Neurorights versus Externalism about Mental Content: Characterizing the ‘Harm’ of Neurotechnological Mind Reading

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180125000106
Primary Topic
Embodied and Extended Cognition
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Neurorights versus Externalism about Mental Content: Characterizing the ‘Harm’ of Neurotechnological Mind Reading

Stephen Rainey
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Embodied and Extended Cognition
article

Neurorights versus Externalism about Mental Content: Characterizing the ‘Harm’ of Neurotechnological Mind Reading

Stephen Rainey
article en

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.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Delft University of Technology (NL)
University of Cambridge
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
Embodied and Extended Cognition
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.