function detects neural activity related to intended movement and thereby enables a person to control an external device, for example, a robotic limb, or even their own body. It would seem legitimate, therefore, to describe a BCI as a system that translates thought into action. This paper argues that present BCI-mediated behavior fails to meet the conditions of intentional physical action as proposed by causal and non-causal theories of action. First, according to the causal theory of action physical actions are bodily movements that are causally related to a person’s intentions. It can be argued, however, that the proximate cause of action in present BCI-mediated behavior is not the person’s intention, and that the behavior fails to meet the conditions of reliability, sensitivity and difference-making. Second, BCI-mediated behavior can be accommodated by a Volitionist account of action if we can equate imagining movement with trying to move. The argument presented is that the novelty, and limited functionality and sensory feedback of present BCIs challenges this equation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bates, M. 2018. Converting thoughts into action. BrainFacts.org. Accessed 22 Sept 2019.
Vidal, G.W., et al. 2016. Review of brain-machine interfaces used in neural prosthetics with new perspective on somatosensory feedback through method of signal breakdown. Scientifica. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8956432.
Clark, A. 2003. Natural born cyborgs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rainey, S., et al. 2019. Neuroprosthetics speech: The ethical significance of accuracy, control, and pragmatics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (4): 657–670.
Gilbert, F. 2015. A threat to autonomy? The intrusion of predictive brain implants. AJOB Neuroscience 6 (4): 4–11.
Gilbert, F., et al. 2019. Embodiment and estrangement: Results from a first-in-human “intelligent BCI” trial. Science and Engineering Ethics 25: 83–96.
Kellymeyer, P., et al. 2016. The effects of closed-loop medical devices on the autonomy and accountability of persons and systems. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 25: 623–633.
Clausen, J. 2010. Ethical brain stimulation – Neuroethics of deep brain stimulation in research and clinical practice. European Journal of Neuroscience 32: 1152–1162.
Donoghue, J.P. 2008. Bridging the brain to the world: A perspective on neural interface systems. Neuron 60 (3): 511–521.
Carmena, J.M. 2003 et al. Learning to control a brain-machine interface for reaching and grasping by primates. PLoS Biology. 1(2) doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0000042.
Lebedev, M.A., and M.A.L. Nicolelis. 2006. Brain-machine interfaces: Past, present, and future. Trends in Neurosciences 29 (9): 536–546.
Aflalo, T., et al. 2015. Decoding motor imagery for the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic human being. Science 348 (6237): 906–910.
Tankus, A., et al. 2014. Cognitive-motor brain-machine interfaces. Journal of Physiology, Paris 108 (1): 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2013.05.005.
Andersen, R. 2019. The intention machine. Scientific American 320 (4): 24–41.
Collinger, J.L., et al. 2013. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. The Lancet 381 (9866): 557–564.
Davidson, D. 1980. Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aguilar, J.H., and A.A. Buckareff. 2010. Causing human actions: New perspectives on the causal theory of action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Peacocke, C. 1979. Holistic explanation: Action, space, interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aquilar, J.H. 2010. Agential systems, causal deviance, and reliability. In Causing human actions: New perspectives on the causal theory of action, ed. J.H. Aquilar and A.A. Buckareff, 85–101. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bishop, J. 1989. Natural agency: An essay on the causal theory of action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bensmaia, S.J. 2015. Biological and bionic hands: Natural neural coding and artificial perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 20140209. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0209.
Bensmair, S.J., and L.E. Miller. 2014. Restoring sensorimotor function through intracortical interfaces: Progress and looming challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15: 313–325.
Steinert, S., et al. 2018. Doing things with thoughts: Brain-computer interfaces and disembodied agency. Philosophy and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0308-4.
Vargas-Irwin, et al. 2018. Watch, imagine, attempt: Motor cortex single-unit activity reveals context dependent movement encoding in humans with tetraplegia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00450.
Woodward, J.F. 2008. Mental causation and neural mechanisms. In Being reduced: New essay on reductive explanation and special science causation, ed. J. Hohwy and J. Kallestrup, 218–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pernu, T.K. 2018. Mental causation via neuroprosthetics? A critical analysis. Synthese 195: 5159–5174.
Hornsby, J. 2004. Agency and actions. In Agency and action, ed. H. Steward and J. Hyman, 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, H.Y. 2018. Embodied agency. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 97 (3): 584–612.
Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58: 7–19.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buller, T. Brain-Computer Interfaces and the Translation of Thought into Action. Neuroethics 14, 155–165 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09433-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09433-9