Entry tags:
are you ready for technological telepathy?
I've mentioned the phrase "technological telepathy" many times over the years, both here and other platforms. It's strange, though, that I've never devoted a post just to that one concept alone. Are you ready to know whatever can be known yet maintain your own emotional equilibrium and reasoned behavior? It's a tough ask, I know.
You're almost there now. In your hands, you probably have a cell phone with access to search engines to find much of recorded human history, knowledge, and theory, merely at a whim. You can also find Twitter, where passing thoughts from humans across the planet skitter around like angry ants in a disturbed anthill.
Quoting myself to jump start this discussion:
Basically, it's the hardest thing that people demand from their most intimate relationships: somebody knowing what we truly think and feel yet not abandoning us in their disapproval. I anticipate the social consequences that our technology inexorably carries us towards. The only solutions I see are either 1) no technology, or 2) social/psychological change in the human animal, and soon. The best legal salve I see is 3) the inviolate rule applied to every sapient brain that a mind must not ever be examined or altered without informed consent, so people can keep something private. This prohibition might extend to include necessary trust-mechanisms for safe self-examination: doctors, psychiatrists, priests, and maybe even our private journals, smart phones, and personal AIs.
I consider current privacy laws to be atavistic reactions against this inevitability, and I think they are doomed ultimately to failure. They hinder what must happen, which is the rapid (preferably immediate) review of historical data to in/validate any statement. Self-absolution can be dangerous, because it allows us to indefinitely postpone confronting a potentially harmful habit. What we have now is a boon to liars and charlatans. Consider a better alternative. Once you voluntarily release something from the confines of your own thoughts, then it ceases to be private or privileged. It now belongs to all of humanity because it is in the minds/memories of other people, which you are forbidden from controlling. And they can access your observable behavior (speech, writing, interactions), already fully indexed and footnoted with objective evidence for either the corroboration or the dispute of your perspective. "Documented anarchy", as some have written. There are no secret discussions or activities, if the audience is larger than your own internal thoughts.
Any lie would be quickly revealed. I think that the right to be forgotten (even to delete regretted Tweets) is dangerously close to legalized gaslighting, erasing external evidence to prevent the confirmation of someone else's memory of history that you want to avoid. Self-forgiveness can be necessary for growth too, but it should be part of our history rather than a forbidden topic. The only fair future gives us the right to access corporate and government memory too, their memos and video recordings and meeting notes where they discuss how to use our personal data. "Souveillance", as some have written. The unethical situation we have today is the asymmetric exercise of power to review. They have it; we don't.
Could you know every other person's complete history (dna, childhood, schooling, psych evaluations, sex history, job history), just with the asking, yet restrain your curiosity for the sake of equilibrium? Could you wisely and constructively use your freedom to ignore? That future is beginning to materialize now. How will you/we adapt to the knowledge of... well, everything? What "filters" do you employ for your own benefit? For instance, Dreamwidth includes "Age Restriction", but are there others that you would find useful? Is there a social protocol for brutal honesty?
You're almost there now. In your hands, you probably have a cell phone with access to search engines to find much of recorded human history, knowledge, and theory, merely at a whim. You can also find Twitter, where passing thoughts from humans across the planet skitter around like angry ants in a disturbed anthill.
Quoting myself to jump start this discussion:
I'm convinced that science and engineering will give us what nature did not, the capacity to share (even steal) thoughts directly from other minds. If biological telepathy were real, then it would have a profound effect on all of evolution. That's a good argument against it, really. What happens to ecosystems when predator and prey know each other's thoughts?
https://mellowtigger.dreamwidth.org/294331.html, 2018 February 16
But nobody ever has any control over what happens to their words after they reach another person. Either keep your words to yourself, or share them with the world. There are no secrets in a world of technological telepathy; there is no forgetting in a world of digital memory. As a rule, I post publicly. I accept the consequences of my speech. Yes, there have been consequences.
https://mellowtigger.dreamwidth.org/244179.html, 2012 November 29
https://mellowtigger.dreamwidth.org/294331.html, 2018 February 16
But nobody ever has any control over what happens to their words after they reach another person. Either keep your words to yourself, or share them with the world. There are no secrets in a world of technological telepathy; there is no forgetting in a world of digital memory. As a rule, I post publicly. I accept the consequences of my speech. Yes, there have been consequences.
https://mellowtigger.dreamwidth.org/244179.html, 2012 November 29
Basically, it's the hardest thing that people demand from their most intimate relationships: somebody knowing what we truly think and feel yet not abandoning us in their disapproval. I anticipate the social consequences that our technology inexorably carries us towards. The only solutions I see are either 1) no technology, or 2) social/psychological change in the human animal, and soon. The best legal salve I see is 3) the inviolate rule applied to every sapient brain that a mind must not ever be examined or altered without informed consent, so people can keep something private. This prohibition might extend to include necessary trust-mechanisms for safe self-examination: doctors, psychiatrists, priests, and maybe even our private journals, smart phones, and personal AIs.
I consider current privacy laws to be atavistic reactions against this inevitability, and I think they are doomed ultimately to failure. They hinder what must happen, which is the rapid (preferably immediate) review of historical data to in/validate any statement. Self-absolution can be dangerous, because it allows us to indefinitely postpone confronting a potentially harmful habit. What we have now is a boon to liars and charlatans. Consider a better alternative. Once you voluntarily release something from the confines of your own thoughts, then it ceases to be private or privileged. It now belongs to all of humanity because it is in the minds/memories of other people, which you are forbidden from controlling. And they can access your observable behavior (speech, writing, interactions), already fully indexed and footnoted with objective evidence for either the corroboration or the dispute of your perspective. "Documented anarchy", as some have written. There are no secret discussions or activities, if the audience is larger than your own internal thoughts.
Any lie would be quickly revealed. I think that the right to be forgotten (even to delete regretted Tweets) is dangerously close to legalized gaslighting, erasing external evidence to prevent the confirmation of someone else's memory of history that you want to avoid. Self-forgiveness can be necessary for growth too, but it should be part of our history rather than a forbidden topic. The only fair future gives us the right to access corporate and government memory too, their memos and video recordings and meeting notes where they discuss how to use our personal data. "Souveillance", as some have written. The unethical situation we have today is the asymmetric exercise of power to review. They have it; we don't.
Could you know every other person's complete history (dna, childhood, schooling, psych evaluations, sex history, job history), just with the asking, yet restrain your curiosity for the sake of equilibrium? Could you wisely and constructively use your freedom to ignore? That future is beginning to materialize now. How will you/we adapt to the knowledge of... well, everything? What "filters" do you employ for your own benefit? For instance, Dreamwidth includes "Age Restriction", but are there others that you would find useful? Is there a social protocol for brutal honesty?