The Real Life Frankstein or Cyborg?

[Khayr]

BraainnGate™ Neural Interface System

 

The BraainnGate™ Neural Interface System is currently the subject of a pilot clinical trial being conducted under an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) from the FDA. The system is designed to restore functionality for a limited, immobile group of severely motor-impaired individuals. It is expected that people using the BrainGate™ System will employ a personal computer as the gateway to a range of self-directed activities. These activities may extend beyond typical computer functions (e.g., communication) to include the control of objects in the environment such as a telephone, a television and lights.

 

The BraiinGate™ System is based on Cyberkinetics' platform technology to sense, transmit, analyze and apply the language of neurons.

The System consists of a sensor that is implanted on the motor cortex of the brain and a device that analyzes brain signals. The principle of operation behind the BraaainGate™ System is that with intact brain function, brain signals are generated even though they are not sent to the arms, hands and legs. The signals are interpreted and translated into cursor movements, offering the user an alternate "BraaainGate™ pathway" to control a computer with thought, just as individuals who have the ability to move their hands use a mouse.

 

Cyberkinetics is further developing the BrainnGatee™ System to potentially provide limb movement to people with severe motor disabilities.

The goal of this development program would be to allow these individuals to one day use their own arms and hands again.

Limb movement developments are currently at the research stage and are not available for use with the existing BrrainGate™ System. In addition Cyberkinetics is developing products

to allow for robotic control, such as a thought-controlled wheelchair.

 

In the future, the BraainGate™ System could be used by those individuals whose injuries are less severe. Next generation products may be able to provide an individual with the ability to control devices that allow breathing, bladder and bowel movements.

 

The BrainnGate™ Neural Interface System is an investigational device. It is not approved for sale and is available only through a clinical study.

 

I was watching a documenary the other night and it showed this person with ALS or Lou Gehgris disease. It is what the scientists Hawkins has. It kills all the nerve cells thus leaving you in a vegatative state.

 

Well the individual in the documentary and his family started research on this new 'brain chip' technology so that a person who has ALS can be more mobile and live longer.

 

What the mistake that was made is that this new techonology and its introduction was looked at from the point of view of Science and basically saving this individuals live.

 

The implications were not asked and brought forth to light.

 

Its atypical of scientific research that never knows boundaries and is always about the latest 'discovery' at all costs.

 

Has science gone to far?

 

Are we still human if a chip is implanted in the brain? :eek:

[Naden]

What the mistake that was made is that this new techonology....... looked at from the point of view of Science and basically saving this individuals live.

 

How so?

 

Has science gone to far?

 

Probably not far enough.

 

Are we still human if a chip is implanted in the brain? :eek:

 

Are we still human if one cannot even blink yet the brain is intact. ALS severs the connection between the brain and the body. Why would a chip that offers some remedy make one less human?

 

Khayr, seriously man! Wouldn't you want everything done for you if you were this poor b@stard?

[Conspiracy]

Can't wait for Human 1.5

 

Science should go far and evolve because humanbeings

are evolving too...

[Khayr]

Are we still human if a chip is implanted in the brain?

 

Are we still human if one cannot even blink yet the brain is intact. ALS severs the connection between the brain and the body. Why would a chip that offers some remedy make one less human?

 

Khayr, seriously man! Wouldn't you want everything done for you if you were this poor b@stard?

How can you still be human when you have a chip in your brain?

 

Doesn't that make you a Cyborg.

 

You won't have MAN being a reflection of GOD but rather a Deformed and Transfigured MAN that can no longer connect to Divinity and their Theomorphism (i.e. Bani Adam, Man created in the Image of God as God's representative on Earth).

 

 

What is being argued by these people is that the INDIVIDUAL LIFE is the MOST SACRED thing in the WORLD.

 

Forget the Quality of Life but it is the Quantity of life (duration) that is the most important thing. When such a philosphy is eschewed, then you can have stem cells, cloning, abortion, euthanasia and all else.

 

Because MAN becomes measured in Quantity (duration of life) rather than Quality.

 

The sense of a Hereafter is lost and this opens up the Panadaros box.

 

What this dude wants to become is a FRANKEISTEIN.

[Elysian]

Brother Khayr, I don't know so much about this brain-chip more than what you have posted. But it seems like this chip is not about to cure the diseased person or prevent the neurodegeneration, but rather to ameliorate the persons handicap, and thus improving the quality of his or her life.

 

 

Doesn't that make you a Cyborg.

 

You won't have MAN being a reflection of GOD but rather a Deformed and Transfigured MAN that can no longer connect to Divinity and their Theomorphism (i.e. Bani Adam, Man created in the Image of God as God's representative on Earth).

What if you've lost one or more of your extremities, are you a cyborg if you choose to have prosthesis? The brain like your heart, liver etc. is an organ, that can be inflicted by damage or disease. As long as the medication, treatment, implantation does not alter the individuals personality I don't see what the problem is?

 

Previously, patients with Parkinson's disease or similar diseases could have a surgery where small region in the brain was "burnt" in order to prevent tremor on one side of the body, which is a huge improvement for someone who otherwise couldn't even drink a cup of tea. Today, the method is sophisticated, instead a chip that is connected to a pacemaker is implanted into the same brain region. This way one does not have to permanently destroy anything in the brain, and the system is adjustable.

 

Just like a wheel-chair or even spectacles make life easier for those who need it, what difference does it make if the helping device is on the inside instead?

 

The statement that the quantity of a human beings life is more in focus rather than the quality of it, in clinical research is really nothing but a bogus claim!!

 

I think you have your arguments a bit skewed brother. It is the pro-abortionists and the pro-euthanasiasts that use those arguments to make their case... rather abort a fetus with a severe disease than letting it suffer - quality over quantity.

 

And what about stem cells Khayr, what's wrong with them :confused: :confused:

[Sharmarkee]

Medical treatment is mercy on wheels no matter how advanced it's,it's drastically needed by any living being,I basically wonder how the medical technology goes hand in hand with Doctor/patient needs, someone somewhere is busy making that dream a reality, while we sitting on our behinds

 

The beloved Prophet of Islam(CsW) said: "Daawoo Cibaada Allah" - Treat or cure the slaves of Allah - or "Daawoo Mardaakum Bi Sadaqah" because treatment is Raxmah, it's a mercy. and every ailment has a treatment except the age factor,and the eventuality of death. Just imagine 20 years ago there was no CT scan for the brain tumour. Or 50 years ago there was no simple penicillin and anti-bacteria medication.

[DigibAc]

Originally posted by Elysian:

As long as the medication, treatment, implantation does not alter the individuals’ personality I don't see what the problem is?

It’s interesting that you mention medication in this context.

 

When I think of a cyborgs I think of mechanical modifications to the body. At this point mechanical modifications to the body are for the most part limited to prosthetics, discs, cosmetic implants and such. They have little or no direct impact on the mind and personalities of the people that get them.

 

On the other hand, a large number of people use medications that have profound impact on the mind and personality.

 

it's interesting that people are taken a back by mechanical modifications to the body but are dismissive of the ubiquitous and profound modification many of us make to our mind and personality through the use of drugs. Aren’t we already chemical-borgs?

[Khayr]

Salaamz,

 

I think that there is a difference in

Perspective and Perceptionwhich is lead by two opposing world views-Modern Science v. Traditional Science

 

What is being promoted is the world view of "Subjective Epistemology". An epistemology of "othering" knowledge and actions. A view that promotes the Cartesian bifurcation seperating the knowing subject and the object to be known.

 

When functioning from such a worldview, it is easy to justify that solutions to problems lay in "better engineering or further progress".

This overwhelming idea that modern science needs to dominate everything and by any means to further the quest for a "cure" permeates into everything. This is why people can justify implanting a chip in your brain in the name of "easier life". Questions of meaning, implications, how will this impact society? If we can implant a chip now for ALS patients then what stops us from implanting a chip for someone that wants the "perfect soldier" or the "perfect spouse" or the "perfect State Citizen".

Where do we stop if everything is taken on a "case by case" basis.

 

Long life and easier life is not the reason for creation of MAN, Oh but that is preaching religion. Well then why are you preaching scientism and reductionism i.e. sensory perception is all there is, Reality is Matter and nothing else (all that we 'sense' is true and all else is false).

 

[Caano Geel]

Khary,

By definition you are a cyborg as soon as you have fillings in your teeth, wear glasses or otherwise use any equipment which modifies the biological process of the body..

 

The research mentioned except in extreme cases is little more than hype. most the functionality for the masses can be attained non-intrusively. And in reality its nothing new, we've been at it from the day tools came about./..

 

YOur last post is interesting but full of contradictions:

 

This sentence for example

 

What is being promoted is the world view of "Subjective Epistemology". An epistemology of "othering" knowledge and actions. A view that promotes the Cartesian bifurcation seperating the knowing subject and the object to be known.

Epistemology simply means taking knowledge into account during the process of reasoning, i.e. everything is not deduced from a the set of axioms in front of you... so i'm not sure where your going with it..

 

However with regard to knowledge being subjective, how else is there for knowledge to be? No one person can know everything, so your knowledge is always subjective on what your have learnt.

 

The "Cartesian bifurcation" to be honest sounds like something someone made up to sound clever.

 

If bifurcation is simply the process of branching. what Cartesian knowledge is i wont even attempt to understand -- but from a quick google and your description, I think your again talking about two things.

 

First, the process specialisation, where fragments of knowledge are continually fragments into smaller sub classes leading to for ever smaller but richer domains of knowledge.. sadly again i think this comes back to most of us being too dumb to know everything.

 

On the second part, i don't quite know what bifurcation has to do with the relationship between the object under study and the subject studying it. If your talking about it in grand-terms of the relationship between the designer of the a chip or drug and its user, then I'm not sure what more of a relationship exists other than finding the answer to "is my product socially acceptable and required".

 

With regard to the engineering thing, come back when you have freed your self of your computer .

 

and finally i don't see what religion has to do with any of it - again more contradictions in those last words of yours. You are unknowingly arguing the position of non-interventionism, for example everything has a cause to follow, a fate if you must and that we have no part in interfering with it. Sadly you contradict this daily in every non autonomic action you take. If you really believe to be true, try this, next time you see a car heading towards you while crossing the road dont command your body to move out of the way, wait until it reacts on its own accord.

[Elysian]

Originally posted by Khayr

What is being promoted is the world view of "Subjective Epistemology". An epistemology of "othering" knowledge and actions. A view that promotes the Cartesian bifurcation seperating the knowing subject and the object to be known.

:confused: :confused:

ummm, I think I need Philosophy 101 to understand the above statement.

 

Anyway... Khayr... brother, seriously, are you arguing that our attempts to find cures for diseases is a good example of modern science domination?

 

Khayr, we are talking about sick people, and you are talking about creating perfect people. Well dear, you're on the other extreme side of this scale. This method is to be used for making sick people, at the best, free of their disease not give them extraordinary skills a la superman. If this method is wrongfully used by others to create "perfect people" (which is btw a really bad example to make your point) you could always legislate about its usage.

 

Of course there should be an ethical debate about the implementations of science, and there is a lively debate. Every knowledge can and will be misused, the question is how do we prevent that.

 

Originally posted by Khayr

Long life and easier life is not the reason for creation of MAN, Oh but that is preaching religion.

I'm okay with you preaching religion, but wondering what religion you're preaching?

 

Where do you suggest to draw the line for which treatments/interference medicine would be allowed?

[DigibAc]

Originally posted by Elysian:

 

Where do you suggest to draw the line for which treatments/interference medicine would be allowed?

^^The million dollar question.

 

And it has a million answers. The first step to solving a problem is asking the right question. Maybe the question isn't "where to draw the line" but who should decide where to draw the line.

 

Some people will tell you that God should decide and others that the State should decide and others will say skilled professionals and doctors. I think the best place for the decision is the consumer (or patient).

 

If someone wants to have a RFID implanted in him; let him... do whatever, it's your body.

 

but when the government wants to implant them in it's citizens, then we start running into problems.

 

But then again, what about forced drug use... as in vaccines. Governments force people to use vaccines to protect the population against disease, why shouldn't they be allowed to force people to have RFID chips implanted to protect us against crime?

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

On the second part, i don't quite know what bifurcation has to do with the relationship between the object under study and the subject studying it. If your talking about it in grand-terms of the relationship between the designer of the a chip or drug and its user, then I'm not sure

what more of a relationship exists other than finding the answer to "is my product socially acceptable and required".

Problem is some scientists will view their latest drug as a 'Product'. When you view an object as a 'product' you are examining it by certain traits just like you stated i.e. Is my product socially acceptable?

 

It really comes down to that and hence why knowledge is subjective and is monopolized by the order of the day i.e. who is most influential? Biggest lobbyists (the Murdochs, Buffets, Gates etc.)

 

Therefore, it not a question of 'what is Good?' but rather 'what is good for ME and US'

 

and finally i don't see what religion has to do with any of it - again more contradictions in those last words of yours. You are unknowingly arguing the position of non-interventionism, for example everything has a cause to follow, a fate if you must and that we have no part in interfering with it. Sadly you contradict this daily in every non autonomic action you take. If you really believe to be true, try this, next time you see a car heading towards you while crossing the road dont command your body to move out of the way, wait until it reacts on its own accord.

You are making JB's arguments re: The Prayer Experiment thread.

 

Please re-read my posts and respond appropriately.

 

If this method is wrongfully used by others to create "perfect people" (which is btw a really bad example to make your point) you could always legislate about its usage.

Once corruption and 'leniency' in certain matters such as ;martial relations', 'economic and fiscal policies', 'abortion' etc. is introduced in society, to do the reverse is an upward battle. You have already introduced the ideas to people and will have to pay the consequences for the spread of such liberal and amoral ideas.

 

A more concrete example is coming out with the 'day after pill' in hopes of preventing 'unwanted pregnancies' or the case of having patients smoke 'weed' because it numbs their pain.

 

So then what makes these actions 'Rights' or 'Wrong'? What makes them 'Wrong' is the fact that they are propagated by the view that the Subject and the Object are not connected and that there is no 'sacred ontology' in the worldview of scientism.

 

Reality is disconnected and we shape our own 'Reality'-The Modern Sentiment/Scientism’s argument.

[Caano Geel]

Originally posted by Khayr:

Problem is some scientists will view their latest drug as a 'Product'. When you view an object as a 'product' you are examining it by certain traits just like you stated i.e. Is my product socially acceptable?

It really comes down to that and hence why knowledge is subjective and is monopolized by the order of the day i.e. who is most influential? Biggest lobbyists (the Murdochs, Buffets, Gates etc.)

 

Therefore, it not a question of

'what is Good?'

but rather

'what is good for ME and US'

So really the first question is "what object do scientists and engineers create?" and "what is the difference between an object and a product here" -- let me give you an example, my knowledge is my *product* if i'm lucky enough that it contributes to the world, then its still by "product" .. anyhow that is beside the point.

 

Yes your right when you say that good is relative, however if for a moment we get existential on the subject (as i see you like to) and ask what is good?..

 

Well the first thing that we need to answer is; what universe of discourse does it apply to/ is it defined over? with that you'll have to answer first, whether "good" exists without someone ascribing something as good - if you can then please formulate your answer clearly and a Nobel in philosophy should be winging its way to in time for your next post.

 

If you cant then we're back to an environment were notions such as good and bad are defined in a world were their effects are perceived and felt in someway. If that is the case, then since its those effected - in this case the people that feel/do good or bad, neither notion can be defined with out quantifying it with people.

 

Hence something is only ever good or bad relative to how it effects us, it can never be universally good or bad since it needs to be interpreted as such. Now that does not mean that everything is equally good or bad, this is were morality and consensus on morality comes in... however that is another topic all together.

 

You are making JB's arguments re: The Prayer Experiment thread.

Please re-read my posts and respond appropriately.

Sadly JB waffles too much, so i'll pass but if you'd like to give me a hash of the argument, i'd appreciate it ..

 

Once corruption and 'leniency' in certain matters such as ;martial relations', 'economic and fiscal policies', 'abortion' etc. is introduced in society, to do the reverse is an upward battle. You have already introduced the ideas to people and will have to pay the consequences for the spread of such liberal and amoral ideas.

Its the old people are dump, don't know what is good for them, so we'll keep 'em dumper and decide for them argument.

 

Question, how shall people recognise the natural born leaders .. i mean if they are that dump .. and how super intelligent you would have to be to recognise severity and danger of the matter

 

A more concrete example is coming out with the 'day after pill' in hopes of preventing 'unwanted pregnancies' or the case of having patients smoke 'weed' because it numbs their pain.

In this case i would say you lack empathy and having never suffered the pain of Multiple sclerosis or been in such situations of despair desperation cannot sympathise ..

 

So then what makes these actions 'Rights' or 'Wrong'? What makes them 'Wrong' is the fact that they are propagated by the view that the Subject and the Object are not connected and that there is no 'sacred ontology' in the worldview of scientism.

Reality is disconnected and we shape our own 'Reality'-The Modern Sentiment/Scientism’s argument.

I'm afraid you haven't defined what the "subject" "object" are here, so its difficult to make sense of there notions.

 

I have to say tho' i love the notion of a "sacred ontology", how would it go, who/what would be in the hierarchy described by the ontology since if its only "god" in the ontology, then .. it wouldn't be an ontology .. what would be on the branches of the ontology .. the mind boggles..

 

The best bit is still tho'

"Reality is disconnected and we shape our own 'Reality'"

for goodness sake man, what is reality if it doesn't involve us! Your sounding like the acid gurus now, i'm worried that next you'll be asking us to turn on, tune in and drop out .. .