4 ms·

One more thought to clarify: in the future imagine we can repair brain damage with silicon-based implants. Will courts force their extraction or enumeration in

One more thought to clarify: in the future imagine we can repair brain damage with silicon-based implants. Will courts force their extraction or enumeration in criminal cases? My point above is that we’re already augmenting our minds with electronic devices, they’re just not implanted physically yet.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nine_k 7y ago
Courts can already require fingerprints, iris scans, genetic material, etc for forensics. I don't see why a machine organ would be any different.
- XorNot 7y ago
  Invading someone's mind has to be treated differently. I am not any of those things - but I am my mind.
  - pas 7y ago
    The difference is not because the mind is different, but because we cannot infer its content otherwise reliably. (That's the problem with polygraphs, they are extremely unreliable relative to the importance of their purpose.) If it were possible to do it with some sort of scan (reliably!), eventually courts would order those scans.
    - XorNot 7y ago
      But that's kind of the point: the idea that sanctity of one's thoughts is not ensured, that really it's just a technological limitation, should be extremely troubling.
      - pas 7y ago
        I know, but also that's reality. We were (and still are) pretty brutal when it comes to getting our way with the powerless.
aplacelikethis 7y ago
Seems a lot more productive to use silicon as a feedback system for the brain via electro-magnetic radiation. Then it could function as scaffolding. Silicon isn't magically becoming more organic than a wet, soft brain full of DNA and other complex organic compounds. I mean, that's one of the things we've been doing human experiments with for 30+ years now, via the wireless phone network and wifi. "Hold this radiation emitter next to your brain!" "New radiation patterns for the masses!"
retrac 7y ago
With the recent advances in brain imaging and particularly interpretation of that data in post-processing, I suspect we're not terribly far off from what we might as well call mind-reading machines. The right to mental privacy will be a great battle of the 21st century.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nine_k 7y ago

Courts can already require fingerprints, iris scans, genetic material, etc for forensics. I don't see why a machine organ would be any different.

XorNot 7y ago
Invading someone's mind has to be treated differently. I am not any of those things - but I am my mind.
- pas 7y ago
  The difference is not because the mind is different, but because we cannot infer its content otherwise reliably. (That's the problem with polygraphs, they are extremely unreliable relative to the importance of their purpose.) If it were possible to do it with some sort of scan (reliably!), eventually courts would order those scans.
  - XorNot 7y ago
    But that's kind of the point: the idea that sanctity of one's thoughts is not ensured, that really it's just a technological limitation, should be extremely troubling.
    - pas 7y ago
      I know, but also that's reality. We were (and still are) pretty brutal when it comes to getting our way with the powerless.

aplacelikethis 7y ago

Seems a lot more productive to use silicon as a feedback system for the brain via electro-magnetic radiation. Then it could function as scaffolding. Silicon isn't magically becoming more organic than a wet, soft brain full of DNA and other complex organic compounds. I mean, that's one of the things we've been doing human experiments with for 30+ years now, via the wireless phone network and wifi. "Hold this radiation emitter next to your brain!" "New radiation patterns for the masses!"

retrac 7y ago

With the recent advances in brain imaging and particularly interpretation of that data in post-processing, I suspect we're not terribly far off from what we might as well call mind-reading machines. The right to mental privacy will be a great battle of the 21st century.