What are the scientist up to? Trying to make RoboCop a reality!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24181170-2,00.html

Gordon , researchers have developed the world's first robot controlled by living brain tissue / AFP

MEET Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively by living brain tissue.

Created from cultured rat neurons, Gordon's primitive grey matter was designed at the UK's University of Reading by scientists who unveiled the neuron-powered machine yesterday.

This is getting scary! Call me dumb if you like, but this is scary to me. I won't be surprised if they get a dying person who agree to donate his brain for their next experiment, then we will have a robot controlled by a living human brain! Their report shows that they are already excited by the achievement they've made so far. What gets me scared really is the claim that:

The robot has no additional control from a human or computer.

That means, it is on its own and may just decided to do whatever it pleases. That to me is dangerous!

ok.  their religion

eh

wow!!! Wetin Robocop dey do for religious section?

If u no understand

Ask Questions, it dosnt hurt.

Hmm, I'm excited about this. Seriously.

Calm down, people, calm down. Let us understand that science is a marvelous thing that can achieve "wonders". . . things were never dreamed were possible. And this is just the beginning!

A few decades ago, man panicked when he heard some of his restless kids mooting the idea that one day they would fly big machines through the skies! "Impossible!" cried the grandfathers. The kids smiled. . . and in time, not only were the big machines flying through the sky, but they were carrying people as well! Welcome the age of aeroplanes (or 'airplanes' if you like)!

The 'kids' then took it one step further by mooting the idea that they would take this heavy machines to outer space. Before the grandfathers scratched their beards, we woke up to hear of Sputnik 1!

You get the drift? Cool.

But what is the concern here? I think what gets a lot of us alarmed is not the science itself but the questions surrounding our moral and philosphical outlook on life. That seems to be where the big question is.

yea, When, were do we draw the Line

Future Shock is upon us, i say!

Well, the line ought to be drawn somewhere, somehow, someday. . . and I think many voices are beginning to be raised about that.

It's clear that science will continue to bring us many amazing things - many of which we thought impossible. A few other things that are getting people excited already is the work on a project to fabricate an "invisible coat". The process is founded on the principle of bending light rays so that at a critical angle whoever wears the coat would appear invisible to others. This is for real.

However, as was hinted at before, the big question is on the moral and philosphical grounds on scientific enquiries in our day. Of course, many scientists understand that the physical and natural sciences do not concern themselves with moral questions or aesthetic enquiries, yet these concerns cannot be disregarded. I have in mind the kind of science that people conduct with reckless disrespect and abandon for the quality of life. But that is another issue entirely.

Anyway, what is clearly before us is that even theistically inclined minds who engage in science understand that it is a tool and not an end in itself. To such ends, science should be handled responsibly.

This is a bridge between religion and science, it is just a matter of time before that bridge is crossed that is if the world doesn't come to an end before then. Even the bible says that man is capable of becoming like god if given enough time

Genesis 3:22:

  22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The thing is,

The Line is already drawn for us.

No matter how far the Scientist go, there is a line they will never be able to cross.

Scientific Discoveries will continue to wow us, working on principles either discovered now

or years ago.

Once upon a time, the morality of flying was raised. what do we think about it now?

A gill membrane has been created which would allow man stay in water for as long as he wants.

A process of shipping human eggs to live in mars is being considered.

What do these pose for us?

I just believe that no matter how far science may seem to go, It can never cross the line.

Gamine:

What do these pose for us?

Well, IMHO I think it all goes to show that science is breaking forth into new frontiers -especially where science as a tool is handled responsibly.

But like you said, perhaps there is a line (or may I say a certain 'boundary') which science may not be able to cross. The reason behind this thinking to me is that science does not seek to answer the question of "why" as regards the reality of life or our observable world. It is this fundamental question that worldviews and philosophies graple with, and especially on the question of moral principles, the natural and physical sciences are said at present to be inadeqaute tools of measurements.

@gamine
There are two questions i would like to ask you?

1. were exactly is the line? several animals; mammals to be precise have now been cloned by scientists. what is the gurantee they have not already cloned a human being and they are keeping it secret becos of the likely public out cry and condemnation.

2. If there is really a line why then did God create man to hav so much abilities. As i mentioned in my earlier post God created man to be like him (and this was deliberate act) could it mean that God created man to be a lesser version of him? If that is the case then the human potential is limitless and unimaginable

Im Sure Scientists hardly have "morals" in their minds

Those with morals are usually the ones grossly disappointed

when something phenomenal takes place.

Science will say, how can this be done, What if man can do this n that

and the discoveries will be made as frequent as possible.

What are the Moral Questions being put forward?

Why should it be a deterrent to how far man can go

@Kunle.

The line will not be crossed, just as the babelites tried to cross it, anyone wld be stopped.

Animals have no soul to speak off, they can be cloned and cloning dosnt come without side effects.

i dont believe a Human will be cloned.

Man in the garden, is different form the man that is now

KunleOshob:

@gamine
There are two questions i would like to ask you?

1. were exactly is the line? several animals; mammals to be precise have now been cloned by scientists. what is the gurantee they have not already cloned a human being and they are keeping it secret because of the likely public out cry and condemnation.

2. If there is really a line why then did God create man to hav so much abilities. As i mentioned in my earlier post God created man to be like him (and this was deliberate act) could it mean that God created man to be a lesser version of him? If that is the case then the human potential is limitless and unimaginable

Science seeks to understand the nature of Gods creations and as of now the nature of physically observable worlds. An understanding of the nature of the world will be applied to generate limitless and unimaginable things but those things will not negate the intrinsic nature of the very things. Yes the forms that arose from the union of elements may seem limitless and unimaginable but the basic elements that gave rise to the form in the first instance remains the same. Thus for instance basic elements for the formation of macromolecules like DNA, RNA, proteins are already in existence. All that a scientist does is to enquire about its nature and use that knowlege to bring forms. Cloning uses the same DNA and it is similar to normal fertilization. It is just that in this case instead of a sperm, DNA from a body cell is injected to an egg without its nucleus (DNA). The egg is then decieved to believe that fertilization has taken place and the process of embryogenesis is triggered just like in a natural fertilization process. Thus cloning is actually derived from the understanding of how a sperm fertilizes the egg. Ofcourse there is a line that may not be crossed. For instance you can not clone a dog with a material that has no DNA in it. The cloning of a human body is far more complex and difficult than that of other animals. So far there is no report of a human being born as a result of cloning. However it is probable that the scientific barrier that currently prevents human cloning may be overcome in future. The question then will be, what is in that human body that developed from a human clone. Is it the breath of God, the spirit or something else? What are the religious, moral, ethical and philosophical implications of human cloning. Most importantly will it be possible to develop artificial womb in which the clone will be transplanted back? Will a human clone that developed in an artificial womb be the same as the human clone that developed in a womans womb? I guess people will seek for answers if a human clone is successfully born.

I even heard there may be head transplants soon

The Human Clone, this is a Breakthrough i am looking forward to.

Gamine:

I'm Sure Scientists hardly have "morals" in their minds

Believe me, there are a lot of scientists with good moral principles in handling science responsibly. And I'm not limiting my thoughts to Christians who are scientists: my list would include many scientists of other faiths - I know of several muslims who are scientists and have made a mark in the corridors of scientific enquiries.

But there are also non-theistic scientists as well who share this sense of handling science responsibly. For them, while science is not a question of religious enquiry and its effects on our hearts and consciences, they nonetheless hold very mature and responsible views on what science could be applied to and how it should not be abused.

Gamine:

I'm Sure Scientists hardly have "morals" in their minds

Those with morals are usually the ones grossly disappointed

when something phenomenal takes place.

Science will say, how can this be done, What if man can do this n that

and the discoveries will be made as frequent as possible.

What are the Moral Questions being put forward?

Why should it be a deterrent to how far man can go

@Kunle.

The line will not be crossed, just as the babelites tried to cross it, anyone would be stopped.

Animals have no soul to speak off, they can be cloned and cloning dosnt come without side effects.

i don't believe a Human will be cloned.

Man in the garden, is different form the man that is now

Gamine stop talking about things you don't know. . . . . . . .

@Mazaje, i have heard

@Pilgrim,

I think when we talk of the Abuse of Science, its something plain to see,

But when we talk about the morality of something, what are we saying

Once upon a time, it would have been frowned up to have organ transplants

now its generally accepted.

Does Morality point out Abuse?

Does it really matter?

Gamine:

@Mazaje, i have heard

@Pilgrim,

I think when we talk of the Abuse of Science, its something plain to see,

But when we talk about the morality of something, what are we saying

Once upon a time, it would have been frowned up to have organ transplants

now its generally accepted.

Does Morality point out Abuse?

Does it really matter?

Human beings are forever changing . . . . . science which is an integral part of the human conscience and activity has to change to adapt with the new and improve mankind as he p[rogresses forward. . . . there is no universal morality and morality definately points out abuse. . . . every thing changes with time, both science and religion definatley have to change with time if they dont they die away. . . . . .

Gamine:

@Mazaje, i have heard

_{see as d babe dey ignore mazaje}

i think it will be cool though

mesmya:

_{see as d babe dey ignore mazaje}

And your point is?. . . . . .

mazaje:

And your point is?. . . . . .

u is boring 

mesmya:

u is boring

Ok. . . . . .

@mazaje, how body?

---

@Gamine,

Gamine:

I think when we talk of the Abuse of Science, its something plain to see,
But when we talk about the morality of something, what are we saying
Once upon a time, it would have been frowned up to have organ transplants
now its generally accepted.

Well, the issues of moral responsibility among scientists is by far broader than what many of us think. I would like to very quickly outline a few pointers in terms of carefully calling our attention to definition of concepts.

What we often mean by "morality" is not the same thing among scientists. A few quotes from Wikipedia:

[list][list][li]1. "Issues of ethics, such as bioethics and scientific misconduct, are not generally considered part of philosophy of science. These issues may be studied in ethics or science studies."
source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science)[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]2. "Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply not satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct"
source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]3. "Bioethics is the philosophical study of the ethical controversies brought about by advances in biology and medicine. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, philosophy, and theology"
source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics)[/li][/list][/list]

From the above, we can easily see that moral responsibility in handling science stretches far beyond theological concerns. Its practitioners actually want an inclusive approach into scientific advancements where certain implications for the total conduct of scientific researches are scrutinized and standardized.

Gamine:

Does Morality point out Abuse?

I believe it does:

[list][list][li]"Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions:[/li]

[li]Danish Definition: "Intention(al) or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"[/li]
[li]Swedish Definition: "Intention(al) distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."[/li]
source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)[/list][/list]

Gamine:

Does it really matter?

It really does. Just imagine if a nuclear botton sits under the thumb of a crazed religious or political madman!

pilgrim.1:

A few other things that are getting people excited already is the work on a project to fabricate an "invisible coat". The process is founded on the principle of bending light rays so that at a critical angle whoever wears the coat would appear invisible to others. This is for real.

[list][list]Cloaking Device One Step Closer to Science Fiction

This development could help form the basis for higher resolution optical imaging, nanocircuits for high-powered computers, and, to the delight of science-fiction and fantasy buffs, cloaking devices that could render objects invisible to the human eye. These two breakthroughs are in the development of metamaterials - composite materials with extraordinary capabilities to bend electromagnetic waves.

Applications for a metamaterial entail altering how light normally behaves. In the case of invisibility cloaks or shields, the material would need to curve light waves completely around the object like a river flowing around a rock. For optical microscopes to discern individual, living viruses or DNA molecules, the resolution of the microscope must be smaller than the wavelength of light.[/list][/list]

Source: http://www.ucop.edu/sciencetoday/article/18515

Chei!   God of Chosen! Now I see what you ae trying to say Gamine. These are the end times. Very soon, machines will be controlling every single thing we do in our lives.

We cannot allow this to happen. Nairaland members lets stand up against this robot revolution coming.

obinna5000:

We cannot allow this to happen. Nairaland members lets stand up against this robot revolution coming.

Lol. . . relax: it's here already. I'm not a spoiler, but these things must needs happen first and then the panic will ensue. For those who care, they have a choice to either allow themselves to become robo-sapiens, or choose to remain homosapiens. But it is inevitable that robotics will dominate our millenium.

obinna5000:

Chei!   God of Chosen! Now I see what you ae trying to say Gamine. These are the end times. Very soon, machines will be controlling every single thing we do in our lives.

We cannot allow this to happen. Nairaland members lets stand up against this robot revolution coming.

I don't think nairaland members would answer this your call oh! since nairaland members don't know or worship this your "God of chosen" maybe if you calledon the one and only true God Almighty, people might respond

Yes! Nairaland members lets come together and form Christian Voltron to stop d revolution.

When you sit in front of your PC keyboard in 2 days' time, 'Kilby' is a name that should cross your mind. That is because 2008 is the 50th anniversary of the first integrated circuit, demonstrated on 12 Sep 1958 by its inventor, Jack Kilby, to his supervisor at Texas Instruments.

Although the integrated circuit was first conceived by Geoffrey W.A. Dummer (a radar scientist), he was unsuccessf in his attempt to build such a circuit in 1956. The integrated circuit was independently co-invented by Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments and Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor around the same time. Kilby won the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physics for his part of the invention of the integrated circuit.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit

Kunle my pal , stop character assassinating people. You are not God Almighty and you will never be God. You have no right or power over the people.

There is nothing wrong in saying God of Chosen or God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or God of Elijah, or even the God of my pastor or Almighty God. It is better not to contribute than to pick an argument with someone. So Continue character assassinating and criticizing people you know nothing of.

The time to stop this machine revolution is now.