What do you think?
Rate this book
Walka o mózg. Wolność myślenia w erze neurotechnologii
Nadchodzi nowa era w dziedzinie monitorowania i hakowania umysłu. Czy jesteśmy przygotowani na taką przyszłość?
Wyobraźmy sobie świat, w którym będzie można pozyskiwać dane z mózgu, żeby poznać czyjeś poglądy polityczne, myśli będą mogły stanowić dowód przestępstwa, a skrywane uczucia zostać użyte w sądzie jako zarzut. A jednocześnie świat, gdzie chorzy na padaczkę otrzymują ostrzeżenia na chwilę przed atakiem, a przeciętna osoba może zajrzeć do własnego mózgu, żeby usunąć bolesne wspomnienia lub wyleczyć się z uzależnień.
Neuronauka już obecnie umożliwia to wszystko, a skomplikowane urządzenia neurotechnologiczne staną się wkrótce „uniwersalnymi sterownikami” w naszych interakcjach z technologią. Może to zapewnić ludzkości ogromne korzyści, lecz bez odpowiednich zabezpieczeń może też poważnie zagrozić podstawowym prawom człowieka do prywatności, wolności myśli i samostanowienia.
Wyobraźmy sobie świat, w którym będzie można pozyskiwać dane z mózgu, żeby poznać czyjeś poglądy polityczne, myśli będą mogły stanowić dowód przestępstwa, a skrywane uczucia zostać użyte w sądzie jako zarzut. A jednocześnie świat, gdzie chorzy na padaczkę otrzymują ostrzeżenia na chwilę przed atakiem, a przeciętna osoba może zajrzeć do własnego mózgu, żeby usunąć bolesne wspomnienia lub wyleczyć się z uzależnień.
Neuronauka już obecnie umożliwia to wszystko, a skomplikowane urządzenia neurotechnologiczne staną się wkrótce „uniwersalnymi sterownikami” w naszych interakcjach z technologią. Może to zapewnić ludzkości ogromne korzyści, lecz bez odpowiednich zabezpieczeń może też poważnie zagrozić podstawowym prawom człowieka do prywatności, wolności myśli i samostanowienia.
384 pages, Paperback
First published March 14, 2023
256 people are currently reading
9928 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews
May 30, 2025
Honestly, this book left me feeling quite frustrated. It starts off on a strong note, making you think it's going to dive deep into the concerning future of neurotechnology. But then it just doesn't deliver on that promise.
The beginning had me hooked. Farahany comes out swinging with some serious warnings about how governments need to step up and protect us from companies that could manipulate our thoughts. She painted this vivid picture of a future where our brains are open books to any corporation with the right technology. And I was totally with her on this. It's a chilling thought, and she nailed the urgency of dealing with it.
But then, halfway through, things take a weird left turn. Suddenly, she's all about letting everyone access all kinds of information, even if it’s purposefully malicious and harmful. It's like she's saying, “Sure, let's open the floodgates and I’m sure people will learn how to swim.”
This shift was jarring. The world is already struggling with misinformation—just look at the chaos caused by fake news on social media. Look at the dumpster fire that Twitter has become, all done in the name of “free speech.” It’s weirdly naïve to think that throwing even more information into the mix, regardless of its validity, is going to sort itself out harmlessly.
This part of the book really bothered me. AI is going to radically up the efficacy of misinformation. Bad actors are developing an entirely new playbook that will allow them to powerfully prey upon our fears and vulnerabilities.
Farahany seems to live in a world where bad information is magically corrected by the invisible hand of public scrutiny. The rational judgment of average people simply cannot compete against multinational corporate bad actors who bring thousands of employees, armies of computer servers and the latest brain science, all with one goal in mind...buy this...believe this...act this way.
We've got enough evidence from the current state of the internet to know that lies can spread far and fast, often with serious consequences. To suggest that we shouldn’t regulate potentially dangerous information feels not just utopian, but downright reckless.
Then, there's the whole debate on brain-enhancing drugs. Farahany takes a very black-or-white stance here, which doesn't help. She argued that we should either allow everyone to use brain enhancing technology or ban it altogether. It’s an all-or-nothing approach that ignores all the shades of gray in between.
Think about it—allowing people with no understanding of medicine or neuroscience unrestricted access to powerful drugs that can alter brain function? That would lead to all sorts of problems, from health issues to unchecked inequality in who can afford these enhancements.
The book also tries to tackle a boatload of different topics like transhumanism, AI, neuromarketing, and moral decision-making. But it ends up touching on each so lightly that you don’t get to really sink your teeth into any of them. The section on neuromarketing, which could have been fascinating, was especially underwhelming. She starts to explore how it could influence our choices, but then it just fizzles out, barely scratching the surface.
Throughout the book, Farahany leans heavily on her personal opinions, often without evidence or research to back them up. It feels more like a series of blog posts than a cohesive, well-argued book. This might appeal to some, but if you’re looking for deep, well-supported insights, it’s pretty disappointing.
The more I read, the more the book felt disjointed. It couldn't decide whether it wanted to alarm us, educate us, or just speculate about the future. It jumps around from one topic to another, never staying long enough to give a thorough analysis. This lack of focus not only makes it hard to follow but also dilutes the impact of Farahany's arguments.
All in all, “The Battle for Your Brain” promises much but delivers little. Farahany raises important issues, sure, but the way she handles them leaves a lot to be desired. What could have been a powerful and insightful discussion on the intersection of technology and human rights ends up as a confusing mix of idealism and impracticality. If you’re looking for a deep, thoughtful exploration of neuroethics, this might not be the book for you.
The beginning had me hooked. Farahany comes out swinging with some serious warnings about how governments need to step up and protect us from companies that could manipulate our thoughts. She painted this vivid picture of a future where our brains are open books to any corporation with the right technology. And I was totally with her on this. It's a chilling thought, and she nailed the urgency of dealing with it.
But then, halfway through, things take a weird left turn. Suddenly, she's all about letting everyone access all kinds of information, even if it’s purposefully malicious and harmful. It's like she's saying, “Sure, let's open the floodgates and I’m sure people will learn how to swim.”
This shift was jarring. The world is already struggling with misinformation—just look at the chaos caused by fake news on social media. Look at the dumpster fire that Twitter has become, all done in the name of “free speech.” It’s weirdly naïve to think that throwing even more information into the mix, regardless of its validity, is going to sort itself out harmlessly.
This part of the book really bothered me. AI is going to radically up the efficacy of misinformation. Bad actors are developing an entirely new playbook that will allow them to powerfully prey upon our fears and vulnerabilities.
Farahany seems to live in a world where bad information is magically corrected by the invisible hand of public scrutiny. The rational judgment of average people simply cannot compete against multinational corporate bad actors who bring thousands of employees, armies of computer servers and the latest brain science, all with one goal in mind...buy this...believe this...act this way.
We've got enough evidence from the current state of the internet to know that lies can spread far and fast, often with serious consequences. To suggest that we shouldn’t regulate potentially dangerous information feels not just utopian, but downright reckless.
Then, there's the whole debate on brain-enhancing drugs. Farahany takes a very black-or-white stance here, which doesn't help. She argued that we should either allow everyone to use brain enhancing technology or ban it altogether. It’s an all-or-nothing approach that ignores all the shades of gray in between.
Think about it—allowing people with no understanding of medicine or neuroscience unrestricted access to powerful drugs that can alter brain function? That would lead to all sorts of problems, from health issues to unchecked inequality in who can afford these enhancements.
The book also tries to tackle a boatload of different topics like transhumanism, AI, neuromarketing, and moral decision-making. But it ends up touching on each so lightly that you don’t get to really sink your teeth into any of them. The section on neuromarketing, which could have been fascinating, was especially underwhelming. She starts to explore how it could influence our choices, but then it just fizzles out, barely scratching the surface.
Throughout the book, Farahany leans heavily on her personal opinions, often without evidence or research to back them up. It feels more like a series of blog posts than a cohesive, well-argued book. This might appeal to some, but if you’re looking for deep, well-supported insights, it’s pretty disappointing.
The more I read, the more the book felt disjointed. It couldn't decide whether it wanted to alarm us, educate us, or just speculate about the future. It jumps around from one topic to another, never staying long enough to give a thorough analysis. This lack of focus not only makes it hard to follow but also dilutes the impact of Farahany's arguments.
All in all, “The Battle for Your Brain” promises much but delivers little. Farahany raises important issues, sure, but the way she handles them leaves a lot to be desired. What could have been a powerful and insightful discussion on the intersection of technology and human rights ends up as a confusing mix of idealism and impracticality. If you’re looking for a deep, thoughtful exploration of neuroethics, this might not be the book for you.
March 14, 2024
4++ (5 for content)
Fascinating, informative, … and scary!
The title of this book is very appropriate. There are MANY battles for our brains discussed in this book, and the information is both fascinating and scary. Many of the initiatives involve advancing our ability to provide medical treatment or to help people function after debilitating strokes or accidents, and there are already some impressive devices in use or development. For example, a South Korean biomedical company has an electroencephalogram (EEG) device that can detect early cognitive impairment that should allow better treatment for a number of neuropsychiatric diseases. The same research, though, can provide ways to invade our minds. Big Brother can use many techniques for purposes that we may consider ethical or an invasion of liberty. There are EEG headsets that are one step up from lie detector tests to see if someone is lying during a criminal investigation. Employers could require employees in occupations like pilots or truck drivers to wear such devices to measure their alertness. Is the protection of the public worth the invasion of an employee’s mind? The State Grid Corporation of China already uses EEG sensors to measure employees’ fatigue and other brain wave activities. There is also neuromarketing, a blend of neuroscience with consumer research that uses physiological and brain measurements to inform marketing, pricing, and product development. These are done now using willing subjects, but in the future companies may be able to collect information about us from devices we have for another purpose much as social media does today using our posts.The term “battle” is also appropriate in another realm, war. Both China and the US and no doubt other countries have efforts in various defense-related fields involving the brain.
I absolutely loved the dedication to this book, “To Mom and Dad, for always believing in me, even when they think that I have no idea what I’m talking about”. However, clearly Nita Farahany DOES know what she is talking about, despite her parents’ reservations. She is a professor of law at Duke University specializing in the legal, social, and ethical implications of emerging technology and has served on a number of distinguished commissions, such as President Obama’s Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. On a more mundane but very relevant level, she also wears a headband containing electrodes that detect her brain waves and send them to an app on her smartphone to help her use neurofeedback to control her migraine headaches.
Despite her credentials, Farahany does not rely on her own knowledge and opinions alone, and there is a wealth of discussion of the works and opinions of other experts, including some of my favorites like Francis Fukuyama and Michael Sandel. All the positions of others are respectfully reported even when the author does not agree with them.
Like many books that cover a lot of ground on subjects that will be fairly new to most readers, the first part of The Battle for Your Brain is less than fully clear at times and, perhaps because of the breadth of the subject, can sometimes be a little repetitive. If you find this, let me assure you that things get better, and it DEFINITELY is worth it.
This book is worth reading simply for the fascinating descriptions of techniques and tools being developed or already in use involving our brains, but a lot of this work can be use for good or ill . Farahany is overall a champion for neurorights and cognitive liberty. She ends the book with a call for action to protect ourselves and future humanity, while at the same time making the most of the wonderful possibilities offered by neuroscience and neurotechnology. Read this book, and I am confident you will agree.
I received an Advance Review Copy of this book from NetGalley.
PS Great fodder for a thoughtful book group. I will be recommending it to the Sunday Philosophers!
UPDATE: Reread 2024 for Sunday Philosophers. Pretty much the same opinion as before
Fascinating, informative, … and scary!
The title of this book is very appropriate. There are MANY battles for our brains discussed in this book, and the information is both fascinating and scary. Many of the initiatives involve advancing our ability to provide medical treatment or to help people function after debilitating strokes or accidents, and there are already some impressive devices in use or development. For example, a South Korean biomedical company has an electroencephalogram (EEG) device that can detect early cognitive impairment that should allow better treatment for a number of neuropsychiatric diseases. The same research, though, can provide ways to invade our minds. Big Brother can use many techniques for purposes that we may consider ethical or an invasion of liberty. There are EEG headsets that are one step up from lie detector tests to see if someone is lying during a criminal investigation. Employers could require employees in occupations like pilots or truck drivers to wear such devices to measure their alertness. Is the protection of the public worth the invasion of an employee’s mind? The State Grid Corporation of China already uses EEG sensors to measure employees’ fatigue and other brain wave activities. There is also neuromarketing, a blend of neuroscience with consumer research that uses physiological and brain measurements to inform marketing, pricing, and product development. These are done now using willing subjects, but in the future companies may be able to collect information about us from devices we have for another purpose much as social media does today using our posts.The term “battle” is also appropriate in another realm, war. Both China and the US and no doubt other countries have efforts in various defense-related fields involving the brain.
I absolutely loved the dedication to this book, “To Mom and Dad, for always believing in me, even when they think that I have no idea what I’m talking about”. However, clearly Nita Farahany DOES know what she is talking about, despite her parents’ reservations. She is a professor of law at Duke University specializing in the legal, social, and ethical implications of emerging technology and has served on a number of distinguished commissions, such as President Obama’s Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. On a more mundane but very relevant level, she also wears a headband containing electrodes that detect her brain waves and send them to an app on her smartphone to help her use neurofeedback to control her migraine headaches.
Despite her credentials, Farahany does not rely on her own knowledge and opinions alone, and there is a wealth of discussion of the works and opinions of other experts, including some of my favorites like Francis Fukuyama and Michael Sandel. All the positions of others are respectfully reported even when the author does not agree with them.
Like many books that cover a lot of ground on subjects that will be fairly new to most readers, the first part of The Battle for Your Brain is less than fully clear at times and, perhaps because of the breadth of the subject, can sometimes be a little repetitive. If you find this, let me assure you that things get better, and it DEFINITELY is worth it.
This book is worth reading simply for the fascinating descriptions of techniques and tools being developed or already in use involving our brains, but a lot of this work can be use for good or ill . Farahany is overall a champion for neurorights and cognitive liberty. She ends the book with a call for action to protect ourselves and future humanity, while at the same time making the most of the wonderful possibilities offered by neuroscience and neurotechnology. Read this book, and I am confident you will agree.
I received an Advance Review Copy of this book from NetGalley.
PS Great fodder for a thoughtful book group. I will be recommending it to the Sunday Philosophers!
UPDATE: Reread 2024 for Sunday Philosophers. Pretty much the same opinion as before
May 19, 2023
The first half of the book is somehow readable. The author presents good information about new possibilities in neurotech and rightfully points out some dangers like exploiting the neurological data by corporations and states and anyone really.
But the second half of the book is unbelievably shallow and short-sighted. Farahani tries to describe the social aspects of these new possibilities but she is unable to look critically at the subject and the society at all. What she describes is an American-cooperative cliche on new tech and how we must let the free hand of the market regulate everything cause if not we are sacrificing our LIBERTY! (To be fair in the last 3 pages of the book she argues how a Humans-right thing is very good and enough and we must let all 'stakeholders' especially very good tech companies and very kind powerful governments regulate these with the help of scientists) but maybe this is not surprising from a White House consultant committee member who also works as a consultant in a neurotech company. Somewhere in the book, she was talking about the CIA mind manipulation project, and in a sudden turn in only two lines she pictured China and Russia and believe it or not Cuba as the villains who wanna manipulate our brains! What?
She rightfully brings forward the use of neurotech in optimizing advertisements (to make them more appealing to sell more products and manipulate the consumer's minds) and at the end of the book she writes joyfully about how EEG surveillance (which she mentioned the first chapters) can in fact makes our life better! in total contrast with the beginning chapters! WOW!
The author thinks (refers to someone else) "When neural interfaces become the predominant way that we interact with our technology, we will be that much closer to a future in which policies are evaluated based on their impact on our “collective cognitive capital" ". If it was this simple. The real Capitalist system is here for two centuries and we can observe what was the result of tech and the increase in work productivity. As productivity rises the wealth created is going to the pockets of the rich while the poor and middle class are going down and down. This fairytale of "Tech is going to save us from misery" is what tech billionaires are selling to the masses and I'm sorry to say Farahani is just repeating it, unable to see very old measures (hunger, health, education, housing,...) are totally ignored by this system and just wanna believe when we all have EEG sensors or better when we wired our brain to the data broker's servers, then Capitalism will magically change and optimize our brain happy happy mode and then we can live happily ever after.
I don't recommend reading this but if you wanna know more about "what is possible in neurotech" the first half might be useful. But I'm warning you do NOT put yourself through her Elon Musk praising and Transhumanisem-philia. Or if you read this in 2035 maybe you have some implant in your brain to just wipe the pain away and feel happy! What the hell do I know?
But the second half of the book is unbelievably shallow and short-sighted. Farahani tries to describe the social aspects of these new possibilities but she is unable to look critically at the subject and the society at all. What she describes is an American-cooperative cliche on new tech and how we must let the free hand of the market regulate everything cause if not we are sacrificing our LIBERTY! (To be fair in the last 3 pages of the book she argues how a Humans-right thing is very good and enough and we must let all 'stakeholders' especially very good tech companies and very kind powerful governments regulate these with the help of scientists) but maybe this is not surprising from a White House consultant committee member who also works as a consultant in a neurotech company. Somewhere in the book, she was talking about the CIA mind manipulation project, and in a sudden turn in only two lines she pictured China and Russia and believe it or not Cuba as the villains who wanna manipulate our brains! What?
She rightfully brings forward the use of neurotech in optimizing advertisements (to make them more appealing to sell more products and manipulate the consumer's minds) and at the end of the book she writes joyfully about how EEG surveillance (which she mentioned the first chapters) can in fact makes our life better! in total contrast with the beginning chapters! WOW!
The author thinks (refers to someone else) "When neural interfaces become the predominant way that we interact with our technology, we will be that much closer to a future in which policies are evaluated based on their impact on our “collective cognitive capital" ". If it was this simple. The real Capitalist system is here for two centuries and we can observe what was the result of tech and the increase in work productivity. As productivity rises the wealth created is going to the pockets of the rich while the poor and middle class are going down and down. This fairytale of "Tech is going to save us from misery" is what tech billionaires are selling to the masses and I'm sorry to say Farahani is just repeating it, unable to see very old measures (hunger, health, education, housing,...) are totally ignored by this system and just wanna believe when we all have EEG sensors or better when we wired our brain to the data broker's servers, then Capitalism will magically change and optimize our brain happy happy mode and then we can live happily ever after.
I don't recommend reading this but if you wanna know more about "what is possible in neurotech" the first half might be useful. But I'm warning you do NOT put yourself through her Elon Musk praising and Transhumanisem-philia. Or if you read this in 2035 maybe you have some implant in your brain to just wipe the pain away and feel happy! What the hell do I know?
November 22, 2022
Farahany's book is the rare work of a rare academic--applied, prescient, and timely. This work will long be looked at as a first clarion call for the right to cognitive liberty and clearly setting the stage for one of the largest fights for the next decades--aptly titled The Battle for Your Brain.
A polymath herself, Farahany integrates peer-reviewed academia with popular culture, and philosophy with children's cartoons and video games, from the fringes of the Internet to the decisions before the halls of power. Her work breathlessly and seamlessly shifts from military, commercial, foreign policy, marketing, and academic impacts of the changing landscape of neuroscience. She does not dumb down the science but puts it in context with the lived world.
As a business leader, this book gives me pause. I run a company that employs over 300 pilots with a strong commitment to safety. This book rightly questions simple decisions I've considered--whether to adopt health and biometric tracking of our pilots to ensure even higher safety. After reading this book, the answer is much more complicated than I considered.
As a quantitative self-focused on my health, who tracks and uploads my biometrics daily, this book examines the benefits and pitfalls of expanding that tracking to my mind.
And as a concerned citizen, this work reinforces that policymakers must rapidly establish norms as larger tech companies race to not just control our clicks but our thoughts.
A polymath herself, Farahany integrates peer-reviewed academia with popular culture, and philosophy with children's cartoons and video games, from the fringes of the Internet to the decisions before the halls of power. Her work breathlessly and seamlessly shifts from military, commercial, foreign policy, marketing, and academic impacts of the changing landscape of neuroscience. She does not dumb down the science but puts it in context with the lived world.
As a business leader, this book gives me pause. I run a company that employs over 300 pilots with a strong commitment to safety. This book rightly questions simple decisions I've considered--whether to adopt health and biometric tracking of our pilots to ensure even higher safety. After reading this book, the answer is much more complicated than I considered.
As a quantitative self-focused on my health, who tracks and uploads my biometrics daily, this book examines the benefits and pitfalls of expanding that tracking to my mind.
And as a concerned citizen, this work reinforces that policymakers must rapidly establish norms as larger tech companies race to not just control our clicks but our thoughts.
March 28, 2023
The basis of this book was particularly intriguing, so I pre-ordered it and was really looking forward to reading it. Several of the topics/devices/data discussed in the book were, in fact, fascinating and thought proving (e.g. role of neurotechnology in politics, marketing, mental health….and the potential dangers of it, with a call to action for demanding our right to cognitive liberty). I did not like the writing style, though, as the book was repetitive and poorly organized. The chapters were not always cohesive, and the writing jumped around topics significantly. This made reading it not as enjoyable as I hoped it would be, despite the interesting content.
March 11, 2025
4.5/5. Absolutely engrossing explanation of neurotechnology, especially the future of it, and its associated ethical implications. Most people should read this to get an understanding of what's to come and what that means.
May 6, 2024
We read this for a neuroscience book club I co-run. Message me if you want our book summary and discussion questions :)
The author argues in this book that neurotechnology will soon become the “universal controller” for all of our interactions with technology. This can benefit us a lot, but comes with a lot of potential privacy and freedom pitfalls we need to anticipate and preemptively protect.
She presents compelling data that people may willingly share brain data to gain access to benefits or just from lack of care about protecting that data despite the fact that brain data is uniquely sensitive. She cites evidence like how willingly people give up their data to tech giants for access to convenient technologies like social media and google maps etc. She shows that neuro tech is already being rapidly developed and used in consumer goods, in workplaces to monitor employees, by governments for military use, for criminal investigations, and more. I didn't know about a lot of those uses, and neurotech was a lot more widespread than I realized in these applications.
The author argues that people should have access to all their own brain data and the onus should be on companies to properly contextualize that data, and that we should hold them responsible via third parties to fact check the data rather than keep the data from people. I'm not sure if this is practical. If we could indeed enforce this amount of regulation, perhaps I'd be in support, but she brushes most of the most difficult practical hurdles aside in a "it'll take care of itself" way.
She made some interesting points about brain enhancers as well, but again, a lot of the practical hurdles were conveniently glossed over I thought. For example, regarding whether people would feel pressured to take brain enhancers if other people were for work or school performance, she says, no, because we can and often do freely choose not to do something that makes us more competitive, choosing to take a vacation rather than working longer hours, or spending time with friends instead of studying more for an exam for example. And she says, of course, if the enhancers are unsafe, they shouldn't be allowed. But what counts as unsafe? Amphetamines don't have a great safety profile for dependency for example, and can have cardiovascular effects and can impair sleep, and that is the main class of enhancers she's discussing so...?
Overall, I enjoyed learning about how integrated neuro tech was already getting into various industries, and in some cases I was a little alarmed. I took her point that we may need new and specific protections in light of this, but wasn't totally convinced we couldn't be covered by existing laws? I found her points of view about some of the topics pretty naïve and inchoate. Overall, some interesting parts, but not a super well fleshed out vision.
The author argues in this book that neurotechnology will soon become the “universal controller” for all of our interactions with technology. This can benefit us a lot, but comes with a lot of potential privacy and freedom pitfalls we need to anticipate and preemptively protect.
She presents compelling data that people may willingly share brain data to gain access to benefits or just from lack of care about protecting that data despite the fact that brain data is uniquely sensitive. She cites evidence like how willingly people give up their data to tech giants for access to convenient technologies like social media and google maps etc. She shows that neuro tech is already being rapidly developed and used in consumer goods, in workplaces to monitor employees, by governments for military use, for criminal investigations, and more. I didn't know about a lot of those uses, and neurotech was a lot more widespread than I realized in these applications.
The author argues that people should have access to all their own brain data and the onus should be on companies to properly contextualize that data, and that we should hold them responsible via third parties to fact check the data rather than keep the data from people. I'm not sure if this is practical. If we could indeed enforce this amount of regulation, perhaps I'd be in support, but she brushes most of the most difficult practical hurdles aside in a "it'll take care of itself" way.
She made some interesting points about brain enhancers as well, but again, a lot of the practical hurdles were conveniently glossed over I thought. For example, regarding whether people would feel pressured to take brain enhancers if other people were for work or school performance, she says, no, because we can and often do freely choose not to do something that makes us more competitive, choosing to take a vacation rather than working longer hours, or spending time with friends instead of studying more for an exam for example. And she says, of course, if the enhancers are unsafe, they shouldn't be allowed. But what counts as unsafe? Amphetamines don't have a great safety profile for dependency for example, and can have cardiovascular effects and can impair sleep, and that is the main class of enhancers she's discussing so...?
Overall, I enjoyed learning about how integrated neuro tech was already getting into various industries, and in some cases I was a little alarmed. I took her point that we may need new and specific protections in light of this, but wasn't totally convinced we couldn't be covered by existing laws? I found her points of view about some of the topics pretty naïve and inchoate. Overall, some interesting parts, but not a super well fleshed out vision.
July 3, 2024
This book is good. Not great. It predicts the future a lot and it will be interesting to see if some of it comes to fruition. I would give this book 5 stars, but is some ways this book treated me like a child. Nita could have convinced me a few times (maybe 3) that cognitive liberty is important. I agree that it is. But this book harped on it to the point of ad nauseam.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 12, 2023
Excellent book, covered a lot of important subjects on neurotechnology, wearable neural devices, neuro ethics, the right to privacy, Fusion relationship between humans and machines, transhumanism.. so much in this book, very interesting, well-researched, also the narration is first rate.
August 21, 2023
I decided to read The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology after listening to Alie Ward in conversation with Nita A. Farahany, the author, in a podcast for Otologies: Neurotechnology (AI + BRAIN TECH) with Dr. Nita Farahany around the time I was reading Jennifer Egan's The Candy House. I recommend book clubs pair the two, reading Egan's one month and Farahany's the next!
So Farahany's book connects philosophy/ethics, neurotechnology, practices and research, etc. It presents an argument for "cognitive liberty" through its presentation of fascinating facts and speculative information regarding neuro- and bio-technology. My interest when I began was to learn more about what is "out there." There is more than I thought! It took me a little time to bond with the argument, because I was more curious about the science, but I ended up finding it fascinating and well drawn as it tapped into a part of my brain I do not use all the time (the one that led me take so many philosophy classes back in the day).
Who would be interested? People interested in legal topics, people interested is going on and what could go on with the brain, people who like science fiction, etc.
Aside: She mentions James Cameron's Avatar, which I have not seen at this writing but may watch this evening! I also want to go back and see John Frankenheimer's film adaptation of Richard Condon's The Manchurian Candidate now that I know more about MK-Ultra.
Another aside: I bought this book in physical form! I wanted to be able to share it with my son and his wife after I read it. It is not without irony (or a wry smile) that I mention that I took off the dust jacket and wrapped the book in aluminum foil as I read it, to keep it safe from coffee stains and other "interference." Reading it was also a trip down memory lane. I prefer e-books now for my eyes because I can change the font, font size, page color, brilliance, etc. I like how I never know what page I am on but can get lost in endless text. That ability to bring a book's words in to my brain so easily has trained my reading brain to a great extent, evidently. I almost sent this book back and got an e-book (but then I could not have shared it so easily). The small-sized gray serif font was hard for me to focus on initially in this paper-made book, not crisp at all. I tried different lights in the house, even did research to see if I should buy a special reading light (but had some good bulbs and lamps already); fortunately, over the course of reading, eyes-brain adapted and allowed me to read the book more easily. (Note to publishers: For static text, maybe consider a sans-serif font if using a small type size on beige paper, and darker ink.)
So Farahany's book connects philosophy/ethics, neurotechnology, practices and research, etc. It presents an argument for "cognitive liberty" through its presentation of fascinating facts and speculative information regarding neuro- and bio-technology. My interest when I began was to learn more about what is "out there." There is more than I thought! It took me a little time to bond with the argument, because I was more curious about the science, but I ended up finding it fascinating and well drawn as it tapped into a part of my brain I do not use all the time (the one that led me take so many philosophy classes back in the day).
Who would be interested? People interested in legal topics, people interested is going on and what could go on with the brain, people who like science fiction, etc.
Aside: She mentions James Cameron's Avatar, which I have not seen at this writing but may watch this evening! I also want to go back and see John Frankenheimer's film adaptation of Richard Condon's The Manchurian Candidate now that I know more about MK-Ultra.
Another aside: I bought this book in physical form! I wanted to be able to share it with my son and his wife after I read it. It is not without irony (or a wry smile) that I mention that I took off the dust jacket and wrapped the book in aluminum foil as I read it, to keep it safe from coffee stains and other "interference." Reading it was also a trip down memory lane. I prefer e-books now for my eyes because I can change the font, font size, page color, brilliance, etc. I like how I never know what page I am on but can get lost in endless text. That ability to bring a book's words in to my brain so easily has trained my reading brain to a great extent, evidently. I almost sent this book back and got an e-book (but then I could not have shared it so easily). The small-sized gray serif font was hard for me to focus on initially in this paper-made book, not crisp at all. I tried different lights in the house, even did research to see if I should buy a special reading light (but had some good bulbs and lamps already); fortunately, over the course of reading, eyes-brain adapted and allowed me to read the book more easily. (Note to publishers: For static text, maybe consider a sans-serif font if using a small type size on beige paper, and darker ink.)
July 25, 2023
Although this book did pose a number of interesting questions, I agree with other reviewers regarding the repetitiveness of much of the material. In addition, I was astounded by the poor grammar and copyediting. For example, the author repeatedly had incomplete sentences, e.g., on page 92: "Which is why I received my JD, MA, and PhD from Duke." (Same on page 185: "Which is why he believes..."). There were words repeated, e.g., on page 156: ...to keep communication between at near constant levels between its users." There were words omitted, e.g., "Describing it on 60 Minutes, she said [she] felt...." The person listed in the acknowledgements as the editor is the Executive Editor of St. Martin's Press. How did these kinds of errors get through? The frequency of the errors made it more difficult for me to enjoy the book and are a large part of why I gave the book such a low rating.
November 25, 2024
I just realized that I actually knew the author back when she was a high-school debater! Such a small world. She was always brilliant, so it doesn’t surprise me that she’s written something so intelligent and interesting. Some of the most salient parts were when she shared details about the tragic loss of her daughter (I’m so sorry that happened to her!), discussed her controversial view that students should be allowed to take brain-enhancing drugs, and in the end, discussed some startling recent advances in neuro-technology. Chapter 9, “Beyond Human,” was particularly thought-provoking. Recommended to anyone interested in the topic.
June 22, 2023
Enjoyed the elucidating discussion around the field of neural tech, computer brain interfaces and where things are at. Policy that further defines cognitive liberty seems like a “no brainer”, though some of the libertarian arguments for democratizing access to mind-altering substances I’m still unsure about
April 10, 2024
Everybody should read this book. It is the new 1984. But non-fiction.
January 25, 2024
Nita A. Farahany weaves her expertise of the law and neuroethics with personal experience to highlight very important issues about artificial intelligence and brain data that face our current society. She foresees a future where the privacy of thought may be besieged by neurotechnology, leading to a myriad of murky ethical and legal dilemmas. As such, Nita argues that laws that protect the right to think freely are sorely needed.
I found the book to be very thought-provoking, providing many examples and clear descriptions of past and potential future problems that the growth in (or misuse of) neurotechnology may bring. However, I did find that much of the later arguments in the book dealt with future hypothetical scenarios, lacking the walkthrough of evidence from neuroscience or artificial intelligence that appeared in the first half of the book. Perhaps this is unfair, given Nita is trying to provide a brief future-looking overview of the research to focus on the ethical and legal issues, but it became difficult to organize my thoughts and evaluate the writing.
I found the book to be very thought-provoking, providing many examples and clear descriptions of past and potential future problems that the growth in (or misuse of) neurotechnology may bring. However, I did find that much of the later arguments in the book dealt with future hypothetical scenarios, lacking the walkthrough of evidence from neuroscience or artificial intelligence that appeared in the first half of the book. Perhaps this is unfair, given Nita is trying to provide a brief future-looking overview of the research to focus on the ethical and legal issues, but it became difficult to organize my thoughts and evaluate the writing.
November 23, 2024
“Neurotechnology is advancing at a remarkable pace, unlocking the ability to tap into thoughts, emotions, and intentions in ways once unimaginable. While these innovations promise to revolutionize fields like medicine and human cognition, they also present challenges to our most fundamental rights: mental privacy, freedom of thought, and individual self-determination.
This shift makes the protection of cognitive liberty more crucial than ever before. The decisions we make today will shape whether this technology empowers us or encroaches on our autonomy. It’s only by striking the right balance between thoughtful regulation and strong safeguards that we can ensure our brain data is used ethically and responsibly.
That way, neurotechnologies can unlock new frontiers of human potential while still preserving the sanctity of our mental freedom. The future is in our hands – and with it, the opportunity to shape a world where technological innovation and personal autonomy coexist in harmony.”
This shift makes the protection of cognitive liberty more crucial than ever before. The decisions we make today will shape whether this technology empowers us or encroaches on our autonomy. It’s only by striking the right balance between thoughtful regulation and strong safeguards that we can ensure our brain data is used ethically and responsibly.
That way, neurotechnologies can unlock new frontiers of human potential while still preserving the sanctity of our mental freedom. The future is in our hands – and with it, the opportunity to shape a world where technological innovation and personal autonomy coexist in harmony.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 1, 2023
This book gives insight into the technology currently available involving ways to read your mind. By that I mean neurotechnologies in general. Some may help you keep analytics on your sleep patterns or stress levels. Others may tell your employer when you're falling asleep while operating heavy machinery. Like all technology, it is neither good nor bad. The use of it by our society is what brings moral complications.
The different sections showcase different themes and concerns. I liked how Farahany presents perceptions versus realities. There are many people who think the government is listening to their every thought. That's not quite true, but governments around the world have been trying.
I enjoyed this book. It made me think a lot about potential futures. These technologies already exist and they're only going to become more prevalent in our daily lives. Companies like Meta and Alphabet have acquired companies with neurotechnology ambitions. There weren't many new concepts I was introduced to, though. I would've enjoyed more specific examples and descriptions of the technologies. This is more of a broad overview.
I give this book a 4/5. If you're interested in learning a little more about technologies that can decode the human brain you'll get something from this book. It's accessible to those not too familiar with neuroscience.
The different sections showcase different themes and concerns. I liked how Farahany presents perceptions versus realities. There are many people who think the government is listening to their every thought. That's not quite true, but governments around the world have been trying.
I enjoyed this book. It made me think a lot about potential futures. These technologies already exist and they're only going to become more prevalent in our daily lives. Companies like Meta and Alphabet have acquired companies with neurotechnology ambitions. There weren't many new concepts I was introduced to, though. I would've enjoyed more specific examples and descriptions of the technologies. This is more of a broad overview.
I give this book a 4/5. If you're interested in learning a little more about technologies that can decode the human brain you'll get something from this book. It's accessible to those not too familiar with neuroscience.
June 27, 2024
This was a book that I had a very hard time even finishing, since I don’t agree with some of the content and find some of the arguments plain stupid. I think (lightly speaking) that she is very worldly and argumentative on some of her thoughts regarding neuro-enhancement drugs and the future of neurothech without even glancing upon the counter arguments or science that doesn’t follow her aimed conclusions. Which makes this whole book shallow, and from my perspective makes it at most bad popular science.
September 27, 2023
I don't want computers in my brain now for targeted ads
January 21, 2024
Pretty thought provoking!
Want to read
June 18, 2024#GoodreadsGiveaway
May 28, 2023
"Battle for Your Brain," penned by an accomplished law and philosophy professor and former commissioner for the U.S. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, navigates the choppy waters of bioethics around the control and surveillance of brain activities. It delves into the potential and perils brought about by the surge in neurotechnology.
Part one zeroes in on brain monitoring. Traditionally, our mental and emotional states were our final bastion of privacy, “truth serum” fictions notwithstanding. However, neurotechnological advances are shaking these foundations. Sensors can now track brainwaves and, coupled with behavioral and environmental data, can reveal much about our mental landscape. While these innovations provide great benefits, they also trigger several ethical dilemmas.
For instance, workplaces now monitor employee alertness and focus through brain sensors, with consent mandated as employment condition. The data can boost productivity and safety, but what happens if employers start using it for hiring or promotions? The author broaches these questions, advocating for a delicate balance between benefit and harm.
This discussion raises two essential questions. Firstly, should we consider brain activity data as a merit-based metric in employee qualifications, or should it be left as an uncontrollable factor, much like physical appearance? Secondly, even though employers are allowed certain monitoring privileges, like overseeing phone conversations or computer usage, should we still keep brain activities private and off-limits? The author brings up these thought-provoking questions but refrains from prescribing direct answers. Instead, the emphasis is on finding a balance between benefits and potential harm, encouraging us to seek a compromise.
As for my perspective on brain activity monitoring, I believe its relevance varies depending on the nature of the job. For roles involving manual or repetitive tasks, brain activity could potentially be a good performance indicator, given it's backed by empirical data and validation. However, for roles demanding high creativity, the current brain monitoring methods seem inadequate to gauge performance. In these cases, employers should prioritize outcome-based metrics like papers produced or patents secured, rather than focusing on input-based factors such as time spent or concentration levels.
The author also wrestles with the question of government surveillance of citizens' thoughts, arguing that such activities should remain private and off-limits. I concur, yet fear that if such technology exists, it could prove too tempting for governments. Legislations or even constitution amendments should be put in place preemptively, as the author suggests.
I would go on and consider a less invasive form of monitoring, like utilizing brain activity in opinion polls. Currently, observing keystroke speeds and the duration spent on web pages are accepted methods employed by both government and commercial organizations to understand user behavior. So why not consider tracking brain activity during website visits, if feasible? What would happen if we cross-referenced this data with other personal information, such as purchase histories or ChatGPT prompts issued? These possibilities open up an array of intriguing questions worthy of exploration.
The book also raises the issue of transparency: should people have access to their brain data? Drawing parallels with medical practices, the author asserts that individuals should own their brain data. While I agree, I stress the importance of properly interpreting such data, which calls for expert knowledge.
The author champions data accessibility, arguing from a standpoint of individual freedom: a person should be entitled to make decisions that don't impact others. However, this viewpoint isn't entirely applicable in our society. For instance, prescription medications necessitate a doctor's approval, as the average person may not possess the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision. Similarly, brain data might also be something that requires professional interpretation and guidance.
Part two of the book considers whether brains should be tampered with. The author broaches a spectrum of intervention possibilities, ranging from mild to aggressive.
The first topic tackles the use of brain-enhancing drugs. Should students be allowed to boost their test performances with these substances? The author advocates for it, drawing a distinction between the sports world's ban on performance-enhancing drugs and academia. In sports, rules adherence is crucial, while in academics, outcomes are paramount. Brain-enhancing drugs could level the playing field, eliminating innate cognitive advantages some individuals might enjoy. This could shift the dynamics of meritocracy, potentially for the better.
I'm not fundamentally against brain-enhancing drugs. I believe meritocracy's standards should evolve with time. For millennia, physical strength was a crucial merit metric. However, technological advancements have lessened the emphasis on physical labor, thereby changing perceptions of physical prowess. Brain-enhancing drugs might similarly bring about change. Nonetheless, I'm concerned about our limited understanding of these substances. They may have deleterious effects, potentially boosting energy short-term at the cost of mental agility and creativity. Long-term negative effects are even less understood. Sure, we accept certain substances like coffee and some dietary supplements as safe brain-boosters, but the book overlooks the potential negative impacts of more potent substances. I think this is a crucial aspect that wasn't adequately addressed.
The book's second topic concerns technologies that can decelerate brain activity, potentially treating neurological conditions such as seizures. However, this subject strays into the medical field rather than the book's core focus on ethics and philosophy. Therefore, we won't delve further into this area here.
The book then proceeds to the concept of influencing specific thoughts, or “mental manipulation”. This concept spans from ancient rhetorical tactics to modern psychological techniques like priming and nudging (recognized by the 2017 Nobel Prize). The author grapples with defining what practices are acceptable and which ones cross the line. Despite the ambiguity in the book's discussion, it presents some compelling principles for consideration: a) Transparency, whereby the subject should be aware of the manipulative attempt; b) Symmetry, where the subject retains the power to resist; c) Freedom, which allows the subject to opt out; and d) Benevolence, ensuring the action isn't intended to harm the subject.
Implementing these principles might pose challenges. For instance, does airing an advertisement in the middle of your favorite show infringe upon the 'freedom' principle? Does convincing you to buy a diamond you don't need equate to encouraging you to spend more time on Instagram, when we consider “benevolence”? While such questions might blur the lines, these principles still aid in framing the discussion. We may need to adjust these principles as we go along, but the book lays a valuable groundwork for us to build upon.
The subsequent topic the author delves into is undeniably a breach of ethical boundaries: mental torture. This refers to the employment of neurological methods to inflict pain and distress, leaving the subject with no escape. Mental torture encompasses a broad spectrum, from traditional methods like sleep deprivation to more contemporary techniques. As evidently unethical as physical torture, mental torture is, however, not always explicitly prohibited in human rights charters, largely due to its lack of physical evidence. The author suggests that as we progress into the era of neuroscience, human rights protections must be extended to encompass this new realm of potential abuse.
The author then delves into the audacious frontier of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI), technologies that circumvent traditional video, audio, or mechanical inputs and directly connect brain electrical signals to a computer. The author presents a riveting overview of the current advancements in the field. BCIs are not only enabling paralyzed individuals to type words or manipulate objects but are also enhancing the experiences of video gamers. The capabilities of BCIs are expanding at a swift pace as researchers develop more sophisticated methods of connection and advanced algorithms for interpreting brain signals. The potentials of BCIs are even more immense considering that they can operate bidirectionally, allowing computers to send inputs and commands to the brain. The author acknowledges the potential of BCIs as powerful tools for enhancing human capabilities and allowing humans to remain competitive with emerging AI systems. However, BCIs could also prompt us to redefine our understanding of life and humanity, as they blur the boundary between human and machine.
Despite the author's remarkable academic background, the book adopts a journalistic style. It is filled with intriguing stories and insightful information. However, the narrative is somewhat meandering, progressing at a leisurely pace and occasionally straying into repetitiveness. The transitions between topics are not clearly delineated with introductions and summaries, confusing the flow. A more coherent and succinct organization of the book's content would have more effectively communicated its messages and better complemented the significance of the subject matter.
The book's glaring omission lies in its failure to tackle the critical theme of uncertainty. As of now, brain data stands on shaky grounds when it comes to faithfully representing mental states, and any attempts to intervene in the brain are fraught with substantial perils. It is an absolute necessity that our policies and practices take these uncertainties into account, to prevent profit-hungry companies from recklessly pursuing gains, while conveniently sidestepping responsibility for any ensuing negative fallouts. We must brace ourselves for the fact that it could take years, maybe even decades, before neurology reaches the same level of maturity as our current understanding of genetics - a field that despite its advances, is still viewed as a minefield in many applications. In the book, the author often draws parallels between neurology and genetics, but fails to acknowledge this key difference between the two fields.
"The Battle for Your Brain" is undoubtedly a captivating and deeply thought-provoking tome. While it does raise a multitude of questions that remain shrouded in ambiguity, it underscores the urgent necessity for a robust dialogue in the realms of ethics and philosophy, to prepare us for the impending technological deluge. If our brain, once regarded as a sacred domain, is now subject to observation and manipulation akin to machinery, it inevitably prompts us to introspect: what is the essence of humanity and the soul? What differentiates mankind from the rest of the world? The book intriguingly introduces the notion of "cognitive liberty," proposing an expansion of human rights and dignity to encompass the protection of our freedom of thought and agency. It is an unmissable read, especially for policy makers navigating the labyrinthine landscape of high-tech domains.
Part one zeroes in on brain monitoring. Traditionally, our mental and emotional states were our final bastion of privacy, “truth serum” fictions notwithstanding. However, neurotechnological advances are shaking these foundations. Sensors can now track brainwaves and, coupled with behavioral and environmental data, can reveal much about our mental landscape. While these innovations provide great benefits, they also trigger several ethical dilemmas.
For instance, workplaces now monitor employee alertness and focus through brain sensors, with consent mandated as employment condition. The data can boost productivity and safety, but what happens if employers start using it for hiring or promotions? The author broaches these questions, advocating for a delicate balance between benefit and harm.
This discussion raises two essential questions. Firstly, should we consider brain activity data as a merit-based metric in employee qualifications, or should it be left as an uncontrollable factor, much like physical appearance? Secondly, even though employers are allowed certain monitoring privileges, like overseeing phone conversations or computer usage, should we still keep brain activities private and off-limits? The author brings up these thought-provoking questions but refrains from prescribing direct answers. Instead, the emphasis is on finding a balance between benefits and potential harm, encouraging us to seek a compromise.
As for my perspective on brain activity monitoring, I believe its relevance varies depending on the nature of the job. For roles involving manual or repetitive tasks, brain activity could potentially be a good performance indicator, given it's backed by empirical data and validation. However, for roles demanding high creativity, the current brain monitoring methods seem inadequate to gauge performance. In these cases, employers should prioritize outcome-based metrics like papers produced or patents secured, rather than focusing on input-based factors such as time spent or concentration levels.
The author also wrestles with the question of government surveillance of citizens' thoughts, arguing that such activities should remain private and off-limits. I concur, yet fear that if such technology exists, it could prove too tempting for governments. Legislations or even constitution amendments should be put in place preemptively, as the author suggests.
I would go on and consider a less invasive form of monitoring, like utilizing brain activity in opinion polls. Currently, observing keystroke speeds and the duration spent on web pages are accepted methods employed by both government and commercial organizations to understand user behavior. So why not consider tracking brain activity during website visits, if feasible? What would happen if we cross-referenced this data with other personal information, such as purchase histories or ChatGPT prompts issued? These possibilities open up an array of intriguing questions worthy of exploration.
The book also raises the issue of transparency: should people have access to their brain data? Drawing parallels with medical practices, the author asserts that individuals should own their brain data. While I agree, I stress the importance of properly interpreting such data, which calls for expert knowledge.
The author champions data accessibility, arguing from a standpoint of individual freedom: a person should be entitled to make decisions that don't impact others. However, this viewpoint isn't entirely applicable in our society. For instance, prescription medications necessitate a doctor's approval, as the average person may not possess the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision. Similarly, brain data might also be something that requires professional interpretation and guidance.
Part two of the book considers whether brains should be tampered with. The author broaches a spectrum of intervention possibilities, ranging from mild to aggressive.
The first topic tackles the use of brain-enhancing drugs. Should students be allowed to boost their test performances with these substances? The author advocates for it, drawing a distinction between the sports world's ban on performance-enhancing drugs and academia. In sports, rules adherence is crucial, while in academics, outcomes are paramount. Brain-enhancing drugs could level the playing field, eliminating innate cognitive advantages some individuals might enjoy. This could shift the dynamics of meritocracy, potentially for the better.
I'm not fundamentally against brain-enhancing drugs. I believe meritocracy's standards should evolve with time. For millennia, physical strength was a crucial merit metric. However, technological advancements have lessened the emphasis on physical labor, thereby changing perceptions of physical prowess. Brain-enhancing drugs might similarly bring about change. Nonetheless, I'm concerned about our limited understanding of these substances. They may have deleterious effects, potentially boosting energy short-term at the cost of mental agility and creativity. Long-term negative effects are even less understood. Sure, we accept certain substances like coffee and some dietary supplements as safe brain-boosters, but the book overlooks the potential negative impacts of more potent substances. I think this is a crucial aspect that wasn't adequately addressed.
The book's second topic concerns technologies that can decelerate brain activity, potentially treating neurological conditions such as seizures. However, this subject strays into the medical field rather than the book's core focus on ethics and philosophy. Therefore, we won't delve further into this area here.
The book then proceeds to the concept of influencing specific thoughts, or “mental manipulation”. This concept spans from ancient rhetorical tactics to modern psychological techniques like priming and nudging (recognized by the 2017 Nobel Prize). The author grapples with defining what practices are acceptable and which ones cross the line. Despite the ambiguity in the book's discussion, it presents some compelling principles for consideration: a) Transparency, whereby the subject should be aware of the manipulative attempt; b) Symmetry, where the subject retains the power to resist; c) Freedom, which allows the subject to opt out; and d) Benevolence, ensuring the action isn't intended to harm the subject.
Implementing these principles might pose challenges. For instance, does airing an advertisement in the middle of your favorite show infringe upon the 'freedom' principle? Does convincing you to buy a diamond you don't need equate to encouraging you to spend more time on Instagram, when we consider “benevolence”? While such questions might blur the lines, these principles still aid in framing the discussion. We may need to adjust these principles as we go along, but the book lays a valuable groundwork for us to build upon.
The subsequent topic the author delves into is undeniably a breach of ethical boundaries: mental torture. This refers to the employment of neurological methods to inflict pain and distress, leaving the subject with no escape. Mental torture encompasses a broad spectrum, from traditional methods like sleep deprivation to more contemporary techniques. As evidently unethical as physical torture, mental torture is, however, not always explicitly prohibited in human rights charters, largely due to its lack of physical evidence. The author suggests that as we progress into the era of neuroscience, human rights protections must be extended to encompass this new realm of potential abuse.
The author then delves into the audacious frontier of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI), technologies that circumvent traditional video, audio, or mechanical inputs and directly connect brain electrical signals to a computer. The author presents a riveting overview of the current advancements in the field. BCIs are not only enabling paralyzed individuals to type words or manipulate objects but are also enhancing the experiences of video gamers. The capabilities of BCIs are expanding at a swift pace as researchers develop more sophisticated methods of connection and advanced algorithms for interpreting brain signals. The potentials of BCIs are even more immense considering that they can operate bidirectionally, allowing computers to send inputs and commands to the brain. The author acknowledges the potential of BCIs as powerful tools for enhancing human capabilities and allowing humans to remain competitive with emerging AI systems. However, BCIs could also prompt us to redefine our understanding of life and humanity, as they blur the boundary between human and machine.
Despite the author's remarkable academic background, the book adopts a journalistic style. It is filled with intriguing stories and insightful information. However, the narrative is somewhat meandering, progressing at a leisurely pace and occasionally straying into repetitiveness. The transitions between topics are not clearly delineated with introductions and summaries, confusing the flow. A more coherent and succinct organization of the book's content would have more effectively communicated its messages and better complemented the significance of the subject matter.
The book's glaring omission lies in its failure to tackle the critical theme of uncertainty. As of now, brain data stands on shaky grounds when it comes to faithfully representing mental states, and any attempts to intervene in the brain are fraught with substantial perils. It is an absolute necessity that our policies and practices take these uncertainties into account, to prevent profit-hungry companies from recklessly pursuing gains, while conveniently sidestepping responsibility for any ensuing negative fallouts. We must brace ourselves for the fact that it could take years, maybe even decades, before neurology reaches the same level of maturity as our current understanding of genetics - a field that despite its advances, is still viewed as a minefield in many applications. In the book, the author often draws parallels between neurology and genetics, but fails to acknowledge this key difference between the two fields.
"The Battle for Your Brain" is undoubtedly a captivating and deeply thought-provoking tome. While it does raise a multitude of questions that remain shrouded in ambiguity, it underscores the urgent necessity for a robust dialogue in the realms of ethics and philosophy, to prepare us for the impending technological deluge. If our brain, once regarded as a sacred domain, is now subject to observation and manipulation akin to machinery, it inevitably prompts us to introspect: what is the essence of humanity and the soul? What differentiates mankind from the rest of the world? The book intriguingly introduces the notion of "cognitive liberty," proposing an expansion of human rights and dignity to encompass the protection of our freedom of thought and agency. It is an unmissable read, especially for policy makers navigating the labyrinthine landscape of high-tech domains.
January 13, 2024
The things that Farahany describes are quite wild and I buy her case for the need for regulation. Reading this book, I wondered how many other areas of technology are at a similarly alarming stage and rate of development that I don't know about.
But somehow the book didn't do it for me. I really disliked the narration. And the "colour" parts felt perfunctory, as if the book was a summary journal article that had been half-heartedly converted into a book for a general readership.
But somehow the book didn't do it for me. I really disliked the narration. And the "colour" parts felt perfunctory, as if the book was a summary journal article that had been half-heartedly converted into a book for a general readership.
January 19, 2025
This was a good read. The author had clearly researched her topic and it was clear where she was citing research or ‘facts’ and where she was giving her own opinion.
While all the chapters provided a troubling glimpse into a possible future, it was the chapter titled ‘Bewilderbeasts’ that was most troubling. This started with the author’s account of people who appeared to irrationally believe they were being surveilled and controlled, to the possibility that their fears might be a scary future we will have to grapple with.
A very interesting read.
While all the chapters provided a troubling glimpse into a possible future, it was the chapter titled ‘Bewilderbeasts’ that was most troubling. This started with the author’s account of people who appeared to irrationally believe they were being surveilled and controlled, to the possibility that their fears might be a scary future we will have to grapple with.
A very interesting read.
June 15, 2024
Went to a talk by Nina and was impressed but also totally out of the loop about cognitive liberty and the neuro science space. Quite incredible. Now that I know more, I fear that this is the field we should be most concerned about
April 30, 2023
Fun to think through all the ways we are going to use neurology with technology in the future. The pleas for universal human rights in regards to our minds seems a bit naive. And that’s a huge angle of the book.
September 9, 2023
This book tackles a subject we should all be aware of and provides a broad view of the various ways our brain data is being mined and the potential that is both very interesting and quite scary. In addition to data, the opportunities for manipulation are explored with the not unexpected potential for both good use and evil intent. The audio was well narrated and flowed well from topic to topic.
May 10, 2023
3.5 Decent enough book for the uninitiated but if you have been following this issue in papers, periodicals, online and in other books then you will likely discover nothing new here. That said, this is a solid synthesis of many mostly old ideas and a few somewhat more current; from gangstalking, a Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues conferences from 2011 (that BardAI thinks was cancelled!), studies from 2016 about reanimating pigs brains, Havana Syndrome, Transhumanism, MK-Ultra, to Neuralink, BrainGate & Second Sight.
There's a lot of generally relevant topics but I was hoping for the inclusion of more timely material. The last chapter contains slightly more current content & makes up a bit, but the thing is, this subject moves rapidly. Look at AI and the valid hullabaloo recent advances in this field have created, none of which is included in this book because of publishing deadlines. Also there's the issue of corporations not sharing current research that author's must contend with. While I appreciate the challenges inherent in publishing a timely and revealing book given the pace of advances, this book still felt strangely dated to me. I'm going back to the online papers to stay more current.
Additionally, like so many books reviewing current and future... medical breakthroughs and the legal implications & privacy issues, the answer of 'we need legislation' is less than encouraging given the track record of these sorts of efforts when it comes to other technology. Unfortunately, despite a thoroughly researched and extremely strong presentation and argument for how to create such a legal framework, this was the only proposed solution. But - it's a worthwhile position to return to and fight for.
Finally, the argument that regulation and equitable access to the advances are the answers to how we incorporate the science into our lives leaves me... cold, given the track record and how 'equal' the world is and our success rate at distributing evenly. Nope - I don't have a better & workable answer to either of these items besides abolish/phase out capitalism - which is unfortunately not a... practical solution, hee, hee - but I wish the author did, though that's a lot to ask.
There's a lot of generally relevant topics but I was hoping for the inclusion of more timely material. The last chapter contains slightly more current content & makes up a bit, but the thing is, this subject moves rapidly. Look at AI and the valid hullabaloo recent advances in this field have created, none of which is included in this book because of publishing deadlines. Also there's the issue of corporations not sharing current research that author's must contend with. While I appreciate the challenges inherent in publishing a timely and revealing book given the pace of advances, this book still felt strangely dated to me. I'm going back to the online papers to stay more current.
Additionally, like so many books reviewing current and future... medical breakthroughs and the legal implications & privacy issues, the answer of 'we need legislation' is less than encouraging given the track record of these sorts of efforts when it comes to other technology. Unfortunately, despite a thoroughly researched and extremely strong presentation and argument for how to create such a legal framework, this was the only proposed solution. But - it's a worthwhile position to return to and fight for.
Finally, the argument that regulation and equitable access to the advances are the answers to how we incorporate the science into our lives leaves me... cold, given the track record and how 'equal' the world is and our success rate at distributing evenly. Nope - I don't have a better & workable answer to either of these items besides abolish/phase out capitalism - which is unfortunately not a... practical solution, hee, hee - but I wish the author did, though that's a lot to ask.
February 22, 2025
This is an incredibly frustrating read. This is less a book and more of a misguided plea to consider the ethical problems with neurotechnology. Why is it misguided? The author is painfully liberal and seemingly either naive or oblivious to the contradictions of liberalism.
She spends the first third of the book suggesting that we update the Human Rights Charter from the UN to include right to brain privacy...a noble concept that's disconnected from reality. The UNHRC is unenforceable and is ignored depending on who is rule breaker is. The middle of the book talks more to the practical uses of the tech and the ethical considerations (i.e. freedom of will vs freedom of action) and while I agree with her takes on this largely, she fundamentally misunderstands certain things like what the definition of harm is.
The last part of the book is somewhat interesting, it discusses the idea of transhumanism and the philosophical ideas that float around in these spaces between the advocates and the detractors. She fails to take a side though, instead posing questions to the reader without commiting herself one way or another.
There is a lot of interesting tidbits and factoids in this book which makes it somewhat interesting but the elephant in the room is that Nita Farahany is a shitty author. Yep, that's all there is to it. The structure of the book is chapters within chapters and each "mini chapter" ends with a half hearted plea to the reader. It's infuriating and to be perfectly honestly, I finished this out of a desire to hate read. I don't often leave books unfinished and I wanted to run the course to see if there was going to be any attempt to operate within the reality we live in politically and systemically and, well, spoiler alert - the answer is no.
⭐⭐ - avoid unless this is your special interest and even then...
She spends the first third of the book suggesting that we update the Human Rights Charter from the UN to include right to brain privacy...a noble concept that's disconnected from reality. The UNHRC is unenforceable and is ignored depending on who is rule breaker is. The middle of the book talks more to the practical uses of the tech and the ethical considerations (i.e. freedom of will vs freedom of action) and while I agree with her takes on this largely, she fundamentally misunderstands certain things like what the definition of harm is.
The last part of the book is somewhat interesting, it discusses the idea of transhumanism and the philosophical ideas that float around in these spaces between the advocates and the detractors. She fails to take a side though, instead posing questions to the reader without commiting herself one way or another.
There is a lot of interesting tidbits and factoids in this book which makes it somewhat interesting but the elephant in the room is that Nita Farahany is a shitty author. Yep, that's all there is to it. The structure of the book is chapters within chapters and each "mini chapter" ends with a half hearted plea to the reader. It's infuriating and to be perfectly honestly, I finished this out of a desire to hate read. I don't often leave books unfinished and I wanted to run the course to see if there was going to be any attempt to operate within the reality we live in politically and systemically and, well, spoiler alert - the answer is no.
⭐⭐ - avoid unless this is your special interest and even then...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews