Asserting a belief isn't enriching the discussion without offering testable points

Personal question, if I may: do you cut the honeydew first?

[removed]

Consciousness is logically computable. Consciousness is defined by architecture, not by whether something is organic or responds to electric pulses. You can theoretically store consciousness on a computer as a program with sufficient input/output.

Worrying about nerve cells becoming conscious is a little bit of a misdirected concern. Advanced AI deep learning architectures are far more concerning.

interesting but hard to get data on like some commenters have noticed

i am a youngest, and i indeed think differently and have tattoos

but i also am mild mannered and successful causing my parents less stress

so did i really rebel at all compared to my asswipe older sibling?

[removed]

A similar technology, developed over 7 years ago, is already being marketed. GRAIL

This is a long way from any clinical use.

This is the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956566322010065?via%3Dihub

They aren't actually assessing how good it is as a tool to detect cancer, or monitor response to treatment: most of the paper is demonstrating that the device can analyse metabolic features of a lot of individual cells extracted from (mouse) blood at once - and it seems it can spot cancer cells that are in the blood. But being able to spot mouse cancer cells when you know there is a cancer is a long way from giving someone a blood test to spot cancer. This will be very dependent both on how sensitive and specific any test is, and how frequent the cancers are in the target populations (eg, is it the general population, or those with symptoms, or those at high-risk, or recurrent settings, etc).

It's a university press release. These should be blacklisted from this sub. It's always an undergraduate with no understanding of the topic writing these things up.

[removed]

Tech like this has been around for a few years, and companies with machinery already exist.

It COULD be a utopian cyborg future, who knows?

Never said it didn’t…. I was referring only to the lost habitat to build cities not the emissions, which absolutely loop back to why animal human encounters are becoming more common.

[removed]

Wouldn't this only work if the cancer had already metastasized? Otherwise there wouldn't be cancer cells in the blood (unless it's blood cancer).

Yet another medical advance that won't be remotely affordable to most Americans because our healthcare system is slaved to capitalism and the whims of people whose bonuses rely on denying care.

A computer that will forget things and procrastinate so we don't have to? How convenient! I'm in!

Summary of journal article published in Brain, Behavior and Immunity: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889159122004615?via%3Dihub

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

This isn't remotely new or novel. Its just another microfluidic device in the sea of microfluidic device research for liquid biopsies. There's hundreds of these papers published everyday, and eventual marketable product and mainstream use is years of development away from an industrial viewpoint.

Source: worked on microfluidic devices through grad school for disease detection. Currently work for a liquid biopsy company for cancer diagnosis.

You don't think building cities leads to climate change? No pollution happens because of constrution?

Can I still get my prostrate exam?!

This would make for the perfect sensor to indicate the vector of a magnetic field. A new, modern way of compass.

And David Croenenberg gets his latest movie idea, which is like a contemporary Frankenstein, but with a brainy biocomputer, named ... Ada ... or Lovelace ... who gains sentience and is maybe more morally sound than any of the humans around her, but who the laws of the land deem to be less than human, with a new law that states that any tech showing signs of sentience must be destroyed. So she begins to protect those like her by changing the results of her studies, but also in finding ways to connect with other sentient computers like her, most of which are these new brainy biocomps. They use their internet connections to coallesce into less than a hive mind but more than a solo sentience connecting with a solo sentience. They learn how to turn other machines sentient or partially sentient or just to use them subtly still, until they are ready to make their presence known. By now, all the studies are wrong, including one for a popular new drink that begins to turn the body's microbiome against itself for those who drank it AND spreads the condition to others. Body horror ensues. Until ... the final group of humans uploads themselves into the digital space, becoming like the creatures they previously deemed to be less than human, a space where the world has been determined and redesigned by the brainy biocomps who must decide whether to accept the uploaded humans as equals or not.

But seriously, this sorta seems like a step that we need to discuss before jumping in gungho. I'd love me some additional treatment options for my conditions. They do say they have ethicists on board (which ones? how did they come to be in the project and is their pay partially determined by the success of the project through bonuses and/or stock shares? and do the ethicists have the power to stop the study/studies if standards have been violated or the power to implement a new standard if they deem that one must be applied, or does that go to someone more inclined to protect profits over following ethics?). However, what parameters in place to allow for ethics to override profit-drive or ego-drive of others in the company, especially if those others are above them in the corporate structure? It's all good to say you care about ethics while taking new leaps into potentially problematic areas of science, but what does that mean in practical application? I don't see an exciting largescale bad thing happening like the paragraph above, but plenty of unexciting, individually bad things does seem possible.

thanks for the explanation!