Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
The Mind Has A Firewall: An Attempt to Preserve Human Mind Integrity.
This thesis argues for the recognition of mind integrity as a distinct human right. It contends that existing protections, such as bodily integrity, privacy, and freedom of thought, are no longer sufficient to shield an individual’s mental domain from new forms of external interference enabled by ne...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
AUC Knowledge Fountain
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This thesis argues for the recognition of mind integrity as a distinct human right. It contends that existing protections, such as bodily integrity, privacy, and freedom of thought, are no longer sufficient to shield an individual’s mental domain from new forms of external interference enabled by neurotechnology, artificial intelligence, and pervasive data-driven systems. Mind integrity is defined as the right to govern one’s own mental life—to form, revise, and hold thoughts, beliefs, and desires based on reasons one endorses—free from significant, non-consensual interference or manipulation, regardless of the method used. The thesis first identifies concrete risks and regulatory vacuums by analysing invasive neurotechnologies, AI-based decoding of mental states, and algorithmic profiling practices illustrated by the Cambridge Analytica scandal. It demonstrates how these developments expose the mind to systematic influence that current rights do not capture. It then develops an analogy between bodily and mind integrity, arguing that mind integrity supports freedom of expression by requiring transparency about attempts to influence mental life. Drawing on national and international sources—including Chile’s 2021 constitutional amendment, the EU AI Act, and recent UNESCO initiatives—the thesis constructs a legal foundation for this new right. Finally, it argues that a Private Right of Action for regulatory breaches and strict liability are the most appropriate regulatory frameworks for enforcement, shifting the legal focus from the difficult task of proving subjective mental harm to evaluating clearly defined acts of influence and risk-creating practices. |
|---|