Cochlear Cyborgs - Page 3

I recently came across a post in the World Transhumanist Association’s mailing list, wta-talk. In it was posted a popular member’s account, or rather chronicle of his experiences with a cochlear implant. I was very interested and asked him for more details. He sent me a 272 page document detailing his everyday events with a cochlear implant. Frank Forman is his name and he terms himself as the “cochlear cyborg” in his chronicles. While too huge to include here, here are some of the highlights of his chronicle that thoroughly interested me. Frank is a lover of music and of the many dynamic human relationships in the world around him. In his chronicles, he painstakingly details how his perceived philosophical world is shrouded in a blanket of sounds which he hears and understands sometimes, but not all the time. However, with training his hearing is steadily improving. Much of the cochlear implant’s ability to decipher sounds can be improved by software or by increasing the hardware efficiency, especially the number of electrodes stimulating the cochlea. However, the most striking requirement of the cochlear implant is the amount of time and effort required for rehabilitation after the surgical procedure. Any amount of residual hearing left is completely lost after the implantation procedure. What one hears initially is something akin to noise which the user then trains themselves to decipher as human speech or even music. In Frank’s case, he had a cochlear implant and it did seem to work fine for him during conversations. However, he like many other implant receivers found it rather difficult to listen and enjoy music in the same way that a person with a “meat ear” would hear. The number of channels offered by the cochlear implant is usually eight compared to a little more than 3,000 channels perceived by a functioning biological ear with it’s fine hair arrangement. However, this is enough for a person who wishes to restore their ability to hear human speech in conversations. The latest models can accommodate up to 121 channels and it is only a matter of time and technology before the cochlear implant is able to completely substitute for all the channels available to the biological ear and perhaps more! Within Frank’s chronicle, I found him referring the reader to the struggling experience of yet another implant recipient’s relentless pursuit to make himself hear a rendition of the famous classical musical piece "Bolero" by Ravel.

Cochlear implant technology has come a long way and can now be implanted into people as young as five months. Bilateral cochlear implants (implants for both ears) are increasingly becoming popular. Children with extreme difficulties in hearing can have cochlear implants implanted so that they learn to adapt much better than getting implanted in later stages of their lives. However, as with other technologies, cochlear implants have a host of social, philosophical and technological problems and issues. The first and foremost of these is the opposition to cochlear implants by the “deaf culture”. Deaf culture was created among people who were “deaf” and learned to live their lives with dignity in their own unique ways. The members of such a community prefer to remain deaf for their own reasons. But, what I find disturbing is some of their rigid opposition to technology that can remove deafness or other hearing problems completely. Though still in it’s infancy, cochlear implants are sure to someday substitute for a disabled biological ear completely. In essence, I would not crusade to “convert” members of the deaf culture to change their views on their condition. As progressive human beings, we must learn to co-exist, if not appreciate the diversity in culture. The advocates of deaf culture have learned to link themselves to the world with their unique mannerisms, sign languages and rights. This is to be respected at it’s most fundamental level; the members of such communities do not consider their condition as a disability; but rather, as a defining quality. If we respect the reservations of the members of deaf culture, would it also be possible for deaf culture to not interfere with or oppose promising technologies such as cochlear implants? The ultimate decision should rest on the individual in whose head the implant is going. Informed consent in this matter is also not very easy especially if the implant is for a young child.

Article Author: V.R.Manoj

V.R. Manoj, an Affiliate Scholar of the IEET, recently submitted his PhD thesis on Environmental Biotechnology. His specific interests in transhumanism range from cyborgs and metaverses to environmental and spiritual issues of the posthuman future. He writes the blog “Cyborg Fantasies.”.
…

Visit V.R.Manoj's author page — V.R.Manoj's Blog