From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:05:32 GMT
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'

morley@Apple.COM (John Morley) writes:
>In article <lamontg.711858404@milton>, lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>> 
>> Jesus Fucking Christ.  Is there one single fucking person on this goddamn
>> net that has half the brain to realize that not only is our mind
>> *psychological* but its also *biochemical*?  
>
>Lets see now, where to begin.  For starters your opening sentence is somewhat
>irrelevant, unless your are trying to describe the auto-erotic exploits of a
>spiritual leader from 2,000 years ago :-}

Yup.  I find that to be a good metaphor for your thinking processes.

>Next you question whether any of the readers/contributors to this newsgroup
>are endowed with a full complement of the mushy grey matter that is host to
>the electro-chemical reactions that drive the collection of tissues that make
>up the body.  I would give most people the benefit of the doubt on that point
>as it is difficult to operate the requisite devices necessary to read or post
>to netnews without a full complement of brain function :-}

You haven't been around the net long have you?

>But seriously, I think the key point where I differ with you is that I cannot
>believe that my mind is a product of the physical processes going on within
>my body.  There are many elegant expositions which I could cite to back up
>this statement, but the most convincing proof is direct experience.  Next time
>you find yourself in an expanded state of awareness (regardless of how you get
>there), ask yourself if the thing staring at you in the mirror is yourself.

I don't think my mind is a product of the physical processes going on
within my body either.  However, your very example shows the intimate
linking of the psychological mind with the biochemical brain -- both of
which can be modified with chemicals, but only the latter directly.
 
>> You've got some truely fucking brilliant opinions.
>
>You're too kind.

=)

>> Ah, so someone who has a genetically inherated metabolic disorder
>> (specifically something that > is related to gamma-ammunobutric acid in some
>> way, and most likely something like an anxiety disorder) has "the power to
>> change their beliefs and consequently their behavior".
>
>My statements were in response to a discussion about the effectiveness of
>12 step type rehabilitation programs for managing substance abuse problems.
>You seem intent on suggesting physically caused mechanisms for these problems,
>an explanation which I believe to be valid but only for a relatively small
>number of persons that suffer from these problems.  For that group, neither
>12 step programs nor any other non-physical treatment is going to correct the
>cause of their problem.  HOWEVER, if I were unfortunate enough to have a
>physically caused problem such as you describe, I would much rather view it as
>a problem afflicting my body rather than a definition for who I am.

Presicely.  However, you have been completely igoring the possibility of
any such occurance.  And not only are you ignoring a biochemical problem
as blatent as a metabolic problem.  There are other hypothetical possible
organic brain dysfunctions, which I find it perfectly reasonable to theorize
may be responsible or partially reponsible for addiction.  In particular,
decreased neurotransmitter functioning due to deficiency or receptor 
density dysregulation at synapses.  Lack of correct neural connections in
the brain (possibly due to a critical growth period that was interrupted
by an environmental stress) which can only be remedied by axonal arborization
for which pharmacotherapy would be far more effective than attempting
to find the perfectly correct environmental stimulus.  And also the
hypothesized occurance of dysfunctional positive-feedback loops in the brain's
organic neural network which affects the functioning of the mind.  While
these latter examples may allow for partial psychological explanations of
addiction in addiction to biochemical ones, they would be more likely to
happen, and would not be suffered by only a relatively small group. 

I find it highly ignorant to stick with a dogmatic one-model picture of
human consciousness which ignores the physical brain.  In fact it really
just shows that you are completely ignorant of current thinking in
the two-model mind/brain duality.  All I see from you is entirely dogmatic
opinion, with no explanation or consideration of any physical processes
involved in our consciousness -- just casual dismissal.

>> Thats just really really brilliant.  They don't have any kind of psychological
>> way to change their behavior.  The only way their going to change their
>> behavior is through a chemical mechanism because their problem is entirely
>> 100% chemical.  They're going to be alcoholics.  And there is no goddamn
>> way they are going to "stop giving importance to the beliefs that motivate
>> that behavior".
>
>You just contradicted yourself.  First you say the problem is 100% chemical,
>then you say the beliefs motivate the behavior.  Which is it?  If it is a
>chemical problem, it will require a chemical solution.  If it is a problem
>brought about by erroneous beliefs, then the beliefs will have to be re-
>examined.

Sorry, that should have been quoted since I took it directly out of your
post (I added them).  Coupled with my next comment it should be apparent
that my point is that they have no beliefs to re-examine:

>> "Anxiety attacks?  Ah, I think they're actually not important and not a
>> problem in my life...  so, I think I'll just stop using alcohol and have
>> fun with my anxiety attacks..."  Yeah, right.
>
>Anxiety is an emotion, not a physical condition.

Bullshit.  I've gotten chemically induced anxiety attacks from drugs
before.  They certainly can be entirely a physical condition.  You don't
have a clue about what you're talking about that.

>Most people experience this
>emotion when they are confronted with a series of conditions which they cannot
>control.

Wrong.  Some clinical anxiety patients respond to stimulus, while some have no
psychological trigger for their anxiety.  Again you're just showing how
flaming ignorant you are of any psychology but your own.

>It is certainly possible to be in a situation where your body suffers
>from physical conditions beyond anyone's control, and anxiety can be a natural
>response to those conditions.  But it is not the only possible response.  It
>is possible to suffer from any or all ailments known to man and still remain
>in a state of mental composure.  However this is nearly impossible when one
>is absolutely convinced that their existence begins and ends with the
>adventures of the physical body.

You're ignorant about clinical anxiety.  Thats about all the explanation
I need here.  Anxiety can happen without being linked to any reponse to
any condition.  One current theory is that a dysregulation in norepinephrine
transmission in the brain can lead to a situation where anxiety is *NOT*
a natural reponse, it is the *ONLY* response, and its impossible to 
psychologically modify this response without lots of luck.  For the "lucky"
psychological cures I would consider this equivalent to a patient
"miraculously" curing themselves of cancer.  I certainly don't expect all
cancer patients to do this, and I don't consider it evidence that cancer is
a psychological malady.  Ditto for the neurochemical problem.
 
>> Get a *clue* that all people are not made equally.
>
>I got a clue long ago.  There are certainly no two bodies that were ever
>made absolutely equal.  But people are inherently equal, dare I say identical,
>in every respect that is meaningful in the greater scope of things.

*giggle*

Just try to tie that into a supporting point of yours in this discussion.
It'll be humorous to watch seeing as how my arguement is that you have
consistantly assumed throughout this discussion that everyone biochemically
has the same mind/brain that you do.  Or do you actually agree with me, only
you're too confused to figure it out yet?

>> *PLEASE*.
>> 
>> "Everyone carries with them the antidote..."  *snort*
>
>I think you've been doing too much coke Lamont.  You don't snort the antidote,
>you become it.

Sorry, I prefer Diet Pepsi.  

And I'd like to inject you with HIV and see if you become the antidote.
Likewise, I'd like to give you a neurochemical disorder and let you see
how much fun it is to overcome it (depression, anxiety or a neurochemically
motivated addiction).

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: ftp.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs