They are using human neurons for this? The one substrate we can be sure of is capable of producing consciousness?
"Unimaginable suffering in a petri dish" is not something I want even a tiny chance of creating.
That's enough to say "let's not do this until we have better data".
If it turns out the second step is unknowable, that's enough to say "let's never do this".
These are subjective decisions, and some may suggest that there are gains that outweigh the potential suffering. I am currently unconvinced.
That is a Kantian, deontological approach, an ethical framework not shared by all. The utilitarian would ask how much suffering would be caused as compared to how much good it would produce.
Utilitarianism also comes with its own issues, of course. Exploitation of minorities and the disempowered, for example (including manufactured brains-in-vats, it seems).
The ethical questions raised by anomalous situations like this indicate that our historical decisions may need revising.
The unique data-point here is that we are creating these "mini brains". I'm not invoking a knee-jerk "sCiEnTiSTs pLaY g0d OMG!" reaction, but I will invoke Goldblum's Objection: "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should".
Like several others in this thread, I'm bemused that this passed bio-ethics. Drawing the line isn't entirely arbitrary, ethics panels do it every day. We already have the tools, but it seems that in this case we don't know whether to apply them, or which to apply.
I understand legal/relatable parts, but is there more to it?
Iow, put yourself into the shoes of that rat or that empty brain and tell:
- which one would you choose to be (if given no other option),
- why,
- and what you expect to sense differently.
It seems doubtful that hundreds of thousands of human neurons would lead to consciousness.
"Although the company calls its system DishBrain, the neurons are a far cry from an actual brain, Kagan says, and show no signs of consciousness."
...then again, would they be able to tell? There's not a lot of I/O in this situation.
I see this research as a red flag "hey, we are approaching something very bad" and while the flag itself may not be a problem we should heed the warning and change direction.
All this said, my understanding is that this research is in part inspired by or associated with the phenomenon of people with encephalopathy who have greatly diminished brain volumes but are still conscious. This says to me we can't reliably predict how many neurons are necessary before creating consciousness.
How can you be sure that anyone other than you is conscious? Why shouldn't animals be conscious?
That doesn't seem like a more or less difficult question than asking how I can be sure that human neurons are the substrate responsible for producing consciousness. If it turns out that the other humans I observe only seem like they're conscious, then it could also turn out that my neurons only seem to be the substrate producing my consciousness. Of course, this is just terrible epistemology.