:Neuroprosthetic speech devices are an emerging technology that can offer the possibility of communication to those who are unable to speak. Patients with ‘locked in syndrome,’ aphasia, or other such pathologies can use covert speech—vividly imagining saying something without actual vocalization—to trigger neural controlled systems capable of synthesizing the speech they would have spoken, but for their impairment.We provide an analysis of the mechanisms and outputs involved in speech mediated by neuroprosthetic devices. This analysis provides a framework for accounting for (...) the ethical significance of accuracy, control, and pragmatic dimensions of prosthesis-mediated speech. We first examine what it means for the output of the device to be accurate, drawing a distinction between technical accuracy on the one hand and semantic accuracy on the other. These are conceptual notions of accuracy.Both technical and semantic accuracy of the device will be necessary for the user to have sufficient control over the device. Sufficient control is an ethical consideration: we place high value on being able to express ourselves when we want and how we want. Sufficient control of a neural speech prosthesis requires that a speaker can reliably use their speech apparatus as they want to, and can expect their speech to authentically represent them. We draw a distinction between two relevant features which bear on the question of whether the user has sufficient control: voluntariness of the speech and the authenticity of the speech. These can come apart: the user might involuntarily produce an authentic output or might voluntarily produce an inauthentic output. Finally, we consider the role of the interlocutor in interpreting the content and purpose of the communication.These three ethical dimensions raise philosophical questions about the nature of speech, the level of control required for communicative accuracy, and the nature of ‘accuracy’ with respect to both natural and prosthesis-mediated speech. (shrink)

Brain reading technologies are rapidly being developed in a number of neuroscience fields. These technologies can record, process, and decode neural signals. This has been described as ‘mind reading technology’ in some instances, especially in popular media. Should the public at large, be concerned about this kind of technology? Can it really read minds? Concerns about mind-reading might include the thought that, in having one’s mind open to view, the possibility for free deliberation, and for self-conception, are eroded where one (...) isn’t at liberty to privately mull things over. Themes including privacy, cognitive liberty, and self-conception and expression appear to be areas of vital ethical concern. Overall, this article explores whether brain reading technologies are really mind reading technologies. If they are, ethical ways to deal with them must be developed. If they are not, researchers and technology developers need to find ways to describe them more accurately, in order to dispel unwarranted concerns and address appropriately those that are warranted. (shrink)

"Cet essai de bioéthique propose de penser l'Homme et son avenir à travers une innovation technologique extraordinaire : les implants cérébraux. Utilisés déjà dans des contextes de maladies, leur développement actuel laisse espérer pouvoir contrôler bientôt des dispositifs robotiques en connectant le cerveau à des ordinateurs équipés d'intelligences artificielles. Si les premiers résultats sont très encourageants, ces interfaces cerveau-machines posent néanmoins un questionnement éthique majeur. Que devient l'Homme si son cerveau fonctionne avec un dispositif électronique "intelligent" implanté? Pourrait-on percer les (...) secrets de ses pensées? Pourrait-on augmenter son intelligence ou sa mémoire? Afin d'appréhender ces trois questions, cet essai commence par penser l'Homme et son rapport aux technologies : la vulnérabilité humaine n'appelle-t-elle pas le recours aux techniques et technologies pour habiter le monde? Pour aider certaines personnes en situation de handicap, n'a-t-on pas besoin parfois de dépasser techniquement les limites de la nature humaine? Mais peut-on pour autant tout se permettre, même pour compenser un handicap? Comment accompagner les chercheurs dans leur propre questionnement? Ne serait-ce qu'une question de bon et de mauvais usage des techniques et technologies? C'est cette aventure philosophique et bioéthique que propose cet essai.". (shrink)