I'm tired of drugs, /sci/. Every interesting drug I can think of comes with a nasty body load, and a whole array of undesirable side-effects. It seems like flooding the brain with chemicals is just too crude a method: you have no control over which parts of the brain are kicked into higher gear.So here's my question: how viable is it to manufacture pharmacological nanobots that can be programmed to not only bind to specific receptors, but do so only in specific parts of the brain? Are we going to see such a thing within our lifetime? Could we one day simply program our own stimulants, psychedelics etc. to get more out of our brains? It seems like a more viable path towards mind enhancement than traditional drugs or cybernetic implants.
>>13750015>how viable is it to manufacture pharmacological nanobots that can be programmed to not only bind to specific receptors, but do so only in specific parts of the brain?This is very difficult to do, at least in humans. In animal research we have a technique called DREADDs*, which means we design a receptor, a drug that fits to that receptor specifically, and express the receptor on a particular type of neuron in a pre-specified location. However, this requires some genetic modification of the animal prior to it being born, which we obviously cannot do in humans that are alive already. Endogenous receptors are distributed throughout the brain, their function can vary across areas, and you'd need some sort of molecular detection mechanism that allows binding in a context-specific manner. I don't know of any way that is possible to do. > Are we going to see such a thing within our lifetime? Unfortunately, I don't think we are. *https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4759656/*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_activated_solely_by_a_synthetic_ligand
>>13750057What if you implant tiny "location markers" in several areas of the brain that broadcast signals? Couldn't you encode various locations as linear combinations of the signal intensities from the location markers? They you could have different types of nanobots for different receptors, and program a certain fraction of your nanobots to turn on when they happen to pass in the vicinity of this area or another. It's not gonna be perfectly precise, but it'd be something... Do you think that would be possible?
I think I recently read a new study about nanoparticles that can move to a specific region of the brain, strangely I can't find it now. And it could be that they used magnets or something. There's lots of research about things like that.Also there'shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle_for_drug_delivery_to_the_brain
>>13750079Probably technically you could, but it would involve surgery or injections into your brain. That's not quite trivial.Another aspect to consider here is that this way of doing things is somewhat rooted in the out-dated thinking that particular cognitive or perceptual functions are localized to specific locations within the brain. This way of thinking is intuitive, but reality is more complex. If you want to interfere with a particular process in the brain then your best bet isn't to manipulate a localized area of the brain, but a set of distributed neurons that subserve that process specifically. Does that make sense?
>>13750082 I think I found it: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2021.702566/fullThere's also https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.aaz9519
>>13750082 The link is missing an s after nanoparticle
>>13750087>it would involve surgery or injections into your brain. That's not quite trivial.That's true, but I figure it'd still be less invasive than something like NeuraLink.>Another aspect to consider here is that this way of doing things is somewhat rooted in the out-dated thinking that particular cognitive or perceptual functions are localized to specific locations within the brain.I'm aware that there is no one-to-one mapping between brain areas and brain functions, but it seems like there's still an association between certain patterns of brain activity and certain states of mind, and I figure triggering desired patterns of brain activity is much easier when you can at least roughly control neurotransmitter levels in different areas.>If you want to interfere with a particular process in the brain then your best bet isn't to manipulate a localized area of the brain, but a set of distributed neurons that subserve that process specifically. Does that make sense?Not exactly. Are you talking about finding the neurons that kick off the "chain reactions" that lead to different brain processes, and triggering them on demand?
>>13750082>>13750089That's very interesting and in vein with what I'm imagining. Thanks, anon.
>>13750015Benzos have no nasty body load or side effects. Withdrawals can kill you, but personally I have abused them a lot (not abuse, more like just popping one a day) and cold turkey'd many times.
>>13750307>Benzos have no nasty body load or side effectI said:>Every interesting drugI don't see how benzos are interesting.
>>13750409Try Valium, unlike Xanax it has a tranquilizing effect which is incredibly pleasant. When I tried DMT, the first effect that hits with DMT is identical to Valium (but then the sheer terror and madness kicks in shortly after so you can't enjoy it).
>>13750447>it has a tranquilizing effect which is incredibly pleasantThat's not interesting to me. I'm interested in drugs that enhance cognition; benzos do the opposite.
>>13750459So you probably want therapeutic doses of Ritalin. Not Adderall as that will have severe consequences.
>>13750495Don't tell me what I want, anon. It has nothing to do with what you want. Also, didn't I already tell you already to stop abusing benzos a couple of weeks ago?
>>13750552What are you talking about?
>>13750557Yeah, I remember you and your wank about how consciousness is "nothing".
>>13750567>>13750552hahaha holy shit you need meds anon, I was about to write you a decent reply for the OP but clearly you're unhinged and not thinking straight. lol cause I was gonna say there are loads of interesting drugs without side effects, you just havent tried them. But its clear now this thread is mania and you're not looking for advice or discussion but rather an outlet to outwardly place your delusions
>>13750573Seethe harder. You've contributed absolutely nothing to this discussion. The thread wasn't about babby's favorite drugs.
>>13750579I know. its about you and the gay fanfics you write in your head about nano-bots.
>>13750599Yeah. Anyway, stop abusing benzos. They literally make you retarded over time, and every post of yours is evidence.
ROA and pharmacokinetics matter as much as or maybe even more than pharmacodynamics Anon. An easy example of this is stimulants. Oral dosing of extended release stimulants achieve a steady state concentration of the drug in your blood. This leads to the drug primarily increasing tonic dopamine levels rather than phasic. Which achieves the goal of increasing PFC activity without flooding the limbic system without dopamine. I'm paraphrasing from Stahl's here and I'm no psychiatrist or neuroscientist but we already do have better tools than just flooding a system with neurotransmitters.