From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Transhumanism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Neurohacking is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal for Neurohacking and Biohacking ?

Wiki already cover biohacking, and the methods, technology and ontology are identical. ARAlexramonsky (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wetware hacker, Neurohacking, Wireheading Merge Proposal[edit]

There three articles seem incredibly similar and they are also in need of clean-up / expansion. Why not combine them and explain all the specific techniques within one article. I did a popularity check via google on the three terms and their variants:

  • Wirehead - 132,000 hits, but it is already semi-accepted jargon for a different concept [1]
  • Neurohacking - 10,600 hits
  • Wireheading - 944 hits
  • "Wetware hacking" - 207 hits
  • "Wetware hacker" - 108 hits
  • Neurohacker - 2,740 hits

From this view of things, I would suggest that we merge everything into neurohacking. What does everyone else think? --Ben Houston 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Note, the wireheading article has only had a total of 3 edits in the 8 months it has existed (excluding my recent merge proposal.) The wetware hacker article only has two edits by two editors in the 2 months it has existed (excluding my recent merge proposal.) The neurohacking article has existed 6 months and has 17 edits, by about 7 different editors. Thus it seems that all the articles are relatively obscure, although neurohacking again seems to be the least obscure of the bunch. --Ben Houston 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect your idea, especially after reviewing your user page. I hope that mine will reflect a similar contribution some day. Having said that, I would like to defend the wetware hacker article. It is more developed then neurohacking, and I think that it is interlinked with the definition of wetware that I revised recently. I would like to assit with your goal of Improving the Cybernetic End of Human-Computer Interaction. Bocaj 02:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thus are you recommending that we merge all three the articles into "Wetware hacker" instead? I would be fine with that. If not what do you believe is the key distinctions that differentiate "Neurohacking" from "Wetware hacking"? Also be aware that if we did merge into "neurohacking" we can move all the material from wetware hacker into the article and still mention that another term for the concept is "wetware hacker". I am not saying that the material in "wetware hacker" is less developed that "neurohacking", "wetware hacker" is obviously be best of the three articles, but that the term "neurohacking" seems to be more widely accepted. --Ben Houston 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I am recomending that we merge all three articles into wetware hacker instead. There is not a key distinction, but I instead base my recomendation on the thought that although neurohacking might have recieved more notice in the past, wetware hacker in a more accurate term. Bocaj 00:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm good with that. I'm too busy right now to make any major changes but I'll have more time on the weekend to do this merge. --Ben Houston 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What are we doing about the merge? I have never done one before, don't know about redirecting and such. Bocaj 17:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm taking a break from Wikipedia. Feel free to do the merge yourself. --Ben Houston 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, dont merge. there is a clear difference. Wetware hacking is modifying the existing brain. Neurohacking includes the hacking of a simulation of a brain (which exists after mind uploading). There is a difference. Also, wireheading only involves the hacking of the existing brain - and only in one specific way. Crippled Sloth 23:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wireheading is a subset of wetwarehacking. Wireheading as Wetware Hacker Technology That is an interesting read on neurohacking. I'm not sure if I see it that way. Bocaj 13:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than merging it might make more sense to further narrow and separate the definitions. Wetware hacking being more along the lines of social engineering based upon communicating via normal spoken, written, and imaging routes, done by individuals or groups, targeting individuals or groups. With nothing done to augment that, no drugs, no physical coercion, no devices, beyond devices used to transmit normal human communications, done in much the same manner as computer hacking but in a human communication sense. So humans seeking to alter the nature of humanity via the effective use of memory memes, would be a prime example of wetware hacking. So the logic follows, hardware hacking (computer hardware), software hacking(computer software running on computer hardware), wetware hacking(those things that use computer hardware and software). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:23C:6D00:F44B:E181:2429:15F0 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that a merger would not necessarily be helpful and may actually confuse the issue further. Remember that 'neurohacking' is not just about the brain; it is about neurons. You can neurohack your leg or your finger if you want to. Interrupting the signal of a nerve in order to stop pain anywhere is neurohacking. There is also a problem that serious practitioners are finding that people relate N-hacking more to the sci-fi/horror movies than the real life therapy or research [there used to be a similar problem in cryonics], and if we are aiming to be clear and informative here it's helpful to use terms such as DBS [deep brain stimulation] instead of 'wireheading'. AJ Ramonsky