Comments on Sentient Developments: Neurodiversity vs. Cognitive Liberty

As a parent, my desire to "cure" autism has nothin...

2010-01-06T11:35:02.168-05:00

As a parent, my desire to "cure" autism has nothing to do with altering a child's personality, intellect, mannerisms, identity. For me, "cure" means remove pain and discomfort, improve physical function, and/or liberate from crippling depression or schizoaffective disorders. The desire springs from the child's lab tests, not from my personal expectations. I've told my son that all I expect him to do is breathe. However many ASD children have asthma and allergies, which make even breathing a challenge. My son suffered adverse reactions to vaccines. It's unfortunate that so little research is done into preventing vaccine AE's.

Thank you for the measured and thoughtful consider...

2009-10-29T22:25:36.861-04:00

Thank you for the measured and thoughtful consideration of both concepts: cognitive liberty and neurological diversity.

Rather than an antagonist position (one vs. the other), I would assert that neurodiversity is made possible by cognitive liberty. I agree, that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to allow agency and decision-making to individuals under all circumstances, yet this should be the "fallback" position of the law. Many of our constitutional legal protections are protected by just such ideals.

I would like to direct your readers to a case that the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics took before the US Supreme Court (http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/sell_index.htm). Unfortunately, the Supreme Court Justices ruled "narrowly" in favor of Dr. Sell, but nonetheless left the larger issue of self-determination and neurological freedom, undecided.

These are great ideas. I'm glad to see some novel...

2009-10-14T22:18:59.969-04:00

These are great ideas. I'm glad to see some novel advocacy concepts brewing. In my opinion, the Asperger's Spectrum is moving in the right direction.

Both Neurodiversity and Cognitive Liberty work in tandem.

The first principle of Cognitive liberty could certainly use some trustworthy renegade scientists in the medical establishment need to team up with some of us early adopters. Hopefully they're listening.

The second principle's emphasis on education and life style planning is sounds interesting. In the early stages, the beta testers will just have to agree to be augmented in light of all the potential risks. All of this should be transparent. No secret augmentations with mad scientists welcome.

The risk takers who are willing to be subjected to the potential harms of early augmentation will end up being the spokespersons for the benefits. Individuals who fell outside the neurotypical spectrum should design a snazzy discourse. Language-games are really not that difficult to manufacture.

The third principle emphasizes the duty to prevent harm to others who are 'neurotypical' and to ensure their liberty to descend, as opposed to ascend. For all we know, both might be equally dangerous. For every step forward there will be steps backward. There are risks involved in any power exchange.

[Comment by Stephanie. transferred by permission]:...

2009-10-14T17:43:13.288-04:00

[Comment by Stephanie. transferred by permission]:

http://embracingchaos.stephanieallencrist.com/

I don’t have a blogger account or an open ID, so I cannot comment on the other blog, but I did want to respond to your post.

The brain’s plasticity is certainly a ripe area for research and I would definitely agree with Ramachandran’s belief that neuroscience is still too young of a discipline for any definitive, unified theory — and I would go so far as to add that I expect psychology will eventually be absorbed by a combination of neuroscience, philosophy/religion, and sociology/anthropology to the point that it ceases to exist as a discipline.

However, I would also assert that “psychological self-determination” is the key factor. Whenever science gets to the point where it can re-write people’s brains in a manner of the scientists’ choosing, it will in all likelihood be used without consent. I would hope that our ethics outpaces our abilities, but that’s rarely the case as a species.

Congrats to ZarPaulus for saying it way more clear...

2009-10-14T14:34:40.515-04:00

Congrats to ZarPaulus for saying it way more clearly and with far fewer words! ;-)

It seems to me that neurodiversity is saying that ...

2009-10-14T13:48:19.101-04:00

It seems to me that neurodiversity is saying that people with neurological disorders (specifically ASDs) should not be treated. Whereas cognitive liberty is saying that people should be able to decide their neurological state themselves.

As I se it, neurodiversity has been (or at least c...

2009-10-14T11:34:33.324-04:00

As I se it, neurodiversity has been (or at least can be) used to justify a purely hands-off kind of advocacy, particularly in the Aspergian set.

Cognitive liberty does and should include psychological disorders, but mostly it is the idea that one's choice in treatment or choice of non-treatment is one's own. The problem with it is that it's more of an ideal than a pragmatic set of principles, because it presupposes the availability of credible and diverse data with which to make informed choices, and also that the individual in question is in a position to have agency with which to act on the information. Neither is always the case.

Thanks for the comment.

Perhaps you need to describe the difference betwee...

2009-10-14T10:12:28.413-04:00

Perhaps you need to describe the difference between neurodiversity and cognitive liberty more. From what you've said in this post I cannot see any difference.

Well, I take that back, I can see one potential difference. As far as I can tell the only difference between the two is that neurodiversity is based upon neurological "disorders", whereas your cognitive liberty could also include psychological disorders.