Posted by JohnX2 on March 6, 2002, at 13:47:39
In reply to Re: what do you think of flibanserin (Ectris)? » JohnX2, posted by Cam W. on March 6, 2002, at 8:08:25
Hmm, I kinda see what you are saying...Well, a lot of work has been in trying to analyze things
from ground up and start pushing buttons there. Problem
being things were just too complex and we didn't have the
tools to understand the "big picture" and really think about
how to turn the knobs working from the "top".I do microchip design, and there are a lot of analogies
between the complexity of what makes a microprocessor
with 25+ million transistors that fits on a finger nail
work (would anyone had believed we'd have this 50 yrs ago?),
all the feedback mechanisms, things that need to work
absolutely perfect to get a functional chip, etc. Just blow
1 of those 25 million transistors and we have a dead chip.
We can actually pinpoint which transistor killed the part with
our technology (but this had to be thought out ahead of
time before initiating the design).
We don't build chips by slopping down transistors and then
gluing them together and working are way up into this
elegant 25 million transistor computing device, it would
never work. I understand it from that perspective. Yet
the brain is much more complex, and the transisitors
(neurons, enzymes, whatever) are just being understood and
we really are just exciting them to see how the rest of
the computer (the brain) reacts. Not much to go by.
Need to think about how the body is architected from the
top. Arggh, i almost feel we would need to have the
technology to build a frankenstein monster to really get
a grip on the complexity of the human body/brain though.
But going back to my 25 million transistors on a fingernail,
thats facile today, so maybe getting a grip on the human
system some day is not out of this world. Arggh. Rambling,
don't know if this helps, its how my brain thinks in case
your wondering.-John
> John - I think we need to take a different view of all biochemical systems that self-check (ie use biofeedback). We need to view them as we do an organ (albeit an ephemeral one). Scientists keep looking at the systems from a bottom-up approach, when perhaps a top-down theory may show us more.
>
> Perhaps we should be looking at simultaneous activity in different brain structures, and how this changes over time and in various emotional states. The flux of the electrical activity in neurons, as it relates to bodily states (eg. moods, reactions, etc.), may be more important than the individual wiring (ie. the type of neurotransmitter a particular neuron uses, and where it "plugs-in").
>
> Rahter than looking at the HPA axis, we should start looking at the result of what the HPA axis is doing in relation to other bodily "axes" (eg. HPA's interaction between the endocrine system, cardiac system, etc.). In other words, we should be looking a a relative (and perhaps subjective) view of homeostasis, and be studying the overall impact of change on homeostasis through change in one or several of these systems. This is basically using a homeopathic approach, but done in an orderly scientific manner, whose results should be reproduceable and unequivocal (ie. the results should be obvious to everyone).
>
> Just babbling (honestly, the above is not psychotic rambling ... there is a thread of thought in there; it just won't come out in words :^)
>
> Can someone who knows words kinda come to my rescue here? - Cam
poster:JohnX2
thread:95939
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020301/msgs/96733.html