Why is there such a lack of interest in neuroscience?
kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jan 10 22:34:38 EST 2005
"Peter F" <fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Ak8Ed.498$Sa7.25034 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
| "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'
| 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).
There's a hint of an energy-flow,
inside me, that I interpret as "in-
dicating" that I'm finally beginning
to get what you've been saying
all along, Peter.
I'm Grateful for the Work you
Cheers, ken [k. p. collins]
More information about the Neur-sci