iPlants?

"An iPlant is a brain implant that is technically no different from today's deep brain stimulation implants, but which has not yet been developed for human use. Fully implemented, the implant would electronically regulate monoamines and the reward system in the brain, thus giving its user increased control over his or her motivation, mood, learning and creativity. Brain implants like this have been available for non-human animals for decades: by associating rewarding brain stimulation with specific behaviours, they have been used to motivate rats and other animals to do heavy exercise (Burgess et al 1991, Garner et al 1991) and solve problems (Hermez-Vasquez et al 2005). Electronic regulation of monoamines could similarly help people perform difficult behaviours like strenuous physical exercise, learning or research. iPlants might also offer a more dynamic alternative to pharmacological modulators of monoamines, such as stimulants and antidepressants.

Deep brain stimulation implants are currently used to treat a number of psychiatric conditions by modulating activity in the human reward system. For instance, Medtronic's Reclaim implant, which targets the nucleus accumbens, is CE marked in the EU and FDA approved in the US for obsessive compulsive disorder. iPlants could be implemented using the same technology and surgical procedure, but would involve brief, strong, rewarding current rather than the constant, weak, normalizing current that is used at present. A patient-doctor agreement would ensure that RBS was delivered if and only if the patient engaged in pre-specified, beneficial behaviours, such as the use of a rowing machine, an exercise cycle, an e-learning program etc. This kind of artificial motivation by means of conditional RBS is currently the most realistic and interesting application of iPlants."

http://www.iplant.eu/

God, I really want one of those. That would be great because I have really low motivation.

I am kind of scared about the idea of machines being able to control any aspect of your mind, even by a small degree.

I've read about this thing before.

I think it's a BAD idea™

Okay, so we make a bunch of clones, genetically engineered to be super soldiers, stick this in their brains, give them guns, and tell them to kill all non-Americans terrorists. Good, yes?

Kehehehehe...this sounds...interesting. I want one.

This sounds horrific. I guess it just means I'm getting old and behind the curve, though.

Not really, I'm young still. I do think it sounds frightening, though.

A brain implant that can be used to give a feel-good stimulation as a reward and reinforcement for any behavior chosen by the user?

What could possibly go wrong?

Orgies stop being fun after two dozen times, most likely.

What if someone is programmed with the motivation of Vicious?

????? I have no clue what you're talking about.

edited 24th Feb '11 10:57:44 PM by LoveHappiness

A brain implant that can be used to give a feel-good stimulation as a reward and reinforcement for any behavior chosen by the user?

What could possibly go wrong?

Put together the pieces.

Well I'm going to ignore that then.

"...the main challenge to the iPlant are those segments of society that will react to it with fear and try to demonize it. These people are often the ones who would benefit the least from an iPlant: they don’t suffer the neverending frustrations of a short attention span, excessive fatigue, addiction, depression or intense social anxiety; they are the ones whose dopaminergic and serotonergic cell groups are working fine, and they’ll say that you using an implant to reach your optimum is somehow wrong, as if you were cheating in some petty game. No, this is a 21st century class struggle – those born rich in dopamine and serotonin protecting their ‘hard earned’ privileges.”

[1]

This is legitimate point, though it's not likely to calm any fears about abuse.

edited 24th Feb '11 11:20:36 PM by LoveHappiness

a short attention span, excessive fatigue, addiction, depression or intense social anxiety

Uh-huh.

Right.

Basically, this is like dope; except, minus the drug and you beam the happy right in there. I really don't trust this.

edited 24th Feb '11 11:23:35 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Riiight. Because an implant that provides great advantages in whatever field you want for a very high price, that's promoting equality.

The only way I could trust this is if it were very controlled and not controlled by the patient.

IE, someone who wants to be good at drawing would be given the "motivation" to do so.

Duh, they're talking about clinical use (therapy) for individuals with serious psychiatric problems. Obviously if it's being used for recreational purposes that could be an issue.

edited 24th Feb '11 11:30:52 PM by LoveHappiness

The only way I could trust this is if it were very controlled and not controlled by the patient.

IE, someone who wants to be good at drawing would be given the "motivation" to do so.

That's even less reason for me to trust it. Very controlled or not, it seems like something that some people will abuse, especially certain hackers.

Seems like being worried about people hacking into pacemakers. :/

Perhaps I made a bit of a jump there, I've been reading too much science fiction on internet plugs IN YOUR BRAIN. But nah, I personally would just prefer for this sort of thing not to get near my brain since, well, you'll be making emotions in an artificial manner. Yes, it has uses in medicine, but in day to day life? Nnnnoooooo.

Major abuse potential aside and operating on the assumption that it would only be used in extremely carefully regulated circumstances involving people with serious mental conditions and/or addictions (and let's face it, people will want it to become more widespread)...

Does this have a long-term effect on acclimating the brain's pleasure nodes into functioning normally, or is it a crutch? It could just result in a behavioral addiction to the implant itself.

edited 24th Feb '11 11:41:16 PM by Pykrete

"Basically, this is like dope; except, minus the drug and you beam the happy right in there. I really don't trust this."

To be honest, I think wireheading sounds great. But for it to be widely adopted it would need to improve functionality, and this seems to hold promise. And given a few decades or centuries it might be much cheaper. But if not, eventually most people should be rich enough, though that might take much longer.

Face it, the only way for this to get wide spread is if the government makes a program to give each person one after a certain age (effects on human children? Isn't that borderline the forbidden experiment?) or for it to get insanely cheap to produce, in which case, I'm sure it'll become much like the iPhone... except you know, an iPlant.

Maybe, but as I see it radical economic growth seems possible in the very long run.

edited 24th Feb '11 11:49:10 PM by LoveHappiness

Nah, it doesn't work that, unless there's a few factors that change, let's take the US for example:

The wealth of the nation has grown over the past few years, which is to say, the US's GDP, CPI, M1, M2, etc have all more or less gone up and unemployment has gone (somewhat) down. However, the amount of wealth (total value of all goods including dollars in pocket) per household hasn't changed that much. This is because the population is still growing and those new households need a share of the wealth too.

Plus, you shouldn't take in account dollar amounts but the value of the dollar and its value compared to the product. If you were to buy a candy bar that costs one dollar, then one of your dollars is worth one candy bar. On the other hand, if that candy bar is only 50 cents, the dollar is worth two candy bars. Here's the catch, the value of the dollar and the value of the product both grow at a rate the is independent of the actual amount of money in the system. In other words, if the economy suddenly has double the amount of dollar bills, then your dollar is only worth half of what it was worth before since the actual US GDP hasn't changed. Therefore, if you want the US economy to grow so that everyone can afford the implant, then either the population grow needs to slow down drastically or the value of the US dollar needs to SOAR faster than history has ever shown. Therefore, the only way for this to get widely used is if the implant itself is produced cheap enough so that the makers can sell it at a low value but still make profit.

Or like I said, government distribution.

EDIT: I need to get out of Econ class...

edited 25th Feb '11 12:04:00 AM by Usht

"Nah, it doesn't work that, unless there's a few factors that change"

Well, that's what I was thinking of. Change. It certainly can happen. Assuming these factors will remain constant over thousands of years (and more) does not seem wise. Especially considering this has already happened multiple times. The agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, etc.

edited 25th Feb '11 12:09:55 AM by LoveHappiness