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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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!"

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.

On 2/21/2013 11:05 AM, Immortalist wrote:

DeadUsenet What Can I Say?


Not what can you say, but what can you do.

For example: Try not posting material that is off-topic to specific
newsgroups.

Dave