Sagi Perel, an Israeli researcher who participated in an experiment in which monkeys were able to move a robotic arm using commands from their brains, was interviewed by the Hadaan site
In recent days, a new scientific study from the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon has been published, which may signal a breakthrough in the connection between a machine and a person. As part of the experiment, monkeys were able to operate a pair of mechanical hands and make them feed them fruit and other snacks - all this with the power of the brain alone.
Yesterday we reported on a study in it A monkey brain activated a robotic arm. One of the researchers involved in the experiment is Sagi Perel, a doctoral researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, in the neural engineering track. Sagi agreed to be interviewed by the scientist website, to tell about the progress of the experiment and to share some insights regarding the claims made about the abuse of the animals in the experiment.
Sagi, what is the field of neural engineering and how did you get into it?
I graduated with a combined bachelor's degree in Tel Aviv in electrical engineering and computer science and since I knew I wanted to pursue an advanced degree I started in the field of neural engineering. Among five laboratories that were involved in this field, I finally arrived at Pittsburgh and I am happy with the choice I made. This is a field that falls exactly in the connection between engineering and neuroscience, which is why we have in the laboratory a combination of engineers and students of medicine and neuroscience. Everyone has their own area of expertise, and this connection pushes the field of neural engineering forward.
In Israel there is the Center for Neural Computation, which mainly deals with research in neuroscience. I don't think there is anyone in Israel who does something like ours in a practical way and who has a similar device that works. The problem with this whole story is mainly the price, because you have to buy all the equipment. Even the robots themselves and all the things around them cost a lot of money - around hundreds-thousands of dollars, and that's without paying all the students and researchers who do the work. This, I think, is the reason why it is not yet available in Israel.
What was your part in the recently published research?
I arrived at the lab around the time the first phase of the experiments ended. We had an old and limited system that worked but caused all kinds of problems. One of the problems in the previous stage of the experiments was to show that the monkey controls the arm smoothly, but because of the mechanical noise in the joints we could not prove it. After I arrived at the lab, we changed the arm to one with minimal mechanical noise, rewrote the entire software system on a completely different basis, and improved the algorithm to include two-finger control in addition to arm control. After that I participated in running the second phase of the experiments and after replacing the arm we were able to show that the signal coming from the brain is stable and that good control is indeed possible.
How did the monkey control the mechanical arm? How long did it take him to learn?
The monkey controlled the speed of the tip of the arm and also the speed of opening and closing the two fingers. He was able to use his arm to grab things, and we estimated using computer simulations that the monkey needed to be accurate to within 2 millimeters to grab the fruits and bring them to his mouth. He did all this with only visual feedback.
At first we gave the monkey a joystick and he learned to control the arm using the joystick. He learned to feed himself with the arm, to understand the concept that he could control it. He then underwent the surgery, and we began the actual experiment where both of his arms were fixed.
With the first monkey, it took us a while to figure out the right way to teach him to control the arm in a quick and comfortable way for him. Monkeys are usually impatient and in addition to that there is the problem of not being able to communicate with them. If we put the monkey in a room and expected him to start controlling the arm by himself he would probably get discouraged and stop trying after a few minutes. Our training method initially gave the computer full control - in which it moves the arm to the target and feeds the monkey. Then, gradually, we lowered the control of the computer and gave the monkey more control until it reached full control. We are currently able to teach a monkey to control an arm within days.
What exactly is involved in monkey surgery? How are the electrodes inserted into the brain?
We use a small silicon probe called the UTAH array which is manufactured by a company called Cyberkinetics. Its size is about a square centimeter, and the electrodes are also a millimeter long. A small hole is opened in the skull, the electrodes are inserted into the brain and the hole is sealed. A small wire that goes out to the connector allows the signals from the brain to be read. The monkey in question from the experiment has been living with the probe for a year and four months without any special problems. By the way, these are exactly the same electrodes that are used in experiments on humans, such as those of Cyberkinetics. The leap forward in our experiment was the use of a mechanical device to interact with the environment because the experiments on humans were only done at the level of virtual reality, meaning controlling a computer cursor, reading e-mails and the like.
The first step is the electrodes and the second step is a computer system that knows how to read the signal from the electrodes and moves the hand. The third part is the visual feedback the monkey receives. There is a delay in the system - from the moment a spike happens in the brain to the moment the arm moves - but it is the same as that which exists in a normal hand, a few hundred milliseconds.
Can the electrodes also be placed outside the brain, without surgery?
To read the signal from the neurons in the brain we insert the electrodes into the brain and read the signal from individual cells. The signal usually comes from a single cell or from a combination of several neurons at once. Another way is to open the skull and put electrodes from the outside, which is not invasive in terms of the brain (only in terms of the skull). The third thing that can be done is EEG, where you put the electrodes on the outside of the skull, but then you get a scheme of tens of thousands of neurons at the same time, and your resolution in time and space is very small.
In our system we are able to see the response of individual neurons, but it is impossible to do this with any of the other methods.
What are the problems that still remain, on the way to transferring the system to humans?
It is possible with this technology to move a figure on a computer screen in three dimensions, but brain surgery is required for this. For paralyzed people this is definitely a possible solution, but in order to bring it to a practical level in humans, you need to make the electrodes work for a long time in the brain. The electrodes stop working after six months to a year. The brain develops a kind of scab and blocks the signal. They are trying to solve the problem in creative ways, such as wrapping the electrodes in hydrogel that encourages the growth of cells towards the electrodes instead of away from them.
When do you think the first human clinical trial will be?
Next year we will already start experiments on humans in a virtual reality environment. There is a big project by DARPA, which is a special projects agency of the American army, which is trying to push the mechanical hand project in a very aggressive way: the deadline they set for a working prototype in humans is two or three years. There are other labs working on other parts of the system, such as creating a more sophisticated mechanical arm. We are working on the control. Darfa integrates everything and wants to create a complete system that can be connected to humans.
Were the monkeys mistreated during the experiment? Were they hungry or thirsty? What is their fate at the end of the study?
There is no hunger or thirst here, because in this experiment you require the co-operation of the monkey. You can't force him to do it. When he does the experiment he gets candy or fruit that he doesn't normally get and that's a pretty good incentive. As soon as he decides he no longer wants to work, he is removed from the chair. Every day the monkey works for about one to two hours.
These are lab monkeys that are probably not housed in zoo cages, but the cages are quite spacious and we house several of them in the same cage for their social life. The treatment of them is perfectly fine, and they are very strict with the criticisms on the housing of the animals and their treatment. We must give detailed reports on everything. Nothing is done lightly or without supervision. There are people here from the university and the veterinary service who come every day to take care of the animals.
When the experiment on monkeys is finished, some of them are sent to the reserve, some are sent to other laboratories and some remain in the laboratory.
Animal testing is not a simple issue, but this type of testing will ultimately improve human lives in a way that justifies the testing. From my point of view, such experiments are indeed legitimate, but it is a complicated issue.
Last question: Do you think the field has a real potential to help people?
I think this is an area with a lot of potential and we've only just begun to scratch the surface. This system will allow paralyzed or amputated people to regain independence. This is why I enjoy the research in this field so much - it is a science that helps people in their lifetime.
for further reading
46 תגובות
Roy,
1. I did not claim that it is hypocritical to discover medicines that save the lives of farm animals, but I claimed that it is hypocritical to justify experiments on animals as intended for the benefit of other animals, when it is clear that they are intended solely for the selfish benefit of the human race.
2. I actually think it is moral to kill animals for food, because it is a natural biological matter. As the cheetah preys on the antelope.
3. I believe that from a scientific-objective point of view it is difficult to say that man is a superior being than certain other animals that show awareness, emotions and suffering. It may be that in the example you gave I would prefer to save the life of the human baby, since he is of the same species as me, but I don't think there is any analytical diagnosis for which it would be more justified to save his life.
4. I think the transition you are making from a baby and a kitten to a cancer patient and a monkey is inaccurate. In the example of the baby and the puppy, these are two living beings in an equal state of health. In the example with the cancer patient, he is about to die, while the monkey being tested on is healthy. That's why it seems to me much less fair to take a healthy animal and sacrifice it for the benefit of another animal that is going to die anyway.
5. It should be emphasized that these are *experiments*. It is not as if what is done to the poor monkeys guarantees 100% the salvation of the person, and also in this respect the example you gave is not accurate. A great many monkeys have to be sacrificed (and of course it's not just about killing them, but about causing indescribable physical and mental suffering) just to have a chance, perhaps, to discover something in the future that could improve the lives of certain people. So even from this point of view it is not a balanced equation.
Roy,
When you go right, you move right.
It is evident that we are not blind to the "weaver and weaver" of our scholars.
"Patience" becomes possible when we learn what mutual "tolerance" is.
The words are really alive. And then you also see the good results.
So. Slowly and surely, we are moving towards the beautiful and the good, which we all dream and work for.
Yours is the central "color" of the universe. Haha well, let's settle for optimal... the brain, which can't
Without your minds.
And of course, you'll allow me to keep laughing.. also at myself, of course.. in a good way.
Hugin,
I appreciate your principles, and I believe they are the same as mine. I am not opposed to alternative solutions for experiments in the BH, exactly the opposite. But I am aware, after many searches in the scientific literature backed by experience in the field of biological-medical research, that there are no real alternatives at this stage (and I emphasize that at this stage only).
I certainly believe that there will be adequate alternatives to animal testing, but at this stage I still cannot see them working. Many laboratories around the world, including the one where I am researching, are working vigorously on developing facilities such as the Lab on a Chip that may in the future replace the experiments in the lab, but the devices that exist today are primitive to the extent that they do not come close to imitating even simple tissue.
That is why I repeat: if you know of another alternative, you are welcome to offer it and promote it. But until a suitable alternative is offered, I will not stop supporting animal experiments in order to save humans.
Roy,
The higher principle says, that no one heals or restores a "rupture" by creating another "rupture".
In reality, there are stages of development, and it is until the knowledge of accessibility to these metaphysical levels.
If you have difficulty seeing things in another facet and light, how is your scientific or conceptual openness different from the approaches of the ancient ancestors, or Sumerians... all kinds of things?
The common principle
Also says, that there are cogs and wheels for time, and everything in its time. That is, that if now we
Discussing the issue, it's time to see things in an additional way.
If I joined your forum, I must learn to respect your ways of thinking, become educated and filter out the concepts that no longer serve the "sublime" purpose of the nature of our universe.
At the same time, I'm not saying, stop the time!
to intervene or interfere in your actions... but of course, I can educate you and hint you where
Aspirant of the sublime nature, by the very fact of being who I am built, formed, and talented for this (geek or gifted
It is no longer important for this moment.) and a healthy, breathing living being, accustomed to good, honest, and wise influence.
The fact that you do not know me in the corridors, that you walk in them, does not mean that you are not influenced by my mind
The original to the extreme.
I'm starting to think that if you see me, maybe you and your friends will come up with a "genius" idea to do me a favor
Some kind of experiment... for... we need some kind...
So, let's put it this way, I'm a much more mature person than you... and I'm not obligated, not even to anyone, to brag
In my exploits.. my tricks.. and my contribution to all of you.. here from Israel and the peoples of the world...
Yes, I tell you, that since I am local in this world, I have a lot of experience, yes, I am local to everything that is happening, and the circumstances
The things you are talking about.
I read, carefully and scanned your responses. You deserve it too, that you have a leading place on an important website
This, do with regard to my comments in order to understand their meaning and purpose weighted with a high levy, additionally.
Well, Roy... it seems to me that in order for you to understand the essence of what I mean, I should drink to your life and your health
Beer, so.. cheers.!
And as you see or are present, I'm not exactly the type of model, but, as it should be, today
Everyone does what is best for their freedom and health, and without stepping on others...and that is the point.
Hugin,
Those who claim that there are other options should also present them.
And sometimes it is indeed not possible to gallop forward, before repairing tears in the present. Tens of millions of people are currently dying from cancer, AIDS, heart attacks, strokes and many others. These are the rifts we are currently trying to restore, among other things with the help of animal experiments.
And I will add, that sometimes it is not possible to gallop forward, before repairing the tears in the present.
Roy,
Referring to the example you gave to Nadav, in choosing between two cruel options, in blunt language,
There is always a third option..or a fourth..etc..to solve various ethical issues.
This is what we strive for and strive for, and for this purpose, we have a healthy, developing, and developed mind.
Sometimes, it is required for the seemingly most evolved person (for the issue) to empty a stuck pattern
any, and adapt himself and his mind to the general development.
Think about it.
Nadav,
When Pasteur and Koch discovered the cause of the anthrax epidemic, it was not to treat people, but animals. The methods of treatment that were invented saved the lives of millions of animals. Likewise with diseases such as rabies and others, for which all pets receive vaccinations today.
Now you come and say that we are hypocrites when we save the lives of edible animals. According to the same allegory, we are also hypocrites when we save the lives of elderly people who will die in a few years anyway, or when a doctor takes money for his work.
Anyway, let's separate two sides of killing animals:
1. Killing in order to eat animals. From this point of view, it is not moral, unless there is no other choice (and in a large part of the world today, there is still no choice not to eat meat, if only as a supplement to the diet).
2. Killing animals for research purposes. If there was another choice, surely this rabbit would have been clearly immoral. But unfortunately (and contrary to the biased and sometimes false advertisements of some of those advocating for the rights of private individuals), there is still no scientific method that will come close to the effectiveness of animal experiments in drug development and in understanding life processes.
Finally, you seem to believe that humans and animals have equal rights. Please answer me a simple question: if you were presented with a kitten and a human baby, and you were told that one of them was going to be executed, according to your choice - who would you choose?
I can only hope that the moral spark in you will make you choose the human baby for life, and the kitten for death (because maybe there is some small difference between a cat and a human after all). But then, what is your moral justification for condemning cancer patients to death, and animals to life?
Without reading the disclaimer, at this stage yet, I would read all the latest experiments being conducted
On innocent animals and human beings, the appendages of the last sacrifices, made in the name of progress.
I am full of hope, that all the lessons of understanding and intelligence that we have acquired so far, as a committed and promising human species,
will help us and all creatures, and the creatures, on earth, to find more refined and elegant solutions, which
At the expense of the weak, powerless, apparently.
For, once again, in the law of fate, which revolves and revolves, you never know who is the strongest, who is the weakest, in the round
The scenarios taking place in the worlds.
It is better, and recommended, for every enlightened person to wake up and think about his motives and actions, before the fate of the north captures him,
The good, for the greater order of the world, of the existence of the universe. And that is life.
I cannot agree with the view that the sanctity of human life exceeds that of other intelligent animals, and I do not see any moral justification for it, especially not that it comes from the hands of biologists and scientists. Both man and monkey are both living, intelligent and conscious beings, and even if a man has certain skills that a monkey doesn't have, I don't think that can justify the assumption that man's life is worth more. for whatever reason? As Amber rightly wrote, I also think that if there were any creature stronger than man, humans would not think it moral for him to experiment on them.
Regarding the claim made by Roy that experiments on animals also help animals, I think there is something hypocritical about it. It is clear that the experiments are not done for the sake of the animals (it is also likely to assume that experiments on animals for the sake of animals would never have been approved) and even if this is some kind of secondary side effect, it is null and void because these are only animals that somehow help humans such as pets or animals for food. Therefore, it is hypocritical in my opinion to say that this is done for the sake of the animals when in practice it is done solely for the benefit of man like all the other things we do. If you think about it, humans haven't done anything positive for the environment and the earth (I'm not talking about for -humanity- but for the surrounding world (except for things that are meant to repair and improve the damage they themselves caused).
In addition, I do not see how it is possible to compare the rapid killing of animals for food, which is something done by all predators in nature, and prolonged abuse that causes indescribable physical and mental suffering with the aim of "trying" to improve the quality of life, which is done by humans alone.
Dan,
Most people do not eat dogs and cats, but these animals benefit greatly from vaccinations against rabies, distemper, distemper, viral hepatitis, distemper, leptospirosis, parainfluenza, pertussis and other diseases.
So let's go step by step:
Experiments on animals save people,
Animal experiments save animals that end up being eaten by humans
Animal experiments save domestic animals
If the first point doesn't convince you and the second point doesn't either, maybe the third will make it clear that animal testing absolutely contributes to the common good.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
Roy,
Another little one, it's hard for me to resist.
"Rescuing" animals to turn them into steak is as cynical to me as hospitalizing a condemned man to death in order to hang him after he recovers.
I would replace "the rescued animals" with "the rescued economic investment".
It should be remembered that the quality of life of most animals in livestock farms is so low, so that if a plague kills them before their time (to eat), they will be spared a life of suffering.
If you want to increase the number of animals that are saved every year, just don't eat them, they won't breed, and here is a humane way to save them from that life of suffering.
The cool respondent
A normal opinion is highly valued in the mire of word combinations.
It's not a colon - it's the number eight followed by brackets that mean a bespectacled smiley. In that case you just have to write eight in the word.
The smiley above is not intended - I just wanted to close the brackets and I probably added a colon by mistake
Dave and others:
I also saw once (I think on Channel 8) that someone had a hand transplanted. They did it to a few people and usually the result was quite catastrophic and most of the people who went through the process regretted it because of the health difficulties and constant dependence on rejection suppressants, on the one hand, and poor to zero hand function, on the other hand.
I even read once that they implanted a face to someone whose face was burned.
In all these cases we are talking about an organ that was "donated" by someone who died and not an organ grown from stem cells.
Regarding growing organs from stem cells, we are still really far from that - as Roy and the cool guy pointed out. At the moment we still have difficulties when we try to get the cells to differentiate into a certain tissue and the creation of a complete organ (with many tissues with a complex internal organization) is still very far away.
Dave, are you kidding? If you say that they managed to grow an entire organ that functions completely like a leg or a hand, then we are probably not in 2008. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it if you could give me a link to the article.
for negligence,
I usually respond when I have objections, so you can't conclude from my percentage of valid comments about the percentage of articles I have objections to.
For Dan Solo, comics are two-dimensional 🙂
I didn't mean to offend.. but what we supposedly argue is a clash of different ways, each of which is moral on the one hand and immoral on the other. I advocate what Rambam used to define as the "King's Way", no one knows where it is but you can be sure that there is such a way.
DA, I noticed according to Harshala's response that I probably got the name of a provocative commenter (without nudity). It may be that I really am an extrovert sometimes, but don't be mistaken, underneath the words there is always a normal opinion. Where do I have mistakes in my world view ?
Dave,
Unfortunately, the technology you describe is decades away from us. I don't know what experiment you saw, in which a hand was transplanted into someone, but I can assure you that this hand was not made with stem cells. Labs around the world currently manage at most to create tiny pieces of functional tissue - less than a millimeter in size. The tissues in which we have had success are also very simple - mainly bone and cartilage.
So there is still a long time until the creation of the spare parts through tissue engineering and stem cells. In the meantime, they are trying to find alternative solutions such as robotics.
Excuse me, but I want to deviate for a moment from the very in-depth philosophical discussion to a completely different question: today it is possible to "produce" organs and transplant them into the bodies of people without limbs by taking stem cells and growing them on a polymer substrate of a hand, leg, etc. I remember seeing a few years ago an experiment in which a hand was transplanted to someone who lost it in a horrific chainsaw accident using stem cells. Isn't it much better than a robotic hand? Why even invest in robotics in this field when we are able to produce all the spare parts of the body we will ever need?
point:
You must take into account the fact that not all the facts are in your memory.
I actually donated money to save children in Africa (I even received a sermon for this from someone who worked with me at the time who claimed that if I have excess money I should donate it to the poor in Israel - it didn't help that I told him I also donate to them).
amber,
Animals also derive enormous benefit from experiments on other animals. As one example, thanks to these experiments, the vaccine was developed for the anthrax epidemic that used to kill over a million heads of cattle and sheep a year.
If you count how many animals are sacrificed every year in laboratories for the development of science and medicine, compared to the lives of animals that are saved every year thanks to the progress achieved, you will discover a huge difference.
As someone whose opinion is not final most of the time, I was happy to read the comments. I did not find an answer here that makes these experiments moral, but it is clear that a huge benefit grows from them that we, as the main beneficiaries of it, would not want to give up. Immoral but worthwhile and it is better to name the child by his name.
I don't remember anyone here running to save and give food to African children who are going to die of hunger. That's why this whole matter of abusing public relations and morality seems to me to be a kind of self-righteousness and piety that is very easy to connect with.
By the way, if you really want to compare, Ron and Bella also didn't die of cholera, anthrax, rabies, tuberculosis, syphilis, gonorrhea, whooping cough and tetanus. All of these were identified and almost became extinct - or vaccines were developed for them - thanks to experiments on animals.
And of course, Kasron danced a happy dance on the occasion of the birth of his son, fell and broke his head, he was breathed by means tested on animals. His scalp was sutured using sterile, self-dissolving sutures, which had been tested on animals and without which the wound would have to be reopened to extract them. The antibiotics he received to avoid infections were tested on animals. The understanding of the mechanisms of intracranial pressure that developed in him was also obtained from animal experiments. The drugs that lowered the intracranial pressure were developed in experiments on animals.
Dan,
Thalidomide has not been properly tested, and the animal studies have not been well done. In subsequent studies, the harmful effect of thalidomide on various pregnant animals was discovered. I personally found nine articles reporting its teratogenic effect in various animals.
The thalidomide failure was in humans, not in animal experiments.
to the cool guy,
The story has been completely changed by you, the real life version:
Bella did get a headache, but she did not take aspirin, because it was found in experiments that it is toxic to rats, instead of aspirin she took thalidomide, for which no suspicious findings were found in experiments on animals.
Bella's child was born without arms, so he is waiting for Dean Cayman to make a robotic prosthesis for him as well (as I imagine Dean Cayman doesn't use animals to move the mechanized hands, he just connects them directly to humans).
By the way, I haven't met you either and yet you claim that I'm a cartoon from a comic book.
To Roy
Well, there are a lot of interesting articles, all in English, maybe someone is willing to translate
negligence,
I am sure that my father would be happy to receive any article (correctly written from a scientific point of view, including reference to sources and references) on the subject of consciousness and awareness.
I can personally guarantee that if I find such an article, I will try to bring it to their attention.
The cool respondent
Chen Chen and in his honor
There seems to be a small number of topics that you don't usually argue with
Dan Solo, of course you are not a hypocrite, but you are a bit one dimensional.
Let me give you an example of what would happen without animal experiments:
Yaron and Bella (I just made it up) are a married couple, Bella is pregnant by him. Bella gets a massive headache and takes a headache pill.
Since the pill has not been tested on pregnant monkeys, its side effects are unknown.
The child born to them was born paralyzed in the motor and linguistic part of the brain due to the impact of the pill the mother took. Yaron does not feel connected to the child and divorces his wife. Bella remains a single mother to her autistic son and because she has to look after him she works at minimum wage. The payments for an autistic child are terribly high and Bella goes into overdraft and stops paying the mortgage. The executioners come and remove Bella and her paralyzed son to the street.
End of story, all of this could have been avoided by animal testing. If preventing such a case is immoral, then I don't know what is.
negligence,
You have composure
and I like it
Roy
The subject of the essence of consciousness, in my opinion, is very worthy of presentation for the sake of polemic, if only because no one today has clear answers on the subject.
Dan
Apologies if you felt an attempt to portray you as dishonest. By the way, I am also a vegetarian and not for moral reasons. But I will refine my question as to why it is better to invest in the fight against animal experiments than in eating them. Maybe because those around and close to you or those who belong to various animal rescue associations, do eat meat.
I think you prefer not to confront what is close to you and what happens every day in the whole world and focus on the exception. In my opinion there is no difference between slaughterhouses and research laboratories. Have you ever thought of fighting the local supermarket and the marketing chains that a very significant percentage of their products are based on killing animals.
And one more statement that I didn't bring up because it seemed self-evident to me, but since Dan referred to it, I want to express my agreement: of course, a lot of effort must be devoted to opening up testing methods that will save more and more experiments on animals.
This seems self-evident to me, partly because I know that a lot of effort is indeed being spent on the subject.
Dan,
The question I presented is not hypothetical at all. In biological science today it is not possible to find an alternative to animal experiments in many fields. These experiments lead to the development of drugs that determine for many people whether they will live or die. This article is also about experiments that will lead within a few years to the restoration of the ability of disabled and paralyzed people to live their lives with dignity and independence.
Stopping animal testing would mean that there was no real way to develop or test drugs. Beyond the passive death of cancer patients who would not receive modern drugs, people would also die as a result of vaccine batches not being able to be effectively tested.
We all long for the day when we recognize the sanctity of life and stop killing each other. But the way there does not go through the animals. Some of the most moral people in human history were great carnivores. Stopping animal testing will not stop wars. It will only result in more people dying in wars from infections that cannot be treated effectively.
And with this I will also end the discussion from my side.
Good Day,
Roy.
Although I have written this before, it remains true.
Have any of you ever given your mind to the question "what is morality"?
Absolute morality is a concept that exists only within the framework of religion because it brings it from an external and therefore "objective" source of authority.
The problem with this morality is that it often conflicts with our inner moral feelings and therefore we tend not to accept it at all and base ourselves only on our feelings.
The question is, therefore, where do these feelings come from and the obvious answer is that they are a product of evolution.
Tests done with monkeys also identified clues to the development of a sense of morality.
It is possible to discuss a lot the details of the process that led to the formation of morality during evolution and I have already proposed here quite a few ideas regarding this (such as by-products of altruism that is "intended" to help genetically relatives and such as certain considerations from game theory). This is not the place to go back and expand on the issue of the mechanism, but what needs to be understood is that, as mentioned, this is about something that stems from us and we are separate individuals, so it is quite possible that our feelings on the matter differ to some extent.
Despite all that our feelings are different, we must understand - I repeat myself - that they arise from us and therefore are not sacred in the religious sense of the word.
It is easy to be drawn from the fact that morality is a product of evolution into evolution-based justifications for immoral acts.
The Nazis did this blatantly. After all, evolution promotes the strong and therefore those who are strong, by definition, are just and therefore moral.
Of course this is nonsense - this is not the sense of morality that has developed in us - we are indeed different from each other, but not to such an extent that those who think this way will not be considered a psychopath. Therefore, justifying the abuse of animals or eating them using "nature" is also not honest.
If we want to discuss "objective" morality, we must think and find the common moral denominator between humans and establish it as the canonical morality according to which we will refer to the morality of actions.
It seems to me that each of us, if we look inside, will recognize that many times we cause suffering to animals and that our sense of morality actually opposes us causing this suffering.
There are situations where we have no choice. I don't think anyone would decide not to take antibiotics despite the fact that by doing so they kill billions of bacteria. In general it is only natural that on the altar of our lives we will be ready to sacrifice others and I think this is part of that common denominator.
Another part of that common denominator is, in my opinion, the desire to minimize the suffering of animals as much as possible.
Therefore, for example, I am a vegetarian. Eating for health without killing is one of the things I find possible and I personally feel better when I do so.
I am aware of the fact that this habit of mine is quite unusual but I still tend to believe that even here, my inner feeling is similar to that of others. I must reiterate - I am not talking about something with objective holiness and it is clear to me that my behavior is egoistic in the sense that my motives are simply to improve my feelings, but I really think that other behavior on the part of others is due to them lying to themselves and that the claim that this is the way of the world is just a cover-up. Several carnivores I knew became vegetarians from the moment they saw the slaughter and could no longer ignore the reality.
I'm less convinced about (limited) animal testing. Of course Shani wants to downplay them as much as possible and turn to animal experiments only after exhausting the other methods of investigation. Even then, I have a tendency (again - internally - not from any objective source) to prefer experiments on creatures without consciousness over experiments on those with consciousness and as little as possible in experiments the higher the consciousness seems to me. However, some of the experiments already enter the realm of (human) mind control and in this case it is difficult for me to resist - it still hurts me but it will hurt me more if other people die as a result of my resistance to the experiments.
In short - the issue is not simple, for those who are not religious there are no absolute answers (the religious have absolute answers that are often wrong) and the conclusions should be made through discussion and understanding between people as they strive, if possible, to discover their inner sense of morality and avoid, if possible, " Easy and evasive "solutions" in the style of "this is nature's way" or "if we already allow ourselves to eat them, why don't we also allow ourselves to make their lives miserable?"
negligence,
How do you know what questions I'm asking myself? do we know each other?
For your information, I know that killing and exploiting animals is morally wrong and also causes ecological damage, that's why I don't consume human food and I don't use products that involve killing and exploiting animals. Your disdainful attempt to portray me as a moral hypocrite is upsetting.
Roy,
This discussion between us has become circular, so I will summarize, the question you presented is hypothetical, while the moral problem I raised is real. Science, in the way of nature, seeks to take shortcuts. Regarding laboratory animals, according to my perception, there are no shortcuts and an alternative technology must be developed.
If you insist on asking, what about the lives of some people we save along the way? So my answer is that it will apparently be the price humanity will have to pay. If you are shocked by this honest answer, think, how many lives will humanity gain when we all recognize the sanctity of life and stop killing each other. I will end on this optimistic note.
What is the question here?
Roy
Why get into grammar and accuracy? Let's start with everything, mainly humans are killing again..."the H.W.R.G.I.M" animals and also cook and eat them.
It is moral or not. The moral people Dan and Anbar will ask themselves. Do you eat or not eat animals and poultry. What did the poor birds do to you that wandered in the yard that you killed and ate?
As long as this is what most of the world does there is no question of morality at all.
And it is highly desirable not to enter and create artificial differences between one type of animal and another.
In eastern countries such as Thailand, Burma, China, monkeys, dogs, and cats are also eaten. And in Israel, for some reason, the number of cats and some other wild animals decreased due to increased hunting by the foreign worker population. On the other hand, the topic on which the article revolves definitely concerns the questions of rational discernment and what is its exact definition. As we know, the question of understanding cognition branches into multiple branches. So far there is no scientific theory that manages to explain even a small part of this problem.
Scientists from all fields of science have so far tried their hand at this problem and have not succeeded. Please search the word Consciousness on Google almost forty million results. Below are two links:
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/
In this center at the University of Tucson in Arizona, annual conferences on the subject are held, scientists from various fields of science come to discuss the subject. This year a conference was held in April. There are many abstracts and references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
The wiki in the English version has a lot of material and references, enjoy.
Dan and Amber,
Both of you are avoiding the real question which is the product of the moral Torah you are proposing. When Dan says that animal experiments are unethical, he is actually saying that they should not be performed and gives animals equal rights to those of humans.
Now let's take Dan's moral Torah and put it to the test of reality: are any of you willing to trade the life of a human baby for the life of a mouse or a lab monkey?
Roy,
If there was a creature with a higher intelligence than man, I don't think as a person you would still think that the formula you proposed gives any moral indication. This is a complicated issue and if you really want to deal with it from a moral point of view, you need to stop harnessing morality for our personal benefit.
Roy,
Is "non-intelligent individual" a definition for a monkey or even other laboratory animals?
Is a creature of lower intelligence than man not entitled to consideration of his basic desire for life and freedom?
If you answered both of these questions, then the 'common good' in your opinion requires experiments on creatures closer to humans than monkeys, for example experiments on people with intellectual disability.
Dan,
Moral teachings are many and varied, and philosophers have been arguing about them for many centuries. The assertion that the good of the individual is more important than the good of the whole is a type of moral theory that is accepted in many places (and it is certainly possible that it is true, under certain limitations). The assertion that 'the good of an individual who is not rational exceeds in importance the good of the rational general, or the good of another rational individual', on the other hand, is a very different moral theory that is difficult to see the justification for without reservations.
In discussions about animal experiments, a different first question arises than the one you raise: Will the experiment benefit humans, to the extent that justifies the explanation of an animal lacking human intelligence?
If so, then it is moral enough by today's standards.
By the way, I am not denying the animal's feelings or the pain it experiences. I don't think anyone can deny that. But the difference for me is that it is an animal, and we are intelligent human beings, and I believe that it is appropriate to sacrifice a hundred or even a thousand mice for the sake of one human baby. And anyone who opposes these exchanges, his teachings cannot be moral.
Animal testing is unethical.
In discussions about animal experiments, the first question that should be asked does not usually come up: does the monkey want to participate in the experiment, does he want to live in crowded cages lit by fluorescent lamps. Does he want his head shaved, his skull drilled and electrodes inserted into his brain, which they will stick to his bare skull. Does he want to cause irreversible damage to his body? Is the monkey interested in the mental damage that will be caused to him as a result of isolation, pain, hunger, thirst, being chained without the ability to move, etc.
If we could ask the monkey such a question, we would obviously receive an unequivocal negative, since the monkey also wants freedom and quality of life like us.
The lack of regard for the question of the monkey's will, that complete cancellation of him as a living being with consciousness and desires, is just as evil and immoral as was the slavery that has passed (at least for the most part) from the world.
Meanwhile, the state of scientific understanding in this field is asymmetrical. The brain can analyze understand and adapt its reactions to external reality. The researchers, on the other hand, do not yet know a thing and a half about how the brain does this in the sense of a classical scientific theory that includes computational predictions and the like. Sometime in the future when this problem is solved there will be no need for a signal originating from such an intrusive intervention.
Besides, Sakhtein Sagi, update us here on the science website when it will be possible to buy shares... 🙂
Luckily for the researchers there are people who are paralyzed. Otherwise they would not be able to explain to the general public how the experiments help.