Cognitive liberty

From The Right Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

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][4][5][6][7][8] 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.[9][10] 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.[11]

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).[12] 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."[13] The CCLE is a network of scholars dedicated to protecting freedom of thought in the modern world of accelerating neurotechnologies. They seek to develop public policies that will preserve and enhance freedom of thought, and offer guidance with regard to relevant developments in neurotechnology, psychopharmacology, cognitive sciences and law.[14] 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.[15] 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.[16]

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.[17]

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.[18]

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".[18] 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.[19][20][21] 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."[22] These specific ethical concerns regarding the use of neuroscience technologies to interfere or invade the brain form the fields of neuroethics and neuroprivacy.[23] 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".[24][25] 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."[25] 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.[26] 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.[15][24]

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.[24] 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".[27] 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".[28] 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.[29] 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.[30] 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.[31] 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".[30]

Legal recognition

In the United States

Main article: Sell v. 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.[32][33]

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.[34] 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.[35] 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.[36] Hardison was convicted and given a 20-year prison sentence, though he was released on 29 May 2013 after nine years in prison.[36]

Criticism

See also: Drug policy reform and Human enhancement

The recent development of neurosciences is increasing the possibility of controlling and influence specific mental functions.[37] 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.[38] 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."[39]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Mill, John Stuart (1859). On Liberty.
  2. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :0
  3. ↑ Boire, Richard Glen (2000). "On Cognitive Liberty (Part II)". Journal of Cognitive Liberties. 2 (1).
  4. ↑ Boire, Richard Glen (2000). "On Cognitive Liberty (Part III)". Journal of Cognitive Liberties. 2 (1).
  5. ↑ Boire, Richard Glen (2002). "John Stuart Mill and the Liberty of Inebriation" (PDF). The Independent Review. 7 (2): 253–258.
  6. ↑ 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.
  7. ↑ Waterman, Daniel (2013). Hardison, Casey William (ed.). Entheogens, Society & Law: Towards a Politics of Consciousness, Autonomy and Responsibility. Melrose Books. p. 18. ISBN 9781908645616.
  8. ↑ 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.
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ Bublitz, Jan Christoph (2024-04-02). "What an International Declaration on Neurotechnologies and Human Rights Could Look like: Ideas, Suggestions, Desiderata". AJOB Neuroscience. 15 (2): 96–112. doi:10.1080/21507740.2023.2270512. ISSN 2150-7740. PMID 37921859.
  11. ↑ Bublitz and Merkel, 60-1
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ "FAQ - Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CCLE)". Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics. 2003-09-15. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
  14. ↑ "keeping freedom in mind -". www.cognitiveliberty.org. Retrieved 2024-06-07.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Sententia (2004), 223
  16. ↑ Sententia (2004), 227
  17. ↑ Leary, Timothy (1968). The Politics of Ecstasy. Berkeley, California: Ronin Publishing. p. 95. ISBN 1579510310.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Bublitz and Merkel, 60
  19. ↑ Sententia (2004), 223-224
  20. ↑ Blitz, Marc Jonathan (2010). "Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancement and the Constitution". Wisconsin Law Review (1049): 1053–1055, 1058–1060.
  21. ↑ Rosen, Jeffrey (11 March 2007). "The Brain on the Stand". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  22. ↑ Bublitz and Merkel, 61
  23. ↑ 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
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 Boire, Part I
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Bublitz and Merkel, 68
  26. ↑ Bublitz and Merkel, 68-70
  27. ↑ 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.
  28. ↑ "Keeping Freedom in Mind". Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
  29. ↑ Blitz, 1058-1060
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Sententia (2013), 356
  31. ↑ Sententia (2013), 355-6
  32. ↑ 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
  33. ↑ Sell v. United States 539 U.S. 166 (2003)
  34. ↑ R v Hardison [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 37
  35. ↑ Walsh, 433
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Walsh, 437
  37. ↑ 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.
  38. ↑ Blitz, 1063
  39. ↑ Sandel, Michael J. (2007). The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674036383.
Retrieved from "https://rightwiki.org/index.php?title=Cognitive_liberty&oldid=21281694"