mind reading

[David Gould]

If the ability to read minds was developed - say through highly advanced brain imaging technology - would you support its general use by the government in counterterrorism?

What if it became so easy to use that simply passing through a metal detector like structure was sufficient to pick up intent to kill?

Would you support the use of this technology?


(I should point out that this technology is not all that far fetched - for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4472355.stm )

 

[peepnklown]

Government agencies wouldn’t need counterterrorism if they themselves haven’t created terrorism. Governments should focus on global ways to fix the relationships between each other.

I find it hard to support technology that will keep breading violence.

 

[David Gould]

Government agencies wouldn’t need counterterrorism if they themselves haven’t created terrorism. Governments should focus on global ways to fix the relationships between each other.

If we could read each other's minds, we could reach a powerful understanding, no?

I find it hard to support technology that will keep breading violence.

In what ways do you think mind reading technology will breed violence?

 

[peepnklown]

If government agencies could reach minds then they would use it to gain power.

In what ways do you think mind reading technology will breed violence?

I don’t think this technology alone will equate violence, I think that the whole counter-terrorism fixation will breed violence.



A government uses a group to fight their war without actually fighting a war with their so-called enemy. The government trains them, supplies weapons, and funds them. The group fights and when the government is done they pull their help leaving the group to be slaughtered. Then the government starts to attack the groups’ neighbors slowly, and starts to help the group’s enemies. The group gets angry and attacks the government finally. The government starts a war with the group. It’s a big circle of violence that wont stop.

 

[Lifesaver]

Hard question. I am slightly inclined not to see anything wrong with this technology being used in public places, but with the most severe penalties for someone who in any way spreads the information acquired.

I am completely against it being used inside people's homes, though.

Just like surveilance cameras; nothing wrong in using them on the streets, in airports, in malls; but never in private places.

Though it could be argued that someone's mind is the most private of all "places".

With this in mind, I must say I am more inclined towards being against its use in public places, except if terrorism reaches an extreme level.

By the way, such technology could potentially end the need for criminal judgements, as it would be easy to know who is guilty or not.

 

[AngCath]

i dont think that the technology itself would be harmful. but, if it exists, the government might as well have it rather than be victim to it by others...

 

[Harlan Norris]

As Christians we believe the affairs of the world are the will of God. For me personally the threat of terrorism is nothing. I will die, whether at the hands of a terrorist,an accident,old age or disease. I believe God knows the day and date of my death, and the circumstances. What can I do to prevent it? Where is our faith? why are we afraid?

 

[johnsnat]

cool

 

[levi501]

it shouldn't be used unless reasonable evidence can be provided that the person committed a crime.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

I would not support such a thing. It makes the governent too powerful.

 

[TrueQ]

To me, that would be the worst kind of invasion of privacy imaginable. All humans, even the ones I don't like, deserve a place where they can go to reflect and ruminate on things without the worry of what others might hear. If this kind of technology existed, such a place would become totally nonexistent. The government, as well as other powerful and wealthy organizations and individuals would not to long to start using it in order to try and steer the world towards there own, probably selfish, goals. Just look at how fast the Patriot Act went sour.

Lucky for me, if this technology existed, you wouldn't need it to tell that I was against it.

 

[Garnet2727]

If the ability to read minds was developed - say through highly advanced brain imaging technology - would you support its general use by the government in counterterrorism?

What if it became so easy to use that simply passing through a metal detector like structure was sufficient to pick up intent to kill?

Would you support the use of this technology?


(I should point out that this technology is not all that far fetched - for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4472355.stm )

I can just see getting arrested for walking through a metal detector thinking about how much I want to "kill" my husband because he ticked me off about something.

 

[tocis]

If government agencies could reach minds then they would use it to gain power.

Quite right. Being able to read people's thoughts, even if only while they pass through a certain sensor gate or similar, means enormous power. Power corrupts. Who would we trust to never abuse all those nonterrorist thoughts picked up by that system? Who could we trust?

 

[Toboe]

Well the government has already investagted remote viewing and other paranormal phenomena
Who is to say that they aren't developing it.

 

[tocis]

If governmental agencies/institutions see any chance of such things really working, they will research them, no doubt about that. If they don't plan to abuse it for mind-controlling their own population, they'll still have to do that research to find ways of defending their people against such attacks.

As the German proverb goes... "Es kann der Frömmste nicht in Frieden leben, wenn es dem bösen Nachbarn nicht gefällt" (Even the most pious person can't live in peace if there are malevolent neighbors around).