Morality altered by brain stimulation

Just thought I'd share this with the Backroom. Enjoy!

Morality Altered by Brain Stimulation
By Rachael Rettner, LiveScience Staff Writer

By stimulating a certain region of the brain, scientists can alter a person's ability to make moral judgments.

When people hear news of a crime like a shooting, they likely need more information before they can judge the offender's actions as right or wrong — was the crime accidental or intentional? If it was an accident or if the shooter was defending him or herself, people are likely to see the act as much more morally acceptable than if it was deliberate and unwarranted.

The study results show that stimulating a specific brain region interfered with the participants' ability to consider this mental state information when assessing hypothetical situations dealing with morality.

For instance, participants who received this brain stimulation were more likely to judge as morally acceptable scenarios involving attempted harms — where a person intends, but fails to carry out a crime, like an attempted poisoning.

Even though the researchers went into the study suspecting they might see such a pattern, they were quite surprised by the results.

"It was still surprising to us that we were able to actually change people's moral judgments by disrupting activity in this specific brain region, just because moral judgment is obviously really complicated and depends on a number of factors," said study author Liane Young, a postdoctoral researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "So the kind of precise deficit that we found was really striking."

Previous work had suggested that a brain region known as the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ), located on the brain's outer layer near the right ear, was involved in making moral judgments. These studies, however, were based on fMRI brain imaging experiments, which cannot directly test whether a certain brain area is involved in a specific function.

Instead, Young and her colleagues used a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation to directly disrupt activity in the right TPJ. The method applies a magnetic field to a small area of the head, which interferes with the brain cells' ability to work properly. However, the effect is only temporary, and the technique is not invasive.

In one experiment, eight participants first received brain stimulations, then read through several scenarios and were asked to judge the characters' actions on a morality scale, ranging from 1 (absolutely forbidden) to 7 (absolutely permissible).

In another experiment, 12 participants rated the moral scenarios, but this time the stimulation was given precisely when the subjects were making their moral judgments.

In both tests, stimulation to the TPJ caused subjects to have trouble judging scenarios in which the characters' intention and the ultimate conclusion of the situation didn't match up.

"They judged failed attempts to harm, where no harm was actually done, as more permissible, and accidents, where harm was actually done in spite of a good intention, as [more] morally forbidden," Young said.

The stimulation might have caused subjects to have trouble interpreting intentions, and so they used other information, like the situation outcome, to make their judgments.

The results were published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Source: http://www.livescience.com/culture/m...ed-100329.html

Oh, great...

This seems like the first steps towards actual mind control. If we can now control how people judge morality... what else can we control? This kind of stuff could be dangerous if it goes into further development and then falls into the wrong hands...

Interesting. And yeah, I read something the other day about how the developed a fiber optics laser setup that could stimulate just a handful of neurons at a time. And I've read about them stimulating parts of the brain and making people laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Interesting. And yeah, I read something the other day about how the developed a fiber optics laser setup that could stimulate just a handful of neurons at a time. And I've read about them stimulating parts of the brain and making people laugh.

---

Maybe you have got the key, my friend: laughter.

It's a forgiver, an allower, an understander, a tolerator.

One of the authors of this recent article (Liane Young) had earlier published a related article "The Neural Basis of the Interaction between Theory of Mind and Moral Judgment" in the same journal (Vol. 104 n. 20) in 2007. It was only 5 pages and had some diagrams, which along with it's introduction attempting to be controversial by bringing in law and the philosophy of law was the only reason I probably bothered skimming it before quickly lining my bird cage with the print out.

This new paper (the actual journal article not the news story about it as linked in the OP) quite typically starts with an introduction using law ("According to a basic tenet of criminal law, “the act does not make the person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.” - :rolleyes:), and is followed by 6 pages (1 of them is full of citations) once again confirms the inanity of the cognitive neuroscience paradigm.

The thesis right before the experiment result basically said it all: "Confirming this prediction would provide clear evidence for the causal role of the RTPJ in belief attribution and the essential role of belief attribution in moral judgment."

lol - "clear evidence for the casual role" :rolleyes:

Sounds like research that can only have a negative application, really. One wonders if said research should be killed on general principle.

Perfect. :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Sounds like research that can only have a negative application, really. One wonders if said research should be killed on general principle.

---

Are you suggesting that the morality of the experiments are questionable? Please put on this little wired-up helmet, and rethink your position. :7doctor:


One step closer to the happy happy joy joy helmet. :2thumbsup:

Well I've noticed that my political ideas have made a sharp left political turn last year after I was ran over by this bus...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Are you suggesting that the morality of the experiments are questionable? Please put on this little wired-up helmet, and rethink your position. :7doctor:


One step closer to the happy happy joy joy helmet. :2thumbsup:

---

Quite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Well I've noticed that my political ideas have made a sharp left political turn last year after I was ran over by this bus...

---

Um, hiven that you were Left of Left before, does that mean you have gone all the way over and become Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Sounds like research that can only have a negative application, really. One wonders if said research should be killed on general principle.

---

It has more to do with understanding how the brain works than mind control. The method they use shut a brain center down, not controlling it. True, it could eventually be refined to a method for mind control in the future, but for now it's an easier replacement for trowing people under busses (by accident of course) and see how their personality changes.

The mind is very complicated, for example there 4 or 5 centers in the brain that handles eyesight. Losing one center can cause everything from complete blindness, to losing the ability to see montions, or one side of the visual field (usually the left side).

I'm leery of any study that makes statistical evaluations with groups of n<30. Simply too much potential for sample distortion effects.

Also, the methodology -- magnetic field disruption -- isn't very clearly explained in the summary. Was this a legitimate technique to approximate a given effect?

Finally, in a world where so many people self-medicate or vent their concerns to the stranger on a train seat next to them, is it really THAT surprising that temporary alterations in the neuro-chemical function of our brains will temporarily influence behavior? And does that not also argue that other effects might be at play here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Um, hiven that you were Left of Left before, does that mean you have gone all the way over and become Right?

---

Louis has always been Right.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And for fans of "1066 and All That", one might go farther and characterise his republican zeal as Right But Repulsive as opposed to those of us Wrong But Wromantic. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I'm leery of any study that makes statistical evaluations with groups of n<30. Simply too much potential for sample distortion effects.

Also, the methodology -- magnetic field disruption -- isn't very clearly explained in the summary. Was this a legitimate technique to approximate a given effect?

Finally, in a world where so many people self-medicate or vent their concerns to the stranger on a train seat next to them, is it really THAT surprising that temporary alterations in the neuro-chemical function of our brains will temporarily influence behavior? And does that not also argue that other effects might be at play here?

---

The sample was small, but from what I've noticed in psychological/neuroscience studies, samples generally are small - aside from potential under-sampling the statistics seemed all right from my cursory look at the paper. It's just the study makes quite large jumps from the results to the conclusions, even based on their paradigm (which isn't even widely the paradigm of neuroscience which still (thankfully) contains quite a bit of "covert dualism" (they would never be explicit about it of course) or at least mentalism).

As you point out, there are many, many, many, more explanations perfectly in sync with the experimental data than this kind of direct causality the paper wishes us to believe (this coming from someone who doesn't even wish to preserve any sense of free will by the way - which is what I think most objections to the conclusion would be based on).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

It has more to do with understanding how the brain works than mind control. The method they use shut a brain center down, not controlling it. True, it could eventually be refined to a method for mind control in the future, but for now it's an easier replacement for trowing people under busses (by accident of course) and see how their personality changes.

The mind is very complicated, for example there 4 or 5 centers in the brain that handles eyesight. Losing one center can cause everything from complete blindness, to losing the ability to see montions, or one side of the visual field (usually the left side).

---

And yet.... one asks "why do this", a question seldom asked in Science (see: Hadron Collider). This is a study which removed people's nuance in morality. It is exactly that nuance which prevents us from extolling "the Greater Good".

So, this study is very disturbing.

I don't really see how it's disturbing. It just says that if you interfere with part of the brain people lose some functioning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

And yet.... one asks "why do this", a question seldom asked in Science (see: Hadron Collider). This is a study which removed people's nuance in morality. It is exactly that nuance which prevents us from extolling "the Greater Good".

So, this study is very disturbing.

---

Considering the problem of the "Greater Good" concept (how many evils have been made in the name of the Greater Good?) it should be a boon in that case.

More seriously, it gives an understanding on how the brain works. As with the hadron colider (were the same phenomena happens often in the atmosphere by incoming cosmic rays), we are already living with people with brain damage in those regions. This helps understanding what that means.

True, there's areas where neuroscience needs a lot of extra ethic considerations, but this experiment is hardly one of them. The horrors lies in the mere possibillity of manipulation and how a unexpected a disrupted/damaged mind works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Considering the problem of the "Greater Good" concept (how many evils have been made in the name of the Greater Good?) it should be a boon in that case.

---

So you're saying that turning off peoples moral subtlety will protect them from falling for the "Greater Good" arguement. In other words, handicapping them for... the Greater Good.

See how slippery that slope is? With this technology it looks like I could take that worry away for you.

Quote:

---

More seriously, it gives an understanding on how the brain works. As with the hadron colider (were the same phenomena happens often in the atmosphere by incoming cosmic rays), we are already living with people with brain damage in those regions. This helps understanding what that means.

---

to what end, though? As with the Hadron Colider, I don't believe the questions of risk or application are really addressed. The latter was a complete waste of money (found nothing) and might have detroyed the planet.

Quote:

---

True, there's areas where neuroscience needs a lot of extra ethic considerations, but this experiment is hardly one of them. The horrors lies in the mere possibillity of manipulation and how a unexpected a disrupted/damaged mind works.

---

I think the field, and possibly science in general, needs a big ethical injection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

to what end, though? As with the Hadron Colider, I don't believe the questions of risk or application are really addressed. The latter was a complete waste of money (found nothing) and might have detroyed the planet.

---

You don't always know what the end is going to be. Sometimes knowledge is just knowledge and lays unused for 50 years, then becomes useful. How much of our current technology relies on an understanding of fundamental physics?

"was a complete waste of money" --> they haven't packed up their bags and left it though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You don't always know what the end is going to be. Sometimes knowledge is just knowledge and lays unused for 50 years, then becomes useful. How much of our current technology relies on an understanding of fundamental physics?

---

I know that not all knowledge is immidiately useful, such is obvious, but your example of Physics is a very bad one, as the practical applications are immidiately apparent and, in any case, Newton had a clear purpose, to demonstrate the underlying order of the Universe created by God.

Quote:

---

"was a complete waste of money" --> they haven't packed up their bags and left it though...

---

It's a glorified experiement to try to find a theoretical "God partical" that has failed to materialise, with a side order of, "may destroy the planet". The fact that they haven't abandoned it means nothing with regard to it's utility, rather it points to a lot of people not wanting to look like fools and be out of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I know that not all knowledge is immidiately useful, such is obvious, but your example of Physics is a very bad one, as the practical applications are immidiately apparent and, in any case, Newton had a clear purpose, to demonstrate the underlying order of the Universe created by God.

---

I don't quite see what you're getting at. Knowledge can be an end of itself is what your first bit seems to acknowledge, but you were suggesting it didn't earlier.

Quote:

---

It's a glorified experiement to try to find a theoretical "God partical" that has failed to materialise, with a side order of, "may destroy the planet". The fact that they haven't abandoned it means nothing with regard to it's utility, rather it points to a lot of people not wanting to look like fools and be out of work.

---

They hope to find many things, and they have been slowly ramping up the speed of it, I think they've only gone up to half power so far? It was never going to destroy the planet, I don't get where that whole thing came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't quite see what you're getting at. Knowledge can be an end of itself is what your first bit seems to acknowledge, but you were suggesting it didn't earlier.

---

Knowledge is merely the accumulation of facts, if it does not engender wisdom it is intrinsically useless, because you can't understand how to use it. While some knowledge might be worth knowing without an obvious practical application knowledge is not "an end of itself" in any acknowledged philosophical sense I kinow.

Quote:

---

They hope to find many things, and they have been slowly ramping up the speed of it, I think they've only gone up to half power so far? It was never going to destroy the planet, I don't get where that whole thing came from.

---

There is a 1:150 million chance it could trigger a quantom singularity and destry the solar system, it's highly unlikely, but possible. Now you might say, "well that's not going to happen" and you'd almost certainly be right, but the fact is that it could and the sheer hubris of the scientists involved in building the thing without first getting the consent of every man woman and child on the sodding planet is astounding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Knowledge is merely the accumulation of facts, if it does not engender wisdom it is intrinsically useless, because you can't understand how to use it. While some knowledge might be worth knowing without an obvious practical application knowledge is not "an end of itself" in any acknowledged philosophical sense I kinow.

---

But we don't know if there are any obvious practical applications. There could be dozens that we just don't know enough right now to make sense of. We accumulate facts and then someone makes sense of them. So the pursuit of knowledge is a worthwhile goal. I wouldn't be surprised if just the process of building the thing taught them enough to eventually be worth the money.

And information about how the universe works is interesting, and therefore useful.

Quote:

---

There is a 1:150 million chance it could trigger a quantom singularity and destry the solar system, it's highly unlikely, but possible. Now you might say, "well that's not going to happen" and you'd almost certainly be right, but the fact is that it could and the sheer hubris of the scientists involved in building the thing without first getting the consent of every man woman and child on the sodding planet is astounding.

---

Isn't that black hole destroy the solar system stuff just rumor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So you're saying that turning off peoples moral subtlety will protect them from falling for the "Greater Good" arguement. In other words, handicapping them for... the Greater Good.

See how slippery that slope is? With this technology it looks like I could take that worry away for you.

---

I've never seaid anything about making that permanent on somebody, I'm just saying that use of the Greater Good is ironic when talking about people that cannot differ between the murder of a tyrant and the murder of a saint. Making it permanent would be even more ethically questionable than an icepick in the brain... since it's never been claimed to be a cure.

But if you would like, we could go into more ethics. Would it be unethical to analyse what side effects of a certain brain damage (born with or caused by accident) has?
Would it be unethical to repair a mind of a criminal so he could start to feel compassion, something impossible due to brain damage, if he requested it? Now I'm only talking about the speciffic case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

to what end, though? As with the Hadron Colider, I don't believe the questions of risk or application are really addressed. The latter was a complete waste of money (found nothing) and might have detroyed the planet.

---

As been mentioned, the Hadron colider has not been run with the higher energy levels yet and even those levels have been reached in the atmospere by cosmic rays before. Should it cause a black hole devouring earth it would already have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I think the field, and possibly science in general, needs a big ethical injection.

---

Don't walk this path since it might awaken an angry God?

Neuroscience is a field where etics is always needed to consider. You are aware that it's a field were they can make blinds see and restoring lost limbs (through cybernetics atm)? And that's not talking about people who have lost their long term memory or their left side of their body? Or consider their own limbs as dead matter stiched to their bodies? Because it might be abused, we shall condemn them to their fates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But we don't know if there are any obvious practical applications. There could be dozens that we just don't know enough right now to make sense of. We accumulate facts and then someone makes sense of them. So the pursuit of knowledge is a worthwhile goal. I wouldn't be surprised if just the process of building the thing taught them enough to eventually be worth the money.

And information about how the universe works is interesting, and therefore useful.

Isn't that black hole destroy the solar system stuff just rumor?

---

As I recall the scientists tried to disregard the black hole "rumor" not on the grounds that it was was false, more on the grounds of, "you don't understand how unlikely it is."

As to "interesting, and therefore useful", don't talk rot. That sort of argument is a complete non-starter, and is exactly the attitude that can be the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I've never seaid anything about making that permanent on somebody, I'm just saying that use of the Greater Good is ironic when talking about people that cannot differ between the murder of a tyrant and the murder of a saint. Making it permanent would be even more ethically questionable than an icepick in the brain... since it's never been claimed to be a cure.

---

I'm not suggesting you think we should start making "brain hats" but you have to acknowledge the massive danger this sort of technology has.

Quote:

---

But if you would like, we could go into more ethics. Would it be unethical to analyse what side effects of a certain brain damage (born with or caused by accident) has?
Would it be unethical to repair a mind of a criminal so he could start to feel compassion, something impossible due to brain damage, if he requested it? Now I'm only talking about the speciffic case.

---

You can't equate passive observation with intervention.

Quote:

---

As been mentioned, the Hadron colider has not been run with the higher energy levels yet and even those levels have been reached in the atmospere by cosmic rays before. Should it cause a black hole devouring earth it would already have happened.

---

Theoretically it will produce those same (extremely harmful) cosmic rays, but as this is a mechanical attempt to replicate a part of nature we don't really understand (which is why they want to test it) and they don't know what they're doing, they're just "pretty sure".

Quote:

---

Don't walk this path since it might awaken an angry God?

---

Much more concrete than that, there's no need invoke an "angry God".

Quote:

---

Neuroscience is a field where etics is always needed to consider. You are aware that it's a field were they can make blinds see and restoring lost limbs (through cybernetics atm)? And that's not talking about people who have lost their long term memory or their left side of their body? Or consider their own limbs as dead matter stiched to their bodies? Because it might be abused, we shall condemn them to their fates.

---

Some technology isn't worth having, nuclear being one, and the overall benefits outweigh the costs. Nuclear technology very nearly destroyed us all, still threatens us, and the power plants serve as a sop to prevent the development of truly useful renewable energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Theoretically it will produce those same (extremely harmful) cosmic rays, but as this is a mechanical attempt to replicate a part of nature we don't really understand (which is why they want to test it) and they don't know what they're doing, they're just "pretty sure".

---

Collisions with much higher energy levels happen all over the universe every millisecond. I think the idea here is that the "mechanical attempt to replicate a part of nature" is equivalent to throwing a rock to the ground rather than letting it fall from a mountain side by itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

to what end, though? As with the Hadron Colider, I don't believe the questions of risk or application are really addressed. The latter was a complete waste of money (found nothing) and might have detroyed the planet.

---

lol, what?

First of all, the "might destroy the planet" stuff was an urban legend, the experiment had zero chance of that happening. And it has produced a lot of splendid results already, and will continue to produce a lot of new information.

This is one of the things it has produced. Do I know what it is? Nope, but then again I don't have a PhD in physics, and so when the guys who do have PhD's in physics says the picture holds a lot of information I will have to trust them.

Apparently the test run for finding the "God Particle" occurs soon. For those who don't have any scienfitic knowledge, it is a nickname of the fundamental elementary particle (Higgs Boson) which has massive ramifications on how the universe works.

"S IT SAFE?
Hawking says,
" What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission, equivalent to the explosion of millions of H-bombs."
"there might be primordial black holes with a very much smaller mass that were made by the collapse of irregularities in the very early stages of the universe. Such black holes would have a much higher temperature and would be emitting radiation at a much greater rate."
Why does this not apply to the LHC?
How do you *know* it is safe?
Two main reasons:
1. Theory - Hawking himself recognized that black holes radiate. Given the energy available in the LHC, if a black hole was created it would necessarily be a very small one - a micro black hole - the energy available in the collision of two LHC protons is not a lot on a cosmological scale. The black hole would evaporate almost immediately into a shower of particles.
2. Cosmic rays - Extremely high energy particles (orders of magnitude above the LHC) coming from outer space are incident on upper atmosphere where they collide with the nuclei of gas molecules. We see the showers resulting from these collisions at sea level. This is appears to be safe, so we can be confident that the LHC will be."

Doesn't look like "zero" chance to me, bolded the last bit for you. Like I said, I want a copper-bottomed garantee, not, "almost certainly".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Doesn't look like "zero" chance to me, bolded the last bit for you. Like I said, I want a copper-bottomed garantee, not, "almost certainly".

---

I am guessing you don't drive, fly in a plane, or use any cooking application too either. Those have a very significant higher chance of killing you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

2. Cosmic rays - Extremely high energy particles (orders of magnitude above the LHC) coming from outer space are incident on upper atmosphere where they collide with the nuclei of gas molecules. We see the showers resulting from these collisions at sea level. This is appears to be safe, so we can be confident that the LHC will be."

Doesn't look like "zero" chance to me, bolded the last bit for you. Like I said, I want a copper-bottomed garantee, not, "almost certainly".

---

It appears to be safe to take trains that to go faster than 100 km/h without getting turned into a frog. The guarantee you seek is in principle impossible to give.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

It appears to be safe to take trains that to go faster than 100 km/h without getting turned into a frog. The guarantee you seek is in principle impossible to give.

---

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

It appears to be safe to take trains that to go faster than 100 km/h without getting turned into a frog. The guarantee you seek is in principle impossible to give.

---

Depends if you are on the channel tunnel or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Doesn't look like "zero" chance to me, bolded the last bit for you. Like I said, I want a copper-bottomed garantee, not, "almost certainly".

---

Copper bottomed guarantees don't exist in science (nor as far as I'm concerned in any other sphere of human knowledge). Any scientific result is only ever a statistical best fit, with an associated level of uncertainty. It is unfortunate that due to the generally extremely low levels of such uncertainties which make it into most visible applications of science that this fact has been largely forgotten among the public, and thus people talk about a thing being "scientifically proven" as though that means it is proven conclusively beyond all doubt.

In any scientific experiment, we can never be better than "almost certain" that it will not destroy the Universe. The best we can do is to examine whether it has been done before; in the case of the LHC, we can observe that the type of collisions planned in the detector are equivalent in energy and particle type to those that occur between cosmic rays and the atmosphere. We can then consider the typical cosmic ray flux in our area of space (a lot), the total effective surface area of the atmosphere (big) and how long these collisions have been going on for (a long time) to conclude that if collisions at these energies do produce anything nasty, it is vanishingly unlikely.

Ultimately though, there are no guarantees. The question is whether the risk of experiments with unknown physics having nasty consequences outweighs the negative consequences (and there will surely be negative consequences) of suppressing all future research. After all the LHC is not the only experiment being run to look for previously unknown physics - by definition the only experiments which can find new physics are those where we are not sure beforehand what the results will be. Has our society reached such a level of technology that it is possible for us to stagnate indefinitely, and simply sustain our current standard of living on what technology we currently have? And if so, is the status quo really so fantastic that no attempt to improve it would ever be worth the risk?

And as others have observed, it has often been the case that research performed purely to advance human knowledge has led to applications that would likely not have come about otherwise. The most obvious example I can think of is electricity: Were the pioneers of electromagnetism supposed to have been able to foresee all of its future applications before they started mucking around with magnets and bits of wire? If we are interested only in the potential applications of science, then past experience suggests that at least some effort should be put into trying to make inferences about the underlying principles of science rather than only going after the obvious applications of what we already know.

As to the question of the results - the LHC has only been performing actual experiments to look for new physics since the end of March:

Quote:

---

Geneva, 30 March 2010. Beams collided at 7 TeV in the LHC at 13:06 CEST, marking the start of the LHC research programme.
...
CERN will run the LHC for 18-24 months with the objective of delivering enough data to the experiments to make significant advances across a wide range of physics channels. As soon as they have "re-discovered" the known Standard Model particles, a necessary precursor to looking for new physics, the LHC experiments will start the systematic search for the Higgs boson.

---

One could legitimately argue about whether the results, if they are close to our expectations, will be worth the massive expense. I for one heartily wish whoever was responsible could have refrained from attaching the ridiculously overblown and controversy-seeking title "the God Particle" to what is actually just a fairly mundane test of the Standard Model - the view among many of my colleagues seems to be that simply finding the Higgs boson in the expected energy range, and nothing else, would be a pretty disappointing outcome. It is certainly premature to state however that the machine has achieved nothing - the experiment hasn't been done yet.

As for the original subject of the thread, I personally think that having a "brain hat" which would let me control the exact state of my own mind, rather than having it dictated to me by external factors and my own body chemistry, would be awesome. I think it would be at least worth considering whether the benefits might outweigh the obvious risk of someone else getting their hands on the controls.

Ok, so we have, "no garrantees", I do, in fact, understand this scientific principle; not least because "Science" pilfered it from philosophy.

You are all, however, ignoring my basic point. When deciding upon a course of action one must consider: risk (likelyhood), those at risk (value and number) and the actual risk of harm (magnitude).

Now, the LHC scores low on the first one but scores 100% on two and three, i.e. total anihilation of everything, including the planet. When we consider that this is the only planet we know supports life then the magnitude becomes Universe-size. Factor in the massive economic cost, the billions that could have been spent (for example) on hospitals, or maleria drugs, oreducation in Africa and weigh it against the only argument in favour, a purely academic benefit, you really have to wonder if the monstrosity was anything like a good idea.

With the "brain hat" the numbers are high across the board, and any SciFi author can tell you it will be abused.

Excellent post, PBI. Beautifully argued. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ok, so we have, "no garrantees", I do, in fact, understand this scientific principle; not least because "Science" pilfered it from philosophy.

You are all, however, ignoring my basic point. When deciding upon a course of action one must consider: risk (likelyhood), those at risk (value and number) and the actual risk of harm (magnitude).

Now, the LHC scores low on the first one but scores 100% on two and three, i.e. total anihilation of everything, including the planet. When we consider that this is the only planet we know supports life then the magnitude becomes Universe-size. Factor in the massive economic cost, the billions that could have been spent (for example) on hospitals, or maleria drugs, oreducation in Africa and weigh it against the only argument in favour, a purely academic benefit, you really have to wonder if the monstrosity was anything like a good idea.

With the "brain hat" the numbers are high across the board, and any SciFi author can tell you it will be abused.

---

We're as sure that LHC won't blow up the planet as I am that starting my car today won't blow it up either.

I can't say for sure that starting my car today won't blow up the planet, but I'm going to do it anyway.

EDIT: Also, a "purely academic benefit"? WHAT? You don't think that advanced knowledge of physics will impact on our lives? In the age of nano-technology...? Seriously....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm not suggesting you think we should start making "brain hats" but you have to acknowledge the massive danger this sort of technology has.

---

But the technology is already known and also the basic concept. What is researched here is what a certain brain center does and what happens if it's damaged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You can't equate passive observation with intervention.

---

Volonteers that are exposed to a temporary condition, compared to observing someone with a permanent condition, who cannot give their permission?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Much more concrete than that, there's no need invoke an "angry God".

---

Hey, I like my excuse of making a SMAC referense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Some technology isn't worth having, nuclear being one, and the overall benefits outweigh the costs. Nuclear technology very nearly destroyed us all, still threatens us, and the power plants serve as a sop to prevent the development of truly useful renewable energy.

---

Hardly. The power plants would've been replaced by (most likely) coal at the time they were built and should they start build more nuclear power plants nowaday, it would not be enough anyway, so truly useful renewable energy is still needed to be developed. Besides the current holy grail of energy, fusion power is based on nuclear power. And without nuclear energy, the apex of energy development would be solar, forever. So for example, we can scrap ever reaching efficient space travel, even within the solar system.


PBI do you know what would happen if such a micro black hole meet an electron? Since the hole is much smaller than the electron, I'm curious if it's even possible for the hole to absorb mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

EDIT: Also, a "purely academic benefit"? WHAT? You don't think that advanced knowledge of physics will impact on our lives? In the age of nano-technology...? Seriously....?

---

Don't get your knickers in a twist, the forseeable benefit is purely academic. However there may be unforseen practical benefits, but we can't calculate for them and they therefore aren't a valid argument for the LHC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Don't get your knickers in a twist, the forseeable benefit is purely academic. However there may be unforseen practical benefits, but we can't calculate for them and they therefore aren't a valid argument for the LHC.

---

So what's the pratical calculated benefits of being on the moon? :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Don't get your knickers in a twist, the forseeable benefit is purely academic. However there may be unforseen practical benefits, but we can't calculate for them and they therefore aren't a valid argument for the LHC.

---

Rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chaotix

Oh, great...

This seems like the first steps towards actual mind control. If we can now control how people judge morality... what else can we control? This kind of stuff could be dangerous if it goes into further development and then falls into the wrong hands...

---

no. thats not at all true. please sir, you will be in great hands, let us study your brain and we will prove to you it is not wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

PBI do you know what would happen if such a micro black hole meet an electron? Since the hole is much smaller than the electron, I'm curious if it's even possible for the hole to absorb mass.

---

As far as I know, it's possible - bear in mind an electron is both a point particle and quantum mechanical in nature, so it can tunnel into all sorts of unexpected places. I really couldn't comment on how likely it is - classically, it should be absurdly unlikely due to the tiny size of the event horizon, but the problem is inherently a quantum one and requires a quantum mechanical description of black holes, which is not my field of expertise.

For me, the issue really boils down to the observation that despite cosmic ray collisions equivalent to those in the LHC having happened in huge numbers every day for billions of years, there is still a conspicuous amount of non-black hole matter in the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You are all, however, ignoring my basic point. When deciding upon a course of action one must consider: risk (likelyhood), those at risk (value and number) and the actual risk of harm (magnitude).

Now, the LHC scores low on the first one but scores 100% on two and three, i.e. total anihilation of everything, including the planet.

---

This seems to me like the Pascal's Wager line of reasoning - that if the consequences of a line of action would be "infinitely" bad, then we should never do it no matter how unlikely they are.

Aside from the fact that this reasoning would prohibit us from doing anything, ever, this also neglects the possible negative consequences of not acting. One could make the case that technological stagnation would doom us all just as completely as the earth collapsing into a black hole would, just more slowly.

I'm also not sure I would agree that the destruction of the human race can automatically be judged infinitely bad, rather than just extremely, but still finitely, bad.

Quote:

---

When we consider that this is the only planet we know supports life then the magnitude becomes Universe-size.

---

It seems to me a big leap to suggest that the fact we haven't seen any other life-supporting planets yet implies there aren't any to find, considering both the limits of our observational techniques, and the droves of exoplanets we discover every time someone refines those techniques. Of course, I have no problem with the idea that research funding councils shouldn't draw much of a distinction between a Universe-destroying disaster and one which will "only" destroy the Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So what's the pratical calculated benefits of being on the moon? :juggle2:

---

Testing of technologies we can use to get out of the solar system and thence save our species. Also, better missiles to blow up the Ruskies. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBI

This seems to me like the Pascal's Wager line of reasoning - that if the consequences of a line of action would be "infinitely" bad, then we should never do it no matter how unlikely they are.

---

As a Christian I never understood Pascal's Wager, but I think I see your point. My problem, however, is this: Who decides to take that Wager for everyone, rather than just themselves. As an historian I can tell you with cast iron certainty that the past is littered with scientists, philosophers, etc. who claimed they knew what they were doing. I don't trust experts when the fate of the planet may be at stake. I'm not saying no to the LHC, but I still think the way the project has been handled is hubristic.

This is a problem I have with much of mdern Science, "because we want to know" is not a valid moral argument for doing something, and I believe Science should be as governed by moral philosophy as any other endeavor, if not more so.

Quote:

---

It seems to me a big leap to suggest that the fact we haven't seen any other life-supporting planets yet implies there aren't any to find, considering both the limits of our observational techniques, and the droves of exoplanets we discover every time someone refines those techniques. Of course, I have no problem with the idea that research funding councils shouldn't draw much of a distinction between a Universe-destroying disaster and one which will "only" destroy the Earth.

---

It is also a big leap to assume there are other inhabited planets when the only evidence we have is our own little rock. I suspect there are other planets that are inhabited, but I'm not placing any bets on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBI

One could make the case that technological stagnation would doom us all just as completely as the earth collapsing into a black hole would, just more slowly.

---

The Earth is doomed already because the sun only has a finite life span, and we will in theory need to get off this planet one day. Who knows, perhaps a result or two from the LHC may either directly or indirectly help us in that process....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I don't trust experts when the fate of the planet may be at stake.

---

IT ISN'T!!!

You may have had a point if it was. But what the LHC is doing isn't any more dangerous than starting your car.

There are a lot of dangerous stuff in the world; the LHC isn't one of them.