I THINK THAT THIS IDEA IS GOOD. I HOPE THAT THIS PROJECT IS GONNA WORK... ↓

How far is too far when it comes to pushing the boundaries of virtual reality? As VR devices grow ever more sophisticated—and the tools to create software for them ever more accessible—where do we draw the line between what’s ethically acceptable in the real world and what’s ethically acceptable in the virtual world?

One of the developers putting this question to the test is Australia-based Paranormal Games. Project Elysium, its entry into the upcoming Oculus VR Jam 2015, treads some shaky moral ground by promising to create a "personalized afterlife experience," reuniting people with loved ones who have passed on. Exactly how the developer hopes to do this isn’t clear at this point (it will be required to showcase screenshots by April 27, followed by video footage the week after to be eligible for the jam’s grand prize), although a screenshot from Project Elysium’s development does show a friend of the studio being transformed into a 3D model.

Naturally, this raises more questions. Would potential users of Project Elysium have to send pictures and video of the deceased to the developer in order to have him or her mapped into the game? And what about that person’s personality? How much data would the developer need in order to create a realistic representation of that person rather than just a robotic and potentially distressing facsimile? Perhaps you'll be able to do it yourself, using a character editor a la Skyrim.

Most importantly of all, though, what effect would seeing the deceased in a virtual world have on the mental health of the user?

Perhaps there will be a subset of people for whom Project Elysium provides real comfort and support in times of grief. We’d hope that if Paranormal Games is truly serious about its "personalized afterlife experience" of helping people, it makes a real effort to study the potential mental health effects of its software. For now, it seems VR remains a wild west of unregulated innovation, where things like Project Elysium can push the applications of VR without necessarily following real world rules.

Undoubtedly things will change in the future, for better or worse, if we see VR used more frequently in this way. At the very least, Project Elysium will add to the growing discussion of what is and isn’t appropriate in VR, whether
that’s violent gameplay, reviving the dead or otherwise, and whether we’re all at risk of losing our grip on reality.

From here: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/04/23/project-elysium-wants-to-use-vr-to-revive-deceased-loved-ones/

Wow, I'm really interested in how they plan to support the AI part. It really sounds kind of impossible to me where we yet stand...

I love the concept of VR tech in general, so i can't wait for this to be released

Wow, this is crazy, and the psychogical, social, and ethical implications of this are both amazing and kinda scary. That part actually interests me a bit more than the actual tech, I mean, think about it... Undoubtedly this would help some people, but it could also really damage some. Imagine some person who can't get over the death of a love one, constantly interacting with them in the game, blurring the line between what's real and what's virtual. I don't doubt that quite a few people would end up like that. Of further question is exactly what you'd get to do with them, would you just talk? or would you be able to physically interact with them like in real life (or at least as close to it as possible)? I can see it now, people unable to forget a dead lover, constantly interacting with them, not even realizing that they're in love with a computer program and not the actual person they lost. I don't think everyone would do that, but it's still a very real and very odd possibility. But then again, would it be odd? Sure, people would scorn them, but it would barely be any different than those otakus who fall in love with anime characters or whatever. That's one of those things where you'd have to define just exactly what is okay in VR, not mention you'd have to define the limits of how much the virtual world and the real world can interact, if there will be any limits at all. Is it even right to do this? again, one of those thing society as a whole will have to decide, and even then it's not like that's how it's gonna be forever. This technology potentially has the ability to change the course of human history, and it likely will. It's so intruiging to think about all this, I can't wait to see it come out, that's all I know for sure.

>>4 If the computer program is so good that it can completely imitate a dead loved one, make it so real that you can't distinguish it from reality, then it is reality... I mean there's no magic inside of your body, your personality is just very-very complex information stored in your brain. If one can reproduce that, (which I obviously think they can't yet) then it's as real as the subject from whom it was reproduced. The only concern would be how much time someone spends in VR so it doesn't become a health risk. But other than that, what's so bad about it? As long as people don't get hurt, I think anything is okay in VR...

>>5 Oh, I must not have worded what I meant right, I meant more like those people who are so lost in grief that even if it isn't an absolute perfect imitation they still kind of lose it, ya know? Still, you do bring up a fair point, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. That program, even if it perfectly imitates the dead person isn't really that person. Technically since we can observe and interact with it, it's real, but not the kind of real we're used to. A "Virtual" Reality, if you will. I mean, Virtual reality and Actual reality are two different things, and the consequences in one would be far lighter than in another. So does that really make anything okay in VR? I understand this is now going into the realm of opinion, but I don't think some things should be allowed in VR, of course I wouldn't want the rules to be just like reality but just like in normal video games today there are just some things you can't and shouldn't do.

>>6 So if you can do the same things to a virtual person than a dead person, interact with him the same way, let's say he deterministically gives the same responses to any and every environmental input than the deceased one, then how is he different from the real one? He is the same as the real one, or more specifically an instance of what defined the real one in the first place. Of course depending on his environment (virtual in this case) his personality may develop differently than in the physical world that's sure, if it's programmed to develop in the first place. But he can disappear (if deleted) just like his "predecessor" could die. My conclusion is that an AI like this would be very real, just in a different environment.

". I mean, Virtual reality and Actual reality are two different things, and the consequences in one would be far lighter than in another."
I have guesses as to what you mean by that but, I don't fully understand yet. I would like you to elaborate that.
Yeah probably actions would have different consequences for physical beings in virtual reality, since for them it's an interface, but for virtual beings, something we're guessing that this project promises, like AI...if someone would program an AI that is self aware, deletion of it's code would be equivalent with death for it. Or if it's the AI of your deceased loved one, equivalent with his/her death for you again. So in a sense it's virtual reality, but risks in terms of losing important data are very real, deeply rooted in reality. I guess I could go on and on with my speculations, haha.

>>7 Yeah, that makes sense, I mean I do understand that if it were possible, it would be real by all definitions of the word. My main issue is that it wouldn't be that real person, as in, that person the AI is based upon is dead and this is a copy (albeit extremely accurate to who they were). This may just be me, but if say, my mother were dead and this came out and it was more than capable of replicating her perfectly an interaction was incredibly life-like, I still would not feel that it was actually her, because it isn't. It's not that it's not real, it's that it's not really her. Get what i'm saying?

And I apologize for any confusion with my words, what I meant is that, while just like you said, there would be equivalents, but it wouldn't be the same as our reality. It really is a difficult question to answer. After all, say we could somehow travel to completely difference universes, and we travelled to one where instead of of atoms and cells and so on, you had... oh I don't know, cubes and string stuff or whatever and everything was made of fish, electricity didn't power things, instead it was toothpaste. So, a completly different universe with completely different rules. So, we know it's real, we go there, see it, good. From our universe, we know it's out there, but it doesn't exist in our universe, so was it ever real in the first place? Does it actually exist? You'd have to really define exactly what "real" is, and that is a very hard thing to figure out when you get down to it. So all that is kinda what Virtual reality is, so while it does exist, say they remade Skyrim for our theoretical super advanced VR with self-aware AI and such, it's there, I can hook up and play it, but no where (as far as we know) in the observable universe am I going to be able to find Tamriel physically once I hook out.
Again, apologies if I have confused you or failed to fully elaborate on what I meant, this is a very deep topic and you really could go on forever with sepculation xD

Oh and sorry for any typos and such that might make that hard to read, it's late as of this writing and i'm incredibly tired hehe.

>>8 Actually what I was trying to tell you, if we take your example, is that it Is her. But you're also right it's not the one who deceased, but it Is her. It's just that the virtual one is another instance of her. Maybe that's hard to comprehend. Let me try to explain. Let's say, your deceased member A, while he/she is still living is some kind of representation of information for you and her environment in the world. There is a unique data-structure that particularly describes her to the tiniest detail. That is not mr. A, it's just a data-template, a schema which describes mr. A in the highest detail possible. The schema doesn't have it's own life, own living entity, it's just a theoretical entity. Mr. A is an Instance of that schema. Since there is a literally no chance (because of environmental influences) for you to meet two identical people, we (humans) think that every person is unique, but if you look at it like I do, every person has a different schema describing them. Now comes the tricky part. If we take that schema and instantiate another object, another instance of that schema, let's say mr. B, he wouldn't be (just) a copy of the previous instance. Mr. B would be the same in every aspect to the previous Mr. A, the only thing that would change is that Mr. A is not unique anymore, since there's two of them existing, two of the same schema. Alas going back to your example, she wouldn't be a fake or a copy, or something not real, but another instance of the same living being. She would share the same memories as the previous instance up to the point of instantiation, and feel and react the same as the previous deceased instance would have if she were there.
Again, I'd like to say, I doubt though that there's technology capable of doing that. Probably what will happen is, that the creators can at best make something that can be how you described it: incredibly life-like.

Well, depends on what your definition of reality is. I think that as long as you know that you are in a virtual space there's no danger of confusing it with being in the physical space. But both are real. None of them is fake, none of them are trying to take one other's place. And what exists inside of a virtual world also exists...virtually. That's the key word. Everything that you acknowledge as your environment exists for you. Of course a Tamriel in VR wouldn't exist physically, but I don't think people would be as stupid to mix it up. There's a chance that they like it more than the physical world though, in which case we can really learn a lesson about what kind of world we live in...

>>10 Ah, okay, I see what you mean now. It was a tad difficult to understand at first, as understandably there has never really been 2 completely identical instances of a being in human history. But yeah, I get it, so it IS her, but it also ISN'T, it's just that, besides the difference in environment, various variables would cause differences in personality and so on. In essence it would be the same scenario as in the one movie with the mother who lost a child, and her husband got a robot clone or something that had all the child's memories... Interesting...

And yeah, once again it all goes back to what ones definition of reality is, if there even one of course (obviously there's one in the dictionary and such, but speaking from a bit of a more metaphysical angle- can we really define what reality is?).

>>11 *is one

That's really cool but won't it be really expensive?

That's creepy as fuck....WTF MAN.

Threshold sao, hack;//,log horizon etc.🙏

It would be kinda cool but the tech would be better used in other areas. Plus that can't be good for people's psychological states.

>>16 agree

>>16 how do you know for sure? Have you studied behaviorism?

>>18 No need to study man, this thing is legit fucked up dayum. Then again those who don't care about talking to a robotic figure replicating a dead person would only be using this. I say, LET MA HOMIES REST

>>18 I took a semester of Psych, But that doesn't say much. In reality it's just common sense that seeing somebody who you know is dead will lead to an unhealthy mental state. It would disrupt the mourning and/or acceptance of death that is required to move on and function as a human being

>>19 Ain't nobody botherin' yo' homies ya fool. They restin' while you be hatin' fo' no apparent reason holmes, since I don't see you backin' up what you're preachin'. And where you get that shit about them being a robotic figure, don't go decidin' them details just by yo'self, cuz that's straight up stupid.

>>20 I asked about behaviorism in particular, not a one-semester psych-class that if even remotely touches the topic, won't really help you judge a question like this to begin with. What's common sense about it, tell me? You can talk for yourself, but don't state your answer to a complex moral-behavioral question as if it's a fact, unless you can thoroughly prove it. I mean can you define what an unhealthy mental state even is? Compared to what? Unhealthy compared to what we deem healthy in our culture? For example, would a murderer be deemed unhealthy? But if so, do we deem an amazon headhunter mentally unhealthy also? They do the same thing. I mean, every mental state is the result of experiencing a certain environment. At most, the environment can be unhealthy for someone, but everyone's mental state is a healthy reflection to a certain type of environment.
For example why do you think mourning is mentally healthy? Do you truly think it helps accept another's death and to move on? It may help some and others it may not even help a cinch.
There are some cultures where people celebrate the death of their family members, helping the living accept it that way, helping them to move on with a cheerful happy environment. I just can't stand it when people want to decide themselves what's normal or what should be deemed normal for other people, it's stupid.

I think that it might pose a certain mental danger to certain people, surely, as well as videogames, porn, alcohol, gambling or anything else in that regard does. You can get addicted to anything. But that's not the product's fault. It's the person's fault for not practising self-discipline. It's the same with this one. I think that there's also a strong chance that this would help a lot of people with accepting the death of a certain someone. For example: lot of people have regrets about how they treated a certain person before their death but never get a chance to make amends, even though the amends themselves are self-satisfactory. They could do it in a product like this.

>>20 Rieg says seems to be pretty obvious. If the death of a loved one is mentally taxing and emotional, seeing them again after death in the form of a virtual game would also be mentally-taxing and emotional. Why on earth are you arguing against this? When someone tells you that the earth is round, do you also demand evidence?

Additionally, where is your evidence that proves the majority of the human populace would not suffer from unhealthy side effects from using Elysium?
You would demand evidence without providing any of your own?

I've put together these links that can outline why Projet Elysium is a bad way to cope with a loss and hinder te healing process:
http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/depression-grief?page=2#2
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/mental-health-coping-with-grief
http://www.professionalpsychiatry.com/coping_with_loss.html
http://www.uwosh.edu/couns_center/website-parts/self-help-brocheres/grief

If you actually want something more specific, like scientific studies on how seeing a living replica of a dead loved one can hinder the grieivng and coping of a loss...then that's kind of insane. I'm not even sure if it's legal to those kind of studies because of the high probability of placing too much mental stress on the participants.

In the end, I would only be okay with this project if it were in the hands of licensed psychologists to "administer" or cut off a patient whenever they saw fit. I've read articles, and I'm still not entirely sure if they plan to distribute the game to the open market or not.

>>22 How can you conclude that the taxing and emotional part is the death of a loved one??? The taxing and emotional part is the loss of a loved one and the fact that one has to accept that for the rest of their lives. The acceptance is what is taxing and emotional depending on how you approach accepting that fact. I mean it's as if you're saying that without exception it's taxing and emotional for everyone, although if you take a large amount of people, you would see that for some it's stressful for some it's taxing for some it's only emotional for some it's neither of those.

I already stated earlier why I am arguing against this, but I will rephrase it again, that it bothers me when someone states their opinion as a proven scientific absolute fact. Seeing the deceased in a virtual environment is not predestined to have a mentally negative effect on any and everyone.

"When someone tells you that the earth is round, do you also demand evidence?" If it's not proven solid to me, I will question it, until it is either proven right or otherwise. I mean should we believe everything somebody of some kind of higher status tells us? Or someone with a certification for some area? It's definitely a plus for authenticity, but it's not absolute. I'm a software developer, if I tell you, the best processor you can currently buy is an intel corei3 series chipset, will you believe it unconditionally, just because my area of expertise has a lot to do with computers? If you have cancer and the doctor tells you that your only chance for survival is chemotheraphy, where your whole body will be radiation-poisoned just to poison a tiny part inside of your body, will you unconditionally believe him, even if you realize later that you have been poisoned so bad, that now death is inevitable even if you wouldn't have cancer? People don't question a lot of things and they don't conclude a lot of facts because of that. Is it such a big problem that I do critically question a statement?

I never said "the majority of the human populace would not suffer from unhealthy side effects from using Elysium", let me quote myself "I think that there's also a strong chance that this would help a lot of people with accepting the death of a certain someone" I have stated an example scenario to also prove the existance of this chance. I can also elaborate why I think, that in my example, Elysium's use would lead that certain someone towards acceptance. Also I might as well add that I do think and agree that the majority of the human populace Would suffer from unhealthy side effects from using Elysium. But I don't think that it's the product's fault. The majority of people are not educated enough to have enough self-discipline and emotional self-control for a product like this. Ultimately, it's not the product's responsibility. It's the people's. Following your logic guys, guns could be banned, because MANY human beings have proven not to be educated enough to use that type of product according to common sense. Since you're probably from the US, I'm sure that will at least strike some controversy in your thought process.

>>23
1.As I understand the first link is about what might hinder the grieving process and what effects it could have on a person's mental wellbeing. I don't see "spending time with your dead loved one" in the hinderences list tho.
2. "nyone can experience grief and loss, but each person is unique in how he or she copes with these feelings." This only proves my point.
3. Again, linking in the probable common stages of grief does not disprove or prove any previous arguments. Are we having a conversation or are you just throwing links at me? I'll read them, don't worry. Links are not very intimidating, nor do they contain undisputed facts.
4. Same here too.

If you mean that I would want to see it as your disproving argument, yes that would suffice to prove your point, if and only if we agree on what replica exactly means. Since it could (depending on the control groups authencity) give us a result of a test about the very situation we are talking about. But there is probably none, or very few, so I don't expect you to research something like that on the internet. Thus we are stuck discussing thought-experiments about how different people would behave in this situation. Or at least I am trying, while some others just go and judge things based on their biases and "common sense".
And btw. studying animal and human behaviorism is very legal. Control groups are usually recruited on a voluntary basis and are paid for experiments as a compensation. Also, I can guess how you imagine poor victims horrified in some crazy science experiment, but please calm your fantasies, these things can also be tested in a very humane way. Just think about it a little.

Licensed psychologists learn to adjust you to very common societal rules, sometimes not applicable to an individual. They also have an interest in treating as many people with mental diseases as possible, since that is their source of income. Proving the existence of many psychological diseases are by far some of the most disputed topics. There is no guarantee that a psychologist has that much of a better understanding of how people would behave after and interact with a product like this than you or me. Most of them are people too. They make mistakes too. They aren't all-knowing and all-seeing.
Here, have some links so I can back that one up too:
#1 http://www.livescience.com/12908-top-10-controversial-psychiatric-disorders.html
#2 http://www.livescience.com/34496-psychiatric-manual-stirs-controversy.html
#3 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

Although I don't remember any more if this game is going to be commercially sold, that's one thing I wouldn't agree with. I'd like it if this would be used more as a kind of a treatment instead. Well that's if it's as good as it sounds.

>>And btw. studying animal and human behaviorism is very legal.

Sigh... I was refering to unethical experiments , which, yes, ARE ILLEGAL. This would fall under psychological experiments that may induce trauma. In your words, "Think about it a little."

>>Again, linking in the probable common stages of grief does not disprove or prove any previous arguments. Are we having a conversation or are you just throwing links at me?

I used the links in order to prove how the death of a loved one can lead to an "unhealthy mental state" (since you wanted a definition for it earlier), BUT can be corrected through a healing process (which was ALSO outlined within the links). My main concern is that the healing steps will be disrupted because of this video game; that accepting a person's death will be harder. I heard what the developers had to say in an interview, and I think their goal with this creation is admirable. I can definitely see it as a form of healing if your religious and hope that the frail dying body and dementia riddled mind of the person you love, is fit and healthy and smiling again in Heaven as they are in the game. If it's someone you just had an argument with right before they died, I can see how you might have a few things to say just lift a weight off your chest. However, I still believe that in most cases, this project would do more harm than good.

>>I mean it's as if you're saying that without exception it's taxing and emotional for everyone, although if you take a large amount of people, you would see that for some it's stressful for some it's taxing for some it's only emotional for some it's neither of those.
>>I already stated earlier why I am arguing against this, but I will rephrase it again, that it bothers me when someone states their opinion as a proven scientific absolute fact. Seeing the deceased in a virtual environment is not predestined to have a mentally negative effect on any and everyone.

Once again, you state your opinion as everyone else has, ridicule anyone with a differing opinion because they didn't provide evidence, then ridicule what evidence someone does provide for their point, and yet provide nothing yourself makes you the most hypocritical person in this discussion.

>>I mean should we believe everything somebody of some kind of higher status tells us? Or someone with a certification for some area? It's definitely a plus for authenticity, but it's not absolute.

What the... We're talking about science here. Or at least that's what I thought. Not a philosophical debate on the purity of knowledge and how it exists and to whom can we trust.

>>People don't question a lot of things and they don't conclude a lot of facts because of that. Is it such a big problem that I do critically question a statement?

NO! But if you ask for evidence while simultaneously questioning any all professional opinions while forming your own based on what is apparently NOTHING... What's the point?

>>Following your logic guys, guns could be banned, because MANY human beings have proven not to be educated enough to use that type of product according to common sense. Since you're probably from the US, I'm sure that will at least strike some controversy in your thought process.

I agree with this a hundred percent, actually. What's your point?

>>2. "anyone can experience grief and loss, but each person is unique in how he or she copes with these feelings." This only proves my point.

Only when regarding the minority. In this conversation, my concern is with the majority.

I read your links, and yes, it's known that some psychologists are just meeting a quota... The same can be said about doctor's prescribing medicine or police handing out tickets or making arrests. But out of those controversial topics, I didn't really see any mention of grief, major depression, or trauma from the death/loss of a loved one on that list. I'm not trying to be a jackass here, I promise. But regarding those links, what did that have to do with pros or cons of Project Elysium and the effects it may have on the human psyche? If anything, I guess a psychologist may make the wrong call and use "Project Elysium" on the wrong patient, but that would still make it a rather dangerous practice.

So far I can't find any journal studying the effects on a person's grieving process after revisiting a replica of a loved one, and I'm starting to realize that the whole debate inevitably doesn't hold any value because there isn't a substantial empirical evidence to prove that either of us are wrong, and even if there was, you would apparently doubt the qualifications of the psychologist.

>>28 You miss that edit button too huh? :D

Depends on how the experiment is concluded. You have your own concept of it and I mine. Certainly deliberately inducing trauma would count as unethical, but no experiment comes without it's risk. That's why it's usually voluntary. But you don't have to deliberately make it so that it induces trauma, please don't jump to conclusions. I'm sure you can't picture this to be tested in a safe way, since we wouldn't be arguing about it then, but I do. Still, I do understand what you're saying and I don't want to waste time arguing about how this could be tested in an ethical way, or what even ethical means, since the meaning differs from one person to the other.

"However, I still believe that in most cases, this project would do more harm than good." As stated above, I have my own reasons to agree with that.

"Once again, you state your opinion as everyone else has, ridicule anyone with a differing opinion because they didn't provide evidence, then ridicule what evidence someone does provide for their point, and yet provide nothing yourself makes you the most hypocritical person in this discussion" I have provided my arguments every time I didn't agree with someone, I do take the time to answer with as much detail as possible. My style of reaction may depend on the person though. But if you think that what I've stated is only my opinion and can't accept it as fact, you are welcome to disprove it. Learning and polishing my understanding about this topic from other people's opinions is what makes this interesting.
I may ridicule someone for their conversation style but that doesn't make me a hypocrite, however you dislike me.
Also if you're unpleased with my opinion, why not just ask why I think that? Maybe I can go into an explanation. Even though I ridicule others and am apparently a hypocrite, I do give a lot of space for explanations officer ;).

Like here: "How can you conclude that the taxing and emotional part is the death of a loved one???" or here "I mean should we believe everything somebody of some kind of higher status tells us?" or here "And where you get that shit about them being a robotic figure" or here "I mean can you define what an unhealthy mental state even is? Compared to what?" or here "For example why do you think mourning is mentally healthy?"
Most of my questions are left unanswered anyways leading us to talk at each other rather than to each other with different people sometimes even including you. Anyways, I think this conversation is going down the wrong path, getting a bit too personal for my taste, but if you've got a personal problem with me, I'll gladly discuss it with you in a different thread. Maybe in Personal. Or by providing each other some other kind of contact information.

"What the... We're talking about science here." I've already given you proof in my previous comment (links) that psychology and social studies do not adhere to scientific principles.

"while forming your own based on what is apparently NOTHING" I'm very sad if this is your conclusion. I mean, you never really asked what I conclude my opinions from, but that's ok. I do deal with and read scientific theories on behaviorism, that's why I question them. I've got different experiences which don't fit with current "scientific" (which in social studies and psychology are more like statistical) opinions. You could say, I seemingly base it on nothing, the fault may be on my part not being able to word these things better.

Really? You're probably the first and last. Anyways, my point is, one either allows people to use a tool with all its dangers and circumstances or one regulates usage based on how educated people are to use it. I wanted to prove how much of a hypocrite someone would be who supports possession of guns but states that Elysium as a product would have unhealthy effects on people's mental states. In your case, that one backfired as hell, but I'm still sure that with other commenters it could have been mighty different. Still, I am really happy about your opinion though.

"Only when regarding the minority. In this conversation, my concern is with the majority." I've already stated previously that I do believe the majority is not fit to use a tool/product/game like that.
Let me quote myself:"Also I might as well add that I do think and agree that the majority of the human populace Would suffer from unhealthy side effects from using Elysium. But I don't think that it's the product's fault"

What I was getting to with the links is that psychology is based on empirical observations without careful analysis of cause and effect. Every person's background is different, thus every person's psychological state, value-system, and reaction to certain events (such as grief) varies based on how they grew up to interpret that information and thus how they ultimately process that information regarding themselves. A psychologist, who's science doesn't adhere to scientific principles is not guaranteed to be more fit to make a decision than you or me are concerning a certain person, since his 'science' knows little more about how a person will respond to that experience, because psychology doesn't understand the laws and order of human behaviour. Plus most of what they get taught, isn't about human behaviour either, they learn symptoms of certain states of one's personality when they are unfit for society, so that they can diagnose that state as mentally ill even though they've got no exact idea why or how they became that way, or no exact way to rehabilitate that kind of behaviour, and even though the person's brain is totally healthy and functional. So to reply to "In the end, I would only be okay with this project if it were in the hands of licensed psychologists to "administer" or cut off a patient whenever they saw fit" I do not agree based on the above.

>>29 Well that's also true if you don't take into account that we actually do agree lol. Although any conversation holds value to me where the two parties talk to each other and not at each other, though I probably have to try my best to do so more too.