In the past, I’ve mentioned my sense that chronic pain has several elements: the pain itself, your attention to the pain, and your emotional reaction to the pain. (This is probably true with all types of pain but is more noticeable with chronic nagging pain.)
One day in 1994, a colleague of Hoffman’s told him he’d been observing patients at a burn center using hypnosis to control pain. His colleague wasn’t exactly sure how the treatment worked, but he thought it had something to do with distraction.
“Distraction?” Hoffman said. “I’ll show you distraction,” and he showed his friend SpiderWorld.
Not long after, Hoffman went to meet the hypnotist himself, who agreed VR sounded like a pretty good idea. On the very first burn patient they tried, SpiderWorld worked. He simply forgot to think about his pain.
From there it sounds like they’ve had impressive results.
I had to take my Dad’s Mac in for repairs at the Apple Store. To do this, you have to take the computer to a section of the shop called the Genius Bar which is purportedly staffed by friendly Apple “geniuses” who know everything about computers. This is one of those situations where you are embarrassed for another person, in this case, the 20 something dork making 9.50$ an hour who has to refer to himself as a genius.
I’d love to go in there and yell, “So you’re some kind of genius? You want to tell me why my wife left me? 22 years of marriage down the shitter! Explain that Einstein!”
In the Steven Pinker book, “How the Mind Works,” he describes the following thought experiment (not his own): presume it is possible, in a person’s brain, to replace a single neuron with some kind of technological equivalent — a special wire that passes signals exactly the way a neuron would. Now replace not a single neuron, but 10 of them, then 100, then 1 billion, until you have replaced every neuron in a person’s brain with this replacement wire. At what point, if ever, does that person stop being “them”?
I’m reminded of that thought experiment while reading this review for a new book called “Connectome.” The book takes a skeptical but not dismissive look at one of the goals of the trans-humanism movement: to effectively and totally map the complex behaviors and connections of an individual brain’s neurons so that people could “upload” themselves to a computer.
The review breaks it down…
The central question for Seung—and the one that also keeps the transhumanists on tenterhooks—is whether you are your connectome. If you could deduce every connection point of every brain cell, the strength with which each neuron fires, and the way these firing patterns change as the cells interact with each other, would, in fact, you be left with a copy of you?
I’m dubious about this for two reasons. One, even if it were possible to totally map out an individual’s brain, you’re effectively only creating a clone of that person. I might be able to create a clone of myself, a technological marvel that could continue my philosophical and musical endeavors, as well as adding to my vast repertoire of sexual pleasuring techniques, but that would not be me. The real me, a biological entity, will eventually wither and die. Unless someone can explain how the consciousness in my body could somehow be passed to this clone, I fail to see how we could live forever. (And this isn’t even getting into the fact that we have a very vague, ethereal understanding of what consciousness is.)
Secondly, I’m largely of the opinion that our experience as individuals is not simply a matter of what’s in our brains, but in how our brain interacts with our body e.g. the sensations it gets from the body, the feelings generated by hormones coming from non-brain organs in the body etc. This software simile of me would have none of that, and likely very quickly evolve into an entity seeming very different from “myself.”
I’ve long touted the benefits of voice dictation software, and have specifically mentioned that I think it’s the ideal means of interaction with tablet computers such as the iPad (because the on-screen keyboard built into tablet computers suck balls.) That said, this device is pretty cool. It basically projects a keyboard onto a surface. You can type on this virtual keyboard to enter data into your tablet computer. From the site:
This tiny device laser-projects a keyboard on any flat surface… you can then type away accompanied by simulated key click sounds.
I’ve mentioned in the past my belief that the advent of digital piracy and its ability to suck profits from almost any creative endeavor — music, film, books — will result in an artless (and subsequently heartless) society which will descend into cannibalistic savagery. At this point in history, I see this argument as irrefutable.
Perhaps we’re beginning to see the dark at the end of the tunnel. The LA Times reports…
Film director Penelope Spheeris’ new comedy, “Balls to the Wall,” had barely premiered in Europe when bootleg copies started popping up on the Internet, throwing its U.S. release into jeopardy. A Spheeris assistant sent out as many as 30 cease-and-desist notices a day in a desperate, but failed, attempt to halt the piracy.
…
That helps explain why Spheeris and other filmmakers are backing tough new legislation making its way through Congress that would give the Justice Department broad powers to shut down websites that host pirated material and would open the door for movie studios, music companies and other copyright holders to seek court injunctions against Internet companies they believe are aiding in copyright theft, which amounts to $58 billion a year.
…
The fight is curiously nonpartisan, with conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats teamed on both sides of the issue. Some of the split is based on which industry is more dominant in a lawmaker’s region. Many Southern California representatives back Hollywood’s position, and most Northern California members side with the Internet companies. But political philosophy also plays a role, leading anti-big-government conservatives to join with liberal civil libertarians in opposition to giving Washington what they fear would be broad censorship power over websites.
The following quote, illustrates what I’ve always viewed to be the issue.
“It’s the No. 1 issue for us,” said Scott Harbinson, international representative for the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, which has 113,000 members in the U.S. and Canada. “If people aren’t investing in motion picture production because of piracy, our guys don’t work.”
And why invest in making movies if they’re just going to end up on the Internet for free? And thus you see the clear path towards cannibalistic savagery.
That said, this bill looks troubling to me. Particularly this part…
The pending bills in the House and Senate would give the Justice Department power to seek court orders requiring U.S. search engines and Internet sites to block access to foreign websites hawking pirated material. Private companies such as Paramount Pictures and Sony Music Entertainment would also be able to seek court orders preventing such sites from receiving ads and payments services from the U.S.
That grates against my libertarian tendencies by putting the onus of the crime not on the person who clicks a link to a pirate site, but on the person or company hosting the website or search engine which links to the pirate site.
By the way, Penelope Spheeris was profiled at acid logic here.
Biofeedback is an interesting therapeutic technique that’s been around for decades. As I understand it, electrodes or various monitoring tools are hooked up to a person’s skin, allowing patients to monitor specific facets of their body, such as whether a certain muscle is becoming tense or whether blood pressure is spiking etc. They can then practice specific relaxation techniques and get confirmation that those techniques are making a difference.
It strikes me that men have been employing a variation of this technique for centuries. Often a man will be having sex with a woman, and realize he is about to approach orgasm long before her. Since the dawn of time, men have utilized the practice of mentally reciting meaningless baseball statistics to “talk themselves down” from orgasm.
I’m wondering if the modern tools of biofeedback could be applied here. Let’s say you invite a lady friend over for dinner. After a succulent meal, you retire to the couch, each of you holding a white wine. Candles flicker and light jazz plays on the stereo while your voices murmur quiet conversation. You lean forward to kiss her, her soft lips caressing yours. You reach into her blouse, past her bra, and rub warm, excited nipples. Her hand caresses your neck, her hot breath blows into your ear. Your red, pulsating member is engorged with life, pleasurably running against the inside of your pants. And then you hear it, a shrill robotic voice screeching…
“ALERT! ALERT! THE X 23400D MONITORING SYSTEM REPORTS IMMINENT ORGASM IN THREE MINUTES. SEXUAL EXCITEMENT MUST BE REDUCED! I REPEAT, SEXUAL EXCITEMENT MUST BE REDUCED!”
As a result, you are able to pace your sexual activities for both you and your partner. It’s a win-win.
I mentioned earlier my discovery of Amazon.com’s new “library.” Details at the time were a bit vague, but America’s leading investigative Journal — PC mag — has gotten the scoop.
There are currently 5,377 Kindle e-books available to Prime members. The top five books include For Time and Eternity (Sister Wife) by Allison Pittman, the Hunger Games trilogy from Suzanne Collins, and Fuse of Armageddon by Sigmund Brouwer and Hank Hanegraaff. There are also some classics like Dracula, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Treasure Island and Little Women, as well as more recent hits like Water for Elephants.
Looks like Amazon is focusing on the meaningless pablum sought after by most of brain-dead humanity. But there’s an interesting twist…
The selection of e-books, however, is causing some controversy. According to the Wall Street Journal, the six largest U.S. publishers are not participating due to concern over future sales, but the LA Times points out that some publishers who opted out were surprised to see their books on the lending list anyway. The Times said Amazon is getting around this because it bought the books at wholesale, meaning it can sell the titles for any price. Ideally, Amazon would sell it for the publisher’s set price, but it’s not restricted to those prices.
It remains to be seen how this will affect the marketplace for books. This question also pops into my head: what if Amazon starts lending out movies and video games?
In the past, I’ve ruminated on what the effect e-books and their corresponding readers such as the Amazon Kindle will have on the concept of public libraries. The original concept behind libraries was that the great unwashed — the stinking snoring mediocrities that make up most of the human populace — deserve access to the educational possibilities of books. At the time, some probably argued that making books free would destroy the market for books (why buy a book when you can get one for free?), but library proponents correctly argued that the fact that libraries would only have one or two copies of a book would keep the market alive.
However, with digital books there’s theoretically no such limitation. If a library has one digital copy of a book, it effectively has infinite copies. My understanding is that, currently, libraries treat digital copies as physical books e.g. they only lend out one “instance” of a book at a time. Thus the marketplace for books remains relatively unaffected.
I went over to Amazon today and discovered that they are implementing their own library system for Kindle users. Effectively, you can “borrow” books from the Amazon “library.” Will this destroy the market for books? Since it’s Amazon doing it, it’s likely that they’ve put in place the appropriate mechanisms to prevent such destruction. Nonetheless, I think this is a thorny issue and only getting thornier. Once book piracy becomes as prevalent as music piracy, it seems only obvious that the market for books will be substantially affected. And if people can no longer make money writing books, we will no longer have books and the corresponding dissemination of knowledge, and it will be an absolute certainty that civilization will descend into brutal, cannibalistic anarchy. I predict this will happen within five years.
There’s an interesting article in a recent issue of the New York Times exploring whether MRIs tend to encourage incorrect analysis of pain symptoms.
This doesn’t surprise me; there’s actually quite a bit of research on this topic. Books by the often mentioned Dr. John Sarno referenced the fact that people without back pain who undergo MRIs are often told they have some back deficiency. The book “How We Decide” by Jonah Lehrer also has a chapter on the topic. The history of MRI use, which I’m recalling from memory, is rather interesting. Essentially, people have had back pain for centuries. And when MRIs came on the scene, they were employed on back pain sufferers. The MRIs often showed some “abnormality” — a herniated disc or whatnot — and surgery would be recommended. A bit later — in the 60s or 70s — the medical establishment started using MRIs for stomach ailments like ulcers. Often they would find the source of the stomach pain, and also note something like, “this guy must have massive back pain as well. Look at his herniated discs!” Upon hearing this, however, the patient would say, “I don’t have back pain.”
From the New York Times article:
Dr. James Andrews, a widely known sports medicine orthopedist in Gulf Breeze, Fla., wanted to test his suspicion that M.R.I.’s, the scans given to almost every injured athlete or casual exerciser, might be a bit misleading. So he scanned the shoulders of 31 perfectly healthy professional baseball pitchers.
The pitchers were not injured and had no pain. But the M.R.I.’s found abnormal shoulder cartilage in 90 percent of them and abnormal rotator cuff tendons in 87 percent. “If you want an excuse to operate on a pitcher’s throwing shoulder, just get an M.R.I.,” Dr. Andrews says.
…
…scans are easily misinterpreted and can result in misdiagnoses leading to unnecessary or even harmful treatments.
You might ask, “Why? Why would doctors utilize demonstrably false data?” As usual, it’s all about the Benjamins.
The price, which medical facilities are reluctant to reveal, depends on where the scan is done and what is being scanned. One academic medical center charges $1,721 for an M.R.I. of the knee to look for a torn ligament. The doctor who interprets the scan gets $244. Doctors who own their own M.R.I. machines — and many do — can pocket both fees. Insurers pay less than the charges — an average of $150 to the doctor and $960 to the facility.
Atul Gawande reported on this concept — the practice of doctors referring patients for tests that the doctors will gain financially from — in his now famous New Yorker article.
I have some personal experience in this matter as well. As I’ve mentioned, several years ago, I suffered from long-term dizziness and brain fog. A brain MRI was ordered to check for the telltale lesions of multiple sclerosis. A single lesion was found and determined not to be MS, but the doctors were basically incapable of providing an answer. About a year went by, during which I did some Internet research which led me to believe it was an inner ear issue. I went to an ear nose and throat doctor, and he dismissed my argument (incorrectly, it turned out.) He was interested in the brain MRI, but, during the course of the appointment, was willing to accept the findings of the previous doctors (that it wasn’t MS.) But at the very end of our meeting, he said something like, “Why don’t we go ahead and do another MRI just to be safe?”
So, I went ahead and did the MRI (at about $1500 cost to me, and much more to my insurance.) Several days later I called up the MRI lab. To help them find my record, I gave them the name of the doctor. They said something like, “Oh yes, we know him. He’s a frequent flyer.” (Meaning he orders a lot of MRIs.)
I found that suspicious at best. The doctor hadn’t seemed that interested in ordering the MRI until the tail end of the appointment. Had he ultimately decided that no harm could come of it, and his wallet might benefit? I don’t know, obviously. I only know one thing. Doctors are scum.
Oh, and by the way, a neurologist I saw later confirmed that the dizziness WAS an inner ear problem.
Lately, I’ve been making an attempt to learn some basic travel German. I’m finding that YouTube has a ton of language instruction videos that are quite useful because you can hear the words as well as see them (unlike, say, an instruction book.) I’ve also discovered a phenomenon I was unaware of: young hot girls posting videos of themselves teaching languages.
Obviously, this is just a desperate attempt on their part to find the male attention they so desperately need. But I figure, why not indulge them? Who wants to learn a foreign language from some fat, middle-aged loser (as we all did in high school)?
For instance, check out “German Kati.”
Then, there’s a ton of babes (plus some dudes — ech) at the “visual guide to German pronunciation” video.
But perhaps the most popular German language babe is “SpeedyConKiwi.” I like her because she’s actually not totally hot and thus seems approachable — she’s got that “yeah, I could hit that,” vibe.
With language instruction like this, who needs Internet porn?