k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jul 7 12:17:50 EST 2003
"Chuck @mindspring.com>" <cbowling<nospam> wrote in message
news:bea622$ovm$1 at slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
| "KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| news:Q1TNa.42273$3o3.2785655 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > "Kooter @mindspring.com>" <cbowling<nospam> wrote in message
| > news:be5vb0$rk$1 at slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
| > |
| > | "J Zijlstra" <jw53z at xs4all.nl> wrote in message
| > | news:10cjfvsggdvsjfa91sk3uohkl76fp29afd at 4ax.com...
| > | > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:51:12 -0400, r norman
| > <rsnorman_ at _comcast.net>
| > | > 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.
As far as I know, it's not yet in the books.
Basically, "functional multiplexing" addresses
the fact that a neurochemical can have uncorrelated
effects depending upon the neural architecture in
which it occurs [and the fact that there's a more
fundamental neural architectural basis for nervous
system function than neurochemistry].
| > 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 environment...Right?
In the context of addressing the fact that a
neurochemical can have uncorrelated
effects depending upon the neural architecture
in which it occurs.
My point was that, artificial applications of drugs
break the 'engineered'-in 3-D energydynamics
| > 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.
Be-cause of the reality of "functional multi-
plexing", so far, the net result is always
negative with respect to the 'engineered'-in
3-D energydynamics hangling.
| > 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 function.
All drug use does, in fact, "create function",
Note well that, in my previous post, I was
explicitly addressing the context of the News-
paper Article - students self-administering.
That's neither Medicinal nor 'recreational'.
Be-cause of the "functional multiplexing"
stuff I'm discussing, there is no such thing as
"recreational" drug use - sure there's a 'buzz',
but there's always the negative impact upon
the 'engineered'-in 3-D energydynamics
| > 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.
I was, of course, not advocating the 'end of
Pharmacology'. I clearly addressed "ab-use".
| 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
My point was with respect to the 'profit'
motive displacing the Medical motive - with
respect to the way that glitzy applications of
'suggestion' are gradually displacing True
Medical use of Chemistry - for the sake of
Everything Human gets Trammeled in such
a 'mix', and ab-use of drugs becomes
I stand-against such because it's founded
Even if it enables folks to 'feel good' while
it's Killing them.
[More subtley: What good is it to 'feel good'
if one cannot Think? And what are the cum-
mulative consequences accross Society when
folks turn from Thinking to 'feeling good'?]
My position only =seems= 'extreme'.
The Society-wide Costs are already there to
K. P. Collins
More information about the Neur-sci