neuroscientist has wired the human brain to a computer.... frightening!!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

... the results are fascinating and very very frightening

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-01-22/cover.html

<snip>
So far, three of Kennedy's six implantees have learned to move a cursor across a computer screen and spell words just by thinking about it.

If Kennedy's technology reaches its full potential, something more amazing will have occurred. The people implanted will no longer be human as we know humans. Their existence will depend on machines, and their brains will have adapted accordingly. They will think differently. They will use their minds to control computers, with more stunning results than any human to date.

That introduces the ethical dilemma of a more manipulative use of what's called brain-computer interfacing (BCI), a way of warping the technology to turn an average brain into a superpower.

If BCI can unlock those caged by their bodies, imagine what it could do for those in perfect health. Think of it this way: With the same patience practiced by those paralyzed by injury or disease, you could do new things with your brainwaves, too. With the ability to marry the brain to a computer, you would become capable of intellectual and, possibly, physical feats unknown to man. You could be a superhero. You could be a supervillain.

"The brain-machine interface has been done, and I'm glad to have done it," Kennedy says. "But a responsibility has evolved there. I don't know how to make it not get out of hand."

<snip>

The council's chairman, Leon Kass, has spoken against cloning -- but his remarks regarding ethics are indistinguishable from concerns over BCI. "I remain enthusiastic about biomedical research and its promise to cure disease and relieve suffering," Kass told the U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Health in 2001. "Yet, as has been obvious for some time, new biotechnologies are also providing powers to intervene in human bodies and minds in ways that go beyond the traditional goals of healing the sick, to threaten fundamental changes in human nature and the meaning of our humanity."

BCI's ability to make a smarter brain is one "fundamental change" that may alarm Kass. The U.S. Department of Defense, which is now funding some BCI research, appears less concerned. In the same way that Einstein's breakthrough research advanced science that benefits mankind and contributed to the creation of nuclear weapons that threaten mankind, BCIs could give birth to an uneasy tension between technology for the sake of medicine and technology for domination.

"In 20 or 30 or 50 years down the road," Kennedy says, "you're going to give power to people who really shouldn't have it."

One thing's for sure. The brain of the future is on the way, and it could arrive more quickly than neuroscience imagined.

more....

[AP]

1. I'm not sure how the author makes that leap...

...but I'd like to see the whole article so I can figure out if it's just hysterical ludditism, or what.

Where's the link?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. it has been done. heard them talking about it on NPR....posted link above

[Mizmoon]

13. hysterical ludditism?

I beg your pardon?

This is the same government that has perpetrated freakish experiments through projects like MK-Ultra. They have allowed the tuskegee experiments. They have allowed lobotomy and other psychosurgery to flourish ...

Yet you're wondering if the author is a 'hysterical luddite'? Wow. How about the author is "a realist"?

[Dufaeth]

3. Frighteningly cool!

I can't wait!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. you won't have to wait it is here & the Defense Department is funding it!

[Dufaeth]

6. I won't be happy until they transplant my bain into a robot.

:)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. why are you immobile?

[Dufaeth]

10. This weak flesh is like immobility

compared to the mighty strength of steel and servos!

[papau]

9. Amen - at least then one can oil the joints!

:-)

[Lone_Wolf]

11. The ghouls are interested in a brain-computer interface for warfare...

For example, jet fighters controlled by the pilot's brain would be more efficient killing machines than today's jet fighters. Air combat would happen at the speed of thought instead of the speed of one's somatic reflexes.

Soldiers able to use brain to brain communication on the battlefield allowing them to coordinate attacks with brutal efficiency.

There are many reasons why the Pentagon would be interested in funding this.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. makes the movie "The Terminator" prophetic then and not just fiction IMHO

[The Doctor.]

23. And think of the jam sessions you could have in your basement

if you and your friends were wired together!

Seriously though, we're years away from figuring out how to communicate with the brain in such a way that the subject understands the messages.

It will be a while before we get the feedback formulas right.

[pnutchuck]

5. The dilemma of ethics

I watched this documentary once about the scientists who were developing the first atomic bomb. One had been a Jew working for the Nazis and the other, a Jewish friend that had escaped to Sweden (I think, it's been a while). The Jewish scientist was terribly frightened at the moral and ethical atrocities he faced after having completed it and he approached his long time friend to discuss it with him. Once his friend understood that the technology had been developed by him for the Nazis, he dismissed him and never spoke to him again. The scientist that had escaped to Sweden had envisioned the effects of this technology and, in the hands of a super power, could become monstrous for humanity.

I think Hiroshima proved him right. And now, we have these technologies as "deterrents" to our enemies, but in fact, they are just sleeping monsters.

I see these bio technologies, and genetic sciences as similar sleeping monsters. Because any science that seeks to circumvent evolution and create humans to a particular "super" design, can only cause destruction in the wrong hands. In the history of technologies, no matter how well intended, there have been those who wish to use it for perpetual power insurance.

edit spelling

[Igel]

54. We've all pretty much in the west decided that we have no

use for evolution. It's for other species, not our own.

Evolution's rooted in the survivability of offspring to produce a new generation; we believe in limiting the numbers of offspring (which might be a good survival strategy for the species, but not for individual gene pools), in making sure that offspring with low chances of survival do survive, and in making sure that our resources aren't geared primarily to the next generation but to the adults. Many people make ensuring that their genes do not get passed on a virtue.

Evolution is, by our standards, cruel.

[Skidmore]

7. Sometimes, because you can, doesn't mean you should. nt

[Mnemosyne]

19. Amen, Skidmore, amen. n/t

[murray hill farm]

14. What?

This is a wonderful thing!! You know "they" also said once that if god had meant for man to fly, he would have given him wings...and at that time they didn't even imagine that one day bombs would be dropped from airplanes. Knowledge always carries with it the possibility that someone will use it for evil. As for this article, i too think the writer makes an incredible jump, when this kind of knowledge can create such a new life for a lot of folks. Ask a quadriplegic what he/she thinks of this research.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. are you kidding me? ..within hours of the wright brothers 1st flight the..

defense department who was already there was strapping bombs to the wings wings turning a beautiful invention into something so evil...this is a fact

and if the disabled person has any kind of intelligence they would agree that the potential for it to be used toward such horrorific acts such as empirical wars, and destruction of humanity is GREAT. perhaps that person would NOT be in such desperation to support such a thing.

the harm and risks of BAD coming from this technology BY FAR outway the goods that can come from this!

[AP]

25. So are you saying you wish we didn't have airplanes?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

27. 1 commercial jet taking off uses the fuel equivalent to 20,000 cars...

with there engines running none stop for 24 hours.... now multiply those 20,000 automobiles with there engines running 24 hrs, by 30,000 commercial planes lifting off a day(and thats just in the US)...hmmm? and we talk hypocritically about our concern for the greenhouse gasses and the global warming and animal extinctions? now, keep in mind the tons of commercial jet fuel that ALL of these planes now landing MUST dump into the oceans and over our farmlands, seeping toxins into and poluting our drinking water supplies which they are ordered by law to do for safety reasons (because they may crash on landing and explode in flames) before they are allowed to land.

gee i guess you could say i am somewhat against excessive air travel!

[AP]

32. Avg mpg/passenger of a pasenger jet is about 33mpg/person. Would you

prefer that they drove?

Or would you prefer that people just stay where they are?

[booksenkatz]

15. I wonder how the computer can separate the

thoughts that actually get work accomplished from the intermittent sex fantasies and uncontrollable things that flit randomly through the brain?? The things that I think about, NO computer could achieve. (But that could be a good thing.)
:scared:

[undergroundpanther]

21. Until

We can figure out why humans are so"wired" to obey authority figures and disregard our own consciences,(see the stanford Expirament)and until we stop putting sociopaths in positions of power and authority and pretending the abuse and harm they do to humanity on a massive and personal scale is excusable I don't trust humanity with this technology until it does something about conytrolling abusers of trust.
It wont be used for the betterment of all of humankind it will be used to make sociopaths "win".
And until we can figure out a way to ensure all people have a decent quality of life and well being,humanity isn't ready for this.
Because the bullies will use it against the poor,the powerless, the caring,the goodhearted and loving people..
To me luddism isn't so much about fearing technology it is acknowledging what consiousless people do to people with a conscience to dominate them with technology.Some people because of their inability to love,and feel and care are dangerous and predatory to humanity.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. EXACTLY!!!...you are spot on!

[booksenkatz]

26. That is the post of the day!

Well said, u.p.!
:bounce:

[undergroundpanther]

29. aww thanks

Hugs to you all!!!

[Katidid]

16. Kind of reminds me of the movies

"Brazil" and "Matrix" combined.

[Village Idiot]

18. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

PREPARE TO BE ASSIMILATED.

[The Doctor.]

20. This is wonderful.

With this as the beginning of the true cybertech era, we can look forward to miraculous new developments.

Imagine an amputee learning to Internally manipulate his bionic prosthesis,
Imagine being able to carry databases in your head, lightning calculators, an instant photograhic memory.
Imagine interfacing with your desktop by thinking about it.

once we know better ways to communicate TO the brain as well as from, we will give humanity new tools to explore our vast potential.

[tigereye]

63. thank you!

not all research of this type has apocalyptic intent... at times the gov't even funds things that have positive, humanistic applications.

Also the brain will always be infinitely more amazing than any machine humanity is able to build.

[Ian David]

24. Behold and Beware

[TreasonousBastard]

28. The genie will soon be out of the bottle...

and we can assume that this could be in many ways beneficial, but will be most profitable in creating "cyborg" super-warriors and workers.

Our species has never been very good at looking at the long term, but in the past we have never had the knowledge or ability to make such profound changes to the face of the planet, or to the very definition of life itself.

So, once again, 99% of the population won't have the vaguest idea of what's really going on and of the remaining few, at least half will be in favor of it, or actually working on or benefitting from it.

I keep thinking of those science fiction themes where we go through a great evolutionary leap and almost kill ourselves working it out.

We are in for a very interesting future.

[w4rma]

30. cyberware / wetware / bionics / implants

I don't see any ethical delima with this technology.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

31. then imho you are in dire need of an ophthalmologist

[AP]

33. You're in dire need of a more coherent argument.

Most of this thread is just alarmism and hysteria without explaining the danger of new technologies.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. Dr Kennedy stated his concerns for the dangers for abuse....

quite clearly. did you read the entire article or have you read any other research papers/journals about the implications for governments,the wealthest and the powerful who will abuse this type of technology?

oh, it is very gallant the way you to jumped in to defend w4 ...i don't think he needed it tho...why are you attacking me, did you have a rough night? :7

[AP]

39. I was just reading all your posts in this thread looking for a coherent

argument about why this is such a terrifying threat. I didn't read w4's post -- just yours. So I wasn't jumping into anything. If your posts above contained an argument, I wouldn't be digging around here at the bottom of the thread looking for one.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

43. i'm sorry , but, there are a few on this thread doing a fine job, jpgray

for one makes a great arguement and underegroundpanther scored one too

and you're doing a fine job yourself on the otherside...thank you, even if i do not agree with you, i am learning :7

[AP]

50. which post?

BTW, I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder why someone who seems so passionate about this issue -- you, the author of the OP -- shouldn't be expected to make a clear, concise argument about why it's so important to you.

[jpgray]

38. Then I'll provide one

As Goedel would put it, no system can explain itself. We as humans will never fully understand ourselves, and therefore as physical/genetic alterations to humans become more and more fundamental, the less and less sure we can be of dangerous side effects. There are good uses for this technology, but there is also a dangerous element to them as well. I don't see what purpose denying one in favor of the other serves.

[AP]

40. Human beings have a huge capacity for alleviating suffering and making...

...life more rewarding. Most of the problems we have today don't have to do with their being too much progress and technology, but in not distributing its benefits broadly (or, they have to do with not developing great technologies in directions that end up distributing their benefits broadly).

I think people who fear technology because of the consequences aren't seeing the forest for the trees. There's a battle to fight but it's not a battle to hold back progress. It's a battle to make sure that technology's benefits are distributed broadly and in a way that doesn't concentrate power in the hands of a few.

[jpgray]

42. Making fundamental changes to something you don't understand is a bad idea

A good analogue would be our clumsy intrusion into various ecosystems--species die off in ways we couldn't predict or control. There are rivers in the NE that used to be teeming with wild salmon where now almost none are in existence, and all the leading biologists haven't a clue as to why. You risk a similar thing when you invade something like the human brain in a fundamental way--we simply don't have the capacity to judge the dangers and risks properly. Your attitude is similar to the rainforest logger--you don't understand what you may permanently destroy until after your invasion has irrevocably taken it away.

[AP]

45. And how is that relevant to the article above?

Steven Hawkings, with current technology, could not communicate if he couldn't move his eyes.

Because he can move his eyes, he can "talk" and he can write books.

The patients particpating in this BCI study cannot move their eyes.

Surely, you believe that Hawkings has made valuable contributions to society, no? Aren't you glad that technology has helped tap his capacity to make a difference in the world? What if the next Hawkings can't move his eyes? I think we'll be grateful that we had the BCI technology.

[jpgray]

47. Oh, so you are only arguing with yourself

All I ask is that people recognize there is a limit to what we can do in the vein where the risks outweigh the benefits. I don't understand--are you arguing that there is no such limit, or are you talking to yourself here?

[AP]

49. ...and you're not going to answer my question?

I think your argument above is more appropriate for, say, GMO crops or destroying a forest. I was just asking you to try to apply it to the subject matter of this thread.

[jpgray]

52. I can't tell if this semantic fog of yours has a purpose

My posts are written in plain English. Anyway, I'll act as though your ignorance of their meaning is genuine:

1. We do not fully understand the human brain. We do not even marginally understand it. The results of physical damage to it are not all predictable to us, and the results of mental or emotional damage to it are not at all predictable to us.

2. It is not a good idea to radically change something we do not fully understand. It is not a good idea to make radical physical or mental/emotional alterations when we have only the thinnest idea of how such things affect the brain.

That's the entirety of my argument. The analogue of the natural world makes perfect sense--here is another instance where what seems to us to be only slight trauma can have far-reaching ramifications no one is able to predict, and even after the fact some of the damage is still wholly inepxlicable to our top experts. That's what happens when one makes radical changes to an extremely complex system one doesn't understand. What you're talking about with Hawking is rather superficial--it is much nearer a level where we understand the risks and benefits fairly well. All I've been arguing is that there is another level that we simply shouldn't go blundering into. Again, are you arguing that this is not the case?

[AP]

56. I'm going to interpret the nastiness is a sign of a weak argument

Your number one is basically an argument not to research and study anything we don't know about. It's also factually incorrect. We do marginally understand the brain, and we understand it much better than even ten years ago, thanks to scientific research.

If you read the article, these people participating in the BCI study have no movement. They blink. They have almost no life at all. And they all die shortly after beginning their participation in the study. Presumably, they all chose to participate in these studies after giving their informed consent at earlier stages of their degenerative disorders. I have no idea what the risk is in trying to give their waning days a little more freedom by allowing them to communicate. Once this reaches the level where people who don't need the procedure to retain some modicum of humanity decide they want to try it, then we'll talk about your ethical dilemma in number two, but until then, I think that concern is barely relevant. It goes to informed consent -- you're talking about changing an individual's life by altering their brain. Unless you can show me how, I don't see how this has any knock-on "natural world" implications on people other than those with these electrodes on their brains. And who are you to tell them what they decide is right for themselves once they've been given all the information and have consented.

Hawking is entirely relevant. It's entirely the issue. This study gives people who can't use existing technology a way to communicate.

[jpgray]

57. Now we have direct, purposed misinterpretation from you, AP

I say the brain is a delicate and thinly understood thing that should be dealt with very carefully when radical changes are considered, and you interpret that as a call to cease all research on the brain. I say Hawking is an example of what I see as a good, non-radical implementation of such technology, and you say I dismiss him as irrelevant. You were confused as to why people voice concerns about the advance of this technology. I provide you with reasons, and then to continue debate you willfully misinterpret my posts so I have to laboriously explain them to you. Do you think you are doing yourself any credit with these evasions? I'm curious as to what there is in my posts you find so objectionable.

[AP]

61. This line of argument is absurd. "Purposed misinterpretation?" Whatever.

What am I evading? I'm begging for a coherent argument for why this technology is terrifying.

Your reasoning seems to be pursposefully broad because you know that it doesn't work with these specific facts. What you say are basically platitudes that are of not assistance to dealing with the issues to which the article gives rise.

Yes, I could say, "anytime we look at something we change it." But does that mean all scientific research does more harm than good? Does it help at all to understand the issues?

If you want to keep writing broad and useless poetic warnings about science, and then if you want to misrepresent my argument and insult me rather than try to narrow your arguments and focus them on what we're talking about, go ahead. I really don't care. I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to my anonymous internet persona being attacked by other anonymous internet personas. It just is no big deal for me to suffer your insults (although it is tiresome to have to waste time reading and responding to them!).

If I'm missing somethign, I'd like to know. I'm willing to open my mind and learn. However, you and E-D (and the article above) are doing nothing to help explain whatever legitimate concerns there might be with this technology.

I honestly want to know what the dangers are so that one could make a rational decision about which direction this obviously useful technology should be taken. Nothing you've said helps anyone understand where those limits should be.

[w4rma]

34. What's the ethical delima? That folks won't have to rely on memorization

nearly as much since they'd have access to uploaded and online dictionaries and encyclopedias? That folks will be able to use a keyboard and mouse without actually using a keyboard and mouse?

Big deal. This stuff isn't destructive like bomb making. In fact it might allow folks to spend more time on critical thinking instead of memorizing easily looked up facts.

[Mizmoon]

35. You first buddy.

You and AP can go first since this is all so harmless.

[w4rma]

37. Fine with me. (nt)

[AP]

41. See post 40.

[jpgray]

44. Most curious thing I've read all day

"In fact it might allow folks to spend more time on critical thinking instead of memorizing easily looked up facts."

I believe computers were supposed to solve that problem in a similar way. And running water, and cars, and airplanes--all these things meant ostensibly to provide people with more time to think criticially. Do people think more criticially now, do you suppose? I would argue the television actually helps people to think far less criticially than in the days when books were the only ready source of information. As people have more time saved, the more time is expected of them.

[w4rma]

46. The difference is

In the case of these encyclopedias and dictionaries, this would directly affect the way subjects are taught and people are tested. Every test would be an "open book" test and open book tests require critical thinking over memorization.

[jpgray]

48. Memorization is an important cognitive skill

And if not used, it will atrophy. Here is just one example of unintended consequences. And I have never taken any class where rote memorization was all that was required.

[w4rma]

51. Accessing your brain's memory, accurately and quickly is important

But critical thinking skills that allow people to use that information effectively, is more important.

Besides, I'm not sure that something like this, that gives people access to much more information much quicker, would cause an atrophy in memorization skills. The constant use of research and critical thinking may actually increase memorization skills.

[jpgray]

53. Why memorize something if you can look it up instantly?

You still move your legs when you use a car, and you still get from point A to point B, but your leg muscles will atrophy if you drive everywhere you used to walk.

[w4rma]

55. Would you rather folks developed critical thinking skills or memorization

skills?

I maintain that due to TV and other passive distractions that most folks have either never developed their critical thinking skills or they have let their critical thinking skills atrophy.

Also these standardized tests that were the basis of Bush's "Leave as Many Children Behind as Possible" bill promote memorization of test answers over critical thinking and understanding.

[jpgray]

59. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive

I do think you need some skill in both to function in society. I agree that the standardized testing from NCLB is doing much harm to the education of children here. To me your argument is -sort of- like the classic "why learn complex math when we have a calculator?" in a sense. "Why memorize historical dates for a single test if we can just look them up?", right? Now I don't think the skill of memorization is as important as the skills one picks up from doing complex math problems, but I think it is an important skill. It is probably over-emphasized in school at this point, but I don't think it should be done away with entirely, or be wholly supplanted with a crutch.

[w4rma]

64. Word Problems

To set up a complex physics equation you need to understand how integration is the area under a curve and derivation is the slope of a curve at all the points on that curve and how you can describe a physical structure that may or may not be in movement with numbers, variables and formulas.

When you calculate integrals and derivatives, you don't memorize tables of integration, beyond the most simple ones. There are thousands of these formulas that you must fit the variables into.

Beyond this, a calculator cannot solve a proof for you. A calculator cannot translate these physical entities into formulas for you. It can only solve the fomulas for you, assuming you've interpreted the data correctly into descriptive formulas using your critical thinking skills.

As for the specific dates of historic events, I don't really see a reason to memorize them, even without this technology. Not beyond having a *general idea* of where the most well known of these events lie on a timeline in order to help provide context and a framework for the surrounding events. Because you CAN look them up, and besides, historical events are taking place every single day, now, and there is no way to remember the dates (and times?) of them all.

[Igel]

58. I'm not so sure you can separate good use of cognition from

quick memory access. But I think there's an intermediary.

We build facts into a conceptual framework. And that's what critical thinkers use, and what they build and constantly reshape. Having a sea of facts milliseconds away would be handy, but they wouldn't be built into a framework anymore than the scientific encyclopedia sitting on my bookshelf is built into mine. It's handy for providing facts, but it doesn't provide structure. One advantage to having quick access lies in the fact that not all the data that went into building a conceptual structure necessarily are retained. Great scholars not only have access to facts or dig up new facts--that's secondary; every time they attempt to alter their structures, their "theories", they recognize what facts would no longer fit, or where holes would arise that need to be filled in.

It's hard to memorize isolated facts; it's easy to memorize facts that fit into a conceptual structure, and easy to remember that there's a fact with a certain "shape", so you can recognize it or deduce it later.

[w4rma]

62. Which is why there will be no

atrophy of memorization skills when students are practicing their critical thinking skills.

[bvar22]

60. run away!!!run away!!!