> In this study, the researchers deliberately prevented the pig brains from regaining consciousness, by using chemicals to block neurons from firing.
> And last year, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, reported that ‘mini brains’ grown in a dish had spontaneously produced human-like brain waves for the first time.
Maybe the way is not that long!
But I also don't know how we can advance in neuroscience without taking some risks. So much of knowledge and advancement requires us breaking things apart and making mistakes. Maybe the risks are worth it especially for something as important as knowledge of the brain and consciousness. In many ways, is there anything more important than that?
Sorry for the sarcasm (I'm definitely not trying to be impolite) but it was honestly my best attempt to make my point.
Would you say that you have an understanding of capitalism just by existing in a capitalist society?
Would even an economist or a stockbroker have an "understanding of capitalism"? Or do they just know how to make predictions? If they predict incorrectly, would you say that there understanding is less than they had thought?
Would you say that you have an understanding of the English language just by writing it?
Would even a linguist or a writer have an "understanding of English"? Or do they just know how to string words together based off a set of rules? If they write a bad paper/novel, would you say that there understanding is less than they thought?
If an understanding of capitalism/language is "less than they thought" is it really "understanding" necessarily?
Perhaps a dead horse has been beaten, but I think my point is clear: complex activities/systems that we do/take-part-in everyday do not imply knowledge of the fundamental elements of those activities/systems.
Our brains are highly skilled at pretending we have understanding.
> I also don't know how we can advance in neuroscience without taking some risks
I replied, because pointing out that we don't have a definition of something is unproductive in both ways: "we don't know what consciousness is? so let's drop precautions" is just as bad as "we don't know what consciousness is? so let's stop in place". It's quite understandable to me to feel that experimentation in this area are disturbing to someone who doesn't know what model of consciousness was used to ensure that nothing immoral is being done. The answers provided in the article don't really address that.
I also don't agree that consciousness is a complete mystery. We can infer criteria based on various measures of similarity, although the one criterion given in the article: "brain-wide activity that would indicate the organs could be conscious" doesn't offer any explanation as to where the criterion comes from. I take this as a failure to explain and justify that the precautions taken to eliminate the risk were enough.
Why would caution be not be demanded from a moral point of view? If morality places any value on the suffering of conscious beings, then the approach of "I don't know what will happen. Let's do this!" when conscious beings are the subject of an experiment is insane.
Is consciousness different from self-awareness? Because we're already using an experimental protocol for testing self-awareness in animals.
If you get an important western institutions to decry this research as unethical it will just happen elsewhere. This research could be very beneficial and could lead to extending the time window within which someone can be revived without becoming a vegetable after their heart stops pumping blood around. It makes sense to allow the research to continue where we at least have some control over it, especially considering that we are a long ways off from creating conscious brains in jars (or other suitable containers) which is approximately where most people seem to draw the ethics line.
For example, if I learned that these "mini brains" had semblence of human consciousness that I weren't aware of. My reaction would be 'that is interesting' instead of horrified or disturbed.
In this case, while it does touch the question of supporting cells in vitro (BTW: how long does other cell live after an organism stop breathing? can one revive it in the same way), I don't see how does it even remotely touch the topic of consciousness (or give raise to any ethical dilemmas).