Neurorights versus Externalism about Mental Content: Characterizing the 'Harm' of Neurotechnological Mind Reading.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1017/S0963180125000106
Stephen Rainey
{"title":"Neurorights versus Externalism about Mental Content: Characterizing the 'Harm' of Neurotechnological Mind Reading.","authors":"Stephen Rainey","doi":"10.1017/S0963180125000106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Neurorights are widely discussed as a means of protecting phenomena like cognitive liberty and freedom of thought. This article is especially interested in example cases where these protections are sought in light of fast-paced developments in neurotechnologies that appear capable of reading the mind in some significant sense. While it is prudent to take care and seek to protect the mind from prying, questions remain over the kinds of claims that prompt concerns over mind reading. The nature of these claims should influence how exactly rights may or may not offer justifiable solutions. Overall, the exploration of neurotechnological mind reading questions here will come in terms of philosophical accounts of mental content and neuroreductionism. The contribution will be to present a contextualization of questions arising from 'mind-reading' neurotechnology, and appraisal of if or how neurorights respond to them.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180125000106","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Neurorights are widely discussed as a means of protecting phenomena like cognitive liberty and freedom of thought. This article is especially interested in example cases where these protections are sought in light of fast-paced developments in neurotechnologies that appear capable of reading the mind in some significant sense. While it is prudent to take care and seek to protect the mind from prying, questions remain over the kinds of claims that prompt concerns over mind reading. The nature of these claims should influence how exactly rights may or may not offer justifiable solutions. Overall, the exploration of neurotechnological mind reading questions here will come in terms of philosophical accounts of mental content and neuroreductionism. The contribution will be to present a contextualization of questions arising from 'mind-reading' neurotechnology, and appraisal of if or how neurorights respond to them.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理内容的神经权利与外在主义:表征神经技术读心术的“危害”。
神经权利作为一种保护认知自由和思想自由等现象的手段被广泛讨论。本文特别感兴趣的例子是,鉴于神经技术的快速发展,这些保护措施似乎能够在某种意义上读懂思想。尽管谨慎的做法是小心翼翼地保护大脑不受窥探,但对于那些引发人们对读心术担忧的说法,问题仍然存在。这些主张的性质应影响权利究竟能否提供合理的解决办法。总的来说,这里对神经技术读心术问题的探索将从心理内容和神经还原论的哲学角度出发。贡献将是呈现由“读心术”神经技术引起的问题的背景化,并评估神经权利是否或如何对它们作出反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
期刊最新文献
The Brain, a Living and Thinking Machine. Teaching Bioethics Today: Waking from Dogmatic Curricular Slumbers. Medical Trainees Abroad: Neglected Human Rights Considerations. When Suicide is not a Self-Killing: Advance Decisions and Psychological Discontinuity-Part II. The Impact of a Study Trip to Auschwitz: Place-based Learning for Bioethics Education and Professional Identity Formation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1