11–20 of 55 posts
Isn't Flowers for Algernon required 7th-grade reading anymore? This isn't going to end well, people.
Just the same set-up: new drug that can heal a person's damaged brain, turns him into a super-intelligent psycho.
I suspect it wasn't that graying old man that discovered that molecule, but that man's brilliant but underpaid post-doc that discovered that molecule.
Isn't Flowers for Algernon required 7th-grade reading anymore? This isn't going to end well, people.
But, at any rate, the Charlie character starts off as mentally very simple and enjoys life, then after attaining intelligence quickly achieves many things most people wont in their whole lifetimes, though isn't super happy while doing these and insults those he feels are less intelligent, though eventually grows emotionally through them, then he returns to being simple and happy.
Really this is just everyones' life, starting as a baby and returning to dementia as an adult, for Charlie it's just flat and then a sudden spike rather than a gradual curve. Curious why you think it wont end well. I mean in the end everyone dies so it's true if you're very much against that, nothing ends well.
The real point of the book I thought was we shouldn't view the super intelligent or super simple as better or worse because we are all both better and worse cosmically. So ultimately everyone should stop being condescending generally.
The article's title on statnews.com bugs me, I admit I have not investigated this case, but... I suspect it wasn't that graying old man that discovered that molecule, but that man's brilliant but underpaid post-doc that discovered that molecule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some "life extension" site forum had a group buy for the stuff apparently. People posted some of their results: http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/68589-isrib-group-buy-n... One quote: So far I'm very much surprised about the effect on the overall cognition. My personal experiences are, that ISRIB definitely has it's effects on memory consolidation, but in my experience it doesn't only influence the long term memor…
Sample size of 1, no blinding, no verification of the substance received. Quite worthless. Placebo effect is strong enough children recognised as more intelligent by chance do act and measure smarter.
Isn't Flowers for Algernon required 7th-grade reading anymore? This isn't going to end well, people.
At that point, we will indeed be able to create artificial molecules or genes that make brains more efficient at using oxygen and sugar to produce rational organized thoughts. But I have no illusions that anything groundshaking will happen in my lifetime.
Unfortunately, the fastest way we have to advance is to tinker and learn from our mistakes. I will leave it to other people to volunteer for that process.
How does this now-patented "ISRIB" molecule compare to Leonard Guarente's research[1][2] on nicotinamide riboside and pterostilbene supplementation? [1]: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/08/is-elysium-healths-basi... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12345526
C22H24Cl2N2O4 vs C11H15N2O5+
Hmm... More C, more H, the same amount of N and just a bit less O (but who cares, right? O is everywhere). But it has extra Cl! ISRIB has extra Cl!! NR has no Cl! I'm definitely going with the first one!! Easy pick.
Isn't Flowers for Algernon required 7th-grade reading anymore? This isn't going to end well, people.
As I recall (and it's been years, so please forgive me if I'm mistaken), Charlie's increased intelligence lead directly to increased unhappiness. While literature obviously does not constitute any sort of conclusive evidence, I think that the point is well-taken: for all the merits of human intelligence, it also fucks us up pretty good.