I've spent a while going back and forth on the different posts rapidly coming in on this subject to try to find one that gives me a relevant "in." Not easy! ...
I have the feeling that there's a tendency to reduce this to a meaningless "either-or" debate here. Even you, Molly, my dear, seem to be getting yourself caught in a kind of "dualistic" thinking, which isn't normally your style, if I may so so. Those who've been around here longer know that I would tend to situate myself more at the empirical-rationalist end of the spectrum of views we have here - yet I feel that people whose thinking direction goes more Molly's way make some valid points when it comes to the very complex question of what we call health. But then comes the tendency to put this directly into opposition to what conventional medical science teaches. I've chosen Molly's post because of her question/statement: "Are you saying that the chemistry drives the emotion? Because I think it is the other way around ..." People, people, this is the core of the argument in one sense, and it's what I call meaningless "either-or." In fact it's both. Emotion drives chemistry drives emotion drives chemistry ... etc. A real chicken-egg question. We are complex psycho-somatic unities. Everything is connected to everything else, everything influences, through complicated causal chains, everything else. Medical science knows loads about how things work and go wrong in all sorts of areas and what can be done to fix things. No question. There are also areas where medical scientists freely admit to being in situations analogous to medieval cartographers, using "here be dragons" descriptions. There are areas where medical science has a pretty complete picture of how things work, go wrong, and what can be done to treat pathological situations - the heart/circulatory system and its functions and malfunctions is one good example. There are areas where medical science is at a much more primitive level of trial and error (as rigsy points out) - I'm thinking of the brain/central and vegetative nervous system here. But, even here, everything is connected to everything else and, to give but one example, beta-blockers, one of the most important groups in treating cardiac and circulatory disorders, also have significant effects in the neuro-/psychological area. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker) One of the major lessons conventional medicine needs to learn from various alternative views is the importance of context. What I mean by this is that the entire, holistic situation and environment of a patient can have major positive or negative effects on healing processes, particularly because, as Allan points out, so much medicine is involved in providing vital support for the organism to heal itself. After 20 years as a health professional, I believe that increased attention to this on the part of doctors and clinics (from the way they encounter, listen to, and interact with their clients through their organisational structures all the way to architectural questions) would increase their efficiency and success significantly. On the other hand, alternative methods which claim efficacy or advantages with respect to conventional evidence should be prepared - to state it bluntly - to put up or shut up. In one area, where this has been done, homeopathy, to give one example, has come out pretty badly: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67177-2/fulltext http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy One of conventional medicines great advantages is the fact that it bases itself on the scientific method, involving such concepts as rigorous experimentation, testing, repeatability, grounding in immense work in analysis of the composition and functioning of the human organism. (If you apply x, in a situation y, z happens - over and over again. In many cases it can also say; this is because of a, b, c and d.) But any good medical professional knows that even the simplest of human situations is so complex that it is never a 100% exact equation - otherwise, patients wouldn't die or fail to heal in the predicted fashion. In real life, there isn't always a House who comes up with a successful, incredibly obscure diagnosis, and shit just happens. Because every individual is just that, individual and - even in terms of all modern diagnostic and therapeutic options - more complex than our approximations can always deal with. One of the suspicious things about so many so-called alternative methods offered is their - in my view - simplistic, big-picture approaches. In questions of health, the big picture has an important place, but so do the devils in the details. Personally, if I ever have a tumour diagnosed, I'll be going for the chemo and radiation. However, I will also be aware that this involves poisoning myself in the hope that the tumour dies before I do. And you can bet that I'll be doing everything else possible, getting all the help possible, to support myself in my psycho-somatic entirity so that I actually do survive the experience! Francis On 5 Aug., 00:09, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a link between neurochemistry and emotion, Chris, but the > direction of cause is in dispute. Basically happy people have a > balance in body chemistry that reflects that. Constantly angry people > have a body chemistry that reflects that. Two different body > chemistry balances in many ways. Are you saying that the chemistry > drives the emotion? Because I think it is the other way around, and > that we can learn to maintain emotional health just as we can learn to > maintain physical health. > > On Aug 4, 5:38 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The reason I come back to injections, Molly, is because we know that > > chemicals control moods, shape them. Seratonin, dopamine, oxytocin, > > adrenaline...these are the building blocks of our emotions. Our moods do not > > create them...they would not exist without them. Outside stimulus will cause > > response, and with conscious effort, we can indeed learn to, in some small > > way, mitigate their production, but it is not circular to recognize the > > causal nature of neurochemistry to mood. The injection experiment would be > > empirical proof of this; if your mood was capable of mitigating a > > contradictory dosage of neurochemical cocktail, it would provide scientific > > evidence to support your statement. > > > But then, according to your post, this isn't about scientific facts, this is > > about individual truths (read: faith). > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Again, the which came first circular argument. I am not saying that > > > neurochemistry does not exist, Chris, only that it is not the whole > > > picture. And this is not the first time you have suggested that I > > > inject something to prove your point (or Ian's). I guess you didn't > > > understand my post above when I said that is up to YOU to prove to > > > yourself, not me to prove to you. I have already proved it to myself. > > > I have learned with much contemplation and self examination, to > > > regulate my moods and emotional responses. You may take a pill to > > > regulate yours, I don't know. As I say, to each his own. > > > > On Aug 4, 5:15 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It's easy enough to test your theory, Molly. I can inject you with the > > > > chemicals which WILL alter your mood, and you can attempt to combat them > > > by > > > > willing your mood to change the chemicals. > > > > > How can the mood exist outside of the chemicals? The mood IS the > > > chemicals. > > > > Neurochemistry is not some dark and unexplored science. There is much > > > > research available. Here's a good start > > > > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=b... > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > While chemical balance is one part of our "health," claiming that it > > > > > the entire picture is a very narrow focus. You seem to be presenting > > > > > the premise that our chemical balance produces our mood. I suggest > > > > > that our mood effects our chemical balance. Quackery and juju works > > > > > both ways, and simply can't get away with it anymore may also apply to > > > > > an outdated medical model. The paradigm of science itself is > > > > > changing, although mainstream is slow to catch up. > > > > > > Orn, you did mean posters and not posers, I take it. Very funny. > > > > > > On Aug 4, 4:32 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The body can heal itself; this is not a revelation, it does this > > > > > > continuously, every day, with the production of new cells. The > > > operating > > > > > > factor and scope for variability, and there is only one, is the > > > chemical > > > > > > balance of the body in question. Mood is part of this. > > > > > > > Why try to dress this up with quackery and juju? You simply can't > > > > > > get > > > > > away > > > > > > with it any more. > > > > > > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
