Mind Control, Telepathy, Ethics and Morals

[Yakamaru]

@PlusThirtyOne gave a rather interesting reply over at the thread here: forums.furaffinity.net: What 25 inventions does humanity NEED to create?

Here is the quote from his/her reply to @Junkerfox:

Exactly what i mean by "scary thought"... The thought of anyone controlling your mind or your thoughts is a pretty scary idea but i'm not proposing mind "CONTROL" per se, not a way to literally take control over someone's body or anything; just an easier way to send an idea to another human being. imagine instead of having to explain a thought or idea to another person in words, you could simply convey the thought itself. imagine being able to teach someone a whole new concept just by thinking about it. Such a mental link would go BOTH WAYS! Someone may have the opportunity to change your mind on something but you would also convince them towards your side of the argument. Everybody would meet half way and compromising would be far easier. Better yet, just have an understanding with your neighbor to reduce conflict! You don't have to change your/their mind, just acknowledge others' opinions and understand why they have them!

You could convince a chocolate lover that vanilla is also great and has its perks but at the same time, they would be able to explain why they like chocolate so much. if you held any animosity towards chocolate, you could be convinced that not all chocolates are the same. Likewise, you'd have equal opportunity to share your experience with vanilla. in the end, you might come to like new flavors and new ideas. The opposition ALSO may change their mind- not by control but by understanding!
We already do this via speech but we, as human beings, our ways of thinking are flawed. We like to identify patterns and group things. We tend to pair all chocolates together and assume there's only one kind of vanilla. Sometimes we associate vanilla needlessly with personal trauma or chocolate with other flavors, skewing our perceptions. if only we understood all the ins and outs of every choice of flavor, we might still come to a mutual understanding without being forced to eat flavors we don't like, discover new flavors we didn't know there were and maybe -just maybe- convince ourselves that chocolate isn't all that bad and the vanilla muncher isn't the barbarian you may have thought he was.

Your mind would not be changed by force; you'd be cool with it because you'd have a mutual understanding of WHY. You (both) would come to your own shared conclusions on your own.

Every debate is clouded with irrelevant data. in this age of information of ours, ideas are spreading faster and farther than ever before thanks to the internet and social media. it used to be that the popular beliefs were spread with money and power. These says ANYBODY can share their ideas with ANYBODY in the world. (barring China and North Korea of course) But with that newfound flood of opinions, information, skewed news, false reports, people are hearing and siding on issues based on hyperbole and feels rather than actual data. Virtue signalling, shitposting, labeling and social media popularity are polluting ideas. Some would say they're bettering ideas. -But it's tearing humanity apart! People are so fucking proud to take a stand for X Y and Z without knowing WHY. Worse yet, they're too goddam proud to change their minds, or hell, even just listen to dissenting ideas.

To quote his/her reply to me:

Diversity should be celebrated but like any ideas, people only respect diversities they personally like. Diversity also gives us a lot of evil and truly selfish people. if there were more mutual understanding in this world via mind-sharing means, "evil" could be fixed and the worst of the worst would be weeded out.

-- Adendum: This is a legitimately fun subject to expand on but i don't want to derail the thread. Let me know if either of you want to continue this via PM or elsewhere.

Now, I will be replying mainly to the reply I was given, but I will also address some other points from the quote/reply to Junkerfox as well.

The same way people are allowed to like shit, they are also allowed to not like shit. Same goes for diversity. Liking or not liking a certain type of diversity is not the same as condemning/condoning or silencing/promoting it. Diversity is a fact, and is going to be sticking around for countless more years. Whether you respect/celebrate it or not doesn't matter.

Diversity means diversity of thought, of opinions, of ideologies. The same way it's fully ok to be Altruistic, it's fully ok to be an egotistical and selfish individual. Just like it's our greatest strength, it's also our Achilles' Heel. You are your own master, both in actions, and your thoughts. You will have people across every spectrum, ranging from selfless saints to egotistical and self-entitled bastards, from really open-minded people to those who don't want to hear anything even remotely challenging of their world view. And it's ok to be and do any of that that, as long as you follow the laws.

As for evil, it is in some cases subjective. For instance, religious people look upon those who are pro-abortion for murderers, and as such, can be considered evil people. For some pro-abortion people, religious people can be looked upon as evil for wanting to take away the rights over the mother for the rights of the unborn. There are however, things that universally go under evil: Infringing on someone elses rights. This ranges from murder to burglary to terrorism. Rape's not exactly an insignificant statistical evil to leave out, either.

Like I mentioned earlier, diversity is our Achilles' Heel. The same way you have people on the "good" side of the spectrum, you will also have some on the "evil" side of the spectrum. And plenty in between. You can't fix evil, the same way you can't fix good. Evil will always be around, whether we like it or not.

Now, here's more the main points I want to question:
Is it ok to in a way, brute force people to understand? Brute force people to thinking differently?
Is it ok to infringe on someone elses thoughts so you can feel better?
Is it ethically let alone morally acceptable/just to change someone's thoughts/opinions most likely without their consent?
And if the former is acceptable/just, at what thoughts/opinions/views, what have you, are we going to stop at? Will having certain thoughts/opinions/views become a crime?
And, perhaps more importantly, WHO gets to decide what is morally and ethically right and wrong? The government? Individuals? You? Me? Rick the homeless guy?

 

[Sarachaga]

Hey, before I start, I want to make clear that what I'm writing here is purely my opinion.

Is it ok to in a way, brute force people to understand? Brute force people to thinking differently?

I don't think so. First off, I believe forcing (physically /mentally/socially) someone to adopt a different position can only make things worse, since a lot of people would just see that as a way to justify their position. The important thing , I believe (and I think it was the point of PlusThirtyOne too, to some extent) , is to be able to understand where people are coming from. Some opinions and ideas can be very iconoclastic to a person living in Europe, while being completely normal for someone living elsewhere. Being able to see what makes people think the way they think is very important if you want to be able to reach a mutual understanding.
Should diversity be promoted: definitely ,because we need to confront our ideas and our values with the ones held by others to check for their validity, but I believe this should not be done by conflict.

 

[Pipistrele]

The thought of anyone controlling your mind or your thoughts is a pretty scary idea but i'm not proposing mind "CONTROL" per se, not a way to literally take control over someone's body or anything; just an easier way to send an idea to another human being. imagine instead of having to explain a thought or idea to another person in words, you could simply convey the thought itself. imagine being able to teach someone a whole new concept just by thinking about it.

It's actually a pretty good idea. But I don't see how it's related to mind control in any way - it's a simple telepathy, there's no "control" involved.

 

[Yakamaru]

It's actually a pretty good idea. But I don't see how it's related to mind control in any way - it's a simple telepathy, there's no "control" involved.

In some ways it's a good idea, in others it's a bad idea.

Yes, it may help make people understand. However, disagreeing and understanding are two different things. I can easily fully understand something while still fully disagree with it. And that is something people tend to forget.

What if someone doesn't consent to have thoughts/ideas sent to their head? Can they sue the person who did?
What if someone doesn't want to understand?
What if someone have your thoughts sent to them and they still disagree?

Should diversity be promoted: definitely ,because we need to confront our ideas and our values with the ones held by others to check for their validity, but I believe this should not be done by conflict.

Obviously. You can't convince someone through conflict.

What schools should do, is give you the ability to defend yourself and your ideas. To give you the ability to create good arguments based upon your idea's merits.

If you are capable of pointing out the flaws of your idea/ideology, you are already well on your way to point out the pros.

 

[Pipistrele]

In some ways it's a good idea, in others it's a bad idea.

Yes, it may help make people understand. However, disagreeing and understanding are two different things. I can easily fully understand something while still fully disagree with it. And that is something people tend to forget.

What if someone doesn't consent to have thoughts/ideas sent to their head? Can they sue the person who did?
What if someone doesn't want to understand?
What if someone have your thoughts sent to them and they still disagree?

Welp, if somebody doesn't want to understand and still disagrees with your thoughts, that's his business, nothing wrong with that. Telepathy is not about "forcing ideas", it's about achieving the perfect way to describe those ideas to each other, because a lot of stuff is usually lost in translation even in the most civil and well-described debate.

 

[redhusky]

Only when I do it.

 

[Yakamaru]

Welp, if somebody doesn't want to understand and still disagrees with your thoughts, that's his business, nothing wrong with that. Telepathy is not about "forcing ideas", it's about achieving the perfect way to describe those ideas to each other, because a lot of stuff is usually lost in translation even in the most civil and well-described debate.

Yeah, definitely. Words are at times inadequate to describe something. However, words is the best way for us to describe something. It's a flawed way of communicating, and telepathy won't really help much if your inner language is just as much a mess as your language on the exterior.

Transferring your thoughts doesn't necessarily mean it's a better way to convey an idea. It's possible your thoughts are all over to begin with: A mess.

Then comes thought interpretation. We all interpret thoughts and ideas differently. Even if you conveyed your thoughts about an idea perfectly, I still may not have the ability to fully understand it. Or I may even fully understand it, but I still disagree.

I understand where you're coming from, I do however disagree with it.

 

[Deleted member 82554]

Spoiler

Hey, before I start, I want to make clear that what I'm writing here is purely my opinion.

Of course it's your opinion, whose else would it be?

Wait, are you being controlled right now by the government or some super secret society? D:

So my take on it is that it could have some beneficial use for criminals or the mentally deranged. Moral/ethical uses will be less of an issue If used appropriately and could enrich the lives of those demographics and society; or we could make like "Equilibrium" and usher in a new utopia that way.

 

[ellaerna]

Like I mentioned earlier, diversity is our Achilles' Heel. The same way you have people on the "good" side of the spectrum, you will also have some on the "evil" side of the spectrum. And plenty in between. You can't fix evil, the same way you can't fix good. Evil will always be around, whether we like it or not.

Small tangent to start, but I always feel.. weird, when people say "evil can't be changed" or "life's unfair". Phrases like those are typically used to dismiss various attempts to thwart evil or make life better in some way because "why bother", but that seems really silly to me. Sure, there will always be evil in the world. It's impossible to eradicate it completely. But that doesn't mean you can't "fix" some of the evils in the world or that you shouldn't try.

Now, here's more the main points I want to question:
Is it ok to in a way, brute force people to understand? Brute force people to thinking differently?
Is it ok to infringe on someone elses thoughts so you can feel better?
Is it ethically let alone morally acceptable/just to change someone's thoughts/opinions most likely without their consent?
And if the former is acceptable/just, at what thoughts/opinions/views, what have you, are we going to stop at? Will having certain thoughts/opinions/views become a crime?
And, perhaps more importantly, WHO gets to decide what is morally and ethically right and wrong? The government? Individuals? You? Me? Rick the homeless guy?

A lot of this is a big "NO". Basically all of the evil stuff you listed as examples involved some kind of consent violation and what you're describing here would be a HUGE one. One could argue that sometimes it needs to be done, like with murdering an evil dictator, but there's still the question of whether that's still "okay". Even though it's legally okay, is it morally okay? Is it right to kill someone for killing someone to prove that killing is wrong? Or to mind rape someone for raping someone to prove that raping is wrong?

Though, I'm not sure what PlusThirtyOne was originally suggesting would be quite what you're suggesting. Sharing thoughts (or thought send as I will most definitely call this) without any element of control could be great for understanding, but the person receiving the thought would still have to decide on how they interpret and use the thought. In the ice cream example, I could send a memory of myself eating chocolate ice cream to someone who hates it- the enjoyment I experienced in that moment, the wonderful taste in my mouth- and sure, they'd understand why I find chocolate delicious, but having shared in my experience wouldn't necessarily change their experience with chocolate ice cream. Just because I really love the taste doesn't mean that suddenly they are going to too. And vice versa when they share their experience with me.

Same with whatever else. Sending thoughts could be a great way of communicating things that are hard to put into words, but without any level of control, there'd be no guarantee of understanding or change. You can strap a bad guy to a chair and push horrible thoughts of all the suffering they caused, but that doesn't mean that they'll feel any remorse or change their ways. They might, but we don't know.

 

[Yakamaru]

Small tangent to start, but I always feel.. weird, when people say "evil can't be changed" or "life's unfair". Phrases like those are typically used to dismiss various attempts to thwart evil or make life better in some way because "why bother", but that seems really silly to me. Sure, there will always be evil in the world. It's impossible to eradicate it completely. But that doesn't mean you can't "fix" some of the evils in the world or that you shouldn't try.

Life isn't going to hold your hand, no. Evil can't be changed much the same way good can't be changed much. And I never said you shouldn't try and put some effort into making life easier/better and/or thwart evil.

Realistically, the only thing you can really do is keep an eye out for injustice and make your local area a tiny bit better, and advocate for equal rights in your country.

A lot of this is a big "NO". Basically all of the evil stuff you listed as examples involved some kind of consent violation and what you're describing here would be a HUGE one. One could argue that sometimes it needs to be done, like with murdering an evil dictator, but there's still the question of whether that's still "okay". Even though it's legally okay, is it morally okay? Is it right to kill someone for killing someone to prove that killing is wrong? Or to mind rape someone for raping someone to prove that raping is wrong?

Though, I'm not sure what PlusThirtyOne was originally suggesting would be quite what you're suggesting. Sharing thoughts (or thought send as I will most definitely call this) without any element of control could be great for understanding, but the person receiving the thought would still have to decide on how they interpret and use the thought. In the ice cream example, I could send a memory of myself eating chocolate ice cream to someone who hates it- the enjoyment I experienced in that moment, the wonderful taste in my mouth- and sure, they'd understand why I find chocolate delicious, but having shared in my experience wouldn't necessarily change their experience with chocolate ice cream. Just because I really love the taste doesn't mean that suddenly they are going to too. And vice versa when they share their experience with me.

Same with whatever else. Sending thoughts could be a great way of communicating things that are hard to put into words, but without any level of control, there'd be no guarantee of understanding or change. You can strap a bad guy to a chair and push horrible thoughts of all the suffering they caused, but that doesn't mean that they'll feel any remorse or change their ways. They might, but we don't know.

Obviously it's a big, resounding no. If you murder an evil dictator what will happen next? "Fight evil!" sound all fine and dandy until you think about the consequences it may have. For all we know, if we got rid of the evil dictator, shit could turn way worse. There is no way of knowing without the information available.

Take Kim Jong Un for instance. The citizens are for the most part brainwashed through different means, through everything from history manipulation to threatening people's families, etc. If you were to simply remove him from office alongside all his supporters in the government, you have no idea on what the brainwashed masses would do. What we DO know, is that Kim can't stay in power. What we DON'T know, is what to do in the aftermath and the years afterwards.

Murdering someone who murders to prove that murder is wrong is IMO, wrong, but a necessary evil we are going to have to live with. There are murderers who just can't be re-integrated into society. What then? They can't be let back out or they are going to cause pain to someone else. Lifelong prison sentence? And have tax payers pay for it? He/she is only a burden to society, and resources are finite. However, what to do with the non-integratable individual is up to you to decide.

What PlusThirtyOne was originally suggesting is different, yes. The topic branches into something different, but on the same topic: Telepathy, though potentially involuntary.

Sharing thoughts have the potential to be beneficial, the same way it have the potential to be another form of communication to be abused. And abused it will be. Not to mention we're going to have to make new laws specifically for this form of communication. Telepathy, like spoken words, has the potential to be just as flawed, if not even more an issue than spoken words due to your thoughts being more chaotic and way more spontaneous. And of course comes the point about consent. If or when telepathy is possible, it will no doubt be possible to read, extract and manipulate them. Unless you've been given explicit consent, don't use it, even if the intent is well-meaning. There will no doubt come people down the line who wants nothing at all to do with telepathy, and there will no doubt come situations/scenarios where someone's consent have been violated on that issue.

There are too many unknowns about the topic.

 

[PlusThirtyOne]

Oooooh boy... here we go.

Is it ok to in a way, brute force people to understand? Brute force people to thinking differently?

That depends on what you mean by "brute force" And it would depend on what kind of mind-meld you're referring to. Keeping in mind that telepathy would work BOTH WAYS like how i was describing, the "aggressor" would be just as vulnerable to new ideas, including those that would challenge theirs. The "aggressor" would need to have confidence they are in the logical right or risk being converted by the "victim". Of course NOT ALL issues have a logical conclusion like "X=3" or "This ball is green" but both parties would gain the knowledge of the other and would have to make a conclusion based on the info they both have.
in the case of force-sharing experiences, there could be some form of "mental assault". There are some things that...well...we just don't want to know. -Like what being raped feels like or something equally abhorrent. That's where you'd start getting into unethical territory. The argument could then be made that first-hand knowledge of what it feels like to be a victim could easily deter crime but i know that killing as bad without having murdered or being murdered.

Is it ok to infringe on someone elses thoughts so you can feel better?

i would argue that both parties would feel equally "better" AND "bad", given the topics covered in their "conversation". Depends on what they "discussed". Justice could be served by forcing a criminal to relive the event in the others' pair of shoes. At the same time, the victim may come to understand why the crime was committed in the first place. in the words of Bill Burr, "Every ass-kicking doesn't just fall out of the fucking sky." There's two sides to every story.

Is it ethically let alone morally acceptable/just to change someone's thoughts/opinions most likely without their consent?

Before i address the question specifically... How can really to make an ethics call over a technology we don't have access to or any experience with? i know that sounds like dodging the question but we don't even know if telepathy is possible or how it would work. if you could hop into a time machine and ask Andrew Bell, founder of 'Encyclopedia Britannica', if it would be "ethical" to publish its entire works FOR FREE with no monetary payment to its contributors. Ask him if it would be "ethical" to invite anyone to add, change or remove material, including copyrighted imagery, quotes, passages and whole articles from textbooks. Using just the layman's description of Wikipedia, do you think he would find it "ethical" or not?

i imagine that if extra-terrestrial aliens with telepathic abilities came to visit us, they'd laugh in our faces if we questioned the ethics of such a normal every day practice. it's simply beyond our understanding.

And if the former is acceptable/just, at what thoughts/opinions/views, what have you, are we going to stop at? Will having certain thoughts/opinions/views become a crime?

i think the opposite would happen. ideas and opinions may actually be more openly accepted! imagine this: The swastika or manji was stolen by the Nazi party in 1920 and turned into a symbol of hate. if the modern world only knew of its historical significance, it might even be welcomed back as the symbol of peace as it once was. For now (specifically now!) nobody wants to look at or challenge the history of the swastika for fear of being seen just looking at a swastika. i personaly know of a Buddhist who lost a job because of his religious tattoo. -Being white and bald didn't help his case when he was approached by his boss, who promptly fired him for sporting such a symbol. Pokemon cards are being edited, Buddhist symbolism and historical works of art are being covered because of the swastika's newly accepted meaning. -And i think that's super fucking sad.
if a truly unethical idea, opinion or vision were challenged via telepathic analysis, it would simply be scrubbed off of the person's "list of OK things". if you can prove to them (and you would) that X is bad and NOT OK, there would be instant understanding. At the very least, they would probably have an understanding of why X is bad and a shite opinion to hold. At that point it would be their choice to keep said opinion or thought but they likely wouldn't want to. in the case of "bad ideas", people would have an idea why the idea was had in the first place and would empathize with the person who had the thought. We condemn people with bad ideas based on association as discussed above. if their reason for having said idea was known then there would be no (or less) animosity towards that idea or its holder. if everybody were on the same page, there simply wouldn't BE "thought crime".

if you (in general) have a thought that you think others wouldn't unanimously approve then it's probs not a thought worth keeping. -But again, we're talking about logical thought, not predictions, not necessarily opinions, likes or dislikes. We're talking about things that can be proven right or wrong.

Besides, if this sci-fi mental-internet became a thing, i don't think telepathic people would be the ones to worry about; it's the people who aren't connected who you'd want to keep an eye on!

WHO gets to decide what is morally and ethically right and wrong? The government? Individuals? You? Me? Rick the homeless guy?

EVERYBODY. -Or at least those who're connected to this unknowable technology/ability/network/whatever. if everybody could tap in and discuss and share, learn, teach and collaborate, ANYBODY and EVERYBODY would have equal input. if everybody can prove logically that X is wrong and Z is right, then that would simply be the way we do things. if you (in general) started off thinking X was right, then once "connected" you'd have an understanding of WHY. if you truly understood why X was wrong then you simply wouldn't do it or make efforts to stop doing X. -By your own choice and doing, based on newly learned information.

-But again...

if you thought that X was ethical and totes a cool thing to do, you would have equal opportunity to challenge that idea with anybody else. New and original ideas would have to compete just the same with any other idea but without bias, association or stigma. Keep in mind that you may lose! -But given the new information, you'd probably be happier following the change.

---

Again, apologies if any of this read strangely. i haven't been feeling well lately so i'm drifting in and out of consciousness. My mind is all over the place lately. Long posts like this one aren't written from start to finish. They're sentences and paragraphs written and composed in chunks and copy-paste rearranged to fit. if i repeated myself or lost the trail, that's why...

 

[Simo]

And here I thought this was gonna be a discussion of certain fetishes! :v

 

[PlusThirtyOne]

And here I thought this was gonna be a discussion of certain fetishes! :v

New subject: is sex unethical if she says "yes" under mind control?
Survey says...?

...

Spoiler

Yes! The answer is YES, you sick bastard! The hell is your problem!?

Hell, that's actually a pretty good example for one of the questions above!

 

[Yakamaru]

That depends on what you mean by "brute force" And it would depend on what kind of mind-meld you're referring to. Keeping in mind that telepathy would work BOTH WAYS like how i was describing, the "aggressor" would be just as vulnerable to new ideas, including those that would challenge theirs. The "aggressor" would need to have confidence they are in the logical right or risk being converted by the "victim". Of course NOT ALL issues have a logical conclusion like "X=3" or "This ball is green" but both parties would gain the knowledge of the other and would have to make a conclusion based on the info they both have.
in the case of force-sharing experiences, there could be some form of "mental assault". There are some things that...well...we just don't want to know. -Like what being raped feels like or something equally abhorrent. That's where you'd start getting into unethical territory. The argument could then be made that first-hand knowledge of what it feels like to be a victim could easily deter crime but i know that killing is bad without having murdered or being murdered.

By "brute force" I meant in terms of forcing your experiences/thoughts onto others. Forcing them to accept your thoughts. Understanding and agreeing are two different things. You may have the knowledge and understanding on a topic, that doesn't mean you agree with it. A conversation often happen due to disagreements. Question is, how much understanding and knowledge does people have on any given topic?

People commit crimes, regardless of whether they fully understand the consequences or not. There are a plethora of possible reasons. Telepathy would create an even wider range of possible crimes you could commit, not to mention if or when telekinesis is involved too.

i would argue that both parties would feel equally "better" AND "bad", given the topics covered in their "conversation". Depends on what they "discussed". Justice could be served by forcing a criminal to relive the event in the others' pair of shoes. At the same time, the victim may come to understand why the crime was committed in the first place. in the words of Bill Burr, "Every ass-kicking doesn't just fall out of the fucking sky." There's two sides to every story.

That IMO is just increasing the amount of suffering and pain already in the world. Although understanding the reasons behind it, it doesn't necessarily mean you accept those reasons.

On infringing someone elses personal boundaries and thoughts: It's a grey area? Privacy laws are going to have to be thoroughly changed to accommodate telepathy as well.

Before i address the question specifically... How can really to make an ethics call over a technology we don't have access to or any experience with? i know that sounds like dodging the question but we don't even know if telepathy is possible or how it would work. if you could hop into a time machine and ask Andrew Bell, founder of 'Encyclopedia Britannica', if it would be "ethical" to publish its entire works FOR FREE with no monetary payment to its contributors. Ask him if it would be "ethical" to invite anyone to add, change or remove material, including copyrighted imagery, quotes, passages and whole articles from textbooks. Using just the layman's description of Wikipedia, do you think he would find it "ethical" or not?

i imagine that if extra-terrestrial aliens with telepathic abilities came to visit us, they'd laugh in our faces if we questioned the ethics of such a normal every day practice. it's simply beyond our understanding.

Obviously. It's a theoretical technology and/or ability. Doesn't mean we can't talk about the potential pros and cons.

i think the opposite would happen. ideas and opinions may actually be more openly accepted! imagine this: The swastika or manji was stolen by the Nazi party in 1920 and turned into a symbol of hate. if the modern world only knew of its historical significance, it might even be welcomed back as the symbol of peace as it once was. For now (specifically now!) nobody wants to look at or challenge the history of the swastika for fear of being seen just looking at a swastika. i personaly know of a Buddhist who lost a job because of his religious tattoo. -Being white and bald didn't help his case when he was approached by his boss, who promptly fired him for sporting such a symbol. Pokemon cards are being edited, Buddhist symbolism and historical works of art are being covered because of the swastika's newly accepted meaning. -And i think that's super fucking sad.

Those who are ignorant and/or lacks the intellectual capacity to wanting to understand why, how and when are the ones causing problems for everyone else. There are vast intelligence differences between people, and telepathy won't help reduce those gaps. In fact, telepathy have the potential to increase the intelligence gap, intelligent people become even more intelligent, and those at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum won't really change.

if a truly unethical idea, opinion or vision were challenged via telepathic analysis, it would simply be scrubbed off of the person's "list of OK things". if you can prove to them (and you would) that X is bad and NOT OK, there would be instant understanding. At the very least, they would probably have an understanding of why X is bad and a shite opinion to hold. At that point it would be their choice to keep said opinion or thought but they likely wouldn't want to. in the case of "bad ideas", people would have an idea why the idea was had in the first place and would empathize with the person who had the thought. We condemn people with bad ideas based on association as discussed above. if their reason for having said idea was known then there would be no (or less) animosity towards that idea or its holder. if everybody were on the same page, there simply wouldn't BE "thought crime".

Unethical or not, people have the right to hold those beliefs/opinions/views. Acting upon them however, is not legal. The same way you're going to have to understand why he/she holds such unethical views, they are going to have to understand why you find it unethical if you decide to wanting to try and convince them otherwise. You can't pick and choose, going only one way.

The same way people should be allowed to think, say and do as they please, they should be allowed to hold any beliefs, opinions and views as they please. Whether someone disagree or not doesn't matter. Agreement and understanding are two different things. Telepathy isn't this super cool way to remove a failure to understand. Intelligence differences will always stick around, and it's ingrained into our DNA.

With telepathy being around, thought crimes would be an actual concept in some countries: Holding certain thoughts/views/opinions would be illegal. Where do we draw the absolute line when it comes to diversity of opinion and thought?

if you (in general) have a thought that you think others wouldn't unanimously approve then it's probs not a thought worth keeping. -But again, we're talking about logical thought, not predictions, not necessarily opinions, likes or dislikes. We're talking about things that can be proven right or wrong.

Things that are factually correct or incorrect I would agree with, like the fact that Communism have killed over 100 million people in the last 100 years. Or that 76% of all terrorists are Muslim. Or that Europe have had hundreds of wars up over the years.

On things that are subjective, like for instance on abortion, there will always be disagreements despite full understanding and knowledge on the subject. Some people conflate disagreement with a lack of understanding, which is annoying.

 

[Yakamaru]

God damn 10k character limit..

Besides, if this sci-fi mental-internet became a thing, i don't think telepathic people would be the ones to worry about; it's the people who aren't connected who you'd want to keep an eye on!

Privacy. If someone choose not to be part of the "net", so to speak, that is their choice. Whether it's because they value privacy, or are up to no good doesn't matter. If such a net existed I would not want to be part of it. I don't want my thoughts to be shared with ANYONE, nor do I want others' thoughts in my head. The same way I have thoughts I literally don't want anyone to see, other people no doubt have theirs.

To quote Edward Snowden: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
^ Not directly relevant, though was the closest quote on privacy I could find currently related to the topic.

EVERYBODY. -Or at least those who're connected to this unknowable technology/ability/network/whatever. if everybody could tap in and discuss and share, learn, teach and collaborate, ANYBODY and EVERYBODY would have equal input. if everybody can prove logically that X is wrong and Z is right, then that would simply be the way we do things. if you (in general) started off thinking X was right, then once "connected" you'd have an understanding of WHY. if you truly understood why X was wrong then you simply wouldn't do it or make efforts to stop doing X. -By your own choice and doing, based on newly learned information.

Everybody? So there is no consensus? Quite frankly it sounds like a hive mind of sorts, with individuals "controlling" it.

This telepathic "net" have the potential to be vastly abused and manipulated, unlike the internet we have today.

if you thought that X was ethical and totes a cool thing to do, you would have equal opportunity to challenge that idea with anybody else. New and original ideas would have to compete just the same with any other idea but without bias, association or stigma. Keep in mind that you may lose! -But given the new information, you'd probably be happier following the change.

The open and free market of ideas works like that. Free speech doesn't exist to defend good ideas. It exist, in part, to shed light on bad ones and show that they are in fact bad.

Telepathy have a lot of potential pros and a lot of potential cons. I want to emphasize more on the cons, as the cons are at times either majorly ignored, or completely ignored.

Again, apologies if any of this read strangely. i haven't been feeling well lately so i'm drifting in and out of consciousness. My mind is all over the place lately. Long posts like this one aren't written from start to finish. They're sentences and paragraphs written and composed in chunks and copy-paste rearranged to fit. if i repeated myself or lost the trail, that's why...

Don't worry about it, love. I am having fun, having this conversation.

 

[PlusThirtyOne]

Because i've been watching Star Trek (just now starting Enterprise) my roomie and i have been having some interesting conversations based on Earth's future economy and how fuckin' great it would be. The inventions of teleportaters and replicators alone would change SO much of the world. if those two things were invented simultaneously (and they likely would be given their similarities) the immediate shock to the world would be so huge that it would probably be too much too fast. if wealth and location were suddenly rendered moot, there would probably violence in equal amounts to peace. it would be fucking chaos for the first few years. The very foundation to society would crumble. People wouldn't need to depend on their government or employers. Power structures would simply collapse.

On a different note, we've also got into a lot of talk discussing the Borg and ethics. Now, i really have to admit... i'm kinda on the side of the Borg. i think that the Borg is ultimately the end-goal for sentient life. We might not like it but it's probably inevitable. i would guess that currently, we're probably only a couple hundred years away from hive-mind technology at least. Once quantum computing picks up it's only a matter of time before we start integrating technology with grey matter. Technology companies won't be pushing polygons and physics simulations on screens anymore. Virtual world spaces will be presented directly into optic nerves and stimulating the brain directly. Videogames as we know them are going to halt pretty quickly and mind-stimulating simulations are going to take over as the escapists' pastime. The likes of Nintendo will excel in fiction, old school video game concepts, competition and world-building while Microsoft will be publishing real-world simulations. There won't even be a need for "holodeck" technology because real-world simulation would be a limited market with even more limited uses.

i don't think the future of 'The Matrix' is too far off but i don't think it'll be humans versus robots; it'll be humans versus cyborg. The "bad guys" won't be an invention of us, it'll be segments of humanity who've already taken the plunge into cyber-life.

-And i, for one, welcome our new cyborg overlords.

 

[Sarachaga]

Spoiler

Of course it's your opinion, whose else would it be?

Wait, are you being controlled right now by the government or some super secret society? D:

Maybe. I've said too much already.

Because i've been watching Star Trek (just now starting Enterprise) my roomie and i have been having some interesting conversations based on Earth's future economy and how fuckin' great it would be. The inventions of teleportaters and replicators alone would change SO much of the world. if those two things were invented simultaneously (and they likely would be given their similarities) the immediate shock to the world would be so huge that it would probably be too much too fast. if wealth and location were suddenly rendered moot, there would probably violence in equal amounts to peace. it would be fucking chaos for the first few years. The very foundation to society would crumble. People wouldn't need to depend on their government or employers. Power structures would simply collapse.

Star Trek brings very interesting ideas to the table (I've only watch TOS and TNG for now), but would these be applicable? Maybe. I'd still see that as a very optimistic vision of the future. While I agree that it would be great, I'd envision the future closer to a dystopia, with the divides between rich an poor further increasing, and richer people keeping these sort of technologies to themselves to avoid being confronted by the rest of the population.

On a different note, we've also got into a lot of talk discussing the Borg and ethics. Now, i really have to admit... i'm kinda on the side of the Borg. i think that the Borg is ultimately the end-goal for sentient life. We might not like it but it's probably inevitable. i would guess that currently, we're probably only a couple hundred years away from hive-mind technology at least. Once quantum computing picks up it's only a matter of time before we start integrating technology with grey matter. Technology companies won't be pushing polygons and physics simulations on screens anymore. Virtual world spaces will be presented directly into optic nerves and stimulating the brain directly. Videogames as we know them are going to halt pretty quickly and mind-stimulating simulations are going to take over as the escapists' pastime. The likes of Nintendo will excel in fiction, old school video game concepts, competition and world-building while Microsoft will be publishing real-world simulations. There won't even be a need for "holodeck" technology because real-world simulation would be a limited market with even more limited uses.

i don't think the future of 'The Matrix' is too far off but i don't think it'll be humans versus robots; it'll be humans versus cyborg. The "bad guys" won't be an invention of us, it'll be segments of humanity who've already taken the plunge into cyber-life.

-And i, for one, welcome our new cyborg overlords.

I was thinking about it and that could have been an interesting alternative to the matrix. If all the robots were cyborg instead, it would give the whole movie a whole different meaning.

 

[Yakamaru]

Because i've been watching Star Trek (just now starting Enterprise) my roomie and i have been having some interesting conversations based on Earth's future economy and how fuckin' great it would be. The inventions of teleportaters and replicators alone would change SO much of the world. if those two things were invented simultaneously (and they likely would be given their similarities) the immediate shock to the world would be so huge that it would probably be too much too fast. if wealth and location were suddenly rendered moot, there would probably violence in equal amounts to peace. it would be fucking chaos for the first few years. The very foundation to society would crumble. People wouldn't need to depend on their government or employers. Power structures would simply collapse.

Teleportation would make travel insanely easy, insanely cheap, and insanely fast. Oil industry would scream their lungs out though. And boy would it be fun to watch, as the establishment and lobbyists all come crashing down. Though everything from the car industry to air travel companies would die over night, ending in millions of lost jobs. The worlds' welfare systems are already strained hard enough as it is. We don't need more strain on them. The American one is already strained to the very limit.

Replicators would solve the worlds' food shortages. But it won't solve the worlds' intelligence differences. It won't solve cultural differences. It won't solve wars. It won't solve poverty. It would create an incentive for Asian and African countries and their populations to have even MORE kids. Asia is sitting on 4.4, soon 4.5, billion people, while Africa soon have 1.3 billion. Two continents have almost 80% of the worlds' total population. The more people, the more we need to expand. The more we expand, the higher the incentive to have kids.

Our species is hierarchal in nature. We need some level of governance in order to actually function socially. Without some level, some form of a ruling body, our species would often end up in anarchy and chaos.

On a different note, we've also got into a lot of talk discussing the Borg and ethics. Now, i really have to admit... i'm kinda on the side of the Borg. i think that the Borg is ultimately the end-goal for sentient life. We might not like it but it's probably inevitable. i would guess that currently, we're probably only a couple hundred years away from hive-mind technology at least. Once quantum computing picks up it's only a matter of time before we start integrating technology with grey matter. Technology companies won't be pushing polygons and physics simulations on screens anymore. Virtual world spaces will be presented directly into optic nerves and stimulating the brain directly. Videogames as we know them are going to halt pretty quickly and mind-stimulating simulations are going to take over as the escapists' pastime. The likes of Nintendo will excel in fiction, old school video game concepts, competition and world-building while Microsoft will be publishing real-world simulations. There won't even be a need for "holodeck" technology because real-world simulation would be a limited market with even more limited uses.

The Borg is like an ant colony on steroids. A lot of steroids. Only consumes. Only assimilates. There is no individual thought let alone individuality. And considering the chaotic nature of our species, it's not going to happen. Not by a long shot. The only way it's going to happen is by force, and people are not going to sit idly by.

Our species is incapable of working as a hive mind due to the very nature of our species: Diversity. Our very nature rejects a high form of Collectivism. No one is equal. No culture is equal. No opinion, view, ideology or thought is equal. Our diversity is our strength. And by diversity I mean diversity of thought, of opinion. Take that away and our millions of years of evolution have been for nothing.

In a hive mind, everyone is the same. Everyone thinks the same. Everyone feels the same. Everyone react the same. Everyone does the same. It's a bit like Communism: Everyone is equal, and everyone is equally miserable.

As technology advances so will the forms of entertainment. Like they are experimenting with 3D holonets without using 3D glasses, there will no doubt come forms of entertainment that pretty much only stimulate your brain. There will probably come tech where your brain is directly connected to the net as well.

i don't think the future of 'The Matrix' is too far off but i don't think it'll be humans versus robots; it'll be humans versus cyborg. The "bad guys" won't be an invention of us, it'll be segments of humanity who've already taken the plunge into cyber-life.

-And i, for one, welcome our new cyborg overlords.

Eh. If you want to live like what's basically in an ant colony, go right ahead.

Star Trek brings very interesting ideas to the table (I've only watch TOS and TNG for now), but would these be applicable? Maybe. I'd still see that as a very optimistic vision of the future. While I agree that it would be great, I'd envision the future closer to a dystopia, with the divides between rich an poor further increasing, and richer people keeping these sort of technologies to themselves to avoid being confronted by the rest of the population.

Star Trek is as much fiction as Babylon 5. Both are possible futures for our species, the same way Gundam Wing is a possible future, not to mention The Matrix. Though I do agree that they bring interesting concepts and ideas to the table.

The problem isn't the difference between rich and poor. The divide will always be there, whether you like it or not. It's the result of a free market, and the result of Capitalism. I would recommend watching Stefan Molyneux' video on the topic.

 

[Simo]

The Borg is like an ant colony on steroids. A lot of steroids. Only consumes. Only assimilates. There is no individual thought let alone individuality. And considering the chaotic nature of our species, it's not going to happen. Not by a long shot. The only way it's going to happen is by force, and people are not going to sit idly by.

Eh. If you want to live like what's basically in an ant colony, go right ahead.

I couldn't agree more. I think living in such a hive setting would be horrid.

I'll summon my army of anteaters, and wipe out these ant colonies!

Bring it on, baby! There's not gonna be an ant left.

Down with this silly 'Borg' notion!

I, for one, would piss on even the notion of cyborg 'Overlords'.

 

[ChapterAquila92]

At the outset of reading through this thread, I couldn't help but find that the thread title was misleading. Telepathy is one thing we've already had in a quasi-state since the invention of the telephone (earlier if you include such things as couriers and smoke signals), and mind control is something that societies have been indirectly practicing through the use of propaganda and censorship since the dawn of civilization. When asking whether or not it's ethically or morally acceptable for either, it's therefore worthwhile considering that those ships have long since set sail; what's left is determining how far you're willing to accept a method of communication or influence and for what purpose will you intend on using them.

One big thing of note here is that mind control need not necessarily turn someone into a meat-puppet at your whim, but rather merely to manipulate someone into performing a behaviour you desire (whether they realize it or not). Leadership is therefore no less a means of manipulating people than is your average public service announcement or MKUltra-esque mindfuck for that matter.

On a personal note, I'd consider resocializing criminals to be an acceptable application of direct psychological manipulation, provided that it's handled with far more care than demonstrated in Clockwork Orange. Similarly with assisting in recovery from catatonic events.

 

[Sarachaga]

On a personal note, I'd consider resocializing criminals to be an acceptable application of direct psychological manipulation, provided that it's handled with far more care than demonstrated in Clockwork Orange. Similarly with assisting in recovery from catatonic events.

I agree with you. My main issue would be that in order for this to be effective, we'd need extensive trials to test the method, and the tests could end up being unethical. It would be an interesting field of research though.

 

[ChapterAquila92]

I agree with you. My main issue would be that in order for this to be effective, we'd need extensive trials to test the method, and the tests could end up being unethical. It would be an interesting field of research though.

Of course. Psychology unfortunately needs a contemporary equivalent to Andreas Vesalius (who pioneered the study of human anatomy by way of breaking a few taboos of his era, namely challenging an ancient scholarly authority and dissecting human bodies.)

 

[ellaerna]

Yeah Fuck ethics in psychology. Let's go back to the days when you could sew kittens eyes shut and permanently traumatize your own kids for science.

I'm not sure exactly what you were implying, but fucking about with dead bodies is a lot different than playing with the minds of real living people. These aren't just archaic taboos, but participant rights and safety. Whether you want to appease the irb or not, you'd be hard pressed to find a method that's safe.

Just as we're discussing the morality of mind control, we also have to look at the morality of getting to that point.

 

[It'sBlitz]

I think the forcing of of ideas, even through telepathy/machine is not better that putting a gun to someone's head as forcing them to agree with you. In both situations, they have NO CHOICE. I was raised and taught that everyone has the ability to make decisions, and that is what makes us Human. Taking away the ability to make the decision takes away their humanity. I know that one might want to use it so someone who is a "bonehead" understands them. Yet ISIS and other radical groups think the rest of the world are boneheads, and the use of this machine would bypass a normal person's picture of right and wrong. To be human is the ability to decide. Make your own decisions, develop YOUR OWN OPINION. That is what makes this place so beautiful, the ability to BE FREE to make your own choices is a human right, and such a machine that would take away the ability would be a machine that takes away one's human rights.

What worries me is how many people think it would even remotely be a good idea....

 

[ChapterAquila92]

Yeah Fuck ethics in psychology. Let's go back to the days when you could sew kittens eyes shut and permanently traumatize your own kids for science.

I'm not sure exactly what you were implying, but fucking about with dead bodies is a lot different than playing with the minds of real living people. These aren't just archaic taboos, but participant rights and safety. Whether you want to appease the irb or not, you'd be hard pressed to find a method that's safe

It's relative; just as the Church and other theistic religions sanctified the dead out of some perceived myth of an afterlife, the modern humanist religions sanctify the mind out of some perceived myth of inalienable rights. I won't debate the usefulness of the latter myth, especially when it comes to social order, but when push comes to shove it's going to have a heck of a time trying to survive the next paradigm shift as it is right now.

As for safety: nothing is inherently safe, and venturing into unknown territory is always going to carry a great deal of risk to begin with (in no small part due to us not knowing just how much risk is involved). You are correct in asserting that reducing as much of that risk as possible is ideal however.