The Future of Mind Control

LarsWestergren writes "The Economist has two interesting articles about neuroscience. While a lot of media ink has been spent discussing the possible gains or threats of genetics, not much has been heard about the advances made in neuroscience which has a greater and more immediate threat of "overturning the essential nature of humanity". For instance, test subjects who were treated for depression by having their pleasure centers stimulated with electrodes fell in love with the experimenters. New drugs to combat shyness, forgetfulness, sleepiness and stress are on the way to the market, as well as a new breed of Super-Prozacs. The articles are here and here."

Comments

Electrodes?

[Eponymous, Showered]

Who needs messy electrodes to fall in love when there's alt.binaries.nospam.*

Ethics?

[daviddennis]

What's unethical about making your kids (or yourself) happier, smarter and thinner?

I think it would be unethical not to explore those possibilities.

D

Re:Ethics?

[Bearpaw]

I don't think research into wireheading was Thomas Jefferson had in mind with the "pursuit of happiness" thing.

There's nothing inherently unethical about the research. But not considering possible downsides definitely is unethical. Not to mention dumb. No shortage of that kind of dumb, these days, when any mention of possible downsides is written off by corporate spokesdroids, etc, as if it's all from irrational anti-science people.

Re:Ethics?

[daviddennis]

Modifying genes to make people more intelligent strikes me as a universally good thing. It seem strange for a Slashdot user to want to defend the existance of stupidity.

Likewise with thinner - and if you don't believe me, just look at how many fat people there are who would be a great deal better off being thin.

There's nothing inherently good about the constraints we get from nature; if we can improve on nature, I feel we should. Yes, that brings different constraints, but I think on the whole both individuals and society would be better off.

D

The future?

[orangesquid]

"You have quite a good memory. Do you take MemAid, Keeper, or ReCall?"

"No... I'm a clean."

"A real clean? You don't take any mindpills? What an odd way to live!"

Very scary

[Chacham]

Over the course of the next decade, scientists may be able to predict, by examining a scan of a person's brain, not only whether he will tend to mental sickness or health, but also whether he will tend to depression or violence.

And who defines "mental sickness". Many people consider religion mental illness. Certainly, it can be cured. Diciplining children, oh they must have violent tendencies. Defining marriage as something other than people of opposite gender, you must really be crazy.

Knowing that people judge others' behaviour is scary enough. Giving them tools for manipulation, is very scary.

This would change the way we argue

[PD]

Imagine implants that can transmit thoughts. We would be able to have the unique experience of arguing with someone who disagrees completely, and tapping into their thoughts. At a single moment we would be able to look at the issue from two sides, and have passionate feelings that each side is the correct one.

I propose right now that we require all national presidents and diplomats to be fitted with these systems. We should start with the Israelis and Palestianians, and the Indians and Pakistanis first.

Re:This would change the way we argue

[pubudu]

Perhaps, but is there a necessary physical link between having access to one's opinions and the ability to change them? If so, wouldn't this allow you to change someone else's opinions? Do we really want to pit Pres. Bush against Pres. Putin in a battle of the wills to decide which set of opinions will govern the planet?

As it is, most people don't form their opinions based on rational evidence. I can bearly keep up with my own irrationality: I don't need someone else's craziness running through my head, as well.

Re:This would change the way we argue

[Chacham]

At a single moment we would be able to look at the issue from two sides,

To go with Meyers-Briggs lingo, only Ps would care to do that. That is, to look at it from all sides and come to a conclusion. Js, don't care to see it from both sides, they just want to come to a conclusion.

Further, only Ns would truly care about having an argument, and the Fs would not want to be argumentative. You'd be left NTPs and NTJs, most likely the Is.

Thus, you're talking about a very few people who would actually care about this. But some INTPs may enjoy it, assuming that they'd *let* another person probe their thoughts.

and have passionate feelings that each side is the correct one.

Probably not. Again, only Ps would care, and they don't care neccessarily to come to make a judgement, but rather to understand the idea so well, that judgement wouldn't be neccesary. With that, there would be no passion. The Js may want that, but it's likely their minds would already be made up, and the other thought would still need to be processed. Both thoughts would not be appreciated equally, at the same time.

Re:This would change the way we argue

[texchanchan]

look at the issue from two sides
have passionate feelings that each side is the correct one

... and your xNxP's already do this all the time without hardware or dope.

Re:You know...

[pubudu]

It's not the tools that are good or bad, it's how they are used.

But as every tool is going to be used by humans, practically speaking, then every tool will be used well and poorly. Can the proper use of this tool, most likely by some minority of users, counteract its improper use by many, and its diabolical use by some? And is its merely improper use, to say nothing of its diabolical use, so nightmarish that it far outweighs the benefits? Mankind has historically survived with violent and even psychotic individuals in its midst; 'curing' these does not seem a worthwhile goal if it carries with it the threat of such devolution (though certain psychotics might disagree--after all, they're the ones who have to live that way if uncured).

Re:Very scary/Defining mental illness

[Chacham]

I people opted in for the medication, and no laws affected them what-so-ever, then it would be great for them. My issue is with the article's notion about how it can start saving people. It doesn't seem to only be for the ones who need it, from their own standpoint.