5 ms·
One shouldn't generally expect the application of a single chemical hormone to improve cognitive performance. The brain is a computer, and doing this is roughly
by mjfl 4y ago
One shouldn't generally expect the application of a single chemical hormone to improve cognitive performance. The brain is a computer, and doing this is roughly the equivalent of hooking up either side of a microprocessor with jumper cables and expecting it to "compute better". However, there could be an exception if the reduction of GnRH is one of the only significant effects of the duplication of chromosome 21, which is probably not true - but maybe.
- gavinray 4y agoNoopept and some of the racetams measurably improved my cognitive performance. I've tried most everything under the sun and used my body as a walking science lab. Most things don't have a noticeable effect, but there are a handful of things that do. (Also, YMMV, personal chemistry)
- heavyset_go 4y ago> The brain is a computer As an aside, there are tomes of literature, research and arguments for and against the computational theory of mind. I don't think it's as clear cut to say that the brain is a computer, as physiologically it certainly doesn't work like a computer at all.
- natpalmer1776 4y agoI think the sentiment of the analogy was "the brain is a tightly integrated complex system" which would support the 'multiple changes should be required to accomplish an increase in throughput'
- agumonkey 4y agoIt's important not to apply simple tricks and hope for magic results but it's not absurd to consider that some brain subsystems are so vital and foundational that an improvement their cascades on other higher level cognitive centers.
- stephc_int13 4y agoBrains are unlikely to be simple machines that can be made better by changing a simple variable… Unless this variable is able to boost learning, which can have a huge compounding effect on cognition.
- bawolff 4y agoWhen people say the brain is a computer, they dont mean it has CPU architecture or is programmed like a c program.
- heavyset_go 4y agoI'm aware, that's what the computational theory of mind touches upon, it is not a literal interpretation of the mind as having some Von Neumann architecture. On the other hand, I've met plenty of people who believe the brain has "processing power" that's equivalent to literal CPUs.
- dqpb 4y agoDoes it not compute?
- heavyset_go 4y agoThat's at the crux of the computational theory of mind, for which there are plenty of proponents and critics.
- dqpb 4y agoThe number of proponents and critics is not relevant.
- heavyset_go 4y agoApproaching this debate from first principles while ignoring the decades of thought and research that have gone into it doesn't lead to fruitful discussion. Acknowledging what prominent researchers, philosophers, experts, etc have thought and said about this does, however. For example, the definition of "compute" can vary greatly, which we can see here in the comments section versus what is usually considered computing when it comes to the computational theory of mind. Often regarding this topic, "computing" means symbol manipulation and representation a la Turing machines, whereas many in this comment section interpret "computing" as the action of taking input and producing output. My point with the comment is that I'm no expert, and I'm not someone who has really thought about or tried to tackle this problem. There are plenty of people who have, though, and they can make more insightful, apt and convincing arguments that are worth looking into before accepting or dismissing the concept entirely.
- gizajob 4y agoNo, it thinks. Computing is a subset of thought.
- cercatrova 4y agoIt takes inputs from sensors and produces output, as well as cogitating on internal states and data. How is that not computation?
- mjfl 4y agoConsidering that the definition of a computer is very broad - a means of storing a state + rules for evolving that state given the state and inputs from the environment, I'm not sure how you can say the brain does not work like a computer.
- derefr 4y agoI mean, if your problem is specifically that you're not able to make that chemical / not as receptive to that chemical / clean that chemical up too quickly compared to the average person, then "add more of it" would be the obvious solution. If your microprocessor is having floating-read problems because the voltage on the 5V/12V power lines is more like 2V/4V, then "more power" is exactly what it needs.
- mjfl 4y agoyou're example assumes you know what causing the problem though. This is far, far from the case here - "Down syndrome causes decrease in GnRH" does not imply "Low GnRH causes down syndrome", though as I said, if you get lucky it could be responsible for a good number of the symptoms.
- bigbillheck 4y ago> The brain is a computer The brain is a bunch of chemicals floating around in salt water.
- devin 4y agoGiven what we know about hormones, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. Hormones seem to largely supersede genetics. There are numerous examples of this.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoAre you arguing against their quantified observed data that’s gone through animal and human trials based on your metaphor of a microprocessor? That’s sort of remarkably brazen.
- winter_blue 4y agoYour analogy is not good. The equivalent of hooking up jumper cables would be adding a clump of neurons. A chemical that washes over the entire system is more akin to giving the computer a clean/wash (not with water) when the computer has grime and dirt blocking various connections (/ neural pathways).