11/ #philsky #philpsy

10/ Open Access here:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....

9/ While they may surely be therapeutically beneficial, which is intrinsically valuable, their epistemic problems should at least be marked and accomodated. Psychedelics induce a state which I call "doxastic vulnerability". Placing people in it creates duties of epistemic care - also for therapists.

8/ Expanding on this, my paper examines epistemic harm for non-metaphysical beliefs and the ethics of altering beliefs and attitudes in this way. It suggests skepticism about the epistemic merits of some typical figments of the psychedelic imagination, even when articulated by pioneers in the field.

7/ Psychedelics may offer them novel perspectives on existential and metaphysical questions. Critics, however, worry this creates "comforting delusions".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ZY...

6/ While this has great potential for self-transformation and liberation, it also has a problematic side: People may form false beliefs, a form of epistemic harm. This problem has been discussed by many bright scholars, esp. in the context of treating end-of-life anxiety of terminally-ill people.

5/ Harnessing them may help people to overcome idées fixes and rigid (pathological) beliefs. But these powers make people vulnerable and suggestible. Psychedelics may also induce an “ontological shock” challenging one's basic worldview. Many people report one trip changed their life.

4/ Psychedelics also seem to have special powers to alter beliefs, probably by temporarily relaxing the belief system. This may underlie the subjective experience of "mind expansion". (so called REBUS model) www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaLg...

3/ Many philosophers are skeptical of the truth of insights gained under psychedelics, and recent psychological work seems to support it. By contrast, the view of them affording direct apprehension of something formerly hidden pervades many practices in the field.
www.nature.com/articles/s44...

2/ Two epistemic narratives surround psychedelics. They may “open the doors of perception” (Huxley) and offer insight and learnings - or may generate hallucination, delusions, and mimic psychotic states.
Which of these is true, and under what conditions, is an open philosophical question.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-025-09612-6

#neuroethics #bioethics #philtech #techgovernance

6/ A precautionary, evidence-based approach is essential. We must not get this wrong. We therefore call for:

• a moratorium on non-medical invasive neurotech.
• development of a mandatory Mental Impact Assessment
• a ban on non-medical implants in children

Read the open access paper:

5/ With neurotech, the stakes are higher—interventions act directly on neural activity. Implantable not only increase “bandwidth”, as often said. Rather, they open new bidirectional channels between brain and digital tech. This will substantially increase risks.

4/ Recent digital technologies (smartphones, social media) provide a clear warning: They have scaled globally before their mental impact is understood. After a decade, individuals, parents, and societal institutions such as schools still struggle to find appropriate ways of using them.

3/ Without such tests, the effects on the human mind are unclear, people cannot make informed use decisions. The Assessment requires interdisciplinary efforts and the involvement of disciplines such as phenomenology, much broader than what is demanded by current regulations.

2/ We propose a moratorium on implantable non-med neurotechnologies until their effects on the human mind are properly understood. Specifically, devices should undergo a Mental Impact Assessment, a systematic evaluation of psychological and cognitive effects under realistic use conditions.

"Kein Punkt kann für sich alleine stehen" - Yayoi Kusama

The report also suggest to include freedom of thought in impact assessments, which echoes my idea of a Freedom-of-Thought Impact Assessment for digital technologies.
#neuroethics #humanrights #freedomofthought #technologygovernance