Individuals with mild motor-predominant Parkinson disease (49%-53% of individuals with Parkinson disease) have mild symptoms, a good response to dopaminergic medications (eg, carbidopa-levodopa, dopamine agonists), and slower disease progression. < https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/276074
Chat GPT on this remark [19 Jan]:
That’s correct! Individuals with mild motor-predominant Parkinson’s disease typically experience mild symptoms and have a good response to dopaminergic medications such as carbidopa-levodopa and dopamine agonists. These medications work by increasing dopamine levels in the brain, which helps alleviate motor symptoms like tremors, stiffness, and difficulty with movement.
Additionally, compared to other subtypes of Parkinson’s disease, individuals with mild motor-predominant Parkinson’s disease tend to have a slower disease progression. This means that their symptoms may progress more slowly over time, allowing for a better quality of life and potentially delaying the need for more aggressive treatment options.
It’s important to note that Parkinson’s disease is a complex and heterogeneous condition, and individual experiences can vary. While some individuals may fit the profile of mild motor-predominant Parkinson’s disease, others may have different symptom presentations and responses to treatment. Regular monitoring and individualized treatment plans are crucial in managing the condition effectively.
Long range projects: creole poems / npd / marketing Skinny-Dippin’ / michif / wawa / choctaw mobilian /
Gulf Coast Linguistics zen / capoeira
Ivan Illich, Feyerabend
Dithering, diddling, dottering
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoeira
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engolo
Feyerabend :”until now only two or three per cent of the inbuilt circuits of the brain have been utilised. A large variety of [change] is therefore possible.” (1965: 130)
Chat GPT on Feyerabend’s claim [19 Jan]:
The remark by Feyerabend suggests that only a small percentage of the brain’s circuits have been utilized so far, leaving a vast potential for change and exploration. While it is true that our understanding of the brain is still limited, it is important to note that the concept of “utilized circuits” is not a well-defined scientific term.
The brain is a highly complex organ, and our understanding of its intricacies is still evolving. While it is true that there is potential for further exploration and discovery, it is difficult to quantify the exact percentage of brain circuits that have been utilized or remain untapped.
It is worth mentioning that the brain is not simply a collection of circuits waiting to be activated. It is a dynamic system that constantly adapts and rewires itself based on experiences and learning. The brain’s plasticity allows it to reorganize and form new connections throughout life.
In summary, while Feyerabend’s remark highlights the potential for further understanding and utilization of the brain, it is important to approach such claims with a critical and scientific mindset, acknowledging the complexity and ongoing research in the field of neuroscience.
Based on these arguments, Feyerabend defended the idea that science should be separated from the state in the same way that religion and state are separated in a modern secular society[108] He envisioned a free society in which “all traditions have equal rights and equal access to the centres of power.”[107] For example, parents should be able to determine the ideological context of their children’s education, instead of having limited options because of scientific standards. According to Feyerabend, science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.[109] He thought that citizens should use their own principles when making decisions about these matters. He rejected the view that science is especially “rational” on the grounds that there is no single common “rational” ingredient that unites all the sciences but excludes other modes of thought.[110]
Cranks vs respectable thinkers
“The distinction between the crank and the respectable thinker lies in the research that is done once a certain point of view is adopted. The crank usually is content with defending the point of view in its original, undeveloped, metaphysical form, and he is not prepared to test its usefulness in all those cases which seem to favor the opponent, or even admit that there exists a problem. It is this further investigation, the details of it, the knowledge of the difficulties, of the general state of knowledge, the recognition of objections, which distinguishes the ‘respectable thinker’ from the crank. The original content of his theory does not”[113]
[113] Feyerabend, Paul (1964). “Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments in the Logic of Factual Support”. Critical Approaches to Science and Philosophy: 260–308