Scholarlink

Background <p>The rapid development of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology has sparked profound debates about the right to privacy, particularly concerning its potential to enable mind reading. While scholars have proposed the establishment of neurorights to safeguard mental privacy, questions remain about whether BCIs can genuinely decode inner thoughts and what makes their ethical implications distinctive.</p> Methods <p>This study conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 Chinese experts in the BCI and neuroscience fields to explore their perspectives on the concept, feasibility, and limitations of BCI-based mind reading (BMR). The transcriptions of the interviews were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis to identify key themes and insights.</p> Results <p>The findings reveal a range of expert perspectives on the interpretations and feasibility of BMR. Most participants believe that current BCI technology cannot decode inner thoughts, although they acknowledge the potential for future advancements. Key technical challenges, such as signal quality and reliance on background information, are highlighted.</p> Conclusion <p>We summarize the interpretations, feasibility, and limitations of BMR and introduce a distinction between “strong BMR” and “weak BMR” to clarify their technical and ethical implications. Based on our analysis, we argue that current BMR does not pose unique ethical challenges compared with other forms of mind reading, and therefore does not yet justify the establishment of a distinct right to mental privacy.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Does brain-computer interface-based mind reading threaten mental privacy? ethical reflections from interviews with Chinese experts

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月14日

查看全文
  • Fangxu Han,
  • Haidan Chen

摘要

Background

The rapid development of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology has sparked profound debates about the right to privacy, particularly concerning its potential to enable mind reading. While scholars have proposed the establishment of neurorights to safeguard mental privacy, questions remain about whether BCIs can genuinely decode inner thoughts and what makes their ethical implications distinctive.

Methods

This study conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 Chinese experts in the BCI and neuroscience fields to explore their perspectives on the concept, feasibility, and limitations of BCI-based mind reading (BMR). The transcriptions of the interviews were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis to identify key themes and insights.

Results

The findings reveal a range of expert perspectives on the interpretations and feasibility of BMR. Most participants believe that current BCI technology cannot decode inner thoughts, although they acknowledge the potential for future advancements. Key technical challenges, such as signal quality and reliance on background information, are highlighted.

Conclusion

We summarize the interpretations, feasibility, and limitations of BMR and introduce a distinction between “strong BMR” and “weak BMR” to clarify their technical and ethical implications. Based on our analysis, we argue that current BMR does not pose unique ethical challenges compared with other forms of mind reading, and therefore does not yet justify the establishment of a distinct right to mental privacy.