Cognitive enhancement can seem very appealing. Having your mind clear, doing well in class, exceeded concentration. All of that seems like bliss when you're tired and can't think while doing important work, such as an ethics SAC.
But although the temptation, I would say overall that cognitive enhancement should not be used for people who don't desperately need it, such as people with neurological disorders like ADHD. I do not think there is an overall objective truth to this, not yet anyway, and that in cases it can very relative.
I see that cognitive enhancement can be a way of cheating. Just as steroids and drugs that enhance your physicality are seen as bad and cheating, cognitive enhancement is an academic way of cheating. It is hard to see a line in people between 'I'm taking these to get the top mark' and 'I genuinely want to gain knowledge'.
From a Christian perspective, even if an individual did use them genuinely to gain knowledge, the extent of what a person wants to learn can be bad. If a Christian wanted knowledge so much that he placed it before God, cognitive enhancement would be frowned upon. Not all people are Christian, though, and so expecting them to put God before anything wouldn't be expected. But if they put their lust for knowledge before friends, family, and used cognitive enhancement to get it, even society would frown upon it.
I think cognitive enhancement should be left for people with neurological disorders to choose. It is supposed to help calm them and medicate their minds so that they can at least be seen as normal, but if healthy people enhance their minds, the mentally disabled are again left way behind.
Cognitive enhancement, to me, can be seen as any illegal drug which affects the brain. It can become addictive, and can have negative side affects, and also a way of escaping working hard to get past an individual's problems.
My brother has taken ritalin, and has told me that it messed up his mind. He wasn't able to shut off his mind and by the time school was over, he was so tired that he had to nap for hours. However, he did mention that he might start taking the tablets again once he starts university.
Overall, I do not think cognitive enhancement is appropriate for people without neurological disorders such as ADHD. My conscience tells me it is wrong, my values of trying hard to achieve great things instead of cheating, the scientific research that tells me it has negative side affects and can behave like an illegal drug, and even the thought of cognitive enhancement helping people put knowledge before God (like in the garden of Eden), I conclude that I find cognitive enhancement inappropriate, (no matter how appealing it may be).
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Buddhist perspective
Again, religious groups do not appear to have a strong hold on the debate of cognitive enhancement, but Mr C (thanks!) provided me with a document with a Buddhist perspective to cognitive enhancement.
Buddhists have their own way of enhancing their minds, by meditation. Samantha and Maitri meditation. They both have their own ways of focusing their minds, and to 'cultivate insights into the nature of one's phenomenal experiences'. This way, Buddhists can be seen as enhancing their minds, giving them greater concentration skills, without the use of drugs.
Buddhists believe that from birth 'karmic forces inform both our characteristics at birth...and consequent characteristics of our lives'. Therefore, concerns from Buddhists may be that cognitive enhancement can effectively change the characteristics of the individual.
Buddhists value human life, but they also dislike being selfish, or self interested. Cognitive enhancement can be a way for individuals to give themselves more knowledge, with the motive of being better than another.
The conclusion states that a Buddhist 'may object as a matter of principle' to the use of cognitive enhancement, because it could create 'social or personal harm'. In the application of the document, if the enhancement would not harm the individual's social life, or if it is not taken for the increase of power or self-interest, then a Buddhist may support the use of it 'to maintain a coherent or consistent view of Buddhist practice and its value'.
Source: "Buddhism and Neuroethics: The ethics of Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement." In Developing World Bioethics, by Andrew Fenton, 57-56. 2009.
Buddhists have their own way of enhancing their minds, by meditation. Samantha and Maitri meditation. They both have their own ways of focusing their minds, and to 'cultivate insights into the nature of one's phenomenal experiences'. This way, Buddhists can be seen as enhancing their minds, giving them greater concentration skills, without the use of drugs.
Buddhists believe that from birth 'karmic forces inform both our characteristics at birth...and consequent characteristics of our lives'. Therefore, concerns from Buddhists may be that cognitive enhancement can effectively change the characteristics of the individual.
Buddhists value human life, but they also dislike being selfish, or self interested. Cognitive enhancement can be a way for individuals to give themselves more knowledge, with the motive of being better than another.
The conclusion states that a Buddhist 'may object as a matter of principle' to the use of cognitive enhancement, because it could create 'social or personal harm'. In the application of the document, if the enhancement would not harm the individual's social life, or if it is not taken for the increase of power or self-interest, then a Buddhist may support the use of it 'to maintain a coherent or consistent view of Buddhist practice and its value'.
Source: "Buddhism and Neuroethics: The ethics of Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement." In Developing World Bioethics, by Andrew Fenton, 57-56. 2009.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A Christian perspective.
Christian's do not appear to be heavily involved with the debate of cognitive enhancement, although a document has been prepared by the Conference of European Churches about the discussion of human enhancement to give us a perspective of what some Christian's could think.
The overall contention of their debate is that enhancement is not to be encouraged. The summary of the theological discussion says:
'In so far as it seeks a kind of technological salvation without God, the transhumanist project is, in our terms, quasi-religious. It could be understood as just a new version of an old sin - the age-old human aspiration to do without God. It might indeed be the ultimate Tower of Babel project, a form of hubris, as a rebellion against the human condition as such, presuming that we know better than the creator how we should be. It makes the wrong diagnosis on both what is goal of humans and what is wrong with us, and comes up with false solutions.
But does that imply the rejection of any form of human enhancement? Given humans made in God’s image will always seek to find out and to use what they find, we would not say in principle “No, never!” But if it comes to claims to enhance human functions and capacities, we would want to ask some very searching questions, which often preclude going ahead. '
In what I can decipher, I would say that this is saying that human/cognitive enhancement can give research or the want of knowledge a form of idolatry - which, for Christians, is against one of the major biblical rules of putting God before all. They give the example of the tower of Babel - humans trying so hard to reach the heavens, trying to be more godly than they were created to be. Cognitive enhancement can be like that, trying to exceed who we were created to be. If we are made in God's image, and since He 'knit [us] together in [our] mothers womb' (Psalm 139:13), enhancing ourselves would be like trying to make ourselves better than God made us, and trying to be God is a big no-no for Christians. God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden for trying to be as knowledgeable as Him, (the fruit of knowledge).
The overall contention of their debate is that enhancement is not to be encouraged. The summary of the theological discussion says:
'In so far as it seeks a kind of technological salvation without God, the transhumanist project is, in our terms, quasi-religious. It could be understood as just a new version of an old sin - the age-old human aspiration to do without God. It might indeed be the ultimate Tower of Babel project, a form of hubris, as a rebellion against the human condition as such, presuming that we know better than the creator how we should be. It makes the wrong diagnosis on both what is goal of humans and what is wrong with us, and comes up with false solutions.
But does that imply the rejection of any form of human enhancement? Given humans made in God’s image will always seek to find out and to use what they find, we would not say in principle “No, never!” But if it comes to claims to enhance human functions and capacities, we would want to ask some very searching questions, which often preclude going ahead. '
In what I can decipher, I would say that this is saying that human/cognitive enhancement can give research or the want of knowledge a form of idolatry - which, for Christians, is against one of the major biblical rules of putting God before all. They give the example of the tower of Babel - humans trying so hard to reach the heavens, trying to be more godly than they were created to be. Cognitive enhancement can be like that, trying to exceed who we were created to be. If we are made in God's image, and since He 'knit [us] together in [our] mothers womb' (Psalm 139:13), enhancing ourselves would be like trying to make ourselves better than God made us, and trying to be God is a big no-no for Christians. God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden for trying to be as knowledgeable as Him, (the fruit of knowledge).
Source: Working Group on Bioethics and BIotechnology. "Human Enhancement - A discussion document." Congerence of European Churches. July 2009. http://www.ceceurope.org/fileadmin/filer/csc/Ethics_Biotechnology/Human_enhancement_final_March_10.pdf
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Authorities
The authorities in the debate about cognitive enhancement:
Scientific research: The different studies that show long and short term effects of cognitive enhancing drugs, and how people can benefit from them seems to be one of the most influential authority in the debate.
Individual conscience: The conscience takes part in any ethical issue. Different people feel that cognitive enhancement is either right or wrong. Cognitive enhancement appears to be very relativist with no objective view.
Logic and reason: Well it seems very logical to improve an individuals cognitive abilities and be able to learn and comprehend things much better, but the means of how a person goes about that task seems to prevent cognitive enhancement to be an appropriate thing to do.
Values: The values of a person seems to be an authority in whether cognitive enhancement is right or wrong. If a person only values good grades and wants to use cognitive enhancement to get them, it can be argued to be cheating and morally wrong. However, if knowledge and learning is valued and cognitive enhancement is used, then it can be argued that it is morally right to take them. - Again the debate seems to be very relativist to the person.
A pdf file I found...
Because I do not wish to copy and format the whole pdf file, click here to read it (if you want to) :)
It is a conversation between two students, one with AD/HD and another who wants some ritalin drugs off him to help him concentrate with his philosphy test. Ben argues that he should be able to take the drugs since Carl does, and so he can pass the exam. Carl argues that there are possible side effects associated with drugs, and that he only uses it to help overcome his defficiency.
At the end of the pdf, there are a few questions. One of them 'Was it wrong to give Ben Ritalin? Should it be available to all students?'
I think it was wrong to give Ben ritalin. He seemed to value only his grades and passing, when he should appreciate the subject and the learning oppurtunity by doing his best - the natural way - without help.
I found the document an interesting point of view and scenario to read and think about. Schooling and doing well in academics is important to everyone who goes to school, society seems to only look at the people who do well. This brings a question to my mind. Are the people who do well artificially more honorable than the people who don't do as well, but try their best naturally?
The people involved
From what I've researched, there aren't very many specific types of people involved with the debate. Academics/students and scientists seem to be the ones that are heavily arguing the debate, as well as the ones who have taken cognitive enhancement drugs, but mostly it seems to be individual opinion. These types of people would have an opinion because it is something that is now common on the world of academics and science.The Conference of European Churches (CEC) has established a contention on the subject (which will be referred to in another blog), but other religious groups don't appear to be as heavily involved with this ethical issue than with others such as abortion or homosexuality.
Two sides of the story
Is cognitive enhancement appropriate for people without neurological disorders?
Cognitive enhancement has been a big ethical debate throughout the internet world. Some people believe that it is fine to take brain enhancing drugs, but there are other's who are opposed to it being taken by people have no neurological disorder to speak of.
People who are for cognitive enhancement could argue that most people would take brain enhancing drugs already - caffeine in coffee, which helps us to be more alert and awake. They want to improve their learning and discover new things by having their cognitive abilities taken further by these drugs.
The debate against cognitive enhancement is that it is, like sports drugs that enhance physical abilities, is a way of cheating and effecting ones mind negatively. Cognitive enhancement drugs can be abused like any drug, and become addictive.
The most agreed upon fact, as said in this article, is that more research into cognitive enhancement is needed to find the good and bad effects of cognitive enhancement.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
An interesting aside
So my main question for this topic is 'Is cognitive enhancement appropriate for people without neurological disorders?' But my brother told me about another interesting point against cognitive enhancement.
Cognitive enhancement also raises technological concerns for the future. Another form of cognitive enhancement is the power to connect the brain to a form of machine. You see people being able to control a TV with their minds, or moving an artificial arm or leg with brain power etc.
Some people fear that if research into cognitive enhancement continues, soon enough we will be able to connect our minds into computers and, as my brother says, brings the question of how much of our minds are computer and how much is human.
This document also talks about the danger of cognitive enhancement and how furthering technological development in this could possibly bring harm to the entire world.
Freaky, huh?
Cognitive enhancement also raises technological concerns for the future. Another form of cognitive enhancement is the power to connect the brain to a form of machine. You see people being able to control a TV with their minds, or moving an artificial arm or leg with brain power etc.
Some people fear that if research into cognitive enhancement continues, soon enough we will be able to connect our minds into computers and, as my brother says, brings the question of how much of our minds are computer and how much is human.
This document also talks about the danger of cognitive enhancement and how furthering technological development in this could possibly bring harm to the entire world.
Freaky, huh?
What is it?
According to Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg, 'Cognition can be defined as the processes an organism uses to organize information. This includes acquiring information (perception), selecting (attention), representing (understanding) and retaining (memory) information, and using it to guide behavior (reasoning and coordination of motor outputs).'
It could be argued that there is a difference between cognitive enhancement and cognitive therapy. Therapy is for sufferers of a cognitive disability or problem, such as ADHD or memory loss and therefore something is taken to help restore and fix that problem, whereas enhancement is for those who do not suffer from a cognitive disability, and something is taken to enhance and further their cognitive abilities rather than restore them.
Resource: Bostrom, Nick, and Anders Sandberg. "Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges"Nick Bostrom. 2009. http://www.nickbostrom.com/cognitive.pdf (accessed May 23, 2010).
It could be argued that there is a difference between cognitive enhancement and cognitive therapy. Therapy is for sufferers of a cognitive disability or problem, such as ADHD or memory loss and therefore something is taken to help restore and fix that problem, whereas enhancement is for those who do not suffer from a cognitive disability, and something is taken to enhance and further their cognitive abilities rather than restore them.
Resource: Bostrom, Nick, and Anders Sandberg. "Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges"Nick Bostrom. 2009. http://www.nickbostrom.com/cognitive.pdf (accessed May 23, 2010).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)