SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Changes in technology often produce ethical quandaries that did not previously exist. The successful transplantation of human hearts lead some to re-define death as "brain-death", so as to allow removal of organs for transplants. Now we may be faced with similar need for new definitions and limitations, as tech moves into neural interfaces. The article is to be found at Vox.
“Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull.” That’s from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The comment is meant to highlight what a repressive surveillance state the characters live in, but looked at another way, it shows how lucky they are: At least their brains are still private.
Over the past few weeks, Facebook and Elon Musk’s Neuralink have announced that they’re building tech to read your mind — literally.
Mark Zuckerberg’s company is funding research on brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that can pick up thoughts directly from your neurons and translate them into words. The researchers say they’ve already built an algorithm that can decode words from brain activity in real time.
And Musk’s company has created flexible “threads” that can be implanted into a brain and could one day allow you to control your smartphone or computer with just your thoughts. Musk wants to start testing in humans by the end of next year.
Of course, with medical technology, one could always make the argument that the issue was saving humans lives. Somehow we do not suspect that Zuckerberg or Musk are contaminated by such motives.
Your brain, the final privacy frontier, may not be private much longer.
Some neuroethicists argue that the potential for misuse of these technologies is so great that we need revamped human rights laws — a new “jurisprudence of the mind” — to protect us. The technologies have the potential to interfere with rights that are so basic that we may not even think of them as rights, like our ability to determine where our selves end and machines begin. Our current laws are not equipped to address this.
It's an in-depth article; a few highlights:
One of the main people pushing for these new human rights is neuroethicist Marcello Ienca, a researcher at ETH Zurich, one of Europe’s top science and technology universities. In 2017, he released a paper outlining four specific rights for the neurotechnology age he believes we should enshrine in law. I reached out to ask what he thought of the recent revelations from Facebook and Neuralink.
The four rights are:
1. The right to cognitive liberty
You should have the right to freely decide you want to use a given neurotechnology or to refuse it.
. . .
2. The right to mental privacy
You should have the right to seclude your brain data or to publicly share it.
. . . .
3. The right to mental integrity
You should have the right not to be harmed physically or psychologically by neurotechnology.
. . .
4. The right to psychological continuity
You should have the right to be protected from alterations to your sense of self that you did not authorize.
Alright, I know what you are thinking; wait, no, I don't! Not really. Let's keep it that way.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:18PM (8 children)
The masses will be placated by other means. [unherd.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Wednesday September 18 2019, @01:20PM (7 children)
Identity politics, defined by Merriam Webster:
You've got a curious reinterpretation of identity politics. Your linked article goes on to misinterpet "intersectionality" as well, asserting that it is about one's own identity, whereas in reality it is about finding common ground with other identity groups.
I'm not saying identity politics are good. They're very bad, whether it's San Franciscan ethnic groups vying to overpower each other or white supremacists insisting that they be in charge.
If you have a beef with trans, it's not identity politics. TERFs be damned, trans activists fight for issues that go far beyond their identity group. It doesn't take much reasoning to imagine that someone who understands both gender perspectives would be interested in claiming privileges of their birth gender for their claimed gender as well.
This is the foundation of Scruton's argument, the ideal he wishes to restore. He does not wish for a world where people can discuss ideas freely without fear of social recourse. Quite the opposite. He wishes for a world where people know their place, where people like him are on top, and nobody is allowed to question it.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @03:07PM (3 children)
^ no brain implant required, 1+1=3 and Meustrus will now lead the minute hate against the heretical, double-plus ungood thought-criminals Scruton and Murray.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday September 18 2019, @03:24PM (2 children)
I don't hate anybody. I don't tell Scruton or Murray who they can be or put limits on their lives based on who they are. But when someone does that to me or the people I love, I fight back. It's my right as much as yours.
Time used to be that blacks, gays, and suffragettes were double-plus ungood thought-criminals. Scruton and Murray want to return to that. It's clear to me which side insists that some ideas are unthinkable.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @04:51PM (1 child)
I'll watch my humour [managers.org.uk] if you're offended (you're not and I won't :)
You're aware of the Scruton affair [google.com] and that Douglas Murray is gay? The latter irrelevant to his arguments but relevant to yours. You're also aware that cancel culture is real? I don't get the objection to my point - that social control (or engineered social conflict) has or will never require implants.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday September 18 2019, @07:14PM
That was your point? And here I thought it was just using TFA as a pretense to share your ideology. I agree at least that social control has never required implants (be it now, the 50s, or any other time in history).
I haven't read Murray's book. If he's gay himself, it's unlikely he wants to see a return to the "shared religion" and "old customs" Scruton seems to idolize.
Which suggests that Scruton is taking Murray's arguments in a different direction. It's a common problem in this area, evidenced even further by your "Scruton affair" link: arguments in support of bigotry end up associated with bigots, whether justified or not, often because other voices coopt reasoned commentary in support of selfish ideology.
How do you define "cancel culture"? Does it include deplatforming, either on social media or on college campuses? Does it just mean socially shaming someone? Is it cancel culture if the shame is completely justified, i.e. based on what the person actually said and meant rather than third or fourth party interpretation?
I hope you're not implying that it's wrong to call out bigotry and ignore public figures that peddle it. I'll agree though that it's problematic when the offense is blown out of proportion or completely imaginary. That's more of a consequence of mob rule than anything else, though. And like I said about Stallman, the only realistic alternative is to forgive actual bad actors along with the jokesters and insensitive critics.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 18 2019, @05:32PM
White Supremacy is the ORIGINAL identity politics. Per usual, they're going to project their own flaws onto everyone else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:06AM (1 child)
Different AC here. I think you need to read up a little more on intersectionality before critiquing other peoples understanding of it. This is something that has come from Critical Theory and is basically an re-expression of the old Marxist idea of the bourgeoisie oppressing the proletariat, but now instead of the proletariat we have all the plethora of identity groups - so we can now castigate everyone as oppressors or defend as the oppressed depending upon the prevailing political expediency. I believe this is what is driving a lot of the nasty "cancel culture" which we have seen so very recently WRT RMS.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday September 19 2019, @09:28PM
Scruton's musings on intersectionality involved people adopting the identities of other disadvantaged groups. I think I saw that on the news once, actually. Generally, though, intersectional feminists don't start acting like they're all African-American too.
The plethora of identity groups is part of the bourgeoisie oppression. It has been for centuries. It is, in fact, the reason why southern states stopped keeping white slaves in the 18th century. Poor whites are still shafted by intentional public policy. Red scares aren't what keep them from rising up. White supremacy is. They're placated by burning crosses, knowing that they're better than someone else...who could have been an ally for economic justice.
Intersectionality is intended as a remedy to this. Radicals in the 60s and 70s understood that they were up against a big, big adversary and that they would need allies. All it takes is to be "disadvantaged".
I suppose it would be nice if we could all agree that trailer trash are disadvantaged similar to gang bangers. Seems like there's a lot of old hurt to process first, though, starting with that whole confederate flag thing. Not saying it has to go, just that it has to be for everyone or no one. I dunno, maybe the descendants of slaves could be convinced it was some kind of Springtime for Hitler thing to reclaim the flag for actual rebellion's sake.
As for "cancel culture", I'm quite sure that its intent is fundamentally to change culture. As I understand it, people trying to prevent certain abuses from going unpunished are so sick of the excuses that they're willing to accept some collateral damage. But the goal is still to end those abuses. Just like laws against murder are intended to prevent murder for fear for the consequences.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?