Nick Medford <nick at hermit0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<fiv4mCABx9Q8Ew4P at hermit0.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <43525ce3.0201130613.6d731151 at posting.google.com>, mat
> <mats_trash at hotmail.com> writes
> > However most psychiatric drugs are based
> >on "deterministic/reductionist" theory (what else could they be based
>> These treatments are based on empirical observation- simply the
> practical fact that they have been found to be useful- rather than any
> philosophical stance.
Initially yes, but new drugs are based on the findings of neurobiology
- a reductionist approach to the brain/mind. New receptors are
targeted, or the affinity and/or selectivity for a receptor known to
be important is improved. No-one just throws them at patients and
>> >). SSRIs for depression and agents affecting the dopaminergic
> >systems for schizophrenia have shown how these chemical systems in
> >concert with others define 'us'.
>> This is a truly wild claim, up there with any religious crackpottery.
>Its only wild if you don't want it to be true. Of course current
drugs are relatively blunt tools for changing the mind of a patient,
but they do work and IMHO the targets of the drugs must therefore be
involved in how the mind arises from the brain. (Its just empirical
observation!) By your comments do you mean that you don't believe that
dompinergic, glutamatergic and all the other systems in their
particular anatomical forms are enough to account for the mind?
> (As a side issue it is worth noting that a range of neurotransmitter
> systems have been implicated in schizophrenia, not just dopamine.
> Clozapine- the most effective antipsychotic drug currently known- is
> thought to exert its actions more through glutamatergic than dopimanergic
>Fine, but that just shows it is the orchestration of all these systems
that forms the mind.
> added little to the field IMHO.
:) becuase she doesn't believe anything needs adding, its all there in
the brain for us to investigate. At least she hasn't added a