Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 4, 2015 at 1:39 am (This post was last modified: September 4, 2015 at 1:40 am by Faith No More.)
(September 3, 2015 at 5:58 am)Napoléon Wrote:
This forum makes me laugh sometimes. A thread like this gets barely any attention, but a thread literally about shit, people jump on like flies on... well.. shit.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
Anyway, I also wanted to say that I think his point about 'bonding' and connections goes for more things other than just addiction. I think it's doubly the case for depression, for instance. Hell, depression is almost always (in my experience) linked very closely to addiction. Find me an addict who isn't depressed. So his talk, his actual point, is far deeper and covers a lot more than just addiction. It touches on the real reason why people get addicted IMO.
I think the chemicals hooks referred to, are actually a symptom, not a cause. I've always thought this. I'm not a scientist so my discounting of such might be completely baseless, I don't know the ins and outs and I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about, I'm sure I'm probably completely wrong. But personally I don't look at addiction and just think it's either something you have the capacity for or you don't. Like, a lot of people I know say addiction is something that 'just happens' in the brain, like a switch being turned on for 'chemical' reasons.
That just doesn't make sense to me. For instance, one example I can think of is smoking. A lot of people are addicted to cigarettes right? Some people just can't stop (so they say). But I can pick up a fag, chain smoke like a motherfucker, and never touch one again. I've never felt any inclination to smoke, even after having several cigarettes. Now, I literally had this discussion the other day with someone who works in a doctors practice and likes to think they know it all medically, their response was "oh well your brain is wired differently". However on a night out, when I'm in a different sort of mindspace (when I'm pissed, basically), that's the only time I ever really have a want for it, a craving if you like. I've always found it difficult to comprehend why someone, or rather how someone, could be in some way predisposed to addiction, and others would be seemingly immune? Is it just a 'chemical imbalance'? That seems way too simplistic to me.
I see smoking addiction for many people as habitual, rather than deeply rooted in depression or such like. A lot of people say they smoke due to 'stress', the funny thing is, smoking regularly actually makes you more stressed. Hence I can see how the vicious cycle of addiction begins. But I think smoking addicts are so for different reasons to alcoholics, for example. Smokers in general don't seem as unhappy people as what alcoholics do, for instance. I don't think it's just about 'chemicals in our brain'. I really think the reasons for addiction are more to do with social factors than to do with chemical or neurological ones.
Just my take anyway.
It's silly, isnt' it? The bestiality thread gets 5 pages in an hour, but nobody wants to join in here. Oh, well. It's a touchy subject that some people might not want to discuss, and it's also pretty serious. A lot of the time when I come here, I just want to shut my brain off. That's why I didn't come back to this right away, at least.
This is essentially my understanding of how this all works. Your brain works on what is essentially a reward based system. When you do something that is postiive for yourself, your brain releases certain neurotransmitters, which is what gives you the pleasant feeling. When the neurons that are receptors for those neruotransmitters take in the chemicals, it "excites" them, which causes them to want to receive those neurotransmitters again. That's what makes your mind want to repeat the process, and that is how you learn to do what is beneficial for yourself.
Drugs exploit this system by coming in and unleashing large doses of those neurotransmitters into your brain that in turn "excite" large numbers of receptors, and that translates into you really want to repeat the behavior of ingesting those drugs. Now, your brain requires a certain level of those neurotransmitters in order to run properly, like having a balanced mood, and bonding is one of those things that helps release those neurotransmitters and keep a good balance. If you lack the neurotransmitters you ought to be getting from bonding, you're going to have receptors that need to be used but are not, and when you do drugs, you're essentially using them as a replacement source for what you don't get from bonding. So, if you can then find those proper bonds in life and get your neurotransmitters from the proper source, you no longer need the drugs, however, if a person quits without bonding properly, they are going to be more prone to relapse.
The problem is, and the reason his approach is incomplete, those receptors in your brain can get so overstimulated by heavy drug use that no amount of proper bonding is going to fufill the craving you get from those overstimulated receptors. It even gets to the point where the receptors are so overstimulated that the person becomes sick if they're high, and the person doesn't even really get high from the drug use. Pretty much all the drugs do at that point is make the sickness go away.
Now, of course this all varies by drug, because they release different neurotransmitters. That's why some drugs are extremely addicting but others are not. And since people's brains are different, drugs are going to affect people in different ways. One drug might be really addictive to one person while another person might not be drawn to it all.
Anyway, that's my basic understanding of it. I'm sure it's all more complicated like that, and anyone can feel free to add something I missed or correct it if I was wrong about something.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
September 4, 2015 at 3:38 am (This post was last modified: September 4, 2015 at 3:41 am by robvalue.)
It seems to me some people are more naturally inclined to becomes obsessed with things. I supposed it's what is called an addictive personality. I would guess it's more of a sliding scale that everyone is part of, it just doesn't present a problem at the lower end. Once it gets past a certain point, the obsession turns into dependence.
I can certainly identify as someone who gets quite easily obsessed with things if I'm not careful, but I wouldn't say I get addicted. I'm able to stop, but I do still feel withdrawal symptoms if I've allowed myself to get too deep into something.
Of course I'm not talking about physical addiction such as drugs here, that's a different matter.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
September 4, 2015 at 3:51 am (This post was last modified: September 4, 2015 at 3:54 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(September 3, 2015 at 5:58 am)Napoléon Wrote: This forum makes me laugh sometimes. A thread like this gets barely any attention, but a thread literally about shit, people jump on like flies on... well.. shit.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
Anyway, I also wanted to say that I think his point about 'bonding' and connections goes for more things other than just addiction. I think it's doubly the case for depression, for instance. Hell, depression is almost always (in my experience) linked very closely to addiction. Find me an addict who isn't depressed. So his talk, his actual point, is far deeper and covers a lot more than just addiction. It touches on the real reason why people get addicted IMO.
I think the chemicals hooks referred to, are actually a symptom, not a cause. I've always thought this. I'm not a scientist so my discounting of such might be completely baseless, I don't know the ins and outs and I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about, I'm sure I'm probably completely wrong. But personally I don't look at addiction and just think it's either something you have the capacity for or you don't. Like, a lot of people I know say addiction is something that 'just happens' in the brain, like a switch being turned on for 'chemical' reasons.
That just doesn't make sense to me. For instance, one example I can think of is smoking. A lot of people are addicted to cigarettes right? Some people just can't stop (so they say). But I can pick up a fag, chain smoke like a motherfucker, and never touch one again. I've never felt any inclination to smoke, even after having several cigarettes. Now, I literally had this discussion the other day with someone who works in a doctors practice and likes to think they know it all medically, their response was "oh well your brain is wired differently". However on a night out, when I'm in a different sort of mindspace (when I'm pissed, basically), that's the only time I ever really have a want for it, a craving if you like. I've always found it difficult to comprehend why someone, or rather how someone, could be in some way predisposed to addiction, and others would be seemingly immune? Is it just a 'chemical imbalance'? That seems way too simplistic to me.
I see smoking addiction for many people as habitual, rather than deeply rooted in depression or such like. A lot of people say they smoke due to 'stress', the funny thing is, smoking regularly actually makes you more stressed. Hence I can see how the vicious cycle of addiction begins. But I think smoking addicts are so for different reasons to alcoholics, for example. Smokers in general don't seem as unhappy people as what alcoholics do, for instance. I don't think it's just about 'chemicals in our brain'. I really think the reasons for addiction are more to do with social factors than to do with chemical or neurological ones.
Just my take anyway.
I think his point about ratpark is to the point. Not so much for cigarettes, as you're talking about here, but for the more mind-altering dependencies, a sort of sensory deprivation might well encourage drug-use that is more psychologically "entertaining", if you'll pardon the term. I think he's saying, at that point, that boredom helps to breed addiction, to those drugs which are more psychoactive. For instance, marijuana doesn't induce the "classic" symptoms of addiction, such as tolerance and withdrawal, but there's a body of thought that regards it as "psychologically" addictive. Perhaps at that point the addiction isn't to the drug itself, but to a different brainspace?
(September 4, 2015 at 3:51 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I think his point about ratpark is to the point. Not so much for cigarettes, as you're talking about here, but for the more mind-altering dependencies, a sort of sensory deprivation might well encourage drug-use that is more psychologically "entertaining", if you'll pardon the term. I think he's saying, at that point, that boredom helps to breed addiction, to those drugs which are more psychoactive. For instance, marijuana doesn't induce the "classic" symptoms of addiction, such as tolerance and withdrawal, but there's a body of thought that regards it as "psychologically" addictive. Perhaps at that point the addiction isn't to the drug itself, but to a different brainspace?
There definitely seems to be some sort of different mechanism going on with nicotine. I have no idea what that is, but the behavior associated with nicotine doesn't match the drugs that cause intoxication. Perhaps it has something to do with nicotine being a highly potent poison that is deadly in extremely small doses.
As for marijuana being psychologically addictive, I think that idea is catching on more and more. I can attest to the fact personally that it is psychologically addicting. I think the drugs that are highly physically addictive tend to release a lot of dopamine, so perhaps marijuana just doesn't release much of that. You will definitely jones hard, though, if you're used to having weed a lot and run out.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(September 4, 2015 at 4:10 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: "One of the loneliest societies that have ever been". Spot on.
The thing is, by replacing real, face-to-face relationships with superficial interactions on the internet, we're causing real changes to our brains chemically. What's worse is children with developing brains are going to grow up with these superficial interactions, and that is going to mean than their adult brains are going to have developed with lower neurotransmitter levels during the key periods of brain development. That's sure to make a serious difference in the level mental disorders we're going to see when today's children are grown up.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
So, we have a system of dealing with addiction that may as well have been designed to make the problem worse. That's really grand. At least it also destroys families and costs us a lot of money.
For those of you complaining that the bestiality thread is longer than this one, perhaps it has a lot to do with the fact that a consistent moral argument against bestiality is difficult with plenty of points to argue; while this one is just not controversial with this audience. It would probably get more play if this was a largely GOP crowd.
(September 4, 2015 at 10:13 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: For those of you complaining that the bestiality thread is longer than this one, perhaps it has a lot to do with the fact that a consistent moral argument against bestiality is difficult with plenty of points to argue; while this one is just not controversial with this audience. It would probably get more play if this was a largely GOP crowd.
No, I understand why people are drawn to that thread as opposed to this one. I wasn't really complaining about it so much as I was pointing out a fact like Napoleon did and merely commented that it was silly. The reason I find it silly is that addiction is a very real, prevalent problem that is cross-cultural while the morality of bestiality plays very little role in our daily lives.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(September 4, 2015 at 10:13 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: For those of you complaining
I don't think anyone's complaining. Like I said, just an observation.
A lot of people talk about 'intellectual discussion' like it's what they're here for. But when you look at what threads grab the most attention, it's usually the ones that are dumb as fuck.
Like I said, that's not a criticism. Some of these "dumb" threads are made by myself btw. Yet it's no less amusing.
