Cognitive liberty

Last updated

Cognitive liberty, or the "right to mental self-determination", is the freedom of an individual to control their own mental processes, cognition, and consciousness. It has been argued to be both an extension of, and the principle underlying, the right to freedom of thought. [1] [2] [3] Though a relatively recently defined concept, many theorists see cognitive liberty as being of increasing importance as technological advances in neuroscience allow for an ever-expanding ability to directly influence consciousness. [4] Cognitive liberty is not a recognized right in any international human rights treaties, but has gained a limited level of recognition in the United States, and is argued to be the principle underlying a number of recognized rights. [5]

Contents

Overview

The term "cognitive liberty" was coined by neuroethicist Wrye Sententia and legal theorist and lawyer Richard Glen Boire, the founders and directors of the non-profit Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics (CCLE). [6] Sententia and Boire define cognitive liberty as "the right of each individual to think independently and autonomously, to use the full power of his or her mind, and to engage in multiple modes of thought." [7]

Sententia and Boire conceived of the concept of cognitive liberty as a response to the increasing ability of technology to monitor and manipulate cognitive function, and the corresponding increase in the need to ensure individual cognitive autonomy and privacy. [8] Sententia divides the practical application of cognitive liberty into two principles:

  1. As long as their behavior does not endanger others, individuals should not be compelled against their will to use technologies that directly interact with the brain or be forced to take certain psychoactive drugs.
  2. As long as they do not subsequently engage in behavior that harms others, individuals should not be prohibited from, or criminalized for, using new mind-enhancing drugs and technologies. [9]

These two facets of cognitive liberty are reminiscent of Timothy Leary's "Two Commandments for the Molecular Age", from his 1968 book The Politics of Ecstasy:

  1. Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow man
  2. Thou shalt not prevent thy fellow man from altering his own consciousness. [10]

Supporters of cognitive liberty therefore seek to impose both a negative and a positive obligation on states: to refrain from non-consensually interfering with an individual's cognitive processes, and to allow individuals to self-determine their own "inner realm" and control their own mental functions. [11]

Freedom from interference

This first obligation, to refrain from non-consensually interfering with an individual's cognitive processes, seeks to protect individuals from having their mental processes altered or monitored without their consent or knowledge, "setting up a defensive wall against unwanted intrusions". [11] Ongoing improvements to neurotechnologies, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (or "brain fingerprinting"), and to pharmacology, in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), nootropics, modafinil and other psychoactive drugs, are continuing to increase the ability to both monitor and directly influence human cognition. [12] [13] [14] As a result, many theorists have emphasized the importance of recognizing cognitive liberty in order to protect individuals from the state using such technologies to alter those individuals' mental processes: "states must be barred from invading the inner sphere of persons, from accessing their thoughts, modulating their emotions or manipulating their personal preferences." [15] These specific ethical concerns regarding the use of neuroscience technologies to interfere or invade the brain form the fields of neuroethics and neuroprivacy. [16]

This element of cognitive liberty has been raised in relation to a number of state-sanctioned interventions in individual cognition, from the mandatory psychiatric 'treatment' of homosexuals in the US before the 1970s, to the non-consensual administration of psychoactive drugs to unwitting US citizens during CIA Project MKUltra, to the forcible administration of mind-altering drugs on individuals to make them competent to stand trial. [17] [18] Futurist and bioethicist George Dvorsky, chair of the Board of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies has identified this element of cognitive liberty as being of relevance to the debate around the curing of autism spectrum conditions. [19] Duke University School of Law Professor Nita A. Farahany has also proposed legislative protection of cognitive liberty as a way of safeguarding the protection from self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, in the light of the increasing ability to access human memory. [20]

Though this element of cognitive liberty is often defined as an individual's freedom from state interference with human cognition, Jan Christoph Bublitz and Reinhard Merkel among others suggest that cognitive liberty should also prevent other, non-state entities from interfering with an individual's mental "inner realm". [21] [22] Bublitz and Merkel propose the introduction of a new criminal offense punishing "interventions severely interfering with another's mental integrity by undermining mental control or exploiting pre-existing mental weakness." [22] Direct interventions that reduce or impair cognitive capacities such as memory, concentration, and willpower; alter preferences, beliefs, or behavioral dispositions; elicit inappropriate emotions; or inflict clinically identifiable mental injuries would all be prima facie impermissible and subject to criminal prosecution. [23] Sententia and Boire have also expressed concern that corporations and other non-state entities might utilize emerging neurotechnologies to alter individuals' mental processes without their consent. [8] [21]

Freedom to self-determine

Where the first obligation seeks to protect individuals from interference with cognitive processes by the state, corporations or other individuals, this second obligation seeks to ensure that individuals have the freedom to alter or enhance their own consciousness. [21] An individual who enjoys this aspect of cognitive liberty has the freedom to alter their mental processes in any way they wish to, whether through indirect methods such as meditation, yoga or prayer, or through direct cognitive intervention through psychoactive drugs or neurotechnology.

As psychotropic drugs are a powerful method of altering cognitive function, many advocates of cognitive liberty are also advocates of drug law reform, claiming that the "war on drugs" is in fact a "war on mental states". [24] The CCLE, as well as other cognitive liberty advocacy groups such as Cognitive Liberty UK, have lobbied for the re-examination and reform of prohibited drug law; one of the CCLE's key guiding principles is that "governments should not criminally prohibit cognitive enhancement or the experience of any mental state". [25] Calls for reform of restrictions on the use of prescription cognitive-enhancement drugs (also called smart drugs or nootropics) such as Prozac, Ritalin and Adderall have also been made on the grounds of cognitive liberty. [26]

This element of cognitive liberty is also of great importance to proponents of the transhumanist movement, a key tenet of which is the enhancement of human mental function. Wrye Sententia has emphasized the importance of cognitive liberty in ensuring the freedom to pursue human mental enhancement, as well as the freedom to choose against enhancement. [27] Sententia argues that the recognition of a "right to (and not to) direct, modify, or enhance one's thought processes" is vital to the free application of emerging neurotechnology to enhance human cognition and that something beyond the current conception of freedom of thought is needed. [28] Sententia claims that "cognitive liberty's strength is that it protects those who do want to alter their brains, but also those who do not". [27]

Relationship with recognized human rights

Cognitive liberty is not currently recognized as a human right by any international human rights treaty. [11] While freedom of thought is recognized by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), freedom of thought can be distinguished from cognitive liberty in that the former is concerned with protecting an individual's freedom to think whatever they want, whereas cognitive liberty is concerned with protecting an individual's freedom to think however they want. [29] Cognitive liberty seeks to protect an individual's right to determine their own state of mind and be free from external control over their state of mind, rather than just protecting the content of an individual's thoughts. [30] It has been suggested that the lack of protection of cognitive liberty in previous human rights instruments was due to the relative lack of technology capable of directly interfering with mental autonomy at the time the core human rights treaties were created. [21] As the human mind was considered invulnerable to direct manipulation, control or alteration, it was deemed unnecessary to expressly protect individuals from unwanted mental interference. [15] With modern advances in neuroscience and in anticipation of its future development however, it is argued that such express protection is becoming increasingly necessary. [31]

Cognitive liberty then can be seen as an extension of or an "update" to the right to freedom of thought as it has been traditionally understood. [27] Freedom of thought should now be understood to include the right to determine one's own mental state as well as the content of one's thoughts. However, some have instead argued that cognitive liberty is already an inherent part of the international human rights framework as the principle underlying the rights to freedom of thought, expression and religion. [32] The freedom to think in whatever manner one chooses is a "necessary precondition to those guaranteed freedoms." [30] Daniel Waterman and Casey William Hardison have argued that cognitive liberty is fundamental to Freedom of Thought because it encompasses the ability to have certain types of experiences, including the right to experience altered or non-ordinary states of consciousness. [33] It has also been suggested that cognitive liberty can be seen to be a part of the inherent dignity of human beings as recognized by Article 1 of the UDHR. [32]

Most proponents of cognitive liberty agree, however, that cognitive liberty should be expressly recognized as a human right in order to properly provide protection for individual cognitive autonomy. [21] [34] [35]

In the United States

Richard Glen Boire of the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court in the case of Sell v. United States , in which the Supreme Court examined whether the court had the power to make an order to forcibly administer antipsychotic medication to an individual who had refused such treatment, for the sole purpose of making them competent to stand trial. [36] [37]

In the United Kingdom

In the case of R v Hardison, the defendant, charged with eight counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), including the production of DMT and LSD, claimed that cognitive liberty was safeguarded by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [38] Hardison argued that "individual sovereignty over one's interior environment constitutes the very core of what it means to be free", and that as psychotropic drugs are a potent method of altering an individual's mental process, prohibition of them under the MDA was in opposition to Article 9. [39] The court however disagreed, calling Hardison's arguments a "portmanteau defense" and relying upon the UN Drug Conventions and the earlier case of R v Taylor to deny Hardison's right to appeal to a superior court. [40] Hardison was convicted and given a 20-year prison sentence, though he was released on 29 May 2013 after nine years in prison. [40]

Criticism

While there has been little publicized criticism of the concept of cognitive liberty itself, drug policy reform and the concept of human enhancement, both closely linked to cognitive liberty, remain highly controversial issues. [41] The recent development of neurosciences is increasing the possibility of controlling and influence specific mental functions. [42] The risks inherent in removing restrictions on controlled cognitive-enhancing drugs, including of widening the gap between those able to afford such treatments and those unable to do so, have caused many to remain skeptical about the wisdom of recognizing cognitive liberty as a right. [43] Political philosopher and Harvard University professor Michael J. Sandel, when examining the prospect of memory enhancement, wrote that "some who worry about the ethics of cognitive enhancement point to the danger of creating two classes of human beings – those with access to enhancement technologies, and those who must make do with an unaltered memory that fades with age." [44] Cognitive liberty then faces opposition obliquely in these interrelated debates. But these objections to cognitive enhancement have not gone unchallenged and debate continues still. [41]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mind</span> Faculties responsible for mental phenomena

The mind is that which thinks, imagines, remembers, wills, and senses, or is the set of faculties responsible for such phenomena. The mind is also associated with experiencing perception, pleasure and pain, belief, desire, intention, and emotion. The mind can include conscious and non-conscious states as well as sensory and non-sensory experiences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cognition</span> Act or process of knowing

Cognition is the "mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses". It encompasses all aspects of intellectual functions and processes such as: perception, attention, thought, imagination, intelligence, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem-solving and decision-making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and discover new knowledge.

In psychology, cognitivism is a theoretical framework for understanding the mind that gained credence in the 1950s. The movement was a response to behaviorism, which cognitivists said neglected to explain cognition. Cognitive psychology derived its name from the Latin cognoscere, referring to knowing and information, thus cognitive psychology is an information-processing psychology derived in part from earlier traditions of the investigation of thought and problem solving.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of thought</span> Freedom to hold a thought

Freedom of thought is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.

In philosophy and neuroscience, neuroethics is the study of both the ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics. The ethics of neuroscience concerns the ethical, legal and social impact of neuroscience, including the ways in which neurotechnology can be used to predict or alter human behavior and "the implications of our mechanistic understanding of brain function for society... integrating neuroscientific knowledge with ethical and social thought".

Neurotechnology encompasses any method or electronic device which interfaces with the nervous system to monitor or modulate neural activity.

Human enhancement is the natural, artificial, or technological alteration of the human body in order to enhance physical or mental capabilities.

In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1967, and developed by his PhD student, philosopher, and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was vigorously disputed in analytic philosophy in the 1990s due to work by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julian Savulescu</span> Australian philosopher and bioethicist

Julian Savulescu is an Australian philosopher and bioethicist of Romanian origins. He is Chen Su Lan Centennial Professor in Medical Ethics and director of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at National University of Singapore. He was previously Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and co-director of the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities. He is visiting professorial fellow in Biomedical Ethics at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Australia, and distinguished visiting professor in law at Melbourne University since 2017. He directs the Biomedical Ethics Research Group and is a member of the Centre for Ethics of Pediatric Genomics in Australia. He is a former editor and current board member of the Journal of Medical Ethics, which is ranked as the No.2 journal in bioethics worldwide by Google Scholar Metrics, as of 2022. In addition to his background in applied ethics and philosophy, he also has a background in medicine and neuroscience and completed his MBBS (Hons) and BMedSc at Monash University, graduating top of his class with 18 of 19 final year prizes in Medicine. He edits the Oxford University Press book series, the Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of thought</span> Overview of and topical guide to thought

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to thought (thinking):

Neuroanthropology is the study of the relationship between culture and the brain. This field of study emerged from a 2008 conference of the American Anthropological Association. It is based on the premise that lived experience leaves identifiable patterns in brain structure, which then feed back into cultural expression.The exact mechanisms are so far ill defined and remain speculative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neurolaw</span>

Neurolaw is a field of interdisciplinary study that explores the effects of discoveries in neuroscience on legal rules and standards. Drawing from neuroscience, philosophy, social psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and criminology, neurolaw practitioners seek to address not only the descriptive and predictive issues of how neuroscience is and will be used in the legal system, but also the normative issues of how neuroscience should and should not be used.

Cosmetic psychopharmacology, a term coined in 1990 by the psychiatrist Peter D. Kramer and popularized in his 1993 book Listening to Prozac, refers to the use of drugs to move persons from a normal psychological state to another normal state that is more desired or better socially rewarded — e.g., from melancholy towards assertiveness and confidence or from slower to quicker cognition.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to ethics.

Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian, is professor of clinical neuropsychology at the department of psychiatry and Medical Research Council (MRC)/Wellcome Trust Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge. She is also an honorary clinical psychologist at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge. She has an international reputation in the fields of cognitive psychopharmacology, neuroethics, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry and neuroimaging.

Neuroenhancement or cognitive enhancement refers to the targeted enhancement and extension of cognitive and affective abilities based on an understanding of their underlying neurobiology in healthy persons who do not have any mental illness and outcomes in experimental research. As such, it can be thought of as an umbrella term that encompasses pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods of improving neurological functionality, especially interventions designed to improve human form or functioning beyond what is necessary to sustain or restore good health, as well as the overarching ethico-legal discourse that accompanies these aims and practices.

Virtual collective consciousness (VCC) is a term rebooted and promoted by two behavioral scientists, Yousri Marzouki and Olivier Oullier in their 2012 Huffington Post article titled: “Revolutionizing Revolutions: Virtual Collective Consciousness and the Arab Spring”, after its first appearance in 1999-2000. VCC is now defined as an internal knowledge catalyzed by social media platforms and shared by a plurality of individuals driven by the spontaneity, the homogeneity, and the synchronicity of their online actions. VCC occurs when a large group of persons, brought together by a social media platform think and act with one mind and share collective emotions. Thus, they are able to coordinate their efforts efficiently, and could rapidly spread their word to a worldwide audience. When interviewed about the concept of VCC that appeared in the book - Hyperconnectivity and the Future of Internet Communication - he edited, Professor of Pervasive Computing, Adrian David Cheok mentioned the following: "The idea of a global (collective) virtual consciousness is a bottom-up process and a rather emergent property resulting from a momentum of complex interactions taking place in social networks. This kind of collective behaviour results from a collision between a physical world and a virtual world and can have a real impact in our life by driving collective action."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roi Cohen Kadosh</span> Israeli-British cognitive neuroscientist

Roi Cohen Kadosh is an Israeli-British cognitive neuroscientist notable for his work on numerical and mathematical cognition and learning and cognitive enhancement. He is a professor of Cognitive Neuroscience and the head of the School of Psychology at the University of Surrey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">S. Matthew Liao</span> Taiwanese-born American philosopher

S. Matthew Liao is an American philosopher specializing in bioethics and normative ethics. He is internationally known for his work on topics including children’s rights and human rights, novel reproductive technologies, neuroethics, and the ethics of artificial intelligence. Liao currently holds the Arthur Zitrin Chair of Bioethics, and is the Director of the Center for Bioethics and Affiliated Professor in the Department of Philosophy at New York University. He has previously held appointments at Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, and Princeton.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nita A. Farahany</span> American academic

Nita Farahany is an Iranian American author and distinguished professor and scholar on the ramifications of new technology on society, law, and ethics. She is the author of the critically acclaimed book, The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. She currently teaches Law and philosophy at Duke University where she is the Robinson O. Everett Distinguished Professor of Law & Philosophy at Duke Law School, the founding director of the Duke Initiative for Science and Society as well as a chair of the Bioethics and Science Policy MA program. She is active on many committees, councils, and other groups within the law, emerging technology, and bioethics communities with a focus on technologies that have increasing potential to have ethical and legal issues. In 2010 she was appointed by President Obama to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

References

  1. ↑ Sententia, Wrye (2004). "Neuroethical Considerations: Cognitive Liberty and Converging Technologies for Improving Human Cognition". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1013 (1): 221–8. Bibcode:2004NYASA1013..221S. doi:10.1196/annals.1305.014. PMID   15194617. S2CID   44354219.
  2. ↑ Bublitz, Jan Christoph; Merkel, Reinhard (2014). "Crime Against Minds: On Mental Manipulations, Harms and a Human Right to Mental Self-Determination". Criminal Law and Philosophy. 8: 61. doi:10.1007/s11572-012-9172-y. S2CID   144449130.
  3. ↑ Waterman, Daniel (2013). Hardison, Casey William (ed.). Entheogens, Society & Law: Towards a Politics of Consciousness, Autonomy and Responsibility. Melrose Books. p. 18. ISBN   9781908645616.
  4. ↑ Walsh, Charlotte (2010). "Drugs and human rights: private palliatives, sacramental freedoms and cognitive liberty" (PDF). International Journal of Human Rights. 14 (3): 433. doi:10.1080/13642980802704270. S2CID   143908075. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-02-08. Retrieved 2015-05-16.
  5. ↑ Bublitz and Merkel, 60-1
  6. ↑ Sententia, Wrye (2013). "Freedom by Design: Transhumanist Values and Cognitive Liberty". The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology and Philosophy of the Human Future. John Wiley & Sons. p. 356.
  7. ↑ "FAQ - Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CCLE)". General Info. Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics. 2003-09-15. Archived from the original on 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2007-10-20.
  8. 1 2 Sententia (2004), 223
  9. ↑ Sententia (2004), 227
  10. ↑ Leary, Timothy (1968). The Politics of Ecstasy. Berkeley, California: Ronin Publishing. p.  95. ISBN   1579510310.
  11. 1 2 3 Bublitz and Merkel, 60
  12. ↑ Sententia (2004), 223-224
  13. ↑ Blitz, Marc Jonathan (2010). "Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancement and the Constitution". Wisconsin Law Review (1049): 1053–1055, 1058–1060.
  14. ↑ Rosen, Jeffrey (11 March 2007). "The Brain on the Stand". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  15. 1 2 Bublitz and Merkel, 61
  16. ↑ Roskies, Adina L. (2015), "Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy", in Clausen, Jens; Levy, Neil (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics, Springer Netherlands, pp. 679–695, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123, ISBN   9789400747074
  17. ↑ Boire, Richard Glen (1999). "On Cognitive Liberty Part I". Journal of Cognitive Liberties. 1 (1).
  18. ↑ Boire, Richard Glen, (2002). Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Center For Cognitive Liberty & Ethics In Support Of The Petition Archived 2018-09-26 at the Wayback Machine , in the case of Sell v United States
  19. ↑ Dvorsky, George. "Cognitive liberty and the right to one's mind". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  20. ↑ Farahany, Nita (February 2012). "Incriminating Thoughts". Stanford Law Review. 64: 405–406.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 Boire, Part I
  22. 1 2 Bublitz and Merkel, 68
  23. ↑ Bublitz and Merkel, 68-70
  24. ↑ Boire, Richard Glen (2000). "On Cognitive Liberty Part II". Journal of Cognitive Liberties. 1 (2). Archived from the original on 2017-02-10. Retrieved 2015-05-16.
  25. ↑ "Keeping Freedom in Mind". Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  26. ↑ Blitz, 1058-1060
  27. 1 2 3 Sententia (2013), 356
  28. ↑ Sententia (2013), 355-6
  29. ↑ Bublitz and Merkel, 64
  30. 1 2 Boire, Part II
  31. ↑ Walsh 433
  32. 1 2 Bublitz and Merkel, 63
  33. ↑ Waterman, 345
  34. ↑ Farahany, 405-6
  35. ↑ Sententia (2004), 226-7
  36. ↑ Boire, Richard Glen, (2002). "Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Center For Cognitive Liberty & Ethics In Support Of The Petition, in the case of Sell v United States" Archived 2018-09-26 at the Wayback Machine
  37. ↑ Sell v. United States 539 U.S. 166 (2003)
  38. ↑ R v Hardison [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 37
  39. ↑ Walsh, 433
  40. 1 2 Walsh, 437
  41. 1 2 Veit, Walter (2018). "Cognitive Enhancement and the Threat of Inequality" (PDF). Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. 2 (4): 404–410. doi:10.1007/s41465-018-0108-x. S2CID   158643005.
  42. ↑ Sommaggio, Paolo; Mazzocca, Marco; Gerola, Alessio; Ferro, Fulvio (2017-11-01). "Cognitive liberty. A first step towards a human neuro-rights declaration". BioLaw Journal - Rivista di BioDiritto (3): 27–45–45. ISSN   2284-4503.
  43. ↑ Blitz, 1063
  44. ↑ Sandel, Michael J. (2007). The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN   9780674036383.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.