A computer with a human brain?

Have you heard of the Blue Brain Project? Neither had I. Now I have. Its leader, Professor Markram, plans to build an electronic human brain within ten years.
In some ways computers work like our brains - processing data, storing information etc. But that's light years away from actually becoming a brain, with thoughts, feelings, sadnesses and happinesses of being human. The human brain is in a body and reacts to the world that it senses through a nervous system. Will Professor Markram's artificial brain be able to get information from an artificial eye, ear and skin? If not (and I think not) then how can it be like a human brain at all?
Just imagine, though, that the Professor is one day successful and creates a purely electronic brain which is conscious that it exists and can have its own thoughts. It will have no sense of being male or female. It will have no family or friends and will be dependent upon its makers. It will not feel the wind, or cry tears, or laugh. It might be extremely clever.
So Professor Markram, I think your future electronic brain, replicating the actions of the 100 billion neurons in our own grey matter, but not interacting with the world, won't actually be much like a human brain. Even so, you are thinking of creating an entity without knowing what the results will be. Is this science for the pleasure of it? And what about the little mice whose brains you are copying at this moment? Are they being treated as a means to an end rather than as sensitive little mammals with their own lives to lead? Here are lots of philosophical and ethical questions for discussion. What makes us human? How should we treate other living things? Would an electronic brain be alive, and have rights? Should there be more philosophy in science?
To put it another way would you, Professor Markram, like to be an electronic brain? Perhaps so. If not, should you inflict it on 'someone' else in the name of science?

Daily Mail 11.08.09 article entitled, 'Are we on the brink of creating a computer with a human brain?' by Michael Hanlon, science editor.

Bees and all that!

Last week I agreed with Rebecca about us all being unique individuals.
This is true.
Now we can think of how all these individuals are connected.
What one individual does affects countless other individuals. Think of some examples.
Should we put the uniqueness of an individual first, and that individual's needs, or should we put the general good first?
In other words, should the captain of the Starship Enterprise risk the lives of all his crew to rescue one person stranded on an alien planet?
Myself, I think towards saying yes. It seems more noble, more uplifting, more empathic, more humane. What do you think? Should the one come before the many - or not?

This week (4-10th May) is 'National Honey Week'.
First News newspaper has a feature on bees on its front page. Bees all work together for the common good of their swarm or hive. But bees are dying in their millions. Why? Weather? Pesticide sprays? Mobile phones? What happens if plants don't get pollinated and seeds don't form because bees aren't around? Albert Einstein may have said that without bees, life on this planet would be dead within five years. So things could get a little grim. Maybe the planet as we know it could rather easily do without humans, but getting rid of bees is a different matter altogether.
Lots of ideas for philosophy groups:
'No man is an island.' John Donne
Can 'individualism' become 'thinking of what I want' instead of 'what is good for us all'? What happens to societies when individuals only think of what they want? (Banks collapse? Yes I'd thought of that!)

First News newspaper issue 154

Being other than our parents?

This is a reply to Rebecca's blog.

Well Rebecca it is interesting that you should mention Buddhism. The Buddha left his wealthy, powerful family behind in order to reflect on the suffering he saw in the world and how to overcome it. Not many people walk away from wealth do they? Think of beautiful fountains, dancing girls, luscious fruits, servants, great music. Goodbye to all that. I can imagine his dad, the Raja, was not too happy as he waved good bye to his son and heir.
The American president Barack Obama modelled himself as a boy on how he thought his father would want him to be. Later on he learned new things about his 'Old Man' (his words) that made him change his attitudes.
We can't choose where we are born, nor our parents, nor whether they will stick around for us. But perhaps these examples show that people make their own lives. As you say, we are all individuals and unique, with our own ways of doing things. Relationships with parents are never simple are they?

Information about Barack Obama is from his book, 'Dreams from my Father,' currently a bestseller.

Choose the right parents?

An American professor called Bill Ayers says that children today need to choose the right parents!
What he really means is that if your parents are well off and know important people, then you have more choices and better chances than if your parents are not well off and don't know important people! And he thinks this is wrong, as we are supposed to live in a 'democratic' society where everyone has equal chances and choices in life.
He wants all children and students to ask more questions about who they are, where they are going, and what choices they have. He wants you to make judgements based on evidence and argument, and to think for yourselves.
Do you think that school encourages you to do these things, or holds you back? Does your school teach you to obey and conform, or to be imaginative and creative? Perhaps there's a mix - if so, is it a good one and does it work for you?
Bill wants an end to sorting people into winners and losers through standardised tests in schools.
He says we all need to think about, speak up and speak out about the life situations we find ourselves in.
What do you think about school testing, and about winner and loser labels for schools and individuals?
I'm going to ask my philosophy group if they would like to take on this debate next week!

This is fom the area of philosophy called political philosophy.
Source: The Times Educational Supplement (a newspaper about education) 20.03.09 'Comment' section. Written by Professor Bill Ayers, University of Illinois, Chicago USA

Kepler the Space Telescope

Kepler was a great German astronomer from the 17th century. Now a powerful space telescope has been named after him. It is called the Planet-Hunter. It was launched into space from Cape Canaveral in Florida USA on Saturday March 7th 2009.
Its mission? To keep its giant eye fixed on a patch of space 'equivalent to the size of a human hand held at arm's length'.
Now that is amazing. An ancient philosopher called Heraclitus measured the sun by putting his foot in the air and saying 'The Sun is as big as a foot'. Now here a patch of space is being described as the size of a human hand!
In fact that patch of space contains about 100,000 stars in the Cygnus and Lyra constellations.

The idea? To start looking for new Earths! To begin to answer the question, 'Are there other worlds like ours out there?'
Planets will be found by little 'winks' as they move around stars many light years away from us.
Then scientists will work out if any of them have the same sort of conditions as Earth- being 'just right' for life to evolve.

What do you think? Do you think there could be new Earths out there?
Scientists want to make Mars in our own solar system into a new Earth. But they will have to make huge changes to its atmosphere and landscape. This is known as terraforming.
Should humans colonise other planets? There are lots of arguments for and against. Different people have different points of view. For instance - we could mine other planets for minerals and rocks. Good or bad? We could have a new tourist industry - space tourism. Good or bad? What about little bacteria and microbes that may already be living on other planets? Do we put ourselves before their right to grow and evolve in their own ways?
Think of other reasons for and against. Reflect on your own opinions.

Sources: Express and Star and Shropshire Star newspapers 7.3.09.
Remember that newspaper sources are not always totally reliable. For more facts, or for images of Kepler, go to www.nasa.gov.uk

Children who are copies of their dad.

Somewhere in Eastern Europe there are three children. They are aged 9 and they are copies of their dad. That's because they are clones, grown from a skin cell from their own fathers in a laboratory.
This is the claim of Severino Antinori, an Italian scientist. He will not tell us about the children, because he says we must respect their privacy. Is he telling the truth? Cloning animals has been going on for a long time - the first animal cloned was Dolly the Sheep. Not all cloned animal experiments are successful. Dolly the Sheep was found to age too fast. Cloning human beings is not allowed by law, partly because scientists are not sure it is safe. In Italy the Catholic Church is very much against it for religious reasons.
Severino Antinori says his method is new and different. He likes to call it 'genetic recording' instead of cloning. He thinks that changing the name of what he is doing will make us more likely to accept it.

What do you think? What would you say to support your argument if you were Severino Antinori? Or one of the fathers, who was sterile and couldn't have children the normal way? Or one of the children? What could be religious reasons for saying 'no'? Could there be other reasons on moral grounds? And should cloning animals be allowed, if cloning humans is not?

Discuss this in your philosophy group.

This issue connects to the branches of philosophy called ethics and philosophy of science.

(Source: BT Yahoo News 4.3.09)

Would you like to be frozen?

Would you like to be frozen when you die and wait for medical science to cure whatever illness you died of? Would you take the gamble that the future world is going to be a good place to wake up in? Simon Cowell, X factor judge, intends to have just this done to his body. He doesn't want to live forever, he just wants to delay drawing that final curtain!
My philosophy group has just been discussing this. We had lots of reasons for agreeing with, and disagreeing with, Simon's point of view. In the end, after reflecting on what we had said, we put it to a vote. There were 33 of us. These were our results: 1 agreed with Simon, a massive 25 disagreed, and there were 7 don't knows.
This was surprising, as there had been a balance of arguments for and against. Then one of the group, who had voted against, said, 'I may change my mind later, I want to wait and get more evidence for this and see if it works in future.....'

Try this discussion in your own philosophy group.

This issue connects to the branch of philosophy called Philosophy of Science.


(Source: First News Newspaper for Kids issue 145 27 Feb-5th March 2009)