Discussion in 'The Alley' started by Radium, Dec 17, 2013.
and do you know anyone that has
lemme get one
i took it when i was about 12 but then never got the script refilled.
No and no.
what was your experience
i honestly don't remember feeling any different when i was on it. i stopped taking it because i didn't like the idea of being that kid that has to take his pill every day. my teachers told my parents i seemed drugged out in the mornings so when the bottle was empty i didn't ask them to refill it. i've sometimes wondered if it would have helped my study habits if i would have stayed on it long term.
I kinda want to try it just to see once and for all if I'm ADD.
A good friend of mine has offered to give me some before. Just never took it.
thats interesting. some tests show that adderall doesnt have the same efficacy the smarter you are. why do you think they thought you seemed drugged out
the mathematician henri poincare had two stage model of free will where in one layer massive sums of data randomly arrange by some mysterious mechanism of assembly and on another an evaluator comes and chooses from it to in essence separate the wheat from the chaff.
this chance part is really interesting as it presumes that there is in essence a strange chaos realm that must be navigated by some discreet evaluator. this evaluator i think must be dopamine which i think navigates through this chaos realm the same way that penguins maneuver in tight groups to maintain constant warmth
that is dopamine has some mechanism of affinity that causes it to chain things that are relevant to dopaminergic transmission into groups creating long chain links of dopaminergic transmission that rapidly connect together and move like waves through this realm of chance and chaos in search of more things that are relevant to more and more dopaminergic transmission to chain to. this is how things become meaningful as an absence of this massive dopaminergic chain linking ability would make everything scattered and unconnected like penguins that do not seek warmth
therefore it makes sense that the amphetamine adderall would seem to enhance cognitive function which in poincare's model of free will would be like strengthening the invisible hand that comes out from the heavens and chooses what it wants from the realm of chaos below it. i was interested about the role of adderall in enhancing dopaminergic transmission and therefore intelligence and what somebody that has taken adderall would think about this
something thats confounding is the emergence of what must be described as creativity which seems distinct from poincare's second stage where things are evaluated and selected. poincare said that the way he discovered things was by taking in a lot of new information and then going away to take long breaks for weeks where he would go on nature walks that he thought would cause his subconscious mind to discover the answers that his conscious mind could not. this is interesting as its so contrary to the intensity of the adderall experience. my guess would be that by enhancing dopaminergic transmission adderall increases the amount of zest or zeal you may experience by thinking about things but this enhancement prevents dopaminergic transmission from chaining to really abstract or oblique things because it has set the bar so high. that is these already very obscure things in essence go completely out of bounds. something interesting is the ability to freely access this chaos realm and its role in genius. that is why do some have entry to this realm but some do not
anyway i found an interesting blog entry about adderall and i wanted to know what you think. its about this guy reporting his adderall experience. what was interesting to me was his conclusion that anyone could be smart but that they just dont care or need to implying that the main function of adderall is to just fuse joy to thought and that therefore intelligence is in essence a hedonic act
A couple of times about 5 years ago or so.
My brother was poping that shit with a handfull of downers shit was stupid i told him to slow down.
We were sitting down chillen with a fee peple for awhile and the time hr stood up he calasped straight to the ground and blacksout cold.. then all of a sudden jumps up.. shit was scary as hell.
it's hard for me to say. they just said i seemed sort of spaced out, which is odd since the drug was supposed to help me pay attention. it could have possibly been unrelated or even just a matter of warped perception. this is something that my mom said to me, not something they told me directly, so it's basically a second hand memory filtered through time.
that's an interesting model, though i don't really have any insight since i know nothing about how dopamine functions in the brain. i will say that the bit about attaching more zest to thoughts reminds me more of my experience with caffeine than anything else. it seems like the right amount of coffee can make anything interesting. it's a good way not to be bored while doing math homework.
i didn't experience any of what he spoke about. granted it was a long time ago. i remember when i was younger i could drink black coffee and feel nothing. now when i drink it i get wired. maybe if i tried adderall today my experience would be different.
i agree for the most part about being smart (in terms of academic performance) having more to do with persistence than anything else. i'm sure there are raw cognitive limits for each of us but i think most people can get high marks if they really want it enough. most people just aren't interested enough in the topics they need to learn to excel in school to dedicate the necessary time and mental resources towards them.
i still have the same attention issues i always had, but now i just force myself to focus on whatever it is i need to. my mind will still jump around, but i just force it back to the task at hand and continue. also, i find that the more you learn about a topic the more interesting it becomes. i think the main thing that stopped me and probably many other students from getting into schoolwork was that we were put off by the initial barriers involved in learning a new subject and just never cared enough to try to break through it. when you go to science class and they say this is a cell, this is its nucleus, etc... it all seems pointless. there's (seemingly) no connection to reality. it's all abstract and arbitrary. then when the teachers explain why we need to learn this stuff... it's always go to college get a career and a 401k etc. that works to motivate some to grin and bear it but not everyone.
i think the most basic way to understand the way dopamine works is to think of it as a loop
one way to understand this is to think of why we choose to look at some things but not at other things. this is not random but rather governed primarily by dopaminergic systems that invisibly push and pull our eyes toward rewarding stimuli in the extrapersonal environment. this is why its so vital to not just think of things like the eye as an autonomous organ but as an add-on extension of greater pre-existing dopaminergic systems in the brain. anyway this asks a sort of silly question that is to say why do some things look rewarding or good but some things do not. i think at base this is a question that should it be answered would truly unlock the mystery of the brain. its seems rather innocuous but its a really tricky question.
i think the enhanced sense of zest caffeine creates does not cause things to be interesting on their own but causes us to think about things that by a process of analogy are analogous to the sense of zest that we experience when we take caffeine. that is to say that we tend to think of things that are analogues of this enhanced state and as these analogues are summoned more and more analogues become triggered in a way thats not dissimilar from the way that when we hear good news we are involuntarily put in a good mood following this and therefore tend to think of more good things. that is it triggers a sort of episodic looping of thoughts and feelings analogous to the sense of zest caffeine creates. sigmund freud's cocaine abuse may have contributed to many of his theories and therefore why they may have had such characteristic incaution and robustness. in aristotle's peripatetic school he and his students enjoyed walking as they would engage in discourse about things hence their name the peripatetics which stands for walking and meandering about. henri poincare credited many of his breakthrough insights in the maths and sciences to his completely unrelated nature walks which he called his geologic excursions. i think the experience of walking not unlike caffeine or adderall (and to freud perhaps cocaine) was for so many of these great thinkers ultimately triggering a kind of enhanced state from which by a process of analogy episodic looping of dopaminergic transmission could be summoned and ultimately used to unlock entry to realms of thinking that were previously out of bounds. this is a short blog about the history of walking in western philosophy which seemed to be to many of these great thinkers a sort of ancient adderall
i sort of disagree and i would argue that its not so much persistence but rather enjoyment which i think is a more accurate description of the underlying dopaminergic systems that govern the thoughts that we choose and seek out not unlike the way that underlying dopaminergic systems push and pull our eyes to some things but not to other things. here is an image of routes of movement called saccades preformed by the eye which highlight the major things the eye tends to target on the human face which emphasize the salience of some features relative to other features to the systems of dopaminergic transmission that move the eye
i think in the same way underlying systems of dopaminergic transmission cause us to find some things interesting but some other things as boring. this probably is the major barrier to academic performance. that is to say using poincare's two stage model of free will our ability to evaluate and select is minimized to only so many things in which information about things like biology may just not be included not unlike the way mouths are much more interesting to the eye than foreheads.
in the same way that we may not regard biology as interesting because it does not produce a sense of enjoyment we may do the same to some faces and therefore only prioritize importance to the kinds of faces that can en route to the creation of a civilization where things that produce such enjoyment is always given maximum priority and things that do not are consequently shed. in the future is everyone beautiful and everything interesting?
and therefore is everyone a genius?
you can argue that there is a sort of forbidden knowledge that can only be accessed by a more nuanced sensibility. that there is a forbidden knowledge of obscure things possibly broken and damaged that the intensity of adderall, the ecstasy of cocaine, and even the zest caffeine can never touch. and in a drug taking future do we lose these things forever
i pity people who find a "need" to take majority of pills.
I'm on Ritalin but I usually never take it unless I need to
yes, it is. it is easy to conceive why certain things like a brightly colored fruit or flower might be favorable for humans to look at for evolutionary reasons, but there are some things that are beautiful that aren't explained as easily. some examples would be a tiger or the sand dunes of the sahara desert. these seem like sights that humans should not want to see. so why i do find them beautiful? meanwhile something that is relatively harmless like a cockroach produces an irrational feeling of dread.
is the idea basically that enjoyment leads to persistence, that it gives the motivation to continue, like the video on dopamine seemed to claim?
i have found that while something like biology isn't interesting at first, the more you look into it and start making connections between it and the world around you, the more interesting it becomes. so there are topics that i once found boring but eventually broke through that initial barrier and started to find them interesting. maybe it's not the topics themselves that are uninteresting but the way in which they are presented.
i don't think so. if anything it seems like there are more uninteresting (to most of us) topics around today than there were previously, and as the disciplines which spawn these topics continue to advance and new specialized fields spawn there will only be more mundane topics to wade through. these topics are of course interesting or uninteresting based on any one person's perception. so for every specialized topic that is boring to most of us there will be some people around who are more interested in that topic than anything else.
often a field that isn't all that interesting to most will seem to benefit society to such an extent that it is still promoted by that society.
maybe. so if the drugs set the bar for what can be found interesting too high, is there a sort of antithesis to this which would set the bar lower and make these more obscure things more easily accessible?
you mentioned walking before, which i do find enhances the pleasure of thought. is this just a milder form of the drugs which sets the bar too high by creating a dopamine feedback loop or is there some other reason you think it allowed ancient thinkers access into a new realm of thought.
yeah you're on the right track. the reason the eye is interesting to me is because i think it is betraying an underlying system thats linked to everything and that the features of this system can be shown by the way it uses things like the eye to engage the extrapersonal environment. charles darwin said that there is no creature more extraordinarily colored in the mammalian orders than the adult mandrill and i think this characteristic feature betrays an underlying sensibility that is inherent only to mandrills. that is there is something special about mandrills that causes them to choose such garish colors and this trait betrays a very special kind of reward seeking behavior that only mandrills can experience not unlike the way the mathematician may be enchanted by numbers in a special way that a different kind of person would never have an ability to experience. what i mean to say is that i think dopamine is taking very special routes through the brain and that these special routes ultimately betray the phenomena of choice as dopamine must evade and engage things en route to its ultimate destinations eg in the mandrill dopamine presumably must take a special route and ultimately rendezvous at a special area somewhere in the brain to produce the special reward it gleans by gazing at garish colors. the eye is interesting because it takes special routes that are called saccades to look at things and these routes can be mapped which presumably must mirror the special routes dopamine must be contiguously taking through the brain as it does this. that is the saccadic map of the eye probably betrays a matching dopamine map somewhere in the brain.
presumably if these dopaminergic routes could be found and recreated we could in theory recreate any kind of choice eg as in your examples the special routes that are taken to find things like a tiger or the sahara desert beautiful
can we create the arrow of cupid
and are things like adderall ultimately just very crude versions of this sort of endeavor
the idea is dopaminergic transmission is turned on whenever you think about something relevant to dopaminergic transmission whatever that is. so say you say something that you think is very smart or funny which in turn produces a sense of amusement and delight. what really happened here was that a. your frontal cortex where you think about things sent a signal down to more underlying dopaminergic systems which b. send out more dopamine which causes you to feel good and therefore ultimately more likely to think about more things relevant to more dopaminergic transmission. thus this sort of chicken and egg a to b cycle of dopamine tends to loop again and again which is what has happened when you are experiencing a good mood. my hypothesis is that we seek to maintain or increase the amount of dopaminergic transmission we are experiencing whatever that is so that uninterrupted dopaminergic transmission tends to ultimately increase to hyper-dopaminergic states.
yeah i think walking probably just metes out some extra dopamine. cocaine and amphetamines like adderall increase dopamine in the brain by two different kinds of mechanisms but so does walking as physical exercise increases dopamine too. so yeah i guess in a sense it can be thought of as a milder form of these drugs.
Separate names with a comma.