3 ms·

People have been predicting that for longer than either of us have been alive, and we’re not really any closer to the reality thst doesn’t involve brain surgery

People have been predicting that for longer than either of us have been alive, and we’re not really any closer to the reality thst doesn’t involve brain surgery.

ChuckMcM 8y ago
As I mentioned in my post the DBS experiments suggested to me that we are closer than we were when Silverberg and others posited "wireheads" in their fiction. The ability to manipulate several phase coherent RF waveforms creates the ability to fairly precisely create energy lobes inside the soft tissue. Time will tell of course.
- GW150914 8y ago
  It would be interesting if you were right. Have you read any of Larry Niven’s work? In his Known Space novels, especially later Ringworld books the idea of “wireheads” is extensively considered. The outlook adopted seems to be what you’re implying, that is to say it would supplant all drugs and most addictive vices. It would also be al ost invariably fatal due to self-neglect, reproduction rates of the affected population would be low, and after some generations most seriously addictive personalities would be essentially eliminated. Whoever was left wild naturally become wireheads, so would have some baseline of addicts, but it would be a fraction of pre-wireheads days. Interesting idea, with a bit of a bumpy ride on the way.
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    I have read much of Niven's work. I also got to hear him and Jerry Pournelle discuss some of their 'evolution in action' theories at a science fiction conference in LA. It was more entertaining than rigorous given the venue but both of them had given the concepts a lot of thought. Of course as my grandfather would say some times, "The law of the jungle is always more appealing to those who aren't subject to it." I recognize that the impacts will be felt widely when this technology becomes available, but I also recognize I can't predict the impact on things outside of my own experience.
0x8BADF00D 8y ago
Why? Your skin is porous and your body is primarily made of water. Why couldn’t you send directed electrical pulses to mimic the behavior of pharmaceuticals?
- GW150914 8y ago
  The short answers are “complexity” and “targeting” essentially. How do you stimulate or inhibit what you want to target and only what you target, especially when as you point out we’re bags of mostly water? Looking at something like stimulating a specific region of the brain, how do you keep yourself from imaverdently stimulating neighboring neurons? Not only that, but far more isn’t understood about the exact functioning of the brain than what is known. Barring luck, it seems reasonable to expect that comprehension of the system needs to precede fine control over it.

People have been predicting that for longer than either of us have been alive, and we’re not really any closer to the reality thst doesn’t involve brain surgery.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

As I mentioned in my post the DBS experiments suggested to me that we are closer than we were when Silverberg and others posited "wireheads" in their fiction. The ability to manipulate several phase coherent RF waveforms creates the ability to fairly precisely create energy lobes inside the soft tissue. Time will tell of course.

GW150914 8y ago
It would be interesting if you were right. Have you read any of Larry Niven’s work? In his Known Space novels, especially later Ringworld books the idea of “wireheads” is extensively considered. The outlook adopted seems to be what you’re implying, that is to say it would supplant all drugs and most addictive vices. It would also be al ost invariably fatal due to self-neglect, reproduction rates of the affected population would be low, and after some generations most seriously addictive personalities would be essentially eliminated. Whoever was left wild naturally become wireheads, so would have some baseline of addicts, but it would be a fraction of pre-wireheads days. Interesting idea, with a bit of a bumpy ride on the way.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  I have read much of Niven's work. I also got to hear him and Jerry Pournelle discuss some of their 'evolution in action' theories at a science fiction conference in LA. It was more entertaining than rigorous given the venue but both of them had given the concepts a lot of thought. Of course as my grandfather would say some times, "The law of the jungle is always more appealing to those who aren't subject to it." I recognize that the impacts will be felt widely when this technology becomes available, but I also recognize I can't predict the impact on things outside of my own experience.

0x8BADF00D 8y ago

Why? Your skin is porous and your body is primarily made of water. Why couldn’t you send directed electrical pulses to mimic the behavior of pharmaceuticals?

GW150914 8y ago
The short answers are “complexity” and “targeting” essentially. How do you stimulate or inhibit what you want to target and only what you target, especially when as you point out we’re bags of mostly water? Looking at something like stimulating a specific region of the brain, how do you keep yourself from imaverdently stimulating neighboring neurons? Not only that, but far more isn’t understood about the exact functioning of the brain than what is known. Barring luck, it seems reasonable to expect that comprehension of the system needs to precede fine control over it.