fbpx
Wikipedia

Cognitive liberty

March 08, 2023

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]

Overview

The term "cognitive liberty" was coined by neuroethicist Dr. 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. Dr 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 individuals’ 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]

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.[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

See also: Drug policy reform and Human enhancement

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

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). (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. ^ . General Info. Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics. 2003-09-15. Archived from the original on 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2007-10-20.
  8. ^ a b Sententia (2004), 223
  9. ^ Sententia (2004), 227
  10. ^ Leary, Timothy (1968). The Politics of Ecstasy. Berkeley, California: Ronin Publishing. p. 95. ISBN 1579510310.
  11. ^ a b c 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. ^ a b 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 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. ^ a b c d e Boire, Part I
  22. ^ a b Bublitz and Merkel, 68
  23. ^ Bublitz and Merkel, 68-70
  24. ^ Boire, Richard Glen (2000). . Journal of Cognitive Liberties. 1 (2). Archived from the original on 2017-02-10. Retrieved 2015-05-16.
  25. ^ . Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  26. ^ Blitz, 1058-1060
  27. ^ a b c Sententia (2013), 356
  28. ^ Sententia (2013), 355-6
  29. ^ Bublitz and Merkel, 64
  30. ^ a b Boire, Part II
  31. ^ Walsh 433
  32. ^ a b 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" 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. ^ a b Walsh, 437
  41. ^ a b 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.

March 08, 2023
cognitive, liberty, right, mental, self, determination, freedom, individual, control, their, mental, processes, cognition, consciousness, been, argued, both, extension, principle, underlying, right, freedom, thought, though, relatively, recently, defined, conc. 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 1 Overview 1 1 Freedom from interference 1 2 Freedom to self determine 2 Relationship with recognized human rights 3 Legal recognition 3 1 In the United States 3 2 In the United Kingdom 4 Criticism 5 See also 6 ReferencesOverview EditThe term cognitive liberty was coined by neuroethicist Dr 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 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 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 Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow manThou 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 Edit 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 Edit 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 Dr 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 EditCognitive 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 individuals 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 Legal recognition EditIn the United States Edit 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 36 37 In the United Kingdom Edit 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 EditSee also Drug policy reform and Human enhancement 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 EditCognitive ergonomics Drug liberalization Freedom of religion Freedom of speech Morphological freedom Neuroenhancement Neuroethics Neurolaw Personalized medicine Psychonautics Responsible drug use The Rhetoric of Drugs by Jacques Derrida Self ownership Techno progressivism Thomas Szasz TranshumanismReferences Edit 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 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 Waterman Daniel 2013 Hardison Casey William ed Entheogens Society amp Law Towards a Politics of Consciousness Autonomy and Responsibility Melrose Books p 18 ISBN 9781908645616 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 Bublitz and Merkel 60 1 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 amp Sons p 356 FAQ Center for Cognitive Liberty amp 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 a b Sententia 2004 223 Sententia 2004 227 Leary Timothy 1968 The Politics of Ecstasy Berkeley California Ronin Publishing p 95 ISBN 1579510310 a b c Bublitz and Merkel 60 Sententia 2004 223 224 Blitz Marc Jonathan 2010 Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind Cognitive Enhancement and the Constitution Wisconsin Law Review 1049 1053 1055 1058 1060 Rosen Jeffrey 11 March 2007 The Brain on the Stand New York Times Magazine Retrieved 3 May 2014 a b Bublitz and Merkel 61 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 Boire Richard Glen 1999 On Cognitive Liberty Part I Journal of Cognitive Liberties 1 1 Boire Richard Glen 2002 Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Center For Cognitive Liberty amp Ethics In Support Of The Petition Archived 2018 09 26 at the Wayback Machine in the case of Sell v United States Dvorsky George Cognitive liberty and the right to one s mind Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Retrieved 3 May 2014 Farahany Nita February 2012 Incriminating Thoughts Stanford Law Review 64 405 406 a b c d e Boire Part I a b Bublitz and Merkel 68 Bublitz and Merkel 68 70 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 Keeping Freedom in Mind Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics Archived from the original on 24 April 2018 Retrieved 3 May 2014 Blitz 1058 1060 a b c Sententia 2013 356 Sententia 2013 355 6 Bublitz and Merkel 64 a b Boire Part II Walsh 433 a b Bublitz and Merkel 63 Waterman 345 Farahany 405 6 Sententia 2004 226 7 Boire Richard Glen 2002 Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Center For Cognitive Liberty amp Ethics In Support Of The Petition in the case of Sell v United States Archived 2018 09 26 at the Wayback Machine Sell v United States 539 U S 166 2003 R v Hardison 2007 1 Cr App R S 37 Walsh 433 a b Walsh 437 a b 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 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 Blitz 1063 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 en wikipedia org w index php title Cognitive liberty amp oldid 1137267254, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.