Jump to content

Johncr8992

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Johncr8992

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Neuroscience
  1. I understand your point iNow, and I respect it. I'm from the team that science can be used for good or bad, but what can be good is when science brings happiness to the humans, despite the real purpose. I mean, if we can find ways to regulate the tools, we can use it to help people to pursue what they want, if this is not harming nobody! Science as a tool for humans expanding themselves, but also to help them achieve happines, equilibrium and well being in a life-span
  2. Yes, its possible String. Maybe next time I'll try to make an even more neutral approach with controversial topics and issues. Well, how could I say... the desire is stronger for men...for woman it's really hard to feel anything. But men, for me, were not exactly something I really felt it was fitting in me, even after many and many years. It's just that women are what I like most, even without the sexual 'support' (the reason I labelled myself as homossexual). But then, there's why I think we should try to develop such a technology. It can be used in a harmless way, i really believe that. So, before mods come and finish this..... scientifically talking, do you think we will be alive when this type of modification of the brain and the mind comes?
  3. I was busy yesterday and saw that today, sorry guys. String, I know, and I appreciate your words. Actually, I will expose my situation briefly, even if its not related to the scientifc line of the topic and the forum. Im homossexual, and I don't have religion, my family is completely supportive and friends are nice. Even with no rejection at all, personally I prefer women, as I find them more attractive, kind and gentle. So there's the reason of my bias. That's why I told there are cases not related to prejudice that can boost a person for a change in the orientation. The byproduct of acceptance is that you should accept always your condition. But me, personally, feel this approach imprisoning like the prejudice per se, but on the other way. Of course, for now it works, as it's a life-long condition. But why is it a problem to develop a way to change that in cases like mine? And when the condition will be available, we may need to rethink ethics carefully (Probably there are some controversial scientists that can eventually find something, so I guess we can't really stop that, only slow the process). Not always is exactly prejudice or bias toward awkwardness. That's why theres a need for regulation actually. Kids and people in a difficult situation would not ble able to do a procedure like that, exactly to give the person the right of choose. But the person has to have the right.... Its different than gene-editing, for example, when you are editing a person that don't have the power of choice. Ethics are complex because new technologies are turning possible what years ago was only sci-fi. These days a scientist achieved the dead-line for an IVF embryo, 13 days, and there's discussion about how long should we allow scientists to do research on embryos.
  4. Yes, this can be the goal for many. But other people can want that change as well for different reasons (that why it's ' even' , not ' like'. There's a mention for people that want to change even in cultures that accept that very well, and with families and friends supporting them). The scenarium I stated would be like, even in a complete equal society, some don't feel ok with that and want to change. I guess is the same moral dilemma if we consider physical modifications like plastic surgery, also due to societal pressures, and that are able to be perfomed and are now normalized. The byproduct of acceptance of LGBT is that you should accept your condition, no matter what(we see this subtle on the discussion. The problem is that we need to evolve to both plenty acceptance and the right to change as well). The ideal world is having the way to live normally like that, and to have the chance to change as well. That's what I'm saying in the end. In the article, the conclusions say that this should be allowed, although regulations for kids and people with no conditions to actually make this choice. iNow, this was in the past, and it is very damaging (except maybe TMS). What I'm wondering is if the use of CRISPR, genetically changing the receptors sensitivity for some stymulus, and also the use of optogenetics, nanotechnology, and the future technologies that are coming, in general, can make a revolution in everything concepting not only sexual orientation, but mental ilnesses (such as schyzophrenia, autism, and many others), and the mind as well. Don't you believe we can really map the human brain and uncover it one day? We are still so limited on this field, but I always read hoping news about everything for the future
  5. Well, that's not so simple iNow. As previously stated, people may want that for different reasons, some very personal. Not always is because of religion or societal intolerance, as I said a few comments before. And this aspect is just an application. Once we uncover the brain mysteries, it's possible to develop such a thing, even without lots of funds, because the basic knowledge will be there. Applications can come in may shapes, good or bad (remember the atomic bomb, a terrible application, and the Eintein's main theory, with a complete different purpose),There are many polemic research going on, and personally I don't think they are going to be blocked forever. And I know there's nothing like that right now, that's why I made the question in terms of when we were going to develop the knowledge on the subject, even if it's only the knowledge of the sexual circuitry per se. Regarding the ethics problem, I found an interesting review about that. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21507740.2013.863242 ' Taken together, the preceding arguments suggest that the possible development of “high-tech conversion therapy” need not (necessarily) be a cause for alarm. First, such therapy could (and should) be regulated, not only on grounds of safety,14 but also to ensure that that children and other vulnerable parties would be protected from its coercive application. Second, it might be used to relieve profound suffering for some individuals (even if this suffering g were, in fact, due to unjust social pressures). And finally, it could be used in a process of self-creation, for those who wanted to experience alternative sexual and/or relational orientations, whether from same-sex attraction to opposite-sex attraction, opposite-sex attraction to same-sex attraction, or other possibilities in between. There's an interesting discussion about the dillemmas and here's where I based some of my ideas. Feel free to read the article, seems good and deal with some important points
  6. But I guess that's the problem. The brain is so complex that it seems there are specific circuitry that can't be compared with nothing. We need to separate and identify all of them(so the sexual circuitry must be identified, like the short term memory mechanism, the spatial memory mechanism, the visual circuitry involving from the retin to the occipital lobes). I remember reading about optogenetics going to be tested in humans, soon, as a safe way to possibly threat Parkinson. Maybe this can be a good way to safely study the human brain as well, activating or inactivating temporaly brain areas and under strict control and management, to see their effects. I guess it's our best shot at uncovering the brain. Personally I don't believe animal research on that will provide answers. It can be useful to determine safety, but there are many important differences, more noticeable in the brain and mind study than in other areas
  7. DrmDoc, thank you for the reference, I will read it! But do you know or have more articles more specifically related on the area, but involving people without gender dysphoria(just researching the orientation)? I haven't found a research from 2016, and it seems many stuff is inconclusive... Are we that far from understanding it, like, more than 20 years? About the discussion, I confess I was afraid the topic could went into ethics, as it seems to be hard to focus on touchy topics always '_' But I guess a more clever way to reask the same question is ' How far are we to identify the circuitry involved in sexual orientation? And for those who, in an equal society, still wanting to change it, how long science seems to deliver that kind of approach? ' Btw MigL got the point. We want to kill the norms towards all these questions, but the question still remains.. I just want to know the science on that...and the only way is asking. Google or the general press aren't useful (if you try a search, theres only religious stuff, press trends or few good articles, most outdated) . I mean, these academic articles dont seem to be abundant in this particular subject, so I still want to know what you people think about it, and whats going on on that subject. I've tried Pubmed, but it's not an abundant field of research
  8. I admit I don't know a lot about this concept, but what I want to know is, if there's always a key component in a system like that. I mean, something with a higher importance in the final results DmrDoc, I agree with you. But why not uncover this mystery as well? Do you think one thing exclude another? I guess all we want as humans, is reduce the randomness and have control of our destiny the most we can. I guess this procedure would be more like an application. But I confess I don't know in a really concrete way at what point is our current neuroscience research
  9. That's true. But are we doing well on the brain mapping, in general? I mean, all the times I look for paper on the area, doesn't seem to have many researchers on that specific trying of identification. In a simplistic way, I try to make correlations between the visual circuitry and the hearing circuitry, giving stimulus for the brain and generating the erotic component and by that, stimulating the autonomic system. Also, knowng the memories and thoughts can activate that circuitry in the same way. But I really don't know....are we expected to uncover that soon?
  10. I guess same way people suffer from gender identification issues, like men that are actually or feel like women, and do surgery and hormonal threatments, so there are people that, for many reasons, some of them very personal and even in an equal society with no problems, have the same desire of change. Regarding the technical aspect of that, is there a chance of science uncovering the mystery of sexual orientation, and using those tools? The last interesting paper I've read about was from Mr N'gun, and epigeneticis, although the sample was not really big to confirm his theory Note that I know this is a touchy topic, and also the ethical issues. Is like the person having the option, due to technological advances. And because it will came from an adult person with free will, if any procedures are not risky, then I still wonder at which point are we on this type of research. Mainly knowing what are the neural mechanisms behind sexual orientation And not every medical procedure is solely for disorders. There are people that do plastic surgery just for the sake of becoming more beautiful. I know this can be misused by many people, but I spoke for the people that want that in terms of personal reasons and free will. Consider, for example, the pool for a homossexual being very short, like only 10% of the population. If such procedure is available, then he could have more chances of finding a mate. But focusing only on the scientif aspect, at what extent are we in terms of changing the brain, like that?
  11. Nowadays, it seems we are in an exponenntial rate of neuroscience and science development. Last year a researcher discovered a link between epigenetics and homossexuality. Plus, we are having CRISPR being used to make real and effective results in gene editing, even with UK starting to edit human embryos. Plus, neuroscience is gaining acess to multiple methods, and even optogenetics, with the advent of CRISPR, and the breaking of the hematoencephalic barrier in the brain (using ultrasound and microbubbles) make it possible to deliver gene therapies to the whole brain tissue. Next year the first trial on head transplant is going to happen, with the russian volunteer and the italian neurosurgeon. Some neurons transplanted to patients with Parkinson almost 30 years ago are still there and working. Plus, there is the near quantum computer development to help process all the data from the brain, and the growing nanotechnology. With all that happening, can we expect to change the sexual orientation on the next 10 years, or so, by the combination of all these resources?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.