rationalskepticism.org

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Since the alledgedly sarcastic post has not been identified in any way I can't say much about this.

I don't deny being the editor, I don't know what David is on about. Was the post David vaguely recalls posted by me? (David has wrongly attributed posts) Was it sarcastic? Who can say?

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.

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.