Comments on: Brain, Power

By: Nathan Skene

Nathan Skene — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:44:31 +0000

What the….? We have a quite reasoinable understanding of memory and a damned fine understanding of how the brain processes in parallel. Those are far, far from the questions being asked now. It really is more a case of sorting out the nitty gritty. Thats all just basic neural networks. Exactly how many of this type of inhibitory neuron are involved in this feedback loop, how somatic sensations are rebuilt after being broken down, details of why place codes are used to represent magnitude of scent. Thoise are samples of some issues going on at the moment.

And though I’ve not looked into that specific researchers work on robotic arms, it really shouldnt be that that hard. Give any old fool a bunch of electrodes, a monkey and a monitor and you can train it to move an arm. DARPA is running a large collaborative project on psosthetics, including direct brain controlled devices. Things like controlling robot arms, and even playing the piano are childs play designed to entertain those providing funding. The real issues, as ever, are the ones that arnt even mentioned to the public. Oh… yoiu mentioned DARPA above. The project is actually more for rehabilitation - theres too many soldiers surviving having body parts blown of and its a drain on the economy. Og course there are potential military applications though.

But yes! Neuroscience rocks!

By: Edd

Edd — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:54:51 +0000

I think with most science it’s money first, science follows. It’s not so much the ‘common person’ who decides the direction but the rich companies and organisations.

The ‘common person’ has more of a say in ‘ethical challenging’ areas of science, such as those mentioned above, but that is normally worked though government rather than directly; public opinion creating legislation to limit science.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:53:01 +0000

its been a while since ive had time to open my mind to this sort of issue and its a good article. morality and science are intertwined, and morality here is the gross public opinion, the ethical side. without it, science would be widespread and directionless. scientific research itself is only possible because of the supportive society in which is exists. if humanity was still living singularly and alone there would not be time to dedicate to the study of the universe. my point being that modern experimental science depends on the common person and so is subject to it. to its opinions and to its desires. in 98% of cases scientific research will not be funded unless the preliminary data/evidence indicates financial return.
more specifically the debate over the use of stem cells has many boundaries e.g. religious, emotional, evolution, ethical and so in this instance there are a lot of opinions that need appeasing before any progress can be made, before it becomes a sound financial investment. if not, that route of scientfic study will be shut down and the scientists set on a new path.
morality first, science after.

i also like the irony of brains trying to understand brains, good imagery