A man with virtually no serotonin or dopamine

Could this man possibly not be depressed because this empty mindstate if you will, is all that he knows?

Perhaps he has never felt euphoria/happiness, to compare in his mind with what depression is like.

I mean it's not like his brain was 100% normal, then through stimulant abuse he fried and depleted his brain of these chemicals, and thus had some form of comparison to compare back to. Or he was perfectly normal until his brain slowly started not regulating these neurotransmitters properly.

Maybe hes been at a kind of raw/empty consistant contentness, with 0 fluctuations of these chemicals, and simply dosn't know these emotions.

Or then again maybe not, but its just some food for thought.

I'm no neuro-scientist, so i'm not going to be like the rest of the douchebag armchair professors in this thread flaunting their opinions as fact. Perhaps some people actually do have problems regulating these neurotransmitters, and have real depression, but that would have to be maybe one tenth of the people actually being "treated" medically for depression. My reasoning for this beleif is that upon speaking with my doctor for no more than 3 sentences, maybe one or two minutes, he was happy to prescribe me with anti-depressant medication.

So it's pretty obvious there is a huge amount of people on this medication who actually do need to man the fuck up and deal with their problems. But thats me more drawing a line between a little bout of the blues, and major clinical depression, i beleive there is a huge difference between the two.

These medications are used as a first resort in a huge amount of cases, where as like benzos, they should be restricted for people who have tested every single other avenue available.
 
8L4YN3 said:
Could this man possibly not be depressed because this empty mindstate if you will, is all that he knows?

Perhaps he has never felt euphoria/happiness, to compare in his mind with what depression is like.
Click to expand...

Hah, I was gonna say that exact thing. He probably doesn't know what happiness is, therefore he wouldn't know what sadness is and therefore could not be depressed. Although I agree that SSRI's and MAOI's etc do absolutely fuck all, for most people it's placebo.

There may be people with proper depression, probably caused by prolonged stress and thus damage to the brain. But most people think they are depressed, when they aren't really. Kind of goes along the same lines as what I was saying about this guy.... People don't KNOW what real depression is like, they just have to assume that what THEY'VE experienced is the most depressed you could be, because you can't experience other people's emotions.

If you could go in to a severely depressed person brain, I think 99% of people who are taking anti-depressants would go off them.
 
We just don't know all the chemical mechanisms behind happiness, period. But anyone who has taken MDMA can tell you that serotonin plays a helluva big role.

My theory is that each person has their own necessary chemical balance. Perhaps it's the case that some people simply don't need that much serotonin to be happy because their brains naturally make good use of a small stock?
 
8L4YN3 said:
Lol, i was just stating that i'm not like the rest of the people in here with their rock solid opinions, claiming them as fact, but your free to interpret shit how you want mate. :)
Click to expand...

You were not just stating that.
The word "douchebag" is nowhere to be found in the quote above, but it was in the original.
You were doing much more than stating that. The addition of one angry, powerful word makes a huge difference.
 
slimvictor said:
You were not just stating that.
The word "douchebag" is nowhere to be found in the quote above, but it was in the original.
You were doing much more than stating that. The addition of one angry, powerful word makes a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Well i apologise for refering to the above posters as douchebags, was no need for it, sorry for the disrespect.
 
"Using an "argument style" such as yours, which seems to be based on bragging about how intellectual you are and putting your opponent down, and then apologizing for doing so seems rather conflicted. Do you think that you could simply be more gentle in the first place, instead of choosing such an argument style? It would certainly come off as more sincere."

I already stated I was being a little immature, I have strong feelings on the subject, not towards you personally. I will also admit that the demonstration of intellect displayed in the above posts was irrelevant rhetoric.

"The very fact that such things are possible argues that happiness does not come from outside. Your mention of Schopenhauer discussed his argument, which was essentially that happiness does not come from outside."

That might be your interpretation of Schopenhauer, but I think he was suggesting something along the lines that happiness isn't real, at best an illusory experience. Perhaps you consider that support for your theory, but some how I feel his views on the subject are quite a bit more pessimistic than you give them credit for.

In regards to the examples you mentioned, I agree perspective does influence experience. This does not mean that happiness is not causal in mechanics. Just because an inmate does not interpret his situation typically, and chooses to find happiness in gratitude for what he has rather than despair for what he has been deprived of, does not mean his brains communication of pleasure isn't chemical in nature, nor that the reasons he experienced his situation as he did wasn't preceded by causal fractures. I don't necessarily reject mind over matter, but I do reject it as you have prescribed it.

"True happiness comes from within."

By within do you mean the brain?

"The empirical evidence you demand is inferior to direct personal experience."

Your original sentence was prescriptive, and when it comes to prescribing something to others personal experience is not superior to replicable experience.

"I have no reason to sell the idea. No patent, no book to sell. If you don't agree with me, I really couldn't care less."

Yea I noticed. What is it you teach again?

"Your original argument is unclear. Is it that I can not know what happiness is for other people? I cannot provide empirical evidence that happiness is a choice?"

No, that you were taking a very complicated phenomena, and approaching it in an overly simplistic, perhaps not moronic, but possibly intellectually lazy approach.

"And yet, (nearly?) all people can experience happiness."

Again we haven't really agreed on a criteria for happiness. But I could provide counter evidence of people physiologically incapable of experiencing happiness. I understand you said nearly, but the lack of limbic activity in a psychopath during exercises that are designed to produce emotion, indicates that emotion is causal and material.

"As for your promise that you could take your argument to linguistics, etc., I somehow doubt you. Maybe it stems from the fact that you are unable to correctly differentiate between "your" and "you're" as well as "their" and "they're", which seems like it should be far simpler than discussing happiness in linguistics. Furthermore, what would you do, talk about different words for "happy", and what they show about your argument? It would bear no relation to what I said, which is a truth that can be directly experienced."

Granted I should have gone over my grammar. English is a second language for me, but it's irrelevant in regards to my ability to discuss linguistics in the context I suggested, as it is a field that although including the dynamics of grammar rules, is quite a bit more complex than you give it credit for. What I could do is discuss the relationship between language and social experience, the dynamic between experiential memory and the propositions inherent in any given word, and the role of language in interpreting experience. I'll use another Wittgenstein quote, "the limits of language are the limits of our reality." And the definition of happiness is relevant, because what you define as happiness... eh never mind.
 
Last edited:
Roger&Me said:
This is simply confirming something I've known for a long time: the "serotonin deficiency causes depression" line is a crock of shit.

Unhappiness is not a biochemical disease, its a psychological/emotional/spiritual problem. The sooner depressed people realize this fact, the sooner they can get assistance that will actually help them feel better instead of just shoving pills down their throat to correct a phantom "imbalance".
Click to expand...

amen man, I've thought this too for a long time
 
narco anonomous said:
"True happiness comes from within."

By within do you mean the brain?
Click to expand...

I mean within the human being, not stemming from outside factors.

narco anonomous said:
"The empirical evidence you demand is inferior to direct personal experience."

Your original sentence was prescriptive, and when it comes to prescribing something to others personal experience is not superior to replicable experience.
Click to expand...

That is not prescriptive. Prescriptive sentences tell people how they should live, or what they should do.

narco anonomous said:
Granted I should have gone over my grammar. English is a second language for me, but it's irrelevant in regards to my ability to discuss linguistics in the context I suggested, as it is a field that although including the dynamics of grammar rules, is quite a bit more complex than you give it credit for. What I could do is discuss the relationship between language and social experience, the dynamic between experiential memory and the propositions inherent in any given word, and the role of language in interpreting experience.
Click to expand...

I apologize for insulting your grammar (like a prescriptivist!). Even if you were a native speaker, it did not impede communication, so it was not really a problem. However, considering you are a non-native speaker, your written English is truly excellent.

However, I do not think that linguistics is more complex that I give it credit for. I have a PhD in linguistics from a large research university, and I am a practicing linguist at a large research university. My research spans from the psychology of language to more anthropological-based language description, so I believe that I am very aware of what linguistics is capable of, and what is outside the field. What you are talking about is not using linguistics to argue against my statement that "happiness is a choice", but philosophizing about language and the role in might play in determining if this is the case. Nothing against philosophy, but it is not linguistics, which demands a different standard and type of empirical evidence to support its claims.

In any case, I feel that you have missed my point.
This is how our discussion seems to have gone, from my point of view (with all insults removed):


A: Water is wet.
B: How do you know? Can you prove it? Can you define "wet"? What if each person has a different experience of "water", or of "wet"? Famous Person X said that water might not be wet. Have you considered the sociological, ecological, moral, legal, and emotional issues surrounding water, and the concept of wetness? (etc., etc., etc.)
A: :|
 
In any case, I feel that you have missed my point.
This is how our discussion seems to have gone, from my point of view (with all insults removed):

A: Water is wet.
B: How do you know? Can you prove it? Can you define "wet"? What if each person has a different experience of "water", or of "wet"? Famous Person X said that water might not be wet. Have you considered the sociological, ecological, moral, legal, and emotional issues surrounding water, and the concept of wetness? (etc., etc., etc.)
A:

I can see how it would seem that way, although water's wetness is not necessarily analogous to the phenomena of happiness. waters wetness is innate in the premise, happiness is a some what more relative proposition. I wasn't trying to take the discussion into the territory of infinite regress, I just wanted to point out that happiness is a complicated premise. Anyhow I appreciate you're profession, and I understand your perspective. "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
 
lol fascinating debate and a very fascinating article. You guys seem very intelligent. Thanks for the great read :D
 
narco anonomous said:
He than examines the next area people aim to find happiness in, human relationships, and gives his opinions on the futility and inherent narcissism of such endeavors. He gives a comparison by analogy relating the human social condition to porcupines in a cold environment, all shivering from the cold because they are thin skinned and as result come together and try to snuggle or something like that to create warmth and in the process they poke each other. They retreat to tend to there wounds, get cold again, and repeat the dance. He suggests that those who closest approach happiness are those who learn to create their own warmth(his suggestion on how to do those is rejection of the first two drives towards happiness, and seeking refuge in careful, contemplative thought).
Click to expand...

It appears, from my subjective view, as though you are a porcupine who has overcome the need for companionship e.g. you have the longest quills and no other porcupine wants to come near, or you poke/have been poked so much that you or the other porcupines are content with keeping their distance. But you take refuge in the fact that your quills are longest and sharpest, so at least you go home with the peace of mind that you're not going to end up as someone's next meal.
And even if you are content in your little hole, able to go out and forage safely without fear of death, its quite obvious to an onlooker that the 2 porcupines next door, fucking each-other mercilessly and making hella babies are achieving fulfillment and happiness on a level that you can only contemplate by yourself in your den. Im not saying you don't think you've got it made, interacting with things on a cerebral level. Nor am i stating as fact that you exemplify the long-quilled porcupine, although from what i've gathered from your arguments i'd put money on it. Im just saying that its quite ludicrous to give up on achieving fulfillment and happiness through companionship, unless some physical or psychological factors(rigidness) prevent you from doing so. And as for specific examples on the matter, you simply need to look around at all of the happy lifelong couples who live every day for their significant other, who just happens to be their main source of happiness, if you were to ask them. (THERES MANY OF THEM)
 
narco anonomous said:
In these cases psychology is invaluable for understanding the symptoms, but my experience less helpful for treating them. And even in these cases the factors are memory related, which is neurological. I for one see little evidence that depression can be treated with logic. .
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_emotive_behavior_therapy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy

if you believe that you need drugs then you will "need" them

what we believe has a profound effect on our mental state and the outcomes of periods of mental illness. filling your head with DSM criteria is all well and good but its a drug marketing tool for big pharma:\

yes if your life is shit maybe you will feel shit about it... not so far fetched
 
This thread is one of the reasons why I love bluelight....fascinating intelligent discussion with several sides of opinion being represented equally well. If only the political system could be more like this!

As someone who suffers from bipolar disorder this thread holds particular interest for me, having had extensive experience with the mental health system. I have to agree with the sentiment that mental health disorders seem to have been oversimplified to some degree.

The overprescribing of medication (particularly of the SSRI/SNRI type) is rampant here in Australia as well. Upon visiting GP's and Psychiatrists, after a brief chat it seemed they were all too keen to immediately prescribe these types of meds to me and not take the time to diagnose bipolar disorder (as opposed to clinical depression). As many of you probably know, depression medication can exacerbate bipolar's symptoms and it took for me to have a full-blown manic episode (complete with paranoia, violent impulses and visual and aural hallucinations) to be properly diagnosed.

Despite this, I am not on medication for my condition - it does affect my life but I am slowly learning to deal with it and I think I am doing ok, despite reasonably frequent bouts of feeling horrible and thinking things that are, frankly, nasty about friends and acquaintances.

Still, the fact I am capable of having an overall functional and many times, enjoyable life seems to point to some validity in Slimvictor's "happiness is a choice" statement. However I think this is quite an oversimplification.

Happiness, being a concept we have created, certainly comes from within, yet is heavily influenced by the outside world. By removing or reducing the ability of the outside world to stimulate happiness/sadness you are really just numbing yourself to reality. I think outside factors can most certainly produce true happiness - all happiness is true, some is more fleeting. Just as factors within yourself (self discovery, acceptance, contemplation, analysis) can produce true happiness. I don't think happiness is a choice - contentment, perhaps so. But these states are different (I think).

Certainly, some people seem better chemically equipped to deal with the inside soul and the outside world, to suggest otherwise is extremely belittling to people that have their lives genuinely impaired because of a severe mental disorder. HOWEVER it certainly seems that in some cases a good "kick up the ass" can be one of the most helpful ways to change a very unhappy person. But let's not forget the human body and mind are extremely complex and there is a cavalcade of things we just do not know or understand about them.

There are some cases where it just can't be boiled down to "life is shit, get over it."

Anyway, that's my ramble. Hope this discussion keeps up, it's fascinating!
 
I would think that on a site such as Bluelight, the type of people would not be prone to believing that "happiness is a choice." tl:dr it is and it is not, mood revolves around the your own biology. IMO this article is really is something that should be in National Enquirer.
 
And what of people that are depressed due to abuse of drugs? How is this not caused by a chemical imbalance?

What if depression is due to anxiety.. or can neurochemicals not play a part to play in anxiety either?

You lot aren't the brightest to think that depression can't be caused by a chemical imbalance.. Use, for example, drug A makes you happy.. for the next day or 2 u feel depressed.. how is that not a chemical imbalance causing depression?

I'm not saying that chemicals can cure all, if anyones case of depression alone.. but it sure can help.
 
I'm not saying that chemicals can cure all, if anyones case of depression alone.. but it sure can help.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Get the chemical balance somewhere closer to a "normal" or average person's and then treatment of other kinds (cognitive behavioural therapy etc) can be used in conjunction with it and in some cases be much more effective than if it was tried without any drugs.
 
On a separate note,

Anyone want to explain why 5htp supplementation helped the man with his sleep cycles, when many now say that as 5htp is converted into serotonin in the liver, and serotonin does not cross BBB, hence 5htp supplementation is useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top