> You think that providing input to neurons through an electronic interface is mind control?
Um... yes...? I am really confused why people keep describing mind control as a defense of mind control.
> As in, we're not talking about people doing research on how to leverage the input/output interaction between the brain and these devices to perform manipulation of conscious/subconscious thought?
Yes, even if we ignore the part of Neuralink where they are working to understand and deploy complex interactions over human brain to computer interfaces, a little bit of mind control is in fact, still mind control.
I'm not sure who you think is moving goal posts. Controlling the mind with a direct interface to the mind is mind control. That much is obvious.
I also think it's interesting that you dropped the "mind reading" portion of my previous comment. Do you find that harder to refute, or do you think that Elon Musk should be allowed to read peoples thoughts?
> Um... yes...? I am really confused why people keep describing mind control as a defense of mind control.
Because at the current state of the art, it's no more "control" than from stimulating cochlear with a cochlear implant.
Musk does talk about a Culture-esq Neural Lace (which also covers "mind reading" to the level of being an offsite backup) but the neuroscientists I hear discussing the tech that really exists and that they think is likely to come any time soon regard this as bombastic nonsense.
The research into mind reading from (unrelated, human-rated and already placed) implants is interesting, and I think worth caring about with regards to privacy and security: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcfC53c3tSc
> I also think it's interesting that you dropped the "mind reading" portion of my previous comment.
No. You weren't attempting to turn "Mind reading" into a dirty word. You aren't be disingenuous with the phrasing in a deliberate attempt to paint the very act of interfacing with the brain as mind control-- which again, it isn't, and you don't get to assert that it is without support and have your opinion respected. Mind boggling. I haven't seen any effort being put into direct modification of thought, myself.
Anyway, I guess there's no point in actually discussing this with you. You think "mind control" (scare quotes included, so we can maintain your negative connotation!) is implied by direct input to neurons, which is a stretch pretty much everyone isn't going to agree with. I think you'll find most people think that when you say mind control, you'd be, you know, controlling their mind, a behavior for which you have no evidence to support.
Edit:
Thinking about this further. Let's apply your solid logic of "It inputs to a neuron so it's mind control".
So how far are we gonna push that? Does it have to be a neuron inside the brain? What if I interface with a neuron in the spinal column, a system which is intrinsically attached to the brain? Do you think think that the prosthesis invented recently that involves bidirectional communication in the brain as "mind control"?
If a spinal interface doesn't count, why not? Is it because it's outside the brain? What if I put it at the edge of the spinal column juuuuust below the brain stem, does that count or not count as mind control? I mean, I can provide direct input from the spinal column to convince the mind that the body is in specific positions or receiving specific input it isn't. Is that mind control?
Maybe you should start distinguishing between "Mind control" and "Scary tech that could potentially enable mind control so we need to be real careful with it despite how potentially rewarding it could be". It would really help your case a lot.
I'm actually insanely curious where you draw the line here!
No. That is not controlling the mind. That is using normal sensory facilities to communicate with a mind.
To use computers as a metaphor, what you described is like influencing the behavior of a computer by sending it a network packet. That is a normal operation that computers are built to process. Hypnosis is like remotely hacking the computer - you use normal sensory / normal network processing means to command unauthorized actions. Neuralink is like taking a magnetic needle to the systems memory to both read and write to influence the behavior and access information from it. The lattermost is mind control.
The point I'm making is that _inputs_ to the brain are not automatically mind control, since there are existing inputs that are clearly not mind control. In fact, it would be really difficult to implement mind control with a NeuraLink, because you would need to tune it to do so first, and how would you do that?
Vision and hearing on the other hand have been done previously with electrodes.
> The point I'm making is that _inputs_ to the brain are not automatically mind control
That's why I said "a direct interface to the brain" is kind control.
> In fact, it would be really difficult to implement mind control with a NeuraLink, because you would need to tune it to do so first, and how would you do that?
Are you suggesting that the work that they are doing at NeuraLink is easy and not mind control? Because I think it is both hard to do and mind control. The easiest way to do it is to take advantage of people who have medical reasons that something like this could greatly improve their life (see the OP).
> Vision and hearing on the other hand have been done previously with electrodes.
I very well could be ignorant about this, but I don't believe people walk around with internet connected electrodes attached to their head. I do consider that mind control though, because it is directly controlling the mind, circumventing normal sensory inputs. It just usually is limited to a medical setting, rather than being a permanent addition to your mind, so it's far easier to rationalize.
Um... yes...? I am really confused why people keep describing mind control as a defense of mind control.
> As in, we're not talking about people doing research on how to leverage the input/output interaction between the brain and these devices to perform manipulation of conscious/subconscious thought?
Yes, even if we ignore the part of Neuralink where they are working to understand and deploy complex interactions over human brain to computer interfaces, a little bit of mind control is in fact, still mind control.
I'm not sure who you think is moving goal posts. Controlling the mind with a direct interface to the mind is mind control. That much is obvious.
I also think it's interesting that you dropped the "mind reading" portion of my previous comment. Do you find that harder to refute, or do you think that Elon Musk should be allowed to read peoples thoughts?