Slashdot Mirror
Human Mini-Brains Growing Inside Rat Bodies Are Starting To Integrate (inverse.com)
At the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience starting November 11 in Washington D.C., two teams of scientists plan to present previously unpublished research on the unexpected interaction between human mini-brains and their rat and mouse hosts. "In the new papers, according to STAT, scientists will report that the organoids survived for extended periods of time -- two months in one case -- and even connected to lab animals' circulatory and nervous systems, transferring blood and nerve signals between the host animal and the implanted human cells," reports Inverse. "This is an unprecedented advancement for mini-brain research." From the report: That mini-brains can even be grown in the lab is a huge advancement in the first place, as they have many of the same characteristics as living human brains that are in the early stages of development. Though they're not "alive" in the same sense that you and I are, they grow and are organized into different layers like our brains are. They even react in similar ways to stimuli like psychedelic drugs. Organoids are poised to revolutionize research on the human brain since scientists can perform tests on them that would be unethical to attempt on living humans. STAT also reports that a third lab, in addition to the two presenting at the Society for Neuroscience meeting, has successfully connected human brain organoids to blood vessels. This attempt veered into such challenging ethical territory, though, that the lab reportedly paused its efforts.
If you grew a brain twice as large as a persons brain would it be twice as intelligent?
Ethical is informing someone of the risks, not misrepresent anything for the purpose of obtaining consent.
Moral is can't do it at all because of some taboo.
Mini brains in mice are a clever workaround. As long as we can pretrnd its like growing vegetables, its ok.
Scientists should be careful to ensure they can't communicate meaningfully with these minibrains, because the instant one of those things signals that it's hurting or wants the pain to stop, the ethics and morals will apply again and we will be having strange discussions about whether those mini brains come with souls or not.
Damn, I've got to quit trying to be coherent when typing on a smartphone; it's hopeless. Still, it ought to be fairly easy to figure out WTF I was trying to say. ;)
I could have sworn there were laws against this kind of experimentation, but I guess in the face of the threat of being "left behind" all that stuff is out the window and anything goes now?
So I'm allowed to grow a giant human brain in a jar now if I like? It's ok apparently because 'they're not "alive" in the same sense that you and I are'.
http://data.whicdn.com/images/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is ungodly.
And that's why I like it.
When can we expect to see the details on Hackaday?
“People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.”
Stephen Hawking
Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!
If it sounds like the intro to a horror movie / game, maybe you should think twice about proceeding....
I'm still not worried about an imminent invasion of rat multiborgs.
Are you sure about your IQ? Because you might want to get refund on the test.
That might have to do with who you hang out with and where you live.
I have found that the smartest Republicans are at least as smart as the smartest Democrats. And I have found that both Democrats and Republicans lie about the same.
But I have also found that the smarter the Republican is, the more likely he is to lie to the public and tell the truth to his allies, while the smarter the Democrat is, the more likely he is to lie to his allies and tell the truth to the public.
Personally, I would rather have someone lie to their ally and tell the public the truth.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Welcome our new hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional overlords.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
So scientists create brains in rats and then give them drugs?
Wtf kind of science are we doing nowdays?
Politicians can finally achieve the body type that best suits them!
Pickle Rickkkkkk !!!!!
That is intelligence how about emotional and empathic responses. The typical Republicans are psychopaths as the leaders with narcissists as the minions, willing to do anything for anyone for empty compliments about how great they are and a minimum wage. I would not really call them homo sapiens as there is sufficient genetic cerebral anti-social differences to call them a sub species, a parasitical subspecies. The sooner psychopaths are eliminated in the womb the better off humanity will be, no more wars.
I prefer people to be a bit more human, a bit more understanding, that shallow supposedly smart believers of nonsense that feeds their ego. Ever consider smart people stop playing smart for intelligent reasons, leaving the not so smart to ponce about posing with crap, their ego on shallow empty self preening displays. That is of course the norm for the US Tesla the fool and Edison the genius, well at least that's the story painted by US corporate greed (Edison not that smart, just a typical plotting and scheming psychopath making use of corruption to get rich but that is the American Dream, getting rich off a bunch of poor workers backs, the more and the poorer the better).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
What do you think live cells are going to do squished-up next to eachother? Give Billary blojobs ? Random mates grow lusty rapes ... kinda like the human nicotine receptors ... whatever sticks pricks and near progressive azzwholes every prick has a stick ! No big deal when you lay back, toggle out a few induced dipoles and enjoy the twitch.
Life is a gradient!
Something can be just a bit alive!
These brains certainly aren’t dead, now are they?
Single atoms are less alive than chemical compounds.
Normal chemical compounds are less alive than prions, but more alive than single atoms.
Prions are less alive than complex proteins, but more alive than normal chemical compounds.
Complex proteins are less alive than viruses, but more alive than complex simple prions.
Viruses are less alive than bacteria, but more alive than complex proteins.
Bacteria are less alive than something multi-cellular, but more alive than viruses.
Something multi-cellular is less alive than something with a nervous system, but more alive than bacteria.
Something with a nervous system is less alive than something with a full brain, but more alive than something multi-cellular.
Something with a brain is less alive than somebody actually thinking for himself, but more alive than something with just a nervous system.
And an individual is more alive than a mere passive-thinker.
Those mini-brains may still be smarter than your “average Joe”. :P
lolol So now we know how Brain was created. :)
Nice word vomit. Did a fake research paper alogrithm write that for you?
Please tell me one of the rats was named Nicodemus.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
IQ is a bad measurement of intelligence, because it is designed for psychopaths. It completely ignores the skills that played a key role in human success: Social behavior, empathy, etc.
So ... funny, how it's so popular with the psychopaths like you, that want to dominate US culture. Which can only fail in the long run, as teamwork always tr... what's the word again? ... t... trrr... *distorts his face in pain*
But you clearly don't even have a high IQ... considering how you still believe that the “Democrats” and "Republicans" are different groups.
To one day direct them down a spine and into some new prosthetic legs.
And me without a mod points... :(
All humans are swayed by illogical things. Though you can mitigate it, there's nothing you can do to prevent it.
Though they're not "alive" in the same sense that you and I are, they grow and are organized into different layers like our brains are. They even react in similar ways to stimuli like psychedelic drugs.
Who's to say what they experience or feel? That they're not alive? Seems to me they're making them as close to a live brain as possible, so...
This is horrifying. How could you go home and sleep at night after working on something like this?
Growing extra organs in or on animals is already pretty grotesque, but at least that has obvious and practical applications. But this? This is some shit, man...
Any brain can integrate; wake me up when they can find derivatives.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
What have schizophrenic delusional concepts to do with any of this?
The discussion is about whether anyone seriously think it's OK to hurt something that tells us it hurts and wants it to stop.
And the answer is no, btw. Unless you're in a Nazi concentration camp and asking one of the doctors there.
“People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.”
Stephen Hawking
Well screw you. I can kick a ball.
-- Some Guy on the old Fires of Heaven boards whose name I can't remember.
This space unintentionally left blank.
And when the Internet is invented, I think it will be really cool if people on it misquote me.
-- Abraham Lincoln
This space unintentionally left blank.
The typical Political archetypes are psychopaths as the leaders with narcissists as the minions, willing to do anything for anyone for empty compliments about how great they are
For what we can see politics has become so dis-functional with the identity game that it is precisely what attracts psychopaths and narcissists. The image of competence. Meanwhile, the competent are subject to all of the games psychopaths and narcissists play, manipulating people.
Your example of Tesla and Edison is a good one, especially considering that when Einstein was asked, What's it like to be the smartest man in the world? he replied: "I don't know, you would have to ask Nicola Tesla." It's a good example of what this sickness costs our species.
I'm only pointing it out because I think that sickness overshadows politics and we have to fix politics to prevent psychopaths spreading their corruption throughout our society.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
they are smart enough. I'm glad they destroy these experiments.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Is that you?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Louis CK took his penis out and started masturbating furiously.
Slow news day, I guess.
Current societal evolution does not favor kind, intelligent, thoughtful, passionate, respectful, people. The best we can hope for is that it never selects AGAINST these traits.
Interesting times ahead, probably too many scientist on the loose on this planet for its own good
"Human Mini-Brains Growing Inside Rat Bodies Are Starting To Integrate"
Big deal. So they've invented vat-grown lawyers.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Human Mini-Brains Growing Inside Rat Bodies Are Starting To Integrate
Every end has half a stick.
I want a spare brain! That would be great, like having SMP in my head! I guess it wouldn't really fit in my head though. I'd have to put it somewhere else. Like maybe on top of my head, under a glass dome like Mojo Jojo.
I remember exactly this being one of those things that were "never going to happen" as said by techno-optimists to people they were accusing of engaging in slippery slope thinking.
I do love how the author comes up with a lovely name like "mini brains" for something that can be compared to Frankenstein.
Your own "morality" would lead to NO such experiment and no alternative to test on nervous system. because let us face it, the alternative is to test on human, higher cephalic order animals similar to human or no test at all. You are the same type of people which were horrified by ears being grown on rat.... Well yuppeee doo you are the same backward type of people which would hurt all medicine because they can't stand the "sacro saint whatever". Your comparison to nazi (and therefore mengele) show your end game. The reality is that those experiment have NO ethical implication, the amount of nervous tissue barely being similar in size than an insect brain. The moment you CITED nazi to compare this experiment was the moment which showed your true color.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
When you have to choose between two people trying to ruin your life, and one of em is very smart and talented and the other is a complete dumbass, i don't think you would choose the more capable one.
If you grew a brain twice as large as a persons brain would it be twice as intelligent?
Very serious answer :
size plays some role, but only in relation of other metrics.
- You need to compare the ratio between the size of the brain and the overall size of the body that said brain needs to control.
The more body you need to control, the more primary motor and sensory zone you need inside the brain to control it.
i.e.: the more you needs cells in the brain whose primary role is to be connected to part of the body.
A human has a brain of around a kilogram. An elephant's is a bit under 5kg, a whale is a bit 8 kg.
That doesn't mean that whales laugh at our "inability to come with a good theory of everything and struggle with string theory instead". It's just that whales have a lot more "whale" to move around and thus need the corresponding brain parts to control it.
- You need to compare the amount of neurons (the actual brain cells doing the work) to the amount of other cells (the support cells that help the whole thing work out). (It's an approximation but you got the thing).
Part of the reason why dolphins aren't winning Nobel prizes yet (apart from obvious specie-ism) is also because they have brain better adapted to their harsh environment (cold seas). Part of their brain size isn't due to neurons working to make them intelligent, but to all the other support cells making sure that the brain keeps working without any problem under circumstances where a human would have been frozen.
- You need to have a look at the brain surface. The more intelligent species (great apes, cetaceans, etc.) have found way to cram more brain power in tighter volumes by wrinkling and crumbling the surface : we tend to have deeper sulci.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Apparently the current American president is the first succesful example of implanting a mini-brain in a rat.
-- Make America hate again!
Apparently Trump's victory, after being told that Killary was a "sure thing", broke you people so severely that you and all your buddies lost even a feigned semblance of a mind.
So, out of compassion, every Dumbocrat has been pushed to the head of the list.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Despite evoking horror movie flashbacks, who does it hurt and what the knowledge would be useful.
The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!
as someone with too high of an IQ to be swayed by ideological (as opposed to logical) arguments
Well, it's an improvement on the normal slashdot "as someone with an IQ too high to be measured by your puny sheeple methods" I suppose.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Nice word vomit. Did a fake research paper alogrithm write that for you?
Translation: I disagree with you but I can't be arsed to respond to your points so I'll throw out a general insult instead.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I guess I need to hurry and buy some flowers wile I stil kan kount.
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
Of course not, years of scientific research have proved that Republicans are human bodies with rat brains.
The horror movie script just writes itself, doesn't it?
Comforting: one lab paused it's efforts because someone somewhere raised ethical challenges. Excellent as it indicates someone is giving some thought to what is going on.
Discomforting: these things aren't 'alive' in the same sense as you and I so they can be experimented upon in ways that would be deemed unethical. Chilling that someone somewhere sees this as a loophole.
One of the most frightening developments to appear in /. in a while.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Sounds very much like The Secret of NIMH
Funny you should mention that; as someone with too high of an IQ to be swayed by ideological (as opposed to logical) arguments, I've found that smartest Republicans I've never met tend to be measurably more intelligent than the smartest Democrats (of course, they're still all idiots to me).
Liberals and Conservatives are both equally likely to reject science when it doesn't fit with their ideals;
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617731500
There's no such thing as a non-ideological person, but there are ideologically blind people. You're one of them, despite your supposedly high IQ. I also have you marked as a science denialist, so I'll add to the calls for you to get a refund on that test.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They are integrating human brains in rats, but we should be scared of AI?
I don't think we need to really worry until they start to differentiate. Then they will be on to PDEs, vector analysis, and so on. While people are wringing their hands over Artificial Intelligence, the ratbrains will escape the lab, organize an army of nuclear-surviving cockroaches, and take over the planet. Unless the dolphins achieve spaceflight when nobody's looking.
People find this "icky" because we're growing neurons in a glass, but they have no problem with liver cells or muscle cells. Why, exactly?
A clump of neurons is not sentient, nor is it going to be sentient. Not even if it develops in layers. Without external influence and control, it is going to be basically unstructured. It's just a bunch of cells.
Maybe, someday, scientists will be able to provide the stimuli necessary to make a clump of neurons into something more. That day is not yet, and these clumps aren't even close to any sort of ethical boundary.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Stem cells are the problem!
However, there is no denying there is *some* moral/ethical issue at play here, whether one likes it or not. I note you like C.Sagan's works too, so I'll go easy and not evoke the Nazis, but...
At some point, you do have ethical issues. You bring up alternatives like 'higher cephalic animals', but surely you're aware there already is an ethical/moral issue there as well? One can say: it's too small to be of any importance. But how small is too small? When does it become an issue? I'd like to note that there are handicapped people with severe (genetic) braindistortions - for instance, lacking the higher brains. They can never get the higher functions of a normal brain, and are bound to live a life that is in essence not much more than of a animal - less than of an ape, in fact.
So... is it now ok to experiment on such handicapped people? After all, they don't have most of the brainparts we have (theyre actually missing), and lack the capacity to think.
No bigger than an insect-brain, you say... Is that an objective measurement from when it does or doesn't become an ethical issue? What about if it was as big as a walnut? As big as the brain of a raven, one of the smartest birds around? As big as an orange? As big as the part that is left to the severally brain-handicapped people I spoke off?
Surely, you must see that there is not a defining border or limit to it. So, what it comes down to, is you - subjectively - finding no issue with it, because of it's size and lack of fully functional abilities like our brain. Another might find it's still no issue if it's as big as an orange. Or as big as a newborns'. Or as big as a toddlers'. Etc. and some might feel there is already an ethical issue when it's as big as an insects'.
Point is, if you can't set objective criteria for when it is and isn't (or shouldn't) be considered an ethical issue, you can't fault anyone for finding an issue with it - not even on logical arguments. Because your own defining criteria isn't inherently logical (being of a given, arbitrary size), unless one wants to argue that there is no issue with it until it has the size of a fully grown adult. But I think you'd left most people behind with that moral stance, by then.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you that testing this is a good or bad thing. I'm just acknowledging some people might have moral issues with it, and they might be valid. There is actual reason why one might see this being a moral/ethical issue; since your or mine (or doctor Mengele's ;-p) criteria for what constitutes a moral/ethical dilemma isn't the same. Unless you come up with clearly defined, objective criteria that define when there's a moral/ethical issue and when not, I don't think you can claim another's' ethical dilemma is wrong, per sé. Having a 'certain', arbitrary chosen size isn't a good criterion in this regard.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
What does your IQ have to due with following or not following an ideology.
We are creatures of our environment. So if we were exposed to an ideology, many aspects link to you as true. And logical counter arguments will either be considered irrelevant, immoral, or just over simplistic. As we have created an idea on how the world should work in our heads inspired by our environment.
People who think they are not affected by ideology are often more likely to be more ingrained then those who realize their tendency. This may stop and listen to the counter argument a bit more. Then using their brain power to create a counter argument.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
However influences for leaders is more important than intelligence or skill. If the dumbass is more influential there will be more poeople trying to turn your life.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Not creepy at all.
Requiem for the American Dream
Funny you should mention that; as someone with too high of an IQ to be swayed by ideological (as opposed to logical) arguments, I've found that smartest Republicans I've never met tend to be measurably more intelligent than the smartest Democrats (of course, they're still all idiots to me).
Posting to undo an accidental positive moderation . Just like you deserve
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Are you sure about your IQ? Because you might want to get refund on the test.
You have to admit, he made the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Pickle Rick!
Funny you should mention that; as someone with too high of an IQ to be swayed by ideological (as opposed to logical) arguments, I've found that smartest Republicans I've never met tend to be measurably more intelligent than the smartest Democrats (of course, they're still all idiots to me).
Liberals and Conservatives are both equally likely to reject science when it doesn't fit with their ideals;
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617731500
As a wildly reviled pragmatist, I can NetCraft level confirm that.
I would add however, that the liberal version of science denial provably pales in comparison to the crypto-conservative version.
But as a non-idealist, I'm willing to accept what science tells me. Whatever I "believe" or not "believe" is based on my support or lack of for various theories or hypotheses.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There's no such thing as a non-ideological person, but there are ideologically blind people.
Not the OP, but your statement is veering close to the terrible atheism is a religion argument.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And I find it VERY impressive. Those rats never even got past 5th-grade algebra.
People who think they are not affected by ideology are often more likely to be more ingrained then those who realize their tendency. This may stop and listen to the counter argument a bit more. Then using their brain power to create a counter argument.
Is existential nihilsm an ideal?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
*ding*ding*ding*
You win the internets today, unless Type44Q was intentionally saying, "that smartest Republicans I've never met ", means that you will NEVER MEET a smart republican...
too funny
Funny you should mention that; as someone with too high of an IQ to be swayed by ideological (as opposed to logical) arguments, I've found that smartest Republicans I've never met tend to be measurably more intelligent than the smartest Democrats (of course, they're still all idiots to me).
Something tells me your IQ is about as high as Donald Trump's.
Talk about a tiny brain. Does yours only work when it can post divisive comments with no relevance to the topic? It's posters like you that have turned this once useful forum into a wasteland of useless, infuriating drivel.
Actually that is pretty much the argument I'm making and it does apply well to ideology. There is no ideological equivalent of atheism or "none of the above." If you ask a supposedly non-ideological person their opinion on a large number of issues, you can match them to an ideology which closely aligns with their beliefs. If you ask an atheist about which supernatural beings and/or forces they believe in, there is no religion for "none."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You're not by any remote unlikely chance a Republican, are you?
...a beowulf cluster of these!
Seriously, the title is from the dystopianest of dystopias. I am sure it's much mlless sinister than this.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Actually that is pretty much the argument I'm making and it does apply well to ideology. There is no ideological equivalent of atheism or "none of the above." If you ask a supposedly non-ideological person their opinion on a large number of issues, you can match them to an ideology which closely aligns with their beliefs. If you ask an atheist about which supernatural beings and/or forces they believe in, there is no religion for "none."
I'm still trying to get my head around the concept that abstinence is a sexual position.
I'm a pragmatist, which means I tend to gravitate toward things that work. Idealogues show time and again that they will stick to their "solutions" even when they are shown not to work. Me? If something doesn't work, I'll look for and adopt something that does. A compilation of my opinoins would show me to be center right, but with wildly veering outlier opinions that are sometimes considered far right or fairly far left. Probably my closest fit is as a Barry Goldwater conservative, but even then, it's hard to pin down.
An ideaology that is the rough equivalent of people thinking abstinence as a sexual position, or that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I turned myself into a pickle Morty!
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
With the mimi-brains, they are starting to integrate. If they used full-size brains, they be solving differential equations by now.
Dumb move, guys. Dumb move.
I think I see your problem. You're suffering from a less severe form of ideological blindness. You see some axis of the political landscape as being ideological/pragmatic. You see yourself as being stuck against the pragmatic limit around the center-right position, and because you're against the pragmatic zero line, you're not ideological. This is quite wrong.
Now let's look at the ideological universe as a cube. What you think of as the ideological/pragmatic axis is actually the idealistic/pragmatic axis. Then you have the left/right axis, and finally the authoritarian/libertarian axis. Now think of your positions on different issues as fine dots in this cube. Because you're against the pragmatic zero axis, your cloud is relatively large and sparse. Pragmatism isn't a lack of ideology, it's ideological flexibility. People against the idealistic maximum would have all their points condensed into one dense dot.
So you see the entire cube represents ideology. Nobody exists outside of it. You thought you were just hanging out by the doorway of ideology because you saw ideology, rather than idealism, as the opposite of pragmatism. But you're just as much in it as anyone near the center. Don't feel bad, Neil deGrasse Tyson makes the same mistake.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What if we use the ability to fuse to connect with each other. Organoid fuse one brain and then to another.
Brain Pinky are you thinking what I'm thinking ? Pinky Yeah, but where are we going to get rubber pants that size ?
QED?
You can't be a pragmatist without some sort of ideology.
Being pragmatic means that you favor measures that work well towards a goal without too may ill effects. However, you have to have some idea what the goal is and what effects are ill. If you have no idea of what you want to have happen, you can't be pragmatic about it.
If you criticize a policy for not being effective at reducing the crime rate, you're saying that reducing the crime rate is important to you. If you further criticize it for imprisoning people who aren't really harming society, you're saying that such people shouldn't be seriously punished for, say, smoking a joint.
I suppose you could imagine an axis with "means" on on end and "ends" on the other. The "means" people are what you'd think of as ideological, who think that right conduct must bring good ends. The "ends" people would be more like you or me, being very willing to try new means, and considering that right conduct is that which brings good ends.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You can't get any more anti-science than the postmodern epistemology.
I think I see your problem.
Your issue is that you insist that others fit in the pigeonhole that you decide they fit into. And when they don't accept that, you demand the world know that they have a problem.
Sorry muchacho, I utterly reject your rigid outlook. I have no ideology, and atheism is not a religion. And your thoughts on the matter are.
Regardless, you are now to have the last comment reply.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You can't be a pragmatist without some sort of ideology.
Okay, I like Sophia Vergara. So she's my ideology. Now we can all be happy! ;^)
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well then I'll use this last reply to make one last attempt to cure you of your ideological blindness: It seems to me that you hate the idea of "ideology," because you see yourself as so purely pragmatic that any hint of ideology seems far too dogmatic for your tastes. But why did you arrive at the positions you did on all of those issues? It can't all be based on hard scientific evidence because there isn't enough to make science-based decisions on most topics.
Since I was very interested to see the political positions of someone who considers themselves to be purely pragmatic, I had a look in your post history and found this:
But as a non-idealist, I'm willing to accept what science tells me. Whatever I "believe" or not "believe" is based on my support or lack of for various theories or hypotheses.
Where you basically agree with me and effectively admit that you are ideological. Your support or lack of for various theories and hypotheses? That's ideology, just dressed up in scientific terms. Those beliefs aren't supported by strong scientific evidence, so it's your personal choice. And you can have some degree of idealism without ever having to deny science. I don't deny any science and I not only admit that I am ideological, but I'm not purely pragmatic either.
I'm not trying to jam you into any small pigeonhole. I'm saying that you live in the same ideological universe as everyone else, rather than looking down from some immaculate non-ideological heaven as you believe. I'm saying you're a man and not a god, basically. A person who believes they are purely pragmatic and non-ideological believes, without any evidence that exists outside of their own minds, that they're on a higher plane of intelligence that the rest of humanity is unable or unwilling to ascend to. A startlingly dangerous belief that seems rather insane. Oddly if you were to put a few such people in a room together, their views would have little in common - have a chat with Type44Q sometime and see for yourself.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Agreed as a matter of fact statement, but of course, that shouldn't stop us from mitigating it as much as we can. The only proper tool we have for that, is the scientific methodology - and more broadly, indeed, logic.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I think you're both right to some extend. If your claim is, that no-one is outside the human experience, this is right. And yes, that also means humans can never FULLY extract themselves from ALL ideological or subjective considerations.
However, it's also true that a specific claim, for instance "Atheism is also a religion" is still invalid. Having no religion is not a religion, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
It's also true that, while it's mayhaps impossible to completely avoid any ideology influencing ones' behavior or thoughts, this does not mean that there isn't differing level of it, nor no way of discerning an ideological one from a non-ideological one. The best tool we have for that, is the scientific methodology. You yourself already gave a hint into the juxtaposition of this with the rest, and I agree. This means, however, that 'outside' your box of ideology, there is the realm of science - as a description of reality. This also means that, even though humans - at least as we are now - may never be able to completely go outside the box, it's also true that people being atheist (and more to the point, people accepting what science tells them even to the detriment of their ideologies - as was the case with the parent poster) are more to the fringes and borders of that box than anyone else.
I think it's from that that what you describe as 'looking down from some immaculate heaven' comes from. However, you seem to indicate this is unwarranted, while it's more likely to be warranted to some extend. IT's just *because* one is at the outer rim, that one can look more easily to the inside, and see the clusterfuck of people with strong(er) ideologies in there. One is 'above', in the sense that the vast majority of the populace is in the center, much like it's easier to see the center of our galaxy from a spiral arm, than from within the center itself.
And just like in that analogy, you can make easier and more correct statements, or derive more correct information from 'the outer ring', then when you're in the middle of it. So it's not completely unwarranted that most people who are atheist/pragmatic/scientifically-minded, are, in fact, on a higher plain of intelligence, though the statement itself is made a bit hyperbolic by you. For instance, no scientific-minded person will argue that only his own minds counts regardless of 'any evidence that exists outside' of it; on the contrary; they will accept science-based evidence, EVEN if it contradicts their own mind on the subject. That's the whole point of it. Neither do such people argue that 'no-one else is able or unwilling' to ascend to a less-ideologically motivated plane/region. That is absurd, and you only put that in there as a form of hyperbole, let's be honest.
Remains the fact that those people think they're 'better' in discerning the true working of the world than people who are not scientifically minded. You seem to think that is in error; but I think that is, in fact, correct. They are, can and do. For the simple reason that, the more you accept the scientific methodology and the more you are prepared to let your ideologies go in favor of the results that this gives you, the closer you come to a valid description of the observable reality. Since things based on reality work better than things that don't, it is, to all intents and purposes, indeed 'better'. Considering yourself to be better at something, when you are, in fact, better at it, is no mistake or delusion, but a correct assessment. It's not because one merely *thinks* one is better, mind you, but because the things one does or states actually are more in line with reality (they work better and give better results) than those of whom merely wallow in ideologies.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
See my response at https://science.slashdot.org/c...
I'm another person, btw, not the one you told to have the last reply too. ;-) Just thought I would chime in, since the topic is rather interesting.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
" If you have no idea of what you want to have happen, you can't be pragmatic about it. "
That's not necessarily true. One could leave the goal to others, even. Or one can give the best solution to whatever goal it is.
For instance, take someone who doesn't take a stance on it himself, but just say: "Well, you have a group of people there: 1)if you want to eliminate them the fastest, you should proceed such and such, 2)if you want to save the most of them, you should do such and such."
It is, thus, perfectly possible to come up with the best working solution for ANY given outcome, without taking a stance on the matter itself. Granted, that would mean one would be amoral (in contrast to being immoral, or moral), but the point is, there is no inherent necessity to have an ideology to offer the best pragmatic solution to something.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Wow, that was so incoherent and idiotic that for a moment I thought I was reading another tweet where Trump was bragging about the size of his brain and cock.
Nothing works on Republicans. If 30,000+ gun deaths every year means nothing to them, they are functionally insane.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Let me be the first to welcome our Organoids Overloads!
Or as someone smarter than me said in 1971, "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss".
Oh snap, we did get fooled again!
And ants are far smarter than people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Me quoting a movie review a decade ago of "Deep Blue Sea" (spoiler) as reasons colleges need to be careful about how they educate humans (including about morals): http://www.pdfernhout.net/read...
"Some scientists are out in the middle of the ocean, trying to reproduce proteins in shark's brains. These proteins are the cure for Alzheimer's, and one character even gives a half-assed speech about how she's driven by memories of her father's mental illness. Well, to harvest more protein, that scientist makes the shark's brains four times bigger than normal and now the shark's are super-smart and eat all the scientists. Hooray."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
All humans are swayed by illogical things. Though you can mitigate it, there's nothing you can do to prevent it.
There is also indoctrination. Such as not caring, in fact shutting down the government in the past 8 years due to the budget. Obama never actually ever passed a budget. So the last one was by GW Bush, the one with the bailout. Yet all of a sudden we're worried about it to the minute detail. Now that social programs that we can't afford need to be cut.
The other head scratcher is "gun control". World wide, we know that the more gun control we have the worse control over guns we have. There is also a good bit of racism in gun control.
If two people were trying to ruin my life, I'd hope it was a dumbass vs the genius. The dumbass would probably resort to something physical, and I could stand a chance of shooting him down, and be done with it forever. The genius would probably enjoy more subtle and longer durations of psychological, economic or legal torture.