[FRIAM] by any means necessary

Tue Feb 15 14:30:55 EST 2022

For some activity there will be a mesh of consequences, that perhaps with enough transparency, debate, and observation the facts of the matter could be quantified as a large graph.  Across this graph, one could apply a subject's function of the utility of each one of those consequences.   If some of the consequences are both illegal and observable and a node represented a risk to the subject doing the assessment of the graph, then that node would probably result in a negative utility for most subjects and perhaps it will overwhelm other positive evaluations across other nodes.  One could perform the same procedure across all possible subjects.   The sum would be a social evaluation of the mesh of consequences.  I think it would not be very useful, and not even address externalized costs.    Throughout this procedure the subjects' utility functions would all be subject to advertising, propaganda, religion, blood sugar and hormones.    Measure twice you could get different answer.  

If there are externalized costs that need to be recognized for the survival of humans, then humans will have to create laws with large risks for those that don't comply with them.   (Case-by-case harassment, vigilantism, or terrorism wouldn't scale as well.)   My guess in this Neuralink case, is that if there were any deviations from best practices, they will be aware of this risk in the future.   In the cynical view of it being propaganda, well, yes, they'll be motivated to make the best kind they can and to set things up to compartmentalize the most sensitive or emotionally charged information.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:56 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] by any means necessary

[sigh] I'll remind you of my original purpose in posting this (repeated below your post). It's about the difference between utilitarian and consequentialist ethical practice. The point, here, is not "transparency for all organizations" ... sheesh ... right after SteveS mentioned strawmen. The point is that cavalier pursuit of single-minded objectives, similar to Stanley's point we've discussed before, to the detriment of the mesh of consequences, intended or not, is suspect.

Because Musk is a huckster with an intense "move fast and " destroy the world attitude, it's reasonable to infer that Neuralink tends to focus too single-mindedly on their intentions and less on their unintentions ... to internalize profits and externalize costs. In the case of animal testing, the externalized costs take on an extra dimension. And that dimension *is* subjective. Of course. You use the word "subjective" like a pejorative. But that's what this is about. The subjectivity of the animals.

On 2/15/22 10:46, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> So far, we get one run at life.  If what one wants to maximize is transparency for all organizations that can be a goal.   It's a goal for Julian Assange, for example.   (Eventually some scrutiny was put on his life too.   Oops, too bad for Julian!)
> 
> And there are people with other goals who find that goal a distraction and a disruption.   Those people aren't necessarily corrupt because they don't want to walk around naked or constantly be bickering with annoying shrill people who constantly think they know best.    "Do a better job" is subjective.
> 
> There's a system for people getting along -- the law.   Having thousands of competing "laws", in effect, is a recipe for misery.

> On 2/14/22 09:02, glen wrote:
>> Animal-rights group says monkeys used in experiments for Elon Musk's Neuralink were subjected to 'extreme suffering'
>> https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-neuralink-experiments-monkeys-extreme-suffering-animal-rights-group-2022-2
>> 
>> Elon Musk’s Neuralink allegedly subjected monkeys to ‘extreme suffering’
>> https://nypost.com/2022/02/10/elon-musks-neuralink-allegedly-subjected-monkeys-to-extreme-suffering/
>> 
>> I've never quite settled out to a strong opinion on animal research. Since I'm mostly consequentialist, the *actual* ends [⛧] tend to rule out in my mind. But cause doesn't come in pure chains. It's a mesh, at best, an unquantifiable fractal at worst. So the means to the end are never merely means, they're always ends, in themselves. Utilitarians tend to abstract out seeming "no-ops" or "don't-cares", as if there were, in actuality, epiphenomena. But there are no such things. If that makes me a Vico-ist, that's fine. How you treat the animals is not merely a social side interest. It's a core part of good science and good engineering ... like keeping a good notebook.
>> 
>> Musk is (now) a huckster, exploiting the good will and childish optimism of dorks everywhere.
>> 
>> 
>> [⛧] By "actual", I don't mean whatever ends the actors have in mind when they launch the action mesh, but the outcome over time. Of course, that's fraught and requires some scholarship and ability to track the mesh as it unfolds. But one does the best they can. Whatever brainfarts some moron like Musk has in his mind prior to launch is largely irrelevant. We're all fans of scifi. The trick is being able to distinguish fact from fantasy.
>> 

-- 
glen
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/