"Chuck" <cbowling nospam at
Sun Jul 6 16:37:29 EST 2003

"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at> wrote in message
news:Q1TNa.42273$3o3.2785655 at
> "Kooter>" <cbowling<nospam> wrote in message
> news:be5vb0$rk$1 at
> |
> | "J Zijlstra" <jw53z at> wrote in message
> | news:10cjfvsggdvsjfa91sk3uohkl76fp29afd at
> | > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:51:12 -0400, r norman
> <rsnorman_ at>
> | > wrote:
> |
> | <snip>

> | As a side note, depending on your definition
> | of "positive change", all drugs prescribed for
> | nervous system disorders produce positive
> | change under the right set of conditions.
> Presuming the caveats stated are naive with
> respect to "Functional multiplexing" [AoK, Ap9],
> your statement is False.

Looks like I'm going to have to break out my obfuscation dictionary.

> Evolutionary dynamics 'engineered' nervous
> systems with respect to being functional with
> respect to the 3-D energydynamics that exist
> within the entireties of an individual's external
> experiential environment.

Ok. You're saying that nervous systems evolved to interact with the

> All possible chemical manipulations that do
> not replicate such have negative impacts upon
> golbal nervous system function.

All chemical interaction in the NS is either positive, neutral, negative, or
a combination. Drugs can have a positive effect in one subsystem and a
negative or neutral effect in others.

> The way to replicate such in organically-intact
> nervous systems is the way that Richard
> discussed, above.

Replication isn't the goal with chemical intervention. Chemicals are used to
alter cellular function. Medical treatment strives to correct deficiencies
in function. Recreational use is intended to alter normal function.

In other words, chemicals are intended to alter function. Not create

> There's =grave= Danger in the mix because
> there's been a tendency to Falsely ascribe
> organic dysfunction in order to 'justify' use of
> 'chemical intervention'.
> The main result of doing such is that an individ-
> ual so prescribed, thereafter, perceives her- or
> himself as 'being broken', and such becomes a
> self-fulfilling 'prophecy' within the individual's
> subsequent experience, the result being a form
> of 'living-death' - an absence of what could,
> otherwise, be the Fullness of Life.
> So not only does the ab-use of 'drugs' not work
> within the chemoarchitecture of the brain, resort
> to drugs also 'short-circuits what would, otherwise,
> actually be functional in-there.
> Lose-Lose.
> The Problem has been that unscrupulous folks
> have sought 'profits' without, first, Comprehending
> nervous system function - in a way that uses
> Innocents as 'experimental animals'.

It sounds to me like you're saying that we shouldn't use chemicals at all
unless we completely understand their effect on the nervous system. If
that's the case then I disagree. It would mean abandoning a lot of drugs
that have proven effective in millions of cases just because we don't know
exactly why they work.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list