Subject: RFD: sci.cognitive.enhancement

From: [email-masked] (Stanton McCandlish)
Date: 14 Jun 1994 11:49:52 -0400

Request for Discussion (RFD) - sci.cognitive.enhancement (unmoderated)

        Newsgroup: sci.cognitive.enhancement
           Status: unmoderated
     Distribution: world
          Summary: Techniques and tools for intelligence increase 
        Proponent: Stanton McCandlish <[email-masked]>
     Posting Date: June 10, 1994 (EDT)

This is a formal Request For Discussion on the creation of
the unmoderated newsgroup, sci.cognitive.enhancement

This message initiates a discussion period to consider the creation of
a sci.cognitive.enhancement newsgroup.  Discussion will take place on
news.groups.  All follow-up posts should be made to news.groups.
Initial suggestions for the group, status, and charter are given
below. These suggestions are subject to change and review as soon as
further opinions are provided.  Anyone interested in this proposal is
encouraged to participate in the discussion.

This message is not a Call For Votes (CFV).  The discussion process takes
22-30 days.  After this time, if it is seen that the group
misc.consumers.auctions is welcomed, an official CFV will be conducted by a
neutral third party.  If warranted, a second RFD may be posted before voting.

People reading this RFD may wish to mention it to friends and colleagues who
might be interested and benefit from a cognitive enhancement newsgroup.

This RFD has been posted in accordance with the "Guidelines for
Newsgroup Creation".  It's language is based on previously submitted
RFDs.  The RFD is being posted to a few other semi-relevant newsgroups,
and to several mailing lists.

INITIAL NOTE

I've waited over one and a half years to post this RFD, to see if any
appropriate newsgroup would show up.  It has yet to do so, so here it is. 
Amusingly, though my original idea for a name was sci.smartdrug, I settled
on sci.cognitive.enhancement as more accurate and less buzzwordy.  Thus, I
was quite happy to see sci.cognitive appear as a newgroup one day, but
unfortunately [for intelligence increase fans] sci.cognitive is about
cognitive theory, and not at all relevant for discussion of intellegence
increase drugs and techniques.  Fortunately, sci.cognitive.enhancement fits
nicely into the current heirarchy.  Other names were considered, such as
sci.psychology.cognitive.enhancement, etc., but all of them are longwinded.
I also considered alt.smartdrug, etc., but see no reason for a serious
subject like this to be relegated to the alternate hierarchy, thus dooming
it to limited distribution.

CHARTER

The unmoderated newsgroup sci.cognitive.enhancement will be open to
discussions on all topics related to intelligence and memory increase and
maintenance, including but not limited to:

* "smart drugs" (incl. nootropics, vitamins, herbs, and similar compounds)
* "mind machines" and other brain state related devices
* techniques for increasing intelligence and memory
* techniques for maintaining intelligence and memory
* techniques for regaining intelligence and memory lost due to aging,
  accident, etc.
* health, diet, and aging as related to cognition
* legal, regulatory, social, political, economic, and ethical issues 
  related to intelligence increase techniques.
* futures of intelligence increase including genetic or surgical modification
* reviews of products related to the above
* personal experiences in experimenting with such techniques, substances,
  and devices.
etc.

This newsgroup is intended for scientific discussion and reasoned debate.

This newsgroup is not for discussion of "mind expansion" via psychotropic
drugs, religious experiences, etc., nor is it for discussion of psychoses
and neuroses, general vitamin and other dietary/health issues, dream
interpretation, general phychology, neural networks, the "drug war",
marijuana legalization, raves, cyberpunk, and so forth.  All such topics,
though valid and interesting subjects, already have appropriate newsgroups
for their discussion.

Some limited commercial advertising should be tolerated if it
is of direct relation to the issues of cognitive enhancement, 
though advertising should normally be posted only in response to
a specific request from another participant for the particular
products or services being offered.

It is hoped that a FAQ will be developed.

RATIONALE

In the past decade, interest in increasing the abiltities of the human
mind has boomed, producing books, commercially available drugs and other
compounds, political debates, newsletters, a lot of people smarter than
they used to be.  

Usenet hosts many mentation-oriented forums, but none are directly
appropriate for discussion of this serious and important topic. 
"Smartdrug" talk frequently appears in a variety of newsgroups,
sometimes to the displeasure of those more interested in topics the
newsgroups were originally created for (including alt.drugs, sci.psychology, 
alt.cyberpunk, alt.extropians, talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.medicine,
other *politics*, alt.psychoactives, alt.wired, misc.health.alternative,
sci.life-extension, etc.)  The problem is that cognitive enhancement is
much more than a drug, politics, psychology, or health issue, and is an
ill-fitting peg in such holes.  Such posts are also frequent on a variety
of mailing lists, including extropians, futureculture, fringeware, etc.

Due to the nature of the field (or, more accurately the nature of
hidebound regulation affecting the field), finding information on
intelligence increase is often difficult, and concentrating the posts in one
easily recognizable and well-distributed newsgroup would greatly aid those
looking for sources, wanting to trade notes on the effects of various
compounds or devices, or seeking information on the current status of
legal and regulatory issues.

The name fits the current heirarchy, and is accurate and sensible.

Previous discussion approximately one year ago on the extropians mailing
list, in sci.life-extension, and with individuals interested in the
topic have supported the idea of creating this newsgroup.
-- 
Stanton McCandlish * [email-masked] * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
F O R   M O R E   I N F O,    E - M A I L    T O:     I N F O @ E F F . O R G 
O  P  E  N    P  L  A  T  F  O  R  M     O  N  L  I  N  E    R  I  G  H  T  S
V  I   R   T   U   A   L   C  U   L   T   U   R   E      C  R   Y   P   T   O

---

From: [email-masked] (Brian Manning Delaney)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 15:48:37 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jim Jewett) writes:
>In article <[email-masked]>, Stanton McCandlish <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>|>         Newsgroup: sci.cognitive.enhancement

>I notice that sci.cognitive is (appropriately) not among the related 
>groups.  I do wonder whether it should be a daughter of something
>completely unrelated.

I'd say:

"sci.cognitive-enhancement."

>I think it ought to go under drugs, perhaps as alt.drugs.smart, though
>I suppose that placement isn't perfect either.

"Smart drugs" is a term that most people into cog-enhancers don't
like.

But here's my main point: I'm not sure the group is needed.
Originally, when I was creating Sci.life-extension, the only reason I
waffled on whether discussions of cog-enhancers should be included in
Sci.life-extension was because it seemed that Alt.psychoactives was
already an established place for this topic. But this no longer seems
to be the case. Also, the the founder of Alt.psychoactives says that's
not what the group was supposed to be for.

So I now think that cog-enhancers might well go best in
Sci.life-extension. The term "Life extension" almost always includes
cog-enhancement (under "adding life to years") as well as retarding
aging ("years to life").

Indeed, the vast majority of longevity drugs/techniques also increase
intelligence, and I can only think of a few cog-enhancers that are not
also purported to retard aging. And, more to the point, most people
who are into cog-enhancement are also into longevity -- that is, the
longevity benefit is not just a "nice side-benefit."

Whether or not this is true of all people into cog-enhancement, the
issues really are intimately intertwined. One of the great things
about Sci.life-extension -- excluding the "drivel" periods that
afflict all Usenet groups... -- is that a discussion will start up
about, for ex., the effect of DMAE on neuron membrane structure and
how this might retard neuron aging, and then the discussion naturally
flows into -- or, is one and the same with -- the cog. changes that
result from DMAE, how these might be enhanced by other drugs, etc.
This happens often. Longevity and cognitive-enhancement or so deeply
related that the two issues can be separated only artificially, for
the most part.

Also, many of the drugs involved in life-extension (longevity and
cog-enhancement) are quite dangerous. People who are aware of these
dangers are often hard to come by. It would be a drag if warnings
appeared in one group and not in the other. There is little oversight
of these drugs by official overseeing bodies. This is in most ways a
good thing, but it means that we have to watch out for each other.

I don't mean to try to "hog" all the issues in the group I started. I
actually would be happy to create a new group who's name reflected
both cog-enhancement and the quest for longevity more equally, given
that "life extension," for some people at least, seems to rule out
cog-enhancers. I just want to make sure that knowledge gets to the
people who need/want it.

But if we absolutely have to create a new group -- and I still think
this is a bad idea -- I think we should do a more global group
rearrangement:

Sci.life-extension.cognitive-enhancers
Sci.life-extension.cryonics
Sci.life-extension.longevity

Do we need separate votes to do this? That might be too much of a
pain.

In any case, let's hear more about why a new groups is needed. I
really would rather not fracture what is still a small community.

-- 
Brian M. Delaney <[email-masked]>
              or <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (A. Michael Piper)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 00:04:02 -0700

> 
> It seems to me that though perhaps not an established scientific
> discipline, cognitive enhancement *is* a scientific endeavor.  I
> would at least hope that it would be approached as one.  I would
> not object to it being placed under the misc hierarchy, however.
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Lee Fogel/\/\/\/\/\eVerything/\Is/\possiBlE/\/\/\/\/\[email-masked]
> ____________________________________________________________________________
My opinion is similar to Lee's.  I agree with the original premise; that
this is a legitimate topic, perfectly suited to this type of forum,
considering the dubious legal nature of such discussions.  Information on
this topic is difficult to come by, and then often only from questionable
sources.  Access to some of these substances, ( legal for personal
consumption, yet not legal for sale) is often convoluted and full of shady
possibilities.  A group dedicated to this topic could become a
clearinghouse of personal experiences, providing possible safe and legal
methods of access, rather than leaving interested or curious people to fend
for themselves.
-- 
The War on Drugs (W.O.D.) is a Civil War....
        Which side are you on?
Relegalize and repeal prohibition, for freedom and democracy.