Talk:Brain stimulation reward

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nigist1921.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ICSS is in fact an extracranial stimulation

As described by Olds & Milner 1954, ICSS (intracranial self-stimulation) was in fact an extracranial self-stimulation, because the animal stimulated itself by an external device (electrode) implemented by a human investigator.

Only humans (H. sapiens) -- more exactly: philosophers (i.e., people loving their own ideas, wisdom, and thoughts and ideologies) -- are capable of some really intra-(!)cranial self-stimulation, i.e., stimulating themselves by purely internal means (ideas, thoughts, theories, ideologies, etc.).

Interestingly, such purely internal "self-stimulations" are linked with protestantic theology: see Martin Luther's fear of some "Self-justification" in the 16th c. (the beginning of modern man and a new philosophy, replacing the old theory of some "justification by god" by Thomas Aquinas).

Unfortunately, the neural and genetic underpinnings of such (theologic, philosophic, and even scientific) behaviours are not understood -- it is still not clear why only humans (but not the rats of Milner & Olds) are capable of some purely internal "self-stimulations" (e.g., when reading, developing new scientific theories that are rewarding per se, etc.). Hence, is is still not understood, how "modern man" and its psychological set-up (after Luther et al.) came into existence...

Hence, the term "intracranial self-stimulation" should only be applied to humans (philosophers, ideologists, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.204.42 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to have your own opinion, but please don't force it into Wikipedia articles. Unless these ideas can be attributed to a reputable published source, they don't belong here. (For what it's worth, lots of scientific terminology is suboptimal in one way or another, but once terminology has been widely established it is nearly impossible to change, and trying to do so generally just annoys people.) Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"our" culture is based on imprecise terms everywhere -- no wonder that all foundations of "our culture" today are shaky. For example: Atom means "unsplittable" -- but this is no longer true. And: most people (including mathematicians) are not able to draw a distinction between "map" and "mapping". -- Dirty terms everywhere (and also bad thinkers everywhere) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.114.101 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brain stimulation reward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208023854/http://www.mayoclinic.org:80/deep-brain-stimulation/? to http://www.mayoclinic.org/deep-brain-stimulation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]