Cognitive liberty
Cognitive liberty, or the "right to mental
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:
- 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 man
- 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".
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
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.
As psychotropic drugs are a powerful method of altering cognitive function, many advocates of cognitive liberty are also advocates of
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]
Legal recognition
In the United States
Richard Glen Boire of the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics filed an
In the United Kingdom
In the case of
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.
See also
References
- S2CID 44354219.
- S2CID 144449130.
- ISBN 9781908645616.
- 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 & Sons. p. 356.
- ^ "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.
- ^ a b Sententia (2004), 223
- ^ Sententia (2004), 227
- 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
- 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 & 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 & 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
- ^ S2CID 158643005.
- ISSN 2284-4503.
- ^ Blitz, 1063
- ISBN 9780674036383.