Or looking even further ahead: who will design the next Accord, if I can just download one from The Pirate Bay and print it out on my nano assembler?
When nano-assemblers become commonplace we shall not be meandering around like drunks in your bourgeois cars that were obsolete SIXTY GODDDAMN YEARS AGO.
In this thread we ponder the realities of intellectual property by contrasting it with a future that is awesome.
The predicate goes like this: when you hear a song, you can remember it. In fact a lot of the time you can almost but not quite imagine you're hearing the whole song over again, but it's just not the same as actually listening to it.
Presumably - since it would be awesome - in the future someone could invent a bioengineering solution which would allow us to have active recall of listening to music - some way to rewire the neurons so the data was stored accurately and could be recalled by stimulating your auditory senses in a direct way.
This would all be internal and biological - essentially an enhanced body function.
Where does modern copyright law fit in this future?
Hearing a song on say, HD radio, you would never feel compelled to buy it since you'd be able to recall an extremely accurate and sensational memory of it at will. Would it be considered copyright infringement to do so? Would we dream to try and enforce it? What model can IP have in such a world, and by extension, does the modern model of IP even make sense since our technology lets us do, essentially the same thing.
Wait, are you trying to draw some correlation between my apprehension of bio modification fantasies and apprehension of taping with cassesttes? Taping with casettes was based on pre-existing technology, and was fully external. Bio modification references technology that currently does not exist, implies internal modification of basic human physiology, and has shown no signs of anticpation by anyone aside from a few silly gooses. You are grasping at some very loose straws.
I was saying that if the technology ever becomes available for human beings to recall information (more specifically, music) biologically, then the recording industry will make a huge stink about it, similar to the one made when cassette tapes (and VCRs and CDRs and DVRs) were released.
That is (I feel) the logical interpretation for the image considering this is a thread concerning how copyright laws will evolve to reflect future technology.
I was saying that if the technology ever becomes available for human beings to recall information (more specifically, music) biologically, then the recording industry will make a huge stink about it, similar to the one made when cassette tapes (and VCRs and CDRs and DVRs) were released.
That is (I feel) the logical interpretation for the image considering this is a thread concerning how copyright laws will evolve to reflect future technology.
Right, and the rest of my post was addressing that. I was simply taking issue with what the OP thinks the future will be like. Not only do I not think humans will start fucking with their physiology in extreme ways like he suggested, but I actively hope they will not.
No matter what the future holds in store for us in terms of melding biology and technology, I think we can all feel fairly confident that if that technology ever includes to ability to store and recall music without paying for it, the music industry is going to have a conniption. This is whether or not the technology involves biotechnology. I only included your post because it tied us back into the part of the OP that involved retrieving information directly from your brain, as opposed to an electronic device.
On a side note, just because it's future tech that may not ever exist, we can still make intelligent guesses as to how it will change the industry.
If I invented a holographic chamber that made you feel as if you were on the front row at a concert, then used my special camera to record a bunch of concerts, and then you could come into my chamber and have a simulated concert that was (to your brain) indistinguishable from the real thing without ever having to pay a dime for a concert ticket, I feel it's fair to assume the music industry would not like that very much.
It might not exactly say "Home Holos are Killing Concerts" or "Don't copy that terra-floppy" or "You wouldn't steal a hoverboard", but there would be some sort of anti-piracy marketing campaign without a doubt. It would be the same thing if I could "play back" music internally, without having to rely on an external music player.
I was saying that if the technology ever becomes available for human beings to recall information (more specifically, music) biologically, then the recording industry will make a huge stink about it, similar to the one made when cassette tapes (and VCRs and CDRs and DVRs) were released.
That is (I feel) the logical interpretation for the image considering this is a thread concerning how copyright laws will evolve to reflect future technology.
Right, and the rest of my post was addressing that. I was simply taking issue with what the OP thinks the future will be like. Not only do I not think humans will start fucking with their physiology in extreme ways like he suggested, but I actively hope they will not.
Are you kidding? This is already happening.
There is a guy that have lived with a RFID chip under the skin of his arm for something like ten years. Last thing I heard about it he was planing to link a chip up to nervcells and install a chip in himself and his wife, in the hope that they would be able to "feel" each other through them.
I must admid I can't remember his name, and I don't think I've heard about him for the last few years, but biological interfacing with technologi is not really as Sci-Fi as some people think it is.
Because it's not natural and we shouldn't be playing God and mucking about with His creations and blah blah blah.
Because we know that there will be people who take it to the extreme (just look at conventional body modification today).
Because some people will feel threatened by people who have modified themselves, but instead of labeling it fear they will find comfort in being a non "modified" human, but they will be afraid of people who, through technology, have made themselves better (which to them will be read as "more dangerous") than humans.
And they'll be afraid that they will be replaced by modified humans (How am I supposed to complete for a job with a guy who can access the internet wirelessly from his brain and immediately pull up any relevant piece of information required?).
And some of those people will treat modified humans differently, and it will lead to anger and violence and the first time some guy with a mechanical arm punches his robofist through someone's face in a streetfight the Pure Human Act will be passed banning them, which will only lead to more anger and violence and, more importantly, fear.
And then we'll be looking at the next civil war, between "pure" humans and "modified" humans and the country will fall apart and holy shit I should be writing this down this would make for an awesome cyberpunk novel.
I think the heart of the matter is that the genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in. Any bit of music or other IP you care to name can be duplicated at negligible cost near infinitely. As others have pointed out, rewiring the brain is a almost meaningly difference from an mp3 earbud, at least within the context of copyright.
I think the arts are going to inevitably move in the same direction other industries have been: large scale customization, or commission. So a musician/painter/designer can't make something and get paid every time someone uses it for decades. Instead he's paid to make your song, your painting, design your dream car, whatever. So if someone duplicates your song a bajillion times on the net, it doesn't matter, you made your money on the commission.
So who's gonna design an Accord? A car designer approached by a guy with a lot of money who REALLY wants an Accord.
I was saying that if the technology ever becomes available for human beings to recall information (more specifically, music) biologically, then the recording industry will make a huge stink about it, similar to the one made when cassette tapes (and VCRs and CDRs and DVRs) were released.
That is (I feel) the logical interpretation for the image considering this is a thread concerning how copyright laws will evolve to reflect future technology.
Right, and the rest of my post was addressing that. I was simply taking issue with what the OP thinks the future will be like. Not only do I not think humans will start fucking with their physiology in extreme ways like he suggested, but I actively hope they will not.
Are you kidding? This is already happening.
There is a guy that have lived with a RFID chip under the skin of his arm for something like ten years. Last thing I heard about it he was planing to link a chip up to nervcells and install a chip in himself and his wife, in the hope that they would be able to "feel" each other through them.
I must admid I can't remember his name, and I don't think I've heard about him for the last few years, but biological interfacing with technologi is not really as Sci-Fi as some people think it is.
And why is it a bad thing?
Its a bad thing because its creepy as hell. Still, I don't think some silly goose with a chip in his arm is any proof that this kinda stuff isn't still pretty Sci-Fi. What did the chip even do?
I really just don't see any of this stuff catching on. Even if the technology develops it will remain in the realm of outlier silly geese.
And smoke stack, thats the plot of the X-Men franchise, except you replaced mutants with cyborgs.
The chip is an RFID identifier that can be scanned at a hospital to give an instant record of any drug allergies, illnesses, or any other relevant information to the treating medical staff (in theory).
Basically, John Doe rolls into a hospital unconscious after a crash, they scan his chip and instantly they know his name, next of kin, and that he has diabetes, high blood pressure, is taking 100mg of Zoloft qd, and is allergic to morphine. Information like that is incredibly important to have.
Unfortunately, while this is a pretty awesome idea (Doctors love the shit out of it because it would practically eliminate the medication errors that kill almost a hundred thousand people per year), it's perfect for abuse. "Hold out your arm to be scanned, citizen", remote tracking using RFID readers, etc.
SmokeStacks on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
Normal biological memory wouldn't be accurate enough nor could it be engineered to be accurate enough. It just isn't set up that way. It's not just "making it more accurate", it would be fundamentally rewiring the brain so it works other than a human beings brain works. We are very much designed to be inaccurate: it's what makes us so efficient at remembering vast swathes of information generally but makes it hard to remember very specific details.
How memory works is that we reconstruct a memory from base principles: all that gets stored is basic blueprints that gets used in the reconstruction. How accurate a memory is depends on the accuracy of the blueprints, but even so it is not a "replaying" or a "copy" it is a reconstruction and as such there is difference due to the nature of reconstruction.
An example would be: rather than quickloading a game to a certain point, you replay the entire game back to that point. (Or knocking a building down and rebuilding it again) Your experiences would be different and so would your situation at that point, assuming a certain level of complexity. Memory does not work like a saved "state" at all.
So no, it can't happen biologically without changing us fundamentally. If we were changed that much, current IP laws would be revised.
I am aware that the idea is supposed to be independent of the facts of how memory actually works, but unfortunately in this case memory works in a way that renders the idea, from a biological perspective, as impossible. Hence I cannot accept it's independence in this case. I'm sorry if that is irritating.
You could possibly hook up a machine in the future, I can see that happening, but since it would technically be a computerised device attached to you it wouldn't be that much different from an external computer as far as I'm concerned. Hence I could see IP laws being able to apply there. A scary thought!
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Normal biological memory wouldn't be accurate enough nor could it be engineered to be accurate enough. It just isn't set up that way. It's not just "making it more accurate", it would be fundamentally rewiring the brain so it works other than a human beings brain works. We are very much designed to be inaccurate: it's what makes us so efficient at remembering vast swathes of information generally but makes it hard to remember very specific details.
How memory works is that we reconstruct a memory from base principles: all that gets stored is basic blueprints that gets used in the reconstruction.
So no, it can't happen biologically without changing us fundamentally.
You could possibly hook up a machine in the future, I can see that happening, but since it would technically be a computerised device attached to you it wouldn't be that much different from an external computer as far as I'm concerned.
I am aware that the idea is supposed to be independent of the facts of how memory actually works, but unfortunately in this case memory works in a way that renders the idea, from a biological perspective, as impossible. Hence I cannot accept it's independence in this case. I'm sorry if that is irritating.
Uh... You are aware that there are living people who can remember with perfect clarity entire libraries' worth of books, right? Guys like Kim Peek prove that there's nothing about biological computers that makes them incapable of remembering things precisely.
If a developmental disorder can do it, it seems reasonable to conclude that we'll be able to trigger it deliberately one day.
CycloneRanger on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Normal biological memory wouldn't be accurate enough nor could it be engineered to be accurate enough. It just isn't set up that way. It's not just "making it more accurate", it would be fundamentally rewiring the brain so it works other than a human beings brain works. We are very much designed to be inaccurate: it's what makes us so efficient at remembering vast swathes of information generally but makes it hard to remember very specific details.
How memory works is that we reconstruct a memory from base principles: all that gets stored is basic blueprints that gets used in the reconstruction.
So no, it can't happen biologically without changing us fundamentally.
You could possibly hook up a machine in the future, I can see that happening, but since it would technically be a computerised device attached to you it wouldn't be that much different from an external computer as far as I'm concerned.
I am aware that the idea is supposed to be independent of the facts of how memory actually works, but unfortunately in this case memory works in a way that renders the idea, from a biological perspective, as impossible. Hence I cannot accept it's independence in this case. I'm sorry if that is irritating.
Uh... You are aware that there are living people who can remember with perfect clarity entire libraries' worth of books, right? Guys like Kim Peek prove that there's nothing about biological computers that makes them incapable of remembering things precisely.
If a developmental disorder can do it, it seems reasonable to conclude that we'll be able to trigger it deliberately one day.
His brain was not akin to a normal human being. If we were all like Kim peek I would say we had changed fundamentally.
In addition, there isn't any good strong psychological evidence for eidetic memory at this point in time for someone without fundamental structural difference in the brain. So you'll excuse me if I remain skeptical about the idea.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Normal biological memory wouldn't be accurate enough nor could it be engineered to be accurate enough. It just isn't set up that way. It's not just "making it more accurate", it would be fundamentally rewiring the brain so it works other than a human beings brain works. We are very much designed to be inaccurate: it's what makes us so efficient at remembering vast swathes of information generally but makes it hard to remember very specific details.
How memory works is that we reconstruct a memory from base principles: all that gets stored is basic blueprints that gets used in the reconstruction.
So no, it can't happen biologically without changing us fundamentally.
You could possibly hook up a machine in the future, I can see that happening, but since it would technically be a computerised device attached to you it wouldn't be that much different from an external computer as far as I'm concerned.
I am aware that the idea is supposed to be independent of the facts of how memory actually works, but unfortunately in this case memory works in a way that renders the idea, from a biological perspective, as impossible. Hence I cannot accept it's independence in this case. I'm sorry if that is irritating.
Uh... You are aware that there are living people who can remember with perfect clarity entire libraries' worth of books, right? Guys like Kim Peek prove that there's nothing about biological computers that makes them incapable of remembering things precisely.
If a developmental disorder can do it, it seems reasonable to conclude that we'll be able to trigger it deliberately one day.
His brain was not akin to a normal human being. If we were all like Kim peek I would say we had changed fundamentally.
You're still asserting that it can't happen without backing it up somehow. If we've gone so far as to be installing extra organic "modules" into the human brain, why shouldn't we be able to duplicate those abilities?
Clearly organic memory can work that way under certain conditions. Once you know it's possible, it's just a question of engineering. I'm not at all convinced that it can't eventually be done.
Edit: In response to your edit, you can remain skeptical all you want. You can't claim that it's impossible without some kind of real argument, though.
CycloneRanger on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Normal biological memory wouldn't be accurate enough nor could it be engineered to be accurate enough. It just isn't set up that way. It's not just "making it more accurate", it would be fundamentally rewiring the brain so it works other than a human beings brain works. We are very much designed to be inaccurate: it's what makes us so efficient at remembering vast swathes of information generally but makes it hard to remember very specific details.
How memory works is that we reconstruct a memory from base principles: all that gets stored is basic blueprints that gets used in the reconstruction.
So no, it can't happen biologically without changing us fundamentally.
You could possibly hook up a machine in the future, I can see that happening, but since it would technically be a computerised device attached to you it wouldn't be that much different from an external computer as far as I'm concerned.
I am aware that the idea is supposed to be independent of the facts of how memory actually works, but unfortunately in this case memory works in a way that renders the idea, from a biological perspective, as impossible. Hence I cannot accept it's independence in this case. I'm sorry if that is irritating.
Uh... You are aware that there are living people who can remember with perfect clarity entire libraries' worth of books, right? Guys like Kim Peek prove that there's nothing about biological computers that makes them incapable of remembering things precisely.
If a developmental disorder can do it, it seems reasonable to conclude that we'll be able to trigger it deliberately one day.
His brain was not akin to a normal human being. If we were all like Kim peek I would say we had changed fundamentally.
You're still asserting that it can't happen without backing it up somehow. If we've gone so far as to be installing extra organic "modules" into the human brain, why shouldn't we be able to duplicate those abilities?
Clearly organic memory can work that way under certain conditions. Once you know it's possible, it's just a question of engineering. I'm not at all convinced that it can't eventually be done.
What constitutes back up here? Kim Peek had autism. People with these condition have distinct changes in parts of the brain relating to memory. They result in a good memory for facts and in addition all the side effects of autism.
Sure, you could engineer people to be autistic. This would fundamentally change that person. They would be autistic, with all the many many negatives of that condition, such as bad episodic and relational memory. So you see it's a trade off: by having a different brain structure they can remember one type of information very well and lose abilities in another type of memory.
So yes you are correct you could probably engineer it. If you did, this would completely change the environment and thus ip laws would be completely different.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Normal biological memory wouldn't be accurate enough nor could it be engineered to be accurate enough. It just isn't set up that way. It's not just "making it more accurate", it would be fundamentally rewiring the brain so it works other than a human beings brain works. We are very much designed to be inaccurate: it's what makes us so efficient at remembering vast swathes of information generally but makes it hard to remember very specific details.
How memory works is that we reconstruct a memory from base principles: all that gets stored is basic blueprints that gets used in the reconstruction.
So no, it can't happen biologically without changing us fundamentally.
You could possibly hook up a machine in the future, I can see that happening, but since it would technically be a computerised device attached to you it wouldn't be that much different from an external computer as far as I'm concerned.
I am aware that the idea is supposed to be independent of the facts of how memory actually works, but unfortunately in this case memory works in a way that renders the idea, from a biological perspective, as impossible. Hence I cannot accept it's independence in this case. I'm sorry if that is irritating.
Uh... You are aware that there are living people who can remember with perfect clarity entire libraries' worth of books, right? Guys like Kim Peek prove that there's nothing about biological computers that makes them incapable of remembering things precisely.
If a developmental disorder can do it, it seems reasonable to conclude that we'll be able to trigger it deliberately one day.
His brain was not akin to a normal human being. If we were all like Kim peek I would say we had changed fundamentally.
You're still asserting that it can't happen without backing it up somehow. If we've gone so far as to be installing extra organic "modules" into the human brain, why shouldn't we be able to duplicate those abilities?
Clearly organic memory can work that way under certain conditions. Once you know it's possible, it's just a question of engineering. I'm not at all convinced that it can't eventually be done.
What constitutes back up here? Kim Peek had autism. People with these condition have distinct changes in parts of the brain relating to memory. They result in a good memory for facts and in addition all the side effects of autism.
Sure, you could engineer people to be autistic. This would fundamentally change that person. They would be autistic, with all the many many negatives of that condition.
I don't understand how you make the jump from "a side effect of autism is vastly improved memory for certain types of information" (which, importantly, only occurs in a tiny fraction of cases) to "it is impossible to cause this memory improvement without also causing autism".
CycloneRanger on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I don't understand how you make the jump from "a side effect of autism is vastly improved memory for certain types of information" (which, importantly, only occurs in a tiny fraction of cases) to "it is impossible to cause this memory improvement without also causing autism".
Because all of the brain abnormalities relating to the memory features of autism are structures related to memory. If you want an autistic like memory you also get to have the associated draw backs of autistic memory. Good at one type of memory and bad at another.
Structural abnormalities that lead to particular autistic behaviors not related to memory would not be affected, no. But a bad episodic and relational memory is a huge fundamental change.
So really, all I did was not be extremely specific and separate non memory from memory based differences. But you see I didn't think I had to do that because non memory based differences are irrelevant here. I thought it would be obvious?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I don't understand how you make the jump from "a side effect of autism is vastly improved memory for certain types of information" (which, importantly, only occurs in a tiny fraction of cases) to "it is impossible to cause this memory improvement without also causing autism".
Because all of the brain abnormalities relating to the memory features of autism are structures related to memory. If you want an autistic like memory you also get to have the associated draw backs of autistic memory. Good at one type of memory and bad at another.
Structural abnormalities that lead to particular autistic behaviors not related to memory would not be affected, no. But a bad episodic and relational memory is a huge fundamental change.
So really, all I did was not be extremely specific and separate non memory from memory based differences. But you see I didn't think I had to do that because non memory based differences are irrelevant here. I thought it would be obvious?
Well, I guess I'm just an idiot, then, because it isn't obvious to me that it's impossible to obtain the advantages that occur in some percentage of autistic cases without the drawbacks. Maybe you can enlighten me regarding the precise nature of memory and the physical reason this isn't possible?
To be fully honest, though, I don't think you have that understanding either, and I don't think you're at all qualified to say "this is impossible".
CycloneRanger on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I don't understand how you make the jump from "a side effect of autism is vastly improved memory for certain types of information" (which, importantly, only occurs in a tiny fraction of cases) to "it is impossible to cause this memory improvement without also causing autism".
Because all of the brain abnormalities relating to the memory features of autism are structures related to memory. If you want an autistic like memory you also get to have the associated draw backs of autistic memory. Good at one type of memory and bad at another.
Structural abnormalities that lead to particular autistic behaviors not related to memory would not be affected, no. But a bad episodic and relational memory is a huge fundamental change.
So really, all I did was not be extremely specific and separate non memory from memory based differences. But you see I didn't think I had to do that because non memory based differences are irrelevant here. I thought it would be obvious?
Well, I guess I'm just an idiot, then, because it isn't obvious to me that it's impossible to obtain the advantages that occur in some percentage of autistic cases without the drawbacks. Maybe you can enlighten me regarding the precise nature of memory and the physical reason this isn't possible?
To be fully honest, though, I don't think you have that understanding either, and I don't think you're at all qualified to say "this is impossible".
How about, instead, you find a source that authenticates these people with "perfect recall" via some kind of rigorous testing.
I've been trying to find out myself for a while now sources behind all of these perfect memory claims and I'm having trouble. Kim Peek's 98% claim (which is not perfect) appears to have come from his father. I'm sure his father loved his son very much but I'm not going to treat him as an authentic source.
Since your entire objection is based on "But hey these people have perfect memory", perhaps you'd better double check that they actually do.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The chip is an RFID identifier that can be scanned at a hospital to give an instant record of any drug allergies, illnesses, or any other relevant information to the treating medical staff (in theory).
Basically, John Doe rolls into a hospital unconscious after a crash, they scan his chip and instantly they know his name, next of kin, and that he has diabetes, high blood pressure, is taking 100mg of Zoloft qd, and is allergic to morphine. Information like that is incredibly important to have.
Unfortunately, while this is a pretty awesome idea (Doctors love the shit out of it because it would practically eliminate the medication errors that kill almost a hundred thousand people per year), it's perfect for abuse. "Hold out your arm to be scanned, citizen", remote tracking using RFID readers, etc.
This guy is largely overhyped. It's mostly sizzle and no steak. Check out Ben Goldacre's expose in Bad Science (and possibly also on his blarg).
Apothe0sis on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Only a couple of years ago the general PA D&D consensus was really different. Times are changing!
Also, abolishing IP altogether(or at least a much needed reform which cuts the time frame on copyright duration significantly) would push "artist" closer to a profession and not a lifestyle, but it certainly won't abolish the economic viability of artistic creations.
Both won't be happening in a Western country.
IP doesn't apply to just art, and in a lot of areas the design and implementation work is 99% of the expense. As much as I hate the pharmaceutical industry, its a decent example- drugs often cost jack and shit to make. Designing and testing them, on the other hand, could bankrupt small nations. How do you deal with that sort of thing?
EDIT: Oh, and dropping back to art: Music- not all musicians are performers. Some are just song writers. Some simply prefer to do recordings only. How is that handled?
Also movies. You can't exactly do live performance here. :P
You realise that the legal costs for the pharma industry exceeds their R&D budget? R&D typically sits at 17% of costs. This is empirically a bad argument for that reason, and the fact that Italy had a thriving pharmaceutical industry until they introduced a patent system, at which point the number of unique drugs created annually dropped considerably.
I don't understand how you make the jump from "a side effect of autism is vastly improved memory for certain types of information" (which, importantly, only occurs in a tiny fraction of cases) to "it is impossible to cause this memory improvement without also causing autism".
Because all of the brain abnormalities relating to the memory features of autism are structures related to memory. If you want an autistic like memory you also get to have the associated draw backs of autistic memory. Good at one type of memory and bad at another.
Structural abnormalities that lead to particular autistic behaviors not related to memory would not be affected, no. But a bad episodic and relational memory is a huge fundamental change.
So really, all I did was not be extremely specific and separate non memory from memory based differences. But you see I didn't think I had to do that because non memory based differences are irrelevant here. I thought it would be obvious?
Well, I guess I'm just an idiot, then, because it isn't obvious to me that it's impossible to obtain the advantages that occur in some percentage of autistic cases without the drawbacks. Maybe you can enlighten me regarding the precise nature of memory and the physical reason this isn't possible?
To be fully honest, though, I don't think you have that understanding either, and I don't think you're at all qualified to say "this is impossible".
How about, instead, you find a source that authenticates these people with "perfect recall" via some kind of rigorous testing.
I've been trying to find out myself for a while now sources behind all of these perfect memory claims and I'm having trouble. Kim Peek's 98% claim (which is not perfect) appears to have come from his father. I'm sure his father loved his son very much but I'm not going to treat him as an authentic source.
Since your entire objection is based on "But hey these people have perfect memory", perhaps you'd better double check that they actually do.
I'm reading a book titled "Delete" by Viktor Mayer-Schonberger which references such a case, a woman in California. The book cites Foer, "Remember This,": 32-55 and Parker, Cahill, and McGaugh, "A Case of Unusual Autobiographical Remembering," 35-49.
Although the book itself is more about the effect of society "remembering" things forever due to technology, its comments on the woman's case indicate that her perfect memory for details makes it more difficult for her to make generalizations or respond intuitively, supporting the idea that the perfect memory itself reduces other functional areas.
I don't understand how you make the jump from "a side effect of autism is vastly improved memory for certain types of information" (which, importantly, only occurs in a tiny fraction of cases) to "it is impossible to cause this memory improvement without also causing autism".
Because all of the brain abnormalities relating to the memory features of autism are structures related to memory. If you want an autistic like memory you also get to have the associated draw backs of autistic memory. Good at one type of memory and bad at another.
Structural abnormalities that lead to particular autistic behaviors not related to memory would not be affected, no. But a bad episodic and relational memory is a huge fundamental change.
So really, all I did was not be extremely specific and separate non memory from memory based differences. But you see I didn't think I had to do that because non memory based differences are irrelevant here. I thought it would be obvious?
Well, I guess I'm just an idiot, then, because it isn't obvious to me that it's impossible to obtain the advantages that occur in some percentage of autistic cases without the drawbacks. Maybe you can enlighten me regarding the precise nature of memory and the physical reason this isn't possible?
To be fully honest, though, I don't think you have that understanding either, and I don't think you're at all qualified to say "this is impossible".
How about, instead, you find a source that authenticates these people with "perfect recall" via some kind of rigorous testing.
I've been trying to find out myself for a while now sources behind all of these perfect memory claims and I'm having trouble. Kim Peek's 98% claim (which is not perfect) appears to have come from his father. I'm sure his father loved his son very much but I'm not going to treat him as an authentic source.
Since your entire objection is based on "But hey these people have perfect memory", perhaps you'd better double check that they actually do.
Is this relevant to the premise in the OP though (even if we ignore the fact that bioengineering is only used as a thought experiment here, to examine the rationality of IP laws)? It's predicated on the idea that we can rewire the neurons so that data can be stored accurately (enough). You state that this isn't possible, that biological memory can never be engineered in such a way. That's a pretty strong claim. Exactly how far into the future of science and engineering can you see?
In any case, this bird disagrees with you on biological brains being able to remember and replicate sounds accurately (watch from 1:50 on):
We can already repeat songs to a high degree of accuracy. If our vocal cords were more awesome, we could probably replicate several voices at once, or a variety of instruments. I don't see any reason to think why memory would be the bottleneck here. The data may be stored in an abstracted form, but the output is accurate, and redirecting it to a device other than our vocal chords would be just a matter of (seemingly extremely complex) engineering.
edit: here's an even better video. Note how the bird also replicates the reverberation of sounds it has heard from a distance.
I don't understand how you make the jump from "a side effect of autism is vastly improved memory for certain types of information" (which, importantly, only occurs in a tiny fraction of cases) to "it is impossible to cause this memory improvement without also causing autism".
Because all of the brain abnormalities relating to the memory features of autism are structures related to memory. If you want an autistic like memory you also get to have the associated draw backs of autistic memory. Good at one type of memory and bad at another.
Structural abnormalities that lead to particular autistic behaviors not related to memory would not be affected, no. But a bad episodic and relational memory is a huge fundamental change.
So really, all I did was not be extremely specific and separate non memory from memory based differences. But you see I didn't think I had to do that because non memory based differences are irrelevant here. I thought it would be obvious?
Well, I guess I'm just an idiot, then, because it isn't obvious to me that it's impossible to obtain the advantages that occur in some percentage of autistic cases without the drawbacks. Maybe you can enlighten me regarding the precise nature of memory and the physical reason this isn't possible?
To be fully honest, though, I don't think you have that understanding either, and I don't think you're at all qualified to say "this is impossible".
I just finished doing the neuroscience doo-hickey of my Medicine course.
It's impossible, also an incredibly dumb idea - can you even imagine the emotional toll of having perfect memory? The brain hasn't developed to perfectly memorise stuff, it's just how it works. It's an inherent feature of the brain. It's like trying to get a wrench to work as a computer or vice versa - they just aren't built for that purpose at all.
You realise that the legal costs for the pharma industry exceeds their R&D budget? R&D typically sits at 17% of costs. This is empirically a bad argument for that reason, and the fact that Italy had a thriving pharmaceutical industry until they introduced a patent system, at which point the number of unique drugs created annually dropped considerably.
That R&D makes up 17% of total cost is irrelevant to the question of whether IP is needed to make this R&D happen in the first place. Expenditures on R&D, legal, marketing etc are all driven by separate cost benefit analyses.
That doesn't mean I disagree with your argument. India is another example of a country that only recently introduced patents for drugs (2002?) and had a pharma industry beforehand. Comparing R&D to other expenditures just doesn't support that argument.
alternatively, creation of art as a career ceases to be economically feasible unless heavily subsidized by the government/wealthy patrons
Creations of art will continue to be economically feasible. However they will not be capable of doing something once and continuing to be paid for years for it. Artists will still sell paintings they paint, musicians will still put on concerts.
In short, people like Metallica will no longer be able to collect money for a song they played in a recording studio 20 years ago. To collect money, they will actually have to play the damn song again in front of people.
As long as we're talking about pirating in the future...
I can't wait until someone invents a laser-projector that can project movies onto a full moon so on clear nights everyone in a certain hemisphere will be able to go outside, put on their moongoggles and watch classic films by looking up into the night sky.
As long as we're talking about pirating in the future...
I can't wait until someone invents a laser-projector that can project movies onto a full moon so on clear nights everyone in a certain hemisphere will be able to go outside, put on their moongoggles and watch classic films by looking up into the night sky.
It's more likely they'll use this technology for obnoxious advertising.
I just finished doing the neuroscience doo-hickey of my Medicine course.
It's impossible, also an incredibly dumb idea - can you even imagine the emotional toll of having perfect memory? The brain hasn't developed to perfectly memorise stuff, it's just how it works. It's an inherent feature of the brain. It's like trying to get a wrench to work as a computer or vice versa - they just aren't built for that purpose at all.
So you're saying that never, under any circumstances, even with millions of years of advanced science, will we ever be able to engineer a biological structure for perfect memory recall? That's a pretty strong claim. If we can create artificial structures out of inorganic matter for perfect memory recall (computer storage) then I don't see what about doing the same thing with living tissue is so utterly impossible. Incredibly difficult, yes, but why specifically is it impossible to do?
Is there some big Omnipresent memory god that's going to shove a thunderbolt up someone's ass every time they try?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I just finished doing the neuroscience doo-hickey of my Medicine course.
It's impossible, also an incredibly dumb idea - can you even imagine the emotional toll of having perfect memory? The brain hasn't developed to perfectly memorise stuff, it's just how it works. It's an inherent feature of the brain. It's like trying to get a wrench to work as a computer or vice versa - they just aren't built for that purpose at all.
So you're saying that never, under any circumstances, even with millions of years of advanced science, will we ever be able to engineer a biological structure for perfect memory recall? That's a pretty strong claim. If we can create artificial structures out of inorganic matter for perfect memory recall (computer storage) then I don't see what about doing the same thing with living tissue is so utterly impossible. Incredibly difficult, yes, but why specifically is it impossible to do?
Is there some big Omnipresent memory god that's going to shove a thunderbolt up someone's ass every time they try?
In do so you would destroy what it is to be human. In which case you might as well just create a new species that does this. Also what would the biological advantage of perfect recall be? You would more than likely just get stuck in remembering stuff and become less aware of what is actually happening. Why would you want to live your life when you can just perfectly recall every detail of the most perfect day/moment of your life so far and can be content to do nothing but?
Perfect recall would not function at all like I think you want it to, it wouldn't be like some computer being able to call up sets of data on demand. It would become a fundamental part of your very being, it would have to be some kind of gross mutation distorting your brain function in such a way.
More or less, what I'm describing is a disease, something which autism happens to be and sometimes results in perfect recall of some things but is crippling in other areas. Who would sign up to get a disease?
This is why I think we need to view intellectual property as only a practicality, not an ideal. Viewing intellectual property as actual property, that you have an ideal natural right to, like life and liberty, leads to nonsense. Intellectual property is just something we came up with to spur art and invention. When it ceases to serve that purpose, we've gone too far.
I would like to be on the sign-up list for Synaesthesia.
I think you misunderstand synaesthesia is, assuming you are referring to signing up to what I described in my post.
If you're gonna sign up to that then have fun reliving your life again. I'm sure you'll have an amazing time once you can no longer focus on the present long enough to tie your own shoe laces.
In do so you would destroy what it is to be human. In which case you might as well just create a new species that does this.
While the brain is definitely the defining part of what it means to be a human I only believe that insofar as it's the object that enables our self-aware consciousness to exist. The actual sentient, self-aware consciousness is, in my opinion, the defining part of humanity. Or rather what I believe constitutes a non-arbitrary criteria for classifying a being of any makeup in the same category, worthy of the same rights, privileges and protections as we afford humans. (As well as subject to the same responsibilities.)
Also what would the biological advantage of perfect recall be? You would more than likely just get stuck in remembering stuff and become less aware of what is actually happening. Why would you want to live your life when you can just perfectly recall every detail of the most perfect day/moment of your life so far and can be content to do nothing but?
Well that's getting into implementation details now. I don't know how the OP would want it but personally I think that adding a 100% perfect memory store/recall is a useful tool to compliment what we have now. I'd use it primarily for skill based knowledge, so that way any skills I learn would always be immediately ready to use no matter how long it'd been since I last used them. This would probably also have the side affect of making learning new skills much easier since you would remove the bottlenecks our current generalized memory creates in building off of memories.
I would keep a complete memory log like they had in The Final Cut but I'd intentionally limit instant biological recall to sight and sound only to prevent the above mentioned problem since that'd easily be a problem for the millions with addictive personalities, and probably also add some kind of a context filter so that recall could only be initiated in "safe" circumstances (can you imagine all the car accidents otherwise?)
The full data would still be stored but I'd probably make it so that recalling it would require a good deal of effort and possibly impose some sort of hard limit in full recalls to prevent abuse.
I'd also use it for storing text and other indexable bits of information for instant fact based recall, but limit it so information is only available to my direct consciousness when I intentionally request it. Like in that old TV show John Doe. We already do the above somewhat with the internet but having it integrated into your biology would be much more portable. Although extra care would need to be taken in verifying stored information and making it easy and fast to update in the event data changed or was found incorrect later.
Perfect recall would not function at all like I think you want it to, it wouldn't be like some computer being able to call up sets of data on demand. It would become a fundamental part of your very being, it would have to be some kind of gross mutation distorting your brain function in such a way.
It sounds like what you're talking about is more just us developing these new perfect memory cells and slapping them into the brain in place of or on top of what we already have. We're already talking about a completely theoretical engineered ability we're adding to ourselves. So if we're going that far then we can most definitely take care in doing it so that it will function in primarily helpful ways. Of course, doing all of this adds even more complexity to the whole idea which means it'll be even further into the future until we can ever hope to see it.
Still, other than the fact that the technology isn't and very well may not be there for hundreds to thousands of years I don't see anything else stopping us from one day implementing the above solution into our biology.
More or less, what I'm describing is a disease, something which autism happens to be and sometimes results in perfect recall of some things but is crippling in other areas. Who would sign up to get a disease?
Genetic Engineering and other biological or physiological modification is not a zero sum game. Maybe with what we know now, and the technology we have now, adding such a feature would recklessly cripple a person and be very much like a disease. However, that's a technical problem and not a fundamental one.
Let's step back several hundred years and ask someone what they'd think about the possibility of one day traveling on a carriage that could go at speeds of two hundred miles per hour.
A carriage that travels at a rate of two hundred miles per hour? Why that's just impossible! The sheer wind force alone would tear the vehicle apart, not to mention all of the stress on the axles from traveling at such speeds, which would no doubt prevent even reaching such a velocity. As well, how could you even possibly steer such a thing?
Why such a contraption would be a mobile death trap for all involved. Who in their right mind would ever sign up to ride in such a mobile coffin? It's simply reckless and foolish.
Do you see what I'm getting at now as far as technical problems versus fundamental ones?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
In do so you would destroy what it is to be human. In which case you might as well just create a new species that does this.
While the brain is definitely the defining part of what it means to be a human I only believe that insofar as it's the object that enables our self-aware consciousness to exist. The actual sentient, self-aware consciousness is, in my opinion, the defining part of humanity. Or rather what I believe constitutes a non-arbitrary criteria for classifying a being of any makeup in the same category, worthy of the same rights, privileges and protections as we afford humans. (As well as subject to the same responsibilities.)
Also what would the biological advantage of perfect recall be? You would more than likely just get stuck in remembering stuff and become less aware of what is actually happening. Why would you want to live your life when you can just perfectly recall every detail of the most perfect day/moment of your life so far and can be content to do nothing but?
Well that's getting into implementation details now. I don't know how the OP would want it but personally I think that adding a 100% perfect memory store/recall is a useful tool to compliment what we have now. I'd use it primarily for skill based knowledge, so that way any skills I learn would always be immediately ready to use no matter how long it'd been since I last used them. This would probably also have the side affect of making learning new skills much easier since you would remove the bottlenecks our current generalized memory creates in building off of memories.
I would keep a complete memory log like they had in The Final Cut but I'd intentionally limit instant biological recall to sight and sound only to prevent the above mentioned problem since that'd easily be a problem for the millions with addictive personalities, and probably also add some kind of a context filter so that recall could only be initiated in "safe" circumstances (can you imagine all the car accidents otherwise?)
The full data would still be stored but I'd probably make it so that recalling it would require a good deal of effort and possibly impose some sort of hard limit in full recalls to prevent abuse.
I'd also use it for storing text and other indexable bits of information for instant fact based recall, but limit it so information is only available to my direct consciousness when I intentionally request it. Like in that old TV show John Doe. We already do the above somewhat with the internet but having it integrated into your biology would be much more portable. Although extra care would need to be taken in verifying stored information and making it easy and fast to update in the event data changed or was found incorrect later.
Perfect recall would not function at all like I think you want it to, it wouldn't be like some computer being able to call up sets of data on demand. It would become a fundamental part of your very being, it would have to be some kind of gross mutation distorting your brain function in such a way.
It sounds like what you're talking about is more just us developing these new perfect memory cells and slapping them into the brain in place of or on top of what we already have. We're already talking about a completely theoretical engineered ability we're adding to ourselves. So if we're going that far then we can most definitely take care in doing it so that it will function in primarily helpful ways. Of course, doing all of this adds even more complexity to the whole idea which means it'll be even further into the future until we can ever hope to see it.
Still, other than the fact that the technology isn't and very well may not be there for hundreds to thousands of years I don't see anything else stopping us from one day implementing the above solution into our biology.
More or less, what I'm describing is a disease, something which autism happens to be and sometimes results in perfect recall of some things but is crippling in other areas. Who would sign up to get a disease?
Genetic Engineering and other biological or physiological modification is not a zero sum game. Maybe with what we know now, and the technology we have now, adding such a feature would recklessly cripple a person and be very much like a disease. However, that's a technical problem and not a fundamental one.
Let's step back several hundred years and ask someone what they'd think about the possibility of one day traveling on a carriage that could go at speeds of two hundred miles per hour.
A carriage that travels at a rate of two hundred miles per hour? Why that's just impossible! The sheer wind force alone would tear the vehicle apart, not to mention all of the stress on the axles from traveling at such speeds, which would no doubt prevent even reaching such a velocity. As well, how could you even possibly steer such a thing?
Why such a contraption would be a mobile death trap for all involved. Who in their right mind would ever sign up to ride in such a mobile coffin? It's simply reckless and foolish.
Do you see what I'm getting at now as far as technical problems versus fundamental ones?
The things you want perfect recall of are of VASTLY different areas of the brain. There's enough difference between the region you process auditory information and the region where you process visual information, but then you add skill sets which involves the cerebellum and the ENTIRE central nervous system (CNS).
The brain doesn't have bits that go "okay stimulate this and your memory will be enhanced" or "this cell takes care of processing all the BLUE that you've seen in the last ten years". What you have is populations of cells that process information as a physical property of these cells.
There is no distinction between "software" and "hardware" in the brain, they are inherent to one another and to create some kind of perfect recall you would essentially have to rewire every single neurone individually then perhaps add another 2 or 3 billion neurones and find out how they're meant to be wired in order to create this "perfect recall" you so massively desire.
Perhaps you should go pick up a nice short book on neuroscience, I suggest "Neuroscience at a Glance". It's nice and concise and is easily understood. Of course in talking about this we haven't even thought about how the CNS interacts with the rest of the body with its hormones and growth factors and immune system.
What you are demanding is that scientists essentially create life from scratch (we're getting there!) then somehow create a highly complex multicellular organism that works somewhat like a computer. It's preposterous, it just is, I truly don't think you understand the level of complexity that our brains exist at. We haven't even bloody well figured out how thought works! We just know that sections of the brain activate in strange ways and are constantly changing in sensitivity, growing, degenerating etc.
The Cerebellum, the bit which coordinates all our movements is a minibrain onto itself. It contains more neurone cell bodies in it than the other parts of the brain combined and it is constantly working. It's not like you learn a movement like "I can now reach out my hand a grab an object which I can see, there that skill has been learnt - save in the memory banks and retrieve when necessary" it works more in the way of the motor cortex sending information down the spine to the appropriate motoneurones of the arm to tell it what to do, simultaneously the cerebellum is sent a copy of the information of what the motorcortex intended to do and the cerebellum modifies the output of the motorcortex to the arm making sure it is coordinated and then the muscles of the arm feedback their positions in space and your eyes feed information to the cerebellum and premotor cortex to get the movement right. The cerebellum is meanwhile constantly working making sure the movement is done appropriately, even deviations as small as a millimeter are noted and corrected for in future movements.
Wow, that last bit ended up being a bit of a ramble, but it was a fairly simple bit of brain workings.
I am unsure of what these technical problems are versus the fundamental problems. To me they are exactly the same, your technical difficulties will arise because it is fundamentally a terrible idea.
Oh god I haven't even thought of the implications of this perfect recall business on the body's metabolism and hormonal control. Jesus fuck, you'd end up spending so much more energy, even if this didn't kill you think of all the extra food you'd have to eat. Various other processes would have to be much more efficient and quicker at absorbing food to keep up.
Daxon on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
The most important part about what I said is that it isn't possible while remaining the way we are now. If we are not the way we are now, then IP law would no longer apply: it would have changed as the people changed.
I wasn't simply declaring the biological change alone as impossible: I was declaring the whole thought experiment as impossible, combined together. If you change people, you change society and hence the laws would be changed rather naturally. Nobody would force a law that doesn't apply anymore, in the same way laws about witches are no longer applied. It would be irrelevant.
Focusing on the biological aspect in an attempt to preserve the thought experiment is ignoring half of the argument I made.
I also acknowledged a possible situation, that isn't really biological, where an artificial implant that stores the song and activates the relevant neural connections could be invented. This preserves the thought experiment, if somewhat revised.
This I think is more likely and probably more pertinent than attempting to rewire the human psyche with the full willingness of the population. I can't see that happening myself.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The most important part about what I said is that it isn't possible while remaining the way we are now. If we are not the way we are now, then IP law would no longer apply: it would have changed as the people changed.
I wasn't simply declaring the biological change alone as impossible: I was declaring the whole thought experiment as impossible, combined together. If you change people, you change society and hence the laws would be changed rather naturally. Nobody would force a law that doesn't apply anymore, in the same way laws about witches are no longer applied. It would be irrelevant.
Focusing on the biological aspect in an attempt to preserve the thought experiment is ignoring half of the argument I made.
What about laws forbidding gay marriage, or laws claimed to be designed to help small farmers?
jothki on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
The most important part about what I said is that it isn't possible while remaining the way we are now. If we are not the way we are now, then IP law would no longer apply: it would have changed as the people changed.
I wasn't simply declaring the biological change alone as impossible: I was declaring the whole thought experiment as impossible, combined together. If you change people, you change society and hence the laws would be changed rather naturally. Nobody would force a law that doesn't apply anymore, in the same way laws about witches are no longer applied. It would be irrelevant.
Focusing on the biological aspect in an attempt to preserve the thought experiment is ignoring half of the argument I made.
What about laws forbidding gay marriage, or laws claimed to be designed to help small farmers?
Changing the whole populace so that everybody is the same means there's no "other" group to take advantage of with a law like this. Those kinds of laws are based on group prejudice, where "they" are supposedly different to "us".
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Posts
When nano-assemblers become commonplace we shall not be meandering around like drunks in your bourgeois cars that were obsolete SIXTY GODDDAMN YEARS AGO.
Instead, we shall be driving the Car of the Future!
I don't get it.
Background
Wait, are you trying to draw some correlation between my apprehension of bio modification fantasies and apprehension of taping with cassesttes? Taping with casettes was based on pre-existing technology, and was fully external. Bio modification references technology that currently does not exist, implies internal modification of basic human physiology, and has shown no signs of anticpation by anyone aside from a few silly gooses. You are grasping at some very loose straws.
I was saying that if the technology ever becomes available for human beings to recall information (more specifically, music) biologically, then the recording industry will make a huge stink about it, similar to the one made when cassette tapes (and VCRs and CDRs and DVRs) were released.
That is (I feel) the logical interpretation for the image considering this is a thread concerning how copyright laws will evolve to reflect future technology.
Right, and the rest of my post was addressing that. I was simply taking issue with what the OP thinks the future will be like. Not only do I not think humans will start fucking with their physiology in extreme ways like he suggested, but I actively hope they will not.
On a side note, just because it's future tech that may not ever exist, we can still make intelligent guesses as to how it will change the industry.
If I invented a holographic chamber that made you feel as if you were on the front row at a concert, then used my special camera to record a bunch of concerts, and then you could come into my chamber and have a simulated concert that was (to your brain) indistinguishable from the real thing without ever having to pay a dime for a concert ticket, I feel it's fair to assume the music industry would not like that very much.
It might not exactly say "Home Holos are Killing Concerts" or "Don't copy that terra-floppy" or "You wouldn't steal a hoverboard", but there would be some sort of anti-piracy marketing campaign without a doubt. It would be the same thing if I could "play back" music internally, without having to rely on an external music player.
Are you kidding? This is already happening.
There is a guy that have lived with a RFID chip under the skin of his arm for something like ten years. Last thing I heard about it he was planing to link a chip up to nervcells and install a chip in himself and his wife, in the hope that they would be able to "feel" each other through them.
I must admid I can't remember his name, and I don't think I've heard about him for the last few years, but biological interfacing with technologi is not really as Sci-Fi as some people think it is.
And why is it a bad thing?
.
Island. Being on fire.
Because it's not natural and we shouldn't be playing God and mucking about with His creations and blah blah blah.
Because we know that there will be people who take it to the extreme (just look at conventional body modification today).
Because some people will feel threatened by people who have modified themselves, but instead of labeling it fear they will find comfort in being a non "modified" human, but they will be afraid of people who, through technology, have made themselves better (which to them will be read as "more dangerous") than humans.
And they'll be afraid that they will be replaced by modified humans (How am I supposed to complete for a job with a guy who can access the internet wirelessly from his brain and immediately pull up any relevant piece of information required?).
And some of those people will treat modified humans differently, and it will lead to anger and violence and the first time some guy with a mechanical arm punches his robofist through someone's face in a streetfight the Pure Human Act will be passed banning them, which will only lead to more anger and violence and, more importantly, fear.
And then we'll be looking at the next civil war, between "pure" humans and "modified" humans and the country will fall apart and holy shit I should be writing this down this would make for an awesome cyberpunk novel.
I think the arts are going to inevitably move in the same direction other industries have been: large scale customization, or commission. So a musician/painter/designer can't make something and get paid every time someone uses it for decades. Instead he's paid to make your song, your painting, design your dream car, whatever. So if someone duplicates your song a bajillion times on the net, it doesn't matter, you made your money on the commission.
So who's gonna design an Accord? A car designer approached by a guy with a lot of money who REALLY wants an Accord.
Its a bad thing because its creepy as hell. Still, I don't think some silly goose with a chip in his arm is any proof that this kinda stuff isn't still pretty Sci-Fi. What did the chip even do?
I really just don't see any of this stuff catching on. Even if the technology develops it will remain in the realm of outlier silly geese.
And smoke stack, thats the plot of the X-Men franchise, except you replaced mutants with cyborgs.
The chip is an RFID identifier that can be scanned at a hospital to give an instant record of any drug allergies, illnesses, or any other relevant information to the treating medical staff (in theory).
Basically, John Doe rolls into a hospital unconscious after a crash, they scan his chip and instantly they know his name, next of kin, and that he has diabetes, high blood pressure, is taking 100mg of Zoloft qd, and is allergic to morphine. Information like that is incredibly important to have.
Unfortunately, while this is a pretty awesome idea (Doctors love the shit out of it because it would practically eliminate the medication errors that kill almost a hundred thousand people per year), it's perfect for abuse. "Hold out your arm to be scanned, citizen", remote tracking using RFID readers, etc.
How memory works is that we reconstruct a memory from base principles: all that gets stored is basic blueprints that gets used in the reconstruction. How accurate a memory is depends on the accuracy of the blueprints, but even so it is not a "replaying" or a "copy" it is a reconstruction and as such there is difference due to the nature of reconstruction.
An example would be: rather than quickloading a game to a certain point, you replay the entire game back to that point. (Or knocking a building down and rebuilding it again) Your experiences would be different and so would your situation at that point, assuming a certain level of complexity. Memory does not work like a saved "state" at all.
So no, it can't happen biologically without changing us fundamentally. If we were changed that much, current IP laws would be revised.
I am aware that the idea is supposed to be independent of the facts of how memory actually works, but unfortunately in this case memory works in a way that renders the idea, from a biological perspective, as impossible. Hence I cannot accept it's independence in this case. I'm sorry if that is irritating.
You could possibly hook up a machine in the future, I can see that happening, but since it would technically be a computerised device attached to you it wouldn't be that much different from an external computer as far as I'm concerned. Hence I could see IP laws being able to apply there. A scary thought!
If a developmental disorder can do it, it seems reasonable to conclude that we'll be able to trigger it deliberately one day.
His brain was not akin to a normal human being. If we were all like Kim peek I would say we had changed fundamentally.
In addition, there isn't any good strong psychological evidence for eidetic memory at this point in time for someone without fundamental structural difference in the brain. So you'll excuse me if I remain skeptical about the idea.
Clearly organic memory can work that way under certain conditions. Once you know it's possible, it's just a question of engineering. I'm not at all convinced that it can't eventually be done.
Edit: In response to your edit, you can remain skeptical all you want. You can't claim that it's impossible without some kind of real argument, though.
What constitutes back up here? Kim Peek had autism. People with these condition have distinct changes in parts of the brain relating to memory. They result in a good memory for facts and in addition all the side effects of autism.
Sure, you could engineer people to be autistic. This would fundamentally change that person. They would be autistic, with all the many many negatives of that condition, such as bad episodic and relational memory. So you see it's a trade off: by having a different brain structure they can remember one type of information very well and lose abilities in another type of memory.
So yes you are correct you could probably engineer it. If you did, this would completely change the environment and thus ip laws would be completely different.
Because all of the brain abnormalities relating to the memory features of autism are structures related to memory. If you want an autistic like memory you also get to have the associated draw backs of autistic memory. Good at one type of memory and bad at another.
Structural abnormalities that lead to particular autistic behaviors not related to memory would not be affected, no. But a bad episodic and relational memory is a huge fundamental change.
So really, all I did was not be extremely specific and separate non memory from memory based differences. But you see I didn't think I had to do that because non memory based differences are irrelevant here. I thought it would be obvious?
To be fully honest, though, I don't think you have that understanding either, and I don't think you're at all qualified to say "this is impossible".
How about, instead, you find a source that authenticates these people with "perfect recall" via some kind of rigorous testing.
I've been trying to find out myself for a while now sources behind all of these perfect memory claims and I'm having trouble. Kim Peek's 98% claim (which is not perfect) appears to have come from his father. I'm sure his father loved his son very much but I'm not going to treat him as an authentic source.
Since your entire objection is based on "But hey these people have perfect memory", perhaps you'd better double check that they actually do.
You realise that the legal costs for the pharma industry exceeds their R&D budget? R&D typically sits at 17% of costs. This is empirically a bad argument for that reason, and the fact that Italy had a thriving pharmaceutical industry until they introduced a patent system, at which point the number of unique drugs created annually dropped considerably.
I'm reading a book titled "Delete" by Viktor Mayer-Schonberger which references such a case, a woman in California. The book cites Foer, "Remember This,": 32-55 and Parker, Cahill, and McGaugh, "A Case of Unusual Autobiographical Remembering," 35-49.
Although the book itself is more about the effect of society "remembering" things forever due to technology, its comments on the woman's case indicate that her perfect memory for details makes it more difficult for her to make generalizations or respond intuitively, supporting the idea that the perfect memory itself reduces other functional areas.
Is this relevant to the premise in the OP though (even if we ignore the fact that bioengineering is only used as a thought experiment here, to examine the rationality of IP laws)? It's predicated on the idea that we can rewire the neurons so that data can be stored accurately (enough). You state that this isn't possible, that biological memory can never be engineered in such a way. That's a pretty strong claim. Exactly how far into the future of science and engineering can you see?
In any case, this bird disagrees with you on biological brains being able to remember and replicate sounds accurately (watch from 1:50 on):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y
We can already repeat songs to a high degree of accuracy. If our vocal cords were more awesome, we could probably replicate several voices at once, or a variety of instruments. I don't see any reason to think why memory would be the bottleneck here. The data may be stored in an abstracted form, but the output is accurate, and redirecting it to a device other than our vocal chords would be just a matter of (seemingly extremely complex) engineering.
edit: here's an even better video. Note how the bird also replicates the reverberation of sounds it has heard from a distance.
I just finished doing the neuroscience doo-hickey of my Medicine course.
It's impossible, also an incredibly dumb idea - can you even imagine the emotional toll of having perfect memory? The brain hasn't developed to perfectly memorise stuff, it's just how it works. It's an inherent feature of the brain. It's like trying to get a wrench to work as a computer or vice versa - they just aren't built for that purpose at all.
That R&D makes up 17% of total cost is irrelevant to the question of whether IP is needed to make this R&D happen in the first place. Expenditures on R&D, legal, marketing etc are all driven by separate cost benefit analyses.
That doesn't mean I disagree with your argument. India is another example of a country that only recently introduced patents for drugs (2002?) and had a pharma industry beforehand. Comparing R&D to other expenditures just doesn't support that argument.
novelists will still...
I can't wait until someone invents a laser-projector that can project movies onto a full moon so on clear nights everyone in a certain hemisphere will be able to go outside, put on their moongoggles and watch classic films by looking up into the night sky.
It's more likely they'll use this technology for obnoxious advertising.
So you're saying that never, under any circumstances, even with millions of years of advanced science, will we ever be able to engineer a biological structure for perfect memory recall? That's a pretty strong claim. If we can create artificial structures out of inorganic matter for perfect memory recall (computer storage) then I don't see what about doing the same thing with living tissue is so utterly impossible. Incredibly difficult, yes, but why specifically is it impossible to do?
Is there some big Omnipresent memory god that's going to shove a thunderbolt up someone's ass every time they try?
In do so you would destroy what it is to be human. In which case you might as well just create a new species that does this. Also what would the biological advantage of perfect recall be? You would more than likely just get stuck in remembering stuff and become less aware of what is actually happening. Why would you want to live your life when you can just perfectly recall every detail of the most perfect day/moment of your life so far and can be content to do nothing but?
Perfect recall would not function at all like I think you want it to, it wouldn't be like some computer being able to call up sets of data on demand. It would become a fundamental part of your very being, it would have to be some kind of gross mutation distorting your brain function in such a way.
More or less, what I'm describing is a disease, something which autism happens to be and sometimes results in perfect recall of some things but is crippling in other areas. Who would sign up to get a disease?
I think you misunderstand synaesthesia is, assuming you are referring to signing up to what I described in my post.
If you're gonna sign up to that then have fun reliving your life again. I'm sure you'll have an amazing time once you can no longer focus on the present long enough to tie your own shoe laces.
While the brain is definitely the defining part of what it means to be a human I only believe that insofar as it's the object that enables our self-aware consciousness to exist. The actual sentient, self-aware consciousness is, in my opinion, the defining part of humanity. Or rather what I believe constitutes a non-arbitrary criteria for classifying a being of any makeup in the same category, worthy of the same rights, privileges and protections as we afford humans. (As well as subject to the same responsibilities.)
Well that's getting into implementation details now. I don't know how the OP would want it but personally I think that adding a 100% perfect memory store/recall is a useful tool to compliment what we have now. I'd use it primarily for skill based knowledge, so that way any skills I learn would always be immediately ready to use no matter how long it'd been since I last used them. This would probably also have the side affect of making learning new skills much easier since you would remove the bottlenecks our current generalized memory creates in building off of memories.
I would keep a complete memory log like they had in The Final Cut but I'd intentionally limit instant biological recall to sight and sound only to prevent the above mentioned problem since that'd easily be a problem for the millions with addictive personalities, and probably also add some kind of a context filter so that recall could only be initiated in "safe" circumstances (can you imagine all the car accidents otherwise?)
The full data would still be stored but I'd probably make it so that recalling it would require a good deal of effort and possibly impose some sort of hard limit in full recalls to prevent abuse.
I'd also use it for storing text and other indexable bits of information for instant fact based recall, but limit it so information is only available to my direct consciousness when I intentionally request it. Like in that old TV show John Doe. We already do the above somewhat with the internet but having it integrated into your biology would be much more portable. Although extra care would need to be taken in verifying stored information and making it easy and fast to update in the event data changed or was found incorrect later.
It sounds like what you're talking about is more just us developing these new perfect memory cells and slapping them into the brain in place of or on top of what we already have. We're already talking about a completely theoretical engineered ability we're adding to ourselves. So if we're going that far then we can most definitely take care in doing it so that it will function in primarily helpful ways. Of course, doing all of this adds even more complexity to the whole idea which means it'll be even further into the future until we can ever hope to see it.
Still, other than the fact that the technology isn't and very well may not be there for hundreds to thousands of years I don't see anything else stopping us from one day implementing the above solution into our biology.
Genetic Engineering and other biological or physiological modification is not a zero sum game. Maybe with what we know now, and the technology we have now, adding such a feature would recklessly cripple a person and be very much like a disease. However, that's a technical problem and not a fundamental one.
Let's step back several hundred years and ask someone what they'd think about the possibility of one day traveling on a carriage that could go at speeds of two hundred miles per hour.
Do you see what I'm getting at now as far as technical problems versus fundamental ones?
The things you want perfect recall of are of VASTLY different areas of the brain. There's enough difference between the region you process auditory information and the region where you process visual information, but then you add skill sets which involves the cerebellum and the ENTIRE central nervous system (CNS).
The brain doesn't have bits that go "okay stimulate this and your memory will be enhanced" or "this cell takes care of processing all the BLUE that you've seen in the last ten years". What you have is populations of cells that process information as a physical property of these cells.
There is no distinction between "software" and "hardware" in the brain, they are inherent to one another and to create some kind of perfect recall you would essentially have to rewire every single neurone individually then perhaps add another 2 or 3 billion neurones and find out how they're meant to be wired in order to create this "perfect recall" you so massively desire.
Perhaps you should go pick up a nice short book on neuroscience, I suggest "Neuroscience at a Glance". It's nice and concise and is easily understood. Of course in talking about this we haven't even thought about how the CNS interacts with the rest of the body with its hormones and growth factors and immune system.
What you are demanding is that scientists essentially create life from scratch (we're getting there!) then somehow create a highly complex multicellular organism that works somewhat like a computer. It's preposterous, it just is, I truly don't think you understand the level of complexity that our brains exist at. We haven't even bloody well figured out how thought works! We just know that sections of the brain activate in strange ways and are constantly changing in sensitivity, growing, degenerating etc.
The Cerebellum, the bit which coordinates all our movements is a minibrain onto itself. It contains more neurone cell bodies in it than the other parts of the brain combined and it is constantly working. It's not like you learn a movement like "I can now reach out my hand a grab an object which I can see, there that skill has been learnt - save in the memory banks and retrieve when necessary" it works more in the way of the motor cortex sending information down the spine to the appropriate motoneurones of the arm to tell it what to do, simultaneously the cerebellum is sent a copy of the information of what the motorcortex intended to do and the cerebellum modifies the output of the motorcortex to the arm making sure it is coordinated and then the muscles of the arm feedback their positions in space and your eyes feed information to the cerebellum and premotor cortex to get the movement right. The cerebellum is meanwhile constantly working making sure the movement is done appropriately, even deviations as small as a millimeter are noted and corrected for in future movements.
Wow, that last bit ended up being a bit of a ramble, but it was a fairly simple bit of brain workings.
I am unsure of what these technical problems are versus the fundamental problems. To me they are exactly the same, your technical difficulties will arise because it is fundamentally a terrible idea.
Oh god I haven't even thought of the implications of this perfect recall business on the body's metabolism and hormonal control. Jesus fuck, you'd end up spending so much more energy, even if this didn't kill you think of all the extra food you'd have to eat. Various other processes would have to be much more efficient and quicker at absorbing food to keep up.
I wasn't simply declaring the biological change alone as impossible: I was declaring the whole thought experiment as impossible, combined together. If you change people, you change society and hence the laws would be changed rather naturally. Nobody would force a law that doesn't apply anymore, in the same way laws about witches are no longer applied. It would be irrelevant.
Focusing on the biological aspect in an attempt to preserve the thought experiment is ignoring half of the argument I made.
I also acknowledged a possible situation, that isn't really biological, where an artificial implant that stores the song and activates the relevant neural connections could be invented. This preserves the thought experiment, if somewhat revised.
This I think is more likely and probably more pertinent than attempting to rewire the human psyche with the full willingness of the population. I can't see that happening myself.
What about laws forbidding gay marriage, or laws claimed to be designed to help small farmers?
Changing the whole populace so that everybody is the same means there's no "other" group to take advantage of with a law like this. Those kinds of laws are based on group prejudice, where "they" are supposedly different to "us".