and, the chance to part with $250 US.
Well... that's the trick isn't it? How would we ever know?
I agree this isn't an issue with the current brain, but as I pointed out, there's no reason to believe they won't create much more mature ones in future.
Also, I'm not saying they shouldn't pursue the research. I just think that this deserves a very public airing.
Does it strike anyone else that this research should only have been undertaken after a great deal of public discourse?
I didn't see anything in the OSU article (https://news.osu.edu/news/2015/08/18/human-brain-model/) that indicated the scientists had to (or plan to) ensure that no future brain is produced that has the maturity of a one year old (for example).
Compared to creating a disembodied human brain, all the potential for a future self-aware computer system seems much less controversial.
“Now I prefer cloudy days when the drones don’t fly. When the sky brightens and becomes blue, the drones return and so does the fear. Children don’t play so often now, and have stopped going to school. Education isn’t possible as long as the drones circle overhead.”
I added the bold.
I only read this a few days ago, but was really struck by it. The reason is completely different from that covered in the original article, but I wonder at the effects the author is concerned about...
On the other hand, if the purpose of the legislation is to reduce senseless deaths, it would be much more effective to simply outlaw driving by private citizens.
I tried to watch them...
I can't tell if they take themselves seriously or not?
Makes me ache for the days when the news was news and strictly separated from 'editorial' content...
... of course, I'm not sure those days ever really existed.
Honesty, between them, FOX, CNN and MSNBC... I actually watch the Daily Show
The absence of labels [in ECL] is probably a good thing. -- T. Cheatham