An article by Prof. A. Pizzichini, published on the blog of the Alfonsiana Academy
Imagine moving a robotic arm simply by thinking about it. Not by pressing a button or giving a voice command, but just by thinking. This exercise in imagination may seem suitable for the script of a science fiction TV series, yet for some people suffering from paralysis it has become a reality [here].
Such a marvel is possible thanks to brain-computer interfaces (Brain-Computer Interfaces, BCI) [here], which, even before being an important technological achievement, represent a turning point in the history of the relationship between humans and technology. These devices do not merely extend our capabilities, like any other tool: they allow for more or less direct communication between the brain and external devices, thus somehow breaking down the very definition of “external”, as the technological object effectively becomes part of the subject’s body schema.
A technology with great potential…
All in all, the operating model is quite simple: electrodes capture neural signals, algorithms (which may use artificial intelligence) decode them and translate them into commands, and actuators perform the desired action. However, this apparent simplicity hides highly complex technical challenges. Modern BCIs range from non-invasive systems, such as those using electroencephalograms [here], to more invasive applications involving highly sophisticated surgical implants [here], as well as intermediate approaches. The most advanced frontier is represented by bidirectional systems [here], which are not only able to “read” brain activity, but also to actively interact with the brain, providing sensory feedback that gives the patient a real sense of perception.
The clinical applications of these technologies are undeniably valuable: patients with paralysis or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis regain the ability to communicate and interact with the world [here and here]; by exploiting neuroplasticity (i.e. the brain’s ability to reorganise itself), some systems allow stroke victims to relearn lost movements [here]; and much more.
However, research does not stop at therapy. In the commercial sphere, for example, the integration of BCIs into common operating systems could allow people to interact with their devices directly through thought, without the need for touch or voice commands. Or, considering that therapeutic applications allow lost functions to be recovered, why not use the same methods in healthy individuals to enhance their performance?
…but it raises big questions!
This raises a crucial issue: where is the line between therapeutic intervention and enhancement? To what extent is it possible to increase human capabilities, as long as they remain human?
As you can imagine, the anthropological and ethical questions raised are many and not easy to resolve. If my consciousness extends to an artificial device that responds to my thoughts as my arm would, what are the “boundaries” of my person? Where does the individual end and the machine begin?
Another question concerns agency. When a machine learning algorithm interprets neural signals and translates them into an action, who is the real author of that action? The algorithm, especially if it is artificial intelligence, interprets the signals, translates them, and sometimes corrects them. How does responsibility come into play here, especially in the case of enhancement?
A problem at the heart of the neuroethical debate and so-called neuro-rights [here] is cognitive freedom. If our thoughts become readable data, there is an urgent need for bio-cyber-security to protect the mind as the last bastion of privacy [here]. Consider bidirectional interfaces: the possibility of neural manipulation or monitoring lends itself as a potential tool for unprecedented control over human subjectivity.
Finally, there is the dilemma of social justice: access to enhanced cognitive abilities risks creating new inequalities, which could amplify traditional economic ones. Who will be able to afford to enhance their brain and who will be left behind?
Some questions for bioethics
These are just some of the questions that moral theology is called upon to ask about BCIs, which will easily force us to rethink our fundamental anthropological categories. What does it mean to be human when the boundaries between biological and artificial blur? When an algorithm translates our thoughts into actions, who is really the author of what happens? And above all: are we ready for a world where thought is no longer the inviolable “sanctuary” of interiority, but becomes an interface, data, an accessible surface?
These and many other ethical questions will be addressed at the Bioethics Conference of the Alfonsiana Academy (Rome, 17-18 March 2026) with a section of Dialogue between Experts dedicated to the theme introduced here: one more reason to seriously consider registering by 15 February 2026 [link to the form to formalise online registration].
(machine translation, see original in Italian)
