|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
What if our thoughts could be plumbed by a brain scanner and memories
manipulated with the flip of a genetic switch? These science fiction– like scenarios could become reality because new technologies may soon allow unprecedented access to our brains. ...a future in which we can decipher others' private emotions and ideas as well as sculpt designer minds. Scientists can already decode single words and reconstruct mental images using functional MRI. We also tinker with brain activity on a daily basis by consuming mood-altering chemicals, such as caffeine and alcohol. More targeted neural enhancements, which might involve inserting new genes or modifying existing ones, could improve not only our cognition but also our personality, fashioning more law- abiding citizens or devoted spouses. One day, among other things, we may be able to record and share dreams, buy artificial experiences -- 'mind movies' -- and take self- improvement to a new level by editing unwanted thoughts and desires. The human person thus needs to be considered. Technologies which directly scan or manipulate brains cannot be neutral tools, as open to commercial exploitation as any new gadget. The brain supremacy offers chances to improve human dignity, but it also risks abuse. Privacy is an example. What if the claims already being made for neuroimaging's ability to read minds can be extended to portable, covert surveillance? If we've already revealed ourselves on Facebook, would it matter if companies could scan our brains in real time, observe that we're hungry, and change their targeted marketing accordingly? Would those companies be obliged to tell us, or our insurers, if they found evidence of brain disease -- or of dubious beliefs? Would governments be justified in having ideologically hostile individuals 'adjusted' before they committed any terrorist act? And so on. Funds are pouring into brain research. The rate of transfer from science fiction to science fact is amazing, and accelerating. Scientists can now probe individual atoms, see objects round corners, put a robot on Mars, and much else besides. These examples come from physics. In our science-saturated world, however, the balance of power is shifting towards the life sciences, and especially brain research. With modern neuroimaging techniques like fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), plus advances in genetics, and greater computer power, the study of human brains is at last becoming a fully-fledged science. Neuroscience has grown from a subdiscipline of biology to a field in its own right, with its own proliferating subdisciplines. In coming decades, it will rival and then surpass the influence of the older physical sciences. This is the era of the brain supremacy. There's a problem, though. The ethics developed by doctors, over centuries, to deal with human suffering, are different from those developed by scientists trying to understand how the world works. They're still more different from the ethics of businesses keen to cash in on the new technologies, for example by marketing fMRI 'lie- detectors.' And as the products of the brain supremacy have begun to move from clinic and lab to marketplace, the ethical principles don't necessarily move with them. Techniques created to heal can also be employed for other purposes, and the ability to get data from living brains is a holy grail for many interested parties other than neuroscientists and doctors. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rain-supremacy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathle...b_1909556.html DeadUsenet What Can I Say? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On 2/21/2013 11:05 AM, Immortalist wrote:
What if our thoughts could be plumbed by a brain scanner and memories manipulated with the flip of a genetic switch? These science fiction– like scenarios could become reality because new technologies may soon allow unprecedented access to our brains. ...a future in which we can decipher others' private emotions and ideas as well as sculpt designer minds. Scientists can already decode single words and reconstruct mental images using functional MRI. We also tinker with brain activity on a daily basis by consuming mood-altering chemicals, such as caffeine and alcohol. More targeted neural enhancements, which might involve inserting new genes or modifying existing ones, could improve not only our cognition but also our personality, fashioning more law- abiding citizens or devoted spouses. One day, among other things, we may be able to record and share dreams, buy artificial experiences -- 'mind movies' -- and take self- improvement to a new level by editing unwanted thoughts and desires. The human person thus needs to be considered. Technologies which directly scan or manipulate brains cannot be neutral tools, as open to commercial exploitation as any new gadget. The brain supremacy offers chances to improve human dignity, but it also risks abuse. Privacy is an example. What if the claims already being made for neuroimaging's ability to read minds can be extended to portable, covert surveillance? If we've already revealed ourselves on Facebook, would it matter if companies could scan our brains in real time, observe that we're hungry, and change their targeted marketing accordingly? Would those companies be obliged to tell us, or our insurers, if they found evidence of brain disease -- or of dubious beliefs? Would governments be justified in having ideologically hostile individuals 'adjusted' before they committed any terrorist act? And so on. Funds are pouring into brain research. The rate of transfer from science fiction to science fact is amazing, and accelerating. Scientists can now probe individual atoms, see objects round corners, put a robot on Mars, and much else besides. These examples come from physics. In our science-saturated world, however, the balance of power is shifting towards the life sciences, and especially brain research. With modern neuroimaging techniques like fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), plus advances in genetics, and greater computer power, the study of human brains is at last becoming a fully-fledged science. Neuroscience has grown from a subdiscipline of biology to a field in its own right, with its own proliferating subdisciplines. In coming decades, it will rival and then surpass the influence of the older physical sciences. This is the era of the brain supremacy. There's a problem, though. The ethics developed by doctors, over centuries, to deal with human suffering, are different from those developed by scientists trying to understand how the world works. They're still more different from the ethics of businesses keen to cash in on the new technologies, for example by marketing fMRI 'lie- detectors.' And as the products of the brain supremacy have begun to move from clinic and lab to marketplace, the ethical principles don't necessarily move with them. Techniques created to heal can also be employed for other purposes, and the ability to get data from living brains is a holy grail for many interested parties other than neuroscientists and doctors. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rain-supremacy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathle...b_1909556.html DeadUsenet What Can I Say? Exciting, but scary! What does it mean to be "human" now? What does it mean to be "me"? Could I experience what it's like to be a bat, etc? Can I become You....or be cloned to be "whoever"("what"ever?) suits the brain-controllers' agenda? Would that kind of brain alteration be reversible? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 22, 3:21*am, Dare wrote:
[...] What does it mean to be "me"? Something that would be good for science to answer. If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body how would you know if it was you who lived that physical life on Earth or if you simply had the memories of that now dead human? If a machine could be built to duplicate you atom by atom the duplicate would feel as if it was the same person you think you are based on a shared history. Am I the same person who went into a deep sleep last night or do I just have that persons memories and brain? And so on ... In some way my inner subjective life is the same as yours unless you think you are the only living entity and everyone else is a zombie that just behaves as if they have an inner life. The only handle on being the same person is some kind of continuity keeping in mind the atoms that make you up are not the same for all your life but are like water molecules that make up a whirlpool. They flow in and out and all that really exists over time is a pattern. A pattern that itself changes shape. Your skeleton for example is turned over every 10 years. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:05:54 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
wrote: What if our thoughts could be plumbed by a brain scanner and memories manipulated with the flip of a genetic switch? These science fiction– like scenarios could become reality because new technologies may soon allow unprecedented access to our brains. ...a future in which we can decipher others' private emotions and ideas as well as sculpt designer minds. Scientists can already decode single words and reconstruct mental images using functional MRI. We also tinker with brain activity on a daily basis by consuming mood-altering chemicals, such as caffeine and alcohol. More targeted neural enhancements, which might involve inserting new genes or modifying existing ones, could improve not only our cognition but also our personality, fashioning more law- abiding citizens or devoted spouses. One day, among other things, we may be able to record and share dreams, buy artificial experiences -- 'mind movies' -- and take self- improvement to a new level by editing unwanted thoughts and desires. The human person thus needs to be considered. Technologies which directly scan or manipulate brains cannot be neutral tools, as open to commercial exploitation as any new gadget. The brain supremacy offers chances to improve human dignity, but it also risks abuse. Privacy is an example. What if the claims already being made for neuroimaging's ability to read minds can be extended to portable, covert surveillance? If we've already revealed ourselves on Facebook, would it matter if companies could scan our brains in real time, observe that we're hungry, and change their targeted marketing accordingly? Would those companies be obliged to tell us, or our insurers, if they found evidence of brain disease -- or of dubious beliefs? Would governments be justified in having ideologically hostile individuals 'adjusted' before they committed any terrorist act? And so on. Funds are pouring into brain research. The rate of transfer from science fiction to science fact is amazing, and accelerating. Scientists can now probe individual atoms, see objects round corners, put a robot on Mars, and much else besides. These examples come from physics. In our science-saturated world, however, the balance of power is shifting towards the life sciences, and especially brain research. With modern neuroimaging techniques like fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), plus advances in genetics, and greater computer power, the study of human brains is at last becoming a fully-fledged science. Neuroscience has grown from a subdiscipline of biology to a field in its own right, with its own proliferating subdisciplines. In coming decades, it will rival and then surpass the influence of the older physical sciences. This is the era of the brain supremacy. There's a problem, though. The ethics developed by doctors, over centuries, to deal with human suffering, are different from those developed by scientists trying to understand how the world works. They're still more different from the ethics of businesses keen to cash in on the new technologies, for example by marketing fMRI 'lie- detectors.' And as the products of the brain supremacy have begun to move from clinic and lab to marketplace, the ethical principles don't necessarily move with them. Techniques created to heal can also be employed for other purposes, and the ability to get data from living brains is a holy grail for many interested parties other than neuroscientists and doctors. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rain-supremacy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathle...b_1909556.html DeadUsenet What Can I Say? Abject honesty demands brain understandings. Even with those understandings : Deceit works, even 'self' deceit. Thus 'we' are a 'me'. 'Life' is a physical process that makes use of nanotech physical structures like DNA and neurons. These act as information structures including 'self' stories. Qualia all around : Sensor, 'Self', and Situation. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:45:13 -0800 (PST), casey
wrote: Something that would be good for science to answer. If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body how would you know if it was you who lived that physical life on Earth or if you simply had the memories of that now dead human? If you assume that the 5 year old version of you was "you", despite you being very, very different now - we need to determine what "you" means. -- Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do their thinking for them. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 21, 4:29*pm, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:45:13 -0800 (PST), casey wrote: Something that would be good for science to answer. If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body how would you know if it was you who lived that physical life on Earth or if you simply had the memories of that now dead human? If you assume that the 5 year old version of you was "you", despite you being very, very different now - we need to determine what "you" means. If the self is a series of clones throughout life, then there may be no "version" of your self but instead just a "range" of neural activities that are a sense of your self. Once those activities go outside the range of your -selfing- you are not cloned during those successions of neural events. from A Treatise of Human Nature Book I, Part 4, Section 6 SECTION VI: OF PERSONAL IDENTITY There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a further proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be derived from any fact of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing of which we can be certain if we doubt of this. Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience which is pleaded for them; nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explained. For, from what impression could this idea be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question which must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea. From---- http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/humepid.htm -- Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do their thinking for them. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 21, 7:36*pm, Immortalist wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:29*pm, Howard Brazee wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:45:13 -0800 (PST), casey wrote: Something that would be good for science to answer. If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body how would you know if it was you who lived that physical life on Earth or if you simply had the memories of that now dead human? If you assume that the 5 year old version of you was "you", despite you being very, very different now - we need to determine what "you" means. If the self is a series of clones throughout life, then there may be no "version" of your self but instead just a "range" of neural activities that are a sense of your self. Once those activities go outside the range of your -selfing- you are not cloned during those successions of neural events. from A Treatise of Human Nature Book I, Part 4, Section 6 SECTION VI: OF PERSONAL IDENTITY There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a further proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be derived from any fact of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing of which we can be certain if we doubt of this. Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience which is pleaded for them; nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explained. For, from what impression could this idea be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question which must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea. From----http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/humepid.htm -- Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do their thinking for them. sooner or later a computer will mimick a human brain, and likely surpass it. its not a matter of if but when |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On 2/21/2013 7:36 PM, Immortalist wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:29 pm, Howard Brazee wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:45:13 -0800 (PST), casey wrote: Something that would be good for science to answer. If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body how would you know if it was you who lived that physical life on Earth or if you simply had the memories of that now dead human? If you assume that the 5 year old version of you was "you", despite you being very, very different now - we need to determine what "you" means. If the self is a series of clones throughout life, then there may be no "version" of your self but instead just a "range" of neural activities that are a sense of your self. Once those activities go outside the range of your -selfing- you are not cloned during those successions of neural events. from A Treatise of Human Nature Book I, Part 4, Section 6 SECTION VI: OF PERSONAL IDENTITY There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a further proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be derived from any fact of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing of which we can be certain if we doubt of this. Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience which is pleaded for them; nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explained. For, from what impression could this idea be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question which must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea. From---- http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/humepid.htm Is a feeling of identity or self related to experiencing Time? What happens to "self" if there is no time... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 22, 7:00 am, Dare wrote:
On 2/21/2013 7:36 PM, Immortalist wrote: On Feb 21, 4:29 pm, Howard Brazee wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:45:13 -0800 (PST), casey wrote: Something that would be good for science to answer. If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body how would you know if it was you who lived that physical life on Earth or if you simply had the memories of that now dead human? If you assume that the 5 year old version of you was "you", despite you being very, very different now - we need to determine what "you" means. If the self is a series of clones throughout life, then there may be no "version" of your self but instead just a "range" of neural activities that are a sense of your self. Once those activities go outside the range of your -selfing- you are not cloned during those successions of neural events. from A Treatise of Human Nature Book I, Part 4, Section 6 SECTION VI: OF PERSONAL IDENTITY There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a further proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be derived from any fact of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing of which we can be certain if we doubt of this. Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience which is pleaded for them; nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explained. For, from what impression could this idea be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question which must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea. From---- http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/humepid.htm Is a feeling of identity or self related to experiencing Time? What happens to "self" if there is no time... The second part of your question addresses issues relating to consciousness and continuity. Can the activities of the brain that are the self, if stopped be started again? Would it be only a clone that believes it is you or have we always just been a bunch of clones that produce this feeling of being one me? But to this continuity dilemma you raise; there are too many things and processes happening to give some simple answer. Why would we believe that consciousness can or cannot be stopped and then started in the first place? If the heart stops tissues die but when we sleep consciousness seems to stop, so simple comparisons will probably fail us. Religion and philosophy seem to be the culprits that make us invent such ideas. What if consciousness is full of stops and starts? Again time seems to be necessary if consciousness is the same thing as activities in a brain. .......In a sparse distributed network - memory is a type of perception.....The act of remembering and the act of perceiving both detect a pattern in a vary large choice of possible patterns....When we remember we recreate the act of the original perception - that is we relocate the pattern by a process similar to the one we used to perceive the pattern originally. http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch2-d.html Could all parts of our experience and reasoning abilities be very similar to a type of perception? If the act of remembering and the act of perceiving both detect a pattern in a vary large choice of possible patterns and when we remember we recreate the act of the original perception - that is we relocate the pattern by a process similar to the one we used to perceive the pattern originally, and trigger areas of the brain which our senses would, in essence bypassing the senses, then it seems possible that most of our experience works in a similar way. Kevin Kelly http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch2-d.html Benjamin Libet famously suggested it takes about half a second for the brain to get through all the processing steps needed to settle our view of the moment just past. But this immediately raises the question of why don't we notice a lag? How does anyone ever manage to hit a tennis ball or drive a car? The answer is that we anticipate. We also have a level of preconscious habit which "intercepts" stuff before it reaches a conscious level of awareness. And yet it really does take something like half a second to develop a fully conscious experience of life. You can read about the cycle of processing story and its controversies in the following.... see: the cycle of processing http://www.dichotomistic.com/readings_intro.html If there is one thing that seems certain about consciousness it is that it is immediate. We are aware of life's passing parade of sensations — and of our own thoughts, feelings and impulses — at the instant they happen. Yet as soon as it is accepted that the mind is the product of processes taking place within the brain, we introduce the possibility of delay. It must take time for nerve traffic to travel from the sense organs to the mapping areas of the brain. It must then take more time for thoughts and feelings about these messages to propagate through the brain's maze of circuitry. If the processing is complex — as it certainly must be in humans — then these delays ought to measurable, and even noticeable with careful introspection. http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_re...n%20libet.html http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_re...icipation.html http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_habits.html Jori Hulkkonen Chris Udoh - The Moment http://youtube.com/watch?v=nDUKkMGSjn8 http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindD...agination.html |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 21, 3:45*pm, casey wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:21*am, Dare wrote: [...] What does it mean to be "me"? Something that would be good for science to answer. The answer is "me" always changes. You're welcome. http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.c...eforceorig.pdf If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body how would you know if it was you who lived that physical life on Earth or if you simply had the memories of that now dead human? If a machine could be built to duplicate you atom by atom the duplicate would feel as if it was the same person you think you are based on a shared history. Am I the same person who went into a deep sleep last night or do I just have that persons memories and brain? And so on ... Unless one is having a crisis of Identity. In some way my inner subjective life is the same as yours unless you think you are the only living entity and everyone else is a zombie that just behaves as if they have an inner life. The only handle on being the same person is some kind of continuity keeping in mind the atoms that make you up are not the same for all your life but are like water molecules that make up a whirlpool. They flow in and out and all that really exists over time is a pattern. A pattern that itself changes shape. Your skeleton for example is turned over every 10 years. LLAP per Spoc as Nimoy IRL. Enjo(y)... Cheers! -- Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops. http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/ "If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive you crazy, then you're just not tr(y)ing!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ETHICS IN THE ERA OF POSTSCIENTISM | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | December 8th 09 03:22 PM |
Ethics For Physicists | Immortalist | History | 16 | November 16th 06 09:27 PM |
That's a fak, Jak!... See-thru ethics | Painius | Misc | 0 | May 22nd 06 03:36 AM |
The Ethics of Terraforming | Eric Nave | Policy | 83 | December 13th 03 05:10 AM |
Boeing Ethics | ed kyle | Policy | 7 | December 5th 03 05:41 PM |