5 ms·

>increased freezing in the original context, in which a foot shock was never delivered seems like an effective way to train things like correct reaction for th

>increased freezing in the original context, in which a foot shock was never delivered seems like an effective way to train things like correct reaction for the "Attention" command in soldiers, schoolchildren, employees during all-hands,... On the other side, some decades later we will be appalled by the modern practice of electrical shocking of mice the same ways some of us are already appalled by medieval torture.

etrautmann 13y ago
These foot shocks are pretty mild. This is a bit of hyperbole...
ars 13y ago
Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. A better example might be vivisection - it used to be done without any analgesia at all, for the simple reason that they had none. But they learned a LOT from it. Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use. This is the same way - it's the best tool we have. Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist. Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. Jews in concentration camps were experimented on with intent of scientific experiment. By your standard it is just ok. Intent doesn't matter to the subject of torture, be it an interrogated witch, 911 terrorist, Jew in concentration camp being experimented on or a dog being vivisected. > Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use. No. The idea became repugnant to some [the most advanced people of the time] and through their effort the analgesics started to be used. In particular, ether was first used for surgery in 1846, while vivisection was still legal for more than half a century after that. Or do you mean UCSF doesn't have analgesics available: http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-research-animals-suffer-4065881.php http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-res... > Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist. That a convenient lie - alcohol, 'shrooms, opium, various barks, cola nut, etc... have been known for like thousands years. >Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all. False scare, like security vs. liberty. The humanity would probably be much better off if it excluded all experiments on live animals. Our primitive, medieval, violent mentality is that keeps us from developing into advanced civilization. Live and let live.
  - aperrien 13y ago
    This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. Which do you value more, animals or humans?
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. it is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice everyone of us make. Like these researchers at UCSF - whether to administer analgesics or not before cutting a body part - calling it a philosophical question clearly shows your own philosophy. >Which do you value more, animals or humans? By asking such a question you already stated your answer. I don't ask nor answer such a question as i don't assign specific value points on lives of humans or animals. Putting such specific values and compare them has always been leading humans who think of themselves as of higher value to mindlessly butcher, torture, etc... anybody whom they think of as of lesser value, be it humans or animals.
      - yew 13y ago
        It is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice every one of us make. There is no answer that's not philosophical. Refusing to quantify your philosophy is philosophical. It amounts to asserting that taking a position is wrong when only people who disagree with the philosophy you implicitly accept are taking a position, so it's also rather hostile.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? But I can also answer that with a question if you want: which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? (not that we lack a constancy of military action in the world, but hey)
      - ars 13y ago
        > If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? If by value you mean assign a positive number then No. If by value you mean calculate then Yes. (Sorry for phrasing it that way, but I wasn't sure which you meant.) > which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? Now I'm confused. In another post you appear to be against this experiment (i.e. the slow and steady progress), but the way you write this makes it look like the slow and steady progress is the better way - but that's the experiment. So which is it?
- pasquinelli 13y ago
  "Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all." who could even be so cruel? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=INMpAR1nvzY&t=520 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IN...
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. Source? The article just said they wanted to see if they can do it. Namely, to create a negative, fake memory. it's the best tool we have. Once we get a better tool we'll use it Tool for what, exactly? We know the brain is made up of stuff and that it can be influenced. The question is rather, what of that is even desirable to do. In the article I just see the fascination of playing God, there not even pie in the sky medical applications are mentioned. And personally, I can't think of any. I tried! Let's say someone was sexually abused by red haired people as a kid. That is, they only knew two red haired people, those abused them, and now they have a very strong negative reaction to red haired people. Wouldn't it always be more desirable for them to talk about this stuff and work through it, than just their association with red hair being "reset"? [I'm simply assuming that if you can make benign memory bad, it's only a matter of time until we try making a bad memory benign, or even good] Okay, maybe it should be their choice, I can't tell others what they need to be able to cope with. And my example is very bad, I just couldn't think of a better one; though I am still keen to hear others, let's simply assume there is a really good example, and a great medical use for good.. where there's not so much faking going on, but correcting actual mistakes etc. where intellectually realizing them just doesn't cut it for some reason. As I said, I can't really tell others what they should do or not do, especially since I am not suffering from any crippling anxieties or brain damage. I have only one argument why they should rather go the harder road, which may big payoffs in the way of personal growth, but also may simply not work at all: just like you supposedly can't hypnotize people to do things that goes completely against their moral values, I think it's harder to make someone believe the dog that bit them actually licked their hand with just a bunch of conversations. Yes, people can be brainwashed already, and I guess a bad but trusted therapist could also do a lot of damage; but compared to physically reaching in there and re-arranging things, it's still like muskets to the nuclear bomb. And wether stuff like "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is a real thing, or just a dumb ad-hominem, is actually simply a consensus decision. Medical history, and that of the mind especially, is FULL of people being mis-diagnosed and made to fit. The world has been reeling with power grabs and raising awareness of them for many decades, so to invent such a "tool", even the most simplicistic beginnings of it, "just because", seems just nucking futs to me. That it's "exciting" to the "global neuroscience community" doesn't really cut it for me to get excited, too. "If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?" -- George Orwell ^ You see, there is only one way to find out, and no way back from it. Any steps towards it needs to be heavily justified. Basically, if you can do it any other way, where volition and dignity remain intact, you have to do it that way. Can you show me what this is good for that's a.) important, and not just "exciting" b.) not possible any other way?

etrautmann 13y ago

These foot shocks are pretty mild. This is a bit of hyperbole...

ars 13y ago

Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. A better example might be vivisection - it used to be done without any analgesia at all, for the simple reason that they had none. But they learned a LOT from it. Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use. This is the same way - it's the best tool we have. Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist. Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all.

VladRussian2 13y ago
>Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. Jews in concentration camps were experimented on with intent of scientific experiment. By your standard it is just ok. Intent doesn't matter to the subject of torture, be it an interrogated witch, 911 terrorist, Jew in concentration camp being experimented on or a dog being vivisected. > Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use. No. The idea became repugnant to some [the most advanced people of the time] and through their effort the analgesics started to be used. In particular, ether was first used for surgery in 1846, while vivisection was still legal for more than half a century after that. Or do you mean UCSF doesn't have analgesics available: http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-research-animals-suffer-4065881.php http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-res... > Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist. That a convenient lie - alcohol, 'shrooms, opium, various barks, cola nut, etc... have been known for like thousands years. >Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all. False scare, like security vs. liberty. The humanity would probably be much better off if it excluded all experiments on live animals. Our primitive, medieval, violent mentality is that keeps us from developing into advanced civilization. Live and let live.
- aperrien 13y ago
  This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. Which do you value more, animals or humans?
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. it is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice everyone of us make. Like these researchers at UCSF - whether to administer analgesics or not before cutting a body part - calling it a philosophical question clearly shows your own philosophy. >Which do you value more, animals or humans? By asking such a question you already stated your answer. I don't ask nor answer such a question as i don't assign specific value points on lives of humans or animals. Putting such specific values and compare them has always been leading humans who think of themselves as of higher value to mindlessly butcher, torture, etc... anybody whom they think of as of lesser value, be it humans or animals.
    - yew 13y ago
      It is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice every one of us make. There is no answer that's not philosophical. Refusing to quantify your philosophy is philosophical. It amounts to asserting that taking a position is wrong when only people who disagree with the philosophy you implicitly accept are taking a position, so it's also rather hostile.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? But I can also answer that with a question if you want: which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? (not that we lack a constancy of military action in the world, but hey)
    - ars 13y ago
      > If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? If by value you mean assign a positive number then No. If by value you mean calculate then Yes. (Sorry for phrasing it that way, but I wasn't sure which you meant.) > which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? Now I'm confused. In another post you appear to be against this experiment (i.e. the slow and steady progress), but the way you write this makes it look like the slow and steady progress is the better way - but that's the experiment. So which is it?
pasquinelli 13y ago
"Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all." who could even be so cruel? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=INMpAR1nvzY&t=520 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IN...
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. Source? The article just said they wanted to see if they can do it. Namely, to create a negative, fake memory. it's the best tool we have. Once we get a better tool we'll use it Tool for what, exactly? We know the brain is made up of stuff and that it can be influenced. The question is rather, what of that is even desirable to do. In the article I just see the fascination of playing God, there not even pie in the sky medical applications are mentioned. And personally, I can't think of any. I tried! Let's say someone was sexually abused by red haired people as a kid. That is, they only knew two red haired people, those abused them, and now they have a very strong negative reaction to red haired people. Wouldn't it always be more desirable for them to talk about this stuff and work through it, than just their association with red hair being "reset"? [I'm simply assuming that if you can make benign memory bad, it's only a matter of time until we try making a bad memory benign, or even good] Okay, maybe it should be their choice, I can't tell others what they need to be able to cope with. And my example is very bad, I just couldn't think of a better one; though I am still keen to hear others, let's simply assume there is a really good example, and a great medical use for good.. where there's not so much faking going on, but correcting actual mistakes etc. where intellectually realizing them just doesn't cut it for some reason. As I said, I can't really tell others what they should do or not do, especially since I am not suffering from any crippling anxieties or brain damage. I have only one argument why they should rather go the harder road, which may big payoffs in the way of personal growth, but also may simply not work at all: just like you supposedly can't hypnotize people to do things that goes completely against their moral values, I think it's harder to make someone believe the dog that bit them actually licked their hand with just a bunch of conversations. Yes, people can be brainwashed already, and I guess a bad but trusted therapist could also do a lot of damage; but compared to physically reaching in there and re-arranging things, it's still like muskets to the nuclear bomb. And wether stuff like "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is a real thing, or just a dumb ad-hominem, is actually simply a consensus decision. Medical history, and that of the mind especially, is FULL of people being mis-diagnosed and made to fit. The world has been reeling with power grabs and raising awareness of them for many decades, so to invent such a "tool", even the most simplicistic beginnings of it, "just because", seems just nucking futs to me. That it's "exciting" to the "global neuroscience community" doesn't really cut it for me to get excited, too. "If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?" -- George Orwell ^ You see, there is only one way to find out, and no way back from it. Any steps towards it needs to be heavily justified. Basically, if you can do it any other way, where volition and dignity remain intact, you have to do it that way. Can you show me what this is good for that's a.) important, and not just "exciting" b.) not possible any other way?