4 ms·
That's disturbing. Rather than producing "human-like brain waves", we stay with growing mini-brains with worm-like or insect-like brain-waves for a very very lo
by basetop 7y ago
That's disturbing. Rather than producing "human-like brain waves", we stay with growing mini-brains with worm-like or insect-like brain-waves for a very very long time until we master simpler neural systems. We know so little about the brain and consciousness that I think we should err on the side of caution. 100 years from now, imagine if we learned that these "mini brains" had semblence of human consciousness that we weren't aware of. It would horrifying.
But I also don't know how we can advance in neuroscience without taking some risks. So much of knowledge and advancement requires us breaking things apart and making mistakes. Maybe the risks are worth it especially for something as important as knowledge of the brain and consciousness. In many ways, is there anything more important than that?
- adrianN 7y agoWe don't have a definition of consciousness that allows us to test whether something is conscious or not, or at least I never heard of one.
- rhn_mk1 7y agoThat is the problem the grandparent is getting at. We don't have a widely accepted definition, and therefore we should tread lightly, without assuming that we're not even close to crossing that boundary.
- egeozcan 7y agoWe also don't have a definition of God. We should thread lightly as anything can make her angry. Sorry for the sarcasm (I'm definitely not trying to be impolite) but it was honestly my best attempt to make my point.
- marliechiller 7y agothats quite a reductionist approach and i dont think it applies to this case. we have an understanding of consciousness by the very fact that we can experience it - i.e theres a proof of existence already. We dont have the same understanding for god. If we somehow obtained evidence for a god and then subsequently found out we were causing that god intense suffering, then i think there would be similar discussion
- MadcapJake 7y ago> we have an understanding of consciousness by the very fact that we can experience it Would you say that you have an understanding of capitalism just by existing in a capitalist society? Would even an economist or a stockbroker have an "understanding of capitalism"? Or do they just know how to make predictions? If they predict incorrectly, would you say that there understanding is less than they had thought? Would you say that you have an understanding of the English language just by writing it? Would even a linguist or a writer have an "understanding of English"? Or do they just know how to string words together based off a set of rules? If they write a bad paper/novel, would you say that there understanding is less than they thought? If an understanding of capitalism/language is "less than they thought" is it really "understanding" necessarily? Perhaps a dead horse has been beaten, but I think my point is clear: complex activities/systems that we do/take-part-in everyday do not imply knowledge of the fundamental elements of those activities/systems. Our brains are highly skilled at pretending we have understanding.
- rhn_mk1 7y agoThat's right, and the previous poster recognizes that: > I also don't know how we can advance in neuroscience without taking some risks I replied, because pointing out that we don't have a definition of something is unproductive in both ways: "we don't know what consciousness is? so let's drop precautions" is just as bad as "we don't know what consciousness is? so let's stop in place". It's quite understandable to me to feel that experimentation in this area are disturbing to someone who doesn't know what model of consciousness was used to ensure that nothing immoral is being done. The answers provided in the article don't really address that. I also don't agree that consciousness is a complete mystery. We can infer criteria based on various measures of similarity, although the one criterion given in the article: "brain-wide activity that would indicate the organs could be conscious" doesn't offer any explanation as to where the criterion comes from. I take this as a failure to explain and justify that the precautions taken to eliminate the risk were enough.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 7y agoWe have a very poor understanding of consciousness and when death occurs, and yet every day we harvest organs from living donors before allowing them to die. Why so much caution demanded here when we already consider something still much very unknown to be "solved enough"?
- rhn_mk1 7y agoIf having a poor understanding of a problem constitutes "solving it", then we could be reckless in any area, and reap the consequences. Why would caution be not be demanded from a moral point of view? If morality places any value on the suffering of conscious beings, then the approach of "I don't know what will happen. Let's do this!" when conscious beings are the subject of an experiment is insane.
- Ace17 7y ago"Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complex that it must include a model of itself" ( Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene ) Is consciousness different from self-awareness? Because we're already using an experimental protocol for testing self-awareness in animals.
- adrianN 7y agoYou can't prove or disprove that I'm conscious in the same way that you can't prove or disprove that I experience the color red in the same way that you do.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoSo basically we should leave the research to be done in China? If you get an important western institutions to decry this research as unethical it will just happen elsewhere. This research could be very beneficial and could lead to extending the time window within which someone can be revived without becoming a vegetable after their heart stops pumping blood around. It makes sense to allow the research to continue where we at least have some control over it, especially considering that we are a long ways off from creating conscious brains in jars (or other suitable containers) which is approximately where most people seem to draw the ethics line.
- jacobush 7y agoThis... is not an excellent argument in itself. It can be used to justify anything.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoSo? We're not talking about selling administrative record keeping equipment to goose-stepping despots. We're talking about medical research that in the medium term seems likely to prevent people from dying. We're nowhere near growing self aware beings in a lab but people are acting like that's what we're doing. We're so very far from that that it makes no sense to hamper research. To put it in perspective, this is like restricting the sale of capacitors because someone built a small rail gun and you're worried they're gonna shoot down the ISS next week.
- jacobush 7y agoNow that is a proper argument and I will let other more informed people argue in this thread.
- matz1 7y agoAgree that precaution is good but this is dependent on what the researcher deemed as 'horrifiying'. For example, if I learned that these "mini brains" had semblence of human consciousness that I weren't aware of. My reaction would be 'that is interesting' instead of horrified or disturbed.