neuroscientific basis

Malcolm McMahon malcolm at pigsty.demon.co.uk
Mon Aug 2 03:21:39 EST 1999


On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 00:23:57 -0400, "ikinari" <adaly at getsmartz.com>
wrote:

>I am not going to debate a host of questions perhaps best left for Plato or
>Aristotle.  But, how about engaging in a purely 20th century discussion on
>the neuroscientific basis of the current philosophical dogma?  Bottom line,
>is anyone on this chat group interested in imporved neurotransmitter
>production post blood-brain barrier (i.e. dopamine and acetylcholine)?  Why
>aren't more resources in our society tasked for improving not only our
>physical selves, but our mental existence?
>

In fact quite a lot of effort goes into improving or mental lives. It's
called education.

As to better living through chemistry I think the feeling is that our
brains, like the rest of us, have evolved as a set of compromises
between conflicting demands and that if you can artificial boost our
performance in meeting one of these demands there's a good chance it
will, in the medium term, turn out to be at the expense of another one.

Why the strange mixture of groups, BTW.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list