It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What neuropharmacology means for society, and what the future holds

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:20 AM
I made this thread yesterday with a much more boring title and put it in the Medical Issues forum. I think that was the wrong place for it and it got absolutely no response. I'm trying to address a philophical issue that is do to with medicine, and it's something that I think you guys will be interested in.

This is the current state of affairs and the current paradigm in mainstream western brain and behavior science:

More and more, scientists are coming to understand that the brain controls behavior. Through ongoing research a clear of picture of how the brain works, how neural activity translates to behavior, and what specific neurological phenomena are responsible for what specific behavior, is being developed. The paradigm of neuroscience today is materialist. The mind is the name for the process of the brain. The mind is what the brain does. Functionally, the mind and brain are inseparable, and there is nothing spooky or non-physical about consciousness. Every psychological event is simultaneously a neurobiological event, every behavior pattern has a persistent neurological cause, and every specific behavior can be explained entirely in neurobiological terms. The brain is highly plastic, meaning it changes constantly in response to experiences, and chemical events in the body. The reason we are all different is that our brains are all different. They start out being formed by different genes, random variation in the developement process of the fetal brain increase uniqueness, and ultimately the brain is physically effected by every single experience a person has in their life. This means that even if two people were born with indentical brains, their brains will become unique almost immediately. The only way for someone to have an identical brain as you is for them to have been born with an identical brain and to have had the exact same experiences as you thoughout their life.

Our brains explain everything about us, and the fact that our brains are all different explains why we experience things differently; why we experience things subjectively. This is the current paradigm.

Because this is the current paradigm, the main task in brain and behavior science is to corrolate neurobiology with behavior. Figure out what part of the brain controls what part of the body. What happens in the brain when someone reports being happy, being sad, when someone is violent, when someone is good at math, or good at art, or when someone is hyperactive or autistic or delusional. The list goes on. We're explaining everything that we do in terms what is happening in our brains. We're also gaining a better and better understanding of the physical mechanisms at work in the brain: how neurons work, how memories are formed, how vision and hearing and everything else is manifested neurobiologically.

It is a general trend in human history - particularily in the history of science - that the next step after understanding how something works is the ability to control it. Once we understand what's going on, it becomes more and more clear what we could do to achieve a desired outcome. Intentional manipulation of relevant variables naturally follows from identification of relevant variables and understanding the role of those particular variables in the larger workings of the system.

So the trend in Western medicine that I am interested in is this: We characterize and more precisely identify dysfunctional behaviors. We then identify the neurological basis for those behaviors. Then, once we have this clear biological/"mechanical" cause for a dysfunctional behavior, we happily call it a disease. Then, in order to cure the disease, we give medications which effect the biological factors that we believe cause the dysfunctional behavior. Then we say we've cured the disease.

Nowhere is this trend more evident than in psychiatry. Even in the early 1900's, annoying, hyperactive kids got the crud kicked out of them by their parents and teachers, and people with more substantial mental illnesses were just locked up. Now we say that hyperactive kids have ADHD, and treat them. That was the example of this trend that we are talking about for the 90's and early 00's. Now it's Autism. Kids who don't socialize well are said to be on the Autism spectrum. They will be treated accordingly. The same is becoming more and more true across the board. Depression, bipolar disorder, sleeping problems, ect. We continue as vigorously as we can to identify the neurological basis for any behavior which society deems dysfunctional, and then we invent a drug to alter that biology and eliminate the dysfunction.

Eventually every substantial dysfunctional behavior will be accounted for in neurobiology, and then it will only be a matter of time until pharmeceutical intervention is possible in every case to eliminate the dysfunction. We accept that behavior is entirely brain based, and we're learning how to tailor the brain to our liking. This means we're learning how to tailor people to our liking.

So, that is the trend that I observe. I think it's very interesting to think about the implications of further developement in this direction. Some of the interesting question:

How do we decide exactly what behaviors are "dysfunctional?" Right now we go after things which are pretty clear; Depression, Bipolatir Disorder, Autism, Schizophrenia, ADHD when it interferes with school, ect... But as we get farther down the road with this way of doing things, we will have addressed the most obvious "diseases" and we will have to pick out more subtle "dysfunctions." If you're not getting all A's should you take a smart pill? If you're not a morning person should you take a "wake up" pill? If you don't trust the government, should you take a sheeple pill?

How will this effect or opinion of others, as we come to believe that the reason they are the way they are is because of the chemistry of their brain? Can we blame them for anything? Can we hate them for the way they are? What do we do with criminals?

Is consciousness ever going to become scientifically relevant? Or can we just proceed under a materialist paradigm and continue to get everything right?

Is reducing a person to their brain dehumanizing?

Once we understand brains, will we treat the other animals that have brains any better than we do now?

Is the trend I've described even accurate?

Think, discuss, respond!

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:24 AM
One is enough...

Thread closed.

new topics

log in