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...'"
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.
Can I get one tweaked to give me a mind blowing orgasm every time I blink my eyes in rapid succession 10 times?
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.
And can I have my droud back, please?
Thanks
--
BMO
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!
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.
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
Curious if this could be the steroids of competitive academia?
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.
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.
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
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.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
And if it doesn't, it might win you a Darwin award.
Or you might be a redneck.
PSSSH - Awwww year. That's the stuff.
Here's the sound from the game
Mix the glamour of surgical self-improvement
Yeah, until they find your body. Then it has all the "glamor" of autoerotic asphyxiation.
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"
"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.
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!"
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.
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...
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
The hair-splitting (in this case) difference was hardly worth posting, was it?..
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
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?
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...
You mean like this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/651892.stm
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Oh I don't think so. Everyone would want this.
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.
>>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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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?
God forbid the terminally ill miss out on reading one last novel before they die Medical_cannabis
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
YAAAY! YOU GOT THE POINT!!!!
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.
Whoever tagged this as !neuroticism probably needs a hug.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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!!!!
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.
Step away from the coffee...
I repeat, STEP AWAY FROM THE COFFEE!
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.
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.
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.
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.
This reminds me of William Shatner's Tek War series.
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
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.
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.
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
1) Define "normal"
2) Don't try to re-define "normal" via politics
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.
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.
Wake me up when the master Mu "electrical agonism".
"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."
If that's what the health plan covers that's what the health plan covers. No refunds
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.
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.
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.)
More like Louis Wu.
http://wireheading.com/wirehead.html
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
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
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?!
...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."
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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
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
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.
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.'
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
Merci beaucoup, promoter of obvious non-working stuff. In the future, STFU.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5159636661461723061
Ask Me About... The 80's!
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.
Sorry I seem to have lost my train of though, somehow :P
Seriously, did you read the post I replied to?
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.
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
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