Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

wbur.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 149 posts

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#31

Post by ZenoArrow »

6stringmerc wrote: post #6
gwbas1c wrote: post #3

I think the thing that a lot of hackers don't understand is unintended consequences. It's fine when you're hacking a computer game, and the worst case scenario is that the game malfunctions. Things like overclocking a PC, or re-tuning a car, have more tangible consequences, but those consequences ultimately mean that the hacker will damage an easily replaceable commodity. A person's brain is not replaceable.

That's one of the reasons I've stayed away from 'beta blocker' medications even though they're designed to tone down stage fright to a bare minimum. There are, from what I've read, potential side effects that can be rather severe. As in, some real unwelcome motor/cognition changes. That's enough cautionary literature to keep me away. Strangely enough though, I'm not anti-supplement (vitamins, PH stacks, etc) in the l…

> "That's one of the reasons I've stayed away from 'beta blocker' medications even though they're designed to tone down stage fright to a bare minimum."

Just in case you're interested, bananas are meant to act as natural beta blockers (or more specifically, the potassium in bananas). I have no idea about how effective bananas are in reducing anxiety, but they might be worth a try.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#32

Post by Aelinsaar »

stared wrote: post #30

Forgive my votum separatum, but: > The biggest risk is that we just don't know what all the risks are. I think that's the biggest risk. I would call it "an opportunity". And as far as it is being done voluntarily, and there is a non-zero entry barrier, I am indebted to all those who (maybe) risk their health and lives for possible progress of science, medicine and technology. Compare it to extreme sports, where there…

An opportunity which comes blind, and with your brain as the stakes strikes me as something more akin to "A Gamble". It might actually be an incredibly poor gamble too.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#33

Post by ricksplat »

Karunamon wrote: post #29
ricksplat wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pseudoscience if it's presented as "scientific fact"; science is the process by which such facts are established. Otherwise you're talking about a hypothesis.

http://jjodx.weebly.com/home/seven-papers-about-tdcs Sounds like scientific fact to me. We know it works, it's just a matter of establishing effects on specific tasks.

Sigh did you read TFA? It's not "just" a matter of establishing effects - article goes into why it's not that straightforward ... as another commenter said TDCS is like using a sledge-hammer to tune a piano. We know that TDCS does "something" but all the hypotheses are "two tailed" which basically means all you can say is there is an effect - not whether it's a good one or bad one. The pseudoscience is claiming these hypotheses are certain.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#35

Post by Aelinsaar »

graeme wrote: post #9
6stringmerc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of the reasons I've stayed away from 'beta blocker' medications even though they're designed to tone down stage fright to a bare minimum. There are, from what I've read, potential side effects that can be rather severe. As in, some real unwelcome motor/cognition changes. That's enough cautionary literature to keep me away. Strangely enough though, I'm not anti-supplement (vitamins, PH stacks, etc) in the l…

Can you point to any papers? I'm curious. A friend (actually not me) was just asking about them. He gets anxiety, and wanted to have them on hand in case of a severe attack. But he's wary of medications generally and is on the fence about taking them.

Ask him how he feels about diabetes.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#36

Post by teslaberry »

transcranial anything is nonsense for anything but identifying blot clots and macro structures in the brain.

entire generations of brain research based on mri activation patterns are complete pseudoscientific bullshit, alleging scientific hypothesis about neural activation can be confirmed or falsified based on macro motions of blood in the brain.

this is garbage. similarly , tdcs and other nonsense going through your 'skull' does not target what we know to be the factual cause of brain function, cellular micro structures of brain , in particular ; NEURONS.

targeting macro anything in the brain may achieve an influence the same as firing a bullet into the brain may achieve an influence on the macro structures of the brain.

this is garbage. tdcs is more garbage, but then , so is a some amount of what many scientific 'experts' call cognitive science.

that said, this garbage is not terribly dangerous compared with the overprescription of antidepressants and painkillers

i don't see why some neuroscientist is so concerned with the tdcs crowd other than the fact that he feels his legitimacy as an 'expert' is being insulted by the fake garage room engineering of transcranial garbage stingers.

and to be sure, as far as drugs go, you're still better off taking a legitimate stimulant for performance enhancement.

common sense dictates that TANSTAAFL with respect to performance enhancement. if TDCS is claiming they are providing your brain a freelunch stimulus without any come down or drawback. THEY ARE LYING. the common intution of brain enhancement is that the only way to 'enhance' your cognitive function without a comedown is to keep healthy , exercise , eat well, sleep well , and USE YOUR BRAIN like you use your muscles. THERE AINT NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. any garage tinkerer or ivory tower idiot that says otherwise is lying or a fundamentalist ideological believer in XYZ...

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#37

Post by AnkhMorporkian »

graeme wrote: post #9
6stringmerc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of the reasons I've stayed away from 'beta blocker' medications even though they're designed to tone down stage fright to a bare minimum. There are, from what I've read, potential side effects that can be rather severe. As in, some real unwelcome motor/cognition changes. That's enough cautionary literature to keep me away. Strangely enough though, I'm not anti-supplement (vitamins, PH stacks, etc) in the l…

Can you point to any papers? I'm curious. A friend (actually not me) was just asking about them. He gets anxiety, and wanted to have them on hand in case of a severe attack. But he's wary of medications generally and is on the fence about taking them.

Beta blockers aren't great for sudden panic attacks. I took them for years, and while they're great for toning down the anxiety baseline, they don't even remotely approach benzos when it comes to mitigating severe panic. Sadly the only medications you can reasonably get out there that will address an incipient or in progress panic attack are benzos.

There are other supplements/medications that are helpful (phenibut is my goto since I no longer wanted to take benzos), but none of them are fast acting or powerful enough to stop something that's already happening.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#38

Post by wnoise »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #32
stared wrote: post #30

Forgive my votum separatum, but: > The biggest risk is that we just don't know what all the risks are. I think that's the biggest risk. I would call it "an opportunity". And as far as it is being done voluntarily, and there is a non-zero entry barrier, I am indebted to all those who (maybe) risk their health and lives for possible progress of science, medicine and technology. Compare it to extreme sports, where there…

An opportunity which comes blind, and with your brain as the stakes strikes me as something more akin to "A Gamble". It might actually be an incredibly poor gamble too.

It's a gamble for those doing it. If you're willing to let them (and I don't see sufficient grounds on which to stop them) then it's pure upside for everyone else, as we learn the results. Very callously speaking, of course. And the upsides are much less when they're not thoroughly and scientifically recording their results, which they're probably not.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#39

Post by ccrush »

stared wrote: post #30

Forgive my votum separatum, but: > The biggest risk is that we just don't know what all the risks are. I think that's the biggest risk. I would call it "an opportunity". And as far as it is being done voluntarily, and there is a non-zero entry barrier, I am indebted to all those who (maybe) risk their health and lives for possible progress of science, medicine and technology. Compare it to extreme sports, where there…

Yes, but unless these experiments are done by pairs or groups, you are getting what is passed off as scientific results from someone who is experimenting on their own brain with a sample size of one and no control group. How do you trust the results from an experiment conducted on the experimenter's brain? What if the experimenter loses the capacity to properly conduct the experiment in the process? How would you know the difference between that and he or she being incompetent in the first place, aside from the fact that they're attempting this in the first place?

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#40

Post by jecyll »

gwbas1c wrote: post #3

I think the thing that a lot of hackers don't understand is unintended consequences. It's fine when you're hacking a computer game, and the worst case scenario is that the game malfunctions. Things like overclocking a PC, or re-tuning a car, have more tangible consequences, but those consequences ultimately mean that the hacker will damage an easily replaceable commodity. A person's brain is not replaceable.

>"A person's brain is not replaceable."

In addition to that are the consequences probably not detectable in the short run, but will eventually crystallize years from now. (If there are any)

Post reply on HN