That development will raise many social and ethical questions. For example, if the robot brain has roughly the same number of human neurons as a typical human brain, then could it, or should it, have rights similar to those of a person? Also, if such robots have far more human neurons than in a typical human brain—for example, a million times more neurons—would they, rather than humans, make all future decisions?

Many human brain–computer interfaces are used for therapeutic purposes to overcome medical or neurological problems, with one example being the deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrodes used to relieve the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. However, even here it’s possible to consider using such technology in ways that would give people abilities that humans don’t normally possess—in other words, human enhancement. In some cases, those who have undergone amputations or suffered spinal injuries due to accidents may be able to regain control of devices via their still-functioning neural signals.

Meanwhile, stroke patients can be given limited control of their surroundings, as indeed can those who have motor neurone disease. With those cases, the situation isn’t straightforward, as patients receive abilities that normal humans don’t have—for example, the ability to move a cursor on a computer screen using nothing but neural signals.

It’s clear that connecting a human brain with a computer network via an implant could, in the long term, open up the distinct advantages of machine intelligence, communication, and sensing abilities to the individual receiving the implant. Currently, obtaining the go-ahead for each implantation requires ethical approval from the local authority governing the hospital where the procedure is performed. But looking ahead, it’s quite possible that commercial influences, coupled with societal wishes to communicate more effectively and perceive the world in a richer form, will drive market desire.

For some, brain–computer interfaces are perhaps a step too far just now—particularly if the approach means tampering directly with the brain. As a result, the most studied brain–computer interface to date is that involving electroencephalography (EEG). While EEG experimentation is relatively cheap, portable, and easy to set up, it’s still difficult to see its widespread future use. It certainly has a role to play in externally assessing some aspects of brain functioning for medical purposes. However, the idea of people driving around while wearing skullcap of electrodes, with no need for a steering wheel, doesn’t seem realistic. Completely autonomous vehicles are much more likely.

Such experimental cases indicate how humans—and animals, for that matter—can merge with technology. That, in turn, generates a plethora of social and ethical considerations as well as technical issues. That’s why it’s vital to include a sense of reflection so that the additional experimentation we’ll now witness will be guided by the informed feedback that results.

This article is excerpted from a lengthier exploration of AI and cybernetics. Read the full article on BBVA’s OpenMind site.

Kevin Warwick is deputy vice chancellor for research at Coventry University in the United Kingdom. He is former professor of cybernetics at Reading University, also in the U.K. He is the author or co-author of more than 600 research papers.