I'm cautiously optimistic about technology like this; but neural interfaces seem so wildly transformative. What will the world be like when we can alter our desires and patterns of thought easily? Transhumanism here we come...
Much like all biotech, the spectrum of use from truly (positively) transformative to the outright dystopian is very wide.
Can a similar implant be required for schoolchildren in order not to doubt what the teachers tell them to think, or feel positively whenever certain clichés are uttered? Certainly not beyond the pale in China and cannot be ruled out elsewhere. Western nations have had their bouts of indoctrination, too.
I mean, it's a bit the dilemma posed in Brave New World: what if we can create a veil that restricts our views / thoughts, but in exchange grants us happiness? When someone, for any reason, breaks out that veil, the realization that happiness only exists behind the veil and the lies is quite shocking and unacceptable for us as humans: the very realization that our happiness is built on top of lies will make us unhappy, and seeing it from the outside will often make us claim that that's a false/fake happiness.
But then, what about religion, or blind optimism, or the innocence of children? About ignorance itself? Is it acceptable to let people choose their own veils, but not to have them imposed? And if everyone accepts a certain lie, is that fair to the remaining minorities?
That's what happens when you let evolution run wild. We might have the desire to be good to others and ourselves, but we don't have the power to go all the way through.
Is the Lord’s Prayer “straight-up youth brainwashing” too?
I went to schools in the US and UK where we said the pledge on occasion in the former and the Lord’s Prayer on occasion in the latter, and they both seemed like harmless traditions. (The UK school essentially had a religious cultural background, but turning us into observant Christians was most certainly not a goal of the faculty. Similarly I don’t think the pledge turns people into nationalists.)
I got punished in elementary school because I didn't say "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance. While these means aren't 100% effective, nonparticipation is noticed, is punished, and labeling children as "problematic" for insufficient or wrong religiosity / patriotism can snowball and stick with them for life.
I’m absolutely fascinated by this debate, albeit as an amateur merely listening in.
It does feel like there’s a difference between giving someone medication that changes their mood, versus an implanted device that does the same thing. But I can’t quite put my finger on the difference. Maybe it’s just different and in a hundred years, it will be just as normal.
Taking pills is like eating, it's a think everyone does, and comes from "outside" of you. An implant is something you add to yourself. However that may be biased from what I know. Many people have hearing aids that they can't really take off, and for them it's normal. I don't know many people like that so implants seem unusual to me. On the other hand, pretty much everyone I know too pills at some point.
There was definitely a time when swallowing little round coloured artificially-produced objects was seen as weird and dangerous. It became normal when people saw enough positive side-effects. The same might happen here.
> Maybe it’s just different and in a hundred years, it will be just as normal.
My guess is it will be looked upon as some barbaric/stupid treatment. People are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. The majority of it will be tossed aside when the problem is better understood.
Pills can be stopped. good luck removing an implant. There is also the fact that the implant itself, competes with natural neuronal development by taking up space, and increasing intercranial pressure which is a growth stop signal. Depending on the nature of said implant, it's mode of operation can be changed at the whimsy of an external party. See the story around "Chop jobs" in System Shock/System Shock 2, where cybernetic implants are posited to be capable of automating a person's physical behaviors even against their own will. The topic is toyed with quite effectively there. It's all a matter of splicing in a bit of biocompatible chip at the right nerve endings.
Very "I have no mouth, yet I must scream."
And pills, for the record aren@t much better. Your mind and mental state are still largely dependent on access to the drug, and if you've ever tried to do anything remotely ambitious while contending with the extra restrictions placed on you w.r.t. Schedule 2 substances; good bloody luck. Though if you've got practices you@re willing to share , I'm all ears.
Meanwhile, psilocybin remains illegal and stigmatized even though it could help thousands and thousands of people if only more research was performed on it.
We should be exploring all promising avenues of treatment, recognizing that not every avenue will prove effective or suitable for every person.
Incidentally, there is movement on the psilocybin front[1], so I don't think there's a legitimate reason for such a cynical comment on this article. Can we discuss one avenue of inquiry without mentioning another with the intent of being negative?
It's basically making you dependent on a drug but you have to commit to a specific producer upfront and changing it later on is a huge cost and risk undertaking and maybe even impossible (due to scare tissue).
This basically makes you fully dependent on the company producing the implant.
Now some would say it's like a peace maker, but from what I can tell with my limited understanding of biology it's much worse (and peace makers are more scary than many people realize as today a "no contact" hacking of peacemakers is possible as far as I know)
What makes this modification much worse than a pacemaker? I can see why it would be bad to be dependent on an internal artificial device, but not why it would be worse than a heart device.
2. it's in a more space constraint place, scare tissue can force you to place "later" implants at different places, but as there is not much space there might not be alternative paces.
3. pacemaker are a "relative" simple well understood implant, you _could_ build pretty dump/"un-hackable" ones
4. theoretically what can be used to relive depression can also be used to manipulate you, like activate it less then possible normally except if you are in a shopping mall.. (well setting aside that wireless communication with a implant while possible isn't always simple). A pacemaker can "only" kill you, which always leavs the question why it didn't work even if there is no prove that it did kill you.
Also modern pacemakers are scary, too. I mean seriously you can assassinate people by hacking their pacemaker without touching them...
I agree with your general point, but this also appears to be an experimental, last-resort treatment. Doctors will hand out SSRIs like candy, but I highly doubt that happening for any kind of surgical intervention. I am not aware of anyone with a pacemaker who did not absolutely need one to continue living.
That isnt to say there are not problems with this kind of technology that needs addressing, but I would rank this pretty low in a list of scary technology.
"With grate abuse potential comes grate responsibility to make sure it's not abused." category.
An let's be honest if I would be really deeply stuck in serve depression and the only way way out is to (in a dystopian future) give partial control over my mental state and as such live to a coperation, I probably still would do it. Because being able to live a live which is only partially my live is still better then just being alive instead of living.
I have no comment about this particular technology and how well it works, but there are already people wired to naturally feel happy or unhappy. Therapy can't change their base state all that much. A hypothetical implant just gives you a choice.
Not if such implants become state-mandated. And don't be quick to dismiss that; if effective, this could be the sole avenue to freedom for somebody who's been involuntarily committed.
And the implant doesn't appear to give you a choice. It makes the determination of when to fire off a pulse. Probably through Machine Learning, the same technology that can't tell the difference between a stopped emergency vehicle and a clear lane -- a mistake even toddlers know to be wrong -- applied to a signalling environment that even experts can't readily understand. Parents died in a freak accident? That might end up being the happiest day of your life.
Not at all. But extreme suspicion is warranted here. Folks who have experienced drugs like Zoloft know that antidepressants can go "too far."
At the very least, I'd want to see a hard off switch to put the implantee into control. I'd much prefer a device like this to be at-will (a button that fires a pulse when the patient wants one, possibly with a rate-limiter) and in conjunction with talk therapy to train the patient to recognize depressive spirals so that they can better help themselves. Early in that therapy, it may be necessary for the therapist to trigger the device, but after a certain point, the functionality for an external trigger should be permanently disabled. Being locked in a mental institution is depressing, and any treatment plan must take that into account.
40 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 93.0 ms ] threadCan a similar implant be required for schoolchildren in order not to doubt what the teachers tell them to think, or feel positively whenever certain clichés are uttered? Certainly not beyond the pale in China and cannot be ruled out elsewhere. Western nations have had their bouts of indoctrination, too.
But then, what about religion, or blind optimism, or the innocence of children? About ignorance itself? Is it acceptable to let people choose their own veils, but not to have them imposed? And if everyone accepts a certain lie, is that fair to the remaining minorities?
That's what happens when you let evolution run wild. We might have the desire to be good to others and ourselves, but we don't have the power to go all the way through.
Does the U.S. still do that creepy Pledge of Allegiance thing at schools? From the outside that looks like straight-up youth brainwashing. :S
I went to schools in the US and UK where we said the pledge on occasion in the former and the Lord’s Prayer on occasion in the latter, and they both seemed like harmless traditions. (The UK school essentially had a religious cultural background, but turning us into observant Christians was most certainly not a goal of the faculty. Similarly I don’t think the pledge turns people into nationalists.)
It does feel like there’s a difference between giving someone medication that changes their mood, versus an implanted device that does the same thing. But I can’t quite put my finger on the difference. Maybe it’s just different and in a hundred years, it will be just as normal.
Many people would argue people with my condition should be implanted, so we can’t go off our medication.
My guess is it will be looked upon as some barbaric/stupid treatment. People are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. The majority of it will be tossed aside when the problem is better understood.
Very "I have no mouth, yet I must scream."
And pills, for the record aren@t much better. Your mind and mental state are still largely dependent on access to the drug, and if you've ever tried to do anything remotely ambitious while contending with the extra restrictions placed on you w.r.t. Schedule 2 substances; good bloody luck. Though if you've got practices you@re willing to share , I'm all ears.
Or worse.. what will the world be when OTHERS can alter our desires and patterns of thought so easily?
Would insurance companies "encourage" people to live a healthier lifestyle?
Would employers "encourage" people to work more or not quit?
Would governments "encourage" us to support specific policies?
Incidentally, there is movement on the psilocybin front[1], so I don't think there's a legitimate reason for such a cynical comment on this article. Can we discuss one avenue of inquiry without mentioning another with the intent of being negative?
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psilocybin-treatm...
It's basically making you dependent on a drug but you have to commit to a specific producer upfront and changing it later on is a huge cost and risk undertaking and maybe even impossible (due to scare tissue).
This basically makes you fully dependent on the company producing the implant.
Now some would say it's like a peace maker, but from what I can tell with my limited understanding of biology it's much worse (and peace makers are more scary than many people realize as today a "no contact" hacking of peacemakers is possible as far as I know)
What makes this modification much worse than a pacemaker? I can see why it would be bad to be dependent on an internal artificial device, but not why it would be worse than a heart device.
2. it's in a more space constraint place, scare tissue can force you to place "later" implants at different places, but as there is not much space there might not be alternative paces.
3. pacemaker are a "relative" simple well understood implant, you _could_ build pretty dump/"un-hackable" ones
4. theoretically what can be used to relive depression can also be used to manipulate you, like activate it less then possible normally except if you are in a shopping mall.. (well setting aside that wireless communication with a implant while possible isn't always simple). A pacemaker can "only" kill you, which always leavs the question why it didn't work even if there is no prove that it did kill you.
Also modern pacemakers are scary, too. I mean seriously you can assassinate people by hacking their pacemaker without touching them...
That isnt to say there are not problems with this kind of technology that needs addressing, but I would rank this pretty low in a list of scary technology.
"With grate abuse potential comes grate responsibility to make sure it's not abused." category.
An let's be honest if I would be really deeply stuck in serve depression and the only way way out is to (in a dystopian future) give partial control over my mental state and as such live to a coperation, I probably still would do it. Because being able to live a live which is only partially my live is still better then just being alive instead of living.
And so you’re walking around like a happy-go-lucky fool all the time?
No thanks, that crosses too much into Black Mirror territory. I’d rather just go for good old-fashioned therapy.
There are too many things wrong with this. What if she’s in a situation where it would be better for her to feel sad?
And the implant doesn't appear to give you a choice. It makes the determination of when to fire off a pulse. Probably through Machine Learning, the same technology that can't tell the difference between a stopped emergency vehicle and a clear lane -- a mistake even toddlers know to be wrong -- applied to a signalling environment that even experts can't readily understand. Parents died in a freak accident? That might end up being the happiest day of your life.
If the state is willing and able to abuse people, they already have plenty of tools available to do so.
At the very least, I'd want to see a hard off switch to put the implantee into control. I'd much prefer a device like this to be at-will (a button that fires a pulse when the patient wants one, possibly with a rate-limiter) and in conjunction with talk therapy to train the patient to recognize depressive spirals so that they can better help themselves. Early in that therapy, it may be necessary for the therapist to trigger the device, but after a certain point, the functionality for an external trigger should be permanently disabled. Being locked in a mental institution is depressing, and any treatment plan must take that into account.