Slashdot Mirror


Is Neurostim Becoming a Reality?

destinyland writes "There is a current mass market for 'cognitive enhancement' products — and arguments about the black market potential for neurostim. 'The same neurostim device that uses electric impulses from a brain implant to treat people with Parkinson's Disease can be tweaked by a few millimeters and pulse rates to make cocaine addicts feel like they are high all the time... Mix the glamour of surgical self-improvement with the geekiness of high-tech gadget fetishism and you have a niche cosmetic neurostim market waiting to be tapped...'"

249 comments

  1. "...the glamour of surgical self-improvement..." by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are suggesting do-it-yourself brain surgery? I guess that would be "glamourous". If it works. And if it doesn't, it might win you a Darwin award.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  2. Possibilities. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can I get one tweaked to give me a mind blowing orgasm every time I blink my eyes in rapid succession 10 times?

    1. Re:Possibilities. . . by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Informative

          If I recall correctly, yes. There was some work on electrical stimulation on spinal injury patients, and one slightly wrong setting would give women orgasms. Oops. :) The doctor is selling the device, now named "Orgasmatron", for women who can't climax. Of course, it costs a fortune, but hey, for mind blowing orgasms on demand, some people would pay for it.

          I've known some women who report similar results with a "TENS" unit. That's external stimulus, but the same idea. I have a TENS unit for my back, and it creates a pretty weird sensation. Well, unless you consider involuntary muscle movements normal. I don't know what the placement of the electrodes is, for an orgasm. I know what makes my back feel better though.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Possibilities. . . by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was some work on electrical stimulation on spinal injury patients, and one slightly wrong setting would give women orgasms. Oops.

      I believe that there are a whole lot of people who would not consider this an "oops" by any means.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    3. Re:Possibilities. . . by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or a “wrong” setting.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:Possibilities. . . by CxDoo · · Score: 1

      "every time" and "mind blowing" - pick one.

      --
      "Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
    5. Re:Possibilities. . . by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've known some women who report similar results with a "TENS" unit.

      I'd like my orgasmatron to go up to "ELEVENS" personally.

    6. Re:Possibilities. . . by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      You city folk crack me up. If you've ever seen Bull semen collection...

      You would realize that TENS units are for wimps. You'll want a cattle prod.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Possibilities. . . by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Pretty much, unless you are willing to go 7-30 days or so between them all. Then they can all be mind blowing

    8. Re:Possibilities. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you bastards who just found out about spinal tap jokes as they were popularized online and act like you've always known them make me want to punch a puppy.

    9. Re:Possibilities. . . by DriedClexler · · Score: 3, Insightful
      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    10. Re:Possibilities. . . by Killer+Orca · · Score: 1
      There was an experiment done with rats where they wired up their brains' to give them an orgasm every time the rats hit a button. They wanted to see how long the rats would go on pressing the button.

      They started starving to death. Can't say I blame them though.

    11. Re:Possibilities. . . by HiEnergy · · Score: 1

      Seriously, did you ever google "et 312"?

    12. Re:Possibilities. . . by adarn · · Score: 1

      Is it wrong to mod down for "village explainer"?

    13. Re:Possibilities. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      OMG

      "... ejaculation of semen is brought about by inserting a probe or electrode in sires rectum and stimulating nerves of the reproductive system by gradually increasing voltage in rhythmic fashion with a rheostat for a short period."

      In case that's not clear:

      I. The rectum is washed with 6% sodium chloride solution.
      2.The probe is then inserted up to about 12 inches and held in a position of rectal floor.
      3. Alternate current increasing in voltage gradually from 0 to 5 volts and returning again to zero within every 5 -10 seconds is initially passed.
      4. The subsequent stimulations made progressively higher so that at about 5th stimulus a maximum of 10 -IS volts is reached. Erection and ejaculation occur at 10 -15 volts when 0.5 to 1 ampere current is flown.

      Santa, can you get me one of these instead? I promise I'll be nice, er, naughty, and of course you can watch!

    14. Re:Possibilities. . . by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I watched spinal tap on VHS well before my parents got dialup. I hope that puppy eats your testicles.

    15. Re:Possibilities. . . by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      There is an entire line of sex toys designed to be used with TENS units. Plugs, nipple clamps, dildoes.

      http://electropleasures.com/product/tens_toys/page03.html (NSFW but no nudity)

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    16. Re:Possibilities. . . by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Ahhhh, I see Rule #34 is alive and well. :)

          I sent the link over to someone who said "You wouldn't believe what I did the other night". That was a couple months ago, but I'm sure she'll appreciate it. :)

          Myself, I don't have a lot of call for plugs nor dildos. Maybe a TENS powered cock ring would keep things interesting, but that kinda scares me. I was reusing pads on my back, and one lost adhesion, and gave me a nasty shock. I'd hate to feel that in more sensitive areas. I may as well taunt a cop with a taser. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    17. Re:Possibilities. . . by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      There’s no way in hell, that I’m gonna click that link! ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    18. Re:Possibilities. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be similar human size equipment in sex shops near you.

  3. Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The name of the science fiction book in Russian would translate as something like "Predating things of the times". I don't think, an English translation is available (yet?), although plenty of their other books have already been translated.

    (Benevolent) secret police investigate strange goings-on in a leisurely resort town. They discover a very simple to make device is capable of giving a very strong pleasure — endlessly (until the user is interrupted, or the body starves and dies, or — on very rare occasions — the user's own will prevails). The town's attitudes toward the device and its users, as well as similar (but not as all-encompassing) devices are examined...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's just a substitute for those few illicit drugs that do the exact same thing? WTF would anyone want that? Make it pleasurable in a controlled manner, jeesh.

    2. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by mi · · Score: 2, Informative

      So it's just a substitute for those few illicit drugs that do the exact same thing?

      Admittedly far from expert, I still don't believe, there currently exist drugs giving "exact same" effect as the device described in the book. Nor can they exist even in theory, I think, because all chemicals have to be delivered indirectly (through blood) and thus will always a) have side-effects; and b) wear out. Their wearing out means, the user would have to "wake up" to replenish, thus giving him a chance to come to his senses.

      The device in the book works on the brain directly and can work forever — as long as electricity (and hot water) are available in the house...

      Make it pleasurable in a controlled manner, jeesh.

      "Controlled" by whom? Very few of the users currently experiencing the effects would willingly stop. That's the whole point of the book, actually...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      The brain is just a giant chemical machine in and of itself.

      And eventually the cells being stimulated are going to fatigue and no longer be able to respond to the stimulus. Granted, this possibly could/would happen far later than the equivalent reaction to a drug induced version, but it's an inevitable result of our 'design'.

    4. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by mi · · Score: 1

      The brain is just a giant chemical machine in and of itself.

      Uhm, the nerves carry electrical impulses. Even if hormones are often released for various things, the sense of pleasure is, probably, a result of the electrical signals aligning just right (even if, in turn, caused by the right mixture of hormones and other chemicals).

      Granted, this possibly could/would happen far later than the equivalent reaction to a drug induced version

      The points were: a) there is no drug, that can currently do this to a human without them continuing to make a decision to get more; b) the effect of the machine in TFA, even if finite, could well not wear out until the body's death...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's "predatory" things of the times. They show a paradise where people get everything they need without having to work, fight or suffer for it. It turns out that this easy life makes people so deprived of feeling, they need artificial neural simulation. Government provides them some every day, but then someone discovers an easy way to get amazing stimulation so cheaply and easily, that people start using it despite its illegality and start dying in droves. The whole situation there shows that when you make people's lives too easy and comfortable, they start yearning for things that are dangerous and life-threatening.

    6. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the sense of pleasure is, probably, a result of the electrical signals aligning just right (even if, in turn, caused by the right mixture of hormones and other chemicals).

      So is the sense of hearing, but you’ll quickly grow used to familiar noises to the point where they no longer register consciously. (Similar phenomena are exhibited by the senses of sight, taste, and smell, although in these cases the acclimation may also be due in part to the senses not registering the stimuli consistently over time.)

      Just because the same neurons are being stimulated in the same way doesn’t mean the rest of the brain, or your conscious mind, will continue to react or perceive the effect in the same way forever.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Electricity isn't a magic genie, if you shove a live wire into the wood of your computer desk, it suddenly doesn't start thinking. The ability to carry and act upon those electrical impulses in your head is maintained by the chemicals within and between your brain cells. It is a chemical reaction. And as such, consumes chemicals and requires constant replenishment.

      In fact, most of the time, if you've become desensitized to a chemical (for instance caffeine), what has happened is that the receptors responsible for handling the signals that chemical is causing have become fatigued and no longer act upon them.

      Quick Trivia Fact for you: Your caffeine withdraw headache is believed by some doctors to be caused by the fact that your body keeps replenishing the 'dead' adenosine receptors that have stopped responding due to their over-stimulation. When you stop using caffeine cold turkey, all the sudden you have an over abundance of these receptors, making you overly sensitive to the signals that help control the constriction of your blood vessels. This in turn causes the capillaries in your head to dilate which results in a headache.

      So no, there is no guarantee that a stim would 'work till you died'. It's quite possible and even likely that the receptors being targeted by the stim would give out well before any 'neglect' related damage occurred.

    8. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by shawb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A single nerve cell carries electrical impulses... sort-of kind-of. It's not like electricity flowing through a wire, the impulse is far more complex than that. What happens is that during rest the axon builds up a gradient of negative ions on one side of the membrane and positive ions on the other side. An applied voltage to an area of an axon opens channels which allows the ions to flow through the membrane, causing a change in voltage further down the axon which opens up ion channels there and so on. So, while there is indeed a measurable voltage difference as a nerve impulse travels down the axon, it is not a direct correlation with the concept of electricity as electrons flowing down a wire, even theough the initial nerve impulse can be initiated by an electrical pulse.

      However, BETWEEN neurons the communication is completely chemical. Neurotransmitters are released from one neuron and travel across the synapse between it and the neighboring cell, possibly triggering an impulse in the next neuron. A sense of pleasure is achieved by certain neurotransmitters (primarily seratonin, dopamine and endorphins) being released in certain concentrations from certain neurons, which in turn triggers a related pattern of impulses in the neighboring neuron, which causes that neuron to release neurotransmitters in a particular way... and so on and so on. So while, yes, there is a sort-of kind-of analogy to an electrical current, the actual mechanism is nowhere near the kind of electrical current we have in a wire or microprocessor, but it is the easiest way to model the communication. The processing, however, occurs largely at the synapse, and that processing is "driven" to achieve equilibrium (the physical functioning of the brain, and actions taken by a person to chance the functioning of their own brain can work at cross purposes, such as in a drug addict. This is not a contradiction... the mind and brain are distinct entities.)

      More to the point, the neurons surrounding those activated by the pleasure spike would soon add more receptors. Larger numbers of receptors means a larger amount of neurotransmitter would have to be released into the synapse to effect an impulse. Eventually the brain would operate normally only when the spike is active. The practical upshot to this is that a stronger and stronger signal would have to be sent through the spike to achieve the desired high. Eventually the user will get to a point where the levels needed to cause a high would damage neurons, preventing return to even the "functioning addict" mode. The user would then become chronically depressed, as this is the state pretty much defined by inadequate serotonergic, noradrenergic, and dopaminergic activity. It would require long term abstinence from the pleasure spike for the receptors to re-regulate to the point where normal pre-usage thought patterns can occur (I would assume 3-9 months, as this is the time-frame in which nicatonin receptors re-regulate after tobacco cessation.) Once spike addiction is broken and neural receptors return to normal levels, it would again be possible to get high from a spike, but it may have to be positioned in a slightly different place and effect different neurons if the original signaling neurons were damaged to the point of causing permanent lesions or scarring. However, the neuroreceptors would adapt much more rapidly to the presence of the pleasure signals, so the initial high would be much shorter and the return to a "functioning addict" state would be very quick indeed. A spike user would end up "chasing the dragon." They would never be able to return to the pleasurable state of their first high. Partially because their brains have rewired to be prepared for the action, partially because that first high wasn't as immediately pleasurable as they thought. One of the effects of dopamine release is that memories of related events are given rose tinted glasses... the memory of the event is happier than the event itself. Therefore, a user never actually experienced as much pleasure as they remember.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    9. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by mi · · Score: 1

      So no, there is no guarantee that a stim would 'work till you died'. It's quite possible and even likely that the receptors being targeted by the stim would give out well before any 'neglect' related damage occurred.

      I'd like to believe that, but I'm skeptical. Our bodies have developed (some) defenses against overexposure to things, encounterable in nature. Our hearing can, indeed, tune down, and even our sensitivity to certain chemicals (such as coffeine — or cocaine) lowers with time.

      However, the devices in TFA, it seems, would bypass (most of) the defenses — they aren't acting on one of our sense-organs (such as ears), and they aren't acting through chemicals. They go directly to the brain's electrical "circuitry" and I am not at all confident, that circuitry has any protection against that, for it never needed such protection during the body's millions of years of evolution... For a computer analogy, whatever self-corrections you may put into your program, it will all be to nicht, if I can stop it in a debugger and assign outrageous values to a few variables...

      But the book makes a good point — even if these current devices lose their effect after a short enough while. What if a long-acting device is invented later? How will the society react to it, who would use it, etc. are all interesting questions to pander...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Also sounds similar to Euphio Question by Kurt Vonnegut. Basically a radio frequency is discovered that puts people into a euphoric stupor.

    11. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Again, your brain is one vast chemical machine. ANYTHING you experience, ANYTHING, is the result of a chemical process occurring in your brain. The same defenses that 'work' (and honestly, if they really worked, drugs wouldn't) for drugs are going to work for an embedded stim.

      The SOLE point of the electrical signals flowing in your brain is to convey signals between it's parts. All a stim can do is 'hijack' the channel and send it's own signals. At least with drugs, the chemicals introduced do some of the heavy lifting for you by mimicking the hormones naturally present in your body. All a stim is going to be able to do is induce your own glands to produce what they can.

      Second Trivia Fact: I've read (don't ask why) a few AgSci studies that have shown that while a dairy cow can be milked year round, you have a higher output if you milk them for a set number of months, then let them lay 'fallow' for a number of months before starting back up again. The reason for this is the mammary gland can not cope with constant usage. It has to have time to 'rest and recharge' in order to be at it's top production level.

      The same thing that happens with a mammary gland occurs with the glands that are responsible for the hormones that run your brain. Only unlike the mammary gland, something 'designed' for high volume use, they aren't going to last months at max level output. They are going to last at most days.

      More importantly, unless this stim is omnipresent in your brain (i.e. a nanomachine within each cell) it's going to be located in a specific portion of you head. And unless it's tuned to a far better degree than we have the ability to tune to today, it's going to be sending out a signal that is far of 'spec' for what your brain cells are used to receiving. Eventually, you are going to burn out those cells and create 'scar tissue' around the stim. Especially if you are attempting to do a 'eternal nothingness' deal where the dial is set to '11' for 24/7.

      Yes, the book describe (which I haven't read) sounds as if presents an interesting sociological look, but it does so in the same sense that Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics did, not by creating something that could realistically happen but by investigating how life would be IF it were possible.

    12. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by TamCaP · · Score: 1

      Of course there is an English translation. This is a SF classic after all... Actually, the book has even its own Wikipedia page (if we can use it as a measure of merit)

    13. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by TamCaP · · Score: 1

      Actually the AC above me is right. It's the Final Circle of Paradise, not the Noon, 22nd Century. My bad, sorry.

    14. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      However, the devices in TFA, it seems, would bypass (most of) the defenses -- they aren't acting on one of our sense-organs (such as ears), and they aren't acting through chemicals. They go directly to the brain's electrical "circuitry" and I am not at all confident, that circuitry has any protection against that, for it never needed such protection during the body's millions of years of evolution...

      The brain is our biggest sense organ.

      The point is that drugs provide localized effects, and habituation is the result of neurons being overstimulated. The neurons that respond to the neurons the drug affects stop paying so much attention to the overactive neurons.

      Electronic stimulation isn't going to stop that fact. If you stimulate a neuron, the ones it connects to will eventually stop responding as strongly. If you try to get around it by stimulating them, you end up in an induction argument. The ones that listen to them won't listen as actively. If you want to completely override this defense, you need to stimulate the entire brain (which is a bad idea...)

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    15. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      endorphines are mu-opioid receptor agonist neuropeptides. You meant epinephrine. And decreased receptor count is what down regulation is. Keep in mind that down regulation is a chemical process also. It mostly involves kappa opioid receptors. Antagonize them, no addiction, no abstinence. It has been shown that kappa antagonists are very effective antidepressants.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    16. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by d36 · · Score: 1

      you can undo that...I've given myself a headache listening to a roomful of people talking

    17. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Of course it goes away if you aren’t being exposed to the stimuli anymore... but the point was that constant stimulus = same effect indefinitely, and I was pointing out that this isn’t a valid assumption.

      I’m not sure what your headache had to do with anything, though.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    18. Re:Predicted by the Strugatsky brothers by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Some might find it useful to know about different signaling mechanisms. There are electrical neural connections called gap junctions. These do not transmit signals through neurotransmitters. Also, what is described by the parent as the impulse propagation mechanism is true when the axon is not myelinated.

  4. My name is Louis Wu by bmo · · Score: 5, Funny

    And can I have my droud back, please?

    Thanks

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:My name is Louis Wu by MRe_nl · · Score: 1
      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:My name is Louis Wu by Ringthane · · Score: 1

      And can I have my droud back, please?

      Thanks

      -- BMO

      I've got a tasp here to "make your day" till you get your droud back.

      --
      Friends help you move... Real friends help you move bodies...
    3. Re:My name is Louis Wu by Old+Sparky · · Score: 1

      Sooo...we're currently laying the groundwork for Louie Wu's addiction?

    4. Re:My name is Louis Wu by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Lost it while checking out the batteries in the previous story?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    5. Re:My name is Louis Wu by Logrusweaver · · Score: 1

      Certainly Louis...you have to TAKE IT AWAY from Chmee over there...and you are in luck...he's smiling!

    6. Re:My name is Louis Wu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking wireheads.

    7. Re:My name is Louis Wu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      They just lie there and take it.

  5. New drug for the morons by Sirusjr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't know about anyone else but every person I know who uses drugs on a regular basis is a complete moron and doesn't have anything better to do than getting doped up and hanging out and talking with their friends for hours about nothing. I fail to see how this will be useful for anyone else because I doubt you would want to sit around and read a novel while you are high whether its from drugs or some brain simulation. Now won't you kids get off my lawn so I can sit here peacefully and read a book on my vacation.

    1. Re:New drug for the morons by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

      doesn't have anything better to do than getting doped up and hanging out and talking with their friends for hours about nothing.

      We've already got Slashdot for that.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      hanging out and talking with their friends for hours about nothing

      You know, all those non-geeks thinks the basement dwelling nerds that doesn't talk to their friends are the weirdos. Go figure, huh.

      Don't be so quick to judge.

    3. Re:New drug for the morons by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about anyone else but every person I know who uses drugs on a regular basis is a complete moron

      You, of course, include caffeine in those drugs.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't know about the functional one
      Opiate even if it completely nullify one emotional life can leave you pretty functional
      I used to get high all the time at work using snorted hydromorphone and I used to get raised and perk
      Now that I am sober I look like an hippy and I am not a productive member of society

    5. Re:New drug for the morons by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know about that. I was a teenager in the 70s when it was almost socially acceptable among people under 30 to smoke pot. I've known plenty of people who indulge fairly regularly (say on the order of once a week or even a bit more) who probably weren't much different than if they'd never used at all. It's dangerous to make such generalizations as "dope makes you a dope", because practically no generalization of that sort is *always* true. Often they can be true enough to be worth paying attention to without being *usually* true.

      I've also seen the other side, the people who effectively rewired their brains and lives around dope. It's very easy to do, because so much of what we as animals do is avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. As *humans*, we are driven by something more as well: dissatisfaction. The Pali word "dukka" which is often translated when discussion Buddhism as "suffering" might better be translated as "dissatisfaction". Most of the "suffering" in our life is not grand enough to be called "suffering". It's a niggling, persistent dissatisfaction with the things we thought would make us happy. The very low intellectual standards of people who are stoned are a consequence of easy satisfaction. They laugh at jokes that aren't funny because their standards of funny are low. They don't mind physical squalor because they are beyond dissatisfaction.

      It's a funny thing; pain, pleasure and dissatisfaction drive us as individuals, but they aren't there for *our* benefit. They improve us as a *species*. We may wish to subscribe to a philosophy of ethical egoism, but we're still constructed neurologically so the quality of our subjective experience serves the species. Surely it would be to our benefit to live a life devoid of pain and full of pleasure and satisfaction. Any counter argument to this is bound to rest on the benefit to society or to the species, not to us as individuals.

      It is conceivable that we could, in a sense, take charge of our lives, truly live them for ourselves, by using biomedical technology to control pain, pleasure, and over time even *dissatisfaction*. But I doubt in such a world read books. Why would we?

      When you see a book, you anticipate the pleasure of reading it. Why bother reading it if you can get pleasure at the push of a button? Oh, at first you would make a distinction between "earned" and "unearned" pleasure, but one day you'd be a little tired and instead of picking up the book you'll push the happy button, and sooner or later you'll be going for the happy button because you won't tolerate the effort of reading. In fact it's a kind of intellectual lust that drives us to read, isn't it? And lust is kind of a pleasurable pain; a deficit we imagine in ourselves that is pleasant to fill; an itch that we scratch. If we can eliminate the itch and get the pleasure of scratching, we won't be any kind of lust, physical or intellectual, because we won't accept any kind of discomfort.

      I remember working on the early Arpanet, and the amazement of seeing text from a computer appear, printed line by line on a printing terminal. The equivalent of a Slashdot article and its comments would probably have taken fifteen or twenty minutes to "load", but to *us* this was information traveling at amazing rates. Now we consider *any* perceivable delay as intolerable; there is no sensation of speed, only of varying degrees of slowness.

      People adjust their feeling of what is pleasurable and satisfactory to what they experience on a day to day basis. Read about how people lived a few centuries ago. YetI suspect people were just as happy or unhappy as they are now, even though the conditions they lived in -- even the aristocrats -- were miserable by modern standards. Our modern threshold of suffering is extremely low; of satisfaction extremely high. When we can control suffering and satisfaction biomedically, the process will not only have reached its logical limit, human life as we know it will cease to be, because that life is organized around the imperatives to seek elusive pleasure, to elude inevitable pain, and to suage unavoidable dissatisfaction.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:New drug for the morons by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Wait now - you can bash all the drugs in the world, but MY DRUGS are sacred. Lay off the nicotine and caffeine, and we'll get along just fine.

      Besides - isn't coffee where vitamin C comes from?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that worthless Carl Sagan guy was a total moron stoner...

    8. Re:New drug for the morons by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about anyone else but every person I know who uses drugs on a regular basis is a complete moron and doesn't have anything better to do than getting doped up and hanging out and talking with their friends for hours about nothing.

      Most people you know who you say "do drugs" are probably doing pot, which yeah, is not very conducive to doing much productive in most fields anyway. Caffine is the most widely used stimulant, so I'd argue that most of the people you know are people who do mild stimulants.

      It's worth pointing out that according to one poll 20% of our scientists already take "brain enhancing drugs," like ritalin. From personal experience I can tell you at least 20% of graduate students in the sciences and many more senior scientists do recreational drugs too, That portion that uses recreational drugs doesn't completely overlap with the portion that use brain enhancing drugs, and neither are the least productive portions of scientists.

      So that's probably why we're stuck in the stone age, our scientists are too busy being morons and getting high. Or maybe you just don't really know what you're talking about.

    9. Re:New drug for the morons by nxtw · · Score: 1

      I don't know about anyone else but every person I know who uses drugs on a regular basis is a complete moron and doesn't have anything better to do than getting doped up and hanging out and talking with their friends for hours about nothing.

      You never know who might be using stimulants (amphetamines, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil) - all are available with prescription, and with the probable exception of methamphetamine, are stocked in most pharmacies.

    10. Re:New drug for the morons by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Well, given that virtually incomprehensible post (I got the part about drugs), I'm not sure whether to recommend you restart the hydromorphone or give sobriety a bit more time.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      posting anon for obvious reasons

      i'm a professional coder that smokes weed everyday _to_ work, you insensitve clod!

    12. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a stereotype, spoken like someone who doesn't know anyone who uses recreational drugs, or doesn't know which of their friends do.

      Of course straight edgers like yourself will see drug users as morons. If you actually knew how many perfectly normal, functional members of society get high, and how many of them you knew, you would sing a different tune.

      Drug users just like gays and Muslims. They're a lot easier to look down on when you aren't one and you don't think you know any.

    13. Re:New drug for the morons by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about anyone else but every person I know who uses drugs on a regular basis is a complete moron and doesn't have anything better to do than getting doped up and hanging out and talking with their friends for hours about nothing.

      Aside from the doped up part, this describes almost every non geek I know. Oh boy, hours of talking about the weather, american idol and gossiping about the neighbors!

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    14. Re:New drug for the morons by euxneks · · Score: 1

      I don't know about anyone else but every person I know who uses drugs on a regular basis is a complete moron

      You, of course, include caffeine in those drugs.

      Right, because caffeine and meth are pretty much the same thing. Those coffee drinkers, man. They'll shank you for a hot cuppa joe. You gotta watch your back around them.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    15. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't know about anyone else

      Clearly.

      but every person I know who uses drugs on a regular basis is a complete moron and doesn't have anything better to do than getting doped up and hanging out and talking with their friends

      Those people would likely be losers anyway. My wife smokes pot every single day. She also graduated college with honors while working 30 hours a week. Go right ahead and tell me she is an unmotivated moron.

      I doubt you would want to sit around and read a novel while you are high

      So I take it you are not speaking from experience and have no idea what you're talking abut then. I do it all the time, and find it quite enjoyable.

    16. Re:New drug for the morons by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      YAAAY! YOU GOT THE POINT!!!!

    17. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't know about anyone else but every person I know who watches TV on a regular basis is a complete moron and doesn't have anything better to do than lie around, telling their friends and family to be quiet so they can hear the TV.

      Now won't you old cranky fogies get off my Internet so I can sit here peacefully in my underwear looking at pr0n.

    18. Re:New drug for the morons by pwfffff · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, that crazy druggy failed to pluralize THREE WHOLE WORDS! He also didn't use PERIODS and lacks TWO COMMAS! PARENTS PAY ATTENTION! IF YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO HAVE CORRECT GRAMMAR DON'T LET THEM USE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS!

      On the other hand, if you want to fail at understanding basic English unless it's grammatically pristine, then sober life is for you!

    19. Re:New drug for the morons by tonycheese · · Score: 1

      Completely agree with this. A large percentage of college students do smoke pot on a regular basis - this very much includes kids at MIT or Ivy League schools and I'm sure it's not just the failing students that are doing it. I don't think people who do recreational drugs are necessarily "complete morons".

    20. Re:New drug for the morons by pwfffff · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, all those stupid potheads. They can only ASPIRE to sit on their ass and post to slashdot. You, however, have truly have conquered life, and anyone who chooses another route certainly must be a moron.

    21. Re:New drug for the morons by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Caffeine
      Theobromine (in Chocolate, with lesser amounts in Cola nuts and Acai berries)
      L-Theanine (particularly in green tea).
      And compositionally enhanced direct electro-magnetic stimulation of one of the brain's most developed centers (the visual cortex).
      Wheeee!!!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    22. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Step away from the coffee...
      I repeat, STEP AWAY FROM THE COFFEE!

    23. Re:New drug for the morons by nacturation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about anyone else but every person I know who uses drugs on a regular basis is a complete moron and doesn't have anything better to do than getting doped up and hanging out and talking with their friends for hours about nothing. I fail to see how this will be useful for anyone else because I doubt you would want to sit around and read a novel while you are high whether its from drugs or some brain simulation. Now won't you kids get off my lawn so I can sit here peacefully and read a book on my vacation.

      Do you live in the bible belt, perchance? Maybe that's why you equate drugs with "doped up". As others have pointed out, caffeine is a very widely used stimulant and unless you're a Mormon (or was it Jehovah's Witness?) you likely partake of it as well. There are drugs that give you razor-sharp concentration. It's the same stuff that your body naturally produces, the only difference is that most peoples' bodies aren't consistently producing them. Would you want to read a book if you took concentration-enhancing drugs? Many students use those drugs to facilitate studying. The military uses other drugs to keep pilots alert -- I've heard it's the drug commonly referred to as "speed", but I'm guessing it's either a specific enhancement drug that acquired that name or, at the very least, probably not the street-level stuff.

      Other drug users partake because their body doesn't produce (or utilize) sufficient levels of dopamine, serotonin, and so on. You'll have heard of them: those who have been diagnosed with depression. It's not their fault their bodies produce insufficient amounts of the substance. Using drugs to enhance their body's ability to generate them (or increase utilization of existing levels) makes them not want to kill themselves.

      So enjoy your lawn. I hope your concentration isn't too distracted by everyone trampling all over your lovely grass. Maybe between distractions you can get some reading done.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    24. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know plenty of drug users, gays and muslims and I don't find it hard to look down on them.

    25. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about drugs (or neurostim) for recreation of course. There are plenty of uses that don't involved purely pleasure seeking. Some people do in fact need certain external help just to get to what everyone else considers normal (eg. people with chronic pain).

    26. Re:New drug for the morons by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      1) Define "normal"
      2) Don't try to re-define "normal" via politics

    27. Re:New drug for the morons by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Most people you know who you say "do drugs" are probably doing pot, which yeah, is not very conducive to doing much productive in most fields anyway."

      Don't smoke before or at work.
      In the 1970s I smoked like a steam locomotive and so did nearly every young person I knew. That's what evenings and weekends were for, just as with recreational drinking. What's impressive is the LACK of negative effects in such a multi-million consumer pool.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    28. Re:New drug for the morons by shawb · · Score: 1

      Also, those who do drugs regularly and are still successful don't advertise their use to people who believe that only morons do drugs. It's people who replace their personality with drugs that advertise it to the world.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    29. Re:New drug for the morons by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Oh, at first you would make a distinction between "earned" and "unearned" pleasure

      Not if you wire the pleas-o-tron to simulate the satisfaction of having earned it, too.

      In a world where any sensation can be simulated at the push of a button, any sensation can be simulated at the push of a button.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    30. Re:New drug for the morons by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's a funny thing; pain, pleasure and dissatisfaction drive us as individuals,

      At some point, you learn to overcome your internal chemical signals and learn not to live only for the satisfaction of having a little pleasure released in your brain.

      Then you are free to do whatever you want.

      --
      Qxe4
    31. Re:New drug for the morons by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I should add that freedom is nice but also a responsibility: if you learn to overcome your hunger feelings, for example, it's great because you can decide to push your body extra when you need it, but it is also a responsibility because if you stop eating just because you feel lazy, your body will start suffering. So it becomes your responsibility to take over your body and make sure it gets the nutrients it needs to stay healthy.

      A lot of our emotions are set in place to help us survive, and when you overtake them, it takes a lot of effort to not just be lazy all the time and let yourself waste away.

      --
      Qxe4
    32. Re:New drug for the morons by net28573 · · Score: 1

      1.) Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Normal 2.) Don't try to claim that normal does not have a definition by saying that you are unique. Humans have a Herd mentality so we cluster into categories that are generally defined as stereotypical. I am not defining normal "via politics" I am using common sense. Ever heard of statistics? Do the math. -net28573

      --
      RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
    33. Re:New drug for the morons by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Merci beaucoup, promoter of obvious non-working stuff. In the future, STFU.

    34. Re:New drug for the morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Masters in CS, a wife, toddler, well-paying 40-hour-a-week job, and I smoke pot EVERY DAY. After dinner when the kid is in bed and I can relax.

      Complete moron? Non-productive? Hardly.

    35. Re:New drug for the morons by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      This is anything but OT. Who's the brain dead drug FUDder modding people down? Show yourself, be a man, coward! No, really. It's annoying.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    36. Re:New drug for the morons by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      If coffee was banned and removed from every workplace and cupboard tomorrow, you'd see people talking to street dealers pretty quickly. You'd also see it in smokable rock form in a matter of months. And you can bet there'd be some withdrawl fueled road rage the next rush hour.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  6. Stimpacks... hmmm by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll be able to move faster, do more damage, and take more damage, all at a small cost of my health?

    Fire it up!

    1. Re:Stimpacks... hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are doing it wrong! This is more like combining Med-X, Ultra Jet and Buffout into one concoction administered by a slow drip IV over a period of 168 hours.

    2. Re:Stimpacks... hmmm by euxneks · · Score: 1

      I'll be able to move faster, do more damage, and take more damage, all at a small cost of my health?

      Fire it up!

      Tsssss* aaah.
      Man that brings back memories.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  7. Normal State by slifox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If one is "high all the time," then that state becomes the normal state, and anytime they aren't "high" means they are in a "low state." Both psychologically and physiologically, one can become tolerant or adjusted to certain states.

    If something is special, doing it all the time detracts from its appeal.

    1. Re:Normal State by Token_Internet_Girl · · Score: 1

      Unless one becomes addicted to the feelings it produces, either physically or emotionally. Then not doing it makes the original "Normal State" beyond miserable.

      --
      Sure baby, I'll give you my phone number...in Hex
    2. Re:Normal State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If something is special, doing it all the time detracts from its appeal."

      I think you do not understand how addiction works.

    3. Re:Normal State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Pleasurable normal state" = "high state"
      "Miserable normal state" = "low state"

    4. Re:Normal State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any addict will tell you that they've never been as high as the first time, or something similar.
      The more you do it, the less pleasure (appeal) you get from it.

      Additionally, the more you do it, the more it becomes your normal state. Thus when you don't do it, your body reacts with withdrawl pain (the low state).

    5. Re:Normal State by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that would tend to be the case for chemical stimulation, but when it comes to other means of stimulation, matters of tolerance and resistance are different. For example, when applying electric potential to cause muscular contractions, they happen every single time. And barring tissue damage, the effect never goes away or decreases.

      When chemical balances are at play, the tendency to move to balance at "center" is normal. This is not such a thing.

    6. Re:Normal State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Um, I think that's what he means your normal state will become what would have been your high state. So you'll end up needing to turn up the power. Rinse and repeat. Till it kills you. This happens to many drug addicts. A girl who I was pursuing's father, whom I also knew through work had this. He was a Meth Addict and had taken court ordered drug testing. His test came back with what the laboratory consider three times a fetal level of Meth in ether his pee or blood. He didn't even consider himself HIGH when he went in to the lab. So the body and mind are very good at adapting to a new normal. The brain knows that you are not supposed to be feeling good.

    7. Re:Normal State by DriedClexler · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but you can't define away a real phenomenon. That only works in philosophy journals. There, anything goes. Heck, prove space is Euclidean if you want, no one will call you on it until the physicists hear about it!

      The way neurostim works is that it excites the brain activity that goes on when you take a sufficient dose of cocaine, whatever that happens to be. The phenomenon of "getting used to it" arises because, for whatever reason (such as chemical tolerance), you're not getting the same neurological activity from a given dose.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    8. Re:Normal State by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      We see that in real life, all around us. A brother in law finally died after decades of being drunk. He was only sober on a very rare occasion. Abusing that liver finally paid off though. They didn't even consider giving him another liver, because he would have pickled the new one in short order. Ehhh.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:Normal State by Tom · · Score: 1

      Addicts aren't looking for a "special state". They already are in the phase you describe. They want to get out of the "low state" that ordinary reality has become. It's like hunger or thirst.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    10. Re:Normal State by maeka · · Score: 1

      Pleasure is nothing so simple as "tickle this nerve and you feel good". It is a complex cascade of reactions. Electrical stimulation will induce tolerance as the rest of the brain will eventually compensate for the area under stimulus.

      Your analogy regarding muscle stimulation is overly simplistic as muscle firing is much closer* to simple commands traveling linearly down a telephone wire, whereas pleasure and other complex sensations/emotions/functions are highly involved interactions between many many nerves.

      *Note I said closer

    11. Re:Normal State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I dunno what the hell you're ranting about philosophy and such, but...

      As pointed out by another post in the original thread, electrical stimulation eventually results in a wide array of complex interactions, including many chemical reactions. Therefore it certainly is possible that electrical stimulation can result in chemical tolerance-like situations.

      Or, alternatively, the brain tissue that is being electrically stimulated can become less sensitive to electrical stimulation, and thus result in a withdrawl-like state (wherein the normal electrical functions of your brain cease to provide adequate stimulation, resulting in less euphoria than normal -- i.e. a "low state" when not subjected to the external electrical stimulation)

      Anyways, if you have to keep "upping the dose," as you mention, you probably will hit a dosage ceiling just like with chemical substances. There's no difference between electrical and chemical stimulation in that sense (you DO understand that neurons work with BOTH chemical and electrical signals, right?).

      If you're gonna try to debunk arguments, bring some actual counter-arguments, preferrably with citations, or at least knock off the pompous, tangential speculation about philosophy and other unrelated arguments (e.g. "prove space is Euclidean")

      kthxbye

    12. Re:Normal State by pydev · · Score: 1

      Your brain adapts to stimulation and drugs by regulating the number of neuroreceptors; that's the origin of chemical and psychological drug dependence.

      That mechanism doesn't work for direct electrical stimulation of the pleasure center since there are no receptors involved.

    13. Re:Normal State by psithurism · · Score: 1

      If one is "high all the time," then that state becomes the normal state, and anytime they aren't "high" means they are in a "low state." Both psychologically and physiologically, one can become tolerant or adjusted to certain states.

      If something is special, doing it all the time detracts from its appeal.

      Yes, for normal experiences or drugs this is correct, but stimulating the brain directly may be different. To my knowledge the long term effects of feeling high all the time from nuero-stimulation have not been studied, but I don't see a reason that a constant happy excited feeling being actually produced by your brain would ever have to end. I can theorize many ways you could become tolerant and many reasons why you never would. We will have to see through experimentation what would actually happen.

    14. Re:Normal State by srollyson · · Score: 1
      To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching:

      One only knows what music is because it doesn't sound like noise.

    15. Re:Normal State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is. The micro-electrodes required for a BCI that Parkinson's patients use are inserted into individual neurons. While they do stimulate the cell with electricity causing an action potential, the neuron communicates with its neighbors *chemically.* If this happens in particular areas of the Basal Ganglia, where addiction/reward stuff is mediated, this can certainly trigger cocaine relapses or compulsive stimulation. This has been tested with in animal models (rats) that could push a button to get a hit, and did so until they died.

  8. Major problem... by religious+freak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You cannot reboot your brain if it crashes. From my perspective... no thanks, at least for the foreseeable future.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:Major problem... by d474 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it's good way to brick-your-brain. Let the weirdos of the underworld test this out on themselves. There are a lot of humans (usually of the clubbing type) that are perfectly willing to act as guinea pigs because they buy into the idea that the "next thing" is going to open their mind to a whole new world. Let the successes rise out of that mountain of failures (bricked brains) and in 20 years we might actually have some functional neurostim products.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    2. Re:Major problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah but I bet the games would be killer...literally...I keed I keed

    3. Re:Major problem... by tonycheese · · Score: 3, Informative

      (usually of the clubbing type)...

      ???
      I know people on slashdot don't get out much, but presuming that everyone who does are mindless zombies is a bit much, don't you think?

    4. Re:Major problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct despite being highly irrational. This is what you are talking about?. I know it's just video game lore, but it matches what you say perfectly.

    5. Re:Major problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've misinterpreted the GP. What it said is equivalent to:

      A majority of (people willing to be guinea pigs) are (people who go to clubs).

      You've interpreted it as:

      A majority of (people who go to clubs) are (people willing to be guinea pigs).

    6. Re:Major problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives a whole new meaning to the blue sscreen of death.

    7. Re:Major problem... by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Your post belies your .sig.

      Also, actual psychonauts are generally much more careful than you might expect, and would generally be offended at being painted with the same brush as the "clubbing type" you mention (not that 'they' have anything against using neurochemical processes for pleasure, mind you).

      It's not like even the Buddhists are above tweaking their base level consciousness, and I can tell you that Kundalini can be just as (if not more) damaging, if things go wrong, than any psychedelic.

      Perhaps you need to read a bit.

      Regards.

    8. Re:Major problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about presuming?

  9. Normal State of Ubermentality. by dwulf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Curious if this could be the steroids of competitive academia?

  10. Aye Aye by mbkennel · · Score: 5, Funny

    All those neurostimming drug fiends always hog the best tables at my internet provider, doing stupid stuff, reading junk and talking about nothing when they could be recompiling their C compiler.

    1. Re:Aye Aye by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, you use Gentoo! ;D

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    2. Re:Aye Aye by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Sinead O'Connor was actually writing about trying to install Gentoo when she wrote that song: "It's been seven hours and fifteen days..." I think the song title is "Nothing Compiles To You".

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  11. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look pal, it's easy. You just take this neurospike and that hammer and apply according to the instructions. Now, you'll get a splitting headache afterward, but that goes without saying.

    If your still interested in my other products, check out my new and improved nut-vice. Pure pain with pleasure!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  12. The real high by geekoid · · Score: 1

    would be just feeling motivated, happy and loved all the time. That's the areas of the brain to stim.
    Hell, could end most crime.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:The real high by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or make for happily motivated super criminals with a sense of entitlement because they think everyone loves them.

    2. Re:The real high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More politicians? Is that what we really need?

    3. Re:The real high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe one day we will vote for them, watch at them on TV and... wait a second...

    4. Re:The real high by psithurism · · Score: 1

      would be just feeling motivated, happy and loved all the time. That's the areas of the brain to stim.

      And the obedience area as well, thats another good spot. Happy, motivated, loved, obedient masses, no crime, unbelievable productivity, no unhappiness or loneliness, a perfect future is sooner than we think.

  13. Wireheading a reality? by seanellis · · Score: 1

    I'm skeptical (as usual), but if true, bring it on, Larry Niven style.

    Now our addictive types get toasted on wall current instead of having to steal and carjack their way to their next fix? That seems like a step forward to me.

    Legalize it so we don't get a load of back-street ecstasy peddlers giving everyone deep bone infections.

    And then treat it as a public health issue, and let those susceptible to its lure breed themselves out of the population. It's just evolution in action.

    1. Re:Wireheading a reality? by lattyware · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you suggesting sensible behaviour from the war-on-drugs crowd? Please. If they were capable of that, then we'd already have legalised drugs. Let's face it, we can't stop drugs, and if we could control them at least they'd be clean, and the profits could go to making drugs for ill people or whatever rather than crime. It's not perfect, but it'd be better than the current situation. Of course, everyone has it beaten into them the current stance is the only good one.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    2. Re:Wireheading a reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now our addictive types get toasted on wall current instead of having to steal and carjack their way to their next fix? That seems like a step forward to me.

      I don't disagree in principle, but I can just picture most of them dying in the streets because they're too juiced to worry about mundane activities like eating and sleeping.

      Then being subjected to constant news programs about the "wirehead menace" and its effects on society. Complete with tearful interviews with friends and relatives; "He/she had so much to live for *sob* *sob*", "It wasn't his/her fault", "Why don't they do something about it", yada, yada, yada

    3. Re:Wireheading a reality? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I suspect periodic brain surgery (electrodes in the brain don't work forever) would be far more expensive than buying your drug of choice at its free market value. Actually, it would probably be more expensive than buying your drug of choice at it's existing market value as well.

    4. Re:Wireheading a reality? by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Hm, I'm curious: how much would a continuous supply of life-sustaining IV and the electricity to run one of these neurostim things cost, per year?

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    5. Re:Wireheading a reality? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      If it's like deep brain stimulation (DBS) that already exists today, the electrodes aren't the component that needs replacing. At least, I've never read anything that suggests they wear out. It's the batteries in the electric pulse generator that need to be replaced. In time, perhaps they'll find a way to make that an external component somehow. If they could perfect the initial surgery to make it affordable, why wouldn't people do it? People are willing to pay thousands out of pocket to have the surface of their eyes sliced open like a flap and then have a laser shot into their pupils. Been there, done that.. it's just like being in a horror/sci-fi movie.

      MRI machines are already getting cheap. It's not just hospitals that have them anymore. Smallish orthopedic centers have them now. Then you need an OR, a drill, a frame for guiding the electrodes in. Seems doable. It could even be like medical marijuana where everyone ends up having glaucoma. We could see a rise in essential tremor or Parkinson's, all with DBS surgery paid for by Universal Healthcare (i.e. the taxpayers). Find a doctor willing to risk it all for his cut of the money and some nurses willing to look the other way..

    6. Re:Wireheading a reality? by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting sensible behaviour from the war-on-drugs crowd? Please. If they were capable of that, then we'd already have legalised drugs. Let's face it, we can't stop drugs, and if we could control them at least they'd be clean, and the profits could go to making drugs for ill people or whatever rather than crime. It's not perfect, but it'd be better than the current situation. Of course, everyone has it beaten into them the current stance is the only good one.

      There is a fundamental conflict here in that changing the course of the war-on-drugs requires a "compromise of moral position". While it's certainly true that we make these compromises all the time some people will choose to dig in their heals when presented with the possibility of compromise, and will refuse to budge. They convince themselves that they're holding back a sea of water by plugging their finger in the dike, and if they compromise just a bit that it will flood the entire countryside.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    7. Re:Wireheading a reality? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The electrodes don't exactly wear out, they get surrounded by basically scar tissue that forms an insulating layer, and they work less and less well. Most DBS patients have advanced Parkinson's and the lifetime of the electrodes isn't really an issue. Presumably the big market for pleasure centre stimulation would be a somewhat younger population.

      I don't know how accurate you have to be to get a reasonable result in the pleasure centre, but DBS surgery for Parkinson's requires fairly good accuracy. An MR scanner that's going to be useful for that sort of thing is going to run you at least a few million, plus periodic topping off of the $30,000 helium supply. Even then, the real cost is the surgeon, OR staff, recovery, malpractice insurance, etc. All of which you can shortcut if you're willing to go to a shady third world back alley, of course.

      Even so, major surgery usually starts in the tens of thousands. Most drugs aren't much harder to grow and harvest than standard crops, and you can buy an awful lot of wheat for the price of a single brain surgery.

  14. Screw making me happy by lattyware · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Screw making me happy, I can do that myself. Make one that stops me being lazy, I'll buy it in a second.

    --
    -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    1. Re:Screw making me happy by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      You might want to look into serotonin enhancers.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Screw making me happy by bakawolf · · Score: 1

      ..or at least once you got around to it, right?

    3. Re:Screw making me happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw making me happy, I can do that myself. Make one that stops me being lazy, I'll buy it in a second.

      Or maybe you won't. You know, maybe you'll do it tomorrow... It's not really like there's any rush...

    4. Re:Screw making me happy by lattyware · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe later.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    5. Re:Screw making me happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw making me happy, I can do that myself. Make one that stops me being lazy, I'll buy it eventually

      FTFY

    6. Re:Screw making me happy by bperkins · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Screwing makes me happy, I can do that myself.

      FTFY. Also, TMI.

    7. Re:Screw making me happy by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 1

      Screw making me happy, I can do that myself.

      Really? Any chance you could share the secret with the rest of us?

      I mean, laziness I could live with. If I'm happy, why would I care?

    8. Re:Screw making me happy by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that the evidence of SSRIs being effective at all was pretty small, and that whatever effect they may have would be on mood. Chemicals that effect Dopamine, like amphetamines, do more for motivation.

      If you want to be happy, straighten out your life...maybe check out SSRIs....if you want to be motivated, driven, not lazy, amp it up...(just remember to time it right so you can still sleep).

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
  15. Even if cocaine was harmless... by mi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Even if cocaine and other drugs were completely harmless, their ability to give serious but unearned pleasure would seriously warrant their banning. I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...

    Consider sex (yes, I said it) — the intense pleasure most participants derive from it is the reward for the excruciating pains of childbirth and hardships of the childrearing. Contrary to the wide-spread misunderstanding, the mainstream religions want us to have sex — as much as possible. They just want it all to be for the purpose of reproduction, rather than simple self-indulgence.

    Now, what is the justification for a cocaine-user's pleasure? What did he do to deserve, what a Trainspotting's character describes as "thousand times the most intense orgasm you've ever experienced"?

    Of course, one needn't necessarily have earned all the pleasures of life — as long as one's habits don't interfere with others, one ought to be able to enjoy them. This is an individualist view, and I don't fully disagree. I would, however, be rather wary of such people: I wouldn't want one of them to marry my daughter, for example, as he may decide one day to stop caring for her. I wouldn't want my daughter to become such a person either, because I not only want my own grandchildren, I also want the Humanity to continue to exist (preferably — my brand of it, the Western Civilization).

    So, even if cocaine did absolutely no harm to the body by itself — and the devices in TFA promise the cocaine-like effects without the chemical additiction — I wouldn't want to be near a user. Not saying, it should be illegal, but certainly frowned upon.

    I'd suggest, we use these methods on the people either condemned to death for their crimes (capital punishment), or desiring to end their life on their own (suicide)...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if cocaine and other drugs were completely harmless, their ability to give serious but unearned pleasure would seriously warrant their banning.

      And who are you to say what does and what doesn’t constitute legitimately “earning” a form of pleasure that someone chooses to experience?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Duradin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Consider sex (yes, I said it) -- the intense pleasure most participants derive from it is the reward for the excruciating pains of childbirth and hardships of the childrearing. Contrary to the wide-spread misunderstanding, the mainstream religions want us to have sex -- as much as possible. They just want it all to be for the purpose of reproduction, rather than simple self-indulgence."

      Pleasure isn't the reward, it's the enticement to get people to do the act and possibly make babies.

    3. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And who are you to say what does and what doesn't constitute legitimately "earning" a form of pleasure that someone chooses to experience?

      Had you finished reading my post before replying to its beginning, you wouldn't have asked this question... In short, I'm not advocating legal ban on such undeserved pleasures, but express my disapproval of people indulging in them, for they will — and quickly — stop being helpful members of society or even family.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, you're quoting a movie and saying it's a fact. Cocaine doesn't give an intense pleasure a thousand times more intense than an orgasm. Anyone who says that is stupid and hasnt ever done it. Try it and you'll know what it does. It makes you talk a lot and grind your teeth and lets you stay up later to drink more beer. And yes it makes you feel good, but not even close to sex. It surely doesnt make you blow a load in your pants.
      Second, what did i do to earn it? I dunno, maybe earned some money working that i should be able to spend however i want, unless self-righteous douches like you have their way. You seem to think that everyone who does drugs is a jobless addict. If that were true then there wouldn't be a market for blow after a short time, since users wouldn't have any money.

    5. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by mi · · Score: 1

      Pleasure isn't the reward, it's the enticement

      The hair-splitting (in this case) difference was hardly worth posting, was it?..

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the kind of person that scares me. We've come beyond populating the planet and the last thing we need is more little brats to over-righteous religious nuts such as yourself.
      The fact that you think "sex" is a taboo word is a good indication that you are not the kind of person I want to be regulating what I can do with my life. You probably got goosebumps and felt dirty typing sex didn't you?

      Why should these things be frowned upon? Have you ever stopped to think about what you believe to be right and wrong and ever questioned them? I have. Instead of accepting every moral and ethic thrown at me by my heavy catholic community, when I reached the age of reason I began to question the things I was taught and learned what was truth and what was just societies opinion of what should be right.

      I hope you are not the kind of person who spawns because its your "duty". I don't think their is anything worse for humanity then people who have kids because they feel they need to continue the species. There's too many! Stop it. Go get one of those orgasm buttons in your head and stop dooming this planet with your unwanted spawn. Stop making welfare babies and go win a darwin award for yourself. There's a big stockpile and we've got a lot to give out.

      On a funny sidenote, captcha was "naughty".

    7. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Duradin · · Score: 1

      At the time of the so-called "reward", you've done nothing more than following animal instincts. How does that qualify as "earning" it, as you are so concerned with?

    8. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Consider sex (yes, I said it) — the intense pleasure most participants derive from it is the reward for the excruciating pains of childbirth and hardships of the childrearing.

      fapfapfap

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    9. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Thiez · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > the intense pleasure most participants derive from it is the reward for the excruciating pains of childbirth and hardships of the childrearing.

      Do you think we should frown upon infertile people having orgasms? I think you're insane.

    10. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by mi · · Score: 1

      How does that qualify as "earning" it, as you are so concerned with?

      I don't think, it matters to my point in the least, whether the "payment" is given after ("award") or before ("enticement"). That's why I call your follow-up "hair-splitting".

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who are you to say what does and what doesn't constitute legitimately "earning" a form of pleasure that someone chooses to experience?

      Had you finished reading my post before replying to its beginning, you wouldn't have asked this question... In short, I'm not advocating legal ban on such undeserved pleasures, but express my disapproval of people indulging in them, for they will — and quickly — stop being helpful members of society or even family.

      Yet your very first sentence was;

      Even if cocaine and other drugs were completely harmless, their ability to give serious but unearned pleasure would seriously warrant their banning

      So, you - seriously! - want a ban on 'unearned pleasures'...in your head? Well, goody gum drops for you. You 'tut tut' away. The rest of us will try and come up with something more practical than your wagging finger to address the problem.

    12. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by mi · · Score: 1

      Do you think we should frown upon infertile people having orgasms?

      No, because the body can only experience so many orgasms per day and a person — fertile or not — will not stop being productive due to the pursuit of such gratification.

      The device in TFA, on the other hand (and cocaine — even if to a smaller extent) does have this ability to completely take a member out of society. I will frown on people seeking pleasure this way... And you will too, once your rage against me, whom you suspect of wanting to "ban sex" or something, settles down :-)

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>We've come beyond populating the planet and the last thing we need is more little brats to over-righteous religious nuts such as yourself.

      Haven't looked at population growth rates in developed countries recently, have you?

      All of the world's population growth is now coming from Third World countries. All the developed countries are losing people (not counting immigration).

      So yes, we actually do need more babies in America.

    14. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pleasure isn't the reward, it's the enticement

      The hair-splitting (in this case) difference was hardly worth posting, was it?..

      Well, you *DID* dignify it with a response.

    15. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Had you finished reading my post before replying to its beginning

      I did. The fact that you’re not advocating a legal ban doesn’t make you seem any less a self-righteous jerk for looking down upon anyone who, in your opinion, didn’t earn something that they got.

      For instance:

      Consider sex (yes, I said it) — the intense pleasure most participants derive from it is the reward for the excruciating pains of childbirth and hardships of the childrearing.

      Says who? So can I assume that you think masturbation is also an undeserved form of self-indulgence, and you wouldn’t want one of “them” to marry your daughter? Even if that habit didn’t “interfere with others”, because you’d still be “wary of such people”?

      Because, as you say, a man who masturbates may some day just suddenly decide to stop caring for your daughter. Yeah. Why not just go a step farther and claim, since every man who cheats on his wife also has masturbated at some point, that all men who masturbate will cheat on their wives?

      I'm not advocating legal ban on such undeserved pleasures, but express my disapproval of people indulging in them, for they will — and quickly — stop being helpful members of society or even family.

      Right... just like everyone who enjoys alcohol, gambling, tobacco, etc. also invariably stops being a helpful member of society.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    16. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Thiez · · Score: 1

      So you admit the whole 'earned/unearned' thing is crap? I can see how one might agree with the second half of your post, but the first half doesn't make any sense. The whole 'sex feels good because it rewards you for the pains of childbirth and the hardships of childrearing' thing gives the impression that you think humans are 'intelligently designed'. Besides, I like to think my parents accept the hardships of childrearing because they actually like their children... not that they grudgingly accept me because sex happens to feel good.

    17. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be so ephemeral on this topic, then I will attempt to explain things in that light... What you are alluding to is a desire to not let people "fall into hell." You see people that might sentence themselves to a life of torment via addiction, and see it as the wrong decision. You want to save people from falling into their own hell of drug addiction. Stop and think for a minute though: was Jesus even capable of this feat? Answer: No. Not even God Himself is willing to take away humans free will to save people from their own hell. Now stop trying to play God and save people from their hells. People must grow and know these lessons, not just merely learn them.
      Almost all the negative comments you've gotten are because of the above statement, in that you are being self-righteous.

    18. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...

      Yes, it is, becuase I don't share your religious view (or it seems many of your other views on life) so the underpinnings to your argument are shit to me.

      Now, what is the justification for a cocaine-user's pleasure? What did he do to deserve, what a Trainspotting's [imdb.com] character describes as "thousand times the most intense orgasm you've ever experienced"?

      Pretty sure that quote was talking about heroin, not cocaine. Anyway, when talking about someone doing something to themselves, they shouldn't HAVE to justify something to anyone but themselves. If I think "I should be able to do coke, because I got out of bed this morning," then that's the justification I'm going with, and the judges (me) are going to agree with me.

      Of course, one needn't necessarily have earned all the pleasures of life — as long as one's habits don't interfere with others, one ought to be able to enjoy them. This is an individualist view, and I don't fully disagree. I would, however, be rather wary of such people: I wouldn't want one of them to marry my daughter, for example, as he may decide one day to stop caring for her.

      What makes you say that last part? How do you go from "You haven't earned that feeling" to "You're gonna stop caring about my daughter." I don't follow the logic if there is any there.

      I wouldn't want my daughter to become such a person either, because I not only want my own grandchildren, I also want the Humanity to continue to exist (preferably — my brand of it, the Western Civilization).

      We've justified the cocaine-user's pleasure, what justifies you to make decrees on the future of civilization and humanity?

    19. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If xbox live is any indicator, the next generation has already lost all humanity. Might as well drug them more effectively.

      Geneva Convention Five: Teabagging in Relation to Severity of Ownage Distributed

    20. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by moortak · · Score: 1

      We really should get around to banning pretty sunsets and nice breezes on summer evenings. Down with those wicked unearned pleasures.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    21. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Completely safe drugs would make motivation problematic. You wouldn't have to worry about your daughter, because no guy would bother with her. Such drugs will always be illegal, however, because delayed gratification is essential for capitalists and priests. The majority of workers operate on a very animalistic level, and they would not be interested in more than the bare minimum of productivity with such drugs, which probably can be accomplished with less than 1h/day of work. This would be completely unacceptable to the people at the top whose pleasures are more refined, requiring many thousands of hours of other people's labor to be fulfilled.

    22. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by chris+mazuc · · Score: 1

      Even if cocaine and other drugs were completely harmless, their ability to give serious but unearned pleasure would seriously warrant their banning. I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...

      So we should ban the lottery too? How about TV? That argument is ridiculous.

      Now, what is the justification for a cocaine-user's pleasure?

      There is enough suffering in the world already, we don't need more so you can feel morally superior.

      What did he do to deserve, what a Trainspotting's character describes as "thousand times the most intense orgasm you've ever experienced"?

      If you didn't get your information about drugs from bad movies you might actually know what you're talking about. Besides, Trainspotting wasn't even about cocaine. Legalization is about harm reduction; people will use drugs regardless of legality.

      I wouldn't want one of them to marry my daughter, for example, as he may decide one day to stop caring for her.

      Again, if you didn't get your information about drugs from bad movies you might actually know what you're talking about. Hard drugs like cocaine definitely have serious consequences if they are abused. But so does alcohol, which is perfectly legal and socially accepted. I worked at a 24 hour convenience store in Maryland right after I graduated high school. The law in MD is the booze has to be locked up from 2 AM until 6 AM. I had people that would come in at 2 AM with whatever change they scrounged together to buy some beer. I would see the same people at 6 to get some more. So because I like to have a beer with dinner every now and then I'm going to end up out on the street like those people? Because you seem to imply that everyone who enjoys the occasional bump of coke is going to turn into a junkie.

      So, even if cocaine did absolutely no harm to the body by itself -- and the devices in TFA promise the cocaine-like effects without the chemical additiction -- I wouldn't want to be near a user.

      User != abuser

      But your drug is perfectly fine, right? Its not like alcohol is directly and indirectly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in this country every year.

      Annual causes of deaths in the US:

      Tobacco 435,000
      Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
      Alcohol 85,000
      Microbial Agents 75,000
      Toxic Agents 55,000
      Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
      Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
      Suicide 30,622
      Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
      Homicide 20,308
      Sexual Behaviors 20,000
      All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
      Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
      Marijuana 0

      I know that tomorrow night on my drive home I will be far more worried about drunk drivers than cocaine abusers.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    23. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by FreelanceWizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...

      Sure it is. Arguments typically need to be backed up by evidence. An argument based on religion, which is by its very nature a construct of faith that's not backed up by evidence, is fundamentally an appeal to authority (the religion's higher power) or an appeal to the populace (lots of people believe it, so it must be true). Appeals to religion as evidence for an argument are especially problematic when discussing governmental policies in the United States, where a law must have a secular legislative purpose (as per the Lemon test). If the only justification for a law is religious, then it fails this prong of the Lemon test and is unconstitutional.

      At any rate, I would have one bit of advice for you: please consider whether your desire to frown upon or ban such "unearned" pleasures is a function of some actual, real harm you can perceive, or is just a gut reaction to something you personally find distasteful. If it's the latter, I would implore you to consider that banning things you personally find abhorrent is the exact reason why we get laws like the CDA (and, more broadly, censorship laws in the US in general) and why we from time to time end up with attorneys general attacking "smut peddlers" in the courts.

      --
      The Freelance Wizard
    24. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by speedlaw · · Score: 1

      Why is pleasure considered bad ? Yes, certain routes to it will carry self-destruction, even if that is due to illegality or a lack of knowledge. Still, that's not usually considered reasons to ban it (eg tobacco, alcohol) and the drugs that are banned tend to be banned for other reasons (cannabis, etc). Often the problem is due to the illegality itself (dirty needles=HIV). Some folks chase that rabbit forever and end up drunks...but the vast majority don't. I enjoy hiking, swimming in the ocean, and fresh baked muffins. I could fall, drown or die of clogged arteries, but if careful, nothing bad will happen. Assuming the neuro stim didn't "burn out" your brain (or at least less than any chemical stimulation) the fact that it might be fun means you should ban it ? I don't share your world view.

    25. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by mi · · Score: 1

      a self-righteous jerk for looking down upon anyone who, in your opinion, didn't earn something that they got.

      Strange... I'm quite confident, that you strongly disapprove of, for example, the Wall Street bankers, who got something they didn't — in your opinion — earn. But you don't call yourself a "self-righteous" jerk for that disapproval, no, such strong words are reserved for people, who happen to disapprove of something you don't object to yourself...

      Because, as you say, a man who masturbates may some day just suddenly decide to stop caring for your daughter

      A straw-man... There are only so many orgasms a human can (without technical and chemical aids) experience per day, and they aren't, therefore a serious threat to anybody's sense of responsibilities to themselves and their family, etc.

      Right... just like everyone who enjoys alcohol, gambling, tobacco, etc. also invariably stops being a helpful member of society.

      First of all, I'm glad, you agree with me in disapproving of people, who willingly stop being helpful members of society. We just have to hash-out, whether excessive drugs, gambling, or anything else ought to be frowned upon, because it leads a non-trivial number of people to that. And, of course, they do — once your rage against me (the "self-righteous jerk") settles down, you'll realize, that you don't like the people, who take drugs or gamble too much.

      What exactly is "excessive" or "too much" is up to everyone's opinion. (Despite your rhetorical questions "Who am I to decide?!" — I reserve the right to continue to choose, whom I dislike, to myself, thank you.)

      But whatever one's threshold, the device(s) described in TFA are very likely to cause the users to exceed it — their use will not be limited by the supply of a drug, or (unlike orgasm) the body's capacity. As long as there is electricity (a very cheap commodity in most of the world), they'll work, and very few users would willingly stop using them...

      Why read a book, walk your dog, read to your child, call your mother, make love to your partner, post to Slashdot, when pushing a button can instantly bring pleasure, that exceeds anything naturally achievable?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    26. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by mi · · Score: 1

      So you admit the whole 'earned/unearned' thing is crap?

      Not at all. (And I would rather you used decent language, while debating.) Requiring for the pleasure to be earned is a safeguard against people indulging in things to the point, where they become oblivious to their responsibilities.

      The whole 'sex feels good because it rewards you for the pains of childbirth and the hardships of childrearing' thing gives the impression that you think humans are 'intelligently designed'.

      Oh, boy, let's not bring that controversy in here. Whether the joys of sex are given to us by God or Nature (and whether those two are even distinct!), indulging in it is fine, as long as it leads to children. And even when it does not, there is not much harm, because you can not really "overdo" it to the point, where you stop caring for yourself or your family. Nothing naturally achievable, in fact, would lead to that — sex was just an illustration, an example of the most intense pleasure, that I am personally familiar with.

      The cocaine — according to some reports, at least — exceeds that. The devices in TFA go even further — easier to use than cocaine (no need to run out for a new dose even) — they (promise to) deliver even more intense pleasure... Nobody would willingly stop, until the body starves/dries out... Should it be illegal to use them? Depends on one's views on suicide. Do I want anyone I like to use them? A definitive no.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    27. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Strange... I'm quite confident, that you strongly disapprove of, for example, the Wall Street bankers, who got something they didn't — in your opinion — earn.

      What makes you assume that? (This, by the way, is a good example of a straw-man argument, unlike what I said which you seem to think was a straw-man.)

      A straw-man... There are only so many orgasms a human can (without technical and chemical aids) experience per day, and they aren't, therefore a serious threat to anybody's sense of responsibilities to themselves and their family, etc.

      How the hell does that have anything to do with it being deserved, undeserved, or showing my argument to be a straw-man? Your own argument is pretty clearly put:

      – Capability of giving serious but unearned pleasure seriously warrants banning something;
      – the pleasure of sex is the reward for the pains of childbirth and hardships of childrearing...
      – religion restricts sex to the purpose of reproduction, not simple self-indulgence, which you seem to agree with,
      – and as long as one’s habits don't interfere with others, one ought to be able to enjoy them
      – BUT even in this case, you would be rather wary of such people
      – as he may decide one day to stop caring for her.

      Explain to me why any of those points would not apply perfectly well to masturbation.

      (I’m guessing that, stated like that, you’ll find something to disagree with in that progression of thought. However, re-read what you posted; it is exactly the essence of what you said. If you didn’t mean to say that, perhaps you should be more careful to say what you mean in the future.)

      What exactly is "excessive" or "too much" is up to everyone's opinion. (Despite your rhetorical questions "Who am I to decide?!" — I reserve the right to continue to choose, whom I dislike, to myself, thank you.)

      Too much is too much, and determining how much is too much is, as you said, a subjective judgment. However, you clearly said that you’d be wary of someone who enjoyed these forms of pleasure in moderation. That particular sentiment you can just keep to yourself, because that is what makes you sound like a self-righteous jerk.

      But whatever one's threshold, the device(s) described in TFA are very likely to cause the users to exceed it — their use will not be limited by the supply of a drug, or (unlike orgasm) the body's capacity. As long as there is electricity (a very cheap commodity in most of the world), they'll work, and very few users would willingly stop using them...

      A classic slippery slope argument.

      Why read a book, walk your dog, read to your child, call your mother, make love to your partner, post to Slashdot, when pushing a button can instantly bring pleasure, that exceeds anything naturally achievable?

      Why do anything difficult or unpleasant, when laziness and self-gratification are easier and more enjoyable?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    28. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by smallfries · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why do you think that you are qualified to give an opinion on drugs when you don't seem to know the difference between cocaine and heroin? Although they are both class A drugs they are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to their effect on users. Trainspotting would have been a very different film if it was about a bunch of Scottish coke fiends. I'm curious as in most other domains in life opinions not backed up by any solid experience in the area would be seen as largely superficial.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    29. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      Because you can do those things while pushing the button? Duh?

      I hope to baby fucking jesus that you never drink caffeine. That makes your brain think it's awake when it shouldn't be! OMG! NOBODY WILL SLEEP! BAN COCA COLA!!!!

    30. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...

      Yes it is, because arguing from religion isn't argument. It's taking a stand based on faith. You're free to take such a stand, but you are not free to impose your faith on me, either through the force of law or through social manipulation. At all. You can frown all you want, but that's about it.

      If you want to make an argument for your position, use reason, not faith, because I don't share that faith.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    31. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was, and I’d have mentioned it if I wasn’t focusing on other things that you said (and sure someone else would bring it up anyway).

      From your point of view, getting the reward (sex) without the work (child-rearing) is unjust.

      If you consider child-rearing to be a difficult, often-unwanted, and generally preventable result of something that’s otherwise an entirely pleasant activity, it’s a completely different picture.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    32. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Despite being an ex-pothead and supporter of legalization, I have to point out that the "0" next to marijuana may very well be a falsehood based on playing with numbers.

      The numbers by "alcohol" may well include people killed by a drunk driver because that driver's BAC can be measured easily, whereas that is not the case for anyone who may have been killed by someone who was stoned. I'm not saying the number is really big, but I feel confident that it was specifically added to your list to make the point that "no one has died from marijuana use", which is simply not true... or rather, disingenuous. It wasn't the pot that killed them, it was the effects it had on the user, just the same as drunk drivers.

      The same applies to "tobacco". If someone's medical record says they are a smoker and they die of lung cancer, heart attack, or any other tobacco-related problem -- or even a mostly-unrelated issue compounded/complicated by the tobacco-based problem -- then they are part of that statistic that says tobacco "killed" them, even if they would have died the same way as a non-smoker.

    33. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      I'm amused by all the responses to your post. While I almost always disagree with you, this time I see exactly what you're saying and agree with it. The natural state of any living organism is dissatisfaction, with any saisfaction being transient, and this is necessary for survival.

      Personally, I think my brain is wired well enough by now that a little indulgence isn't going to change that for the worse, but if I had kids I would fear that using something like this at too young an age would cause them to develop behavioral patterns that would lead to worse health and long-term success and happiness. The idea that toughing it through various situations builds character makes a lot of sense to me.

    34. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by chris+mazuc · · Score: 1

      Hrmm... you are correct I seemed to have cited misleading data.

      The actual number seems to be 22,073 deaths from alcohol consumption in 2006 vs 0 for marijuana, ever.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    35. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opium, cocaine, marijuana and mushrooms are all "naturally achievable."

    36. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      So your ignorance is less harmful. So what? It's still ignorance.

      When I use coffee, sure, I feel better. Bad me! But I also get more productive and focused -- a more valued member of society even by your criteria.

      I have endured chronic, inscrutable back/neck pain for over ten years and nothing that any of the many doctors or alternate therapies all that time has been able to figure out what's causing it or do anything to stop its recurrence. When it's active, I am *extremely* distracted and unable to focus and think clearly, yet there is no way to prove this to anyone because it doesn't seem to have any physical correlate. And I've done "the right thing" by not resorting to illegal drugs, just using the marginally effective crap they give me. All while having to put up with intense pain that I can't make go away and doesn't have any useful purpose.

      What if this neurostim, or even a "bad" drug, relieved that pain, and did thousands of times over what coffee does for me? I'd be a tremendously productive member of society, "but", unfortunately, I would feel better without having "earned" it by your Bronze Age metric. Am I now a bad person that you disapprove of and don't want to associate with?

      Because if I am -- and everything you've said suggests so -- then it's not social stability or justice you value. It's the pain of others, allocated only by your whim.

      You are the very definition of a wannabe tyrant.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    37. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Random+Data · · Score: 1

      Right... just like everyone who enjoys alcohol, gambling, tobacco, etc. also invariably stops being a helpful member of society.

      Yep, just like everyone after their respiration rental period is up. Anyone who lives turns into a bloody slacker when they die.

    38. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by pydev · · Score: 1

      The device in TFA, on the other hand (and cocaine — even if to a smaller extent) does have this ability to completely take a member out of society. I will frown on people seeking pleasure this way

      Why is that any of your business? If people want to stick electrodes into their pleasure centers, let them; they'll basically just starve themselves to death.

      If you think you're under any obligation to help them, let me take that burden off your mind: they've made their choice, and not only are you under no obligation to help them, you don't have a right to interfere.

      (Of course, the concept of personal liberty and free will may be alien to you, based on your signature.)

    39. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only matters if you have any comprehension of what it's like to be human.

    40. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Sorry to poke into the middle of this heated argument, but I have this same argument all the time with many people and here is the inevitable conclusions:

      Opening statements: THEM: I don't like drug users, because they are bad people. ME: What you mean to say is that you don't like bad people but you must recognize that drug users don't necessarily turn into bad people.

      Conclusion 1: THEM: You didn't know my a priori: Drug users always become bad people. ME: Now I understand; we will never agree on this issue, lets go get a beer and talk about something else.

      Conclusion 2: THEM: I suppose that is true, I will focus on hating bad people.

      Conclusion 3: THEM: You don't understand, I define "drug users" as people who are already so bad that they do the following nasty things. ME: Oh, in that case your right, let's hate them.

      Of course replace "drugs" with neurostim users or only coke and meth addicts (as most people I talk to exclude beer, dope and caffeine from drugs). This same discussion arises about people who dress funny, religious nuts, the unemployed, people who watch too much TV, etc. And replace bad as lazy, unloving to my daughter, or what have you. So can we get to the conclusion and go have a beer?

    41. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      At the time of the so-called "reward", you've done nothing more than following animal instincts. How does that qualify as "earning" it, as you are so concerned with?

      I have to point out that our instincts have done pretty well given that we, one species, have colonized nearly everywhere on this entire planet and are probably the only species here that can take life beyond it. To subvert these instincts for a desire to push a button is a risky venture.

    42. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Ok, we all know what he was trying to say, and that is that animal instincts plus social norms and laws have been doing a good job at keeping us productive as a species and if we subvert that to be a desire to push a button, we are not sure what will happen but most likely it will be bad.

    43. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says who? So can I assume that you think masturbation is also an undeserved form of self-indulgence, and you wouldn't want one of "them" to marry your daughter? Even if that habit didn't "interfere with others", because you'd still be "wary of such people"?

      Sure -- as if his daughter doesn't masturbate, too.

      Keep that bitch away from my son -- he doesn't jerk off. Ever.

    44. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...would seriously warrant their banning.

      Not saying, it should be illegal, but certainly frowned upon.

      You can't have it both ways -- banning == a legal prohibition. If you simply mean "discouragement", then say so.

      Of course "discouragement", in our current society, leads rapidly to demonization, e.g. drugs, "second hand" smoke, "excessive carbon footprints" and the rest of the nonsense that our resident control freaks have tried to "ban".

    45. Re:Even if cocaine was harmless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think, it matters to my point in the least, whether the "payment" is given after ("award") or before ("enticement"). That's why I call your follow-up "hair-splitting".

      (Another AC jumping in here.)

      Respectfully disagree.

      It's not hair splitting if you're making a moral argument, because the *morality* of something relies on *motivations*, not *actions*. His point is that it's not about whether the payment comes before or after. It's what the payment is *FOR*.

      Your argument, as I understand it: Orgasm is the reward for taking on the responsibility of childrearing.
      The other guy's argument: Orgasm is the inducement *to fuck*, which carries as a side effect, a high probability of winding up with childrearning.

      If orgasm's the reward for childrearing, it's immoral to cheat - to get the reward without, as you say, "earning" it. But if orgasm's the reward for *fucking*, and childrearing is the nasty STD that sometimes comes along with it, it's *perfectly moral* to use contraception. Anything from condoms, to oral, to vasectomies and hysterectomies are fair game.

      At that level, your argument is indistinguishable from the anti-birth-control and anti-abortion fundamentalists, even though I think your motivations are different. Your beef isn't the Catholic "every sperm is sacred" kind of whackjobbery, I think your beef is that "at least one sperm must be kinda useful".

      To wit, regarding everyone who's getting on your case, I think they've missed your point:

      Everyone else on the thread: The guy's just another puritan, just like those religious folks who are desperately frightened that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time.
      You: No, I'm taking a Zeroth Law of Robotics angle on it: Users of the orgasmatron are "immoral" not because they're getting their jollies, it's wrong because they - as part of a social movement of wireheads - are, through their collective action or inaction, caused *humanity* to come to harm. The inventor of the orgasmatron didn't necessarily harm humanity by inventing it, and each individual user isn't doing that much damage, but if it's so awesome that all 7 billion of us go wirehead, we really *would* go extinct, in a way that the Jebus freaks never imagined. Teh Gheys can't "recruit" everyone (not that they want to, but the Jebus freaks are terrified of it). Teh babykillers can't abort *every* fetus (not that *they* want to, but the Jebus freaks are still terrified of it). But the guy who invents the Orgasmatron just *might* be able to render humanity extinct.

      Do I have it right?

  16. Not DIY by Kagato · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who needs DIY when you could get your local Dr. Nick Riviera to do a little neurosurgery! Perma Coke high? I can see some rich folks paying to have that done.

    Look at something like steroids. For professional athletes that have to go to the black market it's illegal. But if you're an actor that needs to bulk up for a movie you can get a doctor to create a roid regiment and prescription for you. Perfectly legal.

    1. Re:Not DIY by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I could see it being something like the nicotine patch for a cocaine user, or maybe a lesser of two evils if its side effects are less damaging than cocaine.

    2. Re:Not DIY by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

      Since when is it perfectly legal to get steroids because you need to bulk up for a movie?

    3. Re:Not DIY by Kagato · · Score: 1

      Steroids have many acceptable medical uses. Since it's only a Schedule III drug in the US the oversight into medically accepted use would be by a board of licensing/practices. Nothing is illegal about it, but a doctor could loose their license.

  17. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

    And if it doesn't, it might win you a Darwin award.

    Or you might be a redneck.

  18. Starcraft Stimpack by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 1

    PSSSH - Awwww year. That's the stuff.

    Here's the sound from the game

  19. Did the definition of glamour change? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mix the glamour of surgical self-improvement

    Yeah, until they find your body. Then it has all the "glamor" of autoerotic asphyxiation.

  20. More Crichton Goodness! by vdammer · · Score: 0

    Thank christ, another Michael Crichton reference. I was afraid they were taking an extended break.

    The Terminal Man. "He's an elad." An electric addict. Stick wires in the brain to trigger responses from the pleasure centers. Push the button enough times and you're set for life, or at least until you pass out from not eating because you're loving the buzz. What a great world!

  21. suicidal by gearloos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can see it now in the police blog..."His batteries died and he commited suicide before they could be replaced"

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  22. Why wait? by McGiraf · · Score: 0

    Why wait for neurostim to deal with drugs this way? think about it.

    1. Re:Why wait? by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Why wait for neurostim to deal with drugs this way? think about it.

      I have thought about how to deal with drugs quite a bit, as has the entire world's society for thousands of years. I'm not sure what obvious answer you want to us conclude. Please explain.

    2. Re:Why wait? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      Sorry I seem to have lost my train of though, somehow :P

      Seriously, did you read the post I replied to?

  23. Already Done in Sci Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Larry Niven wrote about some thing just like this in Flatlander: The Collected Tales of Gil The Arm Hamilton. With low current the person would be in perpetual bliss and starve to death just out of reach of food as they wouldn't disconnect. I can see it happening, would be amazingly addictive.

  24. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by rdavidson3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oblig. Simpsons quote.

    Dr. Nick: "I'll perform any operation for $129.95! Come in for brain surgery and receive a free Chinese finger trap!"

  25. Drugs are the future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ethical world of sticking something into someone elses brain is so complex, that I can't see it becoming reality any time soon. However, having your blood stream bring in some chemicals like Adderal, that is what is going to take off soon. Chemicals that are just mental steroids are the future, but society has still got to come to grips with them. I just got off finals and I would have loved something that made me want to sleep less and study more effectively. Oh, wait, there are drugs that do that, but possessing them would be cheating and a Federal crime.

  26. I'm all for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm for the legalization of choices that degrade the brain performance of those who makes these choices. It removes competition and increase my market value.

  27. Think it through just a little bit more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    By allowing "those people" to spend their money on drugs you guarantee that you (and yours) will always have a competitive advantage over them.

    By remaining drug-free, you will (presumably) be healthier, more intelligent, and wealthier. Thus, you will have access to higher class jobs, a higher class income, and higher class people with whom to socialize and breed.

    If you raise your children to share your values, then they, too, will have this advantage.

    The drug users will, as a consequence of their devotion to drug-use, have to continue working their dead-end jobs in order to feed their drug habit, thus filling an economic role which you do not want to fill.

    Thus, making drugs legal is in the best interest of those who do not wish to use them.

    Surely someone who is selfish enough to talk about "unearned pleasure" is selfish enough to allow others to make decisions that will help secure one's own place in the upper echelons of society...no?

    1. Re:Think it through just a little bit more... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      I disagree with the GP, but also you. I don't live in a gate community and enjoy hanging out in public parks, where meth addicts randomly run up to you delighted or infuriated by your face. If a drug addict's parents actually happened to beat good morals into them, yes they will do jobs the rest of us despise to earn their addiction, but usually they would rather just smash in you're car window and siphon your gas. Once the 30seconds of blackjacking you and running your wallet down to his dealer becomes a Pavlovian response, his "unearned pleasure" argument starts to make sense.

    2. Re:Think it through just a little bit more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I work a pretty non-"dead end job" to support my drug habit (cannabis). I have a Masters in CS, a wife, a toddler, etc.

      Not all people who use any "drug" are deadbeats.

  28. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by VoxMagis · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    -- I really need to bleed off some of this /. karma.
  29. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Funny

    Peter: Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole in your head. Remember that?
    Egon: That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.

  30. Niche? by Overunderrated · · Score: 1

    Oh I don't think so. Everyone would want this.

  31. What a load of crap! by Raisey-raison · · Score: 1

    Even if cocaine and other drugs were completely harmless, their ability to give serious but unearned pleasure would seriously warrant their banning. I admit, that this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...

    Arguments like that boggle the mind. What is wrong with people actually experiencing pleasure? Do you have data that suggests that 'unearned' pleasure is ruinous as opposed to merely hypothesizing about what someone may do to your daughter? (BTW Perhaps your daughter can decide for herself what is appropriate for her.)

    We know Combat stress reaction aka Shell shock does huge amounts of harm, so do traumatic childhood experiences and so does torture.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_stress_reaction

    They really cause mental illness, crime, lower workplace productivity and generally f*ck up society.

    Of course its always the right wingers who love Jesus, who somehow think that pleasure = bad, torture = good and somehow use seriously fu**ed up reasoning to justify it.

    And of course the earned pleasure of bankers who earn $150 million a year - that's SO TOTALLY earned. And those drug companies and health care lobbyists who use all there nice 'earned' money which was so rightfully earned to begin with. That's all pleasure that is morally right, sitting in their private yachts and jet-setting around in private planes. That' all OK, especially as its earned on the backs of the uninsured. Cause Jesus thinks it's MUCH MORE IMPORTANT that people not get too much pleasure and die cause they don't have health insurance. Good old moral values!

    But god forbid some poor person who makes $8 an hour living on the poverty line who actually IS making an economic contribution by actually 'Working', if they want to get high - that is just SO bad. Can't have hard working and underpaid people enjoying life- no that's just for the rich. Cause the bible told me so.

    We don't get to live for that long in the grand scheme of things - 70 - 90 years. Cant we just enjoy what little life we have?

  32. ...You'd still call it satan's tool. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    this sounds religion-motivated, but that's hardly a drawback of an argument...

    Well, actually, yes it is. Or at the very least it's cause to re-examine the argument and question it at a more fundamental level. Religions are often stuck in their ways and see tradition as a viture in and of itself. These systems are good when things are static, but they suffer when new technology changes how society functions, and they often fight back against that change. Religions aren't necessarily wrong about everything, indeed they're mostly right, but often for the wrong reason. So instead of taking religious dogma and thumping that, you should examine the dogma, use it to form an argument, and use that instead. And when an argument is whittled away and the only thing that remains is "butbutbut Religion!" that is indeed a sign that your argument is bad.

    Stopping unmarried youths from having kids is a good idea. Family stability and all that. But the church didn't fight for family stability, they fought against sex. And not just unmarried sex. In their attempt to save the children (tm), they worked against every and all aspect of sex in society that the unmarried could come into contact with. That included the public and hence the effort to make sex taboo.

    the intense pleasure most participants derive from it is the reward for the excruciating pains of childbirth and hardships of the childrearing

    I'm a dude and I enjoy sex. I don't really expect childbirth to hurt all that much. And I've yet to enjoy raising children, but I hope they turn out better then your apparently satanic hellspawn.

    Now, what is the justification for a cocaine-user's pleasure?

    Well, he paid for it. That's the same justification I use when I play a game or enjoy a candy bar. Whatever floats you boat, right?

    I have to agree with you that this could be abused. And there's plenty of sci-fi works to use as examples. But anything can be abused. Caffeine, trinkets, cats, power, religious fervor, food, fasting, gaming, isolation, social life, ANYTHING! And if someone takes part in/of a phenomena to an extent that it has negative consequences, THAT is the point to be concerned. And it's usually well before that point at which the person realizes the negative consequences and limits him/herself. But this is not a job I want delegated to the church and priests.

    So take your right-wing-conservative-religious sense of morals and shove it.

  33. This is Ghost in the Shell by socz · · Score: 1

    I love that series because that is how life could be some day and more than likely will be some day!

    Here are some things it covers:
    Augmented brains - These give normal (natural) humans an "E-Brain" which allows them many digital advances.
    Artificial appendages - For get that old peg leg pirate, that plastic manikin arm, or even that special Olympics bouncy leg/ankle/foot thingy! In the future we'll have straight out robocop style arms and legs!
    Last but not least - implants! Oh yeah, not the sexy time, but the able to hack into other people's eyes and see what they're seeing implants! Yeah, get your eye balls replaced with artificial ones that have zoom built in! How about some that have different type's of filters? Such as infra red, just like the predator has! Finally, you'll have the people who'll have jammers, so make sure you don't get that cheap chinese stuff!

    As mentioned above, the black market is/will be huge for this sort of thing, so you could very well get what you pay for, something they take into consideration in GITS... you get cheap shit, people with better equipment (govt/military) can hack/disrupt/nullify your devices (eyes, arms, body etc).

    I totally see this happening. Who wouldn't want to have an e-brain? You can now store all your files in you! No worry about needing to remember things, just go diving around in your e-brain! But you better have a good firewall set up because you don't want to get hacked to mess yourself at the holiday party...

    It'll take a long time but it will help life be a lot better. I would guess that it could possibly help some people like my grandma who's 93 (2 days ago!) and has Alzheimer's. Maybe it could have given her 15-20 years of life more worth living than not knowing who anyone is except at random moments in time. One can only hope right?

    --
    My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    1. Re:This is Ghost in the Shell by AkumaKuruma · · Score: 1

      I think you are really refering to the book "Neuromancer" as that is the book that started that entire genre. if you like GitS, I highly recommend reading it as you will see direct influence in GitS and Cowboy Bebop. Also another book to read along side "Neuromancer" is "Snow Crash". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowcrash

  34. More Complete BS From h+ by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let's just start with part of the headline material:

    " 'The same neurostim device that uses electric impulses from a brain implant to treat people with Parkinson's Disease can be tweaked by a few millimeters and pulse rates to make cocaine addicts feel like they are high all the time..."

    This (and TFA) is from "James Kent is the former publisher of Psychedelic Illuminations and Trip Magazine. He currently edits DoseNation.com, a drug blog featuring news, humor and commentary."

    Hardly your neuroscience expert, or even much of an educated amateur. Educated enough to be dangerous to his own reputation perhaps. We can hope.

    Where Mr. Kent goes wrong is in thinking the stimulator used for Parky's can stimulate other parts of the same structure (within a "few millimeters), the Substantia Nigra, which produced dopamine which is also released in cocaine use, and that this is the reward center, so that doing so makes one feel high.

    The common misconception is based on the "reward" aspect, and confusion of cause and effect with respect to drug use. The reward system operates in the manner of conditioning or learning, in that its output helps to produce the association between a behavior and a reinforcer. Let's just assume for maximum illustration that the reinforcer here is a cocaine high. We have the drug taking behavior, and we have the cocaine high resulting. The dopamine system puts on the brakes with respect to ongoing seeking/investigating and lets the organism maintain focused attention on the object that produced the positive feeling -- it makes reinforcement possible. Note that it does not cause the high, the reinforcer does that. There are many reinforcers that can make learning occur, and most of them do not cause any sort of high. Just because cocaine causes a release of dopamine does not mean this is the source of the high. No, this is the source of the powerful reinforcement that causes addiction to start. Dopamine does not act as a "reward", it allows a reinforcer to do so effectively regardless of any psychotropic effects. It is the cascade of various neurotransmitters that causes the high. Evidence of this is found in the effect of pramipexole (Mirapex) on people. It is a selective dopaminergic and does not cause any high. But it does (at a high enough dosage) cause obsessive/compulsive use and behaviors much as an addiction and related activities.

    Moving a Parky's stimulator will not produce a high, but it might produce the problems related to addiction.

    I've previously pointed out the lack of facts in h+ articles, and the preponderance of fiction. This article starts out with the latter. Check the rest of it for yourself to see if there are any reliable facts actually taken from known science, or whether they are other common misconceptions put to service to fill white space.

    As for cognitive enhancing drugs, amphetamines and such are behavior boosters, not capable of producing long term cognitive enhancement, unless by enhancement one means seeking more of the same. Cognitive enhancing drugs (nootropics) have been around for over 50 years. The first, hydergine, is the red headed step child of the man who called LSD "My Problem Child", Albert Hoffman. There are many such drugs in use throughout the world except for the US where they are allowed only in the cases where they will not help -- severe progressive dementia. In contract with the very lucrative drugs typically used as congitive enhancers, nootropics have very little side effects or interactions.

    In the cases where cognitiion enhancement is possible, anything related to intoxication is contraindicated and counterproductive. Confusing "reward" with getting high, when it is intended only to related to learning reinforcement is key to understanding this. It is also key to determining whether the source is intent on getting smart or getting high, because the latter refuse to give up on the misconception.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  35. MMJ by Turbo_Button · · Score: 2, Insightful

    God forbid the terminally ill miss out on reading one last novel before they die Medical_cannabis

  36. Drouds from Larry Niven's world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This device sounds a lot like the drouds from Larry Niven's "Tales of Known Space" series. People would get the implant, plug the droud into the outlet, and eventually die from malnutrition and dehydration. At least they didn't reproduce.

  37. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you forgot: "Try my product!"

  38. Basement Psychologists by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Whoever tagged this as !neuroticism probably needs a hug.

    1. Re:Basement Psychologists by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      *hug*
      I want one too.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  39. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Burn out' gets a whole new meaning, even without some do-it-yourself brain surgery.

  40. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by ubungy · · Score: 1

    Let's not confuse surgical self-improvement, which happens all the time from prosthetics to cosmetic surgery, with self-surgical improvement. Which would just be unthinkable when talking about the inside of your head. At least in this day in age.

  41. Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a lesson from "fake boobs". Nature does it better. I wouldn't trust that sort of thing if my life depended on it. What sort of track record do things like this have for human health? Oh... but someone can feel like they're on cocaine all the time, that's EXACTLY what we need. Horray for modern science! These jokers should be flipping burgers for a living, not trying to re-engineer (badly) the already magnificent human body.

  42. This needs to solve other mental problems by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    like mental illnesses like schizoaffective disorder (which I suffer from), schizophrenia, and other mental illnesses that can be disability. Such a device can control brain chemistry by providing the brain with the proper signals to release chemicals to counter the chemical imbalances that cause these mental problems and mental illnesses.

    I would volunteer for neurostim testing, as I suffer from schizoaffective disorder and it has caused disability and career killing. Just to see if it would help others with my mental illness. As long as I don't turn into a zombie cyborg controlled by other people or something. :)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:This needs to solve other mental problems by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I hear you brother. Just an ADHD/panic/anxiety/depression addled teenager here. Not a fun life. Seriously. With risperidone, doubly so.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  43. Tek War by noc007 · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of William Shatner's Tek War series.

  44. Are your neurons 'off' too? by Favonius+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    I for one have a slightly over active sympathatic nervous system. This means its harder for me to fall asleep, I have sweaty palms often and I sometimes feel 'wired' in general. If there was an implant that I could use to turn this all down a little bit, like a particular drug I happen to know of, I would seriously consider it. Please don't generalize about people's needs or drug use because that really hurts fringe people like me in the scheme of things. You have no idea the social stigma of matters like these, especially if you are in a science related industry like I am.

    --
    "Men willingly believe what they wish." - Julius Caesar
    1. Re:Are your neurons 'off' too? by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Good point. This will be necessary for many, as they said: Parkinson's immediately.

      My neurons are perfectly normal as is the same with most slashdotters and someone is telling us we could be smarter, more productive and happier with the push of a button? You have to understand I am self absorbed and will talk about ME! Hence the long discussions about what WE NORMIES can do with it. Sorry that we're to hijacking a topic that is terribly important to you with our sci-fi pipe dream crap though.

  45. Get ready with your mod points: by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    I'm doing some DIY brain surgery while I am writing this, so far I have isolated the area for language and wit, I'm about to apply my patch to overclock it! Muhahah! Soon I will be posting the best slashdot comments ever!

    Here goes:

    *SUCESS* patch applied sucessfully, so far it seems stable but mayfb &^ng asdhg fsdHkuj ldSfhdj jhll hfhjfds jb ê ....

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Get ready with your mod points: by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      You forgot the line: "NO CARRIER".

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  46. Cocaine? by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    Wake me up when the master Mu "electrical agonism".

  47. Home brain surgery by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 1

    If that's what the health plan covers that's what the health plan covers. No refunds

  48. how is that news? by pydev · · Score: 1

    People have been able to stimulate the pleasure center electrically for decades, and the necessary electronics weren't that large even a few decades ago. People don't implant electrodes into their pleasure centers because (1) it's not good for them, (2) they can't do it themselves and surgeons won't do it for them, and (3) brain surgery isn't much fun.

  49. The Pleasure Trap by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    See also: "The Pleasure Trap: Mastering the Hidden Force That Undermines Health & Happiness" by Douglas J. Lisle
    and Alan Goldhamer:
        http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508
    """
    A wake-up call to even the most health conscious people, The Pleasure Trap boldy challenges conventional wisdom about sickness and unhappiness in today's contemporary culture, and offers groundbreaking solutions for achieving change. Authors Douglas Lisel, Ph.D., and Alan Goldhamer, D.C., provide a fascinating new perspective on how modern life can turn so many smart, savvy people into the unwitting saboteurs of their own well-being.
        Inspired by stunning original research, comprehensive clinical studies, and their successes with thousands of patients, the authors construct a new paradigm for the psychology of health, offering fresh hope for anyone stuck in a self-destructive rut. Integrating principals of evolutionary biology with trailblazing, proactive strategies for wellness, they argue that people who are chronically overweight, sick and ailing, or junk food junkies aren't that way because they're lazy, undisciplined, or stuck with bad genes. The authors reveal that most are victims of a dilemma that harkens back to our prehistoric past-"the Pleasure Trap."
        Drs. Lisle and Goldhamer then call upon their clinical experience, scientific investigations, and a recent revoution of understanding in human motivational psychology to provide you with solutions for the challenges of keeping on a healthful course-and how to make the most of your life.
    """

    More here:
      http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm

    Basically, it is about progressive desensitization. In terms of food, fasting for a time can sometimes help reset our sense of what is a good amount of stimulation (the subtle taste of a carrot, the nuanced taste of other natural foods) and what is too much (too salty, too fatty, etc.).

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  50. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by nospam007 · · Score: 1
  51. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

    You mean like this?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/651892.stm

    Oh my god....

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  52. The Final Circle of Paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The English translation is titled The Final Circle of Paradise.

  53. I think you're confusing... by jeko · · Score: 1

    ...the words "reward" and "bait."

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  54. Yuck by paxcoder · · Score: 1

    Please put this in a sci-fi story, not on Slashdot. We're trying not to think about is, and if and when we come to the bridge, then burn it down.

  55. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by camperslo · · Score: 1

    The iPhone SDK supports interfacing to external devices. Who wants to write the Bluetooth App that'll trigger a high or orgasm instead of a ringtone when selected people call?

    With a multipoint interface matrix, a choice of responses could be made available.

    I suppose calls from others could make you twitch, fart, or react in other special ways

  56. Wait, I thought beta blockers were by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    coding enhancing drugs. I thought I read on slashdot awhile ago about people taking them to help them code. (Since they help you maintain a focus and keep calm.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  57. Nietzsche? by psithurism · · Score: 1

    Everyone will want this and those who don't are bound to be poor, stupid and unproductive suckers in comparison as they can't stimulate their brain like the new Übermensch shall be able to. He will look upon unstimmed man as man looks upon an ape: "A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment."

  58. Larry Niven? by lophophore · · Score: 1

    Hmm. Sounds suspiciously like the droud in Death By Ecstasy

    Me, I want a tasp.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  59. I have a stim... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    To treat nerve pain and Trigeminal neuralgia. Its a Medtronics and it's mounted pretty high up my spine, C-1, C-2 and C-3. Its mounted in my chest, right over my heart with wires across my chest through my shoulder and to my spine.

    From my experience, it's not going to become a "niche cosmetic neurostim market", not for say 10-15 years. They are bulky, the wires are thick and I lost 30% strength and 40% of my mobility in the shoulder the wires run through.

  60. DBS is not gonna do it for this by jstoner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have deep brain stimulation (DBS) implants for dystonia, and they're hit or miss. Maybe you get some sort of high, maybe your arm goes rigid, maybe you see spots. And for twenty hours of brain surgery, awake--well, I wouldn't have done it if I thought I had any better options.

    The state of the art with this is nowhere near reliable enough to do for nonessential reasons, even if you have some of the best doctors in the world. And the expense--well, if it had been out of pocket, it would have cost me >$300k.

    Or, you can just go score some coke, if you're into that kind of thing.

    --

    'In knowledge is power, in wisdom humility.'
  61. Don't be a fool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  62. we were warned about this 21 years ago... by vaporland · · Score: 1
    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  63. Re:"...the glamour of surgical self-improvement... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    You my label me psycho for saying this, but I think that it is difficult to get serious brain damage by putting a needle in the wrong place. Unless you cut a big vein on the surface, I think that playing spiky-touchy with the brain itself isn't that much of a problem.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  64. Tool of the Trade, by Joe Haldeman by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    The novel Tool of the Trade by Joe Haldeman concerns the discovery of a specific ultrasonic frequency which induces a state of extreme hypnotic suggestibility -- in effect, a mind-control sound.

    Hypnotic suggestibility is different, of course, from electronic pleasure (see Wirehead), but there are interesting correspondences.

    --
    -kgj