7 ms·

Can the Nervous System be Hacked?

115 points by dd36 12y ago

tokipin 12y ago
The Ghost in the Shell universe explores these kinds of things.
TheBiv 12y ago
This is one of those rare times where a rhetorical question from a link-bait title is definitely "Yes"! The author has a great anecdote about the work that is being done to combat rheumatoid-arthritis, however the story preys on our own hubris to believe that our bodies are not made up of very simple parts that have little knowledge of ourselves, rather a fairly strict set of inputs/outputs. So of course if you can manipulate the inputs, then you can achieve your desired outputs. The true beauty of medical hacks is that the basal inputs and outputs of each individual component is relatively unknown!
- damian2000 12y ago
  Agreed - and I think its called Betteridge's Law of Headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
cup 12y ago
Yes it can. We can already do it. Let me show you how. Using a soft screwdriver handle, gently tap the top of your knee where your patellar is located. You're performing the patellar reflex procedure which will cause your hamstrings to contract and your leg to kick out gently. Its not high tech ghost in the shell stuff but it is technically a hack!
- baddox 12y ago
  Or feign a punch at someone's face and see if they flinch.
iandanforth 12y ago
Quick summary: Rheumatoid arthritis can be put into remission in some patients by stimulating the vagus nerve for some reason. Eventually it may be possible to stimulate the nerve more precisely using one of several exciting technologies.
lucaspiller 12y ago
The most interesting part of this to me is the link between the brain and the immune system. As the drug in the example had no effect on the body after the vagus nerve was cut, I wonder if when injected into the body the drug still has no effect - if it is all caused by the brain. If that's the case I wonder if it's possible to achieve the same results just by 'thinking' the right things. It is possible to consciously control your heart rate which is a similar low level brain function (and I think also involves the vagus nerve). I doubt this research will get much funding though as GSK can't sell a $50,000 device from this :)
- streptomycin 12y ago
  There has been some research in this area. This paper http://www.innerfire.nl/files/concentration-pickkers.pdf http://www.innerfire.nl/files/concentration-pickkers.pdf has one of my favorite opening sentences ever: Objective: To investigate whether a special concentration/meditation technique employed by a Dutch individual known as ‘the iceman’ can influence anatomic nervous system activity and the innate immune response. Looking more broadly in the literature, you can find many "biofeedback" studies related to inflammation and the immune system. For instance http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10484-010-9139-5 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10484-010-9139-5 shows some interesting results in normal people (not just "the iceman"), but unfortunately, followup studies by that group were impeded by the untimely death of the last author :(
ZoF 12y ago
It's interesting how 'we' as a society build up archetypes about the different sciences(and, well, everything really) and instead of fostering and promoting innovation in those areas we oftentimes question/demean/discredit people who bring forth new ideas pertaining to those preconceived notions.(referring loosely to the scientist's skeptical coworkers) From my limited anecdotal experience(therefore potentially/likely flawed) I would say that it's namely a result of aversion to change, desire to assimilate(fit in), and fear of failure. It's a shame really; I honestly believe that a LOT of value could be gained from looking at life sciences from a completely blank/unaltered perspective. If they were void of preconceived notions as to how these underlying biological systems function I think that intelligent people would at very least yield novel concepts in terms of comprehending inputs and representing results. To restate in different vernacular, How it is now: If you want to do research pertaining to something that interests you personally you've got at _least_ 4 years of college before heading into the industry.(This precludes university research labs (as if you'd have project control anyway)). Not only that, but for most active-minded humans, the 17 years before college are boring as fuck(not to say that an active social life and interesting/engaging childhood makes you, in any way, less-active-minded). We literally teach children to fore-go logic and reasoning and mindlessly obey authority. We train children to read/write/copy/repeat, but we NEVER teach them to discover something novel on their own. Which is not to say, of course, that every idea is valid(or even worthy of exploration). I mean, the system does 'work'(in that by forcing you to work up the ladder before innovating it weeds out the thoughtless/crazy/impractical ideas and ensures that anyone hoping to do research has a vested interest in the subject matter), but I think that if we, as a society, encouraged/accepted failure and were less hostile towards change we could stand to gain a lot. Eh. This is a bit of a ramble, I guess TL,DR: I find that the aversion to failure/change which is so inherent in society today stifles innovation. What do you guys/gals think? Am I off base here? Would love to hear someone else's opinion on the matter, I can't enumerate the number of times that I've fully fleshed out an opinion only to have reality altering conjecture come into play.
- jonsen 12y ago
  Innovation is not stifled. Look around, we have plenty. But we can't have too much. Evolution should happen with reasonably stability. Evolution takes place on the border between order and chaos. Innovation is promoting force. We need retarding forces too.
mmaldacker 12y ago
Yes, look up research done by Kevin Warwick (a true mad scientist).
jballanc 12y ago
Humans thought their strength and agility was superior until John Henry lost to the steam drill. Humans thought their intellect and intuition was superior until Gary Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. Today, we still hold to the notion that our biology is somehow different, unique, not-just-another-bucket-of-chemicals, but as with the examples above, once we get past this hang-up and accept that we are not special, that is when truly interesting and exciting things can happen.
- wowsodoge 12y ago
  It would be quite a special machine that could feel interest and excitement at hacking its own neurobiology!
  - lloeki 12y ago
    > It would be quite a special machine It is "special" only because it's the result of millions of years of evolution, not because some reassuring omnipotent being from another plane selected it to be so. Dozens of species are using tools, building things, solving problems, and feeling things (however small and nascent!). Our species is just early to the party by a fraction of a million years, which is, geologically and cosmologically, peanuts (Not even talking about the time we've been actually toying with electricity and transistors). Carl Sagan sums up how deceitful an anthropocentric point of view is quite nicely in Pale Blue Dot. Although applied to science and cosmologies, it definitely applies to anything we deem sacred just because it's us. “Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.” “Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home.“ “How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” “Once we lose our fear of being tiny, we find ourselves on the threshold of a vast and awesome Universe which dwarfs -- in time, in space, and in potential -- the tidy anthropocentric proscenium of our ancestors.”
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
d3k 12y ago
Was I the only one who read Frankenstein instead of Feinstein Institute?
bosky101 12y ago
for anyone related in this topic, you should watch Frequencies (2013) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2414766/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2414766/ it's a future that has quantified "luck", "surprises", life partners, and most things we still think can't be quantified. also has a surprise ending.
sriku 12y ago
Though I'm unaware of empirical studies, wouldn't attempts in Chinese medicine be precedents here - particularly could the sending of electrical pulses through acupuncture needles inserted at various places to "stimulate the immune system" be some kind of primordial theory connecting the nervous system and the immune system? In other words, I'm rather surprised that when we can think about and exploit the fact that regular exercise can result in good health, it has been considered a stretch to imagine that the nervous system can be more intimately connected to the immune system. 1998 is disturbingly close in this case.
- crpatino 12y ago
  The thing is Traditional Chinese Medicine does not fit into the Myth of Progress (TM), which clearly state that everybody before Francis Bacon were retarded caveman/peasants/alchemist/inquisitors/whatever-triggers-repulsion-in-listener. The idea that non-European (a.k.a. non-White) peoples of thousands of years ago were making careful observations of natural phenomena, which lead to relatively accurate predictions and techniques that allowed to increase the chances of preferred outcomes - even if the explanations they came out with were off-base and terribly fantastic for our civilization's sensibilities - is anathema to Modern Science (TM) Dogma. In the particular case of Acupuncture, they first said that you cannot run a proper clinical trial because the technique is invasive and you cannot control against placebo effect. When pointed out that there are invasive techniques, such as surgery, in modern medicine, they claimed that since the mechanism of action of surgery are evident, it'd be unethical to run tests with double blind controls, but since acupuncture mechanism of action is unknown, it's unethical to run any tests at all. Now (I mean, 15 years ago) someone comes up with a plausible, non mystic, mechanism of action, and they claim that since it is impossible to measure the voltage/amperage of a needle stimulus, only properly designed equipment is good to use. This movement has the double advantage to create a new fancy specialty with a fresh occidental name, and allows ignorant GPs to keep calling acupuncture a quack. And in the mean time, we force the new field to rediscover literally centuries of accumulated knowledge from first principles. But it is a small price to pay, so that traditional medicines practitioners are kept outside of the "Evidence Based" umbrella.
  - 12y ago

115 points by dd36 12y ago

The Ghost in the Shell universe explores these kinds of things.

This is one of those rare times where a rhetorical question from a link-bait title is definitely "Yes"! The author has a great anecdote about the work that is being done to combat rheumatoid-arthritis, however the story preys on our own hubris to believe that our bodies are not made up of very simple parts that have little knowledge of ourselves, rather a fairly strict set of inputs/outputs. So of course if you can manipulate the inputs, then you can achieve your desired outputs. The true beauty of medical hacks is that the basal inputs and outputs of each individual component is relatively unknown!

damian2000 12y ago
Agreed - and I think its called Betteridge's Law of Headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

cup 12y ago

Yes it can. We can already do it. Let me show you how. Using a soft screwdriver handle, gently tap the top of your knee where your patellar is located. You're performing the patellar reflex procedure which will cause your hamstrings to contract and your leg to kick out gently. Its not high tech ghost in the shell stuff but it is technically a hack!

baddox 12y ago
Or feign a punch at someone's face and see if they flinch.

iandanforth 12y ago

Quick summary: Rheumatoid arthritis can be put into remission in some patients by stimulating the vagus nerve for some reason. Eventually it may be possible to stimulate the nerve more precisely using one of several exciting technologies.

lucaspiller 12y ago

The most interesting part of this to me is the link between the brain and the immune system. As the drug in the example had no effect on the body after the vagus nerve was cut, I wonder if when injected into the body the drug still has no effect - if it is all caused by the brain. If that's the case I wonder if it's possible to achieve the same results just by 'thinking' the right things. It is possible to consciously control your heart rate which is a similar low level brain function (and I think also involves the vagus nerve). I doubt this research will get much funding though as GSK can't sell a $50,000 device from this :)

streptomycin 12y ago
There has been some research in this area. This paper http://www.innerfire.nl/files/concentration-pickkers.pdf http://www.innerfire.nl/files/concentration-pickkers.pdf has one of my favorite opening sentences ever: Objective: To investigate whether a special concentration/meditation technique employed by a Dutch individual known as ‘the iceman’ can influence anatomic nervous system activity and the innate immune response. Looking more broadly in the literature, you can find many "biofeedback" studies related to inflammation and the immune system. For instance http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10484-010-9139-5 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10484-010-9139-5 shows some interesting results in normal people (not just "the iceman"), but unfortunately, followup studies by that group were impeded by the untimely death of the last author :(

ZoF 12y ago

It's interesting how 'we' as a society build up archetypes about the different sciences(and, well, everything really) and instead of fostering and promoting innovation in those areas we oftentimes question/demean/discredit people who bring forth new ideas pertaining to those preconceived notions.(referring loosely to the scientist's skeptical coworkers) From my limited anecdotal experience(therefore potentially/likely flawed) I would say that it's namely a result of aversion to change, desire to assimilate(fit in), and fear of failure. It's a shame really; I honestly believe that a LOT of value could be gained from looking at life sciences from a completely blank/unaltered perspective. If they were void of preconceived notions as to how these underlying biological systems function I think that intelligent people would at very least yield novel concepts in terms of comprehending inputs and representing results. To restate in different vernacular, How it is now: If you want to do research pertaining to something that interests you personally you've got at _least_ 4 years of college before heading into the industry.(This precludes university research labs (as if you'd have project control anyway)). Not only that, but for most active-minded humans, the 17 years before college are boring as fuck(not to say that an active social life and interesting/engaging childhood makes you, in any way, less-active-minded). We literally teach children to fore-go logic and reasoning and mindlessly obey authority. We train children to read/write/copy/repeat, but we NEVER teach them to discover something novel on their own. Which is not to say, of course, that every idea is valid(or even worthy of exploration). I mean, the system does 'work'(in that by forcing you to work up the ladder before innovating it weeds out the thoughtless/crazy/impractical ideas and ensures that anyone hoping to do research has a vested interest in the subject matter), but I think that if we, as a society, encouraged/accepted failure and were less hostile towards change we could stand to gain a lot. Eh. This is a bit of a ramble, I guess TL,DR: I find that the aversion to failure/change which is so inherent in society today stifles innovation. What do you guys/gals think? Am I off base here? Would love to hear someone else's opinion on the matter, I can't enumerate the number of times that I've fully fleshed out an opinion only to have reality altering conjecture come into play.

jonsen 12y ago
Innovation is not stifled. Look around, we have plenty. But we can't have too much. Evolution should happen with reasonably stability. Evolution takes place on the border between order and chaos. Innovation is promoting force. We need retarding forces too.

mmaldacker 12y ago

Yes, look up research done by Kevin Warwick (a true mad scientist).

jballanc 12y ago

Humans thought their strength and agility was superior until John Henry lost to the steam drill. Humans thought their intellect and intuition was superior until Gary Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. Today, we still hold to the notion that our biology is somehow different, unique, not-just-another-bucket-of-chemicals, but as with the examples above, once we get past this hang-up and accept that we are not special, that is when truly interesting and exciting things can happen.

wowsodoge 12y ago
It would be quite a special machine that could feel interest and excitement at hacking its own neurobiology!
- lloeki 12y ago
  > It would be quite a special machine It is "special" only because it's the result of millions of years of evolution, not because some reassuring omnipotent being from another plane selected it to be so. Dozens of species are using tools, building things, solving problems, and feeling things (however small and nascent!). Our species is just early to the party by a fraction of a million years, which is, geologically and cosmologically, peanuts (Not even talking about the time we've been actually toying with electricity and transistors). Carl Sagan sums up how deceitful an anthropocentric point of view is quite nicely in Pale Blue Dot. Although applied to science and cosmologies, it definitely applies to anything we deem sacred just because it's us. “Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.” “Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home.“ “How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” “Once we lose our fear of being tiny, we find ourselves on the threshold of a vast and awesome Universe which dwarfs -- in time, in space, and in potential -- the tidy anthropocentric proscenium of our ancestors.”

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

d3k 12y ago

Was I the only one who read Frankenstein instead of Feinstein Institute?

bosky101 12y ago

for anyone related in this topic, you should watch Frequencies (2013) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2414766/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2414766/ it's a future that has quantified "luck", "surprises", life partners, and most things we still think can't be quantified. also has a surprise ending.

sriku 12y ago

Though I'm unaware of empirical studies, wouldn't attempts in Chinese medicine be precedents here - particularly could the sending of electrical pulses through acupuncture needles inserted at various places to "stimulate the immune system" be some kind of primordial theory connecting the nervous system and the immune system? In other words, I'm rather surprised that when we can think about and exploit the fact that regular exercise can result in good health, it has been considered a stretch to imagine that the nervous system can be more intimately connected to the immune system. 1998 is disturbingly close in this case.

crpatino 12y ago
The thing is Traditional Chinese Medicine does not fit into the Myth of Progress (TM), which clearly state that everybody before Francis Bacon were retarded caveman/peasants/alchemist/inquisitors/whatever-triggers-repulsion-in-listener. The idea that non-European (a.k.a. non-White) peoples of thousands of years ago were making careful observations of natural phenomena, which lead to relatively accurate predictions and techniques that allowed to increase the chances of preferred outcomes - even if the explanations they came out with were off-base and terribly fantastic for our civilization's sensibilities - is anathema to Modern Science (TM) Dogma. In the particular case of Acupuncture, they first said that you cannot run a proper clinical trial because the technique is invasive and you cannot control against placebo effect. When pointed out that there are invasive techniques, such as surgery, in modern medicine, they claimed that since the mechanism of action of surgery are evident, it'd be unethical to run tests with double blind controls, but since acupuncture mechanism of action is unknown, it's unethical to run any tests at all. Now (I mean, 15 years ago) someone comes up with a plausible, non mystic, mechanism of action, and they claim that since it is impossible to measure the voltage/amperage of a needle stimulus, only properly designed equipment is good to use. This movement has the double advantage to create a new fancy specialty with a fresh occidental name, and allows ignorant GPs to keep calling acupuncture a quack. And in the mean time, we force the new field to rediscover literally centuries of accumulated knowledge from first principles. But it is a small price to pay, so that traditional medicines practitioners are kept outside of the "Evidence Based" umbrella.
- 12y ago