I didn't mod it down, but it's at least partially nonsense, and obvious nonsense at that. Ask any linguist why English stopped changing 20 years ago and they'll laugh you out of the room.
This is the point I came here to make. Looking to the side all the time is bad, but so is looking up all the time!
The OP needs to solve a different problem.
[...] the first step towards constructing an organic computer that uses networks of linked animal brains to solve tasks.
Doesn't this make anyone else a little uneasy? It doesn't sound terribly ethical to me...
Pianists move their hands around. So can you! Keeping your fingers on the home row isn't particularly ergonomic or efficient. Typing is like playing an instrument: just keep your wrists relatively straight and relaxed and type with whichever fingers seem most natural. If you don't want to use your pinky, just move your hand over a little and hit a key with your ring finger. If you don't want to use your ring finger either, move over a little further and use your middle finger instead. As long as you stay relaxed and keep your posture relatively neutral, you can hit any key with any finger you want.
Take frequent breaks. Shake out tension with your wrists hanging limp at your sides. Go for walks. No matter how ergonomic or neutral your posture, it's not healthy to stay in the same position forever; no matter how relaxed you try to be, you'll build up some tension over time. Just listen to your body: if something hurts, stop. Take care of yourself. Simple as that.
Note that seizures range from symptoms as minor as deja vu or a brief lapse in awareness (that you might not even know you had) to full-body thrashing and flailing with the potential for both physical and mental injury.
The article doesn't specify what he went through. My guess is that it was toward the middle of the spectrum: too small, and he might not have even been aware he had a seizure; too large, and he probably wouldn't have survived the ordeal.
(Other people have already brought up the possibility that the seizures were responsible for the problem, so I'll leave it at that.)
It did take on a new meaning, then lose that meaning. I'm not sure how best to characterize that meaning, but I do have evidence it existed. From the Oxford English Dictionary:
âb.b Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rareâ"1.
ÂÂÂ1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
(Yes, Slashdot will probably have munged a few of those characters. It's a copy + paste from the electronic edition.)
At any rate, I disagree that it's strange for a word to gain a new meaning and lose that new meaning. It doesn't require extraordinary evidence because it's simply not that unusual. Note however that the word never lost its old meaning, so it didn't "revert"; it merely lost the new meaning.