Morality altered by brain stimulation

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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".

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.

[Viking]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

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?

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

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

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.

[PBI]

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.

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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. ;-)

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Viking]

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....?