I've long believed that schizophrenia could have a very simple cause. My pet subject interest is evolutionary biology and I always felt that , the modal of a simple process causing complexity , fit schizophrenia as a disease perfectly.

There is some good news , the possibility of schizophrenia being linked to one gene is growing. Why is this good news? It means that the chances of an effective , highly targeted treatment improves immeasurably based on this research , it also improves the chances of preventing and stopping the disease.

Here is the link

Most Likely Culprit For Schizophrenia Found - New Treatment Options Soon?

[Axiom]

Very interesting. Thanks!

[Sometimes psychotic]

I have to disagree with this while this single gene variant can cause all the symptoms and may be the cause in some people many studies have already shown a multigenic process is more likely, ie every gwas study out there. This is an example where science reporters have taken the authors conclusions and applied them far too broadly.

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

I have to disagree with this while this single gene variant can cause all the symptoms and may be the cause in some people many studies have already shown a multigenic process is more likely, ie every gwas study out there. This is an example where science reporters have taken the authors conclusions and applied them far too broadly.

Ahh soo.

But do you not find it absolutely appealing that if schiz vulnerability can be tied down to expression of 1 gene , it means that people who test for this 'version' can be targeted efficiently through treatment. The multgenic modal will only line the pockets of the drug companies , regardless if it has merit. What do we get by saying 'sh*ts complicated' we must will it: complexity to simplicity , that's what the great great people in our history did

[Sometimes psychotic]

Originally Posted by Materly

Ahh soo.

But do you not find it absolutely appealing that if schiz vulnerability can be tied down to expression of 1 gene , it means that people who test for this 'version' can be targeted efficiently through treatment. The multgenic modal will only line the pockets of the drug companies , regardless if it has merit. What do we get by saying 'sh*ts complicated' we must will it: complexity to simplicity , that's what the great great people in our history did

I think it's going to be like treating cancer where there is more than one type, that's all. It's not that this isn't exciting but I don't know that they've even found an equivalent version mutation in humans with sz as this is just the beginning in mice and a lot of stuff never make it past that stage. Plus it's an actin regulatory gene I think it's just weird that's all. I don't put a lot of faith in the article its kind of sensationalist.

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

I think it's going to be like treating cancer where there is more than one type, that's all. It's not that this isn't exciting but I don't know that they've even found an equivalent version mutation in humans with sz as this is just the beginning in mice and a lot of stuff never make it past that stage. Plus it's an actin regulatory gene I think it's just weird that's all. I don't put a lot of faith in the article its kind of sensationalist.

OK

But with cancer we can see the mechanism of action , maybe the 'why' is harder to pin down , granted.

Think of it , the mechanism of action in schiz, is not even known , some would argue.

Now if we get a clear mechanism to how schiz develops , then this would be groundbreaking , and could even inform the treatment of other 'types' of schiz.

[A18793715]

I find it odd that that article is only on one website. I can't find any other articles on one gene. I've read lots on how they did a study and think it could be 8 genetic disorders working together. But I can't find anything but that one article that you posted about a single gene.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crescent Moon]

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

I think it's going to be like treating cancer where there is more than one type, that's all. It's not that this isn't exciting but I don't know that they've even found an equivalent version mutation in humans with sz as this is just the beginning in mice and a lot of stuff never make it past that stage. Plus it's an actin regulatory gene I think it's just weird that's all. I don't put a lot of faith in the article its kind of sensationalist.

I love input from our resident mad scientist

i thought it's pretty well established that it's combinations of physiology/biology (genetics/epigenetics/brain development & structure, pre/perinatal factors etc) combined with environment/life experience, & psychology.

As far as genetics go i also thought they had ruled out the single gene theory & were looking at multiple genes & different combinations of genes in different cases - again, combined with environmental 'triggers'.

Originally Posted by A18793715

I find it odd that that article is only on one website. I can't find any other articles on one gene. I've read lots on how they did a study and think it could be 8 genetic disorders working together. But I can't find anything but that one article that you posted about a single gene.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Google 'Arp2/3 gene Schizophrenia'

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

i thought it's pretty well established that it's combinations of physiology/biology (genetics/epigenetics/brain development & structure, pre/perinatal factors etc) combined with environment/life experience, & psychology.

As far as genetics go i also thought they had ruled out the single gene theory & were looking at multiple genes & different combinations of genes in different cases - again, combined with environmental 'triggers'.

In Science people do not tend to rule anything out , they should go where the research leads them. We can not guarantee a simple model to describe schiz causation. I suppose the evidence is important and there is evidence that schiz is a complicated condition in terms of gene interactions , etc. But there is the matter of the people that are coming up with research goals and those who are investing heavily in the private drugs trade; a complex model for describing schiz would suit their interests better. So let's give the simple model a chance.

Originally Posted by Materly

In Science people do not tend to rule anything out , they should go where the research leads them.

The primary assumption of current mainstream science is materialism - i.e. all phenomena are emergent properties of physicality - they rule out vast other areas.

Current mainstream biomedical psychiatry also largely rules out in a similar way massive areas of psychology, sociology & other fields of study - over a primary focus on assumed biological reductionism.

We can not guarantee a simple model to describe schiz causation. I suppose the evidence is important and there is evidence that schiz is a complicated condition in terms of gene interactions , etc. But there is the matter of the people that are coming up with research goals and those who are investing heavily in the private drugs trade; a complex model for describing schiz would suit their interests better. So let's give the simple model a chance.

Maybe there is something in it all?

The thing is do they really understand all the processes involved? i think we're still very unadvanced in our overall understandings of genetics/epigenetics, the brain & how all of that interrelates, especially in regards to consciousness & subjective inner reality. What is critical, is how will all this translate into better treatments? Something that genuinely improves brain function, & peoples lives would be good - instead of the usual brain disabling treatments.

It does also say in many commentaries on these areas that -

'The causes—it seems—are equally complex, with a combination of physical, psychological, environmental and genetic factors implicated'. All areas need to be properly addressed. Where is there a focus & proper addressing/approach to psychological & social/environmental aspects to the condition/experiences? - when in many cases it's very rational that there is a lot going on at those levels, regardless of the theorised physiological aetiology, which despite this recent research still hasn't been established.

& how many times, for many decades now, have we heard these sensationalist claims about genetic breakthroughs? Personally i'm very dubious. i also don't want some experimental treatment that makes me grow fur & a tail :-)

There is also a far broader question here, concerning the conceptualisation of 'mental illness'. i'm not going to start quoting Szasz, who i have some fundamental disagreements with - But there is a question as to what these experiences actually are, & who defines what it all is.

Even if there are physiological differences - Does that necessarily equate to a biomedical illness in a strict sense? It's debatable. There may well be an evolutionary function of the condition.

SHAMANS AMONG US: Schizophrenia, Shamanism and the Evolutionary Origins of Religion - Joseph Polimeni, author

Schizophrenia is one of the most enigmatic human experiences. While it can cause terrible distress, it doesn't fit the mold of a classic medical disease. In Shamans Among Us, Joseph Polimeni shows that today's schizophrenia patients are no less than the modern manifestation of tribal shamans, people vital to the success of early human cultures. Spanning human history and including discussions of evolution, the definition of disease, and the nature of psychosis, Shamans Among Us is the most detailed and comprehensive evolutionary theory yet assembled to explain a specific psychiatric diagnosis. "Joseph Polimeni's scholarly book challenges several traditional concepts of both evolutionary biology and medicine. I strongly recommend it to all those who dare to think outside the box." - Martin Brüne, MD, author of Textbook of Evolutionary Psychiatry.

Well worth a listen -

Published on 25 Sep 2013
A Video Lecture by Dr. Joseph Polimeni entitled "Shamanism and the Evolutionary Origins of Schizophrenia"

Another recent project -

Home - Crazywise

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9y...3XAjNKcRxOpAPA

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

The primary assumption of current mainstream science is materialism - i.e. all phenomena are emergent properties of physicality - they rule out vast other areas.

Current mainstream biomedical psychiatry also largely rules out in a similar way massive areas of psychology, sociology & other fields of study - over a primary focus on assumed biological reductionism.

Maybe there is something in it all?

The thing is do they really understand all the processes involved? i think we're still very unadvanced in our overall understandings of genetics/epigenetics, the brain & how all of that interrelates, especially in regards to consciousness & subjective inner reality. What is critical, is how will all this translate into better treatments? Something that genuinely improves brain function, & peoples lives would be good - instead of the usual brain disabling treatments.

It does also say in many commentaries on these areas that -

'The causes—it seems—are equally complex, with a combination of physical, psychological, environmental and genetic factors implicated'. All areas need to be properly addressed. Where is there a focus & proper addressing/approach to psychological & social/environmental aspects to the condition/experiences? - when in many cases it's very rational that there is a lot going on at those levels, regardless of the theorised physiological aetiology, which despite this recent research still hasn't been established.

& how many times, for many decades now, have we heard these sensationalist claims about genetic breakthroughs? Personally i'm very dubious. i also don't want some experimental treatment that makes me grow fur & a tail :-)

The philosophy , I don't understand. I do though , understand the basic premise of scientific endeavour. We pose scientific questions , the scientific research seeks to answer these questions or we make a statement of proposed fact , and we undertake scientific research to confirm or reject that same statement. If we cannot confirm or reject , we make another statement that is informed by the previous research , and on and on goes the process. Its a very mechanical process , the 'question' or 'statement' is specific , or in good science , it should be ; 'let's see what happens' is poor science.

[avlady]

interesting anyway

Originally Posted by Materly

The philosophy , I don't understand. I do though , understand the basic premise of scientific endeavour. We pose scientific questions , the scientific research seeks to answer these questions or we make a statement of proposed fact , and we undertake scientific research to confirm or reject that same statement. If we cannot confirm or reject , we make another statement that is informed by the previous research , and on and on goes the process. Its a very mechanical process , the 'question' or 'statement' is specific , or in good science , it should be ; 'let's see what happens' is poor science.

i think philosophy of science should be more widely taught.

It's inevitable that 'we' shift into an acknowledgement by the orthodox/mainstream of the paranormal/non-physical at some stage - & the breakthrough could come from a number of areas. There simply is the evidence for it all, which is currently denied.

No point in debating it, & it's tiresome to.

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

i think philosophy of science should be more widely taught.

It's inevitable that 'we' shift into an acknowledgement by the orthodox/mainstream of the paranormal/non-physical at some stage - & the breakthrough could come from a number of areas. There simply is the evidence for it all, which is currently denied.

No point in debating it, & it's tiresome to.

Yes , its a tired argument I agree. Science vs philosophy seems to be a misnomer ; the scientific method the philosophers state is just another branch of philosophy. Many scientists argue that 'philosophy' does not elucidate in our modern world , and is ironically meaningless. I can tell from your writings what you generally think on this subject area.

What has effectively divorced science from philosophy , is the question of absolutes , science seeks it , while philosophy does not. Not because of arrogance but because each stage of the scientific process Must inform the next stage.

Also as per my last post , in terms of specific scientific 'questions' or 'statements' that researchers pose , I neglected to tell you that both the former and latter Must be answerable. If they can not be answered then the question or statement should be rephrased.

Now such is the general controversy on this I know people will have all manner of opinion on these subjects.

Originally Posted by Materly

Now such is the general controversy on this I know people will have all manner of opinion on these subjects.

i love science - thing is that materialism isn't science - it's based on an unfounded/unproven assumption.

There are areas of research, especially within consciousness studies, OBE's, NDE's & other areas that prove materialism is wrong - the evidence is denied & ignored - But these areas can't be forever - just one of these exceptions to the rule of materialism is enough to discredit the entire thing. The problem is that materialism is akin to a fundamentalist religion.

It will all shift - that is inevitable.

8

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

i love science - thing is that materialism isn't science - it's based on an unfounded/unproven assumption.

There are areas of research, especially within consciousness studies, OBE's, NDE's & other areas that prove materialism is wrong - the evidence is denied & ignored - But these areas can't be forever - just one of these exceptions to the rule of materialism is enough to discredit the entire thing. The problem is that materialism is akin to a fundamentalist religion.

It will all shift - that is inevitable.

The only thing that NDE's prove is that they are subjective experiences. That's another matter, Science makes statements that are generally 'objective' in nature. It means a statement of reality that is beyond dispute.

But I realise that there is a lot of vox pop 'science' around. But the intention should be clear , science seeks a reality that people can not dispute.

Originally Posted by Materly

The only thing that NDE's prove is that they are subjective experiences. That's another matter, Science makes statements that are generally 'objective' in nature. It means a statement of reality that is beyond dispute.

Which is based on the primary unfounded assumption of materialism.

Conventional opinion is the ruin of our souls.

Rumi

What is more logical, that the Universe originated from nothing, that life sprung from molecules which by an almost impossible chance have tendency to replicate themselves for no reason, and that consciousness and feelings are an illusion…
Or, that the Universe emerged from God - an infinite conscious intelligence, and that we are the fragments of that absolute consciousness?

Atheism is a religion which believes that a machine can produce an immaterial consciousness and therefore it is challenged with its own contradiction that material can produce immaterial, which by all definitions is supernatural. If consciousness is an illusion, then how can an illusion be aware of its own existence since it is not real in the first place?

In other words Atheism is a story based on three miracles: the Universe comes out of nothing; molecules accidentally replicate themselves and create life forms; the nervous system creates immaterial consciousness and feelings.

[A18793715]

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

I think the universe is a never ending Big Bang. In and out. All random each time. I think humans are just like anything else in the universe. Random. We happened to learn how to survive and evolve. Just like I'm sure there's life on other galaxies. They might have their own sets of problems to deal with compared to ours. It's all random to me. One thing I do believe is that if there is a god, he's sadistic for letting people suffer when he's all "powerful" and can heal but have you seen our world?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by A18793715

One thing I do believe is that if there is a god, he's sadistic for letting people suffer when he's all "powerful" and can heal but have you seen our world?

i don't personally hold to exoteric religious thinking & an 'external' God - it's as mistaken as Atheism imo. Both 2 sides of the same coin.

Given how very little we know from a rationalistic/scientific perspective, to assume from that all that exists is a physical reality - is to my mind totally ridiculous - But humanity is in a lot of ways. Is that the fault of 'God'?

There are myriad reasons for why things may be the way they are on this Earth. There is certainly a vast amount of stuff that we could sort out as a species, if we became more genuinely civilised, but that very largely comes down to individual & collective responsibility & choice.

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

i don't personally hold to exoteric religious thinking & an 'external' God - it's as mistaken as Atheism imo. Both 2 sides of the same coin.

Given how very little we know from a rationalistic/scientific perspective, to assume from that all that exists is a physical reality - is to my mind totally ridiculous - But humanity is in a lot of ways. Is that the fault of 'God'?

There are myriad reasons for why things may be the way they are on this Earth. There is certainly a vast amount of stuff that we could sort out as a species, if we became more genuinely civilised, but that very largely comes down to individual & collective responsibility & choice.

We 'know' that of what we have 'evidence' for , to me its equally ridiculous to state I know something yet have no evidence for it. That form of thinking is not likely to enlighten anything.