Hacker News Reader

Comment by matart | Hacker News Reader

Could someone explain this to a layman like myself, please

It's a model for explaining improvements in cognitive function. The idea is that the brain's energy consumption is fixed, so when you improve its function on something it costs you from elsewhere. So if you take Adderall to get better at school, you're not getting a brain improvement, you're just reallocating resources. It's more like moving money from your Chase account to your Wells Fargo account than it is like getting richer.

During the lead up there are also interesting bits like "if you suppress one part of the brain another does better at its task" and models that explain the interesting behaviour.

In other words, does this amount to abuse of an already maximally efficient organ, resulting in short term gains in exchange for what amounts to injury or perhaps chronic subclinical injuries?

From the abstract:

  based on the assumption that brain 
  resources are subjected to the physical 
  principle of conservation of energy

Which is to say, nothing material is added to the equation, and thus, nothing useful is actually extracted. Conceptually, the idea is to question whether we're really just burning the candle at both ends, to get more light.

Compare to steroid abuse in athletes, resulting in a statistically significant shortening of lifespan.

I doubt this is true. There are smarter people and there are simpler ones. I guess they're in the same ballpark WRT energy usage. Could you turn the latter into the former? Why not?

But that's a different question, isn't it? We are talking about "overclocking" the brain, so to speak, not necessarily making one smarter or dumber. The speculation here (if I understand correctly) is that "overclocking" the brain has a cost somewhere, but that doesn't imply that smarter people are running "overclocked" brains per se.

I suppose anything is possible, though that may well be much more challenging if intelligence is a function of the physical configuration/arrangement of the neurons in the brain. The interesting question if the structure theory is true, is what kinds of effects that would have on the sense of self, and of consciousness as a whole.

That sounds like an assumption, not a conclusion, though.

Also, most of human history (and especially mammalian history) has been relatively food-energy-limited. But we've solved that problem with the agricultural revolution and automation. Does this mean we've removed that barrier?

Hence why it is worded as a question?

> Which is to say, nothing material is added to the equation, and thus, nothing useful is actually extracted. Conceptually, the idea is to question whether we're really just burning the candle at both ends, to get more light.

We could try adding ATP molecules while decreasing cellular decay, I think that would be great, maybe Karma will Punish us but I bet if we fuck around a bit we can do better. But also I think the biggest challenge is political, arguing against people who feel discomfort by the finite and disappointing abilities of their brain organs, projecting their need for comfort to avoid being left behind

Also a layman, but from my reading of the abstract, the net zero sum model is saying that ultimately the brain does about as well as it's going to, given its physical constraints. It's the equivalent of "no matter how much you overclock your CPU, you'll still be limited by thermal dissipation."

If it's thermal dissipation (which is believable, as Adderall increases your body temperature), that can be solved artificially: wear a wet towel, increase air conditioning, or wear a cold pack.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com