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

Engineering Sleep

minjunes.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 205 posts

Re: Engineering Sleep

#61

Post by mewpmewp2 »

Kiro wrote: post #32
naming_the_user wrote: post #18

I'm not really convinced that removing the need for sleep would result in me being more productive primarily because I'm not an always-on computer. The average day for me has huge differences in terms of my productivity at any given moment. I need downtime anyway, if I didn't sleep I believe that I'd end up vegging out in some way because I'm not doing 24 hours of flashcards. The discussions on here also always seem…

> I woke up early today and had a few hours of darkness, I can feel my mood and brainpower improving as the sun rises I can't relate at all. Where I live the days are consumed by darkness in the winter and I see no effect on my mood or brainpower.

You don't? I'm also in an area with mostly darkness in the winter and I have to say I do feel depressed, and I wish it was always summer. I think it's the worst aspects about my location. Otherwise I think it's great.

From the name I assume you are from Finland, which I am not, but supposedly Finnish people are the happiest in the World - which I'm not sure if it's actually true. The joke is that every Finnish person after seeing the study wonders why they are the only unhappy one.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#62

Post by jvanderbot »

mlyle wrote: post #24
naming_the_user wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting but I feel as if the discussion is a bit flawed because it feels very binary, i.e. sleep 8 hours = have 16 hours non sleep, sleep 6 hours = have 18 hours non sleep, and we assume that each hour is the same regardless, but it won't be. It feels a bit like - well could I engineer myself to require 1500 calories a day instead of 2000. Maybe. But as a result there would definitely be some downside, maybe…

Yah -- note that I didn't posit that things would be the same at the margin (120 minutes more conscious time without other downsides yields only 16% of "useful" time and assumes the rest goes to minimally useful relaxation and recreation). > There is no free lunch. Selective pressure and evolution are pretty good at optimizing... but not perfect. What they optimized for, also, is not quality of life in the modern wor…

It might make sense to just drop the term optimization when discussing natural selection.

It's not like "Natural Selection" was given an ecological niche and optimized from scratch the being for that niche. That mental model implies there's not much to be done and any changes would produce a less useful product.

A more apt term would be "Refactored" or even "Patched".

It's more like a giant ugly legacy software system was added to, and the result was just enough to keep going in the new system.

I like that analogy better because it implies: 1. There is room for optimization, and 2. Any minor change is likely to break things far away due to the continuous re-patching and legacy cruft. Both of which seem correct.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#63

Post by [deleted] »

naming_the_user wrote: post #18

I'm not really convinced that removing the need for sleep would result in me being more productive primarily because I'm not an always-on computer. The average day for me has huge differences in terms of my productivity at any given moment. I need downtime anyway, if I didn't sleep I believe that I'd end up vegging out in some way because I'm not doing 24 hours of flashcards. The discussions on here also always seem…

[deleted]

Re: Engineering Sleep

#64

Post by dooglius »

There is a good reason why this would be selected against by evolution: being awake increases metabolic rate--how many calories you use every day. Humans have only had abundant food availability for a short time, not long enough for evolution to adapt.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#65

Post by JumpCrisscross »

worksonmymach wrote: post #5

Why is it not a survival advantage? Probably because we didn't work 18 hour days, the extra wakeness would just be used for rest. Night shifts that anyone can do are still needed if you need tribal watchers, and normal 8hr sleeping people can wake upnand fight when needed. In terms of the gene, I am suprised how rare it is (90 families?) given I have met someone who needs only 4hr sleep. Another point is less sleep d…

> Why is it not a survival advantage?

“All organisms occupy a niche, and the better adapted to that niche, the more ‘fit’ and the more likely that organism will reproduce, passing on the characteristics that fit that particular niche. While we may simplistically think of each organism occupying a single niche, realistically nearly all occupy at least two. Daytime and nighttime are different and distinct niches, creating an evolutionary push and pull that would make a perfect ‘fit’ impossible. Evolutionarily, being forced to evolve into two separate niches at the same time forces an organism to develop structures and functions that fit neither fully” [1].

We didn’t evolve for a world with artificial lighting.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7120898/

Re: Engineering Sleep

#66

Post by iterateoften »

jvanderbot wrote: post #62
mlyle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah -- note that I didn't posit that things would be the same at the margin (120 minutes more conscious time without other downsides yields only 16% of "useful" time and assumes the rest goes to minimally useful relaxation and recreation). > There is no free lunch. Selective pressure and evolution are pretty good at optimizing... but not perfect. What they optimized for, also, is not quality of life in the modern wor…

It might make sense to just drop the term optimization when discussing natural selection. It's not like "Natural Selection" was given an ecological niche and optimized from scratch the being for that niche. That mental model implies there's not much to be done and any changes would produce a less useful product. A more apt term would be "Refactored" or even "Patched". It's more like a giant ugly legacy software syste…

> "Natural Selection" was given an ecological niche and optimized from scratch the being for that niche

I think you are conflating natural selection the process with organisms that are a result of natural selection.

Natural selection isn’t a process that is intentionally made by anyone, but a way we describe a simplified model slew of complex processes.

Also conflated is what you are optimizing for. The only thing natural selection optimizes for is survival. That’s it. Nothing else matters expect which individuals survive long enough to pass their genes to the next generation. As a result niches develop and as each generation survives compared to their peers their survival strategies are optimized.

Optimization perfectly describes what is happening to the survivability and reproduction of certain genes.

You appear to be working backwards. That there was a niche and evolution somehow crafted an organism to fit that niche. That is misleading. Genes replicate, and in a certain context some genes survived and replicated better than in some other context. So genes evolved in that new context creating a niche.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#67

Post by djtango »

stared wrote: post #44

> Familial Natural Short Sleep (FNSS), a benign mutation that allows them to sleep 1-2 hours less than the recommended 7-9 hours, without experiencing the negative effects of sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation is one concern, but there’s a more subtle impact on cognitive functions (working memory, creativity, deep focus), overall health (particularly the endocrine and immune systems), and long-term health outcomes…

This is true, I was neighbours with one of the top mathematicians in my uni and he slept what felt like an excessive amount everyday.

I definitely underperformed academically due to sleep deprivation and I probably benefited greatly during my revision period because I had a very strong sleep routine.

That said, I entered my final exam having only slept probably less than two hours and that was 100% the right call because the extra cramming was necessary and drove the needle significantly.

Re: Engineering Sleep

#68

Post by rramadass »

renewiltord wrote: post #35

Is it really possible? Taking 16 waking hours to 20 waking hours would make my 40 remaining years into 50 remaining year equivalent. I will attend to this.

No, don't. Sleep is fundamental to everything else and hence messing with it is never advisable. Some resources;

1) Neuroscience of Sleep - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sleep

2) Sleep Epigenetics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_epigenetics

3) Sleep deprivation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation

4) Familial natural short sleep - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_natural_short_sleep

Re: Engineering Sleep

#69

Post by rramadass »

globular-toast wrote: post #29

I've always wanted to reduce my sleep requirement. These days I naturally sleep for 8 hours. It's not completely wasted; my brain often figures out difficult problems while I sleep. But if I could do something relaxing like playing a game or socialising instead that would be great. I did try polyphasic sleep when I was younger but it didn't work out. Having my sleeping patterns so far off the standard made me really…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42281618
Post reply on HN