RE: Re: Inconsistent models, mapping, interoperability, and the SUO
> drugs to bring out the differentiating/integrating dynamics in
behavior -
> cocaine to bring out the differentiating from without and integration
from
> within, and LSD/Ecstacy etc to bring out the integrating with without)
> (10) Since the dynamics of neurotransmitter/neuromodulator uptake
issues
> at the level of neurons can elicit consciousness expressions covering
> mania
You are demonstrating exactly my point about the hermetic's
superstitious thinking. It is very sad, really. Someone ingested a
chemical and got a cognitive impact. Then some doctors measured the
neurotransmitter levels, and from that developed a theory -- based only
on the things they decided to measure. Then we get two decades of junk
research in USA acting as if mood is a direct neurotransmitter-->mood
correlation. This is exactly the same superstitious pseudoscience that
led to phrenology.
The fact is, there are chemical substances which can elevate serotonin
levels yet cause anxiety, and there are chemical substances which do the
converse. As long as we focus on only the examples which *fit* our
theory, like Dumbo with his feather, we convince ourselves of its
validity. Luckily there are lots of prozac rip-offs in the SSRI
category, so you can repeat all of their names to yourself as if you
have many examples. This is the way of the esotericist. Mood is an
incredibly complex phenomenon, and it labels such as "depressed",
"motivated", "calm" are extremely poor stand-ins for the things they
describe. As you get beyond "generally OK" and "general malaise", the
labels lose all communicative power. Many other systems are at play.
Besides neurotransmitters you have the adrenocortical systems,
pituitary, etc. And the brain is a feedback device -- I can increase
the density of neurons in my hippocampus simply by thinking certain
thoughts.
While I totally agree that LSD and Cocaine have the observable effects
you describe, I think it is the worst form of arrogance to pretend that
we know how this happens, or that it is us manipulating things at the
"small part" level to make this happen. All that happened is we
observed some phenomenon through trial and error, and then tried to
convince ourselves we understand how it happened. In systems like human
cognition, such a degree of certainty is the height of vanity.