4 ms·

Even with all our advanced modern knowledge we still barely understand how the brain works much less what happens when it doesn't "work" and even that depends o

Even with all our advanced modern knowledge we still barely understand how the brain works much less what happens when it doesn't "work" and even that depends on how you define "doesn't work". I suffered from a major depressive time about 12 years ago and taking a drug helped me get out of it and it hasn't returned. But there is no way to know what went wrong much less prove that the drug had any actual clinical effect; at least it appeared to make life possible again. Some day we might actually understand enough brain chemistry to know the exact mechanisms. Today it is still a lot of guesswork.

meowface 12y ago
It makes me wonder if we'll even have much more understanding of the brain in 100 years than we do now. At least, understanding at a level that lets us effectively stop the root cause of many complex mental disorders without deleterious side effects.
- devnonymous 12y ago
  <disclaimer > This is a general statement, I do not intend it to be 'in response' to your comment in particular, your comment just provides a logical space to precede mine.< /disclaimer > . I don't understand this negative, defeatist attitude of people with regards to our 'current' understanding of anything. We certainly know a lot more about everything in this world, including the brain than what we did in the year 1914. Why then is there a doubt that 100 years hence we'd understand lesser ? Is there really a proven 'law of diminishing returns' in the field of scientific research. Also, in reference to the parent comment, sure there isn't possibly a way to be 100% certain that the drugs did indeed help but the reasoning behind manufacturing them were presumably sound scientifically speaking based on the knowledge known at the time of their creation and the experiments conducted then. Development occurs not by discarding prior knowledge but by refining it or in the worst case scenario, eliminating the factors that make it obsolete. So, in summary, I think we are in the 'discovery phase' of medicine these days, similar to what the 1600-1900s were for physics.

meowface 12y ago

It makes me wonder if we'll even have much more understanding of the brain in 100 years than we do now. At least, understanding at a level that lets us effectively stop the root cause of many complex mental disorders without deleterious side effects.

devnonymous 12y ago
<disclaimer > This is a general statement, I do not intend it to be 'in response' to your comment in particular, your comment just provides a logical space to precede mine.< /disclaimer > . I don't understand this negative, defeatist attitude of people with regards to our 'current' understanding of anything. We certainly know a lot more about everything in this world, including the brain than what we did in the year 1914. Why then is there a doubt that 100 years hence we'd understand lesser ? Is there really a proven 'law of diminishing returns' in the field of scientific research. Also, in reference to the parent comment, sure there isn't possibly a way to be 100% certain that the drugs did indeed help but the reasoning behind manufacturing them were presumably sound scientifically speaking based on the knowledge known at the time of their creation and the experiments conducted then. Development occurs not by discarding prior knowledge but by refining it or in the worst case scenario, eliminating the factors that make it obsolete. So, in summary, I think we are in the 'discovery phase' of medicine these days, similar to what the 1600-1900s were for physics.