i'm gonna have to chime in here.
endlesseulogy said:
I agree.. there are tests to use on animals to produce certain STATISTICS... but as rats dont have the same labelling system as humans and refrain from using words like "anxious", "depressed" etc etc.. it is impossible to assume rats experience the same when "depressed", as humans. I never said rats dont exhibit behaivior.. i said rats dont exhibit the SAME behaivior as humans.
What do you mean by produce statistics? All scientific experiments rely on statistics to test and organise the results of the investigation. There is nothing wrong with a scientist reporting on the statistics of given outcomes in a sample population. Or do you mean characteristics?
There is quite a difference between the psyche of a rat and the psyche of a human. Imagine if you were caged up you're whole life being fed boring food and then have some nerd in a white lab coat glare at you all day.... then fed you anti-depressants.. My point is.. the collective life experience of a rat is totally different to the collective life experience of a human; therefore giving anti-depressants to rats is like giving panadol to pidgins.
Just because rats apparntly have a seritonin system in their brains, 'scientists' believe they will behaive similarly to humans. Thats just like saying we should behave the same as on orange because we both have H2o inside our skins.
The conscious experience of the rat is undoubtedly far less complex than that of the human. But they do exhibit the same behaviour - they eat, shit, sleep, fuck, dominate, fight, withdraw, bond, and repeatedly self-administer cocaine and heroin and methamphetamine - just like (many) humans do.
They do, however, lack many of the contributing factors that influence the corresponding behaviours in humans. That is both a drawback and a benefit; it is a drawback because it reduces the extent to which our mind and the rat mind are congruent, thereby placing limitations on how much we can extrapolate from studies involving rats; it is a benefit because their simplicity tends to negate the setting in which these experiments take place - they maintain all of their behaviour in an uninterrupted fashion, despite being in a cage with a bearded bespectacled chap watching them all day.
The fact that they tend to maintain their actions as per usual, and respond consistently to deliberate stimuli and set-ups in a way that indicates that they are oblivious to the grander scheme, indicates that they are not as phased by their "boring food and caged up existence" as some of you seem to think they are. It is unfortunate that a simple control group wasn't set up in this experiment - it would have swiftly refuted your specious reasoning.
I mentioned above that despite their conscious simplicity, they tend to experience many of the same fundamental behaviours that humans have retained from the evolutionary days of old - us and rats have a common phylogeny, and there is a core system of behaviours that we share that have allowed us to share common ground in this present day. Given that our conscious experience is so vastly different, what is it that we share with rats that generates ANY similarity between us and them? I'll tell ya - PHYSIOLOGY!
most significantly, the BRAIN!! Ergo, the fleshy brain has an influence on cognition, consciousness and behaviour (obviously).
The physiological brain is the basis upon which we justify the use of rats to study psychology. In many ways, their simple consciousness is an advantage, allowing us access to a model of our own core with all the 'frills' cut away. We can study the raw connection between biochemicophysiological stimulus/influence and the subsequent effect on behaviour. There is nothing flawed about this in and of itself.
Though there are limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from the effects on the rat alone.
Again its impossible to test if rats are depressed because rats are not us and rats may exhibit 'depression' in a different way.
Call me nieve if you want, but i happen to believe any delving into the psychoanalyis of rats and comparing them to humans is not going to get you very far.. Think about it.
This is not rat psychoanalysis - it is an analysis of the psychological outcomes that occur after manipulation of brain physiology and biochemistry with psychotropic drugs. The findings on the rats are relevant and of interest, given that we share the same fundamental brain structure, function and origin. Rather than being a measure of the complexity of the human experience of depression and how it is expressed (way beyond the scope of this study), it seems to me that this investigation is seeking insight into the potential for physicochemical manifestation of depression in human brains after MDMA exposure, by modelling the situation using rats.
The method itself still ought to be scrutinised though, like with any scientific research.
It really depends what side of the fence you are sitting on.. If you believe the mind is a mundane, predictable, ordered peice of robotic matter; Dr.Macs article will make sense to you. However if you believe the mind to be chaotic, unordered and utterly confusing, you will see that this research is merely trying to impose some sort of order on a chaotic system.
It is both - try talking to a car accident victim about the power of the chaotic unordered mind when they can't utter a sentence or hold in their own shit after severe brain trauma, and see how far you get. It is counterproductive to view the collective conscious experience as being borne out of either of the two mind/matter phenomena alone. They work together - the physiology of the brain is critical, the pharmacology of psychotropics is critical, yet the whole experience is certainly much much more than the sum of its parts. Both of them need to be equally considered when we are in the pursuit of progressive science.
I believe psychology to be a not-science. I believe the mind is meta-phyiscal and works in the areas of quantum mechanics.. not in neutonian physics. Psychologists are not meta-physicians.
Can you explain what you mean? What do you mean the mind works in quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is a discipline of physics that concerns the behaviour of elementary particles. Everything is made up of the elementary particles/constituents that quantum physics concerns itself with, therefore everything "works in the area of quantum mechanics". Or are you hinting at the Uncertainty Principle and trying to reason that because of it, we cannot know anything about the mind. You might like to elaborate on your understanding of how quantum mechanics and newtonian physics influence your comprehension of the mind.
and be a metaphysician all you want - but remember, in doing so, you are dwelling in the domain of philosophy, not science. Metaphysics and philosophy are essential though, don't get me wrong - like I said, there is far more to consciousness than the physiological systems that underlie it. Much of this is beyond the realm of conventional scientific investigation, and thus philosophy is a good way to keep the intellect stimulated when we reach corners of existence that we can't yet examine otherwise. But it is by no means a replacement of science, and it does not negate the evidence-based findings of research under the scientific method.
nor does seeing the mind as metaphysical justify your labelling of psychology as a 'not-science'. like BigTrancer said, many psychologists are effectively metaphysicians, given that a significant portion of their practices don't have a clear-cut scientific/organic basis; but such is the nature of the human psyche. the difference may well lie in the way that psychology conducts its development and practice - it is less arbitrary and more empirical, seeking self-improvement based on assessment of outcomes and emerging knowledge.
ignoring these things and getting too righteous can see the metaphysician tending toward the nihilist.
but like you acknowledge below, there is a progressive trend in modern psychology toward consideration beyond pure organic science , in recognition of the great complexity of the human experience that lies distinct from our flesh and blood (a similar trend has also manifested in other related healthcare disciplines in recent times).
"Dr McGregor said giving the rats anti-depressants failed to improve their abnormal social behaviour."
Anti-depressant application is pretty much dependant on the contents user's psyche before administration.
To some extent, certainly. There is a complex interplay of biopsychosocial factors that will influence the outcome of pharmacotherapy in treating depression, and they must be considered if treatment is to succeed. But there is also the pharmacological mechanism of action of antidepressants. The choice to administer them can be justified in this investigation: eg. to determine if the 'abnormal social behaviour' resulted from a simple reversible change in transmitter chemistry, or if there are other factors at play.
