Serotonin and Depression

kkollins at kkollins at
Wed Oct 14 18:44:29 EST 1998

Dag Stenberg wrote:

> kkollins at wrote:
> > dag.stenberg at wrote:
> > > kkollins at wrote:
> ...
> > What kills people isn't "depression". What kills them is the prevailing ignorance with
> > respect to the necessity and worthiness of the dynamics of "depression". Because such
> > ignorance prevails still, an artificial pall is imposed upon folks who are doing
> > nothing more than becoming "quited" while their nervous systems are working to extract
> > them from this or that behavioral "mistake". This results in folks' spiralling inward
> > because this or that associate has told them something like "snap out of it", which,
> > in the prevailing ignorance of the biological necessity of "depression", translates in
> > the mind of the "depressed" person, to something like, "Woah! You're messed up."
> I agree that the suggestion "snap out of it" is ineffective and shows lack
> of understanding of the problem. From my point of view, in major depression
> brain function is changed (as a result of dysbalance between the biological
> substrate and the load from the environment) in such a way that the patient
> cannot easily handle the situation. How to shake this dysbalance back into
> balance?

The only way that I can see that shows strong promise is to fore-arm folks with
understanding that enables them to comprehend the necessities inherent in our nervous
systems' processing of information. Such understanding becomes physically encoded within
nervous systems in a way that physically governs, and tends to thwart the onset of
relative-randomness within neural dynamics... such relative-randomness within neural
dynamics is the physical essence of what's been referred to as "depression"... folks "cannot
cope" be-cause the high-randomness [which is the exact opposite of TD E/I(min)] constitutes
a condition in which the convergence mechanisms that are innate within our nervous systems
cannot function rapidly enough... so the individual is left in a "state" in which he/she
cannot achieve "focus" sufficient to allow the taking of action that's "appropriate" with
respect to her/his momentary environmental circumstances. This "incapacitation" yields the
outward manifestations wof what's been referred to as "depression".

But if a person is equipped with the understanding, the onset of randomness within neural
dynamics is protected against... folks know what the internal "stirings" mean, and are able
to take action that will back them out so that they can analyze at length, and in a
relatively-liesurely way, before having another go at things. And when the members of groups
all posses the understanding, what has been deemed to signal "failure" or "breakdown" is
recognized for what it actually is, the result of having reached further than one was, as
yet, prepared to go... "no problem", =celebrate= the reaching, nurture the healing, and go
at it again, and again and again. Everything's possible among those who only nurture one
another in an understanding of how our nervous systems process information. And what's more,
our wonderful innate reward mechanisms, "cheer" us along the way :-)

> Traditional therapies have included electro- or insulin shocks (how
> horrible...) which apparently often work. Sleep deprivation, perhaps by
> activating several homeostatic aminergic mechanisms, may also shake the
> system and (temporarily) restore balance. But more often than not, the
> healing of a depressive episode seems to have no clear reason.

To the degree of such, the methods' functionality is in the amelioration of randomness
within neural activation "states". All of these methods fail in one importent way, however.
None of them equip the person with "tools" with which they can act upon the wellspring of
the randomness that's been "hammered" via brute-force methods. That's why the recurrence
rate among folks who're treated via such brute-force methods is so sorrowfully-high. Given
such "tools", the whole set of dynamics "goes away", and folks are enabled to Choose... to
experience the Wonder of Volition with all of its inherent coupling to the biological reward

> Life just
> seems to come back to the patient and he starts to go about his business
> again. Is anything restored by a period of rest? Clearly, continuing
> pressure from work, economy and people around keep up the depression, while
> a network of understanding persons can at least postpone suicide until that
> something snaps back to order in the brain.
>   I do not claim to understand depression, although I have experienced it
> some times earlier in my life. But I still to figure out ideas what it could
> be about in the biological sense.
> > > > We =need= "depression", and the modern trend that takes the stand, that it
> > > > should be engineered-out of the nervous system, ...
> > > For anybody who has never suffered from major depression or seen that in
> > > their immediate surrounding, it is easy to think like that.
> >
> > Is there anyone, having lost life-long Love, who can deny experiencing such? It's a
> > fact of Life.
> Are you sure you are not confusing normal sorrow with major depression here?

I've nailed down all aspects of what's been referred to as "depression", and can take
everything down to the neural mechanisms. I'll be glad to demonstrate... in a Public

> > > This [letting many experimental parameters vary at the same time] can point to
> > > correlational evidence, and to important factors, but it can not elucidate what part
> > > a single factor has in the regulation of the whole.
> >
> > "Single experiments", no. But, through the diligent efforts of the experimentalists,
> > the Neuroscience stacks have been overfolowing with more than enough proven
> > information for decades to allow everything to be cross-correlated at a
> > verifiably-lasting foundation level. It's from that understanding that I write. ken
> > collins
> I still will not believe that crosscorrelation of any amount of sloppily
> (without a clear experimental plan) collected data will lead to very much.
> So often have I experienced that even after a lot of data have accumulated
> about a subject, the only way to get further is to conduct a simple,
> well-planned, focussed experiment, which alone will tell us more than years
> of correlational analysis of huge data banks.

I'm not saying it's "easy". I'm just saying it's done. I can demonstrate this, too. What it
entails is acquiring sufficient fiber-mapping data for the whole nervous system, and
cross-correlating it. To do this for any locus, requires dealing with 10s or 100s of
experimental papers. But anyone who has a go at it will find that everything they need has
been in the Neuroscience stacks for decades. Then "just do it". The nice thing is that it
only needs to be done once, then the principles developed have their permanent usefulness.
But it's not adequate for someone like me to say, "Look here. This is what is." This tends
not to work because it lacks the building of the necessary physically-real internal
structure, into which the functioning of the biological reward mechanisms is tightly
integrated. Rather, each person should look and see for themselves. The "Automation of
Knowing..." paper is an outline for doing such. The arduous 10s-and-100s-of-papers stuff is
done (of course, needing thorough checking by the Neuroscientific community, and open
discussion, but all the fundamental cross-correlations are established for anyuone to
consider, understand, check, and invoke within their everyday experience.

Yes, it's a "big step"... it's a redefinition of what it is to be "Human". But it's one
that's based upon fact, rather than haphazardly-accumulated, and
inter-generationally-handed-down, supposition. There's a big-difference, in there, that
makes the necessities inherent in taking the "big step" worthwhile, and guarantees an
outcome, if only the necessities are accepted and met head-on. Cheers, Dag, ken

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list