(June 24, 2011 at 8:48 am)Napoleon Wrote: I'll admit I probably was being ignorant, and I understand that it was wrong for me to say "I see no reason for using animals etc". My mistake.
I still think you're being a pedantic condescending ass over a very minute post. You say I'm arguing? LOL, you're getting on a hype because I posted something silly. Yes. You win. It was silly. Happy now?
Are you?
(June 24, 2011 at 8:48 am)Napoleon Wrote: When I said the post in question it was in direct relation to bio-engineering. I personally don't agree with controlling physically other creatures. Sure we take advantage of them all the time, but I don't think that warrants unnecessary manual control for experimentation purposes.
So we can abuse, kill and for the most part treat their flesh and bodies with the same bloody mindedness as we do with our inorganic tools, but replacing/controlling their neural nets is out of the question? Methinks someone has been gorging on the cake too much.
(June 24, 2011 at 8:48 am)Napoleon Wrote: Before you start going off on one about ONE fucking little post why don't you go and criticize every other minute post which people have made in haste. Trust me there's thousands of them, but I don't see you hanging over like a vulture waiting to pounce on them.
Caw-caw-caw!
(June 24, 2011 at 8:48 am)Napoleon Wrote: You tell me all these things which are 'reasons for control' but then can't even answer whether the reason is experimentation or not?
Because 'experimentation' is expected to prove it can be done, for any application. You can't get from concept to application without proving the fundamentals. But you knew that already. ^_^
So, asking if 'artificial neural hijacking and/or control' is for experimentation is like asking if 'genetically engineering retroviruses to hijack bacterial cells' is for 'experimentation'. Would you like some verbs with that word salad?
(June 24, 2011 at 8:48 am)Napoleon Wrote: Well surely YOU would have done the research, because it is YOU making a fucking argument. It's not doing research for me it's doing research for YOU. If you don't know whether controlling animals is for experimentation or not yourself then what right do you have to suddenly start having a go at me, for asking a question regarding your argument?
What?
I've laid out some applications, or as you would interpret, 'uses' for controlling such. I've also stated that such research would yield information on animal neural nets and constructs.
Kinda hard to accuse me of not doing the research when I'm stating the blatantly obvious. In contrast, you have yet to lay out any argument against other than "because I said so!"
Still, ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.frontiersin.org/neuroscience/...9/abstract
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...182748.htm
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~maharbiz/Sato_2008_HH.pdf
You may commence sputtering.
(June 24, 2011 at 8:48 am)Napoleon Wrote: I just asked what is the purpose of controlling animals if you're NOT experimenting on them?
Spying, control of livestock, remote tasks too dangerous for a human to undertake, blah blah, you'll just refuse to accept such and moralize over it.
