Posted by Squiggles on September 16, 2006, at 20:00:02
In reply to Re: the brain » Squiggles, posted by yxibow on September 16, 2006, at 19:35:38
> Biological psychiatry is the current method of examining what are neurochemical disorders -- psychopharmacology.
>
>
> But the mapping differs with Alzheimers than with disorders such as depression, GAD, bipolar, etc.That's interesting - i suppose a category
of physical disorders, such as tumour,
lesions, vascular size, etc. are on the
larger scale - easier to pick up?>
>
> Alzheimers actually attacks portions of the brain enough to be visible and so does some degenerative forms of schizophreniform disorders. These can be seen on contrasted MRIs. Our current MRI technology is not able to see intraneuronal disturbances that cause typical depression, etc.Intraneuronal-- hmm, actions between neurons?
That would be the assumption; but it could
be arterial problems as well that cause depression;>
>
> We can make guesses in studies with SPECT and PET imaging, which will show firing of parts of the brain, with contrast, ala Baxter et alia, regarding OCD. But these are expensive methods used for research purposes on primates and human subjects. And they are still not fine enough to show every condition.OK. I was thinking of the "hot" areas that
Dr. Torrey for example shows in cases of
dementias -- maybe that is transient, e.g.
during a manic episode in the brain. Why
should the colour be different -- what is
going on? Something different than the normal
state, but what?
>
>
> So we make do with evidence based psychopharmacology and psychiatry. Evidence shows that compound X in trials reduces region activity in region Y due to transmitter Z, probably from PET scans with subjects. In turn, in use, doctors gather data (Stage IV, post-marketing) from use of medications and further this model.
>It is experimental and the drugs are not great
for the many. Still, it is a biological problem
that has to be solved, and what i was trying to
say was that it is much easier to control a mental
state through drugs, than through a study of the person's circumstances, depending on the degree and cause of course.
>
> May the 21st century allow novel diagnosis from below nanometer level resolution for individual patients. But even beyond that, humans have what is known as "free will." Even a psychotic patient has free will to react to their disorder.I would agree with you part way-- i think that
all animals have a will, but it is not always free. It can be shattered through depression, or
illness, or external constraints to turn it into
action, when it has a practical meaning.
>
>
> Of course one could get into further discussions of the sociopolitic aspects of free will, and free countries, but that is beyond the scope of the medical concept of free will, which is that humans have the capacity for decision making, we are sapient.
>Yeah, unless we suffer brain damage.
>
> This doesn't mean we aren't afflicted by biochemical crippling disorders, but free will would dictate that I, the patient, at times, can rise and reintegrate with society, knowing I have a biochemical problem which should be treated better by HMOs (that is an entire other discussion, caps on mental health are abominable in the US), but dealing with it as best as I can with my doctor and my own passion for life and its clear randomness.All men want to do what they want to do; but
they may be prevented by circumstances or
disability. What we call will, may as well
be what is life in an animal. What it is and
where it comes from, is a mystery to me.
We're getting into obscurities here.Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:686603
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060909/msgs/686659.html