Why the mind gets the floor

Thinking and participation

The civic sound of Philadelphia suits an open argument. Anti aging puts a proposition before me: what would count as a worthwhile change, and which consequences would have to enter the discussion? Thinking and participation are the ambitions I care to defend.

The opposing GHRH brain experiments make that argument unusually lively. I expected stimulation to have the floor to itself. The antagonist findings displaced that assumption. I am still interested in the favorable human cognition result, and still unwilling to turn it into a general endorsement.

The outcome I would celebrate is enough mental freedom to form a view, revise it and take part in a demanding conversation. That seems a worthwhile ambition even if nobody’s biological age score moves.

A research publication

Philadelphia Anti Aging is the name of this research publication, not a clinic or another business. There are no appointments, treatments or products available here, and the geographic name makes no claim about local medical care.

The aging mind deserves a serious argument, and published research gives me grounds for one. My judgments here provide no medical advice and cannot make a treatment decision for anyone. The disagreement is about what the experiments establish, not an offer of care.

Future cognitive findings

A durable cognitive benefit that people could recognize in activities they value, with a convincing account of the costs, could win my support. The same enthusiasm would greet a clearer explanation of why opposing GHRH interventions produced favorable findings in the mouse models.

Those are ambitions for future evidence. The present reading list contains the actual grounds for this discussion. The contact page explains the current limits on correspondence and the details useful in a correction.