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

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#131

Post by throwanem »

freshhawk wrote: post #78
6stringmerc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicely put. I'd venture that a lot of the "plug in and go" crowd might be better served with some vigorous exercise rather than electrical stimulation. At least one of the two has viable, peer reviewed studies and results to consider. But hey, Darwin Awards ain't going to write themselves.

In addition to vigorous exercise, add in all the promising results from studies on mindfulness meditation as well. But clearly the cyberpunk aesthetic, and techno-solutionism is what is motivating here, it's not the evidence.

I'd never have thought there would be anyone who'd want to live in a Peter Watts novel, but here we are.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#132

Post by throwaway7767 »

Dr_tldr wrote: post #123
artifaxx wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Severe anxiety is painful for sure, but doesn't that seem a bit unnecessary? Given there are proven methods for treating anxiety such as medications, meditation, cognitive behavioral therapies, etc without such a high cost.

Most people who are turning to more extreme and DIY solutions are doing so precisely because they've tried everything else. Outside of a small core of "natural cure" quacks, alternative medicine or "unproven medicine" is the last thing people try after conventional medicine and methods of symptom regulation have failed. Combined, the anxiety treatment options you mentioned are probably about 80-90% effective, which i…

Anecdotal, but the people I know who have messed with brain hacking did not do it to treat anxiety but because they believe it makes them better at learning stuff. Precisely because of the effect described in this letter - they read a couple of studies that sound very positive and think this is something they could easily do at home.

I doubt we can get any real numbers about the motivation behind DIY tDCS. But I'm glad this was written.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#133

Post by throwaway7767 »

phkahler wrote: post #84
etrautmann wrote: post #59

Neuroscientist here: Just listened to a talk from a reseacher who studied tDCS and tACS in human subjects, and found that IQ scores were actually going down relative to control groups. It's absolutely not clear what the appropriate protocols are, and behavioral outcomes could be incredibly sensitive to factors such as 1) electrode placement, 2) stimulation frequency, 3) amplitude, 4) direct or alternating current, et…

>> Neuroscientist here: Just listened to a talk from a reseacher who studied tDCS and tACS in human subjects, and found that IQ scores were actually going down relative to control groups. So really, someone experimenting on their own could be considered more ethical than researchers doing it to other people ;-) This is really an area where having all the data is critical and that publication bias we keep reading abou…

I don't see any ethical problem with people doing experiments on themselves. That said, they should know what they're getting themselves in for, so I applaud these researchers for highlighting the dangers.

> One could say "they shouldn't be doing that", but don't researchers want their results to be used for something, or is it just about publication?

I imagine they would like their results to be used for positive purposes. If people are misapplying the methods and permanently damaging themselves, I doubt the scientists are super happy about that just because their research got applied somewhere.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#134

Post by collyw »

2close4comfort wrote: post #112
phkahler wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Neuroscientist here: Just listened to a talk from a reseacher who studied tDCS and tACS in human subjects, and found that IQ scores were actually going down relative to control groups. So really, someone experimenting on their own could be considered more ethical than researchers doing it to other people ;-) This is really an area where having all the data is critical and that publication bias we keep reading abou…

No I think that medical research can now be preformed by anyone. I think that there are going to be great advances that come from this amateur research in the next 5 years and I think it is the next evolution of hacking. People in general are capable of the kind of science required to achieve reproducible results. Most of this "research" is driven by a personal motivation (personal or some one close) where traditiona…

"No I think that medical research can now be preformed by anyone."

They should have at least some knowledge of how research works. Whats the point in experimenting if you aren't adding a control group for example?

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#135

Post by Atwood »

Dr_tldr wrote: post #123
artifaxx wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Severe anxiety is painful for sure, but doesn't that seem a bit unnecessary? Given there are proven methods for treating anxiety such as medications, meditation, cognitive behavioral therapies, etc without such a high cost.

Most people who are turning to more extreme and DIY solutions are doing so precisely because they've tried everything else. Outside of a small core of "natural cure" quacks, alternative medicine or "unproven medicine" is the last thing people try after conventional medicine and methods of symptom regulation have failed. Combined, the anxiety treatment options you mentioned are probably about 80-90% effective, which i…

Thanks for this. There is a bottle of contingencies in my bathroom, but, it simply is not an option for what plagues me daily. I quickly become wholly inefficient & anxiety transmutes to doldrums. In the days directly after having to succumb to the use of a benzo I am foggy and detached...hungover. Have not tried some of the newer beta-blockers that are supposed to work without creative lobotomy.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#136

Post by collyw »

chrischen wrote: post #102
pavel_lishin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does addiction work?

Addiction works like that (what I said above). It's bad because it gives you no reason to do the stuff you'd normally have to do to stay alive or reproduce.

Rubbish, most smokers are addicted, and get on with life fine.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#137

Post by kofejnik »

iheartmemcache wrote: post #81
ejk314 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same arguments against doing heroin?

Heroin (and the fact that it's a scarce commodity due to legislation first world countries) has the self-harm potential (needles can be used by addicts so many times they actually snap/collapsed veins/'cotton fever') along with social negatives (shared needles=>increased rates of transmittance of hep C and other maladies, petty crime, prostitution (which is a-okay by me if regulated, but addicts who resort to sex wor…

heroin does have self-harm potential, but so do free climbing, flying in wingsuit, etc. Should we outlaw them as well?

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#138

Post by collyw »

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…

Curious why you choose extreme sports as your example.

I know that a lot more people die at the easy end of the spectrum when kayaking. The ones who do it at the extreme level know what they are doing are usually very aware of their own ability.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#139

Post by CuriouslyC »

nibs wrote: post #93
amelius wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IQ scores were actually going down By how much? If someone can trade severe anxiety for perhaps 5-10 IQ points, then in most cases they will probably sign up.

Anxiety and high IQ are linked: http://www.livescience.com/36259-anxiety-linked-high-iq.html so it is possible (I am speculating) that by reducing anxiety, you are reducing IQ. Not everyone wants to be smart, but it is not a decision I would take lightly. I wonder if you could perform the opposite operation, jacking up anxiety and IQ...

As someone who has experienced this from the inside let me share with you exactly what is going on...

A large part of anxiety is the result of basically running mental simulations of the world with "negative" assumptions. Thus, people who are better at cognitive simulation (i.e. high IQ) are naturally going to have a greater capacity for worry. That being said, if you train your mind to stop running simulations all the time (mindfulness) or just start running simulations with positive assumptions, that anxiety can be eliminated without any impact on intelligence whatsoever.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#140

Post by artifaxx »

throwaway7767 wrote: post #132
Dr_tldr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people who are turning to more extreme and DIY solutions are doing so precisely because they've tried everything else. Outside of a small core of "natural cure" quacks, alternative medicine or "unproven medicine" is the last thing people try after conventional medicine and methods of symptom regulation have failed. Combined, the anxiety treatment options you mentioned are probably about 80-90% effective, which i…

Anecdotal, but the people I know who have messed with brain hacking did not do it to treat anxiety but because they believe it makes them better at learning stuff. Precisely because of the effect described in this letter - they read a couple of studies that sound very positive and think this is something they could easily do at home. I doubt we can get any real numbers about the motivation behind DIY tDCS. But I'm gl…

That coincides with what I have seen, those studies definitely made me and my friends curious. With better evidence I will definitely be trying tDCS for accelerating learning.
Post reply on HN