tinfoil hats are making more sense to me!

[Mike Barskey]

From this article:

World's first 'thought images' seen on screen

By James Sherwood
11th December 2008 18:19 GMT

Asking 'shall we watch a film?' could soon be replaced by 'shall we watch a dream?' For the first time, researchers have successfully reproduced images on a PC screen that were captured inside a human brain.

According to several online sources, Japan's ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories first showed a group of test subjects the six individual letters that make up the word 'neuron'.

Then by measuring brain activity – specifically, activity in the brain's visual cortex – ATR's researchers were able to reproduce each of the letters, from each of the subjects, on a PC screen.

The Kyoto-based lab said in a statement that it was the first time that it had ever been possible to visualise what people saw directly from their brain activity.

But where will the researchers go from here? ATR added that the technology may make it possible to, one day, record and replay subjective images that people perceive as dreams.

So no more forgetting what that weird dream was less than 30 seconds after you wake up

Man, tinfoil hats are beginning to be less of a joke! Seriously! If this technology progresses - and of course it will - then surely there will be some device that will block other devices from reading your mind. A thought-containment device. Maybe a cone of silence to fit one person instead of 2.

[Ryan McGuire]

So assuming there is some handheld device that people can walk around with, would it be an initiation of force to read someone's mind with it? Would someone have to, like Mike suggested, wear a tinfoil hat to properly homestead their own brain, otherwise brain scanning in the public is fair game? And then what happens when technology progresses further, such that the device can scan right through aluminum, does someone have to then wear a lead helmet in order to further homestead their brain?

(I'm not suggesting Mike inferred that I would have to wear one to homestead, but rather he just mentioned wearing one at all.)

I'd be one to say that it would be an initiation of force against me even if I chose not to wear a tinfoil hat, just as it would still be an initiation of force if I got mugged while not wearing a sidearm.

I know this thread will deteriorate into "Intellectual Property Hell", (it did before when Mike and I talked about this "What have you lost Ryan if someone scans your brain, you still have your thoughts!"), but my thoughts are my own property dammit!

[Mike Barskey]

I'm very interested in people's perspectives on this. Thanks for posing the question, Ryan. I'll hold off commenting for a bit (you know my current thoughts, anyway).

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I'm reminded of a scene in Star Wars... Admiral Ackbar says it's a trap.

[TackleTheWorld]

That is tremendous! 
If it's true I would welcome more light shed on inner images.  We already get tons of information just looking at people's faces and posture, and usually don't try to block such scans.  On the contrary, you want people to see that you're happy or in pain or what have you.  This would be a way for people to be more empathetic of others. 
You could see if someone was about to freak out in fear or psychosis. 
You could understand infants. 
You could maybe see what animals are thinking. 
Think of the advances in psychology.  Boggling!

[Ryan McGuire]

That is tremendous! 
If it's true I would welcome more light shed on inner images.  We already get tons of information just looking at people's faces and posture, and usually don't try to block such scans.  On the contrary, you want people to see that you're happy or in pain or what have you.  This would be a way for people to be more empathetic of others. 
You could see if someone was about to freak out in fear or psychosis. 
You could understand infants. 
You could maybe see what animals are thinking. 
Think of the advances in psychology.  Boggling!

On a purely consensual basis, I agree it is tremendous, a great evolution in technology, and a large social advancement. It's true, I don't try to hide my face when I'm in public. But I do put clothes on.

It's only the non-consensual implications I'm worried about. And I don't consent to people entering my brain, any time they feel like, to see whats going on.

[Tom Sawyer]

I need tin foil wearing net denizens typing furiously for a video piece I'm working on. Mike is a prime candidate.

[Mike Barskey]

I can't resist.

On a purely consensual basis, I agree it is tremendous, a great evolution in technology, and a large social advancement. It's true, I don't try to hide my face when I'm in public. But I do put clothes on.

It's only the non-consensual implications I'm worried about.

Good point, but I also am interested in the non-consensual aspects.

And I don't consent to people entering my brain, any time they feel like, to see whats going on.

This may be a technicality (but maybe not): no one is entering your brain! And, although you dispute this argument, no one is taking your thoughts, either. They are knowing them, but not depriving you of them or their effects in reality (as far as you are able and willing to pursue).

[Mike Barskey]

I need tin foil wearing net denizens typing furiously for a video piece I'm working on. Mike is a prime candidate.

Sold! Maybe "to barskey" something could become "to don paranoid, reflective clothing."

[Ryan McGuire]

This may be a technicality (but maybe not): no one is entering your brain!

I couldn't gather that from the article. Is the device purely passive? Are my thoughts really being broadcast right now into the air? OR, is this device sending something into my head that makes my thoughts available to it?

If that's only a minor technicality for you, would you say that someone that throws a grenade into my apartment, in an effort to eject all of my things out onto the street, in order to steal it safely from un-homesteaded property, would you say that this person should ONLY be charged with blowing up my house and that he gets to keep my stuff scott-free?

And, although you dispute this argument, no one is taking your thoughts, either. They are knowing them, but not depriving you of them or their effects in reality (as far as you are able and willing to pursue).

Yea, I know we disagree on this aspect. This all comes down to the fact that I understand property to be about homesteading. You're still stuck on real world scarcity. I think it's best to split this particular line of reasoning into a separate thread.

[Mike Barskey]

Is the device purely passive? Are my thoughts really being broadcast right now into the air? OR, is this device sending something into my head that makes my thoughts available to it?

I don't think it's important. I'm talking about a few years down the road when this technology advances enough so that someone else can read your thoughts passively; without intrusion into your physical being, or without even touching you or your knowing it.

If that's only a minor technicality for you, would you say that someone that throws a grenade into my apartment, in an effort to eject all of my things out onto the street, in order to steal it safely from un-homesteaded property, would you say that this person should ONLY be charged with blowing up my house and that he gets to keep my stuff scott-free?

Hmm. No. If someone aggresses against you and the result is that you no longer have control (even temporarily) of your property, it's still your property. But how is this analogous? No one in our hypothetical, sci-fi example is throwing a grenade into your brain and dispersing your thoughts. They are not affecting either your brain or your thoughts. You still have them both, fully intact.

And, although you dispute this argument, no one is taking your thoughts, either. They are knowing them, but not depriving you of them or their effects in reality (as far as you are able and willing to pursue).

Yea, I know we disagree on this aspect. This all comes down to the fact that I understand property to be about homesteading. You're still stuck on real world scarcity. I think it's best to split this particular line of reasoning into a separate thread.

We can split it into another topic, but I think the idea of homesteading is strongly related to scarcity. I don't think you can homestead something if there is an infinite supply of it; or rather, there's no point to homesteading it - if there are unlimited copies of something and every copy is identical, then if you "homestead" the one I wanted to "own," I could just homestead another. Information is like this. No matter how many people "possess" a single piece of information, everyone else can "possess" it simultaneously without any loss or difference in that piece of information. So we (and hopefully others!) can talk about mind-reading as it relates to homesteading or to scarcity, but I think they're almost inseparable.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I'm of the opinion that "privacy" is a false concept.

When the neocons would defend the terrorism the government people enacted after 9/11, they'd use a line like "If you've got nothing to hide, why are you worried?" There was always the implication that "You're doing something bad, which you want to conceal". My response to that was, rather than end the concept, admit that there ARE things I conceal because they're labeled "bad" but that I have NO ethical issues with taking ownership of.

You need PRIVACY when you need to conceal your actions. In a world where the only people who aggressed against me were sociopaths, I couldn't give a damn if people read my thoughts. If I don't like you, I make no secret of it today. I don't pretend to be interested in conversations when I'm not. I firmly expect that when people ask me questions, they are prepared for my HONEST answer... If you are fat and don't wanna hear it, don't ask me about your new dress...

That said, if the ONLY thing that would cause force to come against me (or some nutjob decided hurting me would be fun) then my mind would be an open book. I wouldn't care if people looked into my mind because what they see wouldn't be used as justification for force against me.

If we're talking these scanners in the hands of government people, the situation changes entirely. As long as the goverment people have legitimized aggression, I'd prefer them all to be struck blind, deaf, dumb, unable to touch and smell and I'd still think they'd have too many tools to do what they do...

If that's only a minor technicality for you, would you say that someone that throws a grenade into my apartment, in an effort to eject all of my things out onto the street, in order to steal it safely from un-homesteaded property, would you say that this person should ONLY be charged with blowing up my house and that he gets to keep my stuff scott-free?

Your notion of property conflicts with what you claim is your notion of property. I'll grant that this MAY be the result of analogy always failing at some point... You argue that property is a result of homesteading... Why then do you content that the LOCATION of your property (that was once in your apartment) matters at ALL? Why is the grenade relevant at ALL in terms of the THEFT (we'll both agree that the explosion of the grenade and subsiquent damage is aggressive)?

Yea, I know we disagree on this aspect. This all comes down to the fact that I understand property to be about homesteading. You're still stuck on real world scarcity. I think it's best to split this particular line of reasoning into a separate thread.

Addressing this issue without discussing "is an idea property" is like discussing rape, with "sexuality", "self-ownership" and "harm" being off-limits.

[Ryan McGuire]

Is the device purely passive? Are my thoughts really being broadcast right now into the air?

would you say that someone that throws a grenade into my apartment, in an effort to eject all of my things out onto the street, in order to steal it safely from un-homesteaded property, would you say that this person should ONLY be charged with blowing up my house and that he gets to keep my stuff scott-free?

But how is this analogous? No one in our hypothetical, sci-fi example is throwing a grenade into your brain and dispersing your thoughts. They are not affecting either your brain or your thoughts. You still have them both, fully intact.

It has to do with whether the device is passive or not.. If I am just letting my thoughts permeate the air around me, then I would argue that you would have to wear a helmet that prevented that if you wanted to homestead your own thoughts. If however, your thoughts are fully contained in your own head, and the device has to send some kind of signal into it in order to read your thoughts then the person with the mind reading device is committing an act of aggression by doing so. It's the same as if someone were to hack into my computer, they can leave the computer fully functional, but its still wrong to steal my data.

[Ryan McGuire]

I'm of the opinion that "privacy" is a false concept.

You need PRIVACY when you need to conceal your actions. In a world where the only people who aggressed against me were sociopaths, I couldn't give a damn if people read my thoughts.

I wouldn't care if people looked into my mind because what they see wouldn't be used as justification for force against me.

Wow. I don't really have any counter-argument to that except to say that I disagree whole-heartedly.

You argue that property is a result of homesteading... Why then do you content that the LOCATION of your property (that was once in your apartment) matters at ALL? Why is the grenade relevant at ALL in terms of the THEFT (we'll both agree that the explosion of the grenade and subsiquent damage is aggressive)?

The location doesn't matter, that's my point. The grenadier used aggression against my properly homesteaded property.. it makes no difference where my property is after that aggression, it's still my property. I was using hyperbole to prove my point.

Yea, I know we disagree on this aspect. This all comes down to the fact that I understand property to be about homesteading. You're still stuck on real world scarcity. I think it's best to split this particular line of reasoning into a separate thread.

Addressing this issue without discussing "is an idea property" is like discussing rape, with "sexuality", "self-ownership" and "harm" being off-limits.

I'm welcome to continue this argument here instead, I was trying to direct the argument in a different direction, but it's certainly been taken this way instead.

[Ryan McGuire]

I'm of the opinion that "privacy" is a false concept.

When the neocons would defend the terrorism the government people enacted after 9/11, they'd use a line like "If you've got nothing to hide, why are you worried?" There was always the implication that "You're doing something bad, which you want to conceal". My response to that was, rather than end the concept, admit that there ARE things I conceal because they're labeled "bad" but that I have NO ethical issues with taking ownership of.

You need PRIVACY when you need to conceal your actions. In a world where the only people who aggressed against me were sociopaths, I couldn't give a damn if people read my thoughts. If I don't like you, I make no secret of it today. I don't pretend to be interested in conversations when I'm not. I firmly expect that when people ask me questions, they are prepared for my HONEST answer... If you are fat and don't wanna hear it, don't ask me about your new dress...

That said, if the ONLY thing that would cause force to come against me (or some nutjob decided hurting me would be fun) then my mind would be an open book. I wouldn't care if people looked into my mind because what they see wouldn't be used as justification for force against me.

OK, I will say a bit more on this. I honestly believe that secrets are very important to have for good, caring people to interact on a daily basis:

• Business decisions should be allowed to be secret before they are fully implemented.
• Computer source code, should be allowed to be kept secret to allow for a competitive edge.
• Relationships with people that you find valuable for certain things should be allowed to have secrets in unrelated affairs to not jeopardize those areas of commonality. (Someone should be able to choose whether or not to tell his very devout christian parents that he's an atheist).

etc.

I'm not in favor of ANY governmental protection of "Intellectual Property", in fact I don't believe in the term "Intellectual Property" due to the great dilution of what that means:

• I don't believe in patents
• I don't believe in copyrights
• I don't believe in trademarks
• I DO believe in properly homesteaded trade secrets, but I believe that a completely consensual free market can handle any disputes of rights involving secrets.