If Brain-Computer Interfaces Develop to Their Targeted Point, Can We Still Speak of Mental Autonomy?

Claim

If Brain-Computer Interfaces Develop to Their Targeted Point, Can We Still Speak of Mental Autonomy?

Friends, we all wish to be mentally free individuals, but have you ever wondered what kind of changes those currently developing brain-computer interfaces might want to make in the brain's neural cortices down the line, or with what goal Freud’s studies on the subconscious were initiated and why they were brought to an end?

Let’s give examples from different fields; for instance, isn't what today's computer engineers are trying to do also about developing robots that make decisions like humans and make choices based on discrete mathematics calculations—in a way, acting like humans—allocating them a place and colonizing it? And in doing so, aren't they aiming to send as many of these robots as we wish to Mars and be the first to discover life there?

In fact, isn't the starting point of all of this the development of brain-computer interfaces to a level capable of understanding thought, as I implied at the beginning of my remarks? After all, doesn't the fact that people are increasingly falling into the vortex of single-mindedness and moving away from being multidisciplinary—as I wrote in another article of mine—constitute the biggest obstacle to this?

What I am trying to convey in this way has probably become clear: "People must break free from single-mindedness and know as much as they possibly can, even if not everything. Otherwise, all goals will end up in the trash as a mere template on a piece of straw paper."

I hope this has been understood.

Counter-claim

Literature. The standing counter-claim is that a repeated example does not prove what lies outside the example. Kalām literature keeps the observation apart from the judgment.

What this is not evidence of

Literature. The observation in this essay is not proof of hudūth, of ‘ādat Allāh, or of kasb, unless the essay itself says so.