For some time now, there has been talk about neuroplasticity – the ability of the brain to reorganize its functions and “learn new paths”. One of the topics I followed the most at SXSW was the debates on BCIs (Brain Computer Interfaces), or Brain-Computer Interface, and how they can help induce neuroplasticity.
I won’t try to give a scientific explanation of how a BCI works, but I can reproduce one of the “for dummies” explanations I heard in Austin: it’s when we use some kind of hardware – be it a cap with electrodes or a chip in the skull – to capture the biophysical signals from the brain and send them to a computer, to, for example, move a prosthesis. Simply put: control something with the power of thought!
Before telling some of the debates I followed, I’ll make it clear: I don’t have an opinion, for or against, and I don’t even know if I would use something like that in the future. I think I changed my mind 6 or 7 times during the event, as I listened to the different perspectives of scientists, entrepreneurs, investors and even people who are already testing this type of technology.
In one of the sessions, I saw Ian Burkhart, a young man who became quadriplegic after an accident, talk about how he was able to recover the movement of a hand due to this type of technology. In another session, NFL athlete Nick Hardwick, who hit his head thousands of times in games and suffered from chronic pain and insomnia, used electromagnetic wave stimulation to recover and “optimize” his cognitive abilities.
The two cases are very different, but they raise some interesting questions, and that need to be discussed before these technologies are transformed into even more large-scale consumer products – Yes! There are already some….
Thinking about physical skills, this type of technology could reverse cases of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (the one from the ice bucket challenge, remember?), serious injuries, loss of sight, hearing… pharmacological products available today. But it could also develop into superhumans, with increased motor or physical functions. If we use heart rate monitors and pacemakers, could we also monitor, correct or even enhance the functioning of other organs in the human body?
When dealing with cognitive skills, the discussion is even more complex. When we talk about mental health, what would be the equivalent of an injury? Depression and post-traumatic stress? Chronic fatigue, anxiety and burnout? BCI technologies may not only treat these cases, but also be used to increase and expand the cognitive functions of those who “do not need it”. And with so much prejudice and stigma surrounding the subject of mental health, it’s not clear what “need” means.
In a slightly more distant future, comes the question whether these technologies could be used to “control the mind”? Would you implant a chip in your skull that could “read” what you think? One of the points raised in a panel was that – probably – what a chip could know is not much more than what technology already knows about us. Or do you think your smartphone isn’t already “reading” your mind when an ad appears about something we haven’t researched or talked about near Alexa? Between mobility data, usage behavior and eye-tracking, maybe the BCIs really don’t mean such a big advance in the reading of what we think…
Another point – and this one, even more controversial – is about how much we can “move fast and break things” in this sphere. The more tests and use cases for these technologies, the lower the risks, and the greater the investor appetite. The less invasive the technology (for example, installing the chip in the skull rather than the brain), the lower the risk of surgery. On the other hand, many of the companies testing these areas may simply fail and close. And there? Who will update the software? Who will remove the implanted hardware? An app on your phone you can simply delete. Here the matter is more complex.
Some argued that regulators need to be quick and start regulating this type of technology. Others believe that this would hinder the development of the technologies (and with it, the gains – both from the potential patients who need the technology, and from the VCs who are investing).
Another big question asked is the trade-off: What would you risk in exchange for? In exchange for what would you give up your “mental data”?
It’s not a simple discussion, and I don’t believe there is already an answer. For now, I’m staying here, chip-free, trying to contribute to my neuroplasticity through good nights sleep, lots of reading, exercise, yoga and meditation.
PS: This text was created from reflections of the following SXSW talks: Does mind control for Good exist? / Your Brain Data and the Future of Mental Health / BCIs – Future of Cognition, Economy and Humanity. And without any help from any BCI or ChatGPT.
stay tuned here Adnews! Because for us, leaving the obvious is as obvious as creating and transforming.
The post Would you implant a chip in your brain? appeared first on ADNEWS.