Su La Stampa è apparso un articolo dal titolo “Chip nei neuroni per comandare computer e TV“, in cui vengono dipinte come fossero una novità la ricerce di Intel e, poi, di Toyota.

Si legge nell’articolo, infatti, che

Lo scenario da fantascienza si apre grazie alle ricerche che sta compiendo la Intel. L’azienda elettronica americana sta studiando di impiantare nel cervello umano un chip capace di trasformare le onde del nostro cervello in impulsi elettrici per dialogare con le apparecchiature elettroniche.

Ancora, nel medesimo articolo viene altresì riportato che 

Nei laboratori Toyota, gli scienziati hanno realizzato un modello di sedia a rotelle che viene controllata direttamente con il cervello.

Come fatto presente in altri post su questo blog, le ricerche sull’ibridazione uomo-macchina, sulla possibilità di comandare  apparecchi elettronici, mano robotiche e sedie a rotelle (ed in futuro anche automobili) mediante impulsi cerebrali non rappresentano una novità assoluta, ma sono il frutto di un’attività che impegna da tempo illustri esponenti del mondo accademico, tra cui, sicuramente il più noto, Kevin Warwick, Professore di Cibernetica all’Università di Reading (cfr. il progetto “Cyborg 1.0″ del 1998 e “Cyborg 2.0″ del 2002)

L’articolo de La Stampa è interessante perché ci rimarca come l’attenzione dell’industria (Intel, Toyota) sia destinata a rendere operante lo scenario finora realizzato nei laboratori delle università.

Non si tratta di fantascienza, ma di realtà non conosciuta ai più.

E’ importante ragionare su questi temi, illustrarli e pensare come affrontarli. Occorre anche in questo caso una convergenza interdisciplinare, in grado di analizzare e prevedere gli effetti sociali dell’introduzione di tali tecnologie, quando saranno su larga scala, per poi sindacare le soluzioni giuridiche con il supporto di tutte le scienze utili a comprendere quale tipo di modernizzazione vogliamo per la nostra società (mi riferisco all’etica, alla filosofia, alla sociologia e, ovviamente, alla politica ed al diritto). 

Fabio Bravo

www.fabiobravo.it

Donna Haraway’s Cyborg manifesto explores some angst about heteronormative conditioning and how “cyborg imagery can suggest a way out of the maze of dualisms.” (p. 37) She discusses issues relating to how technology is already all around us and that it has become invisible. It is almost impossible to live without some form of electronics — making us, users of these devices, cyborgs ourselves. I was intrigued by her description of these devices as ‘floating signifiers’ of ‘masculinist politics’, and yet the ability for a more feminist — or open-framework — becomes possible by subversive uses of technology that seek to include difference in the ‘masculine-cyborg’ equation. The dystopian version, that the film Metropolis (Lang, 1929) demonstrates with the feminine-marginalized attempt to penetrate the masculine-dominant realm, loses and is replaced by a fabricated cyborg. However, the invisibility of cyborg-technology today — as opposed to 1927 — renders it as a sort of chameleon which can manifest itself in many ways — like marginalized groups and the use of social media — penetrating the patriarchal domain is easier in a ‘porous’ post-industrial world.

Metropolis (1927)

The organic/machine binary is another dualism that is being broken down, as seen at Kevin Warwick’s website. Collapsing binaries is a key point for Haraway’s Cyborg manifesto and another such example she posits, dealing with evolution, explains that “teaching modern Christian creationism should be fought as a form of child abuse” (p. 30). She explains the collapse of the animal/human binary, as explored in Darwin’s The Origin of Species and how one species turns into another, which can facilitate viewing the collapse of patriarchal-dominance in the wake of a more feminine-marginalized presence. The current war in the Middle East is a good example of how the ‘total-control’ mindset of the military is losing to a marginalized-fragmented group of passionate people. Without placing any value judgments here, it is easy to see how binary relationships can be exhausted and broken. Scientists can now make visible the invisible, with the use of fractals, and see order in chaos and vise-versa. Just as Haraway’s cyborg theory allows us to consider duality as a ’spiral dance’. (I think my ipod is set on shuffle.)

In 1998, when Kevin Warwick, researcher and Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading, England, implanted a silicon chip transponder into his left arm and connected it to his nervous sy…

Kevin Warwick es un profesor de cibernética que ya se ha implantado varios dispositivos electrónicos en su cuerpo. Piensa que en un futuro no muy lejano todos llevaremos microchips implantados en nuestro organismo. Con ellos podremos explicar sin palabras nuestros sentimientos, recuerdos o ideas.(…) También aprenderemos un nuevo idioma en cuestión de horas, aumentaremos hasta límites increíbles nuestra virtud para almacenar datos en la memoria y podremos enchufarnos directamente al ordenador para bajarnos la información que necesitemos o actualizar nuestro cerebro. Warwick es profesor de cibernética de la Universidad de Reading, en Inglaterra, y la mayor pasión de su vida son los robots. Lleva más de 15 años investigando cómo compensar nuestras limitaciones y potenciar nuestras habilidades mediante el implante de un entresijo de chips. Incluso se ha utilizado a sí mismo como conejillo de indias para convertirse en protagonista de algunos de los experimentos más revolucionarios en esta área de la ciencia. De hecho, hace 11 años se convirtió en el primer hombre-máquina, implantándose un chip en el antebrazo. Era un transmisor de radiofrecuencia con el que controlaba las puertas, las luces y la temperatura del pasillo y los despachos del departamento.
Según Warwick podría ser de utilidad  para personas discapacitadas o epilépticas. Los ciberimplantes pueden contener información sobre la medicación que necesitan estos últimos, de manera que, si sufren un ataque, el médico de urgencias podrá saber qué tratamiento seguir. En 2000 se implantó en la muñeca un artefacto bastante más complicado que el anterior chip. Tenía más de un centenar de electrodos conectados a sus nervios, y con el podía controlar una mano robótica a distancia que reproducía sus movimientos. Hay otras muchas más aplicaciones; hace poco se implantó un electrodo que unía su sistema nervioso a un ordenador.

También su mujer se implantó otro microchip y lograron establecer una forma muy básica de comunicación telegráfica, de un sistema nervioso a otro. Explica que desea ser ciborg por dos motivos. Por un lado, un interés meramente científico, “quiero probar hasta dónde puede emplearse la tecnología para ayudar a las personas con discapacidades. Me gustaría que los que padecen parálisis parcial fueran capaces, por ejemplo, de conducir con el pensamiento, -explica Warwick-; por otro lado, y quizás sea esa la razón principal, se trata de darnos cuenta de lo pobres que somos los humanos mentalmente y de cómo podemos aprovechar la tecnología para mejorar nuestras habilidades cerebrales”.

Ver más en MuyInteresante

When I was at the debate last Sunday titled the Darwin Blast Off I didn’t realise the impact of Professor Warwick’s call to upgrade. At the time Pete Moores anti-dope stating it was undesirable rung truer within the younger audience. The knowledge of what Kevin Warwick is doing has drawn into focus the defects and flaws that I once thought I could muddle along with. That trail of conversation lost yesterday – oo I just wanted a quick rewind function because my colleague couldn’t quite remember where the conversation trail had started either!

The things that have happened this week?…..er ……. not telling them all ……. its too embarrassing! …….SOME EXTRA RAM WOULD GO A LONG WAY!!

They’re small, disease-infested and they’re attached to lasers…well not really but robot armies have to start somewhere.

Scientist at the University of Reading  have created a motorized robot that is connected to biological tissue.  These parts are specifically from the brains of rats.

‘According to Kevin Warwick, one of the researchers, “It’s quite funny – you get differences between the brains. This one is a bit boisterous and active, while we know another is not going to do what we want it to.” Warwick later speculates that much of the difference between rat and human brains lies in the number of neurons and not the neurons themselves. Picking on that particular statement, since I think it’s a pretty bold claim, you have to wonder about animals like whales and elephants who have one to two times the number of neurons we do. If he’s right and it’s the number of neurons that makes the difference, we are literally killing sentient beings. Of course, to the people who are killing blue whales and elephants, that doesn’t matter one bit.’

Kevin, everyone’s laughing until  their heads are severed off by a rat cyborg.  Enjoy

Lift Conference (Geneva, 25-27 February) is an opportunity to meet the people who are transforming technology. It was started by an expat in 2006 and is now attended by more than 700 people from around the world.

Once a year, Geneva becomes the converging point for everyone who is anyone in the unstoppable world of technology. Laurent Haug who founded the Lift Conference three years ago at the age of 29 has made How a young man who is patently not a geek has created an international trampoline for virtual ideas is what we tried to find out.

Haug, who is French, had no idea where to go for his university studies and ended up in Switzerland almost by accident. Now he has become one of its best ambassadors. He says that Lift is just the accelerator of the energy, innovation and creativity that are already present in this country, but points out, ruefully, that 80% of the companies are run either by foreigners or by Swiss nationals with a foreign parent.

“Switzerland’s a great place to become an entrepreneur, but for the wrong reasons” explains Haug. Because there are so many obstacles, “if you actually do succeed, you feel protected and things get easier”. According to Bruce Sterling, the best-selling sci-fi author and a regular participant in the conference, Lift has built in three years what others build in seven.

In fact, Haug shouldn’t even be in Switzerland. When he finished his studies in the business section of the University of Lausanne, the quota of work permits had dried up. Despite this, he secured jobs with a variety of companies, all of which, he points out, collapsed when he joined him, including the unsinkable Arthur Andersen. That’s when he decided to found his own.

Along with his generation, Laurent Haug had fallen head-first into the web. But he felt intuitively that there was more to technology than protocols. He observed that deep social changes were taking place and he decided to connect the people the globe over who were making them. Lift was born.

The Lift program is a captivating balance between techno-pioneers from Microsoft, Netvibes, Podtech, Creative Commons, Mozilla, Intel, etc. and people from unexpected horizons. See the on-line videos of talks by: Sister Judith Zoebelein who set up the Vatican’s progressive website, Sugata Mitra who brings $100 computers to school children in India, Jan Chipchase, the anthropologist who helps Nokia design phones for the illiterate, Kevin Warwick, the first cyber robot with web controlled implants, Eric Favre , the inventor of Nespresso capsules, Florence Devouard, the former chair of the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation (that owns Wikipedia), who will also be returning this year.

Haug gives credit to his team and partners, a community of talented individuals who are expected to bring a spark of intellectual and artistic novelty to make the three-day event interesting and memorable. The conference’s creative collaboration with Bread and Butter, the adventurous Lausanne design studio, has helped produce a strong identity and brand. As for the Advisory Board, it is composed of people with a desirable combination of vision and connections.

The theme of the Geneva conference this year is Where did the future go?, a reflection on predictions that did not materialize or that may yet prove us wrong. The man most often called the “father of the internet”, Vint Cerf, will be giving one of the key speeches.

But Lift is not just a conference, it is an experience. An on-going collaboration with artists brings a zest to the proceedings and enlivens the otherwise drab Geneva International Conference Center. This year’s edition will feature installations by Think Tank Kitchen Budapest , MIT media artist, Kelly Heaton and Nabi, a hip art center in Korea. One of the star speakers is Natalie Jeremijenko , an Australian new media artist who works in New York at the intersection of contemporary art, science, and engineering.

And now with an autumn edition of Lift Asia that takes place in South Korea – a country that Haug considers to be at the forefront of invention – the Lift community is expanding.

In the first three years of its existence, Lift is said to be surpassing other techno-ventures on account of Haug’s quiet magnetism and his ability to identify and attract the people, trends, ideas and opportunities that will impact our future. Lift is only one of his many entrepreneurial projects and it is clear that Laurent Haug is out to make a difference. But he also wants everyone to have a good time: the Lift fondue party (imagine serving 700 fondues!) on the second evening is legendary.

Full program on Lift09.

Svårslaget. Foto av milizero.com.

Joakim Lundblad valde ett bra ämne för veckans skifte så här i höstmörkret: romantik. Mina reflektioner på ämnet innebär en koppling till förra veckans ämne: det urbana rummet, om staden i förändring. Jag skrev då om virtuella resor som kan lösa upp stadens fysiska gräns.

När jag skrev texten hade jag främst arbetslivet och resandet i åtanke men man gör ju så mycket mer i en stad än arbetar. Människor möts och blir förälskade bland asfalten och husen.
Så sker även i den virtuella världen vilket filmen (“Ruanur and Yuina’s wedding”) nedan visar:

Fast nog är det något saknas där bland pixlarna. Tekniken tillåter inte riktigt att upplevelsen blir likvärdig med ett “riktigt” bröllop och bröllopsnatten för Ruanur och Yuina gissar jag vara en ganska platt affär. World of Warcraft saknar helt enkelt den emotionella bandbredden som krävs för att kunna konkurrera med verkligheten.

Emotionell bandbredd är en teknologis förmåga att förmedla känslor. När två människor möts sker den mesta av denna kommunikation med kroppen. En vardaglig gest som att ta i hand är en ritual där vi delar med oss av känslomässig information (har därför förståelse för Carl Hamiltons reaktion).

Video har relativt hög emotionell bandbredd, men email och SMS är känslomässiga stenstoder. “Det är fegt att göra slut via fax, sms eller e-post” skriver Aftonbladets dejtingexpert och vad är väl anledningen om inte den smala emotionella bandbredden. (Göra slut via fax. Går det att komma lägre på romantikskalan?)

Även om videosamtal kan vara tämligen intima står sig tekniken slätt i jämförelse med verkligheten. Som skiftesskribent undrar man då om det i framtiden kan komma teknik som överträffar verklighetens brutala nakenhet när det gäller att skicka ut signaler om vårt känslotillstånd.

En möjlig utveckling är den som forskaren Kevin Warwick och hans fru Irena provade för ett par år sedan. De opererade in chip under huden som skickade signaler från deras nervsystem, via chippen ut över internet och in i varandra.

when his wife moved her hand, he felt it. He could actually feel her movements

Framtidens vigselringar, måhända? När vi börjar växa samman så till den grad att vi t.o.m. delar nervsystem, då får man noga säga att tekniken överträffar våra nuvarande sinnens förmåga att ta emot och förmedla känslor.

Huruvida det är romantiskt eller ej lämnar jag däremot åt andra att avgöra.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om romantik, cyborg, framtiden, kärlek, teknik

Dr. C. Ben Mitchell, Associate Professor of Bioethics and Contemporary Culture at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Chicago, IL, spoke on the morning of Friday, October 10th at the “The Politics of Jesus” conference at the First Baptist Church of Durham, NC on “Remaking the Future: The Looming Challenge of Resurgent Islam and Evolving Transhumanism.”  The message was bold and bracing and included much piercing social analysis on the subjects of Islam and “trans-humanism.”

“Remaking the Future: The Looming Challenge of Resurgent Islam and Evolving Transhumanism” 

Kairos moment: the church is at a unique moment in time.

Prophet: nahbi, to effervesce, spoke for God to the people, called the people to repentance and faithfulness, spoke to the nations.

Woe to the prophet who did not speak God’s Word to the people.

1. Two Looming Signs Calling for Prophetic Ministry: First Sign, The remaking of western culture through resurgent Islam

Steyn: “Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive the twenty-first century…end of the world as we know it”

Trojan horse: Greeks slipped in as Trojans slept

A. Cycles of resurgence and decline—Islam on the rise currently, Christianity on the decline

           a. 1989-1999 Islam grew 142% in Europe, 257% in Australia

           b. France: 9.6% of population are Muslims

           c. Europe’s current Muslim population of 20 million will likely double by 2025

What will it mean for Britain to become a Muslim nation?

1. Distinctive groups of Muslims in Britain (Kairos Journal scholar’s classing)

a. “Participatory Assimilationists” (10% of Muslims) condemn terror attacks, claim that Islamic terrorists are misrepresenting Islam, participate in broader culture, don’t want Sharia Law, claim to be British first, Muslim second

b. “Separatist Radicals” (8.5% of Muslims) might participate in terror strikes, support terror strikes, call for society to follow Sharia law, loyal only to the community, apostates of the faith are legitimate targets

c. “Participatory Activists” (40% of Muslims) publicly condemn terror attacks, attribute blame for attacks on West, want some Sharia law, exert Islamic influence in state schools, lobby for Islamic programming on tv, urge Muslims to vote, suspicious of UK Jews, emphasize identity as British and Muslims, avoid issue of apostates

i. Impact of this group: establish mosques, influence education, key institutions, culture, active missionaries, form alliances with non-Muslims groups that can assist the Islamic cause, Islamic banking, encourage revisionist history; on the march

                        2. Mosque Construction

                                    a. In Britain: 18 in 1966; 1000 in 2008

                                    b. In US: more than 1000 since 1980

c. Does this present a threat—or an opportunity?  Maybe both?

            B. Population Decline

                        1. Europe is dying

a. 2.1 children are required to replace a husband and wife; Italy’s rate: 1.33, Spain: 1.3, Greece: 1.29, UK: 1.74, Germany: 1.37

b. Presumption nowadays: once you marry, you wait to have children; the opposite of the historic paradigm, for a pro-choice environment has affected us all, whether we know it or now

c. Philip Longman: poses question, how we will replace our cultures?  The Empty Cradle

C. Myths About Islam

1.       The Qur’an and the Bible are equally violent

2.      Islam respects religious liberty

3.      Islam respects and honors women

4.      Islam forbids the killing of the innocent

a.      Muhammad is a warrior in the historic documents

5.      Christianity and Islam spread the same way

6.      The problem today is religious fundamentalism

7.      All Muslims are equally devout

D. Prophetic Ministry

1.       Avoid stereotyping Muslims—there are moderate Muslims (as seen above)

2.      Evangelize Muslims

3.      Support democratization of Muslim countries

4.      Resist establishment of Sharia law in non-Muslim countries

5.      Call for “reciprocity”—churches in Muslim areas

6.      Advocate for the oppressed and persecuted church

7.      Advocate for immigration reform that “welcomes the stranger,” but does not undermine social cohesion

8.     Establish centers for Islamic studies in evangelical schools and seminaries

Read Herb London, head of Hudson Institute (Jewish): “The antidote to the march of Islam is re-Christianizing Europe through a Great Awakening.”

II. Two Looming Signs Calling for Prophetic Ministry: Second Sign, Remaking Humanity Through Evolving Transhumanism

A. Cultural Touchpoints

a. President Bush in 2006: “Human life is a gift from our Creator—and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale.”

            b. He was excoriated for bringing up human-animal hybrids

c. In 2003, Panos Zavos announced the creation of 200 cow-human hybrids

            d. In August 2003, Shanghai scientists had created rabbit-human embryos

e. In August 2006, Ian Wilmut announced plans to create rabbit-human embryos and implant them in the human womb

f. Bill currently in congress: Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2008—forbids creation of human-animal hybrid; has not been passed yet and may not be

g. We are now running experiments on human biological enhancement

            1. What does it mean to be married for 450 years?

B. Cultural Movements

The Transhumanist movement is a serious philosophical movement: affirms possibility and desirability of fundamentally altering the human condition for the greatest possible outcome in order that we might live longer, happier, smarter, with more control over our lives

            a. Emergent techonologies: genetic engineering, cryonics

b. Kevin Warwick: “I was born human.  But this was an accident of fate…I believe it’s something we have the power to change.”

c. Ray Kurzweil: soon “We will be software, not hardware.” The Age of Spiritual Machines; The Singularity Is Near

d. Mitchell: am I against living longer, running faster (actually, I’d like just to run!), and so on?  No!  But humans have a history of the abuse of technology.

e. Katherine Hailes: “The age of the human is drawing to a close.” How We Became Posthuman

f. Shared concerns: quest for good life, longing for immortality, relief of suffering, technological impulse (dominion over creation, whether a paper clip or a shovel or a computer)

B. Worries about Transhumanism

            1. Nietzschean penchant for omnipotence

i. CS Lewis: “power over nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with nature as its instrument”

                        2. Technological triumphalism

i. Warwick: “The opportunity for me to become a cyborg is extremely exciting.”

3. Myopia (near-sightedness) about allocation of benefits of technology

i. Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere—people in the global South don’t even have access to medicine

                        4. Unwillingness of some to dialogue

                                    i. The “Luddite” conversation stopper

                        5. Cultural Captivity

                                    i. Consumerism—I want what I want when I want it

                                    ii. Technophilia—Bigger and faster is necessarily better.

                                    iii. Baby boom fear of aging/death

III. Prophetic Ministry

1.       Reclaim incarnation (God became flesh) and biblical anthropology

2.      Inhabit holistic Christian worldview

3.      Rethink the educational ministry of the Church to include science and ethics—the church only does prayer (and maybe prayer breakfasts); this should not be

4.      Celebrate our humanity—we were creatures before we were Christians—we need young Christians to enter the field of science and reclaim it for Christ!

5.      Claim biotechnology for the human good

6.      Advocate for sound bio-policy

Closing thoughts: Wilberforce did great things, but he was primarily a faithful Christian and church member.  He sat under the preaching of Henry Venn, a sound preacher who advocated for the public vaccination of children, which was a great good.  We need to recommit ourselves to the God who has made us and called us to be a prophetic force for good in the world.  Christ is our prophet, priest, and king, and He will oversee all that we do in His name.  

Dialogare con una macchina, nel prossimo futuro, non potrebbe essere solo pura fantascienza. Domenica prossima potremmo avere risposte concrete a questo interrogativo. Sei software cercheranno di dialogare e rispondere agli inquisitori secondo forme “pseudoumane”.

Una macchina può pensare? E’ la domanda che circa mezzo secolo fa si poneva il matematico Alan Turing. Fino ad ora nessun computer ha superato il suo test, un gioco dell’imitazione a tre in cui il computer deve saper fornire risposte indistinguibili da quelle di un uomo.

Domenica prossima i sei software, che hanno nomi tipicamente umani, Alice, Brother Jerome, Elbot, Eugene Goostman, Jabberwacky and Ultra Hal, dovranno cercare di confondersi e sembrare degli uomini. L’ultima vittoria dell’intelligenza artificiale sull’uomo, in termini mediatici, risale alla sconfitta del campione di scacchi Kasparov per mano del Deep Blue dell’IBM nel 1996/97. Le macchine potranno competere con noi anche sulla dialettica?

Foto | Flickr

World’s first ever Cyborg, Professor Kevin Warwick, Department of Cybernetics, University of Reading, is just six to eight years away from another implant, this time a brain implant.

This experiment would be in the area of bi-directional communication. Currently the investigation process is on for brain-computer links, in particular an implant into the brain, which acts bi-directionally.

As Warwick tells, “This probably will mean retraining neurons within the brain to alter their basic functioning. The main reason here would be for bi-directional communication. Clearly this is different to space projects. I believe it is far more important as it really changes what it means to be human.”

In the year 1998, Professor Kevin Warwick and his team at the department of Cybernetics, University of Reading had underwent an operation to surgically implant a silicon chip transponder in his forearm that allowed a computer to monitor him as he moved through halls and offices of the Department of Cybernetics using a unique identifying signal emitted by the implanted chip and also allowed him to operate doors, lights, heaters and other computers without lifting a finger.

The second phase of the experiment Project Cyborg 2.0 got underway in March 2002 with an aim of studying how a new implant could send signals back and forth between Warwick’s nervous system and a computer.

His team is presently busy with the rat brain project, a biological robot controlled by a blob of rat brain created by the scientists. The project is at an interesting turn as it moves on to study memories vis-à-vis brain.

“We are now about to investigate how memories manifest themselves in the brain – hopefully this will give us some leverage in dealing with Alzheimer’s disease,” shares Warwick.

The project entails a wheeled machine wirelessly linked to a bundle of neurons kept at body temperature in a sterile cabinet while signals from the “brain” allow the robot to steer left or right to avoid objects in its path.

Worlds first Cyborg will get a brain implant next – CIOL News Reports.

Last Friday, the 6th of June, was the last day of the Cheltenham Festival of Science, held annually in Cheltenham, in Britain. It’s been going for a few years now, and is pretty much like the annual Festival of Literature held in the same town every October, with the obvious difference that it’s about science, while the other festival is about literature. Both feature leading figures in their respective areas talking about their subject, and particularly their latest work, or the latest issue to grab the national attention and be debated. In the case of the Festival of Literature, it’s obviously writers discussing their latest book, while in the Festival of Science it tends to be scientists talking about the latest issue in science.

Scientists and Writers at the Cheltenham Festival

As it’s an event aimed at getting the general public involved with science and more aware of contemporary research and issues, the scientists appearing at the Festival tend also to be the authors of books on popular science, or the hosts or producers of TV and radio programmes on science. For example, this year one of the guests at the Festival was Dr. Robert Winston, a fertility expert and the presenter of a number of science and factual programmes, such as Walking with Cavemen and The Story of God. Walking with Cavemen was a series the Beeb screened a few years ago now about human evolution, tracing the origins of the human species from its earliest ancestors up to the emergence of modern humans, Homo Sapiens, on the plains of Africa. The Story of God, on the other hand, was a straightforward history of the various religious faiths around the world. While he definitely isn’t a Creationist – the Story of God showed him debating Creationism in a radio studio in America – Winston is an observant Jew. There was a bit in the series where he appeared to leave the militant atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins momentarily speechless. Dawkins had just declared that he really couldn’t understand how any intelligent person could possibly believe in religion, to which Winston simply said quietly, ‘I believe it.’ Dawkins looked amazed, and said to him, ‘You do?’

‘Yes,’ said Winston, ‘I honestly do.’ Winston then went on a few months after the series and the publication of Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, to criticise Dawkins publicly at a festival of science in Edinburgh for trying to associate atheism with science, politely stating that while he respected Dawkins personally, he thought he was profoundly wrong to do so. The title of Winston’s speech even suggested that in his attempt to connect science to atheism, Dawkins was deluded.

Other speakers who have appeared at the Festival in the past have included the australian astronomer, Duncan Steele, and the Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik, who were on a panel with a number of other scientists talking about the dangers of collision from asteroids; the physicist Jim al-Khalili, giving a brief introduction to Quantum physics to coincide with his book, Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed, and the mathematician Simon Singh talking about codes and ciphers through history. It can be a really great, fascinating, fun event, depending on who’s speaking at the Festival and your particular interest in science. It’s run in association with a hands-on science centre in Cardiff, so there’s a series of scientific games and fun experiments in the main hall, and some of the events and speakers are definitely not solemn, dry lectures. They had one tent set up as an arena for Robot Wars one year when that was on British TV.

Problems of Presenting Atheism as Science

While it’s a great event generally, I have some real qualms about the very reductionist materialism preached by some of the speakers. While the vast majority of the speakers and events at the Festival don’t touch on religion, some of the scientists and writers who have appeared have very strong atheist views which they articulate as part of their general views on science. Richard Dawkins is one such guest at the Festival who talks about science in terms of a general atheist worldview. Other atheist scientists who also view science and atheism as strongly linked, and are very hostile to religion, who have appeared at the Festival of Science include Steven Pinker and the philosopher, A.C. Grayling.

The Christian Origins of Experimental Science

Now modern experimental science first emerged in Europe through the belief of medieval and Renaissance Christian natural philosophers that nature was available to rational study as, being created and established through God’s divine and transcendent Wisdom, it was therefore itself rational and ordered. These early scientists believed that nature and Scripture comprised two books, which together revealed God’s glory, although while nature demonstrated the existence of God, it could never give as full a revelation of God as Scripture. The pioneering scientists of the Renaissance – Copernicus, Galileo, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton were all devoutly religious, even if, like Newton, they held unorthodox religious views. Boyle, for example, in his book The Christian Virtuoso, made it very clear that he believed, in contrast to Rene Descartes, that the universe clearly showed evidence for teleology, and pointed very much to the existence of God. He also endowed a series of lectures to be preached annually to prove the existence of the Almighty. All this is often forgotten in the contemporary view of the history of science, which tends to view it in very Positivist terms as an intellectual endeavour opposed to religious belief, and which emerged to challenge religion and the supernatural to replace it with rationality and materialism.

Presenting the Christian Origins of Science During the Festival, and Great Resources on Christianity and Science

I’d like to challenge that perception of science and its history. I’d like to hire a church hall or similar venue one day around the time of the Festival to present a lecture on the history of science, showing that it was based very much on the Christian conception of an ordered nature established by the divine reason. I’d also like to make the point that, contrary to the views expounded by Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett and other atheist scientists and philosophers, science is not intrinsically atheistic, and there is much in science that points away from atheism and towards the existence of God. It’s just an idea, and really should be done by someone like the awesome Bede, who’s a historian of science and whose website, Bede’s Library and blog, Bede’s Journal, are superb resources for science and Christian faith. At the moment it’s just an idea, but I think, given the intense debate between science, religion and atheism at the moment, it needs to be done, and the case clearly presented for the Christian creation of and support for science. I also thoroughly recommend the ‘Scientists of Christian Faith’ project over at J.P. Holding’s awesome Tekton Apologetics site as another great resource giving brief biographies and descriptions of the lives and work of numerous scientists, including the above founders of this part of the human project to understand the world, who are also Christians, and whose work often reflects and strengthens their Christian beliefs.

Problem of Distinguishing Scientific Fact and Personal Views of Scientists

One other point needs to be made about some of the scientific views presented as the latest research, or as predictions of what will occur in the future, at science festivals and in the press generally. Scientific views in particular areas are changing all the time as new evidence emerges and old evidence re-examined. Moreover, scientists in their interpretation of particular facts aren’t immune from the influence of their own personal beliefs and general cultural attitudes. Some philosophers of science have stated that there are no ‘brute facts’ in science, that is, no facts whose meaning is immediately self-evident, independent of other facts. All scientific facts are interpreted through a network of related scientific facts and models by a human mind. This means that while most of the material and research presented as scientific fact at such festivals can be trusted as well-established science, some of it should also be treated with a certain scepticism as the researcher’s own personal opinions. Thus, Jim al-Khalili’s treatment of Quantum physics in his book will be a more or less trustworthy account of the main ideas and debates in that science, even if there is also considerable differences of opinion between scientists on the wider philosophical implications of the theory. However, the view presented by one scientist, the author of the book, The End of Time, that time does not exist and is illusory, while cogently argued and intellectually respectable, is an extreme view that is far less likely to be objectively true.

Commercial Pressure and Exaggerated Scientific Claims

Moreover, some of the descriptions of the progress made and what can be expected in particular areas of science in years to come have struck me as being more like a commercial advertisement than an impartial description of the current state of that science. Scientific research can be expensive, and the universities and companies engaged in it depend on government funding and private investment for their financial support. Thus it appears to me that there’s a financial incentive for some scientists to exaggerate publicly the results they expect of their research, while being much more cautious in private. Consciousness research is a good example. In a piece published in the British newspaper, The Guardian, just before the Millennium, various scientists in Britain and America were interviewed giving their views on what science would discover in the future. This included a couple of neurologists declaring that the solution to the problem of consciousness would be found, and that it would be much simpler than previously considered. Yet philosophers have also noted that despite the optimism of some materialist philosophers and neurologists, like Daniel C. Dennett, the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness has not been solved and many materialist philosophers themselves do not consider that a materialist solution will be easily found.

Differing Views on the Development of Intelligence in Robots

This tendency for scientists to exaggerate the results they expect of their particular branch of science can also be seen in some of the statements by AI researchers developing robots. The British cyberneticist, Kevin Warwick, of the University of Reading very strongly feels that AI will be a genuine reality, and that we are on the verge of creating truly intelligent, autonomous machines. He’s extremely pessimistic about this, however, arguing that such robots will be a very real threat to humanity. In the first chapter of his 1997 book, March of the Machines: Why the New Race of Robots will Rule the World, he paints a grim picture of the fate of humanity fifty years in the future. By 2050, according to the book, if current progress in robotics continues, the robots will have taken over and what remains of humanity will be reduced to complete servitude, farmed and controlled by the machines.

The robotics experts Mark Tilden and Dave Hrynkiw, who specialise in developing very simple robots that can be built by the amateur enthusiast at home, are far more sceptical about the development of AI and the potential for robots to become truly autonomous, intelligent machines. In his preface to their book Junkbots, Bugbots & Bots on Wheels: Building Simple Robots with BEAM Technology, Tilden gives an hilarious account of his attempt to create a robot butler, an excessively complicated machine that gradually proved to be a complete failure until it was finally outwitted by his pet cat. He describes coming home one day to find it spinning uselessly in the middle of the carpet. When it came out to vacuum, the cat had learned to block it with play furniture, until the machine thought it was completely surrounded and so was reduced to spinning helplessly, leaving the cat to go back sleeping in peace. After seeing his five thousand dollar robot beaten by his cat, Tilden switched it off, and turned instead to developing far simpler, much less intelligent, but far more reliable machines. Regarding the problems in developing truly conscious machines, he states

‘Alas, unlike in the movies, and despite all wishes to the contrary, the ability to make a conscious robot creature doesn’t happen by just throwing electronic bits together. Even the best minds and budgets haven’t managed it outside the usual nonclassroom biology. True, sophisticated computer characters have been made that appear to have some aspects of life (they’re a prime seller of the video game market), but their responses are limited. Even real goldfish show more life than the best screensavers made in their image. However, the general mass-belief in “automatic consciousness” is a problem for robotics researchers because popular media keeps implying it’s not a problem.’ 1

Now Warwick, as an expert in his field, clearly knows what he’s talking about and it would be unwise not to pay attention to his warnings, particularly as arms companies have developed a battlefield robot, which some observers fear is a real threat to human life and the continued existence of the human species. On the other hand, from what Tilden and Hrynkiw say, it’s clear that the machine aren’t going to take over soon, and that the human race needn’t fear an army of robots all looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger rising up against it any time soon.

Pressures from Funding and Exaggerated Claims of Future Results

Beyond this particular debate in robotics, my point is that in certain areas of science scientific opinion may be very divided, and present a far different picture from the one an individual scientist may wish to promote. Undoubtedly the scientists working in particular areas genuinely believe that their research will yield important results, but in their public statements commercial and financial pressures may lead them to play down any difficulties or problems, which may be considerable, that they also face. After all, government funding bodies aware of the need to give the public value for the tax money they’re considering spending, banks, and entrepreneurs looking for a useful and commercially viable product that will give a good, reliable return on their investment, are going to be reluctant to put money into a project in which the leading researchers believe that it might yield some interesting results, eventually, but it’ll be several decades, if at all. Hence, in my view, the various confident predictions by materialist neurologists that the problem of consciousness is about to be explained and that very shortly mind will be found to equal brain. They undoubtedly believe it, but few people and organisations are going to fund their research if they present a much more sober, far less confident picture of future progress.

Confusion of Atheism and Science in Popular Science Writing

Tilden’s view that popular science has created false expectations is also shared by the Christian writers Paul Marston and Roger Forster, who have backgrounds in science and mathematics. They comment that much of the popular science in bookshops around Britain, especially that written by Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Steven Pinker and John Gribbin, ‘is metaphysics not ‘science’, popular or otherwise, and their books are full of extended analogy and parables’ to the point where they suggest that ‘we might call them ‘Penpops Fables’ since Penguin ‘popular science’, books are especially full of them’. 2 Dawkins in particular has been criticised for confusing his own ideas with generally accepted, good science, and presenting them as the view of science in general. Fraser Watts, a former President of the British Psychological Society and Starbridge Lecturer in Science and Religion at Cambridge, stated that Dawkins

‘purports to be speaking for the whole of science as though all scientists think what he thinks, but they don’t … I think there is undoubtedly truth in Darwin’s theory of evolution, but it is not a complete explanation of everything as Dawkins makes out – and he muddles up what is validly established science and the ideas he had in the bath last night, and he presents this as though it is a seamless robe and it is actually quite misleading.’ 3

Conclusion: Some Scientific Statements Need To Be Viewed with Scepticism

Thus, there are very good reasons, such as the commercial pressures on professional science writers and their own, personal ideological and professional biases, why some of the statements about the nature of science and state of research in popular science should be taken with a degree of scepticism. The whole point of science is that its findings and statements can be subjected to critical testing and scrutiny, and that critique should also include atheist metaphysics when this is presented as an intrinsic part of science itself.

Notes

1. Tilden, M., and Hrynkiw, D., Junkbots, Bugbots & Bots on Wheels: Building Simple Robots with BEAM Technology (New York, McGraw-Hill/Osborne 2002), pp. XIV-XV.

2. Forster, R., and Marsden, P., Reason, Science & Faith (Crowborough, Monarch 1999), pp. 42-3.

3. Fraser Watts, in the Christian Students in Science video Encounter, cited in Forster and Marsden, Reason, Science and Faith, p. 53.

Who would connect himself (physically) to the internet and his wife?

Kevin Warwick had got a few new implants, and unlike the old ones these were connected to a computer and, indirectly, the internet. This was one step towards creating his biological brain that he’s now got in his laboratory.

One of his earlier experiments was to connect his and his wifes’ neural systems, so they could feel each others feelings. At least some of them. That’s not something I would do, what if we become like the Borg in Star Trek?. This is the first step to sharing thoughts and feelings. In about 7-8 years he plans on getting an implant in his brain.

Let’s wait and see what the future brings us, and I hope to be part of it. Probably not getting an implant in my brain, but more likely a screen in my arm and perhaps some other implant, if I get the chance to do so