Is it ever going to be worth it getting into this field or any of its subsets? Or is it a dead-end?
Thinking about two things: psychopharmacology, and consciousness uploading (and what it implies concerning VR and such).
Basically the only thing I can do with neuroscience-related knowledge and education is big pharma stuff?
About nepotism, that's not really a concern.
But eh, I don't know if working for the pharmaceutical industry is rewarding (not talking financially, but that seems to be the only good aspect of it).
Well, to be precise, I was wondering if there was an actual industry related to neuroscience, although I guess that's more /biz/ related.
Yeah, I realize consciousness uploading is pretty unattainable right now, I'll just broaden it by saying I'm interested in brain-computer interaction in general.
Does the latter have a future? I mean robotics are becoming increasingly important, wouldn't BCI be in high demand in the coming years, as a field of expertise?
BCI would be an interdisciplinary theme though. I haven't looked into it, but I suspect it is more related to engineering, electronics, etc than the neuroscience part. It also has very limited usage right now I believe, in special cases of patients (e.g. blind, amputees etc).
An industry, as in entrepreneurship opportunities? I put that under pharma.
>Consciousness is hard to define
but easy to manipulate.
There's this one axiom, patent before you publish. Also NDA agreements everywhere. Basically you find something that you thing can be made into a product and then either yourself (not recommended) or someone else (preferably) will negotiate and contact your uni's TTO office (technology transfer office) and decide to either start a spin-off company or license the patent out.
>something that you think can be made into a product
Oh, so by researching pharmaceutical solutions and patenting whatever you find? I might not be explaining it well but is that the idea?
I don't believe that. But that doesn't mean it's not doable. However, from what I get, you want to use neurosciences more than research in them. Which means that you have to read about it and know a couple of people in the field and not perform experiments.
Also, if you're lucky you will invent one potential drug in your lifetime, which will be sold to pharma for phase 2-3 trials and that's it. Then you have to do something else. Sad, but true.
dream big OP
you can go the pharma route and tweak the system for a response and maybe make big $$$ etc.
but the whole uploading consciousness thing points you out as a dreamer. fucking go for it. make friends with an electrical engineer and start at the bottom. you've got a base with cochlear implants and advances in optics (making the blind light sensitive) and moving cursors around the screen with brainwaves and so on.
now pull all that shit apart and innovate. how can we enhance our optics? can you electrically map a burst of neurotransmitters to a guaranteed response? its electrical charge that causes them to fire doesn't it? replicate it.
the whole universe is built on charge. the brain is just a small universe. map the relationship between charge and action (in this case, action potential) and become a god!!!
or go grind in a drug factory and fix my hair loss please.
Neuroscience is suffering from a lack of a main theory of intelligence. Basically people are just probing around and don't know how everything connects, waiting for a Newton or Einstein to show up. Pursuing it purely is not advised. Go into pharmacology with emphasis on antidepressants if you want to study it and actually get a job afterwards.
>tweak the system for a response
What do you mean by that?
>points you out as a dreamer
Well I like to think that there are lots of scifi like industries that'll get real in the coming decades but that's not a viable professional scheme, you know?
>make friends with an electrical engineer and start at the bottom
Wait you actually think this is doable? That brain-computer interaction applications can be the foundation of a serious venture?
What you're talking about sounds interesting. But... It seems to be mostly EE. And the more I think about it, the more I see it involving EE, CS, and Biotech. But only neuro for theory. Am I mistaken?
>go grind in a drug factory and fix my hair loss
Human enhancement is interesting. But working for a big pharmaceutical company is not.
>thinks biotech is some how not inextricably linked to nanotech
>thinks, regardless, that nanotech on its own hasnt already produced incredible advancements for humanity
you are a fucking moron and the proof, ironically and among many other places, is in the computer you used to spout your idiotic horse shit.
> What do you mean by that?
i mean all pharma is is modifying an existing natural system by introducing compounds to it. block this receptor with introduced molecule X and achieve outcome / behaviour Y. it's awesome and all, but you are still bound by the organic chemistry (as beautiful as it is, it's just meat)
but if you dream of replicating these processes and responses electronically, well then you can take the first step to replicating (and then uploading) a consciousness or enhancing memory or response times or processing power etc. you need the neurological / neurochemical understanding to derive the natural algorithm at work. and the big thing to bear in mind that the whole natural process and algorithm is based on charge. its just moving potassium and sodium molecules around to create positive or negative charge.
>Well I like to think that there are lots of scifi like industries that'll get real in the coming decades but that's not a viable professional scheme, you know?
i hear you. it's a shame life is like that. but that doesn't mean snuff your dreams out.
>Wait you actually think this is doable? That brain-computer interaction applications can be the foundation of a serious venture?
why the fuck not? we've already cracked hearing (cochlear implants), we're moving cursors with brainwaves, giving sight to the blind, bypassing spinal injuries. what does all this work off? electrical charge. positive and negative, its the fundamental nature of everything. and who spends their life working with charge? EE's.
i just think that if you want to dream that big, you need to gather people from the other fields to help you do the sums. you bring the neurology. the EE brings the charge manipulation. the CS codes the thing.
so go work in a pharma to pay the rent, but just think outside your own field into how other fields would interact with whatever madness you are dreaming up. then find like minded mad scientists and innovate me my hoverboard.
It'll be worth it as long as they keep pumping out those cool wallpapers.
Will neuroscience make us able to figure out in the near future how to create a perfect virtual reality?
My dream is to be able to work on simulated universes, environment that are indistinguishable from the real world, have just as much detail and complexity, and operate in ways we want them to. Is that even remotely possible?
Please define: >upload consciousness
When I read people discussing these topics, be it by proponents of the Singularity, or by Michio Kaku on The Daily show, I find that the individuals are conflating access consciousness with phenomenal consciousness. And when doing so, one misleads oneself (and the public) into thinking that what is being uploaded is identical to that which is undergoing the "uploading"... when it is nothing but a false copy. A program that can replicate your exact responses, but in no way experiences phenomenal conscious existence.
>please see Ned Block
People who are interested in pursuing these fields with the hopes of meshing human consciousness with computers have their work cut out.
>we've already cracked hearing (cochlear implants), we're moving cursors with brainwaves, giving sight to the blind, bypassing spinal injuries.
I think that advancements such as this are going to continue to occur during our lifetime, and I believe that this is where OP's proposed field of interest is going to be expanding the most. As of right now, the limits of our understanding and technology only permit us the ability to make machines that are capable of rudimentaly relaying or responding to information that is either afferent or efferent. And I think it will remain this way until we have better tools to help us solve the, very-very, Hard Problem.
Are you talking about a holo-deck?
A simulated reality in your brain? Where you can feel the wind on your face?
The ability to create purposive imagery and feels in the brain would be rather costly, in terms of the necessary neuro-chemical cocktail dump. You'd be self generating qualia... And I don't think our brain can handle that over-clock. Nor would I say we're even close to that kind of technology.
I don't know what a holo-deck is; I'm just talking about the principle.
And yes, a simulated reality where you can feel the wind, see grains of sand as they appear in real life, be able to taste, smell, etc.
>the necessary neuro-chemical cocktail dump
Costly, but not unfeasible? Of course, we're talking working from the ground up. We're not going to immediately simulate an alternate reality, could we at least try modifying the brain's perception gradually?
>I don't think our brain can handle that over-clock
Why not? It handles normal neurochemical input. Why would it not handle the same kind of input, but in a different way, so that it perceives different things?
>even close to that kind of technology
Apart from the cost, why?
What fields of science would research and development for that kind of technology require?
Apart from knowledge of neurochemistry (to the PhD level I presume?) what other kind of knowledge is required?
>Why not? It handles normal neurochemical input. Why would it not handle the same kind of input, but in a different way, so that it perceives different things?
You're still talking about a glorified hallucination, and those are rather costly... Particularly when artificially induced.
I'd assume you'd need chemicals that mirror or warrant the same responses in the brain, without diminishing it's own reserves.
Then you'd need to know the correct neural mapping of the individual, and how they come to represent stimuli.
This is ruff shit dawg.
I wouldn't be so uncharitable. I'm sure there's a lot you could do to advance related fields, and still meet success.
I just think it might be a bit of a stretch to assume that either: a) it's possible, or b) it's possible in our lifetime. Even if met with constant failure, the necessary research that needs to be done in order to make these things possible is still a fruitful pursuit.
Well I wouldn't say I'm going to abandon it but given all the things that have been said in this thread I'm going to have to rethink my plans about it, although it doesn't necessarily mean giving up.
I mean, a few people said neuroscience was basically probing around, and a clusterfuck when it came to publishing and actual projects that involved other fields of science.
Another thing to take into account is that research isn't the end all for me, I want to build something, work on a project, pretty much what OP's talking about (entrepreneurship, I guess).
I guess that would be a realistic pursuit if I was into aerospace and astrophysics or the like, but as you said, the necessary research to determine if that stuff is even possible in the first place will probably involve a lifetime of work. I don't know if I'd like being a research scientist all my life.
A number of related fields have been lightly discussed:
>What you're talking about sounds interesting. But... It seems to be mostly EE. And the more I think about it, the more I see it involving EE, CS, and Biotech. But only neuro for theory. Am I mistaken?
I think whoever wrote this, is not mistaken.
I know this is /sci and not /lit, but I recommend you do a little reading in philosophy... Particularly metaphysics and epistemology.
I think that the current problem for your originally proposed field of research is that it has a number of current limitations. These problems have been discussed and argued about for a really long time, easily hundreds of years, but we've really only begun to understand the depth of the problem for... Maybe the last hundred?
It hasn't been until fairly recently that human beings have been argued to be incredibly complex, organic carbon machines. At least in a way that can credibly be defended and maintained.
The reason why people are inclined to call neuroscience a "soft science", is because it's really in its infancy. I mean first you have the countless neurons and synapses, various voluntary and involuntary command centers, and the chemicals that compose it's physical structure. Then you have phenomenal consciousness, which has struggled for decades to be sufficiently shown to be another necessary product of the brains physical structure. I honestly think that one day it will be shown that the brain = mind (or that the brain = P-consciousness), but we're not at that point yet, in philosophy or neuroscience.
However, I think the fields that will produce the best answers regarding these particular problems, are the fields that have been mentioned in this thread.
I really think that developing things like "Hard" A.I., (as mentioned previously) cochlear & ocular implants, robotic limbs, and (of course) the continued research and investment into neuroscience.
All this /sci talk is getting me torqued...
I'm a philosophy undergrad though. I've been a dropout for almost two years now. While I was attending school I dabbled around in anatomy, physiology, biology, and chemistry. Then I got all hot and bothered for more enigmatic and mysterious things. Ergo, perhaps I'm not the best person to ask advice from.
>I don't know if I'd like being a research scientist all my life
I could see why that might not be as rewarding as actually manifesting your ideas in reality. However, I think you're getting a little a head of yourself in assuming that these fields are limited to nothing more than raw research. Neuro is definitely more research heavy, and philosophy can be done from an arm chair. But I think if you used those two fields as a guide, I think a degree in CS, EE would be a good direction. That's, at least my plan. I think that the findings these fields will yield are ultimately going to be some of the most important findings of our species history.
I totally missed this shit.
If I remember correctly, our perception of time is; obviously subjective, a global process that varies depending on the sense being activated, emotional disposition, and is a separate process involving different regions when recalling past events.
I read recently that our perception of time also gradually changes with age. The neuroscience behind how humans perceive time is still in the works. As it's obviously very dynamic.
I tripped some mad balls on DMT one time though. My perception of time was completely gone (along with my ability to understand language). It only lasted about 15 minutes, but there were moments where I most definitely felt the complete absence of time. Or that I was briefly existing outside of it. So it's definitely something malleable.
I mean, like, inception, right? Pfft.
>is not mistaken
So, to start a project that involves virtual reality (and therefore neuroscience), one would be better off getting an EECS education than an actual neuro education?
What do you think would be overall the best path to take? Some kind of EE/CS undergrad, then what? Neuroscience/neurochemistry MS/PhD? Is that even possible?
If I understood well, what you're saying is that neuroscience as a field of study is both too broad and not advanced enough right now to be a viable academic path? And that one should rather opt for either one of its subsets, or the aforementioned fields (EE, CS, Bio)?
>cochlear & ocular implants
>continued research and investment
So, all of those should be taken on before actually trying to answer the real problem of neuroscience; therefore, it's not possible, in our current state of knowledge, to do anything else than try to make individual advances in those fields and keep poking around. No real neuroscience applications for now. Is that it?
>enigmatic and mysterious
What do you mean?
And yeah, I see where you're coming from. It's just that what I really wanted to do was contribute to making VR a thing in my lifetime, and that now that I know that it implies getting a whole bunch of other things worked out first, I don't know what to do really.
So, do you personally think the perception of time could be modified, if the factors it depends on can be influenced? Realistically, and in a controllable way?
How was it?
Do you think research of such substances can yield interesting discoveries?
I wrote a book and then my phone died...
If you're seriously interested in continuing this conversation anon, I wouldn't mind doing so. Although VR is not my desired direction, we share a similar interest. I want to go into CS and try my hand at advanced AI. Which, if modeled after human intelligence, will need help from neuro, bio, epistemology, EE, and various other fields.
I have a kik, it's: ecerex
If/when this thread dies, which is probably soon, just message me if you want to keep discussing this shit.
Of course neuro is worth getting into. Jobs for it are pretty scarce though, so I would definitely have a backup plan no matter what field of neuro you are interested in.
There is industry research, for example IBM hires neuroscientists to develop neuromorphic hardware. You can also check out companies like Emotiv who use neuro to develop what are essentially expensive, but cool toys. Of course there's that whole pharma deal >>6558393 if you're into that. There's probably some more biotech stuff out there, but I'm unaware of it as I tend to focus on computational neuroscience.
This is what kills science. I blame Marconi. It's as bad as software patents, maybe worse.
Think about it this way : people in general will always work / search for work which doesn't require multidisciplinary training ;
I know for a fact there aren't as many neuroscientists as there are engineers for instance -; therefore you should go for it ! If you're good at it you will surely find a job ;
Guy with BS in neuroscience here, working as research assistant, got multiple first authors pubs, served as a reviewer for a journal, presented at conferences, etc.
Here's my advice OP:
TURN BACK NOW
Neuroscience has little industrial application. Drug discovery isn't done by neuroscientists, that's pharmacologists and chemists. When a neuroscientist is hired by a pharma company, it's usually to screen candidate drugs with biological and/or behavioral assays.
Brain-computer interfaces are still in their infancy. Even assuming a commercial application does come up (eg: very advanced neuroprosthetics), that'll be handled mostly by electrical engineers and biomedical engineers.
Research in the US (really everywhere) right now is an abysmal state. It's so bad I've had multiple tenured professors tell me to find another career which is what I'm doing. I suggest you don't make my mistake and go find yourself something that actually has jobs, like business or computer science.
Cognitive science/cog neuro is really cool stuff, but it's entirely theoretical. As a result, your career can only be academic research, which is a problem because having "tenure track professor" as a career goal is quickly becoming as realistic as "Hollywood A-lister" in terms of likelihood of actually getting that career. Also, you're going to have a much harder time getting NIH grants since you're not very biomedical which again is a big problem since the NIH is the biggest funding source in the US (if not the world), and by a very substantial margin. The NSF is practically impoverished.
But if you want to go ahead with that, you sound like you could get into a pretty good PhD program. However, as a cog sci major with cog neuro minor, you've probably got a decent computer science background, right? Unlike basic science, comp sci is doing very, very well right now. Lots of jobs, lots of money. And if you like cog sci, you'll most likely like comp sci too.
>a backup plan
Would it be more intelligent to major in something more general? Eg, biology, BME, biotechnology?
In which case is it absolutely necessary to major in neuroscience?
>Emotiv who use neuro
What would be the most important field to be proficient in for neuro-related devices? Biotechnology in general? I'm talking from some kind of project leader standpoint.
Is it CS applied to neuroscience?
Why? What can that lead to?
>VR is a thing
How so? And what are its forms right now?
But that doesn't really involve neuroscience does it? It's more about optics and such, no?
So as I said, a more general field would be better?
>Would it be more intelligent to major in something more general? Eg, biology, BME, biotechnology?
>What would be the most important field to be proficient in for neuro-related devices? Biotechnology in general? I'm talking from some kind of project leader standpoint.
The guy funding it or anyone with years of experience that is qualified.
>Is it CS applied to neuroscience?
It's math applied to neuroscience, but computer programming is heavily used.
psychology is a dead end. neuroscience is the future. if you like working in some lab with rats, do neurobiology, if you like chem. neuropharmacology, if you like CS computational neuroscience, if you like brains neurosurgery.
What do you think would be the best choice?
I'd like to work on human enhancement in general. I'm not really sure if I want to specialize early; I'm interested in a lot of things
>artificial limbs and organs (biotech), life expectancy increases (pharmacology?)
>virtual reality as it was mentioned in the thread already
>modifying characteristics, like altering phenotype and genotype (to allow for a new sort of plastic surgery, for example)
Do you have advice for any of those?
>The guy funding it or anyone with years of experience that is qualified
I'm not sure I understand.
>math applied to neuroscience
What are you working on currently?
>What do you think would be the best choice?
Depends on what you can handle and what you are interested in, but I'd wager Biology is a safe bet for alot of people. Biochem is better for overall job prospects though, especially for pharma.
>I'd like to work on human enhancement in general.
You're pretty much limited to pharma, prosthetics, or some sort of hacker culture. If we're generalizing then pharma = biochem, prosthetics = engineering (EE is the safest bet here).
>Do you have advice for any of those?
Except for the above, no I don't.
>I'm not sure I understand.
Rich people backing the team. He who controls the budget controls the science.
>What are you working on currently?
Getting a job. I do some limited modeling of neural networks in my free time while I wait.
this is off topic but i just had a dumb question that isnt really worth its own thread. I am 22 years old and i need to get all the school vaccinations like mmr, dtp, polio etc by the end of the month. do you think this could mess me up by getting so many at once at my age? should i be nervous?
>what you can handle
That would have me learn stuff like marine biology which I couldn't give less of a shit about. It's a versatile major, but perhaps it would be too broad for what I want to do.
Regardless of job prospects, though (I don't care about that after all), there are so many majors involving biology that I don't have a clue what would truly correspond to what I want.
How am I supposed to choose the right one between all of those really... Especially since you said
>You're pretty much limited to pharma, prosthetics, or some sort of hacker culture
If I wanted to do anything that had to do with prosthetics and BCI/VR, I'd have to do EE?
>I do some limited modeling of neural networks
For any use in particular?
Would you work in something like hard AI problems?
>That would have me learn stuff like marine biology which I couldn't give less of a shit about. It's a versatile major, but perhaps it would be too broad for what I want to do.
I never learned about marine biology. Besides, things in biology are highly conserved, meaning that something taken from one organism applies to another organism. This is why we have model organisms for research (i.e. mouse, nematode).
>If I wanted to do anything that had to do with prosthetics and BCI/VR, I'd have to do EE?
No but it would be higly recommended as it covers several useful aspects (programming, electronics, design, etc.). EE isn't easy of course, so you could also try your hand at Biology, CS, Biochem, Psychology, whatever.
>For any use in particular?
Mostly I play around with them, see what can be done with them. I would like to utilize them in prosthetics one day if possible.
>Would you work in something like hard AI problems?
Maybe as a side hobby every once in awhile, but not for a career. It's not my thing.
My general advise is to find papers on the field you're looking for and check the cv of the authors. You'll get a good sense of what is and isn't required in each field. You can also look for phd or job offers and see what they require.
Medical applications and genetic modification?
Call me retarded, but assuming we can develop better lab techniques, won't we be able to cure countless diseases and disorders and also make natural death an inconvenience through genetics?
I mean, its the holy grail of science. You have literally the code of life in genes. The possibilities are endless.
You overestimate genetics. Medical applications are limited to diagnostics. Genetic modification as I said only in animals and then only to model diseases or study ageing. You can't really cure anything with genetics at this point, except for some very infantile and highly experimental gene therapies for certain genetic disorders. Natural death isn't going away any time soon.
Thats why I said if we improve lab techniques to the point that we can willingly modify genes.
The potential is there. And I believe that its greater than it has ever been in anything.
The problem isn't only a lack or refinement of techniques. Epigenetics play a huge role (also a hype field right now). It remains a fact that modulating any gene or inserting one has unknown consequences and has to be extensively studied and validated. I'm not even going to go into humans.
If you want the next big thing consider bioinformatics, neurosciences, biotechnology-related fields and other such fields that involve various scientists crossing over biology. The thing is, biologists usually have had different courses from "very hard" scientists such as physicists, mathematicians or chemists. They tend to avoid complicated models or complex equations they're not always so sure to understand. On top of that, they can't code for shit. On the other hand, recent progress in genetics has shown that increasingly complex models are required to account for all the shit that's going on down there in one's genome. Genetics are complicated. I mean, really. Most people have no idea and just spout "it's in your genes" when shit's is really, really, really beyond our scope. Epistasis, recombination, EXTREMELY complex interactions and regulation methods between genes and their local environment, with each other, post-transcriptional factors, etc. Add epigenetics on top of that and soon you find out that the more we know, the more we realize we don't have a single clue what's going on. There's no such thing as "innate vs acquired".
So they need "really hard" scientists to model stuff. They need physicists and chemists to come up with even more ingenious and low-cost protocols and sequencing methods. They need actual programmers to process ENORMOUS amounts of data. Everyone and their mother is collectively fapping to biopython, blast tools, clustalw and other shit that does all the complicated stuff for them. Right now, you can get your own genome sequenced for less than a thousand dollars. RIGHT NOW, you can find out whether your tits are likely to get cancerous. And people are prepared to pay top dollar for that kind of information.
Genetics are the next big thing of the future, mark my fucking words.
I see now. The interconnectivity of different systems in the body could cause drastic changes due to changes in genes.
On a somewhat related note, what are the major complications in using stem cells to replace dead muscle cells or neurons?
It's hard to direct stem cells to become a fully functional cell type most of the time. Integration into established architecture is also hard. Neurons won't have the same connections as the old ones, there's no way to direct them (and even if we did, we don't know towards what) and they will take a bit of time before they actually develop the connections. Operating on the brain isn't also on anyone's to-do list.
With that being said, that's what I hope to work on, because I do believe this is the future, regeneration and stem cells, integrated into a matrix.
You need biologists to integrate this information and request for more information. Biology itself isn't imho a "real' field, neuroscience too. They comprise of a wide range of interdisciplinary teams working towards a common goal. Breakthroughs are needed from some parts and integration from others. Biologists mostly do the integration, hypothesis and direct testing of said hypothesis.
Fuck. I really hate calculus and love biology. I'm a bioeng. undergraduate and I'd planned on getting into genetics as soon as I'm done with my BS. Now you just made me lose hope.
Still, I guess theres plenty of options still on the table that don't require too much math.
Its too late. I'm 21 and 3.5 years into the program already. I've realized now that I picked the wrong field in bioeng. and now I want to acquire skills that would help me out in biological research. I need to learn to work in a lab because the most I've done so far is highschool level chemistry and biology lab work.
And the dislike for calculus is embedded too deep in me now.
Well if you plan to do genetics, you better start loving statistics. Lab work isn't really all that hard to learn, a master's degree and you're set. In either case, every lab you go to will teach you their own methodology.
Stop reading Michio Kaku, nobody really knows what consciousness is or why qualia arise.
If you were to upload your brain, your consciousness would likely not go with it, and then you'd be dead and there'd just be a computer contemplating the junk you used to contemplate.
It's never going to happen anyways.
It all hinges on whether you believe the mind is purely physical. If its not, then we're shit out of luck at cyber immortality.
Basically, the field is looking for an Einstein or Newton to revolutionize it. If you come up with a general theory of intelligence then you are looking at a nobel prize.
Neuroscience is just starting out. It is taking it's first baby-steps into the light.
Of course there are no neuroscience jobs. Neuroscience needs to be developed and explored. EVERYTHING about it needs to be observed, conjectured, experimented, hypothesized and theorized.
It's where Chemistry was when chemistry was called "alchemy". It can overturn and redefine everything we know about psychology and comprehension. It will take time, and people need to work on it and explore what it can be, and what it can teach.
It is a field where you must CREATE your jobs.
Consciousness uploading is nonsense, much of it is still on the philosophy of the mind end and yet to be unified into a science.
Other than that. Google Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. If we accept we are just patterns of neuronal firing, and disorders are fundamentally disorders of neuron connections there's something you get from this. Activate or run electricity through neurons, and you re-wire your neurons.
By doing deep cranial stimulations, you are able to reactivate motor areas of people with Parkinsons, curing parkinsons for some time. Alongside that its a fuckton of amazing applications, imagine for example shutting off your fear centers and activating your rational processing areas, well you just conquered phobia. Your brain parts individually compete against and alongside each other, the more you use one area the more it grows. Force yourself to use only one area and it grows stronger relative to others.
Srsly yo, I studied cogsci, much of it is still boring nerd stuff thats highly theoretical. A ton more are approaching applications that are useful. Another I'd like to highlight is the rise of neuroscience in the treatment of disease, for example depression can be attributed to generally a neurological adaptive response, where your brain stops producing as much neurons because of chronic stress. The response is to stimulate growth and extinguish behaviors.