Mentat Wiki | Hacker News Reader

Mentat Wiki

ludism.org

100 pointspmoriarty32 comments

These are useful techniques but they kind of miss the point. They all concentrate on the question of how to do something, but completely ignore the (much more interesing in my opinion) question of what to do. Besides raw intellectual ability good answer to this question requires creativity and also philosophical and ethical skills (that includes the ability to make tough decisions). Much harder.

Worth remembering who the mentats were in the Dune universe - servants of those in power.

Actually, I'm surprised the Dune universe never explored people who undertook at least some mentat training, at least in secret, to become better leaders, instead of merely relying on that group of human computers.

There's definitely references to people doing exactly that --- Paul Atreides is the one I can immediately find, although of course he's special.

Yeah, Paul is the product of generations of research into trying to produce their equivalent of the ubermensch, the Kwisatz Haderach. He does receive training as a Mentat from Thufir Hawat, but I think it is implied that such a thing only worked because of his Bene Gesserit training and the fact he is a superior example of humanity.

It's been awhile since I've read through the Dune novel, I should go read it again.

Training Paul isn't just a BG byproduct. When he figures it out Thufir Hawat smiles and tells him it was the plan all along. I don't recall Leto or Thufir knowing about BG plans towards Paul.

Yes, iirc, neither Leto nor Thufir knew much about the BG plans.

Isn't Paul Atreides being secretly trained as such by Hawat? Or was it just Bene Gesserit training?

A bit of column A, a bit of column B. See my other reply.

Some things don't have whole answers that can be indexed in a wiki. Wisdom is extremely lossy in compression.

Actually on this point, Muad'dib was a mentat, and I think that's completely acoincidental with him being the Kwitsatz Haderach.

I think Muad'dib's Mentat training was one reason he didn't turn out to be the Kwisatz Haderach that the Bene Gesserit were counting on. Besides the whole part where Jessica jumped the gun and jiggled her ovaries to produce Duke Atreides a son, instead of the daughter who was supposed to grow up to marry Feyd-Rautha.

It is interesting that no comments mention the "SmartDrug" , or nootropics. There was a rumor that half of Silicon Valley CEOs use Modafinil,an important nootropics that enhance human's brain.

There are some new breakthrough in recent years about psychedelics that with low dosages, psychedelics can be more efficient nootropics. Psychedelics might give normal people some visualization capabilities that most famous geniuses have. It's good for graduate students to understand complicated math or engineering concept. There could be more new discoveries in Science because more normal people have genius brains.

Steve Jobs mentioned using LSD was one of two or three most important things in his life.That statement might be ignored by most people.It's quite likely that Jobs could never be the Jobs we know without LSD.

The Jobs we know is no genius. The only extraordinary thing about him is the ability to exploit people. As for psychadelics, they'll give you the ability to visualise things that normal people don't alright. Like random geometric shapes even after you've stopped using.

He was alright: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einste...

> .It's quite likely that Jobs could never be the Jobs we know without LSD.

It is equally likely that he might not have eschewed modern medical science in favor of woo and still be alive. <shrug>

LSD is a powerful drug. Why would it make him not believe in the importance of medicine?

I don't know; that's the point. There is NO WAY of knowing what Steve would or would not have believed, been, done, etc. without having had LSD.

On the other hand, Whitey Bulger credited LSD experiments he volunteered for while in prison for making him more paranoid and unstable[1]. Granted, the amounts inflicted on subjects in those CIA experiments was wildly beyond what pretty much any non-Deadhead or Merry Prankster would consume, and orders of magnitude beyond any nootropic microdosing scheme.

[1] http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/07/07/i-team-whitey-bulger-v...

Prison is not exactly the most healthy environment in which to take psychedelics.

Set and setting are critically important. Psychedelic states tend to make one highly vulnerable and suggestible. I would be surprised if taking them in prison did not have some negative effects.

The same goes for CIA experimentation, which was often done on unwitting subjects.

There are constructive and destructive ways to use these powerful tools. Experiments on prisoners and CIA mind-control experiments would qualify as the latter.

Modafinil comes with a litany of side effects, and is not for everyone (http://www.drugs.com/sfx/modafinil-side-effects.html). It also has 'minor' interactions with amphetamines like Adderal (http://www.drugs.com/drug-interactions/modafinil.html), a common 'card' in the 'stack' that many nootropics proponents use. Doctors come with years of training and pay a lot of money for it. Before going on possibly psychotropic drugs, talk to them, not some random dude online.

That it 'enhances' your brain is an incredibly complex statement too. Define enhance, define brain, define your brain. Is your enteric nervous system part of your brain? Will these drugs effect it too and enhance it? How do these drug's enhancements effect the nerves that control digestion, circadian rhythm (modafinil 'promotes wakefulness'), or the functions of reflexes or other autonomic processes like valve and sphincter control?

"It's good for graduate students to understand complicated math or engineering concept." Read that again. I don't know what crazy place you are in, but if you thing that taking small doses of very powerful hallucinogens is a good way to get work done, you need to find another job very quickly. Yes, it may unlock more 'science' or breakthroughs, but in doing so you put your body and more importantly you mind and sanity on the line (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/fyi-can-acid-t...). Yes, it is a small risk, but one you don't have to take.

Yes, Steve did talk about lsd and it being powerful experience for him (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/542554-taking-lsd-was-a-pro...). But from the quote, it seemed to be more of a 1 time experience, not a habitual thing of micro doses. Steve was going to be Steve with or without lsd, I think, though he seemed to think it helped motivate him.

All in all, eating right, sleeping well, and getting exercise are the best bang for your buck. As it has always been.

Is there any evidence at all that micro-doses of powerful hallucinogens are harmful?

Not that I could find, but there is a lot of evidence that higher doses of lsd is very harmful. I'd default to no lsd then.

>Not that I could find, but there is a lot of evidence that higher doses of lsd is very harmful. I'd default to no lsd then.

Why? Alcohol in high doses is also harmful, yet low doses are arguably beneficial.

And cyanide in any measurable dose is lethal. There just is not data here on micro doses of lsd, therefore, default to no.

I didn't check every link but I find it interesting that under "improving intelligence", there is no mention of the generations of work previous thinkers have put in to the question about how to be wiser/intelligent, or the question of what that means.

I'm not saying the answer lies in past philosophers, but I think it would be silly to discount previous work done in this area and focus on video games and drugs.

Which thinkers did you have in mind?

The Mentat Wiki has entries on mnemonic techniques like the Major System[1], Peg System[2], and the Loci System (aka Memory Palace)[3], which are hundreds if not thousands of years old.

It's not really fair to characterize the wiki as being all about "drugs and video games".

[1] - http://www.ludism.org/mentat/MajorSystem

[2] - http://www.ludism.org/mentat/PegSystem

[3] - http://www.ludism.org/mentat/LociSystem

I know I'm not the OP but John Dewey came to mind when I first read OP's comment. If I really sit down and dig through some of my books I'm sure I could pull up a few more.

The earliest reference of a number system I could find goes back 1,300 years, but I'd be completely surprised if the basic concepts weren't much older.

http://mt.artofmemory.com/wiki/Major_System#History

Example: in Greek and Hebrew, numbers were already mapped to letters, so it would be very small step to create mnemonics from the numbers based on the letters.

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Greek_numbers...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_numerals#Main_table

I was thinking of philosophers like the Greeks (Socrates, Plato, etc...), Jewish (Maimonides, Goan, etc...), Chinese (Confucius, Sun Tzu), Europeans (Descartes, Hume), American (Autobio of Benj Franklin, other autodidacts like Hamilton, Jefferson, etc). Now, a good argument against my list is that few of these sources have actual methods for becoming more intelligent, aside from general advice on how to live "a good life" (paraphrasing) which will allow one to be wise.

I hadn't seen the systems you mentioned so I will check those out, thanks.

I can see how my comment came across as implying it was all drugs and video games, which it is not and I should have chosen my words better. I was trying to convey the overall feel that I got from the site that becoming more intelligent can be done with quick interventions (which is entirely possible, but I think unknown).

This wiki is in its early stages so I can't fault it much. What I would like to see is a source of evidence behind each link it lists for improvements in memory, creative thinking, problem solving, etc... so that interventions can at least be ranked. The reality is presently we can't measure these things very well. Another nice addition would be early childhood interventions that have been associated with increased intelligence (something we do have data on).

I think some of that stuff is there, it's just buried. For instance, the first thing I thought of was Descartes, and his Rules for the Direction of the Mind, so I checked: it is listed [1], but there seems to be no discussion of it, and that page is the only mention of Descartes.

[1] on this page: http://www.ludism.org/mentat/BrainBooks

Interesting that there is no mention of better ideas.

(for example, people will choose to internalize ideas that are economically valuable, and if they happen to have applicability beyond that, they are likely to end up better thinkers as a by product of seeking that economic advantage)

Nice project, I'll be browsing it for the next hour or so. I do have a suggestion, however. Take the MemoryTechnique[1] page for example. It should begin with a very short introduction to the subject and be followed by a suggested reading order. The links are good but they need to be presented differently in order for users to find what they want more quickly.

[1]: http://www.ludism.org/mentat/MemoryTechnique

Reply on news.ycombinator.com