The key to addressing the challenges BCIs pose to human subjectivity lies not in rejecting technology, but in taming its “wildness” through institutional innovation and value guidance. Image generated by AI

Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology is rapidly expanding beyond medical rehabilitation into education, entertainment, military applications, and even everyday life. From controlling robotic arms through thought and decoding inner speech to treating depression and envisioning “mind uploading,” a technology once confined to science fiction is becoming reality, raising fundamental ontological questions: When machines can read, decode, and even intervene in human thought and activity, do human beings remain masters of themselves? Is human subjectivity being eroded by technology? And how might it be reconstructed?

The fundamental principle of BCIs is that the system uses electrodes placed on the scalp to collect, in real time, neural signals generated by the cerebral cortex, then employs algorithms to decode them into identifiable cognitive states or motor intentions (“reading”). The system then acts on the decoded neural information, applying electrical or magnetic stimulation to the brain to regulate neural activity (“writing”), or directly generating commands for transmission to the body or external devices, allowing external objects to be controlled through mental intention (“controlling”). Today, BCI technology can significantly expand the range of human behavioral choices and enhance everyday capabilities; in the future, it may bring far-reaching advances in cognition, learning, sensory experience, communication, and other dimensions of human functioning.

Yet alongside these expanded capabilities, BCI technology also challenges human autonomy, agency, and creativity, eroding subjectivity on multiple levels. One influential response to these challenges is the narrative of “technological determinism” that the development of BCIs will inevitably lead to the dissolution of human subjectivity, with human beings ultimately reduced to appendages of technology or replaced by it altogether. Such narratives frequently appear in transhumanist and dystopian literature, but at their core lies an idealist conception of technology. This view treats technology as an independent force detached from social relations, while overlooking both the mediating role of social institutions in its application and the practical agency of human beings.

BCI technology does not in itself inevitably lead to the dissolution of human subjectivity. Its social consequences depend on the production relations within which it is embedded and the values it is intended to serve. Under the logic of capital, BCIs may become tools for intensifying labor surveillance, reinforcing excessive algorithmic recommendation, exacerbating social inequality, and eroding personal privacy. Under a human-centered development philosophy, by contrast, they can become an emancipatory force, enabling people with disabilities to regain social participation while enhancing human cognitive capacities. Technology is a means rather than an end, a tool rather than a master.

The key to addressing the challenges BCIs pose to human subjectivity lies not in rejecting technology, but in taming its “wildness” through institutional innovation and value guidance, so that it can return to its proper role in serving human development. This requires action on three fronts.

First, “technology for humanity” should serve as the fundamental principle governing BCI development and application. The research, development, and application of BCIs must regard respect for human dignity, autonomy, and privacy as inviolable boundaries. In medical rehabilitation, priority should be given to safeguarding patients’ rights to informed consent and withdrawal. In non-medical applications, particularly those involving cognitive enhancement or emotional regulation, rigorous ethical review and broad public deliberation are indispensable.

Second, a full-life-cycle governance system should be established for BCI technology. Given the distinctive characteristics of BCIs, an institutional framework should cover the entire process from research and development through application to withdrawal. At the research and development stage, ethical review should be embedded from the outset to prevent “technological black boxes” from eroding human autonomy. At the application stage, mechanisms for algorithmic transparency and accountability should be established to ensure that users can oversee technological decision-making and exercise their right to appeal. At the withdrawal stage, neural data should be properly deleted or archived to prevent technological dependence from hardening into personal dependence.

Third, the public’s critical literacy regarding technology should be strengthened. Protecting human subjectivity requires not only institutional safeguards but also stronger individual capacities. Schools and society should expand public education on BCIs, neuroethics, and digital rights, enabling people to understand the principles and risks of these technologies while maintaining a capacity for reflection and critical judgment.

Wang Shuai is a research fellow from the Institute of Party History and Party Building at Guizhou Normal University.