"We can fix it." That is what I believe."

The primitive tendencies of our minds which you are holding accountable for a lot of civilizations' problems arise from our passions and drives; our will to live, love, protect and survive... the id(?). And to get rid of these wills - to fix them - would be to fix life in the way you fix a dog. That is, to castrate it.

...

I think it is the two poles of life and death - of peace and violence - which give life its shades of gray. To get rid of one pole- the death pole as I think you propose, is to render life black and white; to castrate it.

My own credo is fix myself before I feel like I am in a position to fix others. As of right now, I am still working on myself.

Now think about this, really think about it: are comforting self-delusions more important than the potential to improve the lives of millions? Do you really value your worldview so highly that you would deny others a higher, much higher quality of life to maintain it?

The patient's informed consent in the modern sense was often not obtained. After the introduction of the antipsychotic chlorpromazine (Thorazine), lobotomies fell out of common use[1] and the procedure has since been characterized "as one of the most barbaric mistakes ever perpetrated by mainstream medicine".[2]

My guess is a few people can benefit, as they do from most things that men create. But at the same time people can, and often are damaged. If you don't realize it, tens of thousands of people are killed every year from improper application of medical drugs and other treatments.

The last time neuroscientists decided to fix people they came up with the idea of lobotomies. And why not?

So, my sense is to always maintain a great sense of humility when tinkering with someone else's mind.

We need to be careful, but bold as any other explorer.

Now my motto:

Be bold with your own brain, and careful with everyone else's.

Rich

Why? This looks like psychoanalysis. You even mentioned id.

I don't take stock in these kinds of claims because they're vague and untenable. Why is a duality of peace and violence necessary? Where does this all come from? Why do wars, greed, drudgery, prison violence, delusion, etc. have to exist for us to lead meaningful and pleasant lives?

I think to get rid of war, greed and violence you would have to tend to the underlying human wills which drive us to such actions. You would have to get rid of the id, which serves as the source of instinct and yearns for for the immediate satisfaction of our primitive needs. I think of it as the raw mental energy and fire of existence left over from our primitive days, which is now shaped and barricaded by the superego - which is social rules and taboos. We are the Ego, the balance that hovers in between the two.

The only part of society we can legitimately change is ourselves...

We should presume that what nature made it made for a certain purpose which we may not be in a position to judge...

If you want to change people; the two best ways are, one, to make them feel differently; or two, point a gun at them

What we should assume is that nature blindly made us through evolution (this is the empirically tenable position), resulting in a Stone Age design that could certainly be improved.

I'm uncertain what degree of brain tampering the OP is promoting here. On the one hand, s/he is advocating the advancement of neuroscience to aid people with disabilities, (paraplegia, cerebral palsy, etc...) but on the other s/he seems to be leaving the door open for using it as a matter of reformation, to correct the deranged mind, so to speak. Well, I think most of us would agree that there's a wide range between the two. Using any science or medicine to help a willing patient is one thing, but using it against someone's will, even a criminal's, is walking a whole different path altogether. I'm just curious; to what extent does the OP advocate using this technology and these methods?

Wasn't it you Salima who quoted someone once, "we should thank God for our misfortunes too."

...Indeed, the instinctual mechanisms that govern human motivation may be even more primitive than Freud imagined. We appear to share basic emotion systems that determine our core values not only with our nearest primate relatives, but also with allmammals, and to a lesser extent even with more 'primitive' species.

This is really scary stuff. This is one step away from eugenics.

Rich

I'm uncertain what degree of brain tampering the OP is promoting here. On the one hand, s/he is advocating the advancement of neuroscience to aid people with disabilities, (paraplegia, cerebral palsy, etc...) but on the other s/he seems to be leaving the door open for using it as a matter of reformation, to correct the deranged mind, so to speak. Well, I think most of us would agree that there's a wide range between the two. Using any science or medicine to help a willing patient is one thing, but using it against someone's will, even a criminal's, is walking a whole different path altogether. I'm just curious; to what extent does the OP advocate using this technology and these methods?

and i am curious as to who gets to decide which brains need to be fixed and which are superior...this is a plan to make a superior race, right?

actually there is the possibility that more good can come out of nature's 'mistakes' than its successes. in my own life are many examples, but i will share one.

Wasn't it you Salima who quoted someone once, "we should thank God for our misfortunes too."

i probably made a reference to the sufi attitude that everything is a gift from god, therefore they thank him for everything without judging it bad or good.

Yes im the same Salima, when something goes wrong im always looking to get the positive out of the negative. I always learn something too.

Please don't advocate masochism.