I think the two are comparable. For example, the world of “1984″ seems worse than a nuclear attack, yet the problems with that world are “only” things like loss of personal privacy and freedom.

But this sort of regulation wouldn’t be a matter for a “bill of rights”, but rather an ordinary statutory regulation which would be debated in its specific context.

So, I guess the “bill of rights” should include the following negative obligations on medical types:
* Mere “consent” is not sufficient for harmful manipulations, it must be “informed consent”
* Don’t conduct a manipulation which would cause the target to become a major burden on society

(i say “major” because even something like skipping sleep might make a person an annoyance; but such minor burdens on society should be permitted)

Dunno if i agree with “do not harm” in general, though. Wouldn’t that prohibit allowing people to consume alcohol, or from skipping sleep in order to get something done, or from doing serious athletic training? i think it’s okay to let people hurt themselves as well if (1) they have carefully and seriously considered the issue for a significant amount of time, and (2) they aren’t harming themselves in a way that would create a major burden on society. Otherwise, you end up preventing people from doing things that they themselves consider beneficial, but that the government considers harmful.

(p.s. of course i realize you meant “do not harm” applied only to neural manipulations, but i’m hypothesizing that neuro situations might arise in the future which are closely analogous to consuming alcohol, skipping sleep, or serious athletic training)

Dead Soul: You’re absolutely right. And I don’t think we can do much about it, except educate ourselves. Probably since humans have been around, people have used psychology techniques to influence others. Politicians have always pandered to keep their power (think of Roman emperors and the spectacle of gladiators for the public…)

Thanks for the wonderful discussion everyone!

The problem is this: when people start using intimate knowledge about how humans make decisions these people can manipulate others. Where do we draw the line here? Is it acceptable that in our society there are people using all sorts of psychological tricks to garner our attention and dollars? Can we honestly expect each of us to be sufficiently savvy so as to avoid these little manipulations? If we use our superior insight to get people to do what they want are we any different from the powerful who abuse their power?

We are already subject to manipulations of our neural net. Everyday everywhere. What we are now facing is a qualitatively different type of manipulation that raises the the problem to a whole new level.

Obviously this is not reality, human currency demands for energy far outweigh the benefits of yeild, and the technology doesn’t exist ‘yet’.

I would argue further that there exists no market for mind control. Indeed, the sheeple of the US do what they are told without prompt from a neuroprosthetic device.

Frankly the need for mind control devices, or a neuro bill of rights will not arise until we’ve lost our taste for consumption.

I agree that such technologies don’t exist and won’t exist in the near future. However, I think that political or social change takes so long that if people wait until this becomes a plausible threat, it will be too late. It is important to act while such things are still so far off so as to seem silly.