Dr Daniel Cebo

Recently Rated:


Blogs: 2
images: 9
Location: Berlin, Germany
Work interests: contemporary science, digital humans, immortality, bioterrorism
Affiliation/website: Independent Scientist
Preferred contact method: Any
Preferred contact language(s): english
Contact: cebodaniel@t-online.de
Favourite publications:

Category: Contemporary Science, Future Science

Connecting Mind and Machines: the Final Barrier?

By Dr. Daniel Cebo, 2021-02-06

If all the information available on Google fit on a USB flash drive, what would happen if we could plug it directly into the brain? What if we could translate our brainwaves into complete texts, or could connect ourselves to a machine to multiply our mental capacities? Although these examples are still science fiction, the technology that tries to make them possible is not.

Researchers from BitBrain, a company specializing in applied neuro-technologies, explained that “it is not that we are close to connecting our brains to technologies to interact with the exterior. It is already a reality.” This connection will be achieved through the so-called brain-to-computer interface (BCI). This is already being used in assistive devices—such as wheelchairs—that move through brain activity, or video games in which, instead of using a mouse, the cursor is moved with the mind. Leading centers in Europe and the United States have been working in this discipline for years, including big technology companies such as Facebook or Neuralink from the magnate Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX. Does this mean that we are coming to the end of the final barrier?

Some of these groups have spent nearly two decades researching in this field. “Discussing the link between mind and machine is as old as the movie Metropolis. (1927). What is new is that the connection of a human brain to a computer with implantable microelectrodes is now a real scientific option,” explained Jens Caluse of the Institute of Ethics and History of Medicine at the University of Tübingen (Germany) in a publication in the journal Nature. Although there has been remarkable technological progress in all this time, especially in devices for measuring brain activity—some are even wearable, to take measurements anywhere from a mobile device—progress is slower than was expected.

The entry into this field of big tech stars like Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk can serve as a catalyst to accelerate progress in this field. In addition, according to the researchers of BitBrain, this shows that these types of technologies “are going to arrive and become part of our lives at some point.” “It is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the system is greatly energized with resources and methodologies clearly aimed at getting the systems out of laboratories. On the other hand, they create expectations that, if they are not fulfilled, can generate frustration in the short term, as has happened at other times with robots or artificial intelligence.”

However, when we think of technologies capable of connecting the mind and computer, not all the possibilities are in the future since there are already some fully integrated examples. The most common are cochlear implants to help deaf people, already used by 300,000 people, implants of microelectrode panels in the retina of blind people—although they still have a very incomplete resolution—or deep brain stimulation (DBS), which has already been used in thousands of patients with Parkinson’s disease.

For the applications that are closest to the future, how to move objects, mechanical limbs, or the cursor of a computer by simply thinking or imagining some action, two techniques are used: non-invasive—typical in Europe—consisting of collecting the large brainwaves with external electroencephalographic helmets, and invasive—common in the United States—that implant the electrodes themselves in the brain. The main difference between them is precision. “The results with invasive methods are usually more accurate, but they present some practical and ethical problems. The non-invasive are more accessible for their development in laboratories and companies, but their control is not so direct,

The ethical debate is not only circumscribed to the possible damage that can be caused in the brain, but also by what type of application is worth the risk. No one raises ethical objections if this brain-machine connection is used to treat a disease or improve the quality of life of people paralyzed by an accident or those who are blind or deaf. But controversy erupts if these techniques are applied to improve the natural capacities of the human mind. “In the near future, as the interfaces between brain and computer not only restore functions lost by people with disabilities but also enhance the abilities of people without disabilities above their natural human capacities, we will have to become aware of a series of problems related to consent, privacy, identity, action, and inequality,”

In Defense of Posthuman Dignity

By Dr. Daniel Cebo, 2020-08-10
In Defense of Posthuman Dignity

In this brief article, I am critically present of bioconservative intellectuals who believe that enhancing human capacities and extending the human healthspan would ruin our dignity.
Positions on the ethics of human enhancement technologies can be identified as ranging from transhumanism to bioconservatism. Recognizing the possibility of post-human dignity undercuts an important objection against human enhancement and removes a distortive double standard from our field of moral vision. Such an approach is not antagonistic to medicine and science. The posthuman and transhuman enhancement also raises questions about the value of dignity because of its roots in humanism. Bioconservatives (whose ranks include such diverse writers as Leon Kass, Francis Fukuyama, George Annas, Wesley Smith, Jeremy Rifkin, and Bill McKibben) are opposed to the use of technology to change human nature. A central idea in bioconservativism is that human enhancement technology will undermine our human dignity.
I defend posthuman dignity while critiquing Leon Kass's bioconservative position. Instead, it places a priority on improving the circumstantial dignity of all human beings, especially those who live without their basic needs being met. Their inherent dignity places a moral obligation on those with resources to help them. This indicates the importance of developing gratitude for human nature and avoiding an endless pursuit of perfection. Justice for all humans based on their inherent dignity is proposed as a significant argument against the ethics of transhuman enhancement.
My pilot transhumanism project aimed to distinguish two common fears about the post-human and argue for the importance of a concept of dignity that is inclusive enough to also apply to many possible post-human beings. To forestall a slide down the slippery slope towards a debased ‘post-human' state, bioconservatives often argue for broad bans on otherwise promising human enhancements.