Stimulant RC researchers, join forces with me on this...?

[yoyoman]

What he means is that they distract from embracing LOVE

I agree - been a 'stim addict' (dexedrine then before that adderall, mainly, "ADHD" sure! thanks for the script!) far too long, and am noticing the universe itself sorta putting me in a pressure cooker, the message is clear "get off the stims, if you gotta sleep for a week the universe will rearrange itself no worry" etc.

... I mean I got plenty of love, but i notice that it deters from doing "acts because of love" vs. "acts because of the ego". Am I acting in love right now posting this after my mornin' dex? Well first of all i'm focused on the thread i shouldn't be reading, but .... at least tossing in my one cent, saying (if i were to not blahblah blahblah? talk/type as much!) "i agree.. "

 

[ziddy]

But could one not argue goal-oriented behavior's superiority to "love?" After all, it seems many seek "love" (quoted because many of these people find themselves single once more within weeks) to compensate for a reward deficit - sustained focus on achieving goals is very difficult for them with the unresolved tension of the aforementioned reward deficit. Seeing as the amply stimulated have no such deficit, subsequently they are capable of working towards goals without the slightest of distractions. Though in many cases the focus is overtaken by tangents into unproductive goals, with adequate skill the driven can successfully channel the drive into reaching heights otherwise unattainable.

Of course, the key is to maintain a reasonable balance between these extremes, and to maintain control over the simulant(s) rather than be ravaged by the reverse. Deprenyl, as an MAO-B inhibitor and catecholamine-activity enhancer, seems an ideal substance for this purpose, though in practice reports do not always meet this ideal. Perhaps the ultimate goal, then, is to develop new substances along this line; ones that promote a long-term "rewiring" of the brain to raise the baseline - hedonic setpoint, incentive salience, and capacity to sustain focus, rather than short-acting agents that produce acute effects.

This is a major area of my intended field of study, and it seems very promising. Instead of tricking the brain in the short run, why not improve its function in the long run, so that acute interventions are no longer necessary, or even desired? One's longevity would even be enhanced, especially seeing as one would be more alert and motivated to avoid dangers, especially ones that act to subjugate the sublimity of dopaminergic overdrive.

 

[Jabberwocky]

You're conflating seeking love (from other humans or from yourself) from seeking the heartbeat or pulse of reality (which is at core - LOVE). Two different things.

 

[ziddy]

"seeking the heartbeat or pulse of reality"

Is this another of those "missing the forest for the trees" arguments?

 

[B9]

You're conflating seeking love (from other humans or from yourself) from seeking the heartbeat or pulse of reality (which is at core - LOVE). Two different things.

Completely agree!

 

[dbailey11]

I think that to simply associate pleasure and a sense of satisfaction with the neurotransmitter dopamine is to over simplify what it means to seek satisfaction. On a basic level the reward feedback system is governed through natural stimulants and endorphins, but there are higher states of satisfaction that can be experienced only in the absense of any perceivable object that is providing the catalyst for the experience of satisfaction. I don't believe that the greatest of life's pleasures can be reduced a neurotransmitter.

Everyone has tasted moments when the world and every amusement it can provide seems vulgar and unnecessary. The elusive happiness can not be formulated and administered through any compound, can it?

 

[Smyth]

I would agree with you on a superficial level, but if you have ever conversed with H addicts, they will do their damnest to try and convince you to the contrary.

 

[dbailey11]

I used to be an an H addict.

 

[MDPVagrant]

I think that to simply associate pleasure and a sense of satisfaction with the neurotransmitter dopamine is to over simplify what it means to seek satisfaction.

Agreed. IMO the pleasure and sense of satisfaction (actually I'd argue the latter is probably unrelated to dopamine, perhaps even diminished by it) delivered by a dopamine reuptake inhibitor is of a certain type only, and very narrowly focused on particular energies and drives.

I actually doubt the pleasure itself is produced or mediated by dopamine... seems likely it's more a reaction to the various heightened energies produced by an overabundance of it, which could explain why some people find them "euphoric" and some don't (some could conceivably hate the way a SDRI makes them feel, or at least I can conceive of it).

On a basic level the reward feedback system is governed through natural stimulants and endorphins, but there are higher states of satisfaction that can be experienced only in the absense of any perceivable object that is providing the catalyst for the experience of satisfaction. I don't believe that the greatest of life's pleasures can be reduced a neurotransmitter.

Nor do I, but I don't get the part about the absense of any perceivable object, unless you're suggesting that satisfaction derived in/from this state of mind is unrelated to any neurotransmitter. If so, on what evidence do you base this notion?

Everyone has tasted moments when the world and every amusement it can provide seems vulgar and unnecessary. The elusive happiness can not be formulated and administered through any compound, can it?

I don't know. It may be possible that some combination of tweakage of all neurotransmitters (possibly in conjunction with electrical stimulation of the brain) could produce "Ultimate Happiness" (whatever that is). If it were just a sensation of sorts though, I'd have to call it "pleasure" rather than "happiness."

But happiness is actually a very elusive concept... what is it, exactly, and would it be the same thing for everyone? Is it an emotional state, as in saying "I feel unhappy right now?" or "I'm pretty happy today"... hmmm.

Oh and set an upper limit on daily consumption then the tolerance issue sorts you out!

Just my opinion.

Someone who can do that with the stuff lying around in easy reach has no control issue with it in the first place IMO, so you can't say that's a viable "method" of getting one's use under control. If you can do that, your use already is under control.

"seeking the heartbeat or pulse of reality"

Is this another of those "missing the forest for the trees" arguments?

What I'm getting from these posts is that people who talk this way value love more than anything else, so they place it "at the heartbeat or pulse of reality." Never mind that others may have a different core value that's equally as meaningful for them, or maybe values lots of things somewhat but have no central value. And some people probably value nothing, although I'm not sure I'd much enjoy hanging around them.

Anyway, isn't love a mammalian trait, i.e. related to mothers caring for their young? I doubt reptiles have the vaguest clue what love is... would that put them further from the 'heartbeat of reality' or something?

P.S. would it be too much to request at least somewhat of a scientific or research-oriented perspective in this thread, given what it's about and why I posted it? Talk of stimulant users "failing to seek the love at the heartbeat or pulse of reality" doesn't really add anything to the topic of researching dopamine and its effects in the brain.

 

[Smyth]

I agree that DA may not be directly proportional to "pleasure", but I think it is definately the case with addiction.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Anyway, isn't love a mammalian trait, i.e. related to mothers caring for their young? I doubt reptiles have the vaguest clue what love is... would that put them further from the 'heartbeat of reality' or something?

Refer up to my post previous to this, you are conflating two separate ideas of LOVE. One is obtained in the metaphor of the nurturing mother-infant relationship (oxytocin is the hormone) and the other is a sitting still in the epicenter of the universe (the incredible OM). Again, I say they are two different things though their source is the same (LOVE).

P.S. would it be too much to request at least somewhat of a scientific or research-oriented perspective in this thread, given what it's about and why I posted it? Talk of stimulant users "failing to seek the love at the heartbeat or pulse of reality" doesn't really add anything to the topic of researching dopamine and its effects in the brain.

No, its what I think you need to hear. Don't concern yourself with this research on the reward system and dopamine, etc etc. How is it going to help you? Its not. What will help you now is to reconnect with the immediacy and primacy of reality (LOVE).

Do it for yourself if not for others!

peace!
s_s

 

[B9]

Again, I say they are two different things though their source is the same (LOVE).

Yeah !

 

[ziddy]

No, its what I think you need to hear. Don't concern yourself with this research on the reward system and dopamine, etc etc. How is it going to help you? Its not. What will help you now is to reconnect with the immediacy and primacy of reality (LOVE).

What contrived pseudoscience is this? Opioid-dependents would quite likely believe themselves to be within the "epicenter of the universe," but in reality they've succumbed to the precise mechanism at question here - the dopaminergic system of reward. You can speak of intangible concepts such as "LOVE" as much as you like, but when you realize that the only way for you to imagine or experience such things is by acting through the reward mechanism itself. Ironically, the most prudent method of reaching this "LOVE" that you speak of is to elucidate the final common pathway of reward, among other urgent neurochemical quandaries.

http://hedweb.com - be enlightened

You may find that your goal is best met by research along the lines of this topic's nominal purpose, so please do not argue with the people most likely to help you.

 

[crowbar]

No, its what I think you need to hear. Don't concern yourself with this research on the reward system and dopamine, etc etc. How is it going to help you? Its not. What will help you now is to reconnect with the immediacy and primacy of reality (LOVE).

I don't think ADD is really the place to discuss such things.

Mr. Vagrant, I may have a slight interest in the researching of such things; could you elaborate on everything as a whole?

 

[MDPVagrant]

Reply to samadhi_smiles

Refer up to my post previous to this, you are conflating two separate ideas of LOVE. One is obtained in the metaphor of the nurturing mother-infant relationship (oxytocin is the hormone) and the other is a sitting still in the epicenter of the universe (the incredible OM).

I'm intimately familiar with what you're referring to, having intensively studied, contemplated, meditated, discussed and otherwise looked into Advaita Vedanta (Maharshi, Nisargadatta et al.), Zen Buddhism, General nonduality and other related philosophies and spiritual outlooks over the course of five years or so. I remember my "Love is the Absolute" period too, and I remember passing it less than six months into the aforementioned period. You are out of your league, don't even bother.

No, its what I think you need to hear. Don't concern yourself with this research on the reward system and dopamine, etc etc.

Get bent. Go say this to me in another thread if you want, but kindly get the hell out of this one and stop dragging it off topic.

You are wrecking a thread that's meaningful to me, and the end result is simply that I'll consider you an enemy and treat you as such.

Hope that's clear enough for you. Go stick "Peace" on your John Lennon hat and kindly leave this thread if you aren't interested in the subject matter.

Apologies (to serious participants), I've had enough of this. Given the sheer number of morons and six-year-olds on BL, maybe a thread like this is doomed to degenerate no matter where it's posted. If so, I'll try finding another place for it.

 

[B9]

Ironically, the most prudent method of reaching this "LOVE that you speak of is to elucidate the final common pathway of reward,

Personally I think you're wrong!

Nay I know you are wrong!

 

[Smyth]

Love can be a force of corruption, as well as for good. You'd be surprised how many people end up in the loony bin as a direct consequence of these hormones.

 

[Jabberwocky]

MDPVagrant: I'm sorry for cluttering your thread. Carry on with your research....

 

[Thanatopium]

"Here's what I'm asking for help with, and quite seriously. I want to look deeply into the nature of compulsiveness produced by dopamine reuptake inhibitors, and perhaps into dopamine itself to trace its relationship to desire, motivation, sexuality and compulsion; I'm interested to know why dopamine reuptake inhibitors produce a compulsion to redose "forever." The classic case of the rat endlessly pressing the dosing lever, until it drops dead of exhaustion."

Dopamine reuptake inhibitors are not necessarily compulsive in many, if not most cases. Lobeline, from the Lobelia complex (Indian tobacco, et all) all inhibit DAT, but are not addictive or do not lead to addictive, compulsive ingestion. The slow onset DARI's with long duration of action have not generally been show to cause compulsive ingestion. It is the fast acting, low duration compounds that present the greatest abuse liability. It is the "rush" that will kill you.

"Why is there no brain mechanism already in place to stop dopamine-related compulsive behavior at some point, particularly if survival of the organism is threatened; or is there, and perhaps it's overloaded by strong reuptake inhibition? "

Because the use of large doses of DARI's that are potent and fast acting is a relatively recent habit in man's history. There is no reason why an organism would have evolved defensive mechanism against something that has never been a threat in the history of human kind. No selection process has favored the individual who sports slightly greater resistance, no selective pressure has been in action long enough to kill off those less able to deal.

Therefore, there has been no need for such a mechanism to have evolved, and not enough time since it has been problmeatic for any noticeable population change to become established.

"* In particular: I want to know if it's possible to "unlearn" compulsive re-dosing patterns with dopaminergic substances, whether picked up long ago or seemingly arising immediately the first time a user ingests a substance. If it's psychological, the brain should be capable of compensating through forming new information pathways, as it often can even with direct cellular damage. Even if the cravings themselves are purely based on biological factors, surely the movement to satisfy is psychological."

Dopamine has little to do with satisfaction. It has everything to do with "want" or "need". There is a common misperception of dopamine as the "feel good" neurotransmitter. Rather, it is the "I want it now" NT.

It is possible to unlearn compulsive redosing, people quit drugs every day... Whether the anhedonia and drive to live ever return to normal, I would guess it depends on the person and their situation and personal biology and philosophy.

"The survival mechanism seems an especially promising avenue of investigation to me -- if it's realized that endless compulsive ingestion of a substance is a direct threat to survival of the organism, there should be psychological and evolutionary mechanisms already in place that tend to discourage such behaviors over time, and/or aid in the unlearning process."

See above. Why would they already be in place? concentrated, refined, super powerful and fast acting agents have been around for less than two centuries, give us another few hundred thousand years of abuse, failure and death, and you might start seeing indications of such a mechanism.

 

[fastandbulbous]

Generally the faster acting the drug, the more compulsive/addictive it is. That's why things like cocaine & nicotine are such hard things to stop using once they have their claws in you. Intermediate acting ones like methylphenidate through desoxy to amineptine are easy enough to contol any desire to redose and really long acting ones like certain antidepressants have next to no craving.

If they sat down to design a drug with a crippling psychological component they'd be hard pressed to surpass that of cocaine