"[Sertraline's] half-life in the body is 13-45 hours and is about 1.5 times longer in women (32 hours) than in men (22 hours)" (determining the source of this quote is left as an exercise for the reader *g*)
It would seem like this could easily lead to withdrawals after 2 days. You're probably thinking of fluoxetine, which does have a very long half-life.
Serotonin is involved in many different processes, central and peripheral. That it blocked this physical reaction for you doesn't imply that it doesn't also have purely cognitive effects (which are harder to perceive directly).
OTOH, I have made a compareable experience with sertraline (which I'm still taking) in that some components have improved while in some other way I can still feel crappy (can't put my finger on it).
Ya, its people deciding day after day they really don't want to be happy. That doesn't mean illusionary, but it does mean that you can decide not to be depressed. And how, pray tell, do these decisions arise? I wouldn't think people on slashdot believe in some kind of interactionist dualism.
The problem is that what is in your head affects your ability to change what is in your head.
This is where drugs can be useful.
On the other hand, in daily life you shouldn't actually believe that you have no power over your neurochemistry - since believing that you are in power presumably affects your neurochemistry positively:)
Well now, have _YOU_ ever found yourself homeless (...) No I haven't, but I have my parents to thank for that.
I wouldn't have such a big problem with "career bums" if they didn't instigate so much shit in the first place. Bumming change at the intersection isn't going to turn their life around. It probably isn't. I was mainly questioning your statement that making mistakes makes a person "worthless" and undeserving of help.
Winding up in the street is proof enough that they have poor judgment I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
running around spraying people with shitwater just confirms their worthlessness as human beings. Thanks for solving this long-standing problem for us. Maybe you can send the update to these guys? (Subject: "ur doing it wrong!")
sorry for my bluntness again. I have made bad experiences in this area.
Note that the idea I was most disagreeing with was the "you are not 'yourself' on meds", not the whole diagnostics issue.
On that latter issue, why do you think the accurate drawing of the line is that important? You seem a bit preoccupied with social norms/"normalcy" vs. "deviancy". My 2 cents concerning the grey area cases is that we should stop quibbling about the semantics of "sick" and just get rid of the whole condescending prescription system, allowing people to decide for themselves. Psychiatrists should still be there for the more severe cases.
So what if psychiatric drugs were "performance enhancers", as you call it? Life is not a zero-sum game. Why shouldn't people be allowed to decide about their own body?
That is, they would have the same effects on ME, than they would have on someone with the so called illness.
That is: if i take Ritalin, I will have better focus, attention span, and will do better in a class room. So is the original person really sick, or do they simply have a different personality type that calls for a different environment? Well, yes and no. In my admittedly amateurish understanding, cognition is best with a medium level of stimulating transmitters such as dopamine (whose activity is enhanced by Ritalin). There is such a thing as "overfocus". If you have average brain chemistry, it would prolly increase your performance on simple tasks, but I'm not so sure about more complex ones.
Also, the effects of psychostimulants tend to be rather unsustainable in normal people (tolerance). Supposedly it's different with ADDers, which would make sense if the drugs increase dopamine levels from abnormally low to average, but this is just speculation. On the other hand, it might also be a dose issue (recreational doses vs. therapeutical ones).
About different classes of drugs - AFAIK it's rare for normal people to like antidepressants, and very unlikely for them to like antipsychotic drugs.
As a sidenote, all but one person I know who had to take meds (...) are actually sick and tired of hearing that medications are the answer. This isn't necessarily a contradiction to what I said. The medications are still far from being perfect or working for everyone. I was just saying that if a med is actually helping for someone, you shouldn't condemn them for taking it (which I now understand you probably aren't).
And then you end up on mind control medication.... You're "better", but you're not "you" anymore... Sorry, but this is a good example of a soundbite that sounds cool but breaks down when analyzed.
Please define in which way exactly a person taking medication is not "him" anymore, in which way this differs from the myriad other tools we use and changes we undergo, and why this particular change is somehow not desirable (which you don't say but clearly imply) and in particular, how it is worse than living with untreated mental illness.
It sounds like you believe that personal identity is some kind of magical ghost in the machine that (for whatever reason) gets tainted by medication. Fine if that's your belief, but please don't try to push it on others.
The "evil drug-pushing psychiatrists" bit is also just silly. It is your freaking choice whether to take the medication or not. (Except for the case of involuntary treatment, where the issue is indeed more difficult, but that's a minority.)
I apologize if my tone was a bit too offensive -- but you probably have no idea how sick and tired of that line people who do need these medications are.
Well, first of all -- has it? What's the evidence that conscious thought has powerful survival potential? Human beings have been successful for a mere 50,000 to 100,000 years, and eyeblink on the time scales of evolution. Cockroaches and crocodiles have every right to regard us as Johnny-come-latelies who might yet blow themselves to smithereens and disappear, proving consciousness to be the Betamax or 8-track tape of the biological world, an idea that seemed clever at the time.
I think all but the most ardent relativists would agree that human consciousness has already proved to be a very large influence on the world. Whether we'll misuse that power to off ourselves is another question (IMHO we probably won't).
Secondly, I don't actually agree that consciousness is designed as a general ability engine. It functions that way, yes, but only very, very slowly and inefficiently compared to all its other functions. Just look at how long it takes us to consciously solve a quadratic equation, compared to the speed (milliseconds) within which we can solve it unconsciously -- by putting our hand in the right place to catch a thrown baseball.
Well, that's comparing quite different things. Consciously solving the equation comes with this nice extra feature of reflection, which leads to developing more advanced algebra. On the other side, when catching a ball I wouldn't say that you're solving a mathematical problem - your brain is just performing an activity that can be described on a more abstract level with quadratic equations. The map is not the territory.
Yes, conscious thought may be slow, but actually I'm amazed at our ability to develop powerful intuitions on things most removed from our prehistoric origins (theoretical science, programming,...).
My suspicion is that general-purpose conscious reasoning is a weird accidental by-product of something (consciousness) which was designed for entirely different purposes.
I don't really know the evidence in detail. But one major adaptive use of consciousness is the ability to predict (e.g. the behaviour of others). This would seem to require an internal model of the world, which is already getting pretty close to "consciousness".
the ability to Do Anything slowly, unreliably and expensively that's a pretty good description of conscious thought as opposed to instincts. Seems like the former turned out to be not so useless after all;)
Disclaimer: Yes, the human brain is specialized, but much less than that of most animals.
I wasn't talking about the "emotionally warm" kind of sadness though (I don't find that one so bad). I'm talking about anhedonia, general loss of interest and social isolation for no evident reason, which doesn't resolve with time. It's a distinct, apparently physiological, state of mind. I think there's nothing good about this kind of depression.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging which kind you went through, just speaking generally.
Don't romanticize real depression as "deep" or sobering thoughts. Not being interested in anything will, in particular, not make you write deep texts. Abolishing depression would be a very good thing.
TBH I don't know much about his recent actions, but I think you're being a bit paranoid. I for one don't find it so frigging hard to believe that once you have >1E10$, genuine charity just might be a bit more fulfilling than making another billion. (And no, I don't believe that that somehow makes it not a good deed)
... "to will [sth.]" is a perfectly cromulent verb and would even make sense here.
v. willed, willing, wills v.tr. 1. To decide on; choose. 2. To yearn for; desire: "She makes you will your own destruction" George Bernard Shaw. 3. To decree, dictate, or order. 4. To resolve with a forceful will; determine. 5. To induce or try to induce by sheer force of will: We willed the sun to come out. 6. To grant in a legal will; bequeath. v.intr. 1. To exercise the will. 2. To make a choice; choose. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/will
Slashdot Mirror
"[Sertraline's] half-life in the body is 13-45 hours and is about 1.5 times longer in women (32 hours) than in men (22 hours)"
(determining the source of this quote is left as an exercise for the reader *g*)
It would seem like this could easily lead to withdrawals after 2 days. You're probably thinking of fluoxetine, which does have a very long half-life.
Serotonin is involved in many different processes, central and peripheral. That it blocked this physical reaction for you doesn't imply that it doesn't also have purely cognitive effects (which are harder to perceive directly).
OTOH, I have made a compareable experience with sertraline (which I'm still taking) in that some components have improved while in some other way I can still feel crappy (can't put my finger on it).
1. What we desire is not the same thing as that which is evolutionarily adaptive.
2. Even if it was, our brains are largely adapted to the stone age.
Physical pain is natural too, yet most people aren't opposed to fighting it (especially when it doesn't serve any adaptive purpose).
Yeah, but unfortunately, it goes both ways; built-in neurobiological problems can cause negative experiences and patterns of thought.
The problem is that what is in your head affects your ability to change what is in your head.
:)
This is where drugs can be useful.
On the other hand, in daily life you shouldn't actually believe that you have no power over your neurochemistry - since believing that you are in power presumably affects your neurochemistry positively
I know you are joking, but FWIW, they are speaking of potential infinity, not actual infinity :)
I really like this one: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3282 (Password Hasher)
sorry for my bluntness again. I have made bad experiences in this area.
Note that the idea I was most disagreeing with was the "you are not 'yourself' on meds", not the whole diagnostics issue.
On that latter issue, why do you think the accurate drawing of the line is that important? You seem a bit preoccupied with social norms/"normalcy" vs. "deviancy". My 2 cents concerning the grey area cases is that we should stop quibbling about the semantics of "sick" and just get rid of the whole condescending prescription system, allowing people to decide for themselves. Psychiatrists should still be there for the more severe cases.
So what if psychiatric drugs were "performance enhancers", as you call it? Life is not a zero-sum game. Why shouldn't people be allowed to decide about their own body? That is, they would have the same effects on ME, than they would have on someone with the so called illness.
That is: if i take Ritalin, I will have better focus, attention span, and will do better in a class room. So is the original person really sick, or do they simply have a different personality type that calls for a different environment? Well, yes and no. In my admittedly amateurish understanding, cognition is best with a medium level of stimulating transmitters such as dopamine (whose activity is enhanced by Ritalin). There is such a thing as "overfocus". If you have average brain chemistry, it would prolly increase your performance on simple tasks, but I'm not so sure about more complex ones.
Also, the effects of psychostimulants tend to be rather unsustainable in normal people (tolerance). Supposedly it's different with ADDers, which would make sense if the drugs increase dopamine levels from abnormally low to average, but this is just speculation. On the other hand, it might also be a dose issue (recreational doses vs. therapeutical ones).
About different classes of drugs - AFAIK it's rare for normal people to like antidepressants, and very unlikely for them to like antipsychotic drugs. As a sidenote, all but one person I know who had to take meds (...) are actually sick and tired of hearing that medications are the answer. This isn't necessarily a contradiction to what I said. The medications are still far from being perfect or working for everyone. I was just saying that if a med is actually helping for someone, you shouldn't condemn them for taking it (which I now understand you probably aren't).
Please define in which way exactly a person taking medication is not "him" anymore, in which way this differs from the myriad other tools we use and changes we undergo, and why this particular change is somehow not desirable (which you don't say but clearly imply) and in particular, how it is worse than living
with untreated mental illness.
It sounds like you believe that personal identity is some kind of magical ghost in the machine that (for whatever reason) gets tainted by medication. Fine if that's your belief, but please don't try to push it on others.
The "evil drug-pushing psychiatrists" bit is also just silly. It is your freaking choice whether to take the medication or not. (Except for the case of involuntary treatment, where the issue is indeed more difficult, but that's a minority.)
I apologize if my tone was a bit too offensive -- but you probably have no idea how sick and tired of that line people who do need these medications are.
I think all but the most ardent relativists would agree that human consciousness has already proved to be a very large influence on the world. Whether we'll misuse that power to off ourselves is another question (IMHO we probably won't).
Secondly, I don't actually agree that consciousness is designed as a general ability engine. It functions that way, yes, but only very, very slowly and inefficiently compared to all its other functions. Just look at how long it takes us to consciously solve a quadratic equation, compared to the speed (milliseconds) within which we can solve it unconsciously -- by putting our hand in the right place to catch a thrown baseball.Well, that's comparing quite different things. Consciously solving the equation comes with this nice extra feature of reflection, which leads to developing more advanced algebra. On the other side, when catching a ball I wouldn't say that you're solving a mathematical problem - your brain is just performing an activity that can be described on a more abstract level with quadratic equations. The map is not the territory.
Yes, conscious thought may be slow, but actually I'm amazed at our ability to develop powerful intuitions on things most removed from our prehistoric origins (theoretical science, programming, ...).
My suspicion is that general-purpose conscious reasoning is a weird accidental by-product of something (consciousness) which was designed for entirely different purposes.I don't really know the evidence in detail. But one major adaptive use of consciousness is the ability to predict (e.g. the behaviour of others). This would seem to require an internal model of the world, which is already getting pretty close to "consciousness".
Disclaimer: Yes, the human brain is specialized, but much less than that of most animals.
Hi,
nice to hear that you are better now.
I wasn't talking about the "emotionally warm" kind of sadness though (I don't find that one so bad). I'm talking about anhedonia, general loss of interest and social isolation for no evident reason, which doesn't resolve with time. It's a distinct, apparently physiological, state of mind. I think there's nothing good about this kind of depression.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging which kind you went through, just speaking generally.
Don't romanticize real depression as "deep" or sobering thoughts. Not being interested in anything will, in particular, not make you write deep texts. Abolishing depression would be a very good thing.
TBH I don't know much about his recent actions, but I think you're being a bit paranoid. I for one don't find it so frigging hard to believe that once you have >1E10$, genuine charity just might be a bit more fulfilling than making another billion. (And no, I don't believe that that somehow makes it not a good deed)
No, the world won't end. I promise :)
WTFH, nothing could be farther from the truth.
You are probably thinking of the very special case of deriving one's happiness from comparing oneself to others.
grep -iR "female" /home/me/
:( ;)
will a geek girl love me now? please?
OK, maybe I should be a bit more verbose after all ;) "What isn't?" referred to your first sentence, and "trite answer" referred to my posting.
no text
v.tr.
1. To decide on; choose.
2. To yearn for; desire: "She makes you will your own destruction" George Bernard Shaw.
3. To decree, dictate, or order.
4. To resolve with a forceful will; determine.
5. To induce or try to induce by sheer force of will: We willed the sun to come out.
6. To grant in a legal will; bequeath.
v.intr.
1. To exercise the will.
2. To make a choice; choose. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/will
Interesting. What about running su in a terminal emulator (say konsole) running as my user? Can that be intercepted by user-privilege malware?
You are taking it to the other extreme. If GP's dialog literally said "PAY ATTENTION - YOU MIGHT LOSE DATA", it's the users fault.