A hypothetical question

[Vera_Ljuba]

One objection is the invasion of privacy. Reading and changing someone’s innermost thoughts is about as strong an invasion of privacy as can be imagined.

Certainly. Unfortunately (?) the battle for privacy has been lost a long time ago. Pretty much everyone has smart phones nowadays, and thus their movements can be monitored all the time. If the next generation of the phones would be able to listen to the conversations (even when they are not turned on) we would lose even more of our privacy.

Another objection is the technology could be used to make someone commit murder, by getting the murderer to forget everything except his desire to kill. Scale it up and it would make the attack of the mutant zombies look like a teddy-bear’s picnic. Presumably with a bit of tweaking, the technology could also get victims to kill themselves, avoiding the need for murderers to ever leave their armchairs.

All technology can be used for good and evil, and the more powerful it is, the greater the potential evil.

Sure. There is no hammer, that can only be used to pound on a nail’s head, but not on a human’s head. That is not a good argument to get rid of hammers.

But I am only asking about that very specific problem, not its possible extensions (or abuses). The method is only able to detect the desire to commit an imminent and violent action, and the counter-measure is restricted to a targeted memory-erasure. Nothing more.

Should this technology be implemented?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Can’t vote in the poll as I can’t agree with either answer. And a pretty good one.

Would I implement the technology? Probably - but under strictly controlled conditions and I think it would be like putting a sticking plaster over a gaping wound.

This is already an answer.

If non-violent thoughts are not tempered with then you would have to keep using the technology over and over again perhaps on the same person.

Sure, all the time. But you would not be aware of the fact that you are monitored.

I would say I wouldn’t have a problem with this in the case of pedophiles and rapists, but only as a short term solution and perhaps to save costs in terms of putting them in prison. I would continue to look for a long term solution - ideally one that would result in their capacity to resist committing these crimes of their own volition on a continual basis.

Of course. That requires an a-priori condition process.

Torture and murder? - Depends on who they want to torture and murder.

Evil laugh.

Indeed. Of course in that hypothetical world there would be no one who would deserve to be tortured.

Now, I will suggest a book for your reading pleasure. The author: “Stanislaw Lem”. The book: “Return from the stars”. Even the summary of the book might be interesting for you, available at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_from_the_Stars

 

[minkymurph]

This is already an answer.

Yeah - it is already an answer.

Sure, all the time. But you would not be aware of the fact that you are monitored.

I think sooner or later you would catch on it’s possible you are being monitored.
It would only be a matter of time until an anorak would put it on the internet. It’s amazing what confidential info can be sourced on the internet without trying.

Now, I will suggest a book for your reading pleasure. The author: “Stanislaw Lem”. The book: “Return from the stars”. Even the summary of the book might be interesting for you, available at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_from_the_Stars

Give it gander. Dystopia interests me. I am currently researching authoritative resources for my political theory. An element of that theory is if we seek to establish a utopia we will inevitably create a parallel dystopia, the result of which will be a failed state and revolution.

 

[tonyrey]

To assume all doctors are impeccable is sheer folly.

That is to be expected in view of your irrational conviction that God doesn’t exist but you are mistaken on both counts. I do in fact pray if I have a medical problem and quite often my health improves. If it doesn’t I choose the doctor carefully because I know some are more expert and conscientious than others. Your mistake is to reject supernatural reality without a jot of evidence that **absolutely everything **consists of mindless molecules even though you’re using your mind to deny it exists!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If God could cure your son but refused, then I could imagine that you’d be quite put out.

But if He said there was a greater good, then would it be OK?

You really evade everything I say. My son is grown up now, and he was heathy and in no need of doctors when he was a child. If he were gravely ill, I would not use him as a guinea pig in doctor’s hands.

Bradski, you are going to get old and die one day. No doctor will be able to save you. Turn to God and realize you will have an afterlife.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

One objection is the invasion of privacy. Reading and changing someone’s innermost thoughts is about as strong an invasion of privacy as can be imagined.

Another objection is the technology could be used to make someone commit murder, by getting the murderer to forget everything except his desire to kill. Scale it up and it would make the attack of the mutant zombies look like a teddy-bear’s picnic. Presumably with a bit of tweaking, the technology could also get victims to kill themselves, avoiding the need for murderers to ever leave their armchairs.

All technology can be used for good and evil, and the more powerful it is, the greater the potential evil.

Thank you Inocente, I finally agree with you on something!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That is to be expected in view of your irrational conviction that God doesn’t exist but you are mistaken on both counts. I do in fact pray if I have a medical problem and quite often my health improves. If it doesn’t I choose the doctor carefully because I know some are more expert and conscientious than others. Your mistake is to reject supernatural reality without a jot of evidence that **absolutely everything **consists of mindless molecules even though you’re using your mind to deny it exists!

Amen brother amen. I certainly trust God more than doctors, although some doctors do good work through God. Many, though, do not. Money is more important to them than curing people. That’s why those drug companies are so successful!

 

[minkymurph]

Amen brother amen. I certainly trust God more than doctors, although some doctors do good work through God. Many, though, do not. Money is more important to them than curing people. That’s why those drug companies are so successful!

Come on guys - not just you Christine.

As my sister in faith Christine I don’t enjoy presenting counter arguments to what you say. Despite any disagreements I know your hearts in right place, but I don’t think it can be said money is more important to doctors than curing people.

A few years ago I had a perforated appendix that turned gangrenous and yes I was praying, but what I wanted more than anything else was for a surgeon to chop the thing out. Prayer wouldn’t have cut it and curing me was more important to that surgeon than money - particularly as we have a national health service here.

Drug companies - I take your point - but they’re not doctors.

 

[Vonsalza]

Come on guys - not just you Christine.

As my sister in faith Christine I don’t enjoy presenting counter arguments to what you say. Despite any disagreements I know your hearts in right place, but I don’t think it can be said money is more important to doctors than curing people.

A few years ago I had a perforated appendix that turned gangrenous and yes I was praying, but what I wanted more than anything else was for a surgeon to chop the thing out. Prayer wouldn’t have cut it and curing me was more important to that surgeon than money - particularly as we have a national health service here.

Drug companies - I take your point - but they’re not doctors.

Verily, for-profit medical care is a satanic blight upon the human soul and is worthy of every effort for eradication.

That said, medicine and faith are not an either/or situation.

Definitely a both/and.

 

[inocente]

Certainly. Unfortunately (?) the battle for privacy has been lost a long time ago. Pretty much everyone has smart phones nowadays, and thus their movements can be monitored all the time. If the next generation of the phones would be able to listen to the conversations (even when they are not turned on) we would lose even more of our privacy.

Changing someone’s thoughts isn’t just an incremental step from monitoring their location, it’s a whole new ballgame.

*Sure. There is no hammer, that can only be used to pound on a nail’s head, but not on a human’s head. That is not a good argument to get rid of hammers.

But I am only asking about that very specific problem, not its possible extensions (or abuses). The method is only able to detect the desire to commit an imminent and violent action, and the counter-measure is restricted to a targeted memory-erasure. Nothing more.

Should this technology be implemented?*

No, absolutely not. Once you start suppressing my thoughts, I have no way of knowing which thoughts are my own and which thoughts you’ve suppressed. You may say you’re only suppressing certain thoughts, but you have no way of knowing whether the technology is being used to suppress what you know.

I mean some people suffer paranoia and believe their thoughts are being changed by God, demons, aliens with mind-rays, or whatever. Your technology would make everyone paranoid, and with excellent reason. In a world where free-will is suppressed, there can be no moral responsibility.

It’s a good rule of thumb that utopias are always bad.

 

[inocente]

Thank you Inocente, I finally agree with you on something!

Noooooooooooooooo

 

[minkymurph]

Wow - I’ve found something on which I can agree with inocente as well.

It’s a good rule of thumb that utopias are always bad.

What’s going on?

 

[tonyrey]

Amen brother amen. I certainly trust God more than doctors, although some doctors do good work through God. Many, though, do not. Money is more important to them than curing people. That’s why those drug companies are so successful!

What atheists ignore and neglect is the inability of doctors to cure spiritual diseases like egoism, introversion, self-pity, depression, obsession, anomie, apathy and negativity.

 

[minkymurph]

What atheists ignore and neglect is the inability of doctors to cure spiritual diseases like egoism, introversion, self-pity, depression, obsession, anomie, apathy and negativity.

If anyone ever does come up with cure for these things I want the patent!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What atheists ignore and neglect is the inability of doctors to cure spiritual diseases like egoism, introversion, self-pity, depression, obsession, anomie, apathy and negativity.

and cancer.

 

[tonyrey]

and cancer.

Indeed. Modern medicine treats the whole person not just physical symptoms. I knew one man who died because he was convinced he had stomach cancer yet a post mortem revealed no abnormality.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

In a world where free-will is suppressed, there can be no moral responsibility.

Selectively suppressed. Just like in confining violent people to prisons.

---

I had two surprises in this thread. One was a pleasant surprise, the number “YES” votes. I did not hope for such a good turnout. The other one was discouraging - well, not really. The naysayers systematically changed the parameters, none of the arguments were presented against the hypothetical scenario, all of them were considering the “abuse” of the procedure - intentional or otherwise. Changing the goalposts is the usual expression.

This is sad, but not unexpected. Controversial thought experiments are always treated thusly. The criticism is presented in the form: “but it can be abused…” I wonder what the results would have been, if the responders would have honestly contemplated the actual scenario, as presented.

Of course there some unexpected “gems” like “spiritual disease”, which are always good for a chuckle.

---

Anyhow, this was interesting. I will present a different version of this “utopia”.

 

[goout]

…
I had two surprises in this thread. One was a pleasant surprise, the number “YES” votes. I did not hope for such a good turnout. The other one was discouraging - well, not really. The naysayers systematically changed the parameters, .

ummmm, you presented a hypothetical that reduced human beings to technology.
And you are surprised when others don’t dance around the fire of absurdity?

oooooo k. I’m happy to let you dance around your fire. I choose common sense and rational thought, thank you.

 

[minkymurph]

I had two surprises in this thread. One was a pleasant surprise, the number “YES” votes. I did not hope for such a good turnout. The other one was discouraging - well, not really. The naysayers systematically changed the parameters, none of the arguments were presented against the hypothetical scenario, all of them were considering the “abuse” of the procedure - intentional or otherwise. Changing the goalposts is the usual expression.

If you want a black and white yes or no answer to use of this technology with no room for manoeuvre, then my answer would have to be no, but not on the basis I think free will is more important than some acts of violence. Free will is not more important than use of violence for just reasons. This also covers the ‘yes’ answer - there are circumstances in which violence is justified. There are also circumstances in which restricting free will is justified.

If this doesn’t fit your framework - sorry - best I can do.

 

[inocente]

Wow - I’ve found something on which I can agree with inocente as well

What’s going on?

Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.

What atheists ignore and neglect is the inability of doctors to cure spiritual diseases like egoism, introversion, self-pity, depression, obsession, anomie, apathy and negativity.

:ehh:

We have medicos here called psiquiatras, psicólogos and neurólogos. They use science to help people, and can work miracles. Mostly both they and their patients are Catholic, it’s a Catholic country after all.