|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
|
First off i'd like to say this is my First CT thread, im not very good at this kind of stuff, but i would really like to share this with those here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/sc...=1&oref=slogin 2 page article The article: Not to long ago a study began to see if a monkey could make a robot walk. they discovered by having a robot in Japan and a Monkey with a brain inplant in America, The monkey while walking on a tredmill could infact use those same brain signals to make the robot walk on a tredmill on the other side of the world. Now this in itself is amazing, but later in the study they decided to turn off the monkeys tredmill and see what happens... and scientists were truely amazed. For a full 3 minutes the monkey stopped walking but the robot continued. This means that a monkey could essentially focused on making the robot walk with out activiating the part of the brain that makes itself walk. Now here is were CT comes in. I want to know the opinons on the study, and if this research should continue to move forward, Seeing what i've seen, it does not seem to far from impossible to have transimtters in 2 human brains, and possibley have them share and trade signals. could we possiblely trade thoughts? control peoples actions? Is that a good thing? is that ethical? Feel free to help me formulate this into more of a disscussion, i know its an interesting topic, but like i said i don't often do this. Last edited by SSCUJO; 02-7-2008 at 01:46 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Age: 29
Posts: 1,736
|
Very good for a first CT thread
![]() One of the first things I thought of when I read that the monkey was able to move the robot without actually moving itself was the possibility for handicapable persons, though I'm sure if this kind of technology in this area is anything new. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Vice President Of TGB
|
Some people are going to use it for bad, awful things and it'll just be stronger forces we'd have to be able to defend ourselves against.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 1,863
|
I think this is brilliant. I hope this all advances during my liftime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
FFR Player
|
This is absolutely scary. Imagine the far advancements of nanotechnology. Other than being used for good (ability to help handicapped people), it can also be used much more for the worse.
This can even start a zombie apocalypse! Imagine the phase of testing and implementing nanotechnology into human beings...one simple malfunction or miscalculation and it could lead to a whole other series of events. Not only can it lead to non-purposefully negative effects, but it can also be easily abused. This is all bad.
__________________
PLAYING SINCE SEPTEMBER 2007. Best AAA: Glove Stage - Ultra Sweden Best SDG: Garyuutensei, Chlorophyll, Novo Mundo, Dazzling Destiny Tier Points: 755,128 Charles Mullen Internet Marketing Blog |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
FFR Player
|
Is it? could it be used to rehabilitate those in prision? what about to help drug addicts and alcholics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Beach Bum Extraordinaire
|
This is pretty freaky, Im pretty much with Charless here: no telling what people will do with this.
Of course Im assuming that this might even go somewhere to become with. I remember reading that in the 1920s a doctor sewed a Monkey head to a girl's headless body and got it to open it's eyes and look around for about 15 seconds before dying again. IN THE 1920s! It never werent beyond that. I'll see if I cant find that again EDIT: To answer the OP, I see this as bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
FFR Player
|
SSCUJO -- Drug addicts/alcoholics have an addiction which is completely psychological. I don't think we should have the option of neurological kind of change because this COULD affect them for the worse in the long run. I mean I don't see them being implemented anytime soon (I doubt anytime before 2100) so it doesn't really affect me but it does affect the future.
I'm for stem-cell research & all but I'm way against this kind of research & develpment. It's just plain unethical & out of reach for actual useful usability due to how negatively it could be put to use.
__________________
PLAYING SINCE SEPTEMBER 2007. Best AAA: Glove Stage - Ultra Sweden Best SDG: Garyuutensei, Chlorophyll, Novo Mundo, Dazzling Destiny Tier Points: 755,128 Charles Mullen Internet Marketing Blog |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 370
|
You say there is potential to use this for bad, but don't really give any examples besides controlling other people. I don't really think is possible, because a computer would be required inside the victims head that would be tailored specifically to duplicate the signals that cause movement.
Now, most of the types of people who would want these things are either military, who would hopefully not do this, and and criminals, who would not be likely to have the resources to develop these kinds of programs. There is also the problem that each person controlled will require someone doing the controlling. Why not get the person doing the controlling to do the task anyway? Much less expensive. And getting people to put the implant in. Another possibility is using this to control robot that will fight wars, etc, which I would suggest is a good thing, as robots fighting and dieing is not as bad as people fighting and dieing. I am also surprised no one has mentioned the possibilities for the video game industry... |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
FFR Player
|
Potential bad use? No example other than controlling other people? Why the hell do you need more examples when this one example could, in fact, devastate a population by re-programming their neurological brain activity to do whatever the nanotechnology pleases? You can't say with an absolute certainty the people with this nanotechnology implemented can actually defend against themselves anymore.
I agree that criminals/terrorists most likely would not have the resources to develop these kinds of mental weapons for years to come but we certainly will. We're (the U.S.) technically the biggest terrorist (I'm not talking about conspiracy theories about 9/11 either). We WILL, if developed, use this kind of technology in our military. Who says we're not going to abuse it? How many times does it take to **** up? Once is enough. How many times have we abused new technology? Hiroshima & Nagasaki. As I said, once is enough.
__________________
PLAYING SINCE SEPTEMBER 2007. Best AAA: Glove Stage - Ultra Sweden Best SDG: Garyuutensei, Chlorophyll, Novo Mundo, Dazzling Destiny Tier Points: 755,128 Charles Mullen Internet Marketing Blog |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Then when you account for the overall benefits of a nuclear energy program in terms of civilian power production, and the fact that the existance of nuclear weapons in the hands of the nations that have them have probably prevented a half dozen wars, I think that the benefits have -MORE- than outweighed the costs. If someone developed a guarenteed cure for cancer and AIDS but discovered that in some rare number of cases, instead of being a vaccine against these diseases, it was instead lethal, would you demand that this cure be destroyed and never used because of the potential for the deaths of some number of innocent people? What if it was only lethal to 1 in 6 billion people? 1 in 1 billion? 1 in 500 million? 1 in a million? While you need to consider the future consequences for both positive and negative use when considering the validity of some program of advancement, just because you can envision a possible use that is horrible doesn't automatically make that thing bad. It's a logical fallacy called argumentum ad consequentiam, arguement from consequences, where you say that given A, A could lead to B, which you personally don't like, thus A is wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
FFR Player
|
So many things are used for things they were not initially supposed to be used for. Bows and arrows were initially used to help hunters gather meat for their tribes. Then they moved into being weapons against other people. Guns are the same way. Something that betters mankind in general should not be destroyed because bad cases are brought to life from it.
Something like this is actually a very impressive discovery. However, I am curious to know why the robot actually moved after the monkey stopped. I know that when I stop walking, I'm thinking to myself "Keep walking keep walking." And, considering the fact that the braing is incredibly fast at reacting to things. I feel like the thought of me wanting to walk would end almost as abruptly as it started. I think that the distance between the robot and the monkey might have been a factor as to why it moved for so much longer. Now, if the test was done both at close range... say, one where the robot and the monkey are in the lab, and long range, such as the one used in the article, and the same results were established. I would be more inclined to believe that thought was the reason as to why the robot moved. Edit* after reading the article, it explains that the feed between the robot and the animal were linked to within a quarter of a second. I don't know, I guess motor sensory skills go farther than I thought.
__________________
Last edited by rade0110; 02-10-2008 at 03:36 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: it's a mystery oooo
Posts: 3,221
|
devonin pretty much summed up my take on the ethical standpoint.
As for the scientific approach, it's important to bear in mind that we are ages away from mechanism-aided telepathic communication. In the case of the monkey and the robot, the former is simply a medium for generating input whereas the latter is one for transformation of that input into output (e.g. the walking action). An organic brain is incapable (as of yet) of interpreting the electronic signals that are used by the robotic computer. Unless something is developed that would allow for conversion of machine code into an analogous human parallel (the opposite of programming), direct simulated telepathy is at best a stretch, and a long one at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 6
|
Yes, it could help handicapped people, and yes, it could be used in wars and video games and all of that great stuff. But think about daily life? Do you know how much quicker construction would get done if we only had to THINK about working? We just found a whole new way to be lazy. Of course, for robots to build entire houses with our minds, this would take more years of development. But seriously, we could do anything physical now by just thinking. What does this mean? This means a much more advanced system of architecture and cities in general. And if this becomes practical, we might have a sort of revolution on our hands. But right now, its impossible to tell of that is for the better or for the worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
FFR Player
|
you bring up a good point, to follow your examples, we could see bomb squad robots being controlled simply by the mind, or basic surgeries being preformed by a machine controlled by the mind of a doctor.
i agree the idea of person to person telepathy looks like something distant, but the idea of transfering technological information with nothing but your mind (as shown in the article) is amazing, even if the persons brain itself couldn't read the information, I suppose you could see it as an internal harddrive, storing information to be dumped at a later time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
I like rade's anaolgy. I'm with Charless on this issue. (Hey, long time no see!)
Like guns, bows, and arrows, they were made to be for the productivity of hunting and getting a meal on the table. Now what? are you really oblivious to the shooting reports that blemishes the newspapers daily? The same logic as with this experiment. Might it bring convinience and accomplishment to futher devolop the power of nanotechnology? Yes, it will. But like a gun, theres no such thing as a weapon that doesn't kill. It would potentially be harnessed for evil and personal gain by those greedy individuals. Brain control? Suicide bombing without actually having the suicider being there but merely using a robot to do his bidding? Its not out of the possibility nor blow out of proportion. Its human nature to kill and gain and be egotistical. Keep your heads below the clouds. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
does that mean it shouldn't happen? a computer is the best example of what your talking about. Its used for so much good and yet for so much evil, would the world be a better place without it? there is an evil side to everything, that cannot be helped. This technology can be used to help us in a good way, if that is at the cost of something like safety then i don't think that will stop it, we have seen so many technologies that could be possibly adapted for evil, we can't live in fear of every new technology that arises. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
I did not say that it shouldn't happen.
In fact, I never did mention the action that needs to be taken. Potential. Its the reasoning of possibilities. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
FFR Player
|
As for arguing about the "possible bad implications" of this experiment in regards to practical applications.
The Military has been using remote controlled robots and drones for years now, in fact I would say that hooking them up to the brain would actually decrease their performance as opposed to using a standard joystick. At least for the next hundred years or so.
__________________
He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth Kenny |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|