Back to the top


Your brain may not be private much longer

Neurotechnology is upon us. Your brain urgently needs new rights

Summary of an article by sigal samuel

Neurotechnology offers promising advancements in hacking the brain for improved cognitive function, mental health, and brain-computer interfaces. However, it also raises concerns about privacy, freedom of thought, and potential misuse by governments and other entities. Ethicist Nita Farahany advocates for cognitive liberty, or the right to self-determination over our brains and mental experiences. She argues that individuals should be able to decide whether to enhance or diminish their cognitive abilities and that the focus should be on protecting cognitive liberty while reaping the benefits of neurotechnology.

Some of the ethical dilemmas raised by neurotechnology include the pressure to use cognitive enhancers, deciding what constitutes improvement, and the potential to erase or modify traumatic memories. Farahany believes that giving people autonomy over their brains and mental experiences is critical, but there should be a balance between personal autonomy and societal interests. Addressing the ethical challenges of neurotechnology requires updating human rights law and finding ways to regulate the technology without stiferring its potential benefits.

In this conversation, the participants discuss the idea of post-traumatic growth and how some suffering can lead to personal growth. They mention Thich Nhat Hanh’s phrase, “No mud, no lotus,” which highlights the importance of experiencing some suffering for growth. However, it’s essential not to suffer too much, as it can become overwhelming. Treating conditions like PTSD or depression is crucial, but the participants agree that they wouldn’t completely eliminate suffering from their lives. They emphasize the importance of finding a balance between suffering and growth, rather than pursuing the elimination of suffering as advocated by some in the transhumanist movement


© LewisChard 2020