We are the BORG

https://educateinspirechange.org/science-technology/scientists-have-connected-the-brains-of-3-people-enabling-them-to-share-thoughts/

We start with wired connections,eventually advance to wireless connections.

Seems to me, that just because the connection is there, you it's still not mandatory that you use/participate-with it. In other words you still can't "read minds" against your/their will. Just because someone tells/asks you for a response, you still don't have to give it.

The real problem is that there can never be any "proof/evidence" that the conversation ever took place.

Well, we can't seem to protect ourselves from being spied on through our cell phones. If they have a connection to your mind, how would you even know what they are reading out of it???

This would also allow for a record of every conversation; once thoughts are digitized, they are stored on a server forever. Just go to Craigslist or Facebook and take a look at what they keep in your history file!

"...how would you even know what they are reading out of it???.....once thoughts are digitized, they are stored on a server forever."

Regardless of what's "stored on a server forever", How does anyone know if it's valid or if somebody just made it up? After all, "How would you even know what they are reading out of it???"??

Making the argument cyclical doesn't negate the fact that very few of us want them reading our thoughts, regardless of whether or not we know they did or how much they got away with!

What I was trying to say, is that regardless of what's stored/recorded, no one could verify the truthfulness of it. It couldn't be used as evidence of anything, except that someone used up storage space. The content wouldn't be worth the space it occupies.

That argument could be applied to any evidence. In fact, I believe it would be as easy to verify the validity of data directly recorded from your mind as any recorded conversation. You would have the recorded neural signals just like you would have a recorded audio, and/or even video, of a conversation. Someone could enter fake records in an online chat transcript and there would be no original record of real world activity like there would with neural signals.

"That argument could be applied to any evidence." Well then, That negates any science, too.

"...I believe it would be as easy to verify the validity of data..." Sorry, I wasn't talking about the data, I was talking about the SOURCE of the data. How would you honor/respect copyrights?

"...directly recorded from your mind as any recorded conversation." But, that record couldn't be verified as coming from any specific brain. They don't leave "paper-trails" or "finger prints".

"...You would have the recorded neural signals just like you would have a recorded audio..." I really don't think we have that technology yet, or ever will. There is a big difference between neural signals themselves, and the manifestations of those signals. The manifestations of those signals could come from anywhere. You might be able to prove that A SPECIFIC recording exists. But you couldn't prove where it came from, or who's responsible for it. Credit/blame would be meaningless. Therefore, even the accounting for benefit/cost, value/worthless, rich/poor would be impossible.

The only way to account for communications, is to ensure that there is always an unavoidable physical/semi-permanent "footprint" of it between the parties communicating. Therefore, thought-to-thought/brain-to-brain comms requires ultimate trust (virtually non-existent) between the parties. That's hard enough between two parties; between individuals in a group is virtually impossible.

That is if everyone plays by the rules.There are always going to be nefarious characters in the game,that work in the "dark" behind the scenes and mine information,which is the new gold rush. Of course,all of that information is useless unless you can filter it through several layers of interest.How else could one make use of billions of thoughts?Who could monitor that much info,except a government. Signals from Mars can be picked up from an originating signal of less than 5 watts,so how hard would it be to capture the minute electrical signal from a brain?Technologically,very easy.It is the harvesting of marketable information that would be most difficult.Perhaps brainwaves are like fingerprints,each one individually unique to a certain point,yet very similar in basic form and content.Cardio electrical signals are like that.Each heartbeat signal generates a unique electrical signature.No two are exactly alike. Anything we can imagine is or will be possible at some point in time. The technology is being constructed all around us as we speak. LED lighting is capable of very fast one way data transmission,and incorporating an internal transmitter to enable two way data over existing wiring would be very simple,a high pass filter on the power poles for starters.And all of this would be out-of-sight and out-of-mind(pardon the pun.) I'm not crazy.People are just jealous because they don't hear the voices.(I don't have a problem with the voices,I just wish I could get a consensus!) ;) -------null >= 0; // true--------------------

Some of what you say is true. But, not all thoughts are created equal. Sometimes people are "funny" without trying to be; some say, "Oh, it was just a joke.", or, "I was just kidding.", or, "(Don't) You have a filter? Why do you say whatever pops into your head?", or, "Think before you speak.", etc.... Well, how can you think before you speak, if the thought proccess itself is being eavesdropped on? That would make thinking-first/filtering/speaking meaningless/obsolete/misinterpreted, and explanations worthless because everybody would say "But that's not what your actual thought was. You're changing your story/thoughts/mind/output. If I can't trust that, then what can I trust?".

Truth/lies couldn't be discerned. Nobody would even be capable of "keeping their word". There wouldn't be any word to keep. and everybody would say, "I know better than you." without even allowing someone else to change their mind before they actually say something. There could be no "pre-thought" because everything IS thought. If you think some people have no filter now, just wait for this.

That's inevitable future.

Is this actually a good idea ? Say there was those with less than superior brain function ? why, they would stymie those with higher levels of thinking. And those with less than higher levels would never get any rest being bedraggled endlessly night and day by those with.

This sounds like what I experience, on a daily basis, without the implants. :-P

No need to worry.Even the least intelligent people have unique contributions. It is usually the simple things that are the most revealing,and are often overlooked. Everyone has islands of ignorance,even the most brilliant. I have seen very high-IQ people that had zero "common sense",and could not pour urine from a boot.The future Borg will be all inclusive,so don't worry about being left out.R=0

NSA will come up with a way to 'intercept & record' them all!

But a race...which comes first, the Borg or Skynet? And which will win? Meat tubes or machines?

I can hardly pay attention to this thread because every time I read the title I think of an old music video. I think it was for farm aid in the 80s? ..We are the wooorld!.. etc..

Of course in my head I'm singing ..we are the Booorg.. etc..

And now that I'm thinking of Willie Nelson with a glisten.. and oh!! Forget it. Thanks

.. sadly this song makes more sense in the Borg version.

On second thought; A sphere is the most efficient single shape for sheer volume,but when linking multiple spheres,much space is lost. Mother nature figured this out millions of years ago with the hexagonal shape of many insect nests.IMHO,the future Borg will be in this shape,a spherical bee hive. I don't know the proper geometric name for this shape....?