The iPlant group: new page - "Ethical concerns"

[Christopher]

Yep. Finally trying to conceptualize this rat maze. I thought we could
try and list all the issues we can think of in a page and then discuss
them separately in the discussions section.

[antropos]

Personality implications:

What might be the implications of neural enhancement in terms of
personality?

Its an ethical concern so I think, to what degree an alternation of
our personal modalities in terms of DBS would affect our
personalities?
For as far as I understand this technology is being used for
normalizing pathologies so the people being infected by them could
lead a normal live again. All fine. But what happens when we go an
enhance certain features about our conscious self? Will we be able to
cope with those alterations in consciousness? At what might be the
consequences?

At first I think we might be able to compare this with experiences
like drug use etc.; one gets in altered states of mind and finds knew
perspectives to think about consciousness, behaviour and human
psychology in total.
But none of these conditions where permanent. What if they would be!
And where would lay the degree of acceptance within the community?

I think all this might be of great importance in getting the
technology accepted widely enough to be applicable. Since there is
always a degree of uncertainty and resistance within the human psyche
in terms of new unknown possibilities and technologies.
Please correct me if I step into certain pitfalls during my reasoning.
For me this seems to be a very relevant ethical issue along the pad-
way onto getting technologies accepted by everyday humans.

Greets.


On 2 feb, 09:30, Christopher <christopher.aidan.har...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

[psique]

certainly 'personality' would be affected, but imho only in certain
domains. for example, one could argue that if iPlants became popular
the aspect of 'will power', 'self discipline' etc and whether you have
it or not would become insignificant. rather than self-control and
discipline, ambition and most of all ability could become more
important aspects of one's 'personality'. at least if the iPlant was
used by healthy people. for those stuggling with depression for
example, it might be a daunting task just to take that step and get an
iPlant. but i think people who are ambitious would certainly benefit
from having this very feature of theirs enhanced.

i disagree regarding an alteration of consciousness akin to that
experienced during drug use. switching on an iPlant and letting it
stimulate your brain wouldn't get you high. you wouldn't have visuals
and you wouldn't be fine with sitting on a couch and 'observing the
universe through your carpet' or something like that. as far as i
understand, if the iPlant is to work the way it should, you should
merely get a small, barely noticible incentive to do whatever you just
did again if it's the kind of behaviour the program is currently
selecting for. there's no abnormaly strong kick involved, hence the
drug comparison is invalid because drugs potentiate the effects of
serotonin/dopamine in uncontrollable, outsized, 'unnatural' ways. an
iPlant, a good one anyway, should feel 'natural' and shouldn't
interfere with someone's perception of their personality (or other's
perception of it).

not on an individual scale anyway.

on a global scale, the question what consequences development and
mainstream use of an iPlant could have is more valid in my opinion. we
already live in a society where success, hard work and self discipline
are regarded very highly. constantly we are being asked to do more
work in less time. we are being drowned in an ocean of information and
get rocks of 'possibilities' thrown at us. already we are generally
being led to believe that we can achieve anything we want (and whoever
teaches us this fails to realise that we can't have a whole world full
of millionaires without inflation skyrocketing...). my concern is that
widespread use of iPlants could foster this mentality. and while it's
important for people to bring out the best in them, to grow and
achieve something; focusing on only this aspect of our lives could be
somewhat dangerous. as of yet, we are still animals - homo sapiens, if
that makes you feel better - and we need time to relax, time to spend
with our families, grooming each other, telling stories, exchanging
emotions and such. i'm afraid that these aspects of our
'personalities' could become neglected. human life is not all about
getting results and having success. sometimes we need to let things
flow and lean back. i wonder if this would still be possible if we had
a device that would enable us to be more productive whenever we wanted
to be, in whatever we wanted to be more productive in. then again, if
society is on it's way to a robotic overachiever state already, we
might as well play along and feel good about it along the way.. :p

[Edward Miller]

"on a global scale, the question what consequences development and
mainstream use of an iPlant could have is more valid in my opinion. we
already live in a society where success, hard work and self discipline

are regarded very highly..."

I completely agree. This could actually create a society that seems very dystopian, at least aesthetically. I have explored a very similar idea before. Basically this would turn us into content slaves, and it would be an order of magnitude more powerful than the idea of "soma." Erich Fromm, a humanist psychologist, argued that often times what psychologists are treating is understandable responses to a sick/insane society. Surely just doping up people with Prozac in our society isn't currently fixing any of the structural problems we have, and something like the iPlant could be an order of magnitude worse.

Here is an old debate I had on this issue:

http://www.betterhumans.com/forums/thread/10459.aspx

According to my own utilitarian principles, this shouldn't be a problem. Yet, I still don't feel comfortable with it, in a way that I can't articulate very well. I have taken up the devil's advocate position on this matter in debates, in hopes of finding an answer, but I have yet to find one.

[antropos]

"i disagree regarding an alteration of consciousness akin to that
experienced during drug use. switching on an iPlant and letting it
stimulate your brain wouldn't get you high. you wouldn't have visuals
and you wouldn't be fine with sitting on a couch and 'observing the
universe through your carpet' or something like that. as far as i
understand, if the iPlant is to work the way it should, you should
merely get a small, barely noticible incentive to do whatever you
just
did again if it's the kind of behaviour the program is currently
selecting for. there's no abnormaly strong kick involved, hence the
drug comparison is invalid because drugs potentiate the effects of
serotonin/dopamine in uncontrollable, outsized, 'unnatural' ways. an
iPlant, a good one anyway, should feel 'natural' and shouldn't
interfere with someone's perception of their personality (or other's
perception of it)."

As a reaction on the drug comparison I would like to reply the
following:
Its thru that comparing an iPlant with psychedelic drugs like
mescaline or LSD is not the right way to go. But that doesn't change
the fact that any kind of drug are a certain state of mind. So when,
for example, you take cocaine which stimulates your dopaminergic
system (agreed, uncontrolled) resulting in a general feel-good and
self-confident state of mind (at least if not taken to excessively,
hence preventing from physical side-effects), you could state that
their is a certain degree of comparison. By which I mean; The
alterations we induce using cocaine or an iPlant might have
consequences for us to cope with. Obviously the iPLant being a more
relevant and controllable choice, but the result being the same: if
something felt good or worked well the chances are bigger for a
cocaine user to use again, just like an iPlant user might be wanting
to condition or stimulate himself hence enhancing certain features
regarding his self and the good 'results/feeling' coming from it.

Ok, actually I think none of what I just wrote is new. But my question
is. How will we make an iPlant controllable or programable so we as
human being won't end up condition ourself into a condition doing more
damage than good? And will using this technology have anything to do
with our personalities and the way they (all on an individual basis)
cope with those alterations we make to ourselves.
I'm just skeptical to how controllable this all might be. I would not
be surprised that we get people misusing DBS just for pleasurable side-
effects once its applicable easily. And on that behalf the question
how people might cope with that feels very important to me.

Especially because I want the technology to be accessible for
everyone. And letting people choose for their selves what or which
part of their brain/personality/modalities they want to enhance. Its a
free world after all.

[Christopher]

i think the question of how the iPlant would affect personality is
really important. like psique says the 'kick' the implant would give
you for doing "the kind of behaviour the program is currently
selecting for" should be as soft as possible, but it WOULD be
noticeable. the possibility of regulating monoamine tone (DA(t),
5HT(t)) could affect personality further, so the analogy with drugs
might be relevant, although with the iPlant the change in
consciousness and personality will hopefully be a lot more what we
intend it to be, and therefore a lot better.

it's really hard to see how these things would play out in society in
the long run, so it might help if we try to focus on one specific
program. say the iPlant is made available in 2015-2020 but works only
with a running machine, a rowing machine and a weight-lifting machine.
at the start you have to be clinically obese to get the surgery but as
the procedure becomes routine all you really need to do to get one is
say the right things to your doctor (think Prozac or Ritalin). the
implant motivates you to use the machines, but not for more than two
hours per day. a few people hack it and screw themselves or others up
but it's extremely rare. within a few years 10% of people have an
iPlant but although learning and research programs are being developed
they're not yet available. what can we say about this situation?

[Abolitionist]

Deep brain stimulation can be used to alter consciousness in many ways
including making one hallucinate or submissive without making one
happier.

The dangers are great, but can be overcome.

------

The reality is that we are already using deep brain stimulation
control sentient beings. Guess who is doing it? Yup, the US military.
Both for their human and animal spies.

On 10 Mar, 04:20, Christopher

[Abolitionist]

Read about the scientists who the US government has tried to snatch up
a long time ago.
You think they haven't been studying this secretively in the meantime?

Delgado and Heath;

http://www.wireheading.com/delgado/index.html

http://www.wireheading.com/jose-delgado.html

http://www.wireheading.com/robert-heath.html

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/17/1418242

> > they're not yet available. what can we say about this situation?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[psique]

> Deep brain stimulation can be used to alter consciousness in many ways
> including making one hallucinate or submissive without making one
> happier.

- no shit. but this is not the point of the iPlant. spreading horror
scenarios of wireheads etc is not exactly profitable in terms of
raising public awareness either...

> The dangers are great, but can be overcome.

- how i love this sentence - typical transhumanist wishful thinking
devoid of content.

how about actually looking up past papers on DBS in parkinson's, ocd,
depression etc to see how DBS devices are currently being regulated,
hooking up with computer scientists who could inform us on how to make
the software (and hardware?) secure, or at least collecting
information relevant to the iPlant's purpose (which is not gaining
control of other beings military- or delgado-style)?

[antropos]

"Within a few years 10% of people have an

iPlant but although learning and research programs are being
developed

they're not yet available. What can we say about this situation?"

In my opinion I think that a decent roadmap as in what an iPlant is
and how its consequences are to be interpreted is a very important
issue. iPlant.eu is already a very good start. But for the community
to understand it better, some writings in simple everyday english
might go a long way. Think about a cartoon like the guys from What the
Bleep use.
I've been talking about it with some people now, not all the most
advanced speakers. And what I've noticed is that when you explain
things in technical term all listeners conclude in terror. But when I
explained using everyday examples with simple words, and everyday
annoyances that could be overcome using an iPlant they where much more
accesible for the idea.

So my personal conclusion for this matter is that communication in
terms of making the technology acceptable for the general public, in
which way ever, might be a very wise first step to take. Once you have
that, you can start introducing the more complex possibilities about
the product.

Or are their more fundamental first-steps into getting this product
accepted I am missing here?

[psique]

you make a valid point, most people might have trouble understanding
what the iPlant is about and hence might be frightened of it rather
than intrigued.
to state an example, my 16y old brother and me were whatching a show
about nicotine addiction today and out of the blue came footage of rat
getting its pleasure centre stimulated by DBS (you know, that study
from the 50s). i was quick to point out that this was kinda what the
iPlant was supposed to do, but only under certain conditions (unlike
the self-stimulation experiment). i said eg you could get a small hit
every time you get a maths question right - he said right away: "hey,
that'd be really cool for people who normally don't like maths!" (it
helped that the narrator had been explaining the pleasure centre/basal
ganglia/dopamine during the show in REALLY simple terms)- before,
when i was trying to explain the iPlant concept in more detail, my
brother was rather sceptical. not having read a single sci-fi book in
his life, he mentioned mind-control etc. in this sense i think that
the recent iPlant video was a good step towards making it more
accesible, as it's kept in relatively simple terms.

however, people who can very well understand the concept of the iPlant
on a language/knowledge basis still seem to have trouble with it. i'm
not quite sure why there seems to be this general consensus that
healing of sick people is fine, but enhancement of healthy people is
wrong. maybe you've noticed the recent nature-spurred debate on brain
enhancers which culminated in an article in the NY times (here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html ). so, on
one hand we might need to make information more accesible to
laypeople, but on the other we need to get an answer to question why
so many people are likely to find the iPlant "unethical" and how we
can answer to their concerns in a truthful positive way. and the
latter is certainly much more difficult to accomplish. (let's hear it
from the philosophers on that one)

[Christopher]

"we need to get an answer to the question why so many people are
likely to find the iPlant "unethical" and how we can answer their
concerns in a truthful positive way" Excellent phrasing, I agree 100%.

The objection that the iPlant is fake or cheating or simply poor
quality seems to be important. Dr Chattarjee calls brain enhancement
'cosmetic neurology' in that article. People seem to have this kind of
gut reaction: "Stick electrodes in your BRAIN? You're BOUND to screw
something up! Don't do it." Naïve people with a lot of self-dicipline
add: "People should learn to exercise self-dicipline without
artificial aids!"

Partly I think we need to show how routine and safe DBS in general has
become and how detailed our knowledge of DBS of monoamine circuits in
non-human animals is. But more generally I think we need to focus on
how specific programs can help specific people. More than 50% of
people in the US and UK are obese - most people see a problem that
needs fixing there, and most people are concerned with their own
weight and their inability to exercise or diet as much as they would
like. So they can sympathise with developing exercise programs.
Learning programs: a lot of people would like to be able to study
Chinese for an hour every evening, and enjoy it, instead of staring at
the TV. People then have to articulate their worries in software-form.

Beyond that first reaction I think people are simply afraid of the
unknown, especially unknown brain technology. As we've seen it's hard
to imagine what a society where most people have iPlants would look
like and people are rather safe than sorry. They may worry that a
motivation enhancer would make society rougher and even more
competitive: what about those who can't get an iPlant, or what if it
becomes mainstream to a point where you can't get a job without it?

I think it's important to focus on what we know here, i.e. the initial
phase where certain people use it the iPlant to exercise and learn
things (and possibly do research): people who for one reason or
another are undermotivated, who would otherwise be doing nothing, and
would suffer from it. THEY are the ones who are likely to risk brain
surgery; and they are the ones who would benefit the most from an
iPlant anyway. Maybe we should focus on them, show that the iPlant is
designed to HELP a certain kind of person.

(btw, I'm constantly trying to break these things down in the ethics
seciton on the website - http://www.iPlant.eu/b3.html, let me know if
there's something I should add or change)

On Mar 11, 10:20 pm, psique <l.kilar...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> you make a valid point, most people might have trouble understanding
> what the iPlant is about and hence might be frightened of it rather
> than intrigued.
> to state an example, my 16y old brother and me were whatching a show
> about nicotine addiction today and out of the blue came footage of rat
> getting its pleasure centre stimulated by DBS (you know, that study
> from the 50s). i was quick to point out that this was kinda what the
> iPlant was supposed to do, but only under certain conditions (unlike
> the self-stimulation experiment). i said eg you could get a small hit
> every time you get a maths question right - he said right away: "hey,
> that'd be really cool for people who normally don't like maths!" (it
> helped that the narrator had been explaining the pleasure centre/basal
> ganglia/dopamine during the show in REALLY simple terms)-  before,
> when i was trying to explain the iPlant concept in more detail, my
> brother was rather sceptical. not having read a single sci-fi book in
> his life, he mentioned mind-control etc. in this sense i think that
> the recent iPlant video was a good step towards making it more
> accesible, as it's kept in relatively simple terms.
>
> however, people who can very well understand the concept of the iPlant
> on a language/knowledge basis still seem to have trouble with it. i'm
> not quite sure why there seems to be this general consensus that
> healing of sick people is fine, but enhancement of healthy people is
> wrong. maybe you've noticed the recent nature-spurred debate on brain

> enhancers which culminated in an article in the NY times (here:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html). so, on

> > accepted I am missing here?- Hide quoted text -