Remote Controlled Individuals? The Future of Neuralink:

Ethical Perspectives on the Human-Computer Interactions

Maria Cernat

, Dumitru Borțun

and Corina Sorana Matei

Communication and Public Relations Department, National School of Political Science and Administration, Romania

Communication and Public Relations Department, Titu Maiorescu University, Romania

Keywords: Human-Computer Interaction, Political Economy of Scientific Discoveries, Ethics of Computer Science

Research, Commodification of Scientific Discoveries.

Abstract: In an experiment presented to the public, a monkey with a Neuralink inserted in its brain is able interact

directly with the computer. The Neuralink experiment opens the door to an extremely complex debate with

questions ranging from ontology to epistemology. We explore the political economy of these cutting-edge

technologies. What we aim to investigate are ethical questions, namely: is it ethical to install such a device in

someone's brain and connect it to a computer? And who controls the computer, since it is plausible to assume

that the communication could be bidirectional? We argue that this is in fact the key question we, as social

scientists, IT specialists, and computer science specialists, have to ask and attempt to find answers to.

Oftentimes, scientific discoveries could lead to disasters and in the era of "surveillance capitalism" we could

easily imagine a scenario where companies are competing to gain access to our consciousness, and where our

decisions are being marketed and sold to the higher bidder. Scientific discoveries do not occur in a purely

rational society and questions of power, access, and control are vital for a future where technology and society

are not at odds.

1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article is to pinpoint certain trends

and dangers that may emerge from the development

of increasingly advanced technologies that optimize

human-machine interaction to the point where our

brains can communicate directly with intelligent

machines. In October 2021 the journal Nature

Medicine published an article about how a severely

depressed patient was treated for severe depression

with a chip implanted and connected directly to her

brain. "We developed an approach that first used

multi-day intracranial electrophysiology and focal

electrical stimulation to identify a personalized

symptom-specific biomarker and a treatment location

where stimulation improved symptoms. We then

implanted a chronic deep brain sensing and

stimulation device and implemented a biomarker-

driven closed-loop therapy in an individual with

depression. Future work is required to determine if

the results and approach of this n-of-1 study

generalize to a broader population." (Scangos,

Khambhati, Daly et alii, 2021)

It was for the first time that scientists have

attempted to treat a psychological illness such as

depression using mechanistic methods. Interestingly

enough, the article fails to tackle ethical issues. The

Food and Drug Administration's standards are said to

have been applied to NeuroPace RSN (responsive

cortical stimulation for the treatment of refractory

partial epilepsy). In other words, their research was

guided by the standards already available for

technology used in epilepsy. (Sun, Morell 2014). The

study only set out to show that such treatment is

possible and that the treatment of mental illness from

a mechanistic perspective would be possible:

"In this study, we established proof-of-concept for

a new powerful treatment approach for

neuropsychiatric disorders. The new framework

presented in this article could advance biomarker-

based neural interfaces and enhance the mechanistic

understanding and treatment of a broad range of

neuropsychiatric conditions. " (Scangos, Khambhati,

Daly et alii, 2021).

Researchers do not question whether it is

desirable or ethical at the same time. Just whether it

is possible. This is why we believe our work is of vital

348

Cernat, M., Bort

un, D. and Matei, C.

Remote Controlled Individuals? The Future of Neuralink: Ethical Perspectives on the Human-Computer Interactions.

DOI: 10.5220/0011086700003179

In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2022) - Volume 2, pages 348-354

ISBN: 978-989-758-569-2; ISSN: 2184-4992

interest in the field of human-machine interaction

discussions. The fact that some things are possible

does not automatically make them desirable or

morally acceptable. Success in one patient's course of

treatment can also pave the way for reprehensible

uses of technology. If the competent authorities

have approved this technology for epilepsy,

perhaps the ethical consequences derived from its

use to treat depression are different.

More ethical issues are ”emerging” in the field of

emerging technologies, as they are highlighted by

SIENNA Project (Sienna Report, 2020), an

international research program on these technologies,

under the auspices of the European Commission,

coordinated by the University of Twente, the

Netherlands. Some of the moral, as well as social,

economic, and political issues concerning the Human

Enhanced Technologies (HET) are:

• Right to privacy; the intrusion and the

monitoring of man’s life by HET, including the

physiological intimacy is quite likely in the

future;

• Freedom to be “imperfect” refers to the charm

and the uniqueness of someone’s personality

which could be rendered by his/her own

imperfection;

• Addiction to emerging technologies affects

individuals regardless of their age, but HET and

Artificial Intelligence could only deepen this

trend, invalidating man as social being, as

professional and even as rational being.

• Social inequalities and discrimination would

deepen the differences in social status, financial

power, inequality of chances between various

social categories.

• Misuse of emerging technologies by

transforming them into tools or weapons in

order to achieve immoral or illegal purposes

(theft, violence, illegal surveillance, espionage,

etc.).

• Ownership and censorship of expensive HET

and AI devices; these issues are linked to the

economic and financial problems posed by the

sale or loan of technologies to users, which

would allow manufacturers to enforce certain

restrictive conditions and increase addiction to

their products.

• Problems of security, safety and liability refer to

the risk that HET and AI would trigger multiple

types of errors and accidents, especially where

they are supposed to interact with humans or

replace humans endowed with reason, intuition,

instinct and wisdom.

• Possible weaponization of enhancements; It is

known that, throughout history, the military

field was the first to benefit from technological

innovations and inventions which, after their

wear and tear, were upgraded and disseminated

to the general public.

Technology is an integral part of our lives. Now

we have smartwatches that can even detect sleep

quality, smart home lighting systems, remote-

controlled alarm systems, phones with dozens of

apps. We have reached the point where it is no longer

enough to wonder whether technology would become

part of our lives, but when it will become part of our

being. Maybe it is time to wonder if the future

reshaping of human nature would predictably lead to

a new form of alienation, by amputating man’s ability

to decide autonomously, to exercise his/her free will

and his/her reasoning.

Because technology by itself is meaningless, we

need to ask how it is used. Shoshana Zuboff in her

wide-ranging work “Surveillance Capitalism” points

out that technology is currently used to generate profit,

while the raw material is our lives and our personal

data. (Zuboff 2019)

However, technology is still just part of our lives,

not our being. Still, the interaction between humans

and machines is mediated by thoughts, intentions, and

language. What will happen when technology still

operates according to the logic of profit becoming, at

the same time, part of our being not only of our lives?

In 2017 The Guardian journal published an article

in which famous inventors of equally famous

technologies said that they themselves no longer

wanted to use them! In the extensive article signed by

Paul Lewis heavy names in the IT industry such as

Justin Rosenstein, the engineer who invented the

"like" button, Tristan Harris - a former Google

employee with a psychology degree from Stanford

and the first one to write a famous memo about

Google's unethical products － or Loren Brichter, the

designer who created Twitter's notification checking

mechanism were horrified by the effects of the

technologies they had created.

Now, if we have such reactions when technology

is part of our lives, not part of our being, how can we

assume that things will go in the right direction? And

as long as we put emphasis on profit, how could it be

otherwise? Here's what Tristan Harris says: “tech

companies never deliberately set out to make their

products addictive. They were responding to the

incentives of an advertising economy, experimenting

with techniques that might capture people's attention,

even stumbling across highly effective design by

accident. " (Lewis 2017).

Remote Controlled Individuals? The Future of Neuralink: Ethical Perspectives on the Human-Computer Interactions

349

Chris Marcellino, who, along with Justin

Santamaria, is the designer of Apple's patent for

"managing notification connections and displaying

icon badges", makes it clear that the fault lies with the

system: "It is not inherently evil to bring people back

to your product. It's capitalism." (Lewis 2017)

The point is not that scientists are amoral geniuses.

The point is that we promote amoral geniuses as a

model for success in a system where profit is all that

matters. And that we don't even offer the chance for

an ethical discussion before creating technologies that

are going to change people's lives for decades. Here's

what Loren Brichter, the designer who created

Twitter's notification checking mechanism, says:

"Pull-to-refresh is addictive. Twitter is addictive.

These are not good things. When I was working on

them, it wasn't something I was mature enough to

think about. I'm not saying I'm mature now, but I'm a

little bit more mature, and I regret the downsides."

(Lewis 2017). We can learn enormously from these

statements. First and foremost, ethical concerns ought

to be in the limelight of all technology-related

conferences, in college departments training future

engineers, in research grant applications, in the

evaluation of grants.

2 POSTHUMANISM AS A

RE-EXAMINATION OF THE

HUMAN-OBJECT

RELATIONSHIP

The phrase "posthumanism" has emerged in

connection with the development of artificial

intelligence and, more recently, the robotization of

thought and communication. It expresses

philosophers' concern about the dethronement of Man

from the position of "supreme value of the known

universe", the center of all endeavors to know,

evaluate and transform reality - the ancient status of

Man, the "measure of all things" according to

Protagoras (Plato 1989, 181-299). Is this concern

reasonable? Are there enough data to suggest the "end

of humanism", or, on the contrary, does the new status

of the human being rather oblige us to rethink the

values of humanism, to shape a more realistic, active,

and effective humanism, as a complement to the

humanism of the past, which has been rather

narcissistic, rather contemplative and rather

powerless?

In other words, we should ask ourselves whether

a humanism without anthropocentrism is possible, a

humanism that preserves "man as the supreme value"

but abandons "man is the measure of all things".

Anthropocentrism has had two major consequences:

1) it has devalued God, who is no longer at the center

of the world, the place occupied by Man, and who,

instead of creator becomes creature: it was not god

who created man, it was man who created god

(Feuerbach) ; 2) which led to the dehumanization of

animals and objects - the main worldly instances

against which humanists defined the deminuteness of

being human: from "I am happy to be human and not

animal", as Empedocles boasted (Laertios 1997, VI,

80), to "humanity (. ...) never only as a means, but

always at the same time as an end in itself" (Kant

2007, 324). Just as ecosophy proposed the rethinking

of the relationship between man and animal,

posthumanism proposes the rethinking of the

relationship between man and object - specifically,

the relationship between man and robot; generically,

with artificial intelligence, as objectified humanity.

Humanism does not exist as such, but as a

plurality of humanisms; in the twentieth century there

was talk of speculative and scientific humanism,

rationalist and religious, existentialist or Christian,

evolutionary or aesthetic - finally, of real,

revolutionary or integral humanism. In the 21st

century, there is talk of a new perspective on the

human condition: posthumanism. The "dialogue of

humanisms" (Garaudy 1960) has hitherto been

conducted as a confrontation of humanisms. The

collapse of the "Berlin Wall" has enabled us to see

that the lines of the struggle for a better society and

for the safeguarding of civilization are not those

drawn during the Cold War. And the COVID 19

pandemic has shown us that the true lines of approach

separate the manifestations that lead to the full

development of human capacities, which promote

Life, and those that paralyze the exercise by billions

of people of their essential human faculties, which

stifle Life.

To save the future, a paradigm shift is needed,

enabling the directions of development of

contemporary society to be understood in new,

contemporary terms, and not in the terms in which the

former problems of the human condition were

formulated. In this context, we believe that the

debates on "posthumanism" are flawed by two

shortcomings: on the one hand, a lack of topicality

and, on the other, the absence of the ethical referential

proposed by the Judeo-Christian paradigm, which

preserves the pride-of-being-man but rejects

anthropocentrism.

The authors of the paper try to show that

robotization and hyper-technologization do not

endanger humanism per se, but a certain historical

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

350

form of it, namely the ideological or "rhetorical

humanism" (Uscătescu 1987, 40). This paper shows

that framing the discussion on "transhumanism"

within the old paradigm, which was built around

“man as a rhetorical element" (Uscătescu 1987, 41) is

tantamount to framing it in the midst of ideological

alienation; alienation entails "a new metaphysics"

(Max Scheler), without which we will not be able to

understand the current technological progress and,

consequently, will not be able to take advantage of its

good fruits, just as we will not be able to avoid biting

into its poisonous fruits.

We see a return to dialogue as a sine qua non for

forging a broad alliance in the future against anti-

humanist tendencies, against forces which, by their

actions, demean man and endanger his life and the

civilization he has created. Three decades after the

fall of the Wall between East and West, it has become

clear that the decisive battle for the future of

civilization is being fought on the barricade that

separates contempt for man and his life from love for

what he represents and could represent - in short,

contempt for life from "respect for life" (Albert

Schweitzer).

This question thus arises: is this an instance of the

struggle between humans and robots - in other words,

between the human in us and the technology created

by some of us? Does the creature come to dominate

the creator to the point where the creator has to fight

his creature? So far, we have been told that

Pygmalion falls in love with his creation, being left to

admit that he falls in love with himself, with a Self

objectified by creation (Pygmalion as a disguised

Narcissus!). In George Uscătescu's view, saving

European culture, regaining its unity, means

harnessing its deepest idea, which predates humanism

and the human sciences: the idea of Freedom. The

problem of culture is the problem of freedom or, more

precisely, it is the problem called by Paul Hazard "the

eternal conflict between authority and freedom"

(Hazard 1973, p. 79), if it is not that which can be

formulated, even more precisely, in terms of Andre

Glucksmann: the opposition between the real

freedom of the "plebs" and the "authority of

knowledge" which can give rise to an ideology

definable as "the science of authority, the science of

the set of methods, ideas and behaviors which allow

the conquest, preservation, and consolidation of

power in the twentieth century" (Glucksmann 1991,

59). This perspective, open to Culture and Freedom,

implies a new philosophy, a new "metaphysical

consciousness" (Uscătescu 1987).

3 MAKING THE POSTHUMAN

POSSIBLE

Neuralink is a famous company in which the famous

Elon Musk has invested heavily to produce

revolutionary technologies that lead to better

communication between brain and computer. At first

glance, everything seems harmless and very

promising. People suffering from paralysis will be

able to interact seamlessly with a computer, which

will improve their lives. Why should such

praiseworthy initiatives be seen as anything other

than technological advances?

For many reasons, of which the first and most

argued concern the so-called post-humanism.

Posthumanism is a philosophical concept whose

origins stem from the philosophy of Nietzsche,

according to some scholars. Post means something

that transcends, that follows. In this case it also

indicates something that challenges humanism,

essentially the idea that humans are exceptional and

that there is a fundamental difference between man

and nature, man and animal, man and... machine.

As early as 1999, Kathrerine Hayles, a professor

of English at the University of California, published

a seminal work in the field, "How We Became

Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature

and Computer Science", in which she attempted to

explore the main consequences of our increasingly

close interactions with technology and, more

importantly, the way in which technology becomes

part of our very being (Hayles 1999).

Recent research in the field of human-machine

relations is likely to bring to light a very complex and

explored issue in epistemology (how much can we

know with the help of machines, how can knowledge

be enhanced with the help of technology), ontology

(who am I once my consciousness is "downloaded"

into a computer) and, of course, ethics (who controls

my virtual self, who controls the network into which

I download my experiences, who controls the

eventual reverse flow of information from the

machine to my brain).

In her paper, Katherine Hayles explores some of

these directions. She starts from the problematic

mind-body dualism to show that the obsession with

control, with the separation of a spiritual, immaterial

'essence' from the immanent, decaying body, has

populated the philosophical imagination for many

centuries. The theme originally developed in a

systematic way by Réne Descartes acquired major

importance in the 20th century in the so-called

"philosophy of mind" branch of philosophy. The

nature of consciousness, how it exists and the

Remote Controlled Individuals? The Future of Neuralink: Ethical Perspectives on the Human-Computer Interactions

351

question of whether it can be reduced to materiality,

to the states of the brain, gave rise to extremely heated

debates. On one side of the fence we have those who

argue that consciousness cannot in fact exist under

any circumstances independently of the body, of our

brain. Obviously, on the other side, we find those who

argue that all our thoughts, all our inner feelings, are

an expression of brain activity and that they do not

exist beyond them.

It is interesting how the idea of 'downloading' our

inner experiences into a common consciousness, what

Slavoj Žižek calls Singularity (i.e. a single common

consciousness), shows a potential contradiction

between these positions in the philosophy of mind.

On the one hand, empirical research funded by Elon

Musk goes implies that human consciousness is

indeed nothing more than the result of the functioning

of the brain. Neuralink's goal is to identify the specific

brain activity that is responsible, for example, for the

desire to move an object on the screen, and then to

translate that nervous input from the brain into

commands to the computer.

The question is whether in the future it will not

only be the intention to move an arrow on the screen

that will be read by the computer. Perhaps our entire

consciousness will be "downloaded" into a computer.

This starts from the second premise - that the states of

our consciousness are completely reducible to the

states of the brain - and demonstrates the possibility

of the first - that our entire consciousness could exist

outside these states. In other words, the imagined

experiment of transferring not just simple commands,

but all consciousness into a computer, shows that it is

reducible to brain states, but also translatable into

electrical signals that the computer can interpret.

It is clear that if we accept that we could

"download" the consciousness into a computer we are

already relying on a hidden assumption. Namely, that

consciousness actually exists outside the body, in the

mind, not in the body. The whole argumentative

framework rests on this idea. That we can separate the

mind from the body. But not from any part of the body,

but from everything that is not the brain. In other

words, we can separate the mind from a part of the

body and locate the mind in the brain.

Division and control are two other premises that

can justify these attempts to locate the mind and

separate it. In European culture in particular, the

relationship with the body is a very problematic one.

The body is seen as fallen, corruptible, weak,

shameful. Since forever, monks have been engaging

in extreme self-punishing rituals in order to control

their bodies. We can also see here the desire to

dominate nature and the hatred of women. They are

both considered an expression of nature and, as a

result, a source of corruptibility. This attitude begins

with hatred of one's own body seen as sinful, flawed,

imperfect and, above all, uncontrollable.

The idea of "unloading" consciousness into a

machine is the emanation of this type of culture in

which the body is either a source of corruptibility or

an imperfect "package" of a higher-order essence that

deserves to be transposed and preserved in an

inorganic shell, such as that of the machine, and,

above all, controllable!

Another assumption on which the simplistic

illusion of the discharge of our consciousness is based

is pointed out by Katherine Hayles. "As I have

repeatedly argued, the human being is primarily the

embodied being, and the complexities of this

embodiment translate into the fact that, in fact, human

consciousness manifests itself in very different ways

from intelligence downloaded into cybernetic

devices."(Hayles 1999, 284) Thus, the existence of

consciousness as a set of mental states that can be

translated into computer states is, beyond the obvious

empirical limitations, impossible to put into practice

due to other types of reasons. Consciousness is the

result of being in a body. The very idea of separating

and controlling both mind and body can be

understood as the obsession of a white man whose

wealth allows him to follow his urges, sometimes

taking them to unsuspected heights (of the

ridiculousness). Harder to understand might be the

lack of reactions questioning the very fact of having

so much financial power in the hands of a single

individual who can act despotically and arbitrarily

without being held accountable for his actions. But,

until that point is reached, we have yet to examine the

theoretical field of posthumanism as a theory that

comes to encompass the results of such a potential

dissolution of the human-machine boundary.

In 1950 the famous mathematician Alan Turing

published an article in Mind magazine that has shaped

the research and intrigued the minds of philosophers

and computer scientists for decades. In this article,

Alan Turing, in the section of the article entitled The

Imitation Game, proposes a mental experiment. The

mathematician says that the question "can machines

think?" was being asked more and more insistently.

As it was not possible to answer by a simple opinion

poll, he proposed the following experiment.

A, a man, B, a woman, and C, the questioner, took

part. C has to talk in writing to A and B without seeing

them and has to figure out which is the man and which

is the woman. Then we have to imagine what would

happen if A's place was taken by a car? Could C, the

questioner, the one who talks in writing to the

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

352

subjects he cannot see, figure out which is the man

and which is the car? "Now we ask the

question:<What will happen when a car takes A's role

in this game> Will the questioner make as many

mistakes in correctly estimating roles as if the game

were played between a man and a woman? These

questions replace the question, <Can machines

think?>" (Turing 1950, 433).

4 CONCLUSIONS

As interesting as these debates are, they suffer from

two major drawbacks. First, there are serious

empirical limitations that turn the supposed

downloads of life experiences into a computer into

pure Elon Musk marketing strategy. The idea that you

may have had a wonderful sexual experience that you

want to download to your computer to relive at a later

time or, if exhibitionism doesn't get in the way and

there is no moral burden of intimacy with your partner,

to share with others, is, for now, at best an emanation

of a mind too deeply and too early immersed in the

pornographic ocean. Secondly, these discussions

seem to totally bypass power relations, money, and its

distribution.

The political economy of the posthuman refers to

questions in the area of ethics which it transfers to the

political plane. If the technology that will enable

cranial implants designed to cure paralysis becomes

available, who will have access to it? If Elon Musk

decides that perhaps women should not have access

to it, who could compel him to act morally? After all,

is it his money? He has the right to select his clientele.

Let's say in the case of women it would be too blatant.

But what if his despotism were to be diverted to more

problematic categories? If, for example, he decided

that drug addicts, socially downgraded should not

have access to it, who would stop him?

In his latest book, Hegel in a Wired Brain Slavoj

Žižek discusses Musk's proposed experiments at

length. He's not catastrophic, apocalyptic or

promoting moral panics. But he asks the right

questions. Now we see a monkey thinking about

moving the cursor on the computer screen and the

computer reads his intentions directly from his brain.

But what would it be like to have reverse

communication? Has the computer sent commands to

the monkey?

This is where things get really interesting. Also in

the 1950s, at the height of Cold War hysteria,

psychiatrist Donald Cameron conducted a series of

terrifying experiments on his patients. Obsessed with

the idea that the Russians could program an ordinary

human to act on command at a moment's notice, the

Americans invested heavily in psychological

programming techniques. The harshest treatments,

electric shocks, huge doses of psychotropic drugs,

torture techniques, sleep deprivation, sexual abuse,

endless repetition of sound sequences - nothing stood

in the way of Dr. Donald Cameron's mission to re-

program schizophrenia patients. It was only a happy

accident that in 1973, when Cameron's sinister CIA-

funded MKUltra program in Canada came to an end,

the documents that documented its existence were not

destroyed. They had been misplaced in the financial

section. So, in 1977, the US Congress was able to

bring members of Donald Cameron’s team to testify.

In his latest book, Slavoj Žižek addresses

precisely this problem of the possibility of

programming, of transmitting orders remotely to a

human brain connected to Neuralink. In his many

lectures, Žižek asks the natural question: is it OK that

the monkey communicates so well with the computer?

But who owns the computer? And, if Žižek is to be

believed, the great danger will come not just from the

fact that we might receive commands from a

computer once we have the cranial device implanted,

but that we will not realize we are receiving them.

Because, in his view, the totalitarianism of an

authoritarian government like China's is still not as

dangerous as a potential system where you don't even

know you're being controlled.

REFERENCES

Hayles, Katherine. 1999. How We Became Posthuman.

Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Litterature and

Informatics. Chicago, London: University of Chicago

Press.

Feuerbach, Ludwig. 1961. Esența creștinismului, București:

Editura Științifică.

Kristof, Nicolas. 2020. The Children of Pornhub. Why

Does Canada Allow this Company to Profit of Videos

of Exploitation and Sexual Assault? The New York

Times.

Garaudy, Roger. 1969. Marxismul secolului XX, București:

Editura Politică.

Glucksmann, André. 1991. Bucătăreasa şi Mâncătorul de

oameni. Bucureşti: Humanitas.

Hazard, Paul. 1973. Criza conştiinţei europene. 1680-1715.

Bucureşti: Univers.

Kant, Immanuel. 2007. Întemeierea metafizicii moravurilor,

București: Humanitas.

Laertios, Diogenes. 1997. Despre viețile și doctrinele

filosofilor, București: Minerva.

Lewis, Paul. 2017. Google, Twitter and Facebook workers

who helped make technology so addictive are

disconnecting themselves from the internet. Paul

Remote Controlled Individuals? The Future of Neuralink: Ethical Perspectives on the Human-Computer Interactions

353

Lewis reports on the Silicon Valley refuseniks alarmed

by a race for human attention. The Guardian,

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/

smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia

Platon. 1989. Theaitetos, în vol. Opere VI, București:

Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică.

Project MKUltra, The CIA’s Program of Research in

Behavioral Modification, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, 1977.

Scangos, K.W., Khambhati, A.N., Daly, P.M. et al. Closed-

loop neuromodulation in an individual with treatment-

resistant depression. Nat Med 27, 1696-1700 (2021).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01480-w

SIENNA Report, 12.05.2020, section “D3.4: Ethical

Analysis of Human Enhancement Technologies －WP3

Human Enhancement”, pp. 77-88, file:///C:/Users/user/

Downloads/Attachment_0%20(1).pdf

Sun, F. T. & Morrell, M. J. The RNS System: responsive

cortical stimulation for the treatment of refractory

partial epilepsy. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 11, 563-572

(2014).

Turing, Alan.1950. Computing Machinery and Intelligence,

Mind, vol.LIX, nr.236.

Uscătescu, George. 1987. Proces umanismului. Bucureşti:

Editura Politică.

Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. Surveillance Capitalism. The

Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power,

New York: Public Affairs.

https://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13inmate

_ProjectMKULTRA.pdf

Žižek, Slavoj, Hegel in a Wired Brain, Londra, New York:

Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

354