Brain-computer interfaces from companies like Neuralink and Synchron promise unprecedented cognitive enhancement. But emerging research suggests that boosting specific mental functions may come with hidden costs – improving memory might impair decision-making, while increasing focus could reduce creativity. Aristotle's concept of virtue as balance between extremes shows us that we should beware of these tradeoffs and view optimum cognition as a system, not a superpower.

Neurotechnology is a major industry these days. The companies Neuralink, Synchron, and BrainGate are racing to develop Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) for medical purposes as well as for everyday consumers, promising the hope of cognitive enhancement. The potential of BCI-driven enhancements are plentiful—from better memory and learning capacities, to increased sensory perception and emotional capacities–but their use also raises challenging new philosophical questions.

For example, if a BCI turns out to be successful at dramatically improving our memory, learning capacities, or mindfulness, should we use it? Philosopher Julian Savulescu has argued that we have a moral obligation to cognitively enhance human beings. Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg argue, more descriptively, that we will use cognitive enhancements: “nature knows best”, they claim, and it is our human nature to try to improve ourselves. In another piece, they further assert that “Most cognitive functions… are intrinsically desirable. Having a good memory or a creative mind is normally valuable in its own right.” But what if there can be too much of a ‘good’ thing? What if we can overfill on some traits? What if there are unforeseen cognitive side-effects to enhancement? Cognitive functions aren't independent variables that can be optimized in isolation—they're part of an interconnected system where changes to one element may have cascading effects on others.

SUGGESTED VIEWING Ancient traits in the modern world With Sunetra Gupta, Anders Sandberg, Subrena Smith, Güneş Taylor