Here's a brain implant that will let you program yourself:

Let's define an iPlant as eight arrays of stimulating electrodes that give their user control of the release of dopamine and serotonin in his or her brain by regulating electrical activity in the VTA, SNc, dorsal and medial raphe nuclei. As you may know, dopamine determines what we consider important and rewarding, and thus what we feel motivated to do, whereas serotonin has a strong influence on our mood and our ability to re-evaluate.

The idea isn't all that far-fetched - deep brain stimulation has been routine treatment for Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor and dystonia for many years now and modifications of the technique aimed at treating epilepsy, cluster headaches, Tourette’s syndrome, minimally conscious states, obsessive compulsive disorder and depression are currently in clinical trials (Kringelbach et al, 2007; Perlmutter & Mink, 2006). Rats with electrodes stimulating their dopaminergic neurons can be programmed to exercise heavily for hours, simply by giving them pulses of dopamine ("reward") whenever they run on a treadmill (Burgess et al, 1991) or lift weights (Garner et al, 1991). Hundreds of papers on this technique have been published and you may have read that DARPA is using it to remote-control rats (Talwar et al, 2002).

In humans, the same technique could be used to treat, say, morbid obesity (by using trainers with sensors in the soles that reward their user with a pulse of dopamine for every step during running), but the possibilities are endless. Learning programs could be designed, in which users are rewarded for every correct answer on a test, thus motivating them to carry on learning. The iPlant could be used as a more dynamic replacement for Ritalin and antidepressants, which simply increase concentrations of dopamine and serotonin in the brain. Distributed research programs could be formulated, in which scientifically unskilled volunteers can contribute to critical research problems like cancer, HIV, renewable energy and SENS, by using their iPlants to motivate themselves to learn and perform the physical and mental operations of scientific research protocols.

There’s a lot more information about all this on http://www.iPlant.eu, but I need more input, please let me know what you think.

I am not sure it would be a good idea to give a user direct control over the brain in this way. Surely as user would find the pleasure button just keep hitting it until it kills them, or alternatively if it allowed you to reduce pain sensations then the user may permanently damage themselves by going beyond their limits.

Another problem with this would be if someone else gets controller for the users implant, they would effectively have control over the user.

Churchill, maybe I wasn't clear. The trick is to use the direct control over dopamine signalling to reinforce only certain well-defined behaviors (such as physical exercise or entering correct answer on a computer tutorial). It will be difficult to make sure that the iPlant accepts only 'approved' programs, but if Apple can do it...

iPlant:

It will be difficult to make sure that the iPlant accepts only 'approved' programs, but if Apple can do it...

 That's the thing... Apple couldn't. It just took longer than normal for the hackers to figure out how to open it up.


 

iPlant:

Churchill, maybe I wasn't clear. The trick is to use the direct control over dopamine signalling to reinforce only certain well-defined behaviors (such as physical exercise or entering correct answer on a computer tutorial). It will be difficult to make sure that the iPlant accepts only 'approved' programs, but if Apple can do it...

I understand the public perception value of using terms like iPlant and neurotransmitters (as oppossed to stimulation of specific networks - neurotransmitters are too vague) - but this approach may proove detrimental in the long run.

I'm all for using direct electrical stimulation to overcome anhedonic homeostasis - but not with direct control - it could easily proove easy for someone to control you and for you to become addicted to stimulation.

Pacemaker type stimulation of key areas on the affective network is the way forward IMO.

Abolitionist, the whole point of the iPlant is to deliver rewarding brain stimulation IF AND ONLY IF the user performs some well-defined behavior. For example, a man suffering from morbid obesity pulls a stroke on a rowing machine. A sensor in the machine sends a signal, via a wire, to a console strapped to his chest; the console sends a signal, via a subcutaneous wire, to the electrode array in his head, which  delivers a brief pulse of rewarding electrical current. The man suddenly feels motivated, despite his previous, life-threatening aversion to exercise, to pull another stroke on machine, just as happens in rats (Burgess et al, 1991; Garner et al, 1991).

You can't use pacemaker type stimulation to drive behaviors in this way, and to generate enough motivation the target has to be dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area or their axons, at least in rats. Heath never stimulated the dopamine neurons themselves, only regions that receive output from them, and implants for Parkinson's disease are even further off target.

There ARE major security issues. I explore some of these in the iPlant short story. Please read it and let me know what you think. In the example here I guess step one regarding security would be to keep that rowing machine locked up at night :P

iPlant:

Abolitionist, the whole point of the iPlant is to deliver rewarding brain stimulation IF AND ONLY IF the user performs some well-defined behavior. For example, a man suffering from morbid obesity pulls a stroke on a rowing machine. A sensor in the machine sends a signal, via a wire, to a console strapped to his chest; the console sends a signal, via a subcutaneous wire, to the electrode array in his head, which  delivers a brief pulse of rewarding electrical current. The man suddenly feels motivated, despite his previous, life-threatening aversion to exercise, to pull another stroke on machine, just as happens in rats (Burgess et al, 1991; Garner et al, 1991).

You can't use pacemaker type stimulation to drive behaviors in this way, and to generate enough motivation the target has to be dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area or their axons, at least in rats. Heath never stimulated the dopamine neurons themselves, only regions that receive output from them, and implants for Parkinson's disease are even further off target.

There ARE major security issues. I explore some of these in the iPlant short story. Please read it and let me know what you think. In the example here I guess step one regarding security would be to keep that rowing machine locked up at night :P

Yes, Heath stimulated specific locations on the cerebellum which are connected to the pleasure centers - making the procedure less invasive - however, direct stimulation of the pleasure centers has also been tried.

If we give ourselves the means for reward by directly stimulating the pleasure centers - why would we be motivated to do something first? - you'd go straight to the reward. It would be more addictive than crack cocaine.

Rewards are good, but not rewards that are so overwhelmingly powerful and permanently embedded.

non-invasive means to give rewards that are less potent would be better IMO - the openstim project run by Ed Boyden is likely to develope such a device. The Elata Foundation was initially inspired by this idea yet has gone another direction for social acceptance.

 In the end we want more than just increasing measurable performance - we want an increase in lifelong individual happiness and pacemaker stimulation of the pleasure centers does this reliably;

 http://www.abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=768

Abolitionist:

If we give ourselves the means for reward by directly stimulating the pleasure centers - why would we be motivated to do something first? - you'd go straight to the reward. It would be more addictive than crack cocaine.

No, look, the whole point of the iPlant is to help people perform very specific, very difficult behaviors. That's how the project gets funding (to help people with obesity and learning difficulties). That's how you develop a complex programming language for humans. That's how you orchestrate the behavior of thousands of volunteers to speed up scientific development (Distributed Research Programs). A pacemaker in the nucleus accumbens will not do any of this.

Current intensity and the lenght of time during which the user can "self-stimulate" will have to be tightly controlled to prevent over-use, and again, the iPlant will be designed so that self-stimulation can only be generated by performing some well-defined and valuable but difficult behavior.

A brain implant that magically eliminates all truly negative emotions, whatever that means, might be a better idea (I'm not sure) but that's not something I (or anyone IMO) will be able to develop anytime soon.

I'd like to see optional treatments like this made available - but how would we prevent individuals from eventually getting at the controls for the unit and reprogramming? And prevent others from using it to control them?

The procedure will have to become more refined with much less risk of causing death to brain tissue and breaking blood vessels.

These are excellent questions, I'll put some of this on an iPlant.eu FAQ I'm working on if you don't mind.

The medical risk of brain surgery and chronically implanted electronics is not something I'm working on personally (though I will try to report major breakthroughs on the implant technology section on the website). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is in such wide use now - 30.000 patients for Parkinson's alone - that I'm betting surgery and electronics will be safe enough by the time iPlants are ready for clinical trials (ca 10 years from now IMO).
 
The problem of someone short-circuiting themselves or being controlled 'against their will' is a tricky one, but keep in mind:

• like current DBS electronics, iPlants would not be wi-fi: you would always have to physically plug yourself into an exercise machine or a device asking you questions, neither of which need to have an internet connection (i.e. no exposure to random hackers)
• iPlants would be designed to be hypersensitive to unintended use: as soon as someone tries to fiddle with their own iPlant, e.g. take the exercise/learning machine out of the loop, the electronics would shut down

You would still have to trust the hospital/company providing surgery, hardware and software, but I'm hoping we/they will be so concerned with delivering a good, safe product that people like, trust and recomend to others, that they won't be tempted to screw with people. The medical risks may be even more of a concern and it will take a while before people feel enough trust to get an iPlant. But by the time we hit 30.000 iPlant patients successfully treated for obesity, ADHD and depression - patients who also aquire the ability to, say, learn Mandarin for 5 hours per day with no effort - there may have emerged enough public demand for the product to make it available to anyone who wants it.

The question you raise is important though: what could happen if worst comes to worst and someone's dopamine system gets hijacked? I tend to doubt you could make someone give you all their money or jump off a building or anything like that: implant-driven behaviors require a period of repetitive training so maybe you would be limited to inducing relatively simple repetitive behaviors (gives a whole new meaning to the bully-phrase "stop hitting yourself" doesn't it?:P) or burn the dopamine system altogether. This is bad but if you want to hurt someone there are much easier ways than to try and hack their iPlant. What you could do if you could control someone else's serotonin system is anyone's guess at this point.

But this doesn't have to be all negative: there may be reasons why you would voluntarily give someone else temporary control over your motivation and why this could be incorporated into the hardware and software of the iPlant. I've mentioned what I call distributed research programs to fight cancer or global warming or aging on a mass scale. There's also the possibility of a new kind of indstruction, e.g. music or sports, as well as different kinds of recreational uses. Harmful use like complete short-circuiting of the dopamine system must always be prevented and trust is a key word, but these areas may well be worth exploring, eventually.

"These are excellent questions, I'll put some of this on an iPlant.eu FAQ I'm working on if you don't mind."

 Was hoping you would - in order to get these treatments (for the human condition) legalized we'll have to devise reasonable guidelines and means to address the important concerns that the general public has.

for many people the thought of getting a brain implant is as scary as getting the mark of the beast permanently embedded on their forehead.  I think it's good to get people to try and challenge the feasibility and ethics of making iPlants publicly available as an optional treatment - and then address their concerns publicly.

I think that risk of the procedure, expense, and social stigma are the biggest barriers to implementation.

Would women date a gay with an iPlant? I think very few would due to social inacceptance. heck, women have hung up on me for talking about it.

"You would still have to trust the hospital/company providing surgery, hardware and software, but I'm hoping we/they will be so concerned with delivering a good, safe product that people like, trust and recomend to others, that they won't be tempted to screw with people. The medical risks may be even more of a concern and it will take a while before people feel enough trust to get an iPlant."

There would have to be oversight and once you have the network of stimulators/sensors embedded in the brain they can move around - there would have to be regular scans to ensure correct placement and that the equipment is functioning as it should.

We'd have to determine at what stage of development an implant could be done - so that the brain and surrounding structures do not grow and change the functionality of the electrode placements.

That's the major concern I see with funding for something as expensive and permanent as the complex system of wires that would be required to facilitate specific learning - would it be that much better than what could be developed for non-invasive use?

Obesity is just diet and exercise (health problems aside) - I can't see anyone opting for brain surgery over diet and exercise or even a gastric bypass. DBS is done alot for parkinson's but only when other options run out and they are going to die from the disease in the foreseable future.

I think that an implant is most likely to appeal to those that seek enhancement - above and beyond the norm.

We need regulation for optional medical therapies aimed at enhancement - not to limit options but to ensure safety and efficacy.

"The question you raise is important though: what could happen if worst comes to worst and someone's dopamine system gets hijacked? I tend to doubt you could make someone give you all their money or jump off a building or anything like that: implant-driven behaviors require a period of repetitive training so maybe you would be limited to inducing relatively simple repetitive behaviors (gives a whole new meaning to the bully-phrase "stop hitting yourself" doesn't it?:P) or burn the dopamine system altogether. This is bad but if you want to hurt someone there are much easier ways than to try and hack their iPlant. What you could do if you could control someone else's serotonin system is anyone's guess at this point."

it's true that there already exist many ways to control people - but direct control over the motivational system and thought processes/consciousness makes it possible to do it more completely and even unknowingly to the one being controlled.

Imagine being kidnapped and brainwashed using your implants to be an assasin for the mob, or a military spy - there wouldn't be any way to resist. So I'm thinking the stimulator/regulator CPU would have to be physically hack proof as well - which could only be done to a matter of degree.

in the future we might have an army of asexual, enhanced transhumanist wireheads who are blissfully devoted to scientific research and promotion of the Abolitionist project.