IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

'panic spells' in the News

WingHorse winghorse at aol.com
Fri Jan 30 14:35:25 EST 2004


This point (below) is SUPERB!

All molar behavior, predicated as it is on neurological signals, is survival-
and homeostasis-oriented.  This goes for all multicellular organisms, but also
for cellular organisms, which form the basis of the mulicelluar organism (their
"brain" being the cell nucleus, or "DNA").

Any given molar behavior can be either healthy---i.e., appropriately oriented
to the realities of the situation, thus potentially leading to a successsful
(elevated homeostasis, or the prevention of fatality) solution of the problem
posed---or it can be pathelogical; that is, not appropriate to the realities of
the sitution, thus hopeless for resolving the problem.

Every species of plant and animal has its relative handful of behaviorally
pathelogical individuals; mammals with rabies is just one illustration.  But
civilized humankind, especially contemporary man,   is the only species in
which the preponderance seems to be the pathelogically behaving---panic attacks
without immediate and appropriate cause being one symptom of such pathology,
and the sort of neurological investigator  that Collins points out  being
another example.

Brain chemistry is surely the cause behind the overt behavior of the molar
being, but it is actually the *effect* of cognitive processes (not intellecutal
ones) in that being.  All organisms are cognitive---they perceive, discern
among,  and cognitively deal with referents (the etymological meaning of the
word intelligence)--- but man is arguably the only one which can also be
intellectual:  discernment among words and other artificial symbols, and he is
UNarguably the only creature that is ONLY intellectual, mistaking his own
artificial constructs for reality itself.  This last is severely  pathelogical.
It is a pathology of the cognitive faculty, which leads to pathology of the
nervous system.

And it is this last form of pathology that leads to the kind of nonsense that
Collins so well, if lengthily, points out.

In article <h1ARb.27759$i4.9835 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "k p 
Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> writes:

>
>There is an article, "Panic Spells Are
>Traced To Chemical In the Brain", by
>A. O'Connor, in the "Science Times"
>section of the 2004-01-27 issue of
>The =New York Times=, pD5.
[ . . .]

>The article discusses research that
>points to serotinin involvements, if
>folks are interested.
>
>I'm going to discuss the same stuff
>from another perspective.
>
>Quoting from the =New York Times=
>article, as it quotes an interviewee:
>
>"`Panic disorder is due to a specific
>abnormality in the brain, not a weak-
>ness in character.'"
>
>This's misleading 'double-speak', half
>of which is entirely-False.
>
>There is an 'abnormality' involved, but
>it's independent of Pathology, and, as
>is implied, is independent of 'character'.
>
>Quoting from the =New York Times=
>article, as it states the comments of
>an interviewee:
>
>"there is a strong likelihood that the re-
>ceptor deficiencies are genetic".
>
>This's where I have a problem with
>the approach that's discussed in the
>article.
>
>'Panic disorder' can be induced within
>=anyone=. It will occur 100% of the
>'time' when there are relentlessly-neg-
>ative external experiential conditions.

[I would point out that panic syndrome can also occur when there is a
relentlessly negative INTERNAL experiential condition. - W]

>This happens be-cause, as one exper-
>iences such relentlessly-negative condi-
>tions, one's nervous system constructs
>"biological mass" [AoK, Ap5] that
>conforms to the neural activity that
>actually occurs within one's nervous
>system.
>
>And the 'adjustment' of the neural
>Topology that results, is =necessary=
>with respect to Survival within the
>relentlessly-negative environmental
>conditions.
>
>It's not "abnormal". It's just what
>happens, and is no 'different' than
>what happens within a nervous
>system that is not subjected to
>relentlessly-negative external
>experiential environments.
>
>Understand?
>
>Nervous systems literally become
>what they experience.
>
>This "becoming" =necessarily=
>takes the form of modifications to
>the neural Topology.
>
>If the neural Topology was not
>modified as a consequence of
>experience, learning wouldn't
>happen.
>
>Understand?
>
>This study, and so many like it,
>are 'blind' to this one Reality,
>and all such studies lead Neuro-
>science away from actual com-
>prehension of nervous system
>function.
>
>Given a nervous system that, at
>birth, is 'normal', the neural activ-
>ation that the nervous system sub-
>sequently experiences literally
>modifies the neural architecture.
>
>Neuroscience has done, and con-
>tinues to do, a great disservice to
>Humanity when it Fails to carry
>this simple =FACT= through its
>efforts.
>
>It is =entirely= appropriate for
>a nervous system that's subjected
>to relentlessly-negative experience
>to adjust its internal dynamics in
>ways that 'counter' that relentless-
>negativity.
>
>To Fail to do this is to Fail to
>Survive.
>
>But, when Neuroscience points
>the finger of 'abnormality' in-there,
>it Fails to see that, although com-
>parative differences can, in fact,
>be discerned, all of the nervous
>systems that it's looking at can
>still be functioning 'normally'.
>
>Why it matters [greatly] is that,
>approaches that attribute 'ab-
>normality' to this or that pharmo-
>cological 'difference' actively-
>encourage folks to be 'blind' to
>the fact that, "Yes Virginia, if
>your experiential environment
>is 'hell', then your nervous system's
>functionality will be altered in a
>way that reflects that."
>
>Fail to get this point across
>to folks, and Neuroscience induces
>folks to acquiesce to behaving as
>'victims' - to =not= do anything to
>modify their external experiential
>environments.
>
>But the approach that is being
>considered in the study reported
>on in the article can have =no=
>success because the =only= thing
>that happens as a result of trying
>to 'reset' the supposed 'imbalance'
>of this or that neurochemical, without
>ameliorating the external experiential
>conditions that precipitated the so-
>called "deficit", is to actively artificially
>render the nervous system's functioning
>less-capable.
>
>This 'modern' concept of there 'being
>a way' to do with a 'pill' what folks
>are Failing to do through their own
>efforts is totally-non-sensical.
>
>Look at it through the 'lens' of
>an analogy.
>
>Say there's a fellow who can't get
>to his Loved-one because an earth-
>quake has opened up a crevass,
>between him and her, that he
>cannot cross.
>
>Do you tell him to 'take a pill'?
>
>Or do you tell him to do the work
>that building a bridge across the
>crevass requires? Or to do the
>work inherent in walking around
>the crevass?
>
>See the difference?
>
>Giving the guy a 'pill' might result
>in his becoming complacent about
>his not being able to reach his Loved-
>one, but that's a 'solution' that 'denies'
>the Problem, rather than Fixing it.
>
>And, all over the place, 'neuro-
>science' is imposing such 'denial'
>of needed-work upon folks.
>
>If this continues, pretty soon, the
>only folks who'll be left working
>will be the folks who make 'pills'.
>
>Everyone else will be sitting by
>their ever-burgenoning collection
>of 'pills', 'vegetating'.
>
>It's all very-Serious.
>
>The modifications that occur
>within nervous systems through
>their encounters with environmental
>Difficulties are the very =embodiment=
>of the propensity to Resolve
>the Problems that have been
>experienced.
>
>Understand?
>
>It's Unethical to 'presume' that
>'pills' replace the physical labor
>that needs to be accomplished.
>
>But, where ever I look, within
>'neuroscience', all I see is folks
>trying to give folks 'pills' that
>'blind' them to what their nervous
>systems are 'encouraging' them
>to accomplish.
>
>Then this Error - this invited-Failure
>becomes established within 'culture',
>and pretty soon, nobody can do
>anything about the Problems that
>confront Society, because, if they
>try to, as a result of the absence-of-
>understanding that's been actively
>promulgated by 'neuroscience',
>everyone treats them as if they're
>"ill".
>
>:-]
>
>Get it?





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net