Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gadamer in a Wired Brain: Philosophical Hermeneutics and Neuralink

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the spirit of Slavoj Žižek’s book, Hegel in a Wired Brain, this article asks how the questions central to Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics are changed and complicated by the possibility of brain-to-brain communication and the datafication of thought made potential through brain-computer interfaces (BCI). By taking a phenomenological approach to understanding the nature of communication through a technology that does not require language for the transmission of ideas, this article explores how BCI communication confronts the ontological character of interpretation as presented by Gadamer while also juxtaposing how the insights of Gadamer and Heidegger concerning temporality problematize materialist foundations of BCI communication. In the final analysis, it is argued that thought only becomes meaningful in accord with the temporality of Dasein and that hermeneutics remains central in BCI communication because the material replication of thought does not overcome the particular temporalities of historically effected consciousnesses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These comments and the concept of neuralink discussed in the introduction and throughout can be found on Elon Musk’s May 2020 appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast (Rogan, 2020).

  2. It should be noted that none of these studies is a singular project dedicated to these types of BCI. They are, however, indicative examples of the diversity of applications for weak BCI.

  3. Zizek (2020a) summarizes Musk’s assumptions about thought well: “Musk simply assumes that our thoughts are present in our mind independently of their expression inn language, so that if I connect my brain directly with another’s brain, the other individual will experience my thoughts directly in all their wealth and finesse” (38).

  4. As an anonymous reviewer pointed out, strong BCI also blurs the line between conscious pre-linguistic thoughts and non-conscious thoughts, motivations, or feelings. If a strong BCI user has a conscious pre-linguistic thought motivated by a non-conscious bias (say, a dislike for a particular person), is the non-conscious dislike materially transmissible for strong BCI, or is it part of the untransmissible temporal substrate of existence? This raises further questions about responsibility. Should a user be held accountable for their non-conscious thoughts, if transmitted?

References

  • Agre, P. E. (1997). Computation and human experience. Illustrated edition, Cambridge University Press.

  • Anumanchipalli, Gopala K., et al. (2019). Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences. Nature, 568(7753): 493–98. www.nature.com, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1119-1.

  • Bacher, D., et al. (2015). Neural Point-and-click communication by a person with incomplete locked-in syndrome. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 29, no. 5, SAGE Publications Inc STM, June 2015, pp. 462–71. SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314554624.

  • Brumberg, J. S., et al. (2010). Brain–computer interfaces for speech communication. Speech Communication, 52(4): 367–79. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.01.001.

  • Dreyfus, H. (1999) What computers still can’t do. 6th ed., MIT Press.

  • Dreyfus, H. (2008). Why Heideggarian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggarian. The Mechanical Mind in History, edited by Philip Husbands et al., MIT Press.

  • Dreyfus, H. L., Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Basil Blackwell.

  • Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Hermeneutics and logocentrism. Dialogue & Deconstruction, edited by Diane P. Michelfelder and Richard E. Palmer, translated by Richard E. Palmer and Diane P. Michelfelder, State University of New York Press, pp. 114–28

  • Gadamer, H.-G. (1977). Philosophical Hermeneutics. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H.-G. (2013). Truth and method. Reprint edition, Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Glannon, W. (2014). Neuromodulation, agency and autonomy. Brain Topography, 27, 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heersmink, R. (2013). Embodied tools, cognitive tools and brain-computer interfaces. Neuroethics, 6(1): 207–19. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9136-2.

  • Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh. Revised edition. Albany: State University of New York Press.

  • Kapur, A., et al. (2018). AlterEgo: A personalized wearable silent speech interface. 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Association for Computing Machinery, 2018, pp. 43–53. ACM Digital Library, https://doi.org/10.1145/3172944.3172977.

  • Kapur, A., (2019). How ai could become an extension of your mind. https://www.ted.com/talks/arnav_kapur_how_ai_could_become_an_extension_of_your_mind. TED2019. Accessed 31st March 2021

  • Kotler, S. (2002). Vision quest. Wired, 2002. www.wired.com, https://www.wired.com/2002/09/vision/. Accessed 30th March 2021

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.

  • Makin, J. G., et al. (2020). Machine translation of cortical activity to text with an encoder–decoder framework. Nature Neuroscience, 23( 4): 575–82, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-0608-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0608-8. Accessed 20th October 2021.

  • Maslen, H., Rainey, S. (2021). Control and ownership of neuroprosthetic speech. Philosophy & Technology, 34,(3): 425–45. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00389-0.

  • Musk, E., Neuralink (2019). An Integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(10): e16194. www.jmir.org, https://doi.org/10.2196/16194. Accessed 22nd October 2021.

  • Rainey, S., et al. (2020). When thinking is doing: Responsibility for BCI-mediated action.” AJOB Neuroscience, vol. 11, no. 1, Taylor & Francis, pp. 46–58. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2019.1704918.

  • Ricoeur, P. (2007). The conflict of interpretations: Essays in hermeneutics. Edited by Don Ihde, Northwestern University Press.

  • Rogan, J. (2020). Joe Rogan Experience #1470 - Elon Musk, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcYjXbSJBN8&t=1075s. Accessed 17th March 2021.

  • Searle, J. (1992) The rediscovery of the mind. MIT Press.

  • Steinert, S., et al. (2019). Doing things with thoughts: Brain-computer interfaces and disembodied agency. Philosophy & Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 457–82. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0308-4.

  • Vourvopoulos, A., Liarokapis, F. (2012) Robot navigation using brain-computer interfaces. 2012 IEEE 11th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, 2012, pp. 1785–92. IEEE Xplore, https://doi.org/10.1109/TrustCom.2012.247.

  • Willett, F. R., et al. (2021) High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting. Nature, vol. 593, no. 7858, pp. 249–54. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03506-2, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03506-2.

  • Wolkenstein, A. (2017) Brain-computer interfaces: Agency and the transition from ethics to politics. Human-Computer Interaction. User Interface Design, Development and Multimodality, edited by Masaaki Kurosu, Springer International Publishing, pp. 103–18.

  • Žižek, S. (2020a) Hegel in a wired brain. Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Žižek, S. (2020b) Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World. 1st edition, OR Books.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and feedback on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Matthew S. Lindia

Authors
  1. Matthew S. Lindia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew S. Lindia.

Ethics declarations

Consent to Publish

The author gives consent to Philosophy and Technology to publish this article.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Information in Interactions between Humans and Machines

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lindia, M.S. Gadamer in a Wired Brain: Philosophical Hermeneutics and Neuralink. Philos. Technol. 35, 27 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00522-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00522-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation