Brain Power Boosted With Electrical Stimulation

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Brain Power Boosted With Electrical Stimulation

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday September 21, 2011 @05:19PM from the power-up dept.

Zothecula writes "With the possible exception of those affected by hyperthylmesia — a rare condition where a person has an extraordinary capability to recall events from their past — most of us wouldn't mind having our memory enhanced. That's just what appears to have happened to a group of mice when targeted areas of their brains were electrically stimulated. The treatment triggered an increase in the creation of new cells in the hippocampus, with experiment results suggesting the mice's spatial learning improved. The researchers responsible say the results could have implications for the treatment of memory disorders in humans."

127 of 153 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Augmentation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-21 17:24 · Score: 1

In addition to treating disorders, I'd be interested in seeing techniques like this used to augment people beyond normal human capability. Of course, then we'd have to listen to self-described bioethics experts blather on about whether or not actually doing that means we're "playing God" or something.
1. Re:Augmentation by arth1 · 2011-09-21 17:34 · Score: 2
  
  The problem I have with augmentation is that unless heavily regulated, it will increase the gap between the classes, making it even more impossible to claim that people have equal opportunities.
  And, if regulated, should it be mandatory, or voluntary?
  For me, it's easy to say that I don't want this kind of augmentation - in order to be efficient, I need to forget a bunch of stuff. When I go to the parking lot to look for my car, I don't want to have to sort through 600 memories of having parked my car there, I just want one memory, which I can forget when I drive off. And I don't want to remember all the times my s.o. has said something that upset me. Forgetfulness is good.
  But what about a child? Would it be able to object? Or understand reasons for objecting?
2. Re:Augmentation by Bruce+Perens · 2011-09-21 17:43 · Score: 2
  
  Harrison Bergeron was here.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
3. Re:Augmentation by wealthychef · 2011-09-21 17:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are assuming that intelligence == more selfishness. In my experience, the more people learn and grow in life, the less selfish they become. As we progress as a culture, we are going to grow beyond the current view that men are inherently antisocial and competitive. Evolution has developed us to cooperate. Cooperation is a smart way to live. We'll figure it out. Don"t let all the bullshit fighting on television and newspapers make you think that's the way human beings really are. You know better. Look around. Don't be afraid of progress.
  
  --
  Currently hooked on AMP
4. Re:Augmentation by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-09-21 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot Poland.
5. Re:Augmentation by arth1 · 2011-09-21 23:49 · Score: 2
  
  Harrison Bergeron was here.
  Non-sequitur, and you need to re-read Vonnegut if you read it with Heinlein goggles and only saw the top story, and missed the satire. The joke is on people who have a skewed view of what socialism is.
  Socialism isn't about "from each the same, to each the same", and that's the lie Vonnegut wanted to expose through this story.
  Not allowing the rich to increase the opportunities of their offspring is in no way comparable to decreasing anyone's inherent chances in order to enforce equality.
  In the case of augmentation, the question isn't who can afford it, nor who deserves it, but who needs it.
6. Re:Augmentation by lpp · 2011-09-22 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that you would have the problem you're referring to, being unable to distinguish from every instance of having parked your car in the parking lot. If you had perfect recall, surely you would begin to record EVERY detail of every instance and then when attempting to recall today's specific instance, I imagine your brain's capability for pattern recognition would sort through the most relevant results to pull up the correct one. We do that all the time really. There are any number of things which we repeat daily but with minute differences in each case, and we manage to filter out the least relevant results in order to be able to focus on what's most important to the matter at hand. Sometimes, yes, it fails, and we end up chasing a dead end. But the human brain seems a remarkably potent tool for filtering out the noise to reach the signal in many cases.
7. Re:Augmentation by morgauxo · 2011-09-22 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know but I don't think that's how it works. Short term and long term memory would still be different things the brain would handle differently.
8. Re:Augmentation by arth1 · 2011-09-22 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Judging by the number of people milling around in the parking lot, looking for their car in a spot they parked it some other time, I'd say no.
9. Re:Augmentation by LanMan04 · 2011-09-22 02:30 · Score: 2
  
  In my experience, the more people learn and grow in life, the less selfish they become.
  Does that mean most political conservatives stopped leaning and growing when they were 15 or so? :)
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
10. Re:Augmentation by jameskojiro · 2011-09-22 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  The more rich people who use it the more the price will go down as the market demands it.
  Look at HDTVs, I was using a tube TV and only rich people had them 10 years ago, but now even the "poor" have HDTVs.
  Same with computers, poor people used to not beable to afford a new PC, now they are so cheap and laptops are so ubliquitous that the 5,000 laptop from 1990 is now 350 dollars and 100 times as powerful. And you count inflation in there and the 350 dollar laptop adjusts to around 150 dollars.
  Need I even get started on smartphones. Enabling tech will always end up cheaper after it gets mass produced.
  Would you be saying the same thing about LASIK eye surgery 15 yars ago? Which used to be ultra expensive, but now you can get it done in for less than 500 per eye in a strip mall?
  Point is the rich will always have the new toys and it will give them an advantage, but it won'y take long for the people who sell to the rich to start marketing to the masses, because the middle/lower class is far larger and in the end more profitable.
  
  --
  Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
11. Re:Augmentation by jameskojiro · 2011-09-22 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Pot for the dumb sheep voters and brain enhancing chips for the ruling elite.
  The dumb sheep will votes the elite into power and will be dumb but happy with their pot, while the elite will be smarter and unhappy.
  Maybe the smart people will get "soma" to keep them happy too....
  
  --
  Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
12. Re:Augmentation by arth1 · 2011-09-22 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Would you be saying the same thing about LASIK eye surgery 15 yars ago? Which used to be ultra expensive, but now you can get it done in for less than 500 per eye in a strip mall?
  Very bad example. Laser vision correction was done in other countries at no expense to the patient a long time before it became available on the US market. It's a very cheap process in itself, but that doesn't prevent it from being too expensive for many. The prices in the US market are artificially inflated to start with, because of dubious patenting making it possible to charge an arm and a leg.
  And the prices don't seem to drop either. Quoting an article I found:
  "In 2006, industry sources reported that the average cost of LASIK was around $2000. In 2007, the price was charted to have a small increase to around $2100, and in 2008 it was reported that the average cost rose by only $5, to $2105. The most recent 2009 report shows the average San Diego LASIK cost to be $2140."
13. Re:Augmentation by ppanon · 2011-09-22 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  12
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
14. Re:Augmentation by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-09-22 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I understand the concern with the disparity issue but to me that is not a justifiable reason to prevent advancement for those that can and have the desire to. I see it as little different than closing down gyms and banning the sale of athletic equipment because there are a bunch of fat, lazy, gluttonous sots and we don't want to create a disparity of health between them and those with motivation and self discipline. Or the unfortunately all too common holding back the smart kids because the stupid ones can't keep pace.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
15. Re:Augmentation by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-09-22 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I would suggest somewhere around 3 or 4 if my observations of children is any kind of guide. They've got the whole religious "love everybody" idea but are selfish to the core and violent when they don't get their way.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
16. Re:Augmentation by Skal+Tura · 2011-09-22 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why, oh why, should everyone be equal?
  The dude cleaning toilets does not have the same impact on society than the guy paying your salary.
  imho tbh it's far more important that most people have roughly equal opportunity, no discrimination for being black/hispanic/white or no discrimation if you are poor, or not so well educated. Everyone should be respected by their own merit, augmented or not.
  If we start discriminating people who want to improve upon themselves beyond the baseline of human capability, we should start discriminating also for people taking care of how they look, ie. spending on expensive clothing, stylizing hair, or trying to make yourself look thinner or more muscular etc. even dieting if you are obese should be discriminatory then. That too is sort of improving beyond the baseline.
  Eye glasses and especially contacts should be discriminated aswell, that too is augmenting yourself with technology to go beyond your natural capabilities!
  Why then is some sorts of augmentation such a taboo? I'm all in for better memory if it has livable side effects, or better reflexes. Anything really which increases my mental capability without too much of side effects. Coffee too is a drug to increase mental capability, and it's the most popular drug in the world.
  
  --
  Pulsed Media Seedboxes
17. Re:Augmentation by arth1 · 2011-09-22 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for it as long as whether you get the boost or not can be based on merit and need and not the size of your parents' wallet.
  And re your gym anology, I'd be all for the overweight getting subsidized gym access, because they have a higher need. It would pay for itself from the point of view of society as a whole, but I fear the greedy right would not see it that way, and bitch about spending "their" money on someone else.
18. Re:Augmentation by mattack2 · 2011-09-22 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Laser vision correction was done in other countries at no expense to the patient
  Except in higher taxes.
19. Re:Augmentation by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-09-22 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  At least in the US there are gyms that can fit even tight budgets--$10/month not being unheard off for single membership. However as the saying goes "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" would be most apropos. If it were about cost then we wouldn't see such an overwhelming number of fat, lazy gluttonous, middle-class sots.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Quick! by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-09-21 17:32 · Score: 1

BOOST ALL THE BRAINS!
Seriously. There's elections coming up.
This is a lot more complicated... by Bruce+Perens · 2011-09-21 17:32 · Score: 1

Hm, why do you think we haven't evolved with perfect memory? Could there be a good reason?
Well, I know that people with really hot tempers usually have bad memories. They'd not be able to live with anyone else, or probably themselves, if they didn't.
I think that what we really want is really selective memory. Like for rapid learning of languages.
If you just want to remember facts, there are some memory tricks that work pretty well. Oops, I've forgotten the links :-)

--
Bruce Perens.
1. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-21 17:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hm, why do you think we haven't evolved with perfect memory? Could there be a good reason?
  Unless you believe in intelligent design, there may be no reason at all, except that we're only as far along as we are and we work well enough to reproduce. Same reason most of us have relatively poor hand-eye coordination, can't do without oxygen for more than about 3 minutes, have problems with cancers, have our eyes go out of round, etc. Many species of animals do much better on all these measures.
  As my old bio teacher used to intone, "evolution proceeds towards what works, not what's best."
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by martin-boundary · 2011-09-21 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution can only reach feasible outcomes. It's also clear that a brain with perfect memory is physically impossible (at best memories represent a sampling of sensory inputs, so full reconstruction of reality is certainly impossible). So it's obvious that we cannot evolve perfect memories, but it may well be that the trend is *towards* perfection nevertheless, since the benefits are substantial.
3. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by phantomlord · 2011-09-21 18:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't know that I have full blown hyperthymesia, I've never talked to a professional about it, I certainly don't recall EVERY day of my life in great detail but my friends and loved ones are often surprised at what I can recall and just how much trivial detail I can recall when doing so. I had a pretty bad concussion in 1997 which definitely affected my memory in a negative way, but I still still consider it to be far superior to most people.
  
  Anyway, it is a curse to be forced to remember all of the worst days and moments of your life. Imagine constantly reliving your most painful or embarrassing moments. Imagine carrying around the burden of all of the not so nice things you may have done in your life, like the snippy retort you gave to the person that was marginally rude to you when you were tired. Imagine the insults and bullying that you endured not only through high school, but that the people you've cared about have thrown at you over the years during spats. Or maybe it was the time you made a suggestion at work or to a friend that everyone else has long forgotten but you still remember in vivid detail. I have detailed memories going back to the first house I lived in and we moved out of there when I was 6 months old.
  
  Breakups can be hard, but remembering the little intimate details of your lost SO are worse, watching a loved one die in front of you, the laughter that still echoes in your mind from the time you had a piece of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of your shoe, etc. Sure, it's nice that you can remember all of the details the day your child was born or that trip you saved up your entire life for, but when you can't forget the things that your brain really needs to in order for you to move on, every day has the potential of being a living hell. It's basically a permanent state of PTSD and you never know when it's going to hit you.
  
  After my concussion, I've lost some of the factual retention memory ability that wasn't related to my personal life, but, unfortunately, I still mentally "record" virtually every moment of my life. I can't always tell you the date (though I often can), but I can deliver the full visual, audio and tactile memory of those moments. Friends/family tend to love that I can remember the things that they can't and help refresh their own memories, but for me, it sucks.
  
  --
  Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
4. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by dirtyhippie · 2011-09-21 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hm, why do you think we haven't evolved with perfect memory? Could there be a good reason?
  Unless you believe in intelligent design, there may be no reason at all ... As my old bio teacher used to intone, "evolution proceeds towards what works, not what's best."
  Intelligent design has nothing to do with it. Your assertion is that we don't have capabilities like this because we haven't needed them enough yet? Isn't it possible that such things (like being able to go without oxygen for a long time) would involve too significant a cost for the rare cases it would be needed and therefore is not worth the tradeoff?
5. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by ldobehardcore · 2011-09-21 18:42 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, But the problem there is that there's no solipsist's lemma.
  
  Philosophically speaking, the only thing you can be sure about is your own existence. You can also see that your senses are flawed, so you can't trust them either. You vividly hallucinate at night, and constantly misinterpret your senses during the day.
  
  On these grounds, who's to say what is real and what is simulation?
  
  OTOH, if we focus on information theory, and don't think about philosophy for a second, the real world out there has more than 10^100 "moving parts" than your own brain has, even if you count down to the atoms and electrons that make up your neurons... How could you possibly hope to simulate all of reality if the simulation itself is embedded within reality? That's a recursive nightmare.
  
  No, you can only make approximate models of the "Real World Out There" and then that's only useful if you can prove that the real world out there exists.
  
  --
  Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
6. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-21 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  No. There's no entity weighing up trade-offs, as you posit here. If we needed these extra abilities for optimal survival, those who tend toward those abilities would reproduce more often than those without. Eventually, those with would become a new species, and those without would be overtaken.
7. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by q.kontinuum · 2011-09-21 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  But as far as I know the statistics show that the reproduction nowadays rate of humans is rather reciprocal than proportional to success (assumed that you take success in jobs, political success etc. as the metric for success). This might give evolution a hard time to help us here :-)
  
  --
  Trolling is a art!
8. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by benjamindees · 2011-09-21 18:59 · Score: 2
  
  Hm, why do you think we haven't evolved with perfect memory? Could there be a good reason?
  Glucose limitations, probably. Sugar is something of a limited resource in most of the habitable zone and throughout human history.
  
  Well, I know that people with really hot tempers usually have bad memories.
  PTSD causes both irritability and atrophy of the hippocampus.
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
9. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by leifbork · 2011-09-21 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, no. In this case, I don't think it's about 'good enough', in that way!
  
  I spoke to an associate professor that work with cognition some, and she talked about that humans are likely not meant to have very good memory.
  Humans process a lot of the stimuli they take in for a long time (don't know if that's the same as low latent inhibition, but maybe), and often, when eidetic memory is present in a person, they are pretty much screwed up somewhere else, she said.
  
  Look at this if you haven't seen it; chimps out-performing humans in memory tests:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC1nJ61l-h4
  
  I believe it is likely that we might have had a it, or had a very good opportunity to have it, and might have lost it, or never got it, for an evolutionary reason.
  
  (If it's related to latent inhibition, then I may inform you that the mighty Wikipedia speaks about latent inhibition some. There are theories basically about that latent inhibition works like a filter for stimuli in animals and that humans with low latent inhibition either get very creative, or crazy, or both, depending on how their brain processes all the information given to them.
  
  It is also related to explanations for the existence of mental illnesses. People with e.g. bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, Asperger's, usually have lower latent inhibition. So, a little bit of that might produce more creative people, while too much of such traits make people ill. And that might be why people with mental illness keep popping up everywhere. I would put more emphasis on optimization than 'good enough', in this case.)
10. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by bronney · 2011-09-21 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  I also have exceptional memory but it's on the decline with age. However I would like to give you an advice. Don't dwell on the sad / embarrassing details. They are the past and unchangeable. Your remembering and not remembering them does not change the fact that your kitten is dead because you exercised your arm too much. The next time you find yourself dwelling on these shitty memories, go live life a little bit more. Clean the house, fix a car, help an old lady, load starcraft, make pancakes.
  New memories.
11. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by Jeremi · 2011-09-21 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's also clear that a brain with perfect memory is physically impossible
  
  Why is that obvious? My DVR has a perfect memory of its sensory inputs, why couldn't a brain (in theory) do the same?
  Granted it would probably need to be much larger (and/or more space-efficient), or have lower-resolution sensory inputs, or both, but I don't see any fundamental reason why it would be physically impossible.
  The obvious reason why it hasn't occurred (or at least hasn't occurred yet) is that our existing memory system is "good enough" from a survival/reproduction perspective.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
12. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sourcerror · 2011-09-21 19:21 · Score: 2
  
  And who would "change tape" in your brain when it's full?
13. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-21 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine constantly reliving your most painful or embarrassing moments.
  What painful or embarrassing moments? You might feel that way, but what is painful or embarrassing to you isn't necessarily painful or embarrassing to someone else. There's no reason that I see to be upset over a memory. There's likely nothing you can do to change it, so there's no point. For people that don't care, I don't think that remembering moments that would be painful or embarrassing to a normal person would matter. Or perhaps someone sees it as a good trade off.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
14. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by migla · 2011-09-21 19:22 · Score: 2
  
  How could you possibly hope to simulate all of reality if the simulation itself is embedded within reality?
  Why, you'd use a good compression algorithm, of course. Every way of describing reality (except the wrong ways) is such an algorithm or part of it.
  When we find the links between the different layers of abstraction, we're good to go, because then we know when we can apply, say Marxist analysis, to describe how capitalism oppresses the proletariat and leads to revolution also incorporating other abstractions like neuro-science and weather forecasting and such. At every level we just note the diff between the model and the specifics and when we get down to atoms bouncing off each other and strings vibrating (let's assume there is no randomness in quantum shit), we don't have to describe everything.
  It's still kind of a daunting task, so I propose we wait for Moore to do it's thing until nearing the end of the universe and also build huge vacuum-cleaners that can pull lots of matter into them as to prevent those atoms and whatnot to interfere with measurements of other parts of the universe, so we can get a picture of exactly what there is, where it was going and how fast.
  
  --
  Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
15. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by phantomlord · 2011-09-21 19:25 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately, it's not as simple as keeping myself busy... to go along with my autobiographical memory, my brain seems to be very parallelized too. I'm often focusing on a number of different tasks independent from each other. Doing something in the foreground doesn't make the background thoughts go away.
  
  Funny you mention dead cats... that immediately brought back the memories of finding both of mine dead. Where they were, what they looked like, how they felt, the slight warmth still left in their bodies, how their faces were positioned, how I felt emotionally, what was going on at the time, what type of day it what as well as the time of day, the other things I did during those days (visiting my dad in the hospital on one, waiting for my life insurance agent to come over to review my policy on the other).
  
  Anyway, I suffer from Avoidant Personality Disorder and over the last 5 years or so, I notice I'm becoming increasingly agoraphobic as well. On top of that, I take care of my dad (who has been disabled for the last 13 years now), so I don't get out much (and for that matter, I don't have a job anymore, which further limits my ability to be around other people in several ways). My new memories are generally a mix of the mundane tasks of every day life combined with the time I spend with my mom and nieces usually on the weekends. The oldest niece seems to exhibit a lot of the same traits I did at that age, so I worry about her too.
  
  I have some other issues going on as well that I'm not going to talk about in public, that contribute to my daily negative reinforcements. On top of that, something about me seems to attract predatory women and every woman I've ever cared about in my life has used and abused me (including my mom and sister) at some point. That, too, just reinforces the AvPD.
  
  Mix it all together and most days, I wonder how I manage to cope... the guilt of knowing those around me would be worse off if I wasn't there is the main thing that keeps me going. I've had a lot of time to reflect on things and I understand pretty much everything ticking inside my head that makes me the way that I am. Unfortunately, even with the best of help, most of what's wrong with me isn't exactly easy to fix. I've tried cognitive behavioral therapy, pills, etc and none of it sticks for more than a few months at a time. Ultimately, it's the inability to repress my past (and ongoing) trauma which always seems to overwhelm the positive steps I try to take.
  
  --
  Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
16. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by phantomlord · 2011-09-21 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  You might feel that way, but what is painful or embarrassing to you isn't necessarily painful or embarrassing to someone else. There's no reason that I see to be upset over a memory. There's likely nothing you can do to change it, so there's no point. For people that don't care, I don't think that remembering moments that would be painful or embarrassing to a normal person would matter.
  First of all, if someone has no emotional connection to their memories, there is something wrong with their brain... the limbic system tags memories, connecting them with the emotions we felt while experiencing them, which helps us to relieve them and to trigger anticipations of future similar circumstances. Secondly, two people will see the same incident in different ways - what may be a painful embarrassment for one may be completely unnotable for another. The type of memories I'm talking about are the ones that affect my life, many of which ARE pretty meaningless, I record the mundane memories just as often as the important moments, not necessarily the perspective of those around me (though I often remember what I thought they were thinking in connection to that moment as well).
  
  Anyway, it isn't a matter of it being a simple snapshot in your mind. I constantly relive those moments, begging for the ability to do something different, when you know what the outcome is always going to be. Surely, you have something in your past that you regret... most people can eventually accept that regret, process things and mostly fade the ability to casually access those memories as time goes on unless there is a specific trigger that causes the memory to resurface.
  
  Those things never fade for me and I'm always consciously placed back into that scene, remembering everything I felt, saw, heard, etc. The day I was 17 and balled my fist at my dad telling him I hated him, the time I stole a pack of baseball cards when I was 12, or the time I forged a note to help a girl pass our civics class my senior year, etc. I can't simply repress those memories and I tend to punish myself for them daily. Nobody can beat me up the way I beat myself up.
  
  --
  Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
17. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-21 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  there is something wrong with their brain
  I disagree. I think it would be a positive thing. Well, certainly, they'd be somewhat different.
  There's no point in regret that I see. It changes nothing. Feeling sad or angry changes nothing. Maybe some people would have trouble just not caring, but I think others wouldn't.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
18. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by flyingsquid · 2011-09-21 19:58 · Score: 2
  
  I spoke to an associate professor that work with cognition some, and she talked about that humans are likely not meant to have very good memory. Humans process a lot of the stimuli they take in for a long time (don't know if that's the same as low latent inhibition, but maybe), and often, when eidetic memory is present in a person, they are pretty much screwed up somewhere else, she said. Look at this if you haven't seen it; chimps out-performing humans in memory tests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC1nJ61l-h4
  
  Humans might not need very good memory since we have language. We evolved in large social groups of dozens to hundreds of individuals (now thousands). It's not necessary for every individual in the group to remember, for instance, when certain trees are producing fruit, or where the best hunting grounds are, or how you make a tool. As long as a few people in the community remember, you can just ask around. You're doing a search on your social network.
19. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by phantomlord · 2011-09-21 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  people with little or no emotional response to the events of their lives are most likely sociopaths... I'm not saying that in a negative connotation, that's simply the definition, for better or worse.
  
  Remorse/regret is a very useful tool, in that it will help us prevent doing harmful things again in the future. Someone without a feeling of remorse will likely do whatever benefits them in the moment without care for the consequences of that action.
  
  --
  Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
20. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by kvezach · 2011-09-21 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hm, why do you think we haven't evolved with perfect memory? Could there be a good reason?
  
  The standard answers to this kind of question are:
  
  1. Local optimum: Evolution is a black box optimization process. No black box optimization process that progresses in reasonable time can cover all of the search space, so they will get stuck in local optima. The eye is a good example of a local optimum. The nerve fibers are on the wrong side of the eye, so you get a large blind spot where the fibers go "out of the eye" and into the brain. However, to fix this suboptimal design would require a rather large trek through solution space, and some of the intermediate solutions would be so bad that evolution would weed them out. Therefore, the eye remains as it is. The same may be the case for memory structures in the brain.
  
  2. Shifting tradeoffs: Evolution is also quite slow. Therefore, its tradeoffs are based on an environment in which we no longer reside, where food was scarce and one had to save energy lest one died. This sort of wrong-tradeoff optimization is evident everywhere you have obesity, for instance.
  In this case, perhaps near-perfect memory was too heavy a weight to bear in conditions of scarce resources. If it was, evolution would not have optimized in that direction, because the losses (due to having to expend more energy) would be greater than the gains (of greater planning or what have you). Now, on the other hand, we do have much more energy available, but evolution hasn't caught up.
  
  So to sum all of that up: to the degree that the evolutionary process visits close to optimal solutions, it is slow, and to the degree that the evolutionary process is fast, it skips certain solutions that might be very good. In both of these cases, technology can cover what evolution does not - when evolution is blind, technology can be less so; and when evolution has its blind spots, technology have others so they can make up for each other's partial coverage.
21. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-21 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  Remorse/regret is a very useful tool, in that it will help us prevent doing harmful things again in the future.
  If doing something will likely cause you to be harmed in some way (not emotionally), then neither remorse or regret is necessary for someone to avoid it. They know what will likely happen, so they avoid it. Emotions aren't necessary to realize that much.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
22. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by phantomlord · 2011-09-21 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose it's possible for people that don't feel emotion to not be harmed by what would cause normal people emotional pain... but emotional pain is a real consequence for the vast majority of people, they can feel negatively about something even if there isn't a physical consequence to doing it.
  
  However, it only takes one more step for the emotionless to go from "well, I can get away with it because it isn't illegal" to "well, I'm so much smarter/more powerful than everyone else that I'll get away with it even if it is illegal." The group that proceeds to the latter step generally makes up politicians, CEOs, serial killers, out of control celebrities, griefers and the like.
  
  --
  Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
23. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-21 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  However, it only takes one more step for the emotionless to go from "well, I can get away with it because it isn't illegal" to "well, I'm so much smarter/more powerful than everyone else that I'll get away with it even if it is illegal."
  That could be said about anyone (even people who have emotions). Those who have normal emotions still commit crimes (some feel justified, others feel they need to). Honestly, I don't think they're very intelligent if they think they can get away with it so easily (especially if others failed many times), so they're not much different from normal criminals. Like with normal people, it depends on the person (or sociopath).
  And not feeling emotion towards past events probably doesn't ensure someone is a sociopath, anyway.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
24. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by bronney · 2011-09-21 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if a piece of my experience can provide some insight but your "not going out much" rang a bell. Most of my friends find me weird that I remember things so vividly that if they weren't my friends, they'd think I am some godlike bullshitter like Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects. Only a few people in the world knows the truth, those being my closest friends. And I don't mind sharing it with you here as nobody reads past the grandchild of any slashdot post lol.
  The truth, why I think I remember stuff so well was because I immigrated to Canada when I was 13. It was so hard to do anything without knowing English, that I stayed home most of the time doing mundane things just like you. Later, when I grasped the language totally, I found that there're nothing much to do in Canada if you don't drive, and had no money. The social circle got so small that my best friend was also my cousin. It's in these time that I find I almost developed a photographic memory. After I grew up though, I notice they weren't photographic, but merely "repetitive dwelling" that reinforced every single event (though not as extreme as yours) so vividly. Funny that you mentioned the warmth. I know EXACTLY what you mean. Even the smell and everything.
  I noticed it was the "boredom" that made me refresh all those memories repeatedly that they totally engulfed my time. I would say during that time I was pretty lost. Had no time for real life, and lived in a cocoon or past reality.
  After finishing school, I came back to Hong Kong for work. The dynamic city slowly overwrites the details of my precious memories, and after 11 years here, most of the details are gone. Although, I still remember all that I've played back countless times. The happy ones still makes me smile and the sad ones still makes me hate myself. You can probably read between the lines and see all the hardships and friendships over the years. It's until recently I got so sick of the sensory overload here in HK, that I start to see the beauty of Canada again.
  That's why in my previous post, I think somehow, you're locking in yourself too much and your mind got so used to playing back the tapes that they become parallel to you in thought. While mundane tasks doesn't really use your CPU cycles up to stop thinking about the sad things. Do something more engaging like playing Starcraft 2 ladder etc :D but meh what do I know, I don't have the responsibilities you do yet.
  Good luck man.
25. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-21 23:22 · Score: 2
  You seem to assume guidance for evolution. For a species to evolve a trait, two things need to happen:
  
  One individual in that species needs to mutate and develop that trait.
  
  The trait needs to give a sufficiently large advantage that members of the the species with that trait displace ones without it.
  
  The first is often a stumbling block for evolution. For humans living on the coast, having gills as well as lungs would be a significant advantage, because it would dramatically increase their ability to find food. Part of the problem with this is that evolution can only optimise for local maxima. The intervening stages for developing lungs or gils are quite beneficial for simple organisms as they increase the size that the creature can grow to, but they are problematic for organisms that already have a large degree of specialisation among cells.
  The second is also a problem. Consider short sightedness. This has a significant evolutionary disadvantage, but individual characteristics are not selected for. If the gene happens to be on the same chromosome as one that carries an advantage (increased sperm count, higher intelligence, or whatever) then it will be selected for to a certain degree, but the disadvantage may mean that it will never spread through the entire population.
  There is also the question of timescale. If you have a characteristic that is such an evolutionary advantage that it will always be selected for (i.e. any member of the species will always choose to mate with members of that phenotype in preference to any others) then it will still take thousands of years for it to spread to the entire human population.
  Finally, remember that evolution only selects for things that are good for the species, not for individuals. The theory of evolution is a tautology: genes that are good at propagating themselves will propagate better than genes that are not good at propagating themselves. Consider rats. They have a very high mutation rate, which is good for the species because it makes them hard to poison: one rat in a population will probably have an immunity to whatever the poison is, and the next generation will all be immune. This sucks for individual rats though: the ones that aren't immune still die, and the ones that are die of cancer soon after.
  Having the members of a species competing for resources after they've passed on their genes (and ensured the survival of their offspring for long enough to breed) is bad for a species, but I doubt many people in their 40s would consider that suicide is good for the individual...
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
26. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by phantomlord · 2011-09-22 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  My dad had a brain aneurysm and stroke... the ultimate result of which was he basically lost the entire top half of the right side of his brain. Other than the most obvious effect that he's paralyzed on the left side of his body, it affects his short term memory in particular (his long term memory is mostly intact, but confabulation has corrupted some of it). Whereas I remember every minute detail, he'll often forget a wide array of things and constantly need to be reminded of both trivial and important things.
  
  Being familiar with both ends of the spectrum, I'd say they both suck pretty bad in their own ways. I don't want to be on the other extreme anymore than where I am now, I'd settle for just being able to be normal.
  
  --
  Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
27. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by phantomlord · 2011-09-22 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Likewise, it's funny you mention the sensory overload of cities... I don't mind visiting cities, but I could never live there precisely because of the sensory overload. My brain picks up on and remembers every little detail and, on top of the anxiety issues I have, it really stresses me out between the visual, audio and odor overload. It doesn't dull my autobiographical memory at all, it's still fully functional recalling in another "thread" of my brain while I'm there and outside of the city, I still have a full "recording" to recall of my experiences later.
  
  I was born in the city, lived there for my first 6 months, then moved out to a trailer park in the sticks, moving further out again when I was 7 ... I was a pretty active kid and my memory of those days is just as good as my teen and adult memories. I can remember full days of playing, riding bikes, taking apart a calculator, even daydreams I had from back before I even started school, like it just happened today. I occasionally get this sense of prescience, knowing that I will recall a particular experience I'm having in the moment at some point in the future and years or decades later when that memory resurfaces, I'll even remember thinking about that feeling of prescience in that moment, however mundane as the moment might have been. I frequently get a sense of deja vu, knowing I've seen something before or that though will be the first time, the exact same thing will happen to me again in the future (down to specifics, not just "I'm gonna buy groceries and check out at register 3." I even get the occasional recurrent dream (one of several) that I've had randomly for decades. Oddly, I very rarely dream, or at least very rarely remember them, which may have something to do with my memory processing overall.
  
  As far as doing something more involved goes, playing action oriented FPS games probably does the most to dull my ability to immediately, involuntarily recall past memories, but it's probably only 50% effective overall and will trigger other detailed memories of playing games (by myself, with friends, whatever).
  
  --
  Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
28. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by Gripp · 2011-09-22 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  actually, his statement about intelligent design made perfect sense. unless you presume that something is in direct control of what traits we do and don't develop then evolution is basically random. which it is. and having a good memory or extra smarts wouldn't seem to be something that would lend itself to propagating into our species well (as most of the /. crowd is likely well aware of :P ) so the chances of something like this mutating on its own seem fairly slim to me.
29. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-22 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Therefore, you avoid a lot of nasty/bad behaviour because you know you will regret it.
  But nasty and bad are both subjective. And if it isn't already illegal, then I probably don't care about it.
  
  Except that society would fall apart if everybody did that.
  That's why we have laws. That's where the "harm" comes from. There doesn't need to be any emotion involved to create laws. All there needs to be is a consensus that it would benefit society in the end.
  And people with emotions commit crimes all the time. Oftentimes because of those emotions. The fact that someone doesn't feel regret (or doesn't feel much of it) won't necessarily make them commit a crime or abuse others. I haven't.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
30. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by phantomlord · 2011-09-22 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  My mom and her siblings were raped and abused by family friends and ultimately abandoned by both parents... some of them managed to repress the memories on their own (only for it to resurface in their late 20s/early 30s, where they eventually processed it and moved on as best as they could or turned into the next group) or they coped through alcoholism and drug abuse, where their entire life is dysfunctional as they try to avoid dealing with what happened to them as kids.
  
  My sister is flat out evil and spent her entire life using people for her own gain, often fabricating lies, including 3 false rape charges against different guys, to get what she wanted.... a few months ago she started having psychogenic seizures caused by the stress of suddenly gaining a conscience and not being able to repress what she's done to people. Either she'll find a way to make peace with what she's done, possibly by trying to make amends to those she's hurt, or she'll probably spend the rest of her life constantly seizing because the guilt will linger if she can't be honest enough with herself to process and move on.
  
  Lots of people have bad things happen to them... most will repress the lesser bad memories entirely though the more significant trauma only seems to be able to be repressed for a period of time. It's possible that you're overly conscious to criticism and thus those wounds stick out for you more than they would for a "normal" person. I'm certainly not minimizing what you're feeling as I remember all of the negative things that have happened in my life too, regardless of how minor or petty those sleights may have been.
  
  --
  Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
31. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by phorm · 2011-09-22 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Good memory seems often as much a curse as a blessing. I don't know what causes some things to stick more than others - I can't remember a textbook word-for-word after reading it - but I can remember tons of things that I'd rather I didn't.
  The worst ones seem not to be those which happened to me, but stupid things which I did. Many of those were things that seemed OK at the time (hey, I was a big dork/dweeb pre-college), but weren't overly memorable at the moment. Now though, I can remember them as dweebish things I've done, spiteful things I've said, all the way back to early elementary. I don't know WTF caused them to be lodged in my brain, but remembering a jerk'ish thing I've done is a whole lot more painful than remembering things done to me.
32. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by NeutronCowboy · 2011-09-22 03:01 · Score: 2
  
  Here's the reason why we don't have perfect memory:http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/12/hell_is_a_perfect_memory.php. Perfect memory is great when your job is to tell stories about events, but for every other situation, it's complete overkill with significant downsides. Your bio teacher was right, and he was right when it comes to perfect memory: perfect memory is a hindrance in the vast majority of situations you encounter in life. Do you want to perfectly remember every broken bone? Every disappointment? Every failure? Every disaster that has struck around you?
  No. On the contrary, you want to be able to forget a lot of things, so that you can move on and try again.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
33. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by dirtyhippie · 2011-09-22 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  The entity is called "natural selection" .... There's no such thing as a free lunch, so the cost (in extra food input) of maintaining extra neurons or what have you just to remember what kind of sandwich you had 823 days ago is not worth it. And by "not worth it", I mean that in the competition between a hypothetical species with the trait and one without the trait, the one without the trait will more easily survive, breed, and conquer.
34. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by NoSig · 2011-09-22 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  OP doesn't assume guidance in his post. If the energy requirement is such that a present trait is not worth it in the sense that people without that trait survive better because they don't have to spend the energy, all else being equal evolution will tend to remove that trait from the gene pool precisely because "it is not worth the trade off", as the OP said. The determination of whether it is worth the trade off is made through practice instead of by some deliberate intelligence, but that determination is still being made none the less.
35. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by HiThere · 2011-09-22 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, evolution only selects for things that are good for the individual. The species can go hang. This is the reason for many problems.
  N.B., however, that the individual in question is the "gene". This often promotes kin-group altruism. But it also quite often translates into the individual body, as a gene has no guaranteed way of recognizing another body as being host to the same gene.
  Caution should be used in reading the previous text. If read incautiously they could be taken as implying intent on the part of the gene. This is not present. Genes don't have intents, merely effects. Like a byte of assembled code. (It's more like assembled or compiled code than it is like source code.) Of course, part of this hangs on your definition of "What is a gene?", and that's a question without a hard and fast answer. It's easy to answer "What is a codon?", but "What is a gene?" is a lot more difficult. The very concept of gene seems to drag along purpose as a part of it's meaning, and the same codon can be part of more than one gene, depending on which reactions that it is participating in at the moment...or even on which other processes are happening. The RNA produced from the DNA often has parts deleted during it's conversion into protein, and which parts are deleted can change the effect dramatically. Messy! Worse, much worse, than spaghetti code.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
36. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by geekoid · 2011-09-22 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  "evolution only selects for things that are good for the individual."
  False.
  Why have evolved the ability to put the 'group' ahead of ourselves.
  We have evolved to work together.
  People who take care of the species are more likely to survive because the specious will take care of them. Extremely strong survival trait when its applies to children. Meaning people who have this trait will take care of other children and visa versa. This means a higher likely hood of the gens moving on.
  I am not intending to imply evolution has any type of fore site.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
37. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by geekoid · 2011-09-22 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Until 100 years ago, true. But as more and more intelligence is needed for survival within society, smarts will be selected for by a mate more often.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
38. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by geekoid · 2011-09-22 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Don't confuse memory with emotional experience.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
39. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by geekoid · 2011-09-22 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, some self diagnosis themselves to have something they want to have. No bias there.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
40. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-09-22 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Undoing Mod.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
41. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-09-22 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Our robotic overlords, obviously.
  
  Sheesh, slashdot really is slipping these days...
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
42. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-09-22 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you haven't been killing enough brain cells throughout your life. Sound practical advice: go buy some whiskey and melt those memories away (along with your liver! Yay!).
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
43. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-22 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Intelligent design has nothing to do with it. Your assertion is that we don't have capabilities like this because we haven't needed them enough yet?
  No, not at all. We don't have those capabilities because humans survive without them.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
44. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by alexo · 2011-09-22 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Intelligent design has nothing to do with it. Your assertion is that we don't have capabilities like this because we haven't needed them enough yet? Isn't it possible that such things (like being able to go without oxygen for a long time) would involve too significant a cost for the rare cases it would be needed and therefore is not worth the tradeoff?
  The assertion is that we don't have such capabilities either because mutations to that effect did not randomly happen (oxygen-less survival) or because they did not have a significant positive effect on our ability to reproduce (perfect memory).
45. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-22 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone has painful and/or embarrassing things in their lives, it's part of the human condition. Yours don't bother you much because not dwelling on such things causes them to fade in your memory, unless, of course, your memory is enhanced.
46. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-22 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone has painful and/or embarrassing things in their lives
  Can you prove that? That's an interesting thing to claim because not only did you probably not ask everyone this, but even if you did, how could you be sure (or even close to sure) that you are right? I doubt you can read minds.
  
  Yours don't bother you much because not dwelling on such things causes them to fade in your memory
  What if you remember things that would normally embarrass/emotionally scar a "normal" person but feel absolutely nothing from it?
  I merely want to find out why this isn't possible.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
47. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-22 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Can you prove that? That's an interesting thing to claim because not only did you probably not ask everyone this, but even if you did, how could you be sure (or even close to sure) that you are right? I doubt you can read minds.
  WOW, Really?!? Look around a bit, read some good literature. Read some Shakespeare. It's only been a matter of common knowledge since the dawn of written language. I have to wonder what's broken in your brain for you to have not noticed this.
  
  What if you remember things that would normally embarrass/emotionally scar a "normal" person but feel absolutely nothing from it?
  As for why it isn't possible, I didn't say that, I just said it doesn't happen normally (using a standard term "everybody" in the in the non-literal sense). It is possible if there is a bit of missing brain in the limbic system, but there's good reason to believe that such a person becomes a sociopath. If you can't be emotionally hurt, you can't have empathy.
48. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-22 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I have to wonder what's broken in your brain for you to have not noticed this.
  What have I failed to notice? What does "common knowledge" have to do with anything?
  
  using a standard term "everybody" in the in the non-literal sense
  I see.
  
  If you can't be emotionally hurt
  What if someone could be emotionally hurt, but not by mere memories?
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
49. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by Gripp · 2011-09-22 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  so, you're saying that most woman will go after, say, a computer programmer (or engineer of some sort) sooner than a jock? really~ :P
50. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-22 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  What if someone could be emotionally hurt, but not by mere memories?
  Then they would likely commit all manner of atrocities large and small because they would get no visceral sense of wrong. Then as soon as the event was over they would remember no sense of wrong.
51. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by NeutronCowboy · 2011-09-22 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's the thing - emotional experience doesn't exist without memory.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
52. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-22 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  Then they would likely commit all manner of atrocities large and small because they would get no visceral sense of wrong.
  Well, "wrong" is subjective to begin with. The fact that someone doesn't feel emotions does not mean they will go out and commit "atrocities." Even people without emotions (or regret) have brains and can work out the consequences of their actions (breaking the law could get them arrested and their actions could hurt society).
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
53. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-22 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  Hurting society is irrelevant to the sociopath. Most have a hard time consistently applying the rules about breaking the law and being punished. They tend to spend a lot of time incarcerated. The few brighter ones do manage that bit, but tend to abuse people in other not quite provably illegal but certainly immoral and unethical ways whenever it benefits them in the slightest.
  Sociopaths are noted as well for having only shallow and primitive emotions. I would question how well emotional development could occur in someone with a stunted memory of emotions.
54. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-22 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hurting society is irrelevant to the sociopath.
  What if relevant or irrelevant for them is for them to determine. Perhaps they can use their brains and determine the consequences of what would happen if everyone did the same thing. Their brains don't turn to mush (as far as I know). Emotions aren't necessary to determine what will likely happen if you do something.
  
  certainly immoral and unethical
  Since it is easily possible for someone to have a different idea of what is "immoral," then the same could be said about anyone.
  
  Most have a hard time consistently applying the rules about breaking the law and being punished.
  "Most"? I wonder if "most" sociopaths have even been found.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
55. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by HiThere · 2011-09-23 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why have evolved the ability to put the 'group' ahead of ourselves.
  We haven't. We are, however, dependent on the social matrix for our survival, so we tend to support that. And during much of our evolutionary history most of our social matrix consisted of close relatives, so they had a large number of genes in common with us. Thus genes supporting the social matrix gained survival probability even at the cost of their current body. But this is an iffy proposition, so we don't have any strong tendency in that direction, and would rather sacrifice someone else.
  People who take care of the species are more likely to survive because the specious will take care of them.
  Correct. That's saying what I've been asserting. But it's the individual genes being selected for evolution, not the species, the group, or the body. And remember, no foresight is involved. No intention. Just probability mechanics.
  There are some people who think there is a weak effect on evolving towards group selection that can't be explained by gene selection. I haven't seen anything that convinces me, and I don't get the feeling that most evolutionary genetics specialists feel that the evidence is strong enough to put any faith in. Certainly ALMOST all evolutionary history is consistent with a combination of probability and gene-level selection. Enough so that I'd examine any claims to the contrary with quite a skeptical eye. OTOH, I am not a professional in that field, I merely base my opinions on their explanations.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
56. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-23 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  What if relevant or irrelevant for them is for them to determine.
  What if rattlesnake venom cured cancer and no means sunset orange now? All of those things require some feeling of connection to others (an emotional response) and the sociopath simply doesn't have it. When you open a bag of chips, do you stop for a moment to consider how the bag might feel about it?
  
  Since it is easily possible for someone to have a different idea of what is "immoral," then the same could be said about anyone.
  So when the girls scouts knock at the psycho's door and he hacksaws their heads off to use as planters he's just being "differently moral" and we should respect that? Sorry, no. Sometimes wrong is wrong.
57. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-23 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  All of those things require some feeling of connection to others
  Thinking about how you will probably end up in prison requires a feeling of connection to others?
  
  So when the girls scouts knock at the psycho's door and he hacksaws their heads off to use as planters he's just being "differently moral" and we should respect that?
  Straw man. I didn't say that everyone should respect everyone else's morals. I don't believe that morals are absolute.
  But my real point wasn't about whether morals were absolute or not. It was about the fact that since different people can have different moral codes, someone could do something to someone else that you find "immoral." Them being a sociopath (or something similar) has little to do with it.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
58. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-23 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Straw man. I didn't say that everyone should respect everyone else's morals. I don't believe that morals are absolute.
  You either accept that SOME things are absolute even for morals or my characterization is not a straw man. Pick one please.
59. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-23 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? I never said that you have to respect someone else's morals even if they have them. For instance, you can have your own morals and act against those who you believe are doing "wrong." Nothing about moral relativism states otherwise. All that is required is believing that morals are subjective. You don't have to "respect" anything.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
60. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-23 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  I was attempting to politely shut down the red herring you introduced. You made the claim that morals are relative, and I challenged that SOME aspects are not negotiable, there do exist absolute wrongs.
  I then provided as an example something that anyone who actually has a sense of morals could clearly understand to be an absolute wrong.
  However, since this seems to have primarily become an argument where you really really want to have part of your limbic system disabled so you can have your memory enhanced with no trade offs, all I can say is go ahead, just stay away from me or anyone I care about after and don't blame me if you end up strapped into old sparky.
  If, on the other hand you are wishing to discuss the origins of ethic and just have an odd way of expressing it, please say so clearly.
61. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-23 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  there do exist absolute wrongs.
  Who decides this? How? How can we trust the one who decides? Do you have proof of this?
  
  just stay away from me or anyone I care about after and don't blame me if you end up strapped into old sparky.
  Well, I'm sure my brain wouldn't be turned to mush and I could still consider the consequences (prison) of my actions.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
62. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-23 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Who decides this? How? How can we trust the one who decides? Do you have proof of this?
  Let's turn it around. When would hacksawing the heads off of Girl Scouts and using them as planters NOT be wrong? If it is not an absolute wrong, when is it right? If it is an absolute wrong, then I submit to you that there are absolute wrongs.
  
  Well, I'm sure my brain wouldn't be turned to mush and I could still consider the consequences (prison) of my actions.
  Oh great, that's just what we need, "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap jr. abusing people everywhere he goes taking advantage of a world that has forgotten that some people have richly earned a punch in the nose.
  So anyway, like I said, go ahead and have the surgery then, just stay away from me and mine because you'll have made a monster of yourself.
63. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-23 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Let's turn it around. When would hacksawing the heads off of Girl Scouts and using them as planters NOT be wrong?
  It would not be universally wrong if someone thought it wasn't wrong and moral absolutes didn't exist.
  
  So anyway, like I said, go ahead and have the surgery then, just stay away from me and mine because you'll have made a monster of yourself.
  But I don't think that you actually demonstrated that people that don't have emotions (or lack certain ones) don't want to avoid getting hurt themselves (prison, etc).
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
64. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-23 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  It would not be universally wrong if someone thought it wasn't wrong and moral absolutes didn't exist.
  And if wishes were horses, everyone would ride! You didn't answer the question. When is it OK? Would you let any person who can even conceive of a time when it would be OK anywhere near anyone you love?
  
  But I don't think that you actually demonstrated that people that don't have emotions (or lack certain ones) don't want to avoid getting hurt themselves (prison, etc).
  I never tried to demonstrate that! Of course they want to avoid harm to themselves, that's what they're all about. Some are bad at it and go to prison. Others become the real monsters, leaving a long trail of hurt people in their wake with little to prove actual criminality and enough well groomed accomplices to keep the game going. Then they move on when the house of cards starts to topple and make people miserable elsewhere. In a perfect world where the scales of karma were perfectly balanced by an all seeing and all powerful being AND that perfect balancing was perfectly obvious and perfectly inescapable, the intelligent psychopath would behave as well as anyone else. Alas, that's not the case.
65. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-23 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  When is it OK?
  Universally right? "Right" and "wrong" are just opinions to moral relativists.
  
  Would you let any person who can even conceive of a time when it would be OK anywhere near anyone you love?
  No. But what does that have to do with moral relativism.
  
  Some are bad at it and go to prison.
  And some (who knows how many) don't do anything. Just like some people with those emotions don't do anything.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
66. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-23 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  No. But what does that have to do with moral relativism.
  It shows that in it's "absolute" form, it's bankrupt. The weaker statement that many morals are relative may have legs.
  
  And some (who knows how many) don't do anything
  Name one.
67. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-23 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  It shows that in it's "absolute" form, it's bankrupt.
  Bankrupt of what? I see all morals as mere opinions. My opinions may conflict with other peoples' opinions. I don't see why it's "bankrupt" in any form. It shows nothing but a difference of opinion.
  Do you even believe it's possible to hold an opinion at all? Since you failed to answer any of my previous questions, here they are again: Who decides this? How? How can we trust the one who decides? Do you have proof of this?
  Unless you can answer those for me and prove that some things are absolutely evil, your argument that some things are absolutely evil will not be convincing to me (much like trying to prove that god exists).
  
  Name one.
  I don't know any. Similarly, prove that one doesn't exist. I merely said that it was possible, and we don't know how many exist.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
68. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-23 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  You claim all morals are relative, yet tacitly admit that killing a Girl Scout and hacksawing her head off to make a planter is NEVER OK. That, my friend, is an absolute and you damned well know it. Who decides it? All of us who aren't too mentally damaged to live anywhere but in total isolation. Why do I say that? Because you and everyone else in the world are intelligent enough to refuse to have such a monster as a neighbor.
  In other words, I already presented you with a FINE example of absolute evil and you have repeatedly dodged the answer.
  
  I don't know any. Similarly, prove that one doesn't exist. I merely said that it was possible, and we don't know how many exist.
  You demand scientific reasoning of me, but assert now that unless I can prove a negative (impossible) you will slit poor Occam's throat with his own razor and assume such an odd thing exists with no shred of evidence.
69. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-23 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  yet tacitly admit that killing a Girl Scout and hacksawing her head off to make a planter is NEVER OK.
  Where did I say that it was "never okay"? Whether it is "okay" or not is an opinion, I believe. I personally believe that it is not okay. But I do not believe that my opinion is an absolute fact of the universe.
  
  All of us who aren't too mentally damaged to live anywhere but in total isolation.
  Appeal to popularity. The fact that a lot of people say something does not mean that it is true (interestingly enough, I also asked how we would know that this decider is correct to begin with).
  I ask again: do you believe in subjectivity in any form? It seems as if you think that stating an opinion means that you're stating an absolute fact of the universe.
  
  You demand scientific reasoning of me
  I don't demand anything from you. You just seemingly keep misinterpreting me. I only mean to say that it is possible and that the answer is unknown to you or me. I do not truly believe that you will be able to prove anything.
  All I'm telling you is that unless you can provide some sort of proof, your arguments probably won't be convincing to me. That doesn't mean I'm saying that you're wrong. It just means that I'm saying that I probably will not believe you.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
70. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-23 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  I do believe in subjectivity, but I recognize it has limits. There exist objective facts and no amount of disbelief will make them go away. So, the converse question, do you believe it is possible to know anything at all?
  You are, of course welcome to believe in absolutely everything that can't be disproved, but you probably won't get very far that way. I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
  Is the law of gravity an appeal to popularity? After all, we haven't checked every corner of the universe, perhaps the leprechauns and unicorns live on some strange soap bubble in space where there is no mass and gravity. Go ahead, prove me wrong!
  It is clear you are not willing to be convinced by anything at all, so go ahead and get the surgery you seem so set on!
71. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-23 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  I do believe in subjectivity, but I recognize it has limits.
  You say that as if you know it has limits. As if you know that there are absolute morals. Do you not doubt yourself at all?
  
  do you believe it is possible to know anything at all?
  Yes. But not when it comes to opinions.
  
  You are, of course welcome to believe in absolutely everything that can't be disproved, but you probably won't get very far that way. I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
  You are, of course welcome to not believe in absolutely everything that can't be disproved, but you probably won't get very far that way. I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
  
  Is the law of gravity an appeal to popularity?
  It's fairly easy for me to see that there is gravity. No matter what it is, a lot of people believing something does not make it true.
  
  Go ahead, prove me wrong!
  I don't see what unicorns or leprechauns have to do with moral relativism. "You're not absolutely certain of everything. Therefore, whatever I say exists does exist!"
  I believe that morals are mere opinions because they seem no different. You like this behavior, so you think it is "okay." You dislike this behavior, so you think it is "wrong."
  In the end, whether or not you believe in absolute morals is mere preference. No matter how many times you come up with examples that I cannot disprove, I do not believe it will prove that absolute morals exist. Where does your confidence come from?
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
72. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-23 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  Also:
  
  I prefer to have at least some shred of evidence first.
  So do I. That's why I don't believe in absolute morals. I believe that it is more likely that morals are mere opinions because they hardly seem different to me. Don't you think that since neither side seems to have any sort of evidence for their beliefs, that what you believe in in the end is just a preference?
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
73. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by sjames · 2011-09-24 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  I *do* have evidence. I have actually named an action that neither of us could consider acceptable under any conditions. It's not my fault you keep pretending not to hear it.
74. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-24 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  I have actually named an action that neither of us could consider acceptable under any conditions.
  What? Do you even know what moral relativism is? I believe that morals are just opinions. As such, even if I said that I thought something was wrong, it would just be my personal opinion. Where did I explicitly say that it was 100% factually wrong?
  Second of all, even if I did say that, that wouldn't prove that there are absolute morals. At most, it would prove that I'm not a moral relativist.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
75. Re:This is a lot more complicated... by Jeremi · 2011-09-24 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  And who would "change tape" in your brain when it's full?
  Who changes the tape in your DVR when it's full?
  (answer: no one... it just deletes some old/unwanted contents to free up space as necessary)
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Do you recall? by SilentLynx · 2011-09-21 17:42 · Score: 2

"Well, don't. A friend of mine tried one their "special offers," nearly got himself lobotomized." "No shit?" "Don't fuck with your brain, pal. It ain't worth it."
Re:Hyperthymesia by maglor_83 · 2011-09-21 18:10 · Score: 2

How the hell did you remember that?!
Too bad a good memory by hcs_$reboot · 2011-09-21 18:16 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, enhancing the mice memory won't help them to forget about their ill-treatments.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
1. Re:Too bad a good memory by ldobehardcore · 2011-09-21 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's alright,
  They tend to cull off all the mice used in the study, except for the controls.
  Good science requires elimination and minimisation of variables you know.
  
  --
  Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
Didn't we have this news item before? by jeffrey.endres · 2011-09-21 18:24 · Score: 2

I could swear that I have seen this news item on slashdot before. Maybe my brain needs a jolt.
1. Re:Didn't we have this news item before? by midtown · 2011-09-21 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the item you are thinking about is this, but I'm not positive. Have at it.
  http://scienceblog.com/44329/making-temporary-changes-to-brain-could-speed-up-learning/
2. Re:Didn't we have this news item before? by jeffrey.endres · 2011-09-25 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yep! I think that's the one.
Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-21 18:30 · Score: 1

And I, for one, welcome our new mouse overlords
Ben..... by kawabago · 2011-09-21 18:57 · Score: 1

you've got a friend in me.
1. Re:Ben..... by Custard+Horse · 2011-09-21 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not every night...
I'll be right back... by villain222 · 2011-09-21 19:06 · Score: 1

Where did i put that stun gun? Last time I tested that on myself i was a bit tipsy. I wonder if that cancelled out the brain cells i killed that night. If only i could remember.
Stimulated cell growth. by nitehawk214 · 2011-09-21 19:19 · Score: 1

I know something else that stimulates cell growth.
Cancer.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Not just the brains. by quenda · 2011-09-21 19:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Attaching electrodes to the genitals has also been shown to enhance recall in the subject.
1. Re:Not just the brains. by linear+a · 2011-09-22 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Ve haf vays to stimulate your memory, Ja?
Google and Friends by dredwerker · 2011-09-21 20:02 · Score: 1

I have google and my friends. Its all about the keywords and remembering which friends from which time periods you need to speak to. O and facebook is quite useful nowadays. Obviously IMDB,Wikipedia and ermmmm -- - thingummmy ------ Snopes thats it, are useful too. o look hackaday is calling ;)

--
On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
Algernon by dunkelfalke · 2011-09-21 20:05 · Score: 2

I can bet the name of the mouse in question is Algernon

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
1. Re:Algernon by jafac · 2011-09-22 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  . . . unimaginative lab assistant.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Not recommended by E.I.A · 2011-09-21 21:21 · Score: 1

I lost two large patches of hair trying this at home. I used a few 9volts, some alligator clamps, and my gangster friend's gold chains, and although I did feel a little wittier, it just aint worth the new image.

--
Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made. - Otto von Bismarck
hrmmm by Charliemopps · 2011-09-22 00:33 · Score: 1

I have always had an amazing memory and can even remember being in the crib. Freaks most people out... specially my mother when I describe the room and such. I've mentioned it to doctors over the years thinking they'd want to investigate it but never had any interest. Alas, as I've gotten older it's faded. I can still remember all the stuff that occurred when I was younger, but things that happened in the past 6-12 months are far less clear to me than most of when I was a toddler.
1. Re:hrmmm by sgt+scrub · 2011-09-22 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  In all seriousness I'd recommend a physical. Noticeable memory loss is an early sign of heart disease.
  
  --
  Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
2. Re:hrmmm by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-09-22 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  It can also be a symptom of severe Vitamin B deficiency. So get some blood work done too. Both situations are nasty (though, the heart disease would be the worse case to have).
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Krell by the+eric+conspiracy · 2011-09-22 00:53 · Score: 1

Crikey the Krell have been doing this for millenia, You guys need to get out more.
I'm ready to be overclocked by XiaoK · 2011-09-22 01:42 · Score: 1

Next they need to work on a cooling solution.
Ringworld by kmahan · 2011-09-22 02:15 · Score: 1

While they are putting the wiring in how about one into the pleasure center -- then we can have a new group of addicts called Wire Heads. Cheap since it only takes a bit of electricity.

--
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
1. Re:Ringworld by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-09-22 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Bender says:
  
  Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh Yeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhh!
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
That's just silly! by mr_resident · 2011-09-22 02:18 · Score: 1

I've been sticking forks in electrical outlets for years and I'm not any smartyer.
Forced Exercise? by sgt+scrub · 2011-09-22 03:54 · Score: 1

I know that exercise helps brain function but shocking somebody in the head with an electrical probe isn't a very nice way to motivate someone.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
BB for the win by hudsucker · 2011-09-22 08:20 · Score: 1

So that's what Dr. Lizardo was doing.
but we already knew this by Eponymous+Hero · 2011-09-23 09:13 · Score: 1

hasn't anyone seen Requiem For A Dream? this is old news! and that guy's mom was so much better off after the treatment too...

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Don't be a fool. Go easy on your EBEs. by dandart · 2011-10-02 01:52 · Score: 1

Mandatory Look Around You Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spF6A2QK31s