• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Chemical architecture...

ayjay

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
1,724
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Found the article below online at:
http://www.corante.com/brainwaves/a...architecture_of_the_human_mind_by_tom_ray.php

Pretty ambitious stuff - any comments?

February 05, 2005
The Chemical Architecture of the Human Mind by Tom Ray
Posted by Zack
Last year, in a six part series, interdisciplinary neuroecoscientist Tom Ray shared a simplified version of his work on using psychedelics to probe and map the receptor space of the human mind here on Brain Waves. The following is a more technical overview of his brilliant work.

The Chemical Architecture of the Human Mind: Probing Receptor Space with Psychedelics
by Tom Ray

Nineteen psychedelics (2C-B, 2C-B-fly, DOB, DOI, DOM, 2C-E, 2C-T-2, ALEPH-2, Mescaline, MEM, MDA, MDMA, DMT, 5-MeO-DMT, 5-MeO-MIPT, DIPT, 5-MeO-DIPT, DPT, Psilocin) and three controls (lisuride 6-fluoro-DMT, 4C-T-2) have each been screened against the full panel of over one hundred receptors, transporters and ion channels by the National Institute of Mental Health Psychoactive Drug Screening Program (NIMH-PDSP), providing the first comprehensive view of how these compounds interact with the human receptome.

Each individual psychedelic causes a unique spectrum of subjective effects. DIPT causes auditory distortion. 5-MeO-DIPT enhances orgasm in males but not females. MDMA provokes empathy. TMA provokes anger. Mescaline provokes an appreciation of beauty. 2C-B causes tactile, gustatory and sexual enhancement. 2C-E provokes rich fantasy and introspection. Taken collectively, these compounds provide a rich set of tools for probing and revealing the chemical organization of the human brain and the mind that emerges from it.

The project aims to understand the mechanisms underlying the qualitative diversity of actions of psychedelics, by locating each drug in an abstract " receptor space", a coordinate system with one axis for each receptor. Drugs shift the balance of activity of the brain away from the origin, by a vector representing the profile of binding affinities at different receptors. Drugs perturb the system through increasing or decreasing transmission or transmitter levels, or up or down regulating receptor populations.

In a brain-centered reference frame, the origin is based on absolute levels of activity at each receptor population. The state of the brain is constantly on the move, regardless of medication. We can think of it as a complex dynamical system, in which the trajectory follows high-dimensional orbits, and switches among many "attractors", where the attractors represent the major emotional states and moods, and whatever mental phenomena the chemical systems are mediating.

In this dynamic reference frame, drugs will create a perturbation along the binding vector, thereby pushing the system into a new attractor. We want to understand how patterns of activity at receptor populations associate with mental phenomena. We want to get to know the pharmacology of the attractors. By correlating the subjective effects of a diverse selection of psychedelic drugs with the position of the drugs in "receptor space", we can begin to map the chemical organization of the human mind.

The current project is charting the distribution of psychedelics in "receptor space". In future work, new human data will be needed, using subjective questionnaires and brain imaging, as in the work of Vollenweider. For human work, compounds will be carefully chosen to represent distinct regions of "receptor space", or distinct subjective effects.

The goal of mapping "receptor space" is to chart the relationships between complex alterations in chemical signaling, and resulting changes in neural activity and mental states. This empirical knowledge can form a foundation for the development of a theory of the chemistry of mind, and provide a more rational basis for the development of chemical treatments for mental disorders. The understanding of the chemistry of consciousness is the ultimate goal of this research.
 
It's just stupid, that's what it is. I don't know wht the fuck this guy thinks he's doing, but if he thinkgs he can explain complex mental phenomena from some binding data, he's so widely off it's not even funny.

You'd need to look at partial agonist effects, and G-protein trafficking... as well as probably pharmacokinetics properties and receptor downregulation effects.

It's just plain foolish. Still, I'm glad he funded all the binding data for all these compounds... hopefully it'll get public (or get done) soon enough.

And I just love
Each individual psychedelic causes a unique spectrum of subjective effects. DIPT causes auditory distortion. 5-MeO-DIPT enhances orgasm in males but not females. MDMA provokes empathy. TMA provokes anger. Mescaline provokes an appreciation of beauty. 2C-B causes tactile, gustatory and sexual enhancement. 2C-E provokes rich fantasy and introspection. Taken collectively, these compounds provide a rich set of tools for probing and revealing the chemical organization of the human brain and the mind that emerges from it.

Man, don't you just love those generalizations. Where the crap is the clinical data backing those conclusions?
 
While I agree with bilz0r that the study is severely limited by only looking at binding affinities, I dont think its totally stupid.

The dynamical systems model of the mind is a well-researched and popular field in consciousness studies, with applications in A-Life and machine consciousness.

Of course no one's assuming that we'll have any explanations of complex mental behaviour just from this work, but I think Ray sees this as the start of a much larger project.

And yes, there's no clinical data to back up the sweeping general comments he makes about the subjective effects, and I said as much to him after hearing him speak. I think he's fully aware of this, and of course a lot of clinical work is needed, but in principle, don't you think that all those drugs have differing subjective effects?

Unfortuntately, it's quite hard for people to generate clinical data on these things, especially in the US (although Vollenweider has done some in Switzerland), so starting from the anecdotal literature is a good a point as any.

Also, this work is really aimed at cognitive scientists, and people who tend to assume that psychdelic drugs are all much the same.

S.
 
Yeah - I have a real problem with statements of the type "drug X causes behaviour Y", or even "endogenous substance X causes behaviour Y". But at the same time, as a hard materialist, I expect consciousness to be explicable in terms of brain function. Research into human behaviour seems to be polarised between reductionist and holistic approaches, with neither side really having much understanding of the subtleties of the other. Have you heard the line - "if the human brain was simple enough for us to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it" ? The real risk with this study is we just end up with a bunch of correlations between brain chemistry and mood, with no sensible model to explain actual causality, and then a bunch of new pharmaceutical products that will make us all feel juuust fiine ;)
 
Obviously, this study is ridiculously overambitious and oversimplified. In vitro binding data without study of second-messenger systems and cell-signaling systems gives us little information. However, I think it is neat to see someone try to provide receptor binding assays for all of these compounds, as little data on them exists (other than their psychical effect on Alexander Shuglin, et al). In this neofascist world of the Bush regime, "drug" is a four-letter word (pardon the pun), so it is good to see that someone is doing this kind of research (I assume with independent funding).
 
Yeah the drug X produces behaviour Y approach is a bit short sighted to say the least, especially with psychedelics; even with drugs like amphetamine you can get opposite effects (with some people it kills their libido, while with others it can produce an almost hypersexual state). Even statements that get taken for granted, such as MDMA causes empathy can't be taken as definitive (in my wife's 3 encounters with MDMA, two of the times she experienced no empathy, but a feeling of rapidly building rage and intolerance of others). Binding levels can be used to predict levels of neurotransmitters in certain parts of the brain, but human behaviour is so far removed from things like affinity data, it would be like trying to predict how good a game like Grand Theft Auto is, purely by knowing that the system used a Pentium 4 chip. It has some impact on how the graphics etc appear, but tells you nothing about the actual game.

It is good to find out the binding affinity of a whole load of compounds though
 
Consioucness studies? Cognitive science? Yeah, but they're not better than philosophers... infact, they're worse, because at least philosophers use logic in correctly.

No understanding of conciousness is going to come from simple binding data on hallucinogens, even more so when they then claim that certain hallucinogens produce certain states with almost no evidence.

Understanding of conciousness is going to come from shit like this, involving people with sharp bits of glass, big computers and too much spare time time.
 
^ Not to mention the poor bastards that have bits of their brain shrivel up and die after head injuries/strokes, and still appear normal except for a bit of their cognitive behaviour that seems to be missing (weird shit like blindsight and Capgras syndrome).

Books on neurological injuries and their associated syndromes scare me more than any Stephen King novel could, when you consider how fragile our reality is...
 
Ok, bilz0r, you probably didnt mean that, but I feel slightly insulted as a philospher of cognitive science.

Yeah, no understanding of consciousness is going to come from binding data, but if you'd like to explain to me exactly how understanding of consciousness is going to come from whatever neurological data you just linked to, which I'm afraid is a little over my head, I'm all ears.

Sorry to sound so brusque, but I don't wade into your field without a clue and start making broad statements about what can and can't do what, so I expect a certain degree of that in return. Cognitive science doesn't use logic properly? C'mon man...
 
Top