"Netflix binge-watching versus a hike in the woods. A cheeseburger versus kale salad. Fentanyl versus Tylenol. New research suggests our brain activity could be influenced to make the healthier choice"
Am I the only one bothered by this? I can see some potential good benefits. I can also see some sinister uses."Now that we can see when the brain is considering a particular choice, we could potentially use that signal to electrically stimulate the neural circuits involved in the decision and change the final choice," Wallis said.
You are not the only one, but pretty much anything can have a sinister use. Science gave a possibility, how it can be used. Answer to "is there an ulterior motive" seems to be beyond its paradigm. Everything boils down to "what is a healthy decision to make" and how (and by whom) it will be judged.
Good point, and well phrased. However, I think that when a scientific advance can do something so revolutionary as give the ability to someone else to take away someone's free will, I think it's significant enough to pause and reflect on whether this is the right direction to take. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the technology. Maybe the individual will still have full control. The way it's written, it looks like people will be able to make decisions for other people, taking away their free will. Having free will or at least the illusion of free will (that debate can be fierce) is something that makes humans uniquely human. It's the same thing with AI. There are some great advances that are shown to have great potential for benefit, but people like Stephen Hawking believe that AI poses a threat to human survival. At least there, people are stopping to reflect on how science should progress.
Well, look at it like this: 1. Some animals, including humans, might prefer fermented fruit or nectar containing ethanol over fresh ones if there is an alcohol to be had. Quite interesting source. 2. Alcoholism can destroy health, lives and pose a social stigma that is quite hard to live with. Either as an AA member or not. Conjecture: It is in human nature to seek altered state of consciousness or preferred taste linked to such substance. What if a person does not have a particular ability to inhibit acting under such impulse? One might find it as the best reinforcement therapy, influence over choice that happens separate from consciousness. Another person might see that as imposing some (non-zero and therefore unacceptable) level of indoctrination, even when considering possible health and social benefits. Personally I'll take semi-brainwashed order and public health over modern world, but that's not the scientific problem. ;). As long as it is not the main and preferred treatment, but one extreme that is used if all else fails and person is willing to get it, I don't think we have much to worry. Moderation and scaling are more important, at least in my opinion, than any level of "do we have free will" talks. It's a possible influence, perhaps just like Einstein-Rosen Bridge is 'possible'. You just can't transport any mass through it or it will collapse (these are that unstable) and require energy you see in stars themselves to create. I don't mean to be dismissive, but for all I know it might not even end-up being viable for humans. I don't mean to be dismissive, it's more of a pragmatic "do I even have the ethics and philosophy chops to try have this discussion on a level". Sadly, I know that I don't know enough on the subject. The 'thought patterns detector' feels more like an early warning system, and might even be something viable within out lives ;).
Interesting link about the fermented fruit, but I don't think the theory needs to be that attenuated. People can get addicted to anything pleasurable really quickly. Just about anything that is linked to pleasure can be addictive. Neurons that fire together wire together. In other words, anything or any activity that triggers a pleasurable response in the brain links the pleasurable feeling with the activity or object. There were a couple assumptions in your theory. The most important one is that people have to be willing to get the treatment. That's the worrisome part. As you say, alcoholism can destroy people's lives, their own and often the people's lives around them. One day, if the technology works, then people could be forced to undergo treatment. This next part is a bit of a stretch because it's a sensitive topic, but there was a time when homosexuality was seen a bit like alcoholism. It was seen as something that ruined people's lives and the lives of people around them, so people were forced into treatment. Alan Turing, often considered the father of computing, was chemically castrated against his wishes as an alternative to prison as a "cure" for his homosexuality. It might not seem analogous since you may not see any redeeming qualities to alcoholism, but that might lead to other addictions being "treated". Is that too far out of the realm of possibility to approach the likelihood of transporting through black holes? I would disagree.
I'm after a really shitty night and waiting for a doctor in hospital. Sorry for a rather weird tone of the whole post, but I would rather send it as-is and discuss later over rephrasing my response constantly and likely forget to send yet another draft I get that. But there are also assumptions in your theory: that somehow today you can be forced to undergo something like that. We live in a world where suffering of insects and other invertebrates makes people scratch their and ask questions like "maybe we are going too far with experimentation". Pain in invertebrates is an recognized and researched issue that needs urgent addressing. Perhaps I'm just that naïve, but it seems like medical and scientific community itself would stop such misuse. Back then homosexuality was recognized as illness that goes against what it means to be a human being. Now we are in a culture where people thrown in jail for violent crimes get almost a hug-therapy treatment… as long as it does not offend their sensibilities or breach their personal space. Again, I don't want make you feel that I'm dismissing you or the problem. But I do recognize that despite what I see on TV, people are largely decent. It's hard during tragedies like ones that happened recently, but it is important to remember about it. That also does not mean that there is no way to get financial gain out of it. Classifying it as a non-refundable voluntary treatment that allows profit instead of correctional state-mandated action is more likely than any level of dystopia ;). There is no monetary gain in 'correcting' homosexuals, there is a massive profit potential in offering weight-loss treatment that requires as little as one undetectable jolt. You can't spin it for profit if technique has a bad reputation. People are decent, but that largely means they are going to choose profit over arbitrary evil on average.There were a couple assumptions in your theory. The most important one is that people have to be willing to get the treatment. That's the worrisome part.
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you're feeling better soon. As for the rest of your comment, it had me grinning, not because there was anything funny about the subject (quite the contrary) but because you somehow incorporated the news headlines of the week (the Brock Turner case and the mass murders in Florida) into your one comment about a scientific discovery that hasn't happened yet. That's quite a wide range of topics. This is true, and neither of us can know which of the assumptions we hold will happen in the future. This just goes to show that on one of your worst nights, you're more optimistic about humankind than I am on one of my best. I hope that you're more right about it than I am. I'm just skeptical that you are in this case.I'm after a really shitty night and waiting for a doctor in hospital.
I get that. But there are also assumptions in your theory: that somehow today you can be forced to undergo something like that.