Radiation, which refers to emissions of light or particles, is a type of energy transfer. Radiation takes place at any given moment in the environment or the body. Among sources of radiation to which humans are exposed daily are sun rays, radio waves coming from devices such as mobile phones and TV sets, appliances such as ovens or irons that emit heat, and medical machines such as ultrasounds. The radiation emitted from devices and machines do not cause ionization. Ionizing radiation is made up of high-energy wavelengths or particles, and this is the kind of radiation we get from x-ray, CT, and nuclear imaging. This is used to penetrate tissue to reveal the body’s internal organs and structures. Ionizing radiation can damage DNA, and when our cells cannot fully repair the damage, this may result in DNA mutations.[1] The radiation which poses real danger to humans and has the power to ionize is when radioactive—or unstable—atoms decay and emit alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) rays.

The earth, air, water, and all living things are more or less radioactive because radioactive atoms are everywhere. The average person is annually exposed to radiation levels of 2.6 – 10 mSv (millisievert), which is not that alarming. The maximum limit recommended for people exposed to radiation for occupational reasons is 100 mSv. The lungs of a person who smokes one pack of cigarettes a day are exposed to an annual radiation of 106 mSv.

How can we protect ourselves?

It is recommended by the World Health Organization that children younger than 16 should not use mobile phones; when they do, their calls should not exceed 10 minutes. When purchasing devices, you should also take into account its SAR (Specific Absorption Rate). Prefer devices with a SAR<1 W/kg. It is also recommended to unplug electrical devices when you are not using them, to keep electrical appliances as far away from your head as possible, use the hairdryer for short periods and in intervals, and to avoid using mobile phones for long conversations (or use headphones!).

It’s also worth reconsidering whether using radiation-emitting devices such as mammography, x-rays, or ultrasounds are absolutely necessary. In 2010, the British Department of Health and Social Care banned using tomography for screening purposes. Another study in the US found that one in ten people are exposed to high levels of radiation because of medical tests.

The average radiation rates (mSv) a person was exposed to during use of certain imaging devices is as follows:

Researchers also found that employees in nuclear power plants were exposed to amounts of radiation that far exceeded allowable amounts.

Beware of radon

The natural radiation humans are exposed to most is the gas radon. Some matter with radioactive atoms such as uranium and thorium – both present in the earth since its birth – emit radon, which seeps through the earth and into the walls of houses and through gaps in plumbing. It is recommended to air houses at least 15 minutes every 24 hours as the only way to be protected from radon.

The resistance of living things

Creatures have been created with different forms of resistance to the elements, including radiation. For example, dogs have a lower resistance than humans, while many other creatures such as rabbits, tortoises, and fruit flies have a higher resistance. And then there is the cockroach, which can survive even a nuclear attack. The lethal radiation dose for cockroaches is an incredible 670- 1000 Sv, whereas it is 6-8 Sv for humans.

Scorpions are also much more radiation-resistant than humans. They can withstand up to 1500 Sv, an amount that is 250 times the maximum dose humans can take. Studies have found a correlation between the strength of a scorpion’s venom and their resistance to radiation. The greater the amount of venom, the greater the resistance they have. The presence of the neural transmitter serotonin supports this view.

Are humans radioactive too?

Humans contain trace amounts of radioactive atoms, namely uranium (²³⁸U), potassium (⁴⁰K), and carbon (¹⁴C). An 80 kg human has natural radiation of 8000 becquerel every second, which is equal to 100Bq per kilogram. This amount is not high enough to cause any worry. The human body has 40 trillion cells on average, and every cell has about 100 trillion atoms. The proportion of the radiating atoms in the body is about 8000/4×10²¹.

Precision protection

The radioactive atoms in the body with the highest probability for carcinogenic effects are potassium (⁴⁰K) and carbon (¹⁴C) atoms. The decomposition that leads to cancer stems from mutations in genes, but the molecules that are the building blocks of genes do not have potassium atoms. The likelihood that a cell gets harmed is very low: it is necessary that the particles emitted from the radioactive potassium atom crash into the DNA molecule and harm it, which is as unlikely as threading a needle when blindfolded. The DNA is precisely protected inside the nucleus located at the center of the cell. If we consider the fact that the average diameter of a cell is about 10 microns (1 micron is one-thousandth of a millimeter), we can better appreciate how little space DNA occupies.

Radiocarbon atoms (¹⁴C), on the other hand, might be present in DNA molecules, and they are more dangerous because the emitted particles are more likely to find the target despite having weaker radioactive properties than potassium. A radioactive carbon atom turns into a nitrogen (¹⁴N) atom and may thus cause a chemical change in the DNA. In other words, the carbon atom is possibly to blame for the unexpected development of cancer.

The likelihood of harmful radioactive particles hitting a person’s DNA is low, and the protective system provided for it lowers the likelihood of developing cancer even more. New DNA molecules that form during DNA coupling are repeatedly checked by inspector enzymes. If there is an error, it is detected and then corrected. The broken code is taken out to be replaced with the correct version. Meanwhile, all these steps are checked by other enzymes assigned to the task. More errors might be made in the newly produced DNA molecule because of external factors. Yet ribosomes in the cell start to produce repair enzymes, as per the instructions from the DNA.

When thinking about all the protective factors that have been coded into the DNA for our survival against the 8000 radioactive activities that occur in our body every second, one cannot help but feel awe for the infinite mercy and wisdom that operate in our lives.

References

• http://time.com/5069317/california-mobile-phone-radiation/
• https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/radiation-risk-from-medical-imaging
• Choppin, G. et al., Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology, 1995.
• www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/radiation-risk-from-medical-imaging

Despite advances in technology, computers still can’t come close to the power of the world’s most remarkable computer – the human brain.

Computing machines have seen three phases: the tabulating phase, the programmable phase, and now the new era of computing, the cognitive phase [1]. Tabulating machines performed a fixed task, whereas programmable machines could be reprogrammed to execute different tasks without any change in the hardware. Cognitive machines, however, promise learning and reasoning capabilities.

The possibility of such machines raises the question: is cognition the ultimate test for conscious existence? What do we know about cognition? How do we define intelligence? The questions go on and on. One thing, however, everyone seems to agree with is the fact that understanding the mechanism of human cognition is the key to developing advanced artificial intelligence, and cognitive machines.

Cognitive machines have the ability to learn, and they employ artificial intelligence to “reason.” Artificial intelligence is defined as, “The science of making machines do things that would require intelligence if done by men” [2]. The good news is that cognitive computing is no longer an esoteric pursuit of some futurists. It is, and has been, essential for the operation of many big-data driven processes. The 21st century has been flooded with data coming from almost every aspect of our lives. Technology has made it possible to generate data at an exponential rate. Temperature distribution throughout our buildings, the number of people diagnosed with cancer in the last six months, real-time changes in customer preferences, ethnic profiles of college applicants, and the top three words trending in online conversations at this very moment, are some examples of the kind of data available today.

As the amount of data generated increases, it also becomes harder and harder to process and make sense of the data collected. Our “greedy and ambitious” human nature does not want to waste, and it wants to use every bit of available data. This is where it becomes imperative to have a computing machine that goes beyond performing pre-programmed tasks and learns as it goes, without human interference. For this kind of computing, we need cognition.

The biggest challenge in imitating human cognition is to understand how cognition happens in the brain. It is obviously beyond our ability to monitor such activity that is constantly taking place in our brains, let alone recreating such marvels in the first place. Nevertheless, it will be a great achievement if we can manage to somewhat imitate human cognition, even partially. It would open a whole new era in terms of what can be achieved from a computing standpoint. For instance, the entire curriculum of a college degree can be processed by a cognitive machine in a fraction of a second; such machine can digest the whole of medical literature in a short period of time, provide human doctors with second opinions on their diagnoses [3].

Despite the fact that there have been substantial improvements in designing “intelligent” computing machines, mimicking the hardware of the human brain and simulating its decision-making processes, have posed three fundamental challenges: a hardware with comparable processing power and memory, a software algorithm to implement intelligent behavior, and the necessity of both being self-adapting and self-improving.

First of all, human intelligence has not been fully characterized – its capabilities and limitations are still unknown. This lack of knowledge makes it difficult, and perhaps even impossible, to reduce such intelligence to smaller, or simpler, modules. Therefore, we don’t have a good handle on how to mimic the human brain in a behavioral sense.

The second major problem is that we are still far away from having the hardware on which our “intelligence” software could run. Implementing intelligence in conventional computing machines, evidently, seems to be a futile undertaking. Programmable machines are no match for human brains; even the fastest supercomputers, taking advantage of thousands of processors, is able to mimic just one percent of one second worth of human brain activity-and even that takes 40 minutes [4]. Therefore, cognitive computing machines must incorporate different hardware architecture from conventional computers to achieve cognition comparable to humans. IBM’s SyNAPSE chip is one example of hardware inspired by the brain, and it has the potential to carry out the required, intense computations.

Lastly, the human brain and its cognitive power are constantly changing. Depending on various factors and experiences, our brains can improve or deteriorate; this is also true of our cognitive power. However, such improvement or deterioration could be in the form of a change in the physical structure or the amount of capacity utilized [5]. Such dynamic flexibility, also called Brain Plasticity [6], is essential to our intelligence. At this time, no self-evolving computing hardware has been worked out. However, promising developments have been reported with respect to cognitive computing machines that can learn – that is, they can make deductions and reach conclusions that are not preprogrammed.

Along the way, human supervision will be the ultimate guide in perfecting such imitation. Therefore, human cognition, taken for granted in our daily lives, remains to be the final frontier for our thousands-years long technological journey. Once again, the creation set the boundaries for human development.

Adem G. Aydin holds a Phd degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering. He works as an engineer scientist at IBM.

References

[1] Virginia Rometty, 2013, http://smarterplanet.tumblr.com/post/32816006311/i-b-m-chief-on-watson-cognitive-computing-and-her

[2] Marvin Minsky, 1968, http://www.akri.org/ai/defs.htm

[3] “WellPoint and IBM Announce Agreement to Put Watson to Work in Health Care”, http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/35402.wss

[4] “Largest neuronal network simulation achieved using K computer” http://www.riken.jp/en/pr/press/2013/20130802_1/

[5] William James, The Principles of Psychology

[6] Bryan Kolb and Ian Q. Whishaw, Brain Plasticity and Behavior, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 49: 43-64

Robots that “care” are no longer merely science fiction …

Producing machines that look and behave like people seems to be a human project with a long history. Mention of a Jewish Rabbi producing an instance of the legendary golem (a creature understood to possess an active human-like body, while lacking a soul) appeared as early as the 4th century CE. The celebrated 13th-century Muslim engineer Ibn al-Razzaz al-Jazari undoubtedly designed, and may have constructed, what has been described in present-day terms as “the first programmable human-like robotic device” – a spectacular artifact featuring four robotic musicians performing on a floating boat (Nicks 2010). Inspired by animated life-like figures reportedly created by an ancient Greek named Ctesibus, Leonardo da Vinci – around the time in the 1400s at which he began painting his famous Last Supper – also designed a human-like robot resembling a knight in armor. Fascination with the idea of crafting convincing imitations of people appears to have been part of human history for millennia.

In more recent times, though, modern computers – and with them, research introducing so-called “artificial intelligence” (AI) – have begun to give this long-standing fascination some significant new dimensions. Perhaps the most widely recognized contemporary human-like (or, nowadays, “humanoid”) robot is a product of Japanese science and technology named “ASIMO.” Resembling a short (4 ft 3 in) astronaut wearing a backpack, ASIMO represents the fruit of several decades of research and development conducted by the Honda Motor Company. Videos on the company’s official web site show ASIMO climbing stairs, jogging, balancing on one foot, visually recognizing people by name, and serving a tray of beverages to restaurant patrons. Similar examples of this impressive humanoid robot technology exist in other countries as well – e.g., Turkey (Today’s Zaman 2010), United Arab Emirates (Fahad Inc. 2008), and South Korea (Impactlab.net 2008).

Investment by business enterprises in the significant cost and engineering effort required to design and build these curiously humanoid machines constitutes one of the “new dimensions” previously mentioned. Historical figures such as Al-Jazari and da Vinci, after all, were not responding to global marketing prospects with their robotic creations. In contrast, a current Honda Motor Company web site tells us that ASIMO was intended to be more than an attention-catching novelty from the beginning; in fact, it was “created solely to perform tasks to assist people, especially those lacking full mobility” (Honda Robotics 2011). Similarly, the president of a Robotic Industries Association reports that South Korea is “taking the lead in promoting the use of robots for service applications such as elder care” (Burnstein 2009). A former GM of the Microsoft Robotics Group has identified such assistive care as the market that “intrigues” him the most, citing approaching increases in senior populations – and, consequently, heavier burdens upon healthcare systems – as factors that may “present the ‘killer app’ for personal robots” (Foley 2009). A 2009 online report titled “Robot Nurses to Care for Japanese Elderly within Five Years” reports that Warwick University, in England, has undertaken a “three year 2.7 million dollar project to develop a robot nurse,” predicting that “nurses could be delegating tasks to robotic colleagues by 2020” (Zygbotics 2009).

It is important to note that such robotic “colleagues” of human nurses commonly are intended to be suited for fairly intimate kinds of social interactions with people. One finds, for instance, references to robotic assistance in recreation and with feeding, grooming, walking, bathing, etc. (Babyboomercaretaker.com 2007). Accordingly, we encounter another new dimension. Robotic arms have welded and painted in our automobile factories for decades, but the repetitive activities of these familiar industrial robots are profoundly different from interaction with a humanoid machine that helps one’s aging grandmother eat her dinner and take her medicine (perhaps even chatting and playing a card game with her). Moreover, the latter type of robot no longer is mere science fiction; design and construction of machines to perform these kinds of personal human-robot interactions are taking place now.

… and these robots that “care” invite some questions

Considered only as machines meant to assist overburdened nurses with their care of older people, the types of humanoid robots just described might initially be categorized simply as useful new tools. We have reasons to wonder, though, how long those who will be interacting regularly with these life-like robots can be expected to perceive them merely as tools. So-called “animaloid” robots, such as the robotic dog AIBO that was marketed in recent years by the Sony Corporation, admittedly represent a somewhat different class of robotic artifact than the more complex contemporary humanoids such as ASIMO. Nevertheless, empirical studies of human-robot interaction even with AIBO have uncovered some relevant thought-provoking surprises. Not long ago, for example, numerous online postings by owners of AIBO began appearing on Internet forums. One study of these postings noted the following confession by an AIBO owner:

The other day I proved to myself that I do indeed treat him as if he were alive, because I was getting changed to go out, and [AIBO] was in the room, but before I got changed I stuck him in a corner so he didn’t see me! (Friedman, Kahn, and Hagman 2003, 278)

Regardless of whether this posted confession was altogether truthful, its expressed thought of needing modesty in this case clearly alerts us to the potential psychological potency of human interaction with such machines. Abrahamic religions, through their shared accounts of the Garden of Eden, have long recognized appropriateness of modesty between even the primordial man and woman – but application of that sentiment to our dealings with a battery-operated dog suggests how plastic human notions of personhood might be!

For that matter, professional testimony of such plasticity for the specific case of humanoid robots is available in a frequently-quoted set of observations by Professor Sherry Turkle, Director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. One of her MIT colleagues, widely-recognized roboticist Rodney Brooks, is among the many people who have cited Turkle’s report of her first encounter with his experimental humanoid robot, Cog; note carefully Sherry’s candid description of the experience:

Cog “noticed” me soon after I entered its room. Its head turned to follow me and I was embarrassed to note that this made me happy. I found myself competing with another visitor for its attention. At one point, I felt sure that Cog’s eyes had “caught” my own. My visit left me shaken – not by anything that Cog was able to accomplish but by my own reaction to “him.” For years whenever I had heard Rodney Brooks speak about his robotic “creatures,” I had always been careful to mentally put quotation marks around the word. But now, with Cog, I had found the quotation marks had disappeared. Despite myself and despite my continuing skepticism about this research project, I had behaved as though in the presence of another being. (Brooks 2003, 149)

Professor Turkle’s testimony is consistent with an entire literature of contemporary research in human-robot interaction that suggests a deep human predisposition progressively to accept as peers various machines that convincingly mimic human appearance and autonomous behavior. Her reference to discovering herself behaving as though she were “in the presence of another being” points, in turn, toward some questions that invite our reflection.

First, one might inquire whether (and why) it could matter that humans seem so inclined to regard convincingly humanoid machines as peers. For some people, it apparently does not matter. From his perspective as a practicing Zen Buddhist, for example, robotics engineer Masahiro Mori has argued against insisting upon any profound distinction between persons and robots, noting that there “must also be buddha-nature in the machines and robots that my colleagues and I make” (Mori 1999, 174). In contrast, though, a pilot study has suggested that Abrahamic theistic belief in creation of individual human souls by a personal deity may be related to disapproval of human-robot interaction “with life-like personal robots that requires human acceptance of the robots at intimate levels” (Metzler and Lewis 2008, 22). This finding resonates with a respected voice in modern Christian theology. Paul Tillich, in Volume Three of his monumental Systematic Theology, addresses “objects that are produced by the technical act,” warning that “by virtue of producing and directing mere things” one can lose one’s “character as an independent self” and “become a thing” (74). Again, Jewish theologian and philosopher Martin Buber, widely remembered for his distinction between “I – Thou” and “I – It” relations, issues a similar warning in I and Thou:

And in all the seriousness of truth, hear this: without It man cannot live.

But he who lives with It alone is not a man. (34)

Apparently, we have reasons to expect that individuals belonging to Abrahamic religious traditions may especially feel troubled when they find themselves treating humanoid machines as though they were peers.

Within the Abrahamic religious family, after all, human beings historically have been regarded as spiritually special, and understood as belonging to a category fundamentally different from any technological artifacts that they might construct for amusement, or as tools. Anglican priest (and physicist) John Polkinghorne has emphasized significance of “the mystery of the human person,” which involves “our embodied nature, embedded in the physical world but transcending a merely reductive physicality” (Polkinghorne 1998, 80). Both the mystery and the transcendence that Polkinghorne mentions are punctuated clearly, as well, in the Holy Qur’an: And they will ask thee of the Spirit. SAY: The Spirit proceedeth at my Lord’s command: but of knowledge, only a little to you is given (The Night Journey – Sura 17:85). The theistic perspective of this family of religions tends to link the human person, as a free moral agent, with a spiritual level of reality that is not completely expressible in terms of everyday (macro-level) entities such as rocks and trees – and machines.

It may be pertinent at this point to inquire whether the spiritual level of reality envisioned by these religious faiths might arguably be represented even in current science. To be sure, the robotic and AI technologies upon which we have focused in this essay are discussed almost entirely nowadays with so-called “macro-level” accounts of discrete, individualized entities. Computer scientists typically view all “information processing” executed by contemporary computers as reducible to operations of the celebrated Turing Machine formalism, which imagines an abstract machine successively “reading” well-defined symbols (0 or 1) on an external tape, comparing them with its current internal “state,” and then implementing clearly prescribed (albeit possibly null) changes on the tape and its own internal state. Physicists working with quantum mechanics, however, have discovered a quite different level of reality that requires a so-called “quantum-level” description. The description is expressed mathematically in terms of complex numbers (incorporating an imaginary unit equal to the square root of negative one) and it explores a reality in which individualized entities of the macro-level (this table, that book, etc.) simply are no longer present. An atom may be understood to contain four electrons, but – in principle – one cannot select and track, say, the changing locations over time of a specific individual electron among the four. Pondering this strange new reality, mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has argued (via his Shadows of the Mind) that human consciousness cannot be modeled in terms of the Turing Machine formalism, requiring, instead, the resources of an advanced quantum physics. If the emerging technology of “quantum computers” eventually could yield a machine consistent with Roger Penrose’s understanding of how the human brain operates when we experience consciousness, future robots incorporating such computers might open possibilities for exciting new dialogue between religion and science.

Under present circumstances, though, we can discern the outlines of potential difficulties in the not-so-distant future. Specifically, elderly members of the Abrahamic faiths may find themselves increasingly conflicted in responding to robotic “caregivers.” On one hand, following natural predispositions, they will be inclined to accept the machines as caregivers (dropping the skeptical quotation marks, as Professor Turkle did during her encounter with Cog). At the same time, they may retain their religious worldviews and resist accepting the machines as persons. Will they feel authentically comforted, then, by machines programmed to display “artificial empathy”? Will they discover resolution of their conflict in the following conjecture by noted roboticist Hans Moravec?

So, it may be appropriate to say “God” has granted a soul to a machine when the machine is accepted as a real person by a wide human community. (Moravec 1999, 77)

Indeed, in perhaps the next ten years or so, how will people be using quotation marks to distinguish what they consider authentic from mere “make-believe”? Will they be describing new robot nurses as persons – or as “persons”? Will they decide that the machines care for people – or “care” for people? Will the artifacts be considered capable of moral behavior – or “moral” behavior? Will some older people still understand the granting of souls to be determined by God – or by “God”?

For some of us, these already are important questions.

Theodore Albert Metzler is the Director of Darrell W. Hughes Program for Religion and Science Dialogue, Oklahoma City University.

References

• American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 2010. “Asimo, The World’s Most Advanced Humanoid
• Robot.” Accessed December 21, 2010. http://asimo.honda.com/ .
• Babyboomercaretaker.com. 2007. “Robotics in Nursing.” Accessed January 4, 2011.
• http://www.babyboomercaretaker.com/assistive-technology/robotic-technology/Robotics-In-
• Nursing.html .
• Brooks, Rodney A. 2003. Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us. New York:
• Vintage Books.
• Buber, Martin. 1987. I and Thou. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
• Burnstein, Jeff. 2009. “Robotics and the Big Trends.” Robotics Online. Accessed January 3,
• 2011. http://www.robotics.org/content-detail.cfm/Industrial-Robotics-Feature-
• Article/Robotics-and-the-BigTrends/content_id/1709 .
• Fahad Inc. 2008. “REEM-B: UAE’s First ‘Home-Grown’ Humanoid Robot.” Accessed
• December 21, 2010. http://www.fahad.com/2008/06/reem-b-uaes-first-home-grown-
• humanoid.html .
• Foley, Mary Jo. 2009. “‘Partner bots: The next killer robotics app? (And will Microsoft bite?).”
• ZDNet. Accessed January 3, 2011. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/partner-bots-the-
• next-killer-robotics-app-and-will-microsoft-bite/2828 .
• Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Kahn, Jr., and Jennifer Hagman. 2003. “Hardware Companions? –
• What Online AIBO Discussion Forums Reveal about the Human-Robotic Relationship.” CHI
• 2003. ACM. CHI Letters 5.1: 273-280. doi: 10.1145/642611.642660.
• Honda Robotics. 2011. “ASIMO.” Accessed January 3, 2011. http://dreams.honda.com/robotics-
• mobility/ .
• Impactlab.net. 2008. “Mahru II – South Korea’s Humanoid Robot.” Accessed December 21,
• 2010. http://www.impactlab.net/2008/10/14/mahru-ii-south-koreas-humanoid-robot/ .
• Moravec. Hans. 1999. Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. New York: Oxford
• University Press.
• Nicks, Victoria. 2010. “History of Robots – Robotics Technology in Automata by Al-Jazari.”
• Suite101.com. Accessed December 10, 2010.
• http://www.suite101.com/content/history-of-robots-robotics-technology-in-automata-by-al-
• jazari-a253819 .
• Metzler, Ted, and Lundy Lewis. 2008. “Ethical Views, Religious Views, and Acceptance of
• Robotic Applications: A Pilot Study.” Technical Report WS-08-05. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI
• Press: 15-22.
• Mori, Masahiro. 1999. The Buddha in the Robot: A Robot Engineer’s Thoughts on Science and
• Religion. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co.
• Penrose, Roger. 1994. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness.
• New York: Oxford University Press.
• Polkinghorne, John. 1998. Belief in God in an Age of Science. Binghamton: Vail-Ballou Press.
• Tillich, Paul. 1971. Systematic Theology: Three volumes in one. Chicago: The University of
• Chicago Press.
• Today’s Zaman. 2010. “Meet SURALP, Turkey’s first humanoid robot.” Accessed December
• 21, 2010.
• http://www.todayszaman.com/news-224330-meet-suralp-turkeys-first-humanoid-robot.html .
• Zygbotics. 2009. “Robot Nurses to Care for Japanese Elderly within Five Years.” Accessed May
• 13, 2009. http://www.zygbotics.com/2009/03/27/robot-nurses-to-care-for-japanese-elderly-
• within-five-year/ .

In the 21st century, we are plunging forward into a new era of technological power — one that offers enormous promise and danger.

What is nanotechnology?

In its most basic form, nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of materials at the atomic or molecular level. The name derives from the nanometer, a scientific measurement unit representing a billionth of a meter, three to four atoms wide. Scientists are learning how to connect atoms and molecules together to create nano-scale mechanisms that create switches or transistors, or even small machines that can perform complex tasks.

To use an oft-quoted comparison, a human hair is between 100,000 and 200,000 nanometers thick, while a typical virus can be just 100 nanometers wide. Atoms are typically between one-tenth and one-half of a nanometer wide. Due to the difficulties involved in working at this scale, manipulation of items as “large” as 100 nanometers is generally included in the concept of nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology enables scientists to create new materials atom by atom. With increasingly more powerful microscopes, scientists can see molecules that are mere nanometers (billionths of a meter) in size. To clarify this size, a pinhead is one million nanometers across. The field intertwines nearly all fields of science.

Most nanotechnology discussions deal with the futuristic concept of nanomachines or nanorobots: microscopic devices that carry out tasks at the atomic or subatomic level. Nanotechnology, also called molecular manufacturing, is “a branch of engineering that deals with the design and manufacture of extremely small electronic circuits and mechanical devices built at the molecular level of matter.” The goal of nanotechnology is to manipulate materials at the atomic level to build the smallest possible electromechanical devices, given the physical limitations of matter. Many of the mechanical systems that we know how to build will be transferred to the molecular level as some atomic analogy.

A typical vision of the twenty-first century: “Nanotechnologists will be building our cars one molecule at a time, invading our bloodstream to declog our arteries, and replicating themselves thousands of times over.”

Nanorobots (1)

A nanorobot is a computer-controlled robotic device constructed of nanometer-scale components to molecular precision, usually microscopic in size (often abbreviated as nanobot). This reminds one of the 1966 film Fantastic Voyage, in which a team of scientists (including Raquel Welch) are miniaturized, placed in a tiny submarine, and injected into a sick man’s bloodstream. Nanotechnology invariably involves work on a much smaller scale than the average blood cell.

Producing commercially viable nanomachines will be more challenging, since atomic manipulation, while not theoretically contrary to the laws of physics, is still extremely slow and costly. The most widely discussed long-term solution is to make the nanomachines self-replicating. Control mechanisms for such systems, mainly how a machine “knows” to copy itself and when to stop doing so, are still in their very early stages. Once again, theory is far ahead of practical reality.

Many of nanotechnology’s more recent practical applications have been in the area of material research. However, scientists believe that transistors eventually could be built in this way, paving the way for computational technologies that do not depend on silicon and that can pack even more circuitry into microscopic spaces.

Nanoshells (2)

Nanoshells, defined as tiny particles that can manipulate light, can be used to transform medical procedures, ranging from cancer therapy to medical testing and drug delivery. They are ideal for biotechnology applications because they are biocompatible, can be altered and modified, and absorb light easily in the near-infrared region, where human tissue is most transparent.

Nanoshells can be tagged and delivered specifically to tumor cells, thereby leaving healthy cells undamaged. In addition, they can reduce the amount of time needed to conduct medical tests from several days to a matter of seconds. When incorporated into temperature-sensitive polymers, nanoshells can be triggered to release a chemical using infrared light, thus enabling a patient to control the release of medicine that requires periodic dispensing.

A new bandage (3)

A new bandage that imitates natural healing process is used for injuries ranging from minor cuts to gunshot wounds. The bandage, a flannel-like material, stops bleeding immediately and eventually is absorbed by the body. This new material is developed by spinning a compound naturally found in the blood into a bandage that can minimize blood loss and be absorbed by the body, according to an article in the 12 Feb. 2003 issue of Nano Letters, a journal of the American Chemical Society. “We’ve taken an old technique — electrospinning — and applied it to natural fibers,” says Gary Bowlin, associate professor of biomedical engineering at Virginia Commonwealth University.

When a person bleeds from a cut or a wound, a blood clot forms and netting made of a substance called fibrin develops over the clot. According to researchers, fibrinogen, the compound in blood that comprises the “natural” bandage, is a fibrin precursor that can come from human, bovine, or genetically engineered bacterial sources. The goal is to pack the bandage like gauze so that it can be used to treat trauma patients, according to Bowlin.

Science fiction into reality (4)

Imagine a world in which cars can be assembled molecule-by-molecule, garbage can be disassembled and turned into beef steaks, and people can be operated on and healed by cell-sized robots. Sounds like science fiction? Well, with current semiconductor chip manufacturing encroaching upon the nanometer scale and the ability to move individual atoms at the IBM Almaden laboratory, we are fast approaching the technological ability to fabricate productive machines and devices that can manipulate objects at the atomic level. With this ability, we will be able to develop molecular-sized computers and robots that will give us unprecedented control over matter and the ability to shape the physical world as we see fit.

Nanofabrication techniques with applications in fiber optics, biotechnology, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), and “tiny mechanical devices such as sensors, valves, gears, mirrors, and actuators embedded in semiconductor chips,” are of particular interest, as they are but a mere step away from the molecular machines envisioned by nanotechnology. MEMS are used in automobile airbag systems as accelerometers to detect collisions, and will become an increasing part of our everyday technology. In 1986, K. Eric Drexler, a researcher at MIT, foresaw the advent of molecular machines. In his Engines of Creation, he outlined the possibilities and consequences of this emerging field, which he called nanotechnology. Drexler has written numerous books on the subject, such as Unbounding the Future, and has founded the Foresight Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the responsible development of nanotechnology. Today, nanotechnology research and development is widespread in numerous universities. The U.S. government has created an organization, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), to monitor and guide research and development in this field.

Potential benefits

It does not take much of a leap of imagination disassemblers dismantling garbage to be recycled at the molecular level, and then giving it to assemblers who will use it to build atomically perfect engines. Stretching this vision a bit, you can imagine a Star Trek type replicator that could reassemble matter in the form of a juicy steak, given the correct blueprints and organization of these nanomachines.

A laboratory-scale “in vivo nanoscope” could be capable of providing atomic resolution, real-time movies of happenings inside living cells in intact living animals. This nanoscope, a hybrid of conventional technology and early (pre-assembler) nanotechnology, is an enormous leap in the ability of biologists to understand the workings of cells and develop medical therapies.

Some of the more prominent benefits of nanotechnology would be precision manufacturing, material reuse, and miniaturization. Medical applications are pharmaceutical creation, disease treatment, and nanomachine-assisted surgery. Environmental applications lie in toxin cleanup, recycling, and resource consumption reduction.

Nanomedicine deals with the comprehensive monitoring, control, construction, repair, defense, and improvement of all human biological systems by working at the molecular level with engineered nanodevices and nanostructures; the science and technology of diagnosing, treating, and preventing disease and traumatic injury, as well as relieving pain and preserving and improving human health through the use of molecular tools and molecular knowledge of the human body; and the use of molecular machine systems to address medical problems and using molecular knowledge to maintain and improve human health at the molecular scale. Cosmetic nanosurgery carried out with simple nanomachines (no on-board computers, for example) could change hair color, cause hair to grow or not to grow in specific locations, keep teeth clean and skin smooth, and so on, all far more effectively than current treatments.

Looking somewhat further in the future at more radical modifications of the human body through nanotechnology, Edward Reifman describes dentistry with assembly-fabricated teeth, and even with the teeth and jaws being made of diamonds. “In the long term, we hope to be able to build small nanorobots which can search out and destroy cancerous tumors when they comprise just one or two cells” or “small drilling machines which dissolve clots.”

Viruses, which are natural nanomachines, could be fought more effectively, as the body’s own immune system has some handicaps: it tends to forget the shape of its enemies, cannot always successfully identify malignant cells, and suffers from a certain delay until the immune reaction is fully developed. Therefore, nanomachines could support the immune system. Nanomachines could rout bacteria, excise tumors, reconstruct damaged tissue, and even make a huge contribution to treating the process of aging.

Along with the obvious manufacturing benefits, there are many potential medical and environmental benefits. With nanomachines, we could better design and synthesize pharmaceuticals, directly treat such diseased cells as cancer, better monitor a patient’s life signs, and make microscopic repairs in hard-to-operate-on bodily areas. With regard to the environment, we could use nanomachines to clean up toxins or oil spills, recycle garbage, and eliminate landfills, thus reducing our natural resource consumption.

Potential dangers

The downside to these benefits is the possibility of using assemblers and disassemblers to create weapons, to be used as weapons themselves, or the possibility that they may run wild and wreak havoc. Other less invasive but equally perilous uses would be in electronic surveillance.

However, with nanotechnology, armies could develop disassemblers to attack physical structures or biological organisms at the molecular level. A similar hazard would be if general-purpose disassemblers escaped into the environment and started disassembling every molecule they encountered, the so-called “gray goo scenario.” Furthermore, if nanomachines were created to be self-replicating and, for some reason, had a problem with their limiting mechanism, they would multiply endlessly, like viruses.

Even without considering such extreme disaster scenarios, we can find plenty of potentially harmful uses for nanotechnology, such as the erosion of our freedom and privacy. For example, people could use molecular-sized microphones, cameras, and homing beacons to monitor and track others.

Ethical issues and analysis

Given the awesome potential dangers inherent in nanotechnology, we must analyze its potential consequences. Nanotechnology may never become as powerful and prolific as envisioned by its evangelists, but as with any potential near-horizon technology, we should formulate solutions to potential ethical issues before the technology is irreversibly adopted. We must examine the ethics of developing nanotechnology and create policies designed to assist its development while eliminating, or at least minimizing, its damaging effects.

Nanosensors(5)

A nanosensor is defined as a chemical or physical sensor constructed by using nanoscale components, usually microscopic or submicroscopic in size.

Nanotechnology brings science fiction into everyday life6 Nanotechnology’s more immediate future lies in its application in such sensors as electronic “noses” that can detect, for example, the presence of individual protein molecules in a blood sample. This involves a fingernail-sized chip with thousands of sensors, each set to detect a specific substance. It might even be possible to make these noses so small that they could fit on a needle. Then, there would be no need for a blood test, for a finger prick would be sufficient to allow a full blood analysis.

Nanosensors also will be of great value in producing new medicines, for they can effectively find active substances. So far, it has been possible to build this type of sensor one by one; the difficulty lies in integrating perhaps 100,000 of them on one chip.

Aging can be delayed by repairing human cells one by one. Unlimited computer power can be obtained by improved microchip performance. Global warming can be reduced by cleaning greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere with nanoparticles, and pesticides could kill insects without harmful byproducts. Creating artificial muscles and sensors, as well as nanocoating for metal, could increase power plant efficiency and potentially save millions of dollars a year for electricity generators. For example, we now have self-washing windows that repel dirt, thanks to their nanostructured surface.

Nanofluids (7)

On the medical front, researchers at Virginia Polytechnic Institute are developing magnetic nanofluids. They posit that magnetic particles attached to medicines, like those used in chemotherapy, can be concentrated on one part of the body by using external magnets on patients. 

Always clean clothing (8,9)

Imagine textiles that cannot be stained or wrinkled, that always maintain the look and feel of fabrics made from natural fibers. Imagine materials that are 100 times stronger than steel, but weigh only one-sixth as much. Nanofibers could be used in astronauts’ suits, moving with them as they work to give them greater flexibility in space, or to allow the disabled greater mobility by acting as extra muscles.

Imagine batteries that take up less than one cubic millimeter, but supply a medical implant with power. Imagine sensors, smaller than a pinpoint, that detect anything in extremely low concentrations, from specific antibodies to toxic chemicals.

A big splash of coffee leaves an unmistakable stain on an ordinary pair of trousers; on a pair of nanotextile trousers, it can be brushed off without leaving a trace. A titanium frying pan and the laser in a fairly modern CD player are both based on nanotechnology. By using nanotechnology, wall paint could automatically sterilize an operating theatre, filters could be used in water purifiers to automatically kill undesirable bacteria, and roofing tiles that convert solar light into household electricity could give way to reinforced self-repairing houses immune to all natural disasters “short of a large incoming meteor.(10)

Hence nano-technology is and will continue to become part of our everyday lives … sometimes without us even noticing.

Michael Crichton (11)

Crichton says “These organisms [self-reproducing tiny computers] will be created by nanotechnology, perhaps the most radical technology in human history: the quest to build man-made machines of extremely small size, on the order of 100 nanometers, or 100/billionths of a meter. Such machines would be 1,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Experts predict that these tiny machines will provide everything from miniaturized computer components to new medical treatments to new military weapons. In the 21st century, they will change our world totally.

“The potential benefits are spectacular: Tiny robots may crawl through your arteries, cutting away atherosclerotic plaque; powerful drugs will be delivered to individual cancer cells, leaving other cells undamaged; teeth will be self-repairing. Cosmetically, you will change your hair color with an injection of nanomachines that circulate through the body, moving melanocytes in hair follicles. Other nanomachines will lighten or darken skin color at will, removing blemishes, birthmarks and liver spots in the process; still others could cleanse the mouth and eliminate bad breath. Nonsurgical nanoprocesses could even perform liposuction and body reshaping. They will also repair knees and spines.

Living spaces will be transformed with self-cleaning dishes and carpets and permanently clean bathrooms. Windows will lighten or darken at will; programmable paint will change color. You can walk through the walls of your house, since they are composed of particle clouds. Your personal computer and your watch will be painted on your arm. Temperature-sensitive clothing will loosen when it gets hot, insulate when it gets cold.”

In the future, roving nanomachines will convert trash dumps to energy, solar nanomachines will be coated on the houses to generate electricity, and flexible nanomachines will provide earthquake protection. It may even be possible to move a house across the lawn on the backs of millions of nanomachines.

In 2003, nanotechnology is still very much in its infancy. However, such major corporations as IBM, Fujitsu, and Intel are funding this research. U.S. government investment has gone from virtually nothing only a few years ago to well over $600,000,000 per year in 2003.

At present, nonotechniques are being used to make sunscreens, stain-resistant fabrics, and composite materials for cars; soon, they will be used to make extremely small computers and storage devices. Pittsburgh based PPG Industries, Inc. is making self-cleaning window glass; the Westaim Corporation of Toronto is making nanocrystal wound dressings with antibiotic and anti-inflammatory properties. Currently, nanotechnology is principally a material technology.

Most experts predict that self-reproducing machines are only a decade away. Man-made, self-reproducing entities already have been released into the environment. The first of these, of course, were computer viruses. The first viruses were created as a game (“core wars”), a 1960s battle between mainframe programmers, each releasing a program into the other’s mainframe computer. Originally limited to specialists, hackers soon joined in. The growth of computer networking made rapid worldwide transmission possible. Computer viruses, worms on the Internet, have become an international threat to information and global business.

Scientists are witnessing some of the problems of self-replicating biotechnology agents. For example, a recent report indicates that modified maize genes are appearing in native maize in Mexico, despite laws against it and efforts to prevent it. This is only the start of probably a long journey to control this new technology. Laws have been passed to put hackers in jail; delinquent biotechnologists will soon join them. We need international controls to deal with self-reproducing technologies right now, whereas now there are essentially none.

Footnotes

(1) www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20267134-2,00.htm

(2)www.rice.edu/projects/reno/Newsrel/2001/20010402_nanotechnology.shtml.

(3) www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=5481.

(4) http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/AChen/ResearchPaper.htm.

(5) www.nansosensors.com.

(6) Nino Simic, “Nano into Everyday Life.” www.oresundit.com/composite(1610).htm.

(7) Ryan Randazzo, Reno Gazette-Journal, 15 June 2002.

(8) www.agg.com/Practice/Nanotechnology_main.html.

(9) www.oresundit.com/composite(1610).htm.

(10) www.foresight.org.

(11) Michael Crichton, “Could Tiny Machines Rule the World?” Parade Magazine, 24 November 2002, pgs. 6-8.

Some nanotechnology links:

• www.about.com/nanotechnology (A search engine that compiles various sources and articles).
• www.jmtour.com (Professor Jim Tour’s research home page).
• www-ece.rice.edu/~halas (Professor Naomi Halas’ research home page).
• www.nano.gov (The National Science and Technology Council’s site for nanoscale technology, including information on federal initiatives). 

These special functions are responsible for analyzing sensory data, performing memory functions, learning new information, forming thoughts, and making decisions. Given this, cognitive science deals primarily with the functioning of the brains frontal lobe, which is responsible for cognition (the act or process of knowing, including both awareness and judgment) and memory. The brains prefrontal area enables concentration, attention, and the elaboration of thought. As the brains gatekeeper (judgment and inhibition), it also is responsible for personality and emotional traits. One of the frontal lobes main functions is memory, a very important topic in cognitive science.

Memory

Memory is defined as the power or process of reproducing or recalling what has been learned and retained, especially through associative mechanisms. It is also the store of things learned and retained from an organisms activity or experience, as evidenced by structure or behavior modification as well as recall and recognition.

Just like any other human trait, memory can be empowered and improved. How this is accomplished usually depends upon the individual. Many such techniques and tricks are advertised and marketed in daily life. While some actually work, most are like overloading our already full memory files. Eventually, it comes down to tricks vs. power, just like in sports. Consider the following analogy: If an Olympic boxer wants to improve his skills, should he watch pro-boxing matches on TV or punch a vinyl speed bag to train the muscles he needs to overpower his opponent?

This example might seem a little strange, for it depends heavily upon muscles. But, surprisingly, it really is relevant to the brains memory center, for recent developments in cognitive science show that a specific area behind the forehead (in the pre-frontal cortex) houses the brains memory muscle (1) ”the working memory. The discovery was made possible by advances in such brain-imaging technologies as PET and MRI scans.(2) Suppose you are studying for an exam and have to wade through a mound of reading material, or have to make a 10-digit phone call without the aid of a phone book, or are under a lot of pressure to answer questions rapidly or to make a snap decision. It is your working memory that decides what is relevant and where to best store such data for quick retrieval upon demand.

Developing our memory muscle

Pharmaceuticals, memory books, mnemonic tricks, seminars, and mental chronometrics (3) say that we develop our memory muscle and thereby improve our memory power. In reality, our memory muscle is our heads chief executive, for it is in charge of receiving, organizing, encoding, filing, and retrieving just about anything we learn, as well as for all planning and decision-making activity.

This activity is also known as psycho-interactive intelligence, for such tasks challenge all of the powers of working memory, including short-term memory, concentration, and mental speed. Computer-based exercises (CBEs) function in the same way. And, since they are psycho-interactive, they customize new challenges via simultaneous analysis and measurement. In addition, they usually are far more entertaining.

In fact, our memory muscle actually determines how quick, sharp, and focused our thinking is. According to Life magazine (July 1994): Evidence is accumulating that the brain works a lot like a muscle”the more you use it the more it grows. Although scientists had long ascertained that the brains chemistry was hard-wired by adolescence and inflexible in adulthood, its newly discovered ability to change, grow, and adapt is apparently with us well into old age.

NASA continues to make extensive use of training exercises to improve the brainpower of astronauts and pilots. Computer models of the brains functioning also are used in determining how to improve brainpower. Due to such research, they have been able to tap and train the brains memory muscle.

Mind Machines and Pharmatronics

The term mind machines refers to a large variety of technologies that affect ones brain: HemiSynch tapes, light and sound machines, cranial electrical simulation (CES) devices, biofeedback, biocircuits, lucid dreaming tapes and machines, consciousness alteration software, and sensory deprivation tanks. They are designed to transform the users brain waves into a wide variety of new patterns: from focused and alert to creative and ultra-relaxed, meditative to twilight receptive/learning state, or to different states of sleep. It is like instant brainwaves–ready in seconds on demand.

Bio-entrainment is the process of causing neurons to function in a desired manner. For example, a person with attention deficit disorder (ADD) cannot focus due to slow theta rhythms and desynchronous beta waves. Mind machines, especially light/sound and biofeedback, can help break these brain waves out of their scattered gridlock and drive them into open focus (theta) or closed focus (beta) patterns. Bio-entrainment also can enable people to focus better, relax or dive into deep meditation, induce creative or intuitive states, or to enter a deep sleep state quickly.

Encouraged by mind machines, pharmatronics (neuroscience) has induced researchers to postulate the psycho-physiological principle: Every psychological state has a corresponding measurable physiological (i.e., physical, electrical, and biochemical) state, and vice versa. For instance, using biofeedback to reach a state of deep relaxation and serenity (i.e., meditation) may cause the pituitary gland to produce endorphins that make you feel real good. This electronic-to-pharmacological effect, known as pharmatronics, is like an electronic drug or a device (e.g., a computer, game player, biofeedback device, or even software), for it alters the brains electrical (brain wave) pattern and, hence, its biochemical (pharmacological) profile.

One of the first notable pharmatronic agents was Tetris, a computerized puzzle game. Using PET scans, Dr. R. Haier discovered that first-time Tetris players experienced a significant increase in their cerebral glucose metabolic rate (GMR), indicating that their basic brain energy consumption was soaring.(4)

Computer-based exercises (CBEs)

Psycho-interactivity is not the same as interactivity. Clicking on a hyperlinked button to go to another page is interactive, whereas a psycho-interactive activity involves a computer taking the user through a series of mental challenges. But it does not stop there, for it also analyses the individuals reactions and then adjusts the level of complexity in subsequent challenges to ascertain the full potential of the players memory recall, thinking, and decision-making speed. Thus it renders a dynamic brainpower analysis, whereas most mental ability tests are static.

Since the brain is like a muscle, it must be challenged with the appropriate kind of resistance if it is to develop and grow. To develop any muscle, one has to engage in anaerobic exercises that feature a resistance or load that is very difficult to lift more than 10 to15 times (reps). Aerobic exercises (e.g., using a weight that you can lift 100 times), will not develop the muscles power. This is also true with the brain, for it will not develop only by thinking harder (an aerobic activity). What it requires is an anaerobic-like challenge, such as learning a new skill. Playing chess or mastering a new judo move can stimulate the brains neural dendrites to grow. However, the best anaerobic exercise is one that challenges the person to exert maximum mental energy, like running the 100-meter dash instead of a mile. This is what CBEs do.

CBEs also lower the noise in the brain, which leads to a more accurate reading and processing of information. The brains learning and testing is much like computers”its power is indicated by its speed, efficiency, and capacity for reading, filing, and recalling information.

CBEs are a synthesis of cognitive science, educational psychology, computer science, biofeedback, and psychophysiology. In addition to psycho-interactivity, add the law of psycho-physiology: If you can receive immediate on-line measurement of anything, whether it is your heart rate or brain waves, you can control it.(5)

In one experiment, astronauts used cognitive challenges every day and reported back to Houston so that their brains functioning could be recorded for that day. Subtle changes in cabin CO2, CO, ionization, and so on were found to have measurable effects on their brainpower and performance. CBEs do something like this, but their interactivity makes them more challenging and allows researchers to determine good or bad days in terms of brainpower.

Physical, perceptual, and cognitive reflexes are important in athletics. Contrary to common belief, reflexes can be trained and improved. There is plenty of research on how diet and nutritional supplements effects mental and physical performance. But training can sharpen and hone all of three reflexes. Psychology and physiology books say there is a limit to how fast one reacts to a simple stimulus, such as a car suddenly stopping in front of you on the freeway. The limit is assumed to be 150 milliseconds. But CBEs have reduced this to 100 milliseconds.

CBEs can improve perceptual reflexes (seeing speed). Moreover, some cognitive reflexes, strangely enough, are not highly correlated with physical reflexes. Just because an athlete has good hand-eye coordination and reflexes does not guarantee athletic success when the reaction is based on making a split-second cognitive choice or decision. Cognitive reflexes also can be improved.

Brain software in clinical studies

CBEs that analyze the brain and compute the users IQ may have an important role in studying and detecting Alzheimers, a progressive brain disorder. Josh Reynolds points out that while Alzheimers only affects 4 to 5 million people in the US, PMI (Premature Mental Impairment) is estimated to afflict over 50 million Americans. PMI typically manifests itself as loss of sustained concentration, memory, and mental quickness. It has many causes, such as undetected strokes, poor nutrition, head injury, alcohol and tobacco abuse, and depression.

However, the most prevalent cause of potentially serious brain deterioration may be cortisol, an adrenal hormone produced as a byproduct of stress. Recent research suggests that cortisol may actually kill brain cells and even lead to Alzheimers if the stress is not detected and treated. Ironically, the very medications used to treat stress (e.g., Valium) temporarily impair physical and cognitive reflexes, especially when dosages are too high or mixed with other drugs or alcohol.

CBEs can show the subtle early stages of stress-related memory loss, and can be used to titrate the dosage levels of anti-anxiety and anti-depressant drugs. Thus, they can minimize the temporary impairment mentioned above while maintaining the medications therapeutic efficacy. CBEs are developed on a computer science platform and thorough research into cognitive chronometrics, defined as the direct active computer-assisted measurement of the brains function. CBEs also can diagnose the early stages of a brain disorder before the onset of clinical symptoms. In addition to Alzheimers, CBEs are used to study and detect ADD and head trauma recovery.

The early stages of dementia, especially Alzheimers, are typically characterized by a breakdown in short-term memory. The primary breakdown is believed not to be in memory retrieval, but in the memory consolidation and storage phase, which are believed to be delegated to the hippocampus. According to CDI president Josh Reynolds, one of the earliest markers of Alzheimers is in the cholnergic system in the hippocampus.

PMI is characterized by a loss of sustained concentration, memory, and mental quickness. CBEs assess six areas of neuro-cognitive functions: physical reflexes, perceptual reflexes and thresholds, cognitive reflexes, working memory capacity (short-term memory), neuro-cognitive processing efficiency (concentration/attention), and neuro-cognitive processing speed (mental quickness). This is accomplished by measuring cognitive states (or status) and subtle changes in cognitive states.

CBEs also provide a reflective measure of neural noise, which is measured by analyzing, among other proprietary variables, the standard deviation (consistency) of the subjects intra-trial reaction times.

Conclusion

As in any field of science and life, computers are becoming a ubiquitous element in cognitive science. With its potential prospects and uses, the computer continues to offer many opportunities to improve our life. This article focused on some of the ways in which a computer can be used to aid the brains memory function. However this is just a crawling stage, and the field essentially remains wide open for researchers.

Footnotes

1. The term memory muscle is used here for the resemblance of this area of brain to a muscle in terms of functioning.
2. PET (Positron Emission Tomography) involves producing a computer-generated image of a biological activity within the body by detecting gamma rays emitted when introduced radionuclides decay and release positrons. MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) involves using a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer to produce electronic images of specific atoms and molecular structures in solids, especially human cells, tissues, and organs. Cognitive scientist Dr. Richard Heier of the University of California, Irvine, is a prominent figure in this area.
3. Mental Chronometrics: A field within cognitive science that uses computer assisted brain exercises to interactively isolate, challenge, and develop working memory.
4. Phil Sater is a pioneer in neuro-technology and light and sound Personal Relaxers. He also is involved in developing an L/S TurboCharger. See www.mindgear.com.

5 Josh Reynolds is the founder of www.brain.com.

References

• http://at-advocacy.phillynews.com/data/brain.html.
• McCrene, John. New Scientist. Apr. 1996.
• Quarterly Report. The Long Beach Business Journal. Nov. 1997.
• www.brain.com.
• www.mindgear.com.

I would like to focus briefly on the twentieth century in terms of technological innovations and their impact on the human soul. The Industrial Revolution radically changed our traditional lifestyle. Modern technology engendered many improvements in such areas as production and transportation. These changes were reflected in the literature and art of the period as well.

Views of Technology

In 1909, for instance, the Italian writer Marinetti published The Manifesto of Futurism, a great example of how intellectuals were affected by technology. He states that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by this new beauty, the beauty of speed: We stand on the last promontory of the centuries! Why should we look back? What we want is to break down the mysterious doors of the impossible. Time and space died yesterday. We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed. We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice.(1)

This approach is very understandable, because its adherents assumed that modern technology would provide opportunities they had never experienced. The prospects of technology amazed them. But looking back, we see that technology shaped a new type of people who are dependent on machines. Producing tools and making money became cornerstones of modern life. These views threaten cultural values and traditional relationships among people who feel alone in these technologically separated environments. We ask: How much do machines dominate humanity, and why do people feel so deeply abandoned?

We can look at two perspectives from that period. The first is technology as a magical and wonderful creation, promoted by Marinetti and other futurists. The other is characterized by people like Charlie Chaplain who, in one of his movies, shows a worker who screws bolts every day as eventually starting to see everything as a bolt. This is the worst effect of twentieth-century technology: People have begun to feel like machines or parts of machines.

Do people need and deserve more than this? Of course, they do.

The latest version of modern technology is cyberspace, a place where people can find all sorts of information. Locating information and sharing experiences is easier than ever before. The Internet, for example, has become the information superhighway on which people can find almost everything. The Internet and other technological tools have helped create the expression being digital, which refers to people who use a lot of technology. Is this the illusion of technological globalization(2) or electronic democracy will be the end of participatory democracy?(3) Even though this digital medium provides a new source of information, we have not figured out how best to use it or what information to trust on it.

Issues

At this point, we must learn how to use modern technology and regulate information, because we cannot ignore them. These scientific and technological advances will play important roles in future developments. Science and technology in and of themselves are not the problem, nor have they ever been. The real problem is that science and technology are developed, deployed, and controlled by the predatory system of pancapitalism. The mainstream development of knowledge and technology is guided by increased efficiency in militarized production of violence and/or by potential corporate profits in civilian markets.(4)

There is another significant point here: Modern technology has been trying to create a cyberbody. In the future, scientists will be able to produce digital flesh to enhance our abilities. So here is the problem we have to solve: People who have these enhancements installed may begin to wonder if they are humans or robots. We already have seen that people can adjust their bodies in many ways: laser surgery to correct their vision, or synthetic material to replace their teeth.

Cyberfeminism focusing on women’s role in cyberculture is another interesting example of changing the human body. This already has caused some problems. The challenge here is rather how to combine the recognition of postmodern embodiment with resistance to relativism and a free fall into cynicism.(5)

Technology has limited privacy. When we are born, we get a birth certificate that quickly goes online. Educational files, social security files, insurance files, criminal files, consumption files, and so on are all in cyberspace. The Internet has become an on-line marketplace and is continuing to grow.

On the other hand, even though we are so connected, our social relationships with others have fallen apart. Every relationship between teachers and students, buyers and sellers, parents and children, for example, will be changed radically in the next few decades.

The most important question is how can we find a good balance that gives happiness and hope for both our bodies and our souls? We are not just bodies that need to eat, sleep, and rest, among other things; our souls must be nourished. In this technological age, this has led to a conflict”the crisis of modernity”between religious and metaphysical ideas. Nietzsche said that God was dead. Of course he was wrong, because he, like other philosophers, could not have realized that spiritual needs would become so important in modern times.

Today, we still are seeking for something to feed modern society’s spiritual hunger. We will have to find or build a way of thinking that will include metaphysical ideas, scientific innovations, and religious thought. After that, we will be able to put ourselves in a place where people can regulate their spiritual and physical needs. Otherwise, we will never feel that we are free

Footnotes

1. F. T. Marinetti, The Manifesto of Futurism, Le Figaro (February 20, 1909).
2. Steve Gibson, www.kk.kau.se/mct/MCTO199/steve/ right.html.
3. An Interview with Paul Virilio, www.nettime.org/ nettime.w3archive/199904/msgn00456.html.
4. Critical Arts Ensemble Staff, Critical Art Ensemble, The Flesh Machine: Cyborgs, Designer Babies, and New Eugenic Consciousness (Autonomedia: 1998), 7-8.
5. Rosi Braidotti, Cyberfeminism with a Difference, www.let.ruu.nl/womens_studies/library.html.