The Politics of Neuromania: The Impotence of Vision‏

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

In a previous posting I considered the difference between science and engineering as a difference between theory and practicality. In considering the work of military contractors developing neural wave technology the issue of distinguishing between invention and engineering came up. The military engineers have been handed the task of devising an electronic gadget with the capacity to alter the thought patterns of a target individual. Are they inventing the machine or are they engineering it? What is the basic difference between the two activities?

Invention of a device has very strict legal implications. Once the device has been invented the inventor has no control over how it is subsequently used. The best she can hope for is material compensation for her "genius" in crafting the prototype. Two individuals working independently can craft the same device but only one of them will be recognized as the lawful inventor with intellectual property rights. The other inventor receives no compensation for her efforts and may lose further in the legal proceedings that ultimately determine the disposition of the intellectual property rights.

An American or British entrepreneur may have the vision to create a gadget that alters or restricts the thought patterns of an individual but that vision is powerless without a team of engineers who are ready, willing, and able to implement the vision. Once they come up with a prototype device the cat is out of the bag. The original visionary has no way to rein in how or where her invention is subsequently used. Other entrepreneurs will take the ball and run with it in completely unexpected directions. If the technique can control a mind, it can also de-control a mind. Anglo-American monopoly cannot be guaranteed outside of Anglo-American jurisprudence. An inexpensive Chinese version is inevitable.

Do you see the limits on intellectual property rights as a benefit or a hindrance to human progress? With whom do your sympathies lie: with the inventor or with the engineer?

Links: Claude Crampes and Corinne Languinier on patent enforcement issues.

Comments

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what NWH is. Neural networking means different things. One thing that the term applies to is a network of compute elements intended to create a heuristic system. Another way that the term is used is in reference to telecommunications optimizations for things like cellular service. I do not know anyone who uses the expression when referring to neural wave technology.

As for the record play or light show question, since military equipment is used in a battlefield environment, I seriously doubt that they would consider record playing or light show illusions to be adequate to the task at hand. On the other hand, it is difficult to gauge military intentions.

Engineering can involving a certain level of invention. There are cases where engineers working for an inventor are given free reign to patent new devices that they come up with in the process of realizing the original invention. The separation between the two is usually defined by the system of jurisprudence that recognizes intellectual property rights.

I agree to a certain extent with the self-centered aspect of people who seek to gain from intellectual property rights. There is also another group of self-centered people who seek to gain from exploiting the inventions of others. When property rights prevent beneficial uses of technology they have gone too far. An inventor could deliberately restrict availability of her technology to only those who will use it in negative ways. Neural wave technology, for example, could be restricted to military use.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I seriously doubt that they would consider record playing or light show illusions to be adequate to the task at hand

Sonic weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon) exist. So do military uses of various illumination tools, but rare they are used for disorienting an enemy.

I agree to a certain extent with the self-centered aspect of people who seek to gain from intellectual property rights. There is also another group of self-centered people who seek to gain from exploiting the inventions of others

That's a good explanation of the problem. I find that sometimes the best engineers just want to bring a good tool into the world and their work is destroyed by people in both camps you cite.

Neural wave technology, for example, could be restricted to military use.

I mean to type NWT before. I guess I'm ignorant of the technology involved.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I was completely in the dark with respect to the technology before I attended a demonstration. I was not very surprised because I had an inkling that it could be possible for the brain of one organism to be influenced by the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the brain of another organism. Given that possibility, mechanizing the process is not a surprising accomplishment. The demonstration was pretty impressive. It gave me the motivation to work with others in developing the technology for positive purposes.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Seeing is believing.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Susan Blackmore mentions research into a phenomenon that may have a neural wave explanation. You may have experienced it yourself. Have you ever had the urge to look in a particular direction and when you do, there is someone staring at you from that direction? The research on the phenomenon indicates that it is more than mere chance.