Foreword

On September 21-22, 2023, the Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute (TCCI), in collaboration with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and the Shanghai Mental Health Center, hosted a special symposium titled “Brain-Machine Interfaces and Philosophy: Interdisciplinary Dialogues.”

The event brought together over 60 experts and scholars from fields including clinical medicine, natural sciences, philosophy and ethics, the science and technology governance, and industrial planning. The discussions focused on core topics such as the role of brain-machine interfaces in national governance, ethical considerations in technology, human cognition, human-computer interaction, and legal challenges.

As one of the symposium’s conveners, Professor Ji Haiqing, a research fellow at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and Director of the Science and Technology Philosophy Research Office, was invited for an exclusive interview with us. From the perspective of technological ethics, Professor Ji offered a deep analysis of the social integration process of brain-machine interfaces and their potential impacts. He shared insights into the motivations behind organizing the symposium and provided unique perspectives on the ethical distinctions between brain-machine interfaces and traditional medical devices, the implications of these technologies for privacy, the expansion of human boundaries, and human enhancement.

The following is the interview with Ji Haiqing. We have condensed the text to make it easier to read.

Question: Could you introduce yourself to our audience?

Ji Haiqing: I am Ji Haiqing from the Institute of Philosophy at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. During my undergraduate studies, I majored in a science and engineering discipline—computer science. However, over time, I developed a deep interest in topics related to the humanities, society, and history.

In my twenties, I realized that the answers to the questions I had been pondering could not be found in the computer science books I was reading—such as those on data structures or programming languages. As a result, I made what seemed like an unusual decision: I transitioned from studying computer science to pursuing philosophy, hoping to freely explore the issues that intrigued me.

Since then, I have been engaged in philosophical research, particularly in the field of philosophy of technology. I am deeply satisfied with this career because it allows me to observe and reflect on societal and technological developments through thinking, writing, and discussions with colleagues. It’s an intellectually stimulating and fulfilling endeavor.

Question: Thank you for organizing this symposium on brain-machine interfaces and philosophy. What inspired you to host this event?

Ji Haiqing: The motivation for organizing this symposium stemmed from my interest in brain-machine interface (BMI) technology. BMI integrates cutting-edge advancements across various disciplines, including biology, neuroengineering, neuroscience, electronics, and artificial intelligence. It brings together the achievements of these advanced fields and combines them with the human brain—a complex and critical organ.

BMI represents the forefront of the current technological wave and serves as a crucial component worthy of deep investigation. My personal interest in BMI is closely tied to one of my research areas: the ethics of technology.

The ethics of technology explores how science and technology integrate into society. This integration is not merely a straightforward application of technology; it is a complex process involving a delicate balance of competing forces. I often use the analogy of a diver to illustrate this point: a skilled diver enters the water from a great height with barely a splash, but if a new technology is ethically immature, even a dive from a lower height can create significant backlash. The process of integrating technology into society is much the same.

The goal of philosophical and ethical research is to explore how technological products can “enter the water”—that is, integrate into society—at the optimal angle, minimizing their negative impacts, aligning them with human values, and facilitating their acceptance by society. My particular focus on BMI arises from its status as a frontier technology. I am eager to understand how it integrates into society.

Will society embrace BMI technology? Will it be fully accepted, or will it encounter resistance—perhaps due to conceptual biases or other factors? These are fascinating questions that led me to combine brain-machine interfaces with philosophy as a research theme. This symposium was an opportunity to bring together experts from various fields to explore these questions collaboratively.

Question: Compared to other medical devices, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) raise more ethical controversies. In your opinion, what are the fundamental differences between BCIs and traditional medical devices?

Ji Haiqing: The uniqueness of BCIs lies in their direct interaction with the human brain, which is an extraordinarily mysterious, critical, and irreplaceable organ. Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been extensive discussions about the mind, the spirit, and thought. Although the term “heart” was historically used to describe these concepts, in reality, all advanced cognitive functions, emotions, and bodily regulation are carried out by the brain, not the heart.

Traditional medical devices may replace certain parts of the human body, such as prosthetic limbs or even artificial hearts, but the brain remains irreplaceable. The distinctive feature of BCIs is their direct engagement with this irreplaceable organ. To use a computing analogy, components like hard drives or memory can be replaced in a computer, but if the central processing unit (CPU) is damaged, the entire system becomes nonfunctional. Similarly, the brain plays an essential role in the human body, making the uniqueness of BCI technology particularly significant.

While BCIs hold immense potential for treating neurological and psychiatric disorders, their direct interaction with the human brain necessitates a dedicated focus on their ethical implications. In summary, BCIs are fundamentally different from traditional medical devices because they can access and interact directly with brain data, making their ethical considerations distinct and profound.

Question: In your view, how might BCI technology impact mental privacy?

Ji Haiqing: On the topic of privacy, I’d like to offer a broader perspective from the philosophy and history of technology. Scholars in the philosophy of technology often argue that our value judgments about certain concepts, such as privacy, may appear to be independent, but they are actually closely tied to the tools we use.

These tools not only help us achieve goals but also subtly shape our perceptions. For example, the invention of clocks changed our understanding of time. Before clocks, people perceived time through natural phenomena, such as the rising and setting of the sun or the shadow of a sundial. However, with the advent of clocks, time became segmented into measurable units like hours and minutes.

Similarly, the concept of privacy is deeply intertwined with the tools we use. For instance, the presence of a camera evokes a sense of privacy awareness. If I am willing to be seen by others, I face the camera willingly; if I am not, I avoid it. Privacy is not a concept that exists in a vacuum but is shaped by our attitudes toward and use of technological tools.

Thus, privacy does not imply complete concealment; rather, it depends on whom we wish to share information with and to what extent. This reflects the mutual interaction and co-construction of technology and our perceptions. The crux lies in how we view these technological tools and our attitudes toward privacy.

Question: How will brain-computer interface (BCI) technology affect the boundaries of what it means to be “human”?

Ji Haiqing: This question requires clarifying several concepts. In Chinese, the term “人” corresponds to two distinct terms in Western languages: human being and person. Human being refers to humanity in a biological sense, while person denotes an individual human. When discussing person, you and I are distinct individuals, but from the perspective of human beings, we belong to the same species without differentiation.

When it comes to BCIs and their impact on individual personality, there are many intriguing topics to explore. One of the key concepts we often discuss is personal identity. Generally, external changes, such as changing clothes, do not affect our personal identity—who we are. However, when we implant devices like deep brain stimulation (DBS) to regulate physiological states due to illness or other reasons, do we remain the same person? How society perceives the impact of these technologies on personality and identity becomes a critical question.

Interestingly, we have already seen some exceptional cases. For example, the Spanish artist Neil Harbisson was born colorblind. To compensate for this, he implanted a device that converts the color spectrum into sound waves, enabling him to “hear” colors. While he successfully gained this ability, it also introduced new challenges. A microphone-like antenna is now attached to his skull, and when crossing border checkpoints, officials noticed his passport photo did not include this device. He was eventually required to take a new photo, incorporating the device as part of his body.

This case illustrates how, as society gradually accepts individuals who merge with technology—sometimes referred to as “cyborgs”—the traditional biological boundaries of what constitutes a “human being” are shifting. This transformation not only expands the boundaries of humanity but also raises numerous ethical, political, anthropological, and philosophical questions.

Question: Do you think the “technologization of the body” will inevitably become a future trend for humanity?

Ji Haiqing: The answer to this question is both “yes” and “no.” If we say “no,” it’s because the question assumes this will become a new trend in the future. From my perspective, this is not a new trend but rather one that has existed throughout human history. Humanity has always sought to extend its capabilities and activities through the integration of technology. The only difference now is that we are facing a new technological product—BCIs.

From the perspective of the philosophy of technology, technology can be broadly defined as any man-made artifact, an extension of human capabilities. Based on this definition, the integration of humans and technology has always been an ongoing trend. Books such as *Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind* and works in technological anthropology discuss similar themes.

For example, Polynesians in the South Pacific built canoes from island trees to travel between islands, while farmers in temperate northern regions felled large trees to construct ships for long-distance navigation. Despite differences in tools and techniques, both examples illustrate humanity’s use of natural resources in combination with technology to achieve their goals.

Therefore, I believe the fusion of humans and technology is a continuously evolving trend, not merely a phenomenon of the future.

Question: In the discussions surrounding brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and philosophy, are there any significant studies that have been undervalued?

Ji Haiqing: This question touches on many aspects. As BCI devices become more widely applied, numerous issues will gradually emerge. The expansion of their usage will reveal problems over time rather than exposing them all at once.

I believe there are many important topics worthy of attention. If you’re interested, I recommend exploring the work of internationally renowned posthumanist scholars. These academics, while conducting serious research, possess imaginations that rival those of science fiction writers. For instance, American posthumanist scholar Katherine Hayles and others in the field of posthumanism often use imaginative depictions of humanity’s future existence to explore the relationship between humans and technology. Such works can serve as a source of intellectual inspiration.

Question: What is the topic you are most focused on at the moment?

Ji Haiqing: In recent years, I have been particularly interested in the topic of human enhancement. Human enhancement refers to using technology not only to meet conventional needs, such as treating diseases, but also to further augment individual capabilities. This enhancement goes beyond external devices and integrates with our bodies to improve physiological functions.

Broadly speaking, ever since humanity invented airplanes, we can say that humans have learned to fly, though this differs significantly from how birds fly. Birds rely on their physiological structures to fly, while humans achieve flight through technological tools. The trend of human enhancement likely involves technological tools directly altering human physiological structures, granting us unprecedented abilities. This trend has become especially prominent with advancements in electronics, nanotechnology, and other fields in the 21st century.

I believe this trend of human enhancement prompts an essential question: How will it shape our self-perception and influence our future development?

Question: How can we address the potential social issues arising from human enhancement to ensure technology benefits all populations?

Ji Haiqing: From my perspective, this is not an especially grave issue. Human societies have always adapted to the introduction of new technologies, which often create disparities among groups to some extent.

Looking back at history, some early societies improved farming efficiency with iron tools or agricultural equipment, leading to better harvests, while others domesticated animals to aid in labor. Meanwhile, some regions lacked these conditions. Such inequality has been a historical norm. Over time, societies have employed various methods to mitigate the inequalities brought about by technological advancements.

In our field of research, this phenomenon is known as the issue of technological accessibility. There are, in fact, numerous ways to address the social problems caused by unequal access to technology. If such inequality disrupts social stability or exacerbates class divisions, governments can intervene through public financial measures. For example, governments could procure and provide certain technologies for free or offer subsidies to help those who cannot afford new technologies.

Thus, I don’t see this as an insurmountable problem. We already have well-established economic theories and policy tools to tackle these challenges and ensure that technology can more widely benefit all populations.