I'm pretty sure I remember one scene in a Niven book in which someone weaponizes it. It must be at least twenty years since I read it, so my memory is extremely hazy, but I vaguely think (1) the viewpoint character, who is probably Louis Wu, is shocked and offended that anyone would do that; (2) the weaponized-tasp-wielder might possibly have been a Pierson's puppeteer; (3) it happens near the start of the book (or story?); (4) the narration of the event occurs in close proximity to an instance of one of Niven's "there ain't no X" abbreviations (TANJ, TANSTAAFL).
(Wireheading is also used in a drug-like way; the aforementioned Louis Wu is an ex-addict.)
The search for a magical panacea continues. I'm sure there's some beneficial discoveries that will come out of this research, but I don't think it's going to elevate you to a "mystic" state by strapping electrodes to your head.
My guess: at best these "neurohackers" will accomplish nothing other than some good times socializing with each other (good for them), at worst they'll hurt themselves.
Yeah, this tool seems like a pretty blunt instrument at this point. From the OP:
> It is very difficult to target a specific region of the brain, especially with simple home set-ups that use wet sponges as the contact points.
My layman's speculation is that things like cognition have complicated and fine-granted regulatory systems associated with them, which may have sub-optimal set-points for many people. To get true "cognitive enhancement" you'd have to 1) influence these systems in precise targeted ways (i.e. not with a blunt instrument) and 2) do it in a way that won't trigger counteracting regulation. Anything less would probably cause side-effects and/or be temporary with negative withdrawal symptoms.
Pretty much. I don't want to discount the potential in this field of research, but I really don't think they're going to achieve much with DIY transcranial stimulation at this point.
That said, a routine of high-quality sleep, daily exercise, nutritious food, mindfulness meditation, and limited caffeine use will do far more for the average person – with substantially less risk.
What is limited caffeine? I see/hear this a lot recently, how much caffeine impacts our sleep cycle. I have 2-3 caffeinated beverages a day (usually 1 dark coffee and 1-2 cups of tea), but wonder if even that limited amount is impacting my sleep cycle.
I think it depends on your height and bodyweight, tolerance, and how quickly you metabolize caffeine. You also should be counting total mg of caffeine ingested.
I metabolize caffeine slowly and have practically no tolerance. A medium-sized latte anytime after 5 PM will keep me up all night. A decaf equivalent will make it really hard to fall asleep (remember that decaf still has caffeine).
I think my limit when not ingesting caffeine in the early morning is about 200mg before I have issues with falling asleep.
I think the optimal quantity of caffeine varies from person to person and would be affected by individual tolerance and biochemistry.
I've seen research suggesting the use of repeated low dosages (20-200mg per hour) throughout the morning and early afternoon for optimal performance. However, many of these studies have very small sample sizes and should be read cautiously.
Caffeine may be functionally useful for some people due to their schedule, but any biological benefits would be outweighed by negative side effects if consumed too much(hence limited). Someone who is getting a healthy amount of sleep, eating properly, exercising and also at a healthy weight wouldn't benefit much from a lot of caffeine anyway.
I really wish the anti-caffeine meme on the internet would die. While it is true that the alertness/wakefulness benefits are greatly reduced with habituation, caffeine has a whole host of benefits:
1. It helps promote a healthy body weight by suppressing appetite and boosting your metabolism.
2. It enhances dopamine action in the brain which is linked to improvements in learning and memory.
3. It has been shown to be neuroprotective; caffeine consumption has been linked to lower rates of both parkinson's and alzheimer's.
4. Caffeine intake has even been linked to higher testosterone levels.
So, enjoy caffeine all you want, just don't consume so much you feel overstimulated, or can't get to sleep at your usual bedtime.
I only have my own experience to go on, but I feel considerable benefits from giving up caffeine completely (about 6 years now). I feel mentally broader, calmer, less pointy. That being said, I do miss the smell and taste, and the buzz :)
The article mentions that it's mostly men between the ages of 21 and 30 who use neurostimulatory devices. I know I've been tempted to try.
Maybe this is silly, but I view this as evidence of societal sickness. Young men are pushed so hard to be the very best at whatever they do that they are willing to use unproven, unsafe technology to alter their biology to give them an edge.
Sure, if you asked them they'd say that they wanted to be smarter for smartness' sake, but I doubt it's true.
Maybe. The other explanation is that men in general and young men in particular tend to have a higher tolerance for risk, which is reflected in everything from crime rates to willingness to ride a bicycle in traffic.
Totally. I'm 23 and I'll readily admit I can't program to save my life without taking piracetam and a light dose of dextroamphetamine. I was sick and tired of living with my parents, no money, no friends. After a year and a half of DIY binge learning I have an incredible job. It's really messed up that that's the only way I felt I could dig myself out of the tar pit and find a job that doesn't make me hate my life.
I mean, when has society not ever been sick? Think of the gold rushes, oil rushes. There's always been desperate people willing to risk it all. It's only now they have access to these options. The only surprising thing should be for people who don't understand the weird new societal pressures placed on people in this age range.
Why do we have any reason to believe that there's any electrical field inside the brain at all? The skin is reasonably conductive, bone is not. Do we have any proof that the current doesn't just run along the skin taking the path of least resistance? The is the one part of transcranial electrical stimulation that I've never understood - there doesn't seem to be any proof it does what people say it does.
I don't know for certain, but this is basically very low voltage shock therapy, and we know that has effects on the brain, and is efficacious in treating depression.
There is deep brain stimulation that plants electrodes deep into the brain to create a field there. The results are pretty reproducible: Turn on stimulation, Parkinson patient can walk, turn it off, he can't walk. That at least is evidence that the brain responds to electrical fields.
I was wondering if there would be any sort of discussion regarding pain relief a la TENs unit approach, which I haven't tried, but it doesn't look to be part of the article. Chronic lower back pain is such a market I kind of hope more devices keep getting created to address the issue. In fairness there's still a lot of barely substantiated / anecdotal evidence with most of the stuff out there (inversion therapy, TENs) and the one arena that should be helpful (chiro) but can be conflated with new-age rigmarole.
39 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadhttp://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=235788
(Wireheading is also used in a drug-like way; the aforementioned Louis Wu is an ex-addict.)
You're certainly not guaranteed any amount of success, but the right smack on the right part of the machine might just fix the rattle.
first sentence really paints a picture
My guess: at best these "neurohackers" will accomplish nothing other than some good times socializing with each other (good for them), at worst they'll hurt themselves.
> It is very difficult to target a specific region of the brain, especially with simple home set-ups that use wet sponges as the contact points.
My layman's speculation is that things like cognition have complicated and fine-granted regulatory systems associated with them, which may have sub-optimal set-points for many people. To get true "cognitive enhancement" you'd have to 1) influence these systems in precise targeted ways (i.e. not with a blunt instrument) and 2) do it in a way that won't trigger counteracting regulation. Anything less would probably cause side-effects and/or be temporary with negative withdrawal symptoms.
So yes, it can be used to accelerate skill learning for skill dependant people but can be (and is) detrimental for knowledge workers
That said, a routine of high-quality sleep, daily exercise, nutritious food, mindfulness meditation, and limited caffeine use will do far more for the average person – with substantially less risk.
I metabolize caffeine slowly and have practically no tolerance. A medium-sized latte anytime after 5 PM will keep me up all night. A decaf equivalent will make it really hard to fall asleep (remember that decaf still has caffeine).
I think my limit when not ingesting caffeine in the early morning is about 200mg before I have issues with falling asleep.
I've seen research suggesting the use of repeated low dosages (20-200mg per hour) throughout the morning and early afternoon for optimal performance. However, many of these studies have very small sample sizes and should be read cautiously.
I feel best with no caffeine at all.
Why limited caffeine?
What I've seen is that caffeine works for some people and it doesn't work for others.
1. It helps promote a healthy body weight by suppressing appetite and boosting your metabolism.
2. It enhances dopamine action in the brain which is linked to improvements in learning and memory.
3. It has been shown to be neuroprotective; caffeine consumption has been linked to lower rates of both parkinson's and alzheimer's.
4. Caffeine intake has even been linked to higher testosterone levels.
So, enjoy caffeine all you want, just don't consume so much you feel overstimulated, or can't get to sleep at your usual bedtime.
Intellectually, I know I should just unstimulate that part but meh.
Maybe this is silly, but I view this as evidence of societal sickness. Young men are pushed so hard to be the very best at whatever they do that they are willing to use unproven, unsafe technology to alter their biology to give them an edge.
Sure, if you asked them they'd say that they wanted to be smarter for smartness' sake, but I doubt it's true.
I mean, when has society not ever been sick? Think of the gold rushes, oil rushes. There's always been desperate people willing to risk it all. It's only now they have access to these options. The only surprising thing should be for people who don't understand the weird new societal pressures placed on people in this age range.