The mind is only a function of the body (the mind functions only to serve the body), and therefore psychoactive drugs (essentially being a function of the mind) must also be a function of the body -- psychoactive drugs must in some way serve benefits to the body in order for them to be wholly pleasurable.
This seems a bit faulty, as almost all drugs are inherently toxic, dependent on dose of course. And i wouldn't say psychoactive drugs are essentially a function of the mind either. Many of them function chiefly in the brain, though that is likely a different entity from what you refer to as mind. And lots of drugs have plenty of peripheral effects as well. Some of those are initiated in the brain, and some are the result of drugs binding to sites in the PNS.
Stimulants such as amphetamine help the body indirectly because they assist the mind as it helps the body.
Narcotics such as opiates relax the muscles and dilate blood vessels, thus helping the body.
And so on.
Typically when i was using stimulants i was "helping my mind" learn a bunch of stuff before exams. Not so much doing anything helpful for the body. Mostly depriving it of nutrients & calories in fact. I suppose one could argue about the efficacy of a college degree in helping one acquire food, water, & shelter later on in life, but that's another discussion entirely.
This is just much a proposal on philosophical outlook as it is a proposal regarding our outlook on psychology.
Might wanna try philosophy & spirituality for answers more geared toward that then. Think its mostly reductionists in here
Well, I don't find MDPV pleasurable for one,
And "acting exclusively on reward pathways" I think is based on an outlook on neurology that will be found to be full of errors in the future.
All the various "neuro" disciplines are certainly in their infancy & raising as many questions as answers. However, a substantial amount of findings in that venue are very well supported. I'm sure there will be plenty of corrections & further elucidations in the future, but i seriously doubt the mesolimbic reward pathway is going to be subject to any "earth is flat" type gaffs.
Does the qualia of "pleasure" really exist without something to accompany it? Doesn't pleasure need a reason in order to exist or wouldn't it be rejected unconsciously?
not sure i quite follow this bit... Pleasure certainly has a counterweight in aversive stimuli, and its generally accepted reason for existence is reinforcement of positive behavior. Drugs take advantage of this mechanism. So do gambling & the marketing industry.
We aren't giving a whole lot of credit to our unconscious to say that it can be fooled so easily - that a feeling can just be "plugged in" to our neural system via drugs or electrodes or whatever.
I think feelings can be brought about purely externally. Out of body experiences can be elicited by an electric shock to the posterior parietal cortex, and transcranial magnetic stimulation has very obvious effects on conscious function. The latter may well prove to yield some viable non-invasive treatment options in the future. Furthermore, lesions or damage to certain parts of the posterior parietal lobe cause increased feelings of self-transcendence, spirituality, & tendency toward mystical experiences.
Why is it that most first time drug users often feel nothing their first time using a drug, no matter what the dose. They may feel physical side effects (nausea from opiates, dry mouth from stimulants, etc) but they haven't learned to recognize the pleasure of the drug.
I think this is demonstrably false. A number of double blind studies of psychedelics & MDMA have used drug naive volunteers. The ones who underwent the experimental condition most certainly felt something, lol.
If we were to give a moderate dose of opiates to someone unknowingly, someone who is completely drug-naive, would you expect them to even notice that an external and unexplainable source was causing them to experience feelings of pleasure and euphoria?
I'm unsure of the bearing this has on your previous statements. If said person was aware of the concept of drugs, i'd imagine they may suspect they'd been drugged. And if they were drug naive & dosed without their knowledge, would it matter if they knew why they felt that way, and why?
I think that while it is accepted that stimulants are acutely habituating, their use does not result in an abstinence syndrome upon their discontinuation. For this reason it has been judged that stimulants are psychologically addicting but not physically addicting. It depends on how you want to word it, but while there is a crash on the tail-end of a stimulant binge, there isnt a withdrawal as such which is so marked for the downers like benzos/barbs/opiates. I think after a certain amount of stimulant use the user wants to come off the substances on their own volition. However, with opiates the tendency as far as I was concerned was to continue using until my supplies ran out. With some stimulants on the other hand, I have gotton to the point of throwing them away and was not physically addicted to them.
Withdrawal isn't as dangerous as it is with opiates, but stimulant withdrawal most certainly does exist. Long term usage of stimulants results in substantial downregulation of DA, NE, & possibly some 5-HT sites as well. When usage is stopped there is both depletion of said neurotransmitters & fewer receptor sites. Some research on methamphetamine addicts has even shown that this type of down regulation (in the nucleus accumbens and/or VTA, i believe) can result in permanent or at least long-term heightened pleasure threshold. And there's also a significant chance (21-64% depending on severity & duration) of developing a schizophrenia like disorder for months if not years after ceasing methamphetamine usage.
The physical vs. psychological addiction paradigm is a bit outdated, as its well established that any drug can cause neurological changes that result in unpleasant effects upon cessation of regular & prolonged usage.
