We need a new human right to cognitive liberty
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I notice you think your thoughts beliefs and feelings mean anything.
They don’t. Not beyond yourself anyway.
If you want truth, integrity, free will, human rights, and incorruptible righteous rules of law, one cannot be a hypocrite.
Thoughts feelings and beliefs are each one’s own problem.
Let Truth and principles of integrity guide a righteous law, and let everyone f* off and MIND THEIR OWN INTERESTS.
Let there be peace on earth when bodies of men stop messing with others to whom they hold no lawful account.
Your only true human rights are not being messed with (“destructive interference”). Everything else must come of a bargain among our free wills. Even “privacy”. It is dangerous to confuse the two extremes.
Why would we agree with your view?
It's possible to have your own free will, knowledge, logic, relationships, privacy, time and maps... feelings, emotions and truth without being physically harrased in the same social agreement.
Not total access to all those concepts, but more than enough.
This ship has long sailed. It is not possible for us to have absolute right to our own minds and thoughts since mass advertising. The military has a psychological operation psyops thing.
Political campaigns use weird tactics like the previous US Senator from Missouri who boosted a horrible candidate on the other side so she had a better chance at winning the general election. Target knows some teenager is pregnant before her parents do. The exact technology is irrelevant. We can't get rid of advertising. What option do we have left?
The most popular way to reduce and escape from mental manipulation is to know how it's done.
It is too easy to control and edit public information release now, the protective feedback mechanism to educate people out of manipulative psychological practices is slowly but surely fading out of sight...
The overreliance on mechanical parrots with blackboxed ai internals is another nail in the coffin. Those things can lie and you simply won't know or be able to fact-check it against a reliable source. Because all public knowledge is tampered with.
Mostly this would be met with minor adjustment to existing law of rights to body autonomy and habeas corpus. Arguing about what repressive regimes do to justify legalism in the west is not an indefensible approach, but equally arguing that some technology specific law is needed begs the question "why"
How is this different to routine use of "chemical cosh" on old and non conforming people denied personal liberty right now?
No, it is the statement of the radically paramount status of the rightful will to privacy, becoming increasingly urgent the more the idea of Dignity fades in cultures.
Like drugging up old people on opiates or something?
Everything after that must be fought for as a liberty.
How does this not stand as a fundamental truth?
Minding one's own business really doesn't say anything, and opens the door to the inevitable question of when does your business end up becoming my business? Which usually happens once I can quantify your externalites.
Now, I didn't downvote you, you're at least trying; but think on those. Then you'll be well on the way to understanding why we can't have nice things.
One which serves to protect the innocent from violation by will or neglect.
That (along with “principled upon Truth”) might be the definition of “the spirit of law.”
Or a “right of lawful recourse” to respond to such trespasses.
All of this only comes by a destructive interference upon one persons (or embodiment before law) by another.
The perhaps cringey bare minimal trifling koan is the truest of rights of an individual (or collective) of any kind.
And I by no means think modern man has gotten this completely right.
You see, the state is your encompassing domain, and domains are like onions. While each layer may make you cry, each is a concession or social contract which obligates you to the inconvenience of the state’s necessities (like “public well being.”)
Not being interfered with is a built in right of our America domain, however compromised by the complexity of our modern relationships with state and each other.
It's certainly vague enough that it could be.
You cant protect mental privacy because you body gives this data out consciously and subconsciously.
Self determination over our brains and mental experiences is like saying social media and search engines cant show you what you dont want to see, its a catch 22 situation. The same thing happens in life, like the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing found out as they didnt want to be bombed and have to experience that either.
At best, I think the state could teach people coping mechanisms in order to help rationalise and understand why these things happen, which to a greater extent is how life and society is supposed to work anyway, if you have good people around you, but then we'd be putting an entire psychotherapist industry out of business.
If you dont have good people around you though, then society and the state including the legal system has already consigned you to the history books of failures sometimes even before you have reached adulthood and there are some who like to profit from failure and fear, quite literary and literally.
One thing is for certain, humanity's abilities to witness atrocities en-masse has never been so great, which ironically fuels that dopamine assisted morbid curiosity. If you cant handle the raw edge of reality hawked by media news outlets, sleep safer at night knowing a Hollywood horror is just make up and special effects.
When viewing journalists, do we view them as them as the narcissistic end of the Karma spreading spectrum, able to inject themselves with an air of authority into people's living rooms at 6pm and 10pm Mon-Fri, because the editorship still haven't moved out their Black Mirror current affairs desensitized mentality?
Is it time to switch off from this daily world of shock horror, where your imagination is deliberately exploited to fill in the blanks because you cant witness the exact graphic detail due to censorship, thus exploiting your mental privacy with your public and private conduct?
If it is, then may I suggest https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies