Talk:Neurotechnology
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
Talk:Neurotechnology tools for transformation:
[1] The biggest, common and universal Tool to change the functionality of brain/body behaviour pattern is the 'self talk', his ideas and plans, his assumptions, his concepts about his capabilities.
[2] And next effective and powerful tool is the emotional state of the individual. In other words his state of mind and his feelings at a given point of time.
[3] And the third tool is visualization or say creative imagination, which may bring abrupt change in the core personality in due course of time. The completion of task in steps are seen as per motivational drive working behind the background of the individual.
[4] Depending on the depth & intensity of above factors, the changes are seen in the personality of the individual, as permanent or temporary. Hence, for permanent transformation, repeataion of the same act with same intensity and interest is required to impress the brain [to form new neural connections] for new set pattern of brain / body behaviour.
This article needs some attention
The opening sentence of the article makes no sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.229.134 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The whole article is vague and misleading. I don't think 'manupulating' the brain is acceptable. Here is a link for someone willing to start the article peoperly: http://www.bfnt-goettingen.de/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.218.198 (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Why Attention Defect Disorder-PI, not ADHD? --98.14.156.25 (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Forgot to login --Test35965 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Still in need of a clear definition, the author should provide. 87.1.133.51 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Dr. G. Mecacci Cognitive Sciences University of Siena
Planning definition & ethics update
Parts of this article seem a little outdated and occasionally vague. These are my initial thoughts:
- I'd like to refine the definition of neurotechnology and provide some examples that illustrate the concept well in the lead section.
- Within the body of the article, my main focus will be on the ethics of neurotechnology and the implications for science policy, adding more citations and linking to other relevant articles. I will also make minor corrections when I can in other sections.
Please reach out if you are interested in discussing these or other ideas. — Cffisac (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Kudos to you for tackling this article. I always used to get exhausted at the mere sight of it, but you've inspired me to take a crack at it! I'm going to go ahead and start deleting subjective/vague/outdated content. I'm also happy to be a sounding board if you prefer to get feedback on your work before publishing to mainspace. Aeffenberger (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Removed stem cell subsections due to lack of relevance to neurotechnology
I removed the stem cell subsections from the Types and Ethical considerations sections, since they are very off topic w.r.t. neurotechnology. Some of the content might be salvageable after what I imagine will be a non-negligible volume of edits for merging into other, more appropriate articles such as: Stem cell, Stem-cell therapy, Stem cell controversy, Cell therapy, etc. Cffisac (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)