Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,441
I hate to break it to you; there's only one animal species likely to develop cybernetics
desensitizing yourself- good or bad?
- Thread starter caketastydelish
- Start date
I hate to break it to you; there's only one animal species likely to develop cybernetics
But there are effective medicines and health care services available for mental health. On the other hand Cancer and HIV are pretty difficult to treat.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I'd say the reverse is true. Any physical illness, if treatable at all, will generally respond in at most a few months. That's not true of mental illness generally, which is very poorly understood and very often untreatable, and untreated.
Well, you can disagree, but only a small subset of mental illnesses respond to medicines and health services. As well, the science we'll use to treat cancer is currently on some really excellent trendlines - it's going to become an information technology, with its potential for exponential growth. It's hard to tell, but we're about to get cancer on the ropes (it's why I specified 'in a few decades').
If you do any sort of analysis or research, you'll quickly find that mental illnesses (and other neurological conditions) are a really large source of suffering. People could do a lot of good if they wanted to, since momentum is currently so slow
Fwiw i am of the view that it is not likely that 'mental diseases' will be 'cured', even in 100 years. A bit of a parallel could be to someone being able to climb up a ladder (here standing for curing a disease with a somatic core of symptoms) and being able to morph that ladder into a spaceship (curing the mental disease).
In theory it is possible, with isomorphisms (sic), but i doubt it will happen. There is no direct way to make a drug act exactly to alter mental connections, afaik those drugs merely cancel the signaling (to some degree) associated (by and large) with some emotions or other mental activity. So they are at best like giving a runner a bottle of water while he still has to run a few km to the finishing line; that bottle won't ensure that he indeed will, but it may temporarily help.
Of course if we move to utopic territory, it may be *possible* theoretically that future drugs will somehow factor the individual's overall mental world, and act in more elaborate manner to that. But that by itself is not the best of ideas either, cause as it is known no person is aware of his entire mental world- not even of a smallish part of it. So such a drug would in effect morph you into something you did not progress to, and thus is again potentially very dangerous (a bit like illegal drugs, only those do not come with the end to help you reach anything; they still alter the person in chaotic manner).
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The idea of a "seratonin imbalance" as far as I can tell is highly misleading, so in terms of "curing" mental illnesses by exogenously calibrating neurotransmitters I am skeptical. However, boosting seratonin while reducing its dynamic range is still therapeutic for many people so we might see some real dope treatments in the future.
More to the point, however, is that many mental illnesses, increasingly in over the years, are being linked to pathogens. Those ones will eventually get cured.
More to the point, however, is that many mental illnesses, increasingly in over the years, are being linked to pathogens. Those ones will eventually get cured.
Well, we have no idea how to fix many of the mental illnesses, many of the blunt tools have already been used. That said, there are serious gaps in the state of the research funding. People would be surprised how little basic research gets funded in these areas. Keep an eye out on your Facebook feed, notice how rarely an option to fund some charity walk, run, or cycle (or whatevs) comes up. It's why a wee bit of momentum could go a really long way. And they could really use help from the people who deem themselves mentally healthy (who better to help?)
They'll still be around in 100 years if we fail to fund the basic research, assuming they'll be around in 100 years. Like I said, they're going to be one of the major sources of suffering this century.
They'll still be around in 100 years if we fail to fund the basic research, assuming they'll be around in 100 years. Like I said, they're going to be one of the major sources of suffering this century.
Some research ends are just false, though. Imagine someone trying to pile up surface after surface with the end to get a volume. Having 10 surfaces is the same in that regard as having 10^400 surfaces.
Changing the actual mental world, in a specific manner, through an external mechanism (eg drug), seems very unlikely to lead to good which itself was actually both calculated and useful. 'First do no harm', as the line goes.
Changing the actual mental world, in a specific manner, through an external mechanism (eg drug), seems very unlikely to lead to good which itself was actually both calculated and useful. 'First do no harm', as the line goes.
Well, it's not just research into drugs. There's a real paucity in the entire field.
I think that putting in zero effort is a sure way to fail.
I think that putting in zero effort is a sure way to fail.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Hence why so so many psychiatric drugs are first created by scientists who take the drugs to see what kind of high they get.
Or so.
