Arguments Against Cognitive Enhancements
Neuroscientists argue that Cognitive Enhancement, is what we may need while another scientist argue that the side effects may be more than what we or the recipient signs up for, what both parties agree on is change of the way we think and function; according to the University of Washington Neuroscience. Studies of the brain have been pursued for centuries, for example, in 387 B.C when Plato spoke about the brain being the “set of mental processes” in Athens or, in 1755 when J.B. LeRoy decided to use electro conclusive therapy as a remedy for mental illnesses, and more recently when the FDA approved the drug Chlorpromazine to be used in 1950. Throughout history the brain has been studied and strengthened to make living smoother and introduce new theories to enhance the field of neuroscience. While both parties hold strong arguments, one may believe that the development and use of brain enhancements are beneficial.
…show more content…
Without a fuss we did so, we also read many books, and strenuously practiced writing. As I got older I would notice that school wasn’t a burden to me compared to the majority of my peers, when explaining the ordeal to my mom, she unashamedly expressed that I had been introduced to subjects’ way before my classmates; The endless reading, writing, and frustration was a process to optimize my brain and allow me to use more thinking power at a young age, in conclusion, making simple tasks easier to
Without a fuss we did so, we also read many books, and strenuously practiced writing. As I got older I would notice that school wasn’t a burden to me compared to the majority of my peers, when explaining the ordeal to my mom, she unashamedly expressed that I had been introduced to subjects’ way before my classmates; The endless reading, writing, and frustration was a process to optimize my brain and allow me to use more thinking power at a young age, in conclusion, making simple tasks easier to