Why is there such a lack of interest in neuroscience?

Peter F fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au
Sun Jan 9 06:12:31 EST 2005

"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill at fuzzysys.com> wrote in message news:h881u05dsdr1t7datmtmpchl9n12u1u86n at 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:02:24 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:44:09 -0800, Sir Frederick
> ><mmcneill at fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Why is there such a lack of interest in neuroscience?
> >>The whole issue of brain structure and function is IMO
> >>the most important of all.
> >
> >For some funny reason, it occurs to me that everybody that can read
> >your question in this news group has an extraordinarily HIGH interest
> >in neuroscience!
> Then those with an extraordinarily HIGH interest in neuroscience
> should be aware of their minority. Why is this interest a minority?

One reason could be that it is so because the great majority of scientifically 
interested people have an uneasy premonition - whether they are aware of it or not - that if they poke around too much with the workings of 'mind' 
they won't like what might not like they might find. 

Or, to put it more bluntly, and with a certain 'extended primal theoretical' bias: 

What their own "_not_ cognitively aware consciousness conveys" (to this majority of menschen) is that if they study the brain (implicitly their own) they will encounter the unsettling fact (that tend to undermine certain hopes and illusions) that it stores, and incorporates mechanisms for "AEVASIVE (my jargon) handling of,  "primal pain" (Janov's jargon). 


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list