Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!milton!minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU
From: minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: Ultimate input hardware
Message-ID: <16529@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 91 20:51:15 GMT
References: <1991Feb6.183330.8154@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Feb8.164913.7787@umia
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA
Lines: 16
Approved: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu


In article <16473@milton.u.washington.edu> wjbaird@dahlia.uwaterloo.ca (Warren B
aird) writes:

>I do agree that a machine that could actively read the thoughts of a
>person would be a very dangerous tool...

A brick is a very dangerous tool.  What isn't?  But a mind-reading
machine would be a path to straightening out minds.  People could read
their own minds, find the bad stuff in them, and fix them (using the
utility programs developed for that purpose).  Mind-reading very
likely leads to downloading and immortality as well.  I presume that
it has been pointed out that any prejudice that stands in the way of
indefinite life-extension is more dangerous than anything else.  So
please be careful not to keep thinking such unspeakably dangerous
thoughts ;-)