GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Please understand what I am saying - that you made a certain post, and edited it, without using silly language, but before I got to read it, a certain fomer mod who retained editorial powers over both your and my posts, altered your post (without your knowledge) to make it inflammatory. (He probably only does it with posts that have anyhow been edited validly.) After I had seen it, the same rogue altered it back again, and deleted the associated edit history. The same rogue had previously boasted on this site of doing such things on another site (probably with similar software), but the thread in which that occurred was subsequently deleted. Thus, you would have known nothing of this! Similar things have happened with others, months ago, and I should perhaps have raised the issue with the mods, but did not think it serious enough at the time. Now, I'm not so sure, because it could pop up again and again if nothing is done. In the meantime, I will make my own records of seemingly out-of-character posts, to see if the on-line version changes.Then we can establish whether there is interference by third parties.
Also, as I have already said to Cito, this has absolutely nothing to do with my very occasional typing errors leading to wrong attribution of posts (which has absolutely nothing to do with inflammatory language within posts). I am sorry if you are still confused about this.

DavidMcC wrote:Also, in the case in point, I can't find the relevant old post, because the key parts have been edited out by someone, and Graham denies being the editor, and I believe him.

I was making it clear that I do not "deny being the editor", as you stated. How could I deny editing an unidentified post?

But I thought you were innocent of using inflammatory, sarcastic language, because you asked "What do you mean?" when I accused you of implying that some kind of patented high-tech brain implant is required to achieve a simple feat of delayed memory. Obviously, until then, I assumed that it was indeed you editing the offending words out, then pretending that you hadn't used them. However, I then remembered other cases, involving other posters, months ago. (Again, the evidence has been deleted from the site.)
If, on the other hand, you are saying that you did, indeed, post sarcastically, then edit the sarcasm out, then it was, after all, your fault, not a rogue mod. I just didn't think that you would do that.

What comment, what sarcasm? When I replied "what do you mean" I meant it!

Could you be thinking of this post, that does mention something related to your comments on delayed memory?

GrahamH wrote:It might be that the risks of neural interfaces are considered too vulnerable to abuse to be allowed, but people might want to have them for ostensibly non-abusive reasons. It could be that having an AI companion in your head that knows you better than you know yourself, and brings access to unprecedented resources, could be desired by many. It would probably be the abusive uses of the technology that would be illegal or otherwise restricted, rather than the technology itself.
Google invades our privacy, tracks our preferences and influences our decisions. We are "free" not to use google (or any search engine) but most of us want to use it.

David's last minute will-altering memory pop-up could be an Adwords-sponsored pop-up from your NeuroSiri implant reminding you that a restaurant you "liked" once is just round the corner and you don't receive your grocery shipment at home untill tomorrow. Is it your free will to eat out tonight? If the same thoughts popped into your head without Siri is that free will?
Changing your mind might never have been so easy.

Actually, yes, I did mean that! Thanks for finding it. The matter is now settled. You were being uncharacteristically sarcastic, with a pretend high-tech implant after all, in spite of your post saying "What do you mean?", and it WAS based on a gross exaggeration, Cito-style. My "imperfect memory" model of free will does not require "NeuroSiri" or equivalent implants, just an occasionally slow extraction of memories from the subconscious.

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:



I was making it clear that I do not "deny being the editor", as you stated. How could I deny editing an unidentified post?

But I thought you were innocent of using inflammatory, sarcastic language, because you asked "What do you mean?" when I accused you of implying that some kind of patented high-tech brain implant is required to achieve a simple feat of delayed memory. Obviously, until then, I assumed that it was indeed you editing the offending words out, then pretending that you hadn't used them. However, I then remembered other cases, involving other posters, months ago. (Again, the evidence has been deleted from the site.)
If, on the other hand, you are saying that you did, indeed, post sarcastically, then edit the sarcasm out, then it was, after all, your fault, not a rogue mod. I just didn't think that you would do that.

What comment, what sarcasm? When I replied "what do you mean" I meant it!

Could you be thinking of this post, that does mention something related to your comments on delayed memory?

GrahamH wrote:It might be that the risks of neural interfaces are considered too vulnerable to abuse to be allowed, but people might want to have them for ostensibly non-abusive reasons. It could be that having an AI companion in your head that knows you better than you know yourself, and brings access to unprecedented resources, could be desired by many. It would probably be the abusive uses of the technology that would be illegal or otherwise restricted, rather than the technology itself.
Google invades our privacy, tracks our preferences and influences our decisions. We are "free" not to use google (or any search engine) but most of us want to use it.

David's last minute will-altering memory pop-up could be an Adwords-sponsored pop-up from your NeuroSiri implant reminding you that a restaurant you "liked" once is just round the corner and you don't receive your grocery shipment at home untill tomorrow. Is it your free will to eat out tonight? If the same thoughts popped into your head without Siri is that free will?
Changing your mind might never have been so easy.

Actually, yes, I did mean that! Thanks for finding it. The matter is now settled. You were being uncharacteristically sarcastic, with a pretend high-tech implant after all, in spite of your post saying "What do you mean?", and it WAS based on a gross exaggeration, Cito-style. My "imperfect memory" model of free will does not require "NeuroSiri" or equivalent implants, just an occasionally slow extraction of memories from the subconscious.

I didn't suggest your "imperfect memory model of free will" required any tech, did I? I pointed out that if such tech existed it would operate as a source of spontaneous memory driven "free will". As such I think it seriously undermines your "imperfect memory model of free will". Your "free will" could be controlled by injecting memories.

I think you should be more careful with your accusations of "inflammatory, sarcastic language" and rogue moderators.

The post was easy enough to find by searching for "memory siri".

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

But I thought you were innocent of using inflammatory, sarcastic language, because you asked "What do you mean?" when I accused you of implying that some kind of patented high-tech brain implant is required to achieve a simple feat of delayed memory. Obviously, until then, I assumed that it was indeed you editing the offending words out, then pretending that you hadn't used them. However, I then remembered other cases, involving other posters, months ago. (Again, the evidence has been deleted from the site.)
If, on the other hand, you are saying that you did, indeed, post sarcastically, then edit the sarcasm out, then it was, after all, your fault, not a rogue mod. I just didn't think that you would do that.

What comment, what sarcasm? When I replied "what do you mean" I meant it!

Could you be thinking of this post, that does mention something related to your comments on delayed memory?

GrahamH wrote:It might be that the risks of neural interfaces are considered too vulnerable to abuse to be allowed, but people might want to have them for ostensibly non-abusive reasons. It could be that having an AI companion in your head that knows you better than you know yourself, and brings access to unprecedented resources, could be desired by many. It would probably be the abusive uses of the technology that would be illegal or otherwise restricted, rather than the technology itself.
Google invades our privacy, tracks our preferences and influences our decisions. We are "free" not to use google (or any search engine) but most of us want to use it.

David's last minute will-altering memory pop-up could be an Adwords-sponsored pop-up from your NeuroSiri implant reminding you that a restaurant you "liked" once is just round the corner and you don't receive your grocery shipment at home untill tomorrow. Is it your free will to eat out tonight? If the same thoughts popped into your head without Siri is that free will?
Changing your mind might never have been so easy.

Actually, yes, I did mean that! Thanks for finding it. The matter is now settled. You were being uncharacteristically sarcastic, with a pretend high-tech implant after all, in spite of your post saying "What do you mean?", and it WAS based on a gross exaggeration, Cito-style. My "imperfect memory" model of free will does not require "NeuroSiri" or equivalent implants, just an occasionally slow extraction of memories from the subconscious.

I didn't suggest your "imperfect memory model of free will" [b]required any tech, did I?[/b] I pointed out that if such tech existed it would operate as a source of spontaneous memory driven "free will". As such I think it seriously undermines your "imperfect memory model of free will". Your "free will" could be controlled by injecting memories.

Oh, but you did. Also, speculation about what effect such an implant would have serve no useful purpose, given that nothing of the sort has even been attempted (at lesst, not yet). Therefore, no conclusions from the non-existent experiment can be drawn.

I think you should be more careful with your accusations of "inflammatory, sarcastic language" and rogue moderators.

The post was easy enough to find by searching for "memory siri".

I took the remarks as unneccessarily sarcastic, and therefore inflammatory, which is why I thought it wasn't from you. How wrong I was!
As for the search that I supposedly could have done, I could not remember the "trade name" by the time I came to look for the post, so I could not use a search, and therefore had to browse manually, and evidently missed it.

Anyhow, hopefully this derail is now finally over.

DavidMcC wrote:I took the remarks as unneccessarily sarcastic, and therefore inflammatory...

Yes, you took the remarks as sarcastic and inflammatory. I wrote them to make a valid and on-topic point about a claim that having one's mind changed last minute by a memory that comes to you un-willed is not a valid basis to claim free will.

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I took the remarks as unneccessarily sarcastic, and therefore inflammatory...

Yes, you took the remarks as sarcastic and inflammatory. I wrote them to make a valid and on-topic point about a claim that having one's mind changed last minute by a memory that comes to you un-willed is not a valid basis to claim free will.

What could be valid about an imagined experiment, wih imagined results? Scientists don't accept imagined scientific results, Graham.

DavidMcC wrote:My "imperfect memory" model of free will does not require "NeuroSiri" or equivalent implants, just an occasionally slow extraction of memories from the subconscious.

Is this a process that you can will, though? Can you, by conscious fiat, "extract" a specific memory from your "subconscious" if you don't even remember it's there at the moment?

Here's an example. When you were groping for that "sarcastic" post you were talking about, couldn't you have willed yourself to remember enough about it to find it? More importantly, could you have willed yourself to remember some other incident from the years of the past, with a view to changing your mind and not making the accusations of sarcasm and post-editing, thus saving yourself time, effort, and possible embarrassment? Maybe you could; but would saying so be anything more than a futile rationalisation after the fact?

Matthew Shute wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:My "imperfect memory" model of free will does not require "NeuroSiri" or equivalent implants, just an occasionally slow extraction of memories from the subconscious.

Is this a process that you can will, though? Can you, by conscious fiat, "extract" a specific memory from your "subconscious" if you don't even remember it's there at the moment?

Here's an example. When you were groping for that "sarcastic" post you were talking about, couldn't you have willed yourself to remember enough about it to find it? More importantly, could you have willed yourself to remember some other incident from the years of the past, with a view to changing your mind and not making the accusations of sarcasm and post-editing, thus saving yourself time, effort, and possible embarrassment? Maybe you could; but would saying so be anything more than a futile rationalisation after the fact?

No, Matthew, there is no reason to suppose that my "free will" is all powerful in the way that you seem to imply, and I certainly never suggested that it was. If it was, then I would effectively have a perfect (albeit slow) memory! I also do not think I can will myself to remember anything specific, although there are certainly occasions when I suspect that there is something relevant that I have forgotten, but can't put a finger on it. Then I try to give myself more time, in the hope of remembering what it was.
It obviously didn't work with Graham's post!

... I see your post chimed with someone. That means that you're not the only one to misunderstand what I am saying about free will, I guess. It's actually not about achieving perfection, but about partially compensating for IMperfection. But even that's better than having no chance at all of correcting an error, as with "no free will", as logically demanded by, WLC's god, for example.

Going back to the derail, I hope for the last time:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Could you be thinking of this post, that does mention something related to your comments on delayed memory?
......

Actually, yes, I did mean that! Thanks for finding it. The matter is now settled. You were being uncharacteristically sarcastic, with a pretend high-tech implant after all, in spite of your post saying "What do you mean?", and it WAS based on a gross exaggeration, Cito-style. My "imperfect memory" model of free will does not require "NeuroSiri" or equivalent implants, just an occasionally slow extraction of memories from the subconscious.

GrahamH’s “sarcastic” post #2121 was in reply to, and quoting, a post of mine #2120 (this was probably why you didn’t find it), in which I was saying that if mind control became technically feasible, then it would need to be legally controlled for human cooperation in its current form to remain possible. GrahamH’s point was that we might actually choose to accept a low level of non-abusive mind control, and was asking, if we had chosen it, would that then count as free will. He brought up the suggestion of high-tech implants in the context of my posting, which was all about futurology and malicious mind control. (Granted, there was a sideswipe at your views on free will, but the post was mostly aimed at me, which was why it came from an unexpected direction)

zoon wrote:Going back to the derail, I hope for the last time:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Could you be thinking of this post, that does mention something related to your comments on delayed memory?
......

Actually, yes, I did mean that! Thanks for finding it. The matter is now settled. You were being uncharacteristically sarcastic, with a pretend high-tech implant after all, in spite of your post saying "What do you mean?", and it WAS based on a gross exaggeration, Cito-style. My "imperfect memory" model of free will does not require "NeuroSiri" or equivalent implants, just an occasionally slow extraction of memories from the subconscious.

GrahamH’s “sarcastic” post #2121 was in reply to, and quoting, a post of mine #2120 (this was probably why you didn’t find it), in which I was saying that if mind control became technically feasible, then it would need to be legally controlled for human cooperation in its current form to remain possible. GrahamH’s point was that we might actually choose to accept a low level of non-abusive mind control, and was asking, if we had chosen it, would that then count as free will. He brought up the suggestion of high-tech implants in the context of my posting, which was all about futurology and malicious mind control. (Granted, there was a sideswipe at your views on free will, but the post was mostly aimed at me, which was why it came from an unexpected direction)

Thanks for the clarification, zoon.
As to whether such mind control "counts as free will", surely it would count as no free will at all on the part of the one with the implant. All the free will would be with the controller of the implant.

DavidMcC wrote:

zoon wrote:Going back to the derail, I hope for the last time:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Could you be thinking of this post, that does mention something related to your comments on delayed memory?
......

Actually, yes, I did mean that! Thanks for finding it. The matter is now settled. You were being uncharacteristically sarcastic, with a pretend high-tech implant after all, in spite of your post saying "What do you mean?", and it WAS based on a gross exaggeration, Cito-style. My "imperfect memory" model of free will does not require "NeuroSiri" or equivalent implants, just an occasionally slow extraction of memories from the subconscious.

GrahamH’s “sarcastic” post #2121 was in reply to, and quoting, a post of mine #2120 (this was probably why you didn’t find it), in which I was saying that if mind control became technically feasible, then it would need to be legally controlled for human cooperation in its current form to remain possible. GrahamH’s point was that we might actually choose to accept a low level of non-abusive mind control, and was asking, if we had chosen it, would that then count as free will. He brought up the suggestion of high-tech implants in the context of my posting, which was all about futurology and malicious mind control. (Granted, there was a sideswipe at your views on free will, but the post was mostly aimed at me, which was why it came from an unexpected direction)

Thanks for the clarification, zoon.
As to whether such mind control "counts as free will", surely it would count as no free will at all on the part of the one with the implant. All the free will would be with the controller of the implant.

"The controller of the implant" need not have "free will". Do Google, Amazon or Siri have free will? You can't appeal to "another's will" here.

The person with such an implant might tell you "I'm choosing what I want, so I have free will". Think carefully about why you think they might not have it.

"The controller of the implant" need not have "free will". Do Google, Amazon or Siri have free will? You can't appeal to "another's will" here.

I was referring to whoever designed the controller.

The person with such an implant might tell you "I'm choosing what I want, so I have free will". Think carefully about why you think they might not have it.

Maybe, but this is entirely hypothetical, and would change the whole game, as it were, if it became reality. In this thread, I have only considered the current real world, where NeuroSiri does not exist.

DavidMcC wrote:

"The controller of the implant" need not have "free will". Do Google, Amazon or Siri have free will? You can't appeal to "another's will" here.

I was referring to whoever designed the controller.

And if the no mind designed which memories should pop up at what times and in which circumstances?
Even when technology is designed with some general purpose the designer may not be defining the effect of that tech. The designers of Google's search engine don't define which search results come up on page 1 of each search. That is driven by the data that come from users who have no will regarding what search results pop up for other people.

If we said evolution "designed" human memory, as unreliable as it can be, will you say that evolution controls your will?

DavidMcC wrote:

The person with such an implant might tell you "I'm choosing what I want, so I have free will". Think carefully about why you think they might not have it.

Maybe, but this is entirely hypothetical, and would change the whole game, as it were, if it became reality. In this thread, I have only considered the current real world, where NeuroSiri does not exist.

Maybe "NeuroSiri" exists in your unconscious neural circuitry.

Hypotheticals are useful for exploring deeper issues. The point here is to go beyond the naive "I'm aware of choosing, therefore I must have free will". A NeuroSiri implantee might make the exact same claim as you. She may claim that "because memories come up to change my mind at the last minute" this somehow demonstrates her will is free. She need not know anything about how it is that those memories come to her then. Maybe it's her biology. Maybe it's an implant. Maybe it's some unnoticed priming event. All we can say with confidence is that we don't know, don't deliberate, don't choose what comes to mind to make up our minds.

If we could identify a source of such "control" we would agree that it is not freedom of will. If it exists unrecognised we don't identify it.

Graham, you are still attaching too much significance to a thought experiment with "NeuroSiri".Try to remember that it does not yet exist, and cannot therefore be relevant to FW as it currently stands.

DavidMcC wrote:Graham, you are still attaching too much significance to a thought experiment with "NeuroSiri".Try to remember that it does not yet exist, and cannot therefore be relevant to FW as it currently stands.

Never mind David. If you don't get it by now I see no point continuing.

I'm losing interest in this thread, as long as it's about imaginary situations.
However, to play along with the speculation, there is no doubt that if people have brain implants that in some way control the way their brains work, it will reduce their FW, as I see it.

We may assume this is something about government? I can only give vague advice: Find people with whom you work well at what you believe it is important to do (and keep your mind open), and if you cannot until past your 'prime' you may still be okay. They still had 1 as a prime-numb-er in the American Heritage Dictionary (atleast), at least in the 4th edition.

Someone wrote:We may assume this is something about government? I can only give vague advice: Find people with whom you work well at what you believe it is important to do (and keep your mind open), and if you cannot until past your 'prime' you may still be okay. They still had 1 as a prime-numb-er in the American Heritage Dictionary (atleast), at least in the 4th edition.

You are obviously talking to someone, Someone, but to whom?

GrahamH wrote:And if the no mind designed which memories should pop up at what times and in which circumstances?

Eh? (EDIT: I take it that the word "the" was an edit error.)
Like I said, I'm not interested in speculation about implanted chips, except that they could well mess with FW. That's as far as it goes for me. Detailed questions about something that doesn't yet exist are pointless, because the unknown details would probably be critical to the answers.

GrahamH wrote:Maybe "NeuroSiri" exists in your unconscious neural circuitry.

If it does, then it isn't an artificial implant after all, so I'm guessing that you are referring to emotional preferences. They don't eliminate FW, merely constrain it, because they are often conflicted (eg, balancing long term against short term).