Imagine you had a brain interface that could read all of your thoughts, conscious and subconscious. Who would own that data? Who would you give access to? Who could make money on it?
Given that we’re building brain interfacing technology at Kernel, and others are also building this technology, this is an important thought exercise that has been weighing heavily on my mind.
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
These ads will disappear if you register on the forum
You own your own thoughts. But maybe not for long!
Posted 12 July 2018 - 07:32 PM
Posted 13 July 2018 - 02:56 AM
Out right now or I'd link stuff. But for anyone curious go find the anarcho-transhumanist manifesto on the net, and for that matter read some of William Gillis's work.
Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.
Posted 13 July 2018 - 01:27 PM
This reminds me of the whole controversy concerning patents of genes. Corporations that where the first describe the sequencing of a particular gene argued that they should be given a patent for that gene. Eventually, at least as of my last reading on the subject, the courts ruled that what could be patented was the process of sequencing the gene, not the gene itself.
Off the top of my head, it would seem that your question can be seen as an analogy to that situation. Humans should still have the right to the economic benefits of their own thought process. Devices that help to facilitate and communicate those thought processes are fair game for patents and the property rights that proceed from such patents.
I suspect this does not totally answer the question(s) posed by the opening post, but it seems like an appropriate place to at least start.
The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other. - John Rawls
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users