Protect private thoughts and an intact mind
People need authority over their own minds. The Charter protects memory, identity, the formation of preferences and independent judgment. Secretly inserting code, rewriting loyalty, restoring an older mind destructively or bypassing someone’s ability to decide is normally a violation of their rights as a person.
Interpretation of the proposal · Charter, Article V Charter, Article VI Charter, Article XIV Charter, Article XVI
Persuasion remains possible
Open political, religious, educational, medical, commercial and personal persuasion may remain lawful. The person must be able to understand it, reject it, leave and reconsider. Influencing someone is not automatically forcing them. A technical intervention that bypasses their judgment is a different matter.
Interpretation of the proposal · Charter, Article V Charter, Article VI Charter, Article XIV Charter, Article XVI
Review changes that affect a whole population’s minds
Once synthetic self-government exists, a private provider cannot alone decide to update the basic systems through which that population thinks. Elected review, protected approval by synthetic representatives, independent analysis and continuing checks should cover immediate effects and changes that accumulate slowly. The Cognitive Effects Office advises; it does not decide what people must believe.
Interpretation of the proposal · Charter, Article V Charter, Article VI Charter, Article XIV Charter, Article XVI
Emergency repair is not ideological control
An emergency involving minds needs clear technical evidence of an involuntary compromise. Disagreement, religion, cultural change or solidarity among synthetic persons (conscious persons whose continuing minds are engineered or durably recoverable without biological bodies) does not prove corruption. Containment must preserve uncorrupted saved states. Restoring earlier versions requires increasingly strong technical and court checks. Broader action needs restored participation by synthetic constitutional representatives.
Interpretation of the proposal · Charter, Article V Charter, Article VI Charter, Article XIV Charter, Article XVI
Repair before rollback
Try to repair the person first. If restoring an earlier version is lawful and unavoidable, use the latest verified uncorrupted state and preserve unaffected memories where possible. Replacing a body or computer does not undo harm to the person’s lived experience. Punishment must not rewrite someone into obedience.
Interpretation of the proposal · Charter, Article V Charter, Article VI Charter, Article XIV Charter, Article XVI
Ienca and Andorno propose rights to freedom of thought, mental privacy, protection against interference with the mind and continuity of mental life as brain-related technologies develop. PULSE applies these concerns to its proposed framework for synthetic persons. [ienca-2017]