Live data from Hacker News

Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

wbur.org

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#141
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.

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.

For severe anxiety/panic, the main course of treatment when it comes to medication is to load the patient up with high doses of SSRIs. We're talking hitting the maximum doses for medications, where side effects will almost certainly appear. They aren't fun, they slow you down, give you nausea, change your behavior/personality and might make your dick not work.

Some doctors not in the loop will end up overprescribing Xanax and benzodiazepines to deal with the symptoms, but fail to recognize that they're only indicated to be used for a period of 4-6 weeks because they're highly addictive drugs with a withdrawal that can last 6mo or more, can cause brain damage or kill. They mask the symptoms, add their own (you are essentially drunk and impaired while on them) and tend to make the disorder worse after quitting.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Absolutely not my point. In fact, properly administered IV opiates have less long term damages of administered in than alcohol. (Pill-form opiates of the non-paracemetol fashion have no chance of liver cirrhosis, and the withdrawal has no potential to kill you, unlike sucking down two quarts of plastic vodka a day for 2 weeks then stopping cold.)

There were political benefits to scaremongering tons of drugs into illegality, economic benefits of keeping them illegal (should, say, 5mg generic Perocets enter into CVS tomorrow as over-the-counter and/or on-the-shelf drugs, petty theft might go up [much like I'm sure Robotussin is stolen frequently by high-schoolers who can't find someone to buy them booze]) would put tons of people out of work. There goes a significant part of the DEA (from those out in the field to those who push papers) along with the politicians who made their name during the Reagan-just-say-no-years, the extra police who were hired in more-or-less crimeless-suburbia to deal with some 16 year olds half-gram of weed, the attorneys who prosecute them, the defense contractors who make an excess of tanks in order to give those suburban law enforcers tanks[1].

My overall point was that opioids are a magnitude safer than DIY brain-hacking, if only due to the well-explored terrain of the analgesic properties of the narcotic (which, again, was the point of the article). "Even us neuroscientists/neurologists with extensive graduate school/residencies/fellowships and years of experience still don't know what the long-term effects are when we properly administer controlled dosages of current via well-placed electrodes on your skull. Please don't try to 'hack' your brain."

Sidebar, I'm not a medical doctor but every every grandfather, uncle (except one who went into mathematics as I did), and father all have been practicing MD's (including two neurologists), MD/PhDs, or PhDs in specifically drug design for evil-bigpharma). Drug design is basically 'throw a lot of junk at the wall and see what doesn't kill mice, oh god please make it to at least phase 1". Specifically, we're going to effectively look at our understanding of the brain and compare it to the crudity of surgery during the Civil War. The brain is an amazing thing - don't attach electrodes to it and try to modify its behavior until 'brain hacking' has been well-explored terrain.

[1] http://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/nj-police-departments-g... I'll spare you an Eisenhower MIC schpeal

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#143
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If heroin was legal, safe, and free, I still wouldn't use it. The state I would be in as a heroin addict has a large negative value in my current utility function. This negative value is so large that it swamps the positive value of being happy all the time. I suspect this just means I'm not entirely hedonistic.

Heroin doesn't make you happy. It nukes emotion.

I suffered a pretty horrible Smith's fracture on my dorsal radius two years ago, such that the resident at the ER called his attending, who called the ortho specialist and immediately got 30mg oxycodone's 4x daily just as a stop-gap until they could block in a surgeon skilled enough to work on the Smith's fracture. Even through the egregious pain, I could see a: how those without opiate dependencies can find it euphoric and b: how easily an average person could form a habit without noticing it by escalating consumption.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#144
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Smoking is different from dopamine releasing drugs. Smoking's addiction mechanic isn't dopamine release. Dopamine is the body's natural pleasure signal and short circuiting that would cause the issues I mentioned.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Governments seem to think 1984 is an instruction manual so this is not uncommon.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heroin doesn't make you happy. It nukes emotion.

I suffered a pretty horrible Smith's fracture on my dorsal radius two years ago, such that the resident at the ER called his attending, who called the ortho specialist and immediately got 30mg oxycodone's 4x daily just as a stop-gap until they could block in a surgeon skilled enough to work on the Smith's fracture. Even through the egregious pain, I could see a: how those without opiate dependencies can find it eupho…

I've used oxycodone for pain, and have occasionally played with higher dosages. I don't find the effects euphoric. More like numbness, but in a vaguely pleasant way. Or at least, not euphoric in the sense that Psilocybe are. But maybe that's just me. I've never had problems with opiate dependence.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#147

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…

I think you're right and for me the numbers skew about 70-30 for people who want an "edge" and people who want a "cure".

Although, (at the risk of being pedantic and playing parlor games) I would say that many of the people seeking to boost their ability to learn and go to such great lengths to do it are also experiencing psychological problems.

Only anecdotal, but it's never been my most successful friends trying to become even moe successful, but rather people who feel like failures or that they're stuck in a rut, or that they're just not cognitively capable of being in this industry at the highest levels on their own.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#148
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Smoking is different from dopamine releasing drugs. Smoking's addiction mechanic isn't dopamine release. Dopamine is the body's natural pleasure signal and short circuiting that would cause the issues I mentioned.

You seem to be changing your argument now. It was addiction that "worked like that" your comment.

Re: Neuroscientists' Open Letter To DIY Brain Hackers

#149
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Some people just want to make themselves better. They don't care about a control group. They only care to see if they can produce a positive effect on the one subject that matters to them. Most of them would probably go to a doctor for this if it were readily accessible.
Post reply on HN