From: Mike Dougherty (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 07:48:53 MDT
On 10/25/07, Stathis Papaioannou <email@example.com> wrote:
> Psychiatric treatment is no different to any other service unless it
> is involuntary treatment that we are discussing. In most
> jurisdictions, the criteria for involuntary treatment are strictly
> defined, and it will be important that this continue when more
> elaborate and effective mind modification than our current
> psychotropic drugs becomes available.
That's the point I was trying to make. We seem to discuss mind
modification in a vacuum, with no basis in the current practice
(however crude by comparison)
On another thread I made the mistake of suggesting that inter-arterial
drug-dispensing bots should be build with a high degree of safety
protocols. I was quickly informed that progress is more important
than vague ideas of safety. I feel this is why Windows OS still has
regular exploits and various universities, corporations, an government
agencies (are forced to) regularly report data theft.
On this same front, would a software-based intelligence have an active
defense against invasion from viral infection? Wouldn't that system
attempt to prevent researcher initiated changes? I personally would
like to have a greater defense against the memes to which I am exposed
via marketing. I guess my uploaded self will be even more "paranoid"
about security because it may be more fragile than my relatively
disconnected meat-based host.
"just a thought"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT