Nanoethics (2018) 12:269–281 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0325-x ORIGINAL PAPER The Over-Extended Mind? Pink Noise and the Ethics of Interaction-Dominant Systems Darian Meacham & Miguel Prado Casanova Received: 22 November 2017 /Accepted: 5 October 2018 /Published online: 1 November 2018 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract There is a growing recognition within cogni- theoretical groundwork for approaching the ethical and tive enhancement and neuroethics debates of the need political dimensions of relations between human cogni- for greater emphasis on cognitive artefacts. This paper tion and digital cognitive artefacts. We argue that pink aims to contribute to this broadening and expansion of noise in this context plays a salient role in the practical, the cognitive-enhancement and neuroethics debates by ethical, and political evaluation of coupling relations focusing on a particular form of relation or coupling between humans and cognitive artefacts, and subse- between humans and cognitive artefacts: interaction- quently in the responsible innovation of cognitive arte- dominance. We argue that interaction-dominance as an facts and human-artefact interfaces. emergent property of some human-cognitive artefact relations has important implications for understanding the attribution and distribution of causal and other forms Keywords Extended mind thesis . Cognitive artefacts . of responsibility as well as agency relating to the actions Pink noise . Machine-human hybrid . Responsible of human-cognitive artefact couplings. Interaction- research and innovation . Distributed cognition . dominance is both indicated and constituted by the Responsibility. Interaction-dominant systems . phenomenon of Bpink noise^. Understanding the role Enhancement . Human enhancement technology. Value- of noise in this regard will establish a necessary sensitive design . Noise D. Meacham (*) Labour appears, rather, merely as a conscious Department of Philosophy, Maastricht University, Grote Gracht 90-92, 6211 Maastricht, SZ, Netherlands organ, scattered among the individual living e-mail: [email protected] workers at numerous points in the mechanical system; subsumed under the total process of the D. Meacham machinery itself, as itself only a link in the system, BrisSynBio, a BBSRC/EPSRC Synthetic Biology Research whose unity exists not in the living workers, but Centre, Life Sciences Building, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK rather in the living active machinery, which con- fronts his individual, insignificant doings as a D. Meacham mighty organism. ([1], p. 693). UWE, Bristol, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK The individual becomes the mere spectator of the results of the functioning of the machines, or the M. Prado Casanova Department of Health and Social Sciences, UWE, Bristol, one who is responsible for the organisation of Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK technical ensembles putting the machines to work. e-mail: [email protected] ([2], p. 132). 270 Nanoethics (2018) 12:269–281 Introduction systems (brains) and digital cognitive artefacts (digital technologies), sometimes called cognitive computing.2 There is growing recognition in the literature on cogni- The world’s largest edu-business, Pearson [12], one of tive enhancement and neuroethics of the need for greater the world’s largest computing companies, IBM [13], attention to the role of cognitive artefacts in the techno- Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft3 have shown logical intervention into and alteration of cognitive pro- strong interest in the development and production of cesses. Fasoli [3] has argued for the need for greater cognitive computing systems applications for use in the consideration of cognitive artefacts in neuroethics and educational market, business, government, healthcare, has developed a taxonomy of relationships between education, and other sectors. On the basis of these inter- cognitive artefacts and cognitive processes [4]. Like- ests, there is a common vision of how machine intelli- wise, Heersmink [5] has argued for the broadening of gence might perform as cognitive-enhancement technol- neuroethics and cognitive enhancement debates to in- ogy in various settings. clude more consideration of cognitive artefacts, includ- Consequently, addressing the epistemological as ing emerging technologies such as transcranial stimula- well as ethical and political questions issuing from tion and neuro-prosthetics (e.g. [6]) but also greater cognitive artefacts is one of the most important tasks reflection on Benvironmental objects and structures^. for the debates concerning responsible research and Heersmink [7] has also developed a multi-dimensional innovation (RRI) in human enhancement technologies. framework for conceptualising integration between cog- This, more specifically, is how we hope to contribute to nitive artefacts and human agents. The broadening and the encounter between discussions in cognitive en- greater inclusivity of these descriptive and normative de- hancement and those in 4E cognition. RRI is defined bates to consider a broad range of cognitive artefacts as by the European Commission as an Bapproach that enhancement technologies have been motivated by devel- anticipates and assesses potential implications and soci- opments in what can broadly be referred to as 4E (embod- etal expectations with regard to research and innovation, ied, embedded, extended, enactive) approaches to cogni- with the aim to foster the design of inclusive and sus- tion (see, for example, [8, 9]). Subsequently, this has tainable research and innovation^ [14]. It has been furthered the encounter between the debates in the area adopted as a research and support initiative within large of cognitive enhancement and those in 4E cognition (see, techno-science and innovation funding programmes for example, [10]). In short, if some or all cognitive arte- by many international and national funders including facts are considered forms of enhancement technology, but not limited to the European Commission’s then the form of cognition at issue falls within the domain €80 billion Horizon2020 Programme, the UK’s of 4E approaches. Our aim here is to contribute to this EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Science Research discussion and the encounter between these two fields. Council),4 and the Dutch NWO, where RRI is a flagship There remains however a lack of sustained en- gagement both concerning the epistemology of cognitive artefacts in the enhancement debate, 2 Cognitive computing describes technology platforms that combine and the potential ethical and political challenges machine learning, reasoning, natural language processing, speech, arising from the increasing pervasiveness of digital vision, human computer interaction, that mimic the functioning of the cognitive artefacts [11] in the fields of 4E (or human brain and help to improve human decision making (http://www. predictiveanalyticstoday.com/what-is-cognitive-computing/). situated) cognition. It seems clear that discussions 3 See, https://www.partnershiponai.org/ of enhancement and cognitive enhancement in par- 4 BResponsible Innovation is a process that seeks to promote creativity ticular will increasingly centre around hybrid, hu- and opportunities for science and innovation that are socially desirable and undertaken in the public interest. Responsible Innovation acknowl- man-artefact, cognitive systems, and specifically hu- edges, that innovation can raise questions and dilemmas, is often man + digital cognitive artefact systems.1 Prospective ambiguous in terms of purposes and motivations and unpredictable technologies and scenarios for human cognitive enhance- in terms of impacts, beneficial or otherwise. Responsible Innovation creates spaces and processes to explore these aspects of innovation in ment increasingly implicate hybrids of organic cognitive an open, inclusive and timely way. This is a collective responsibility, where funders, researchers, stakeholders and the public all have an important role to play. It includes, but goes beyond, considerations of 1 We understand digital cognitive artefacts simply as cognitive arte- risk and regulation, important though these are.^ facts (defined below) that are digital in nature or incorporate digital https://epsrc.ukri.org/research/framework/ (last accessed 14 processes. September 2018) Nanoethics (2018) 12:269–281 271 programme.5 While each funder defines RRI (or some- for discussions about responsible innovation or value- times just RI, i.e. responsible innovation) in a slightly sensitive design of digital cognitive artefacts and specif- different fashion, there are clear overarching common- ically human – digital cognitive artefact interfaces. Con- alities. There is an expanding literature on this approach sequently, we argue that in view of the potential scenario to bringing societal, ethical and political concerns di- of the Bover-extended mind^, cognitive distance or dis- rectly into the research funding and subsequent innova- ruption in the flow of information between certain kinds tion process(es). These debates, though significant, are of cognitive artefact and their human users can be con- outside the scope of this paper, which nonetheless situ- sidered a design-virtue and a key element to consider in ates itself within the scope of RRI as broadly defined responsible innovation. To put this another way: building above (and in notes 5 and 6). in some forms of noise qua disruption of information flow could be an aspect of value