On Drugs

[From Rick Marken (951116.1230)]

Me:

We learn in order to control better (to reduce the ambient error existing
in control systems that are not controlling very well).

Chris Cherpas (951116.1047 PT)--

So what happens the first time somebody tries, let's say, crack cocaine?
Suddenly, there's a very "important" reference level to maintain. How did
the new reference level get there?

I've never seen any evidence that there is "suddenly" a very important
reference level to maintain after trying a drug? You seem to be saying that
ingestion of crack cocaine causes a reference (want) for more of it. I'm
pretty sure that it doesn't work that way.

The person who takes crack for the first time already has a reference for
ingesting the substance; the person is controlling for "taking crack" (this
could be tested; just try to prevent the person from taking it, by pulling
his arm as he starts to inject, or whatever ). The person taking crack for
the first time doesn't have a reference for the particular perceptual
consequences of taking the drug because he doesn't know what they are yet.
But I can think of many reasons why a person might control for taking crack,
not all of which involve controlling for the possible consequences of the
drug itself. For example, the person might be controlling for a perception of
himself as "avant garde" and ingests the drug in order to control that
perception of himself.

Whether a person continues to take crack or not after the first experience
probably depends a lot on why it was taken in the first place. If it was
taken to prove that you are "avant garde", then it may never be taken again.
If it was taken because you thought it might get rid of pain (massive error)
and it does, it will probably be taken again abd again; the person will keep
reseting the reference for ingesting crack whenever he is in pain.

Addiction (presistant use of crack in higher and/or more frequest doses)
probably results from two different factors: 1) the drug elimites error and,
hence, the need to reorganize further - - ie. the need to learn to control
anything other than ingestion of crack and 2) the drug probably has
phyiological and physical consequences that make it necessary for the person
to increase the dosage if the drug is to have the desired effect.

The idea that one shot of a drug leads to addiction is a stimulus-response
view of behavior; it suggests that the drug (stimulus) causes addiction
(response). It is a good example of bad science in the service of stupid
social policy (the "war" on drugs).

Best

Rick

[From Chris Cherpas {951116.1322 PT)]
   [re: > Rick Marken (951116.1230)]
      [re: >> Chris Cherpas (951116.1047 PT)]
cc:

So what happens the first time somebody tries, let's say, crack cocaine?
Suddenly, there's a very "important" reference level to maintain. How did
the new reference level get there?

RM:

I've never seen any evidence that there is "suddenly" a very important
reference level to maintain after trying a drug. You seem to be saying that
ingestion of crack cocaine causes a reference (want) for more of it. I'm
pretty sure that it doesn't work that way.

cc:
OK, the receptors have to be there already, but I'm surprised you'd think
that you don't want crack a lot more after trying it. Maybe there's
a crack control system in place that isn't "activated" (?) until the
first sampling. Would that make PCT-sense? Does a PCT-construed
organism ever want anything new, or is everything we start out wanting
all we'll ever want? I never wanted sushi as an infant, but now it
seems I just can't get enough of the stuff -- the same is true for money,
but I suspect a different process is involved.

RM:

The idea that one shot of a drug leads to addiction is a stimulus-response
view of behavior; it suggests that the drug (stimulus) causes addiction
(response). It is a good example of bad science in the service of stupid
social policy (the "war" on drugs).

A "what" view of behavior? An S-R view _might_ say the "stimulus" is the
crack smoked & that response(s) would include increased heart rate, feelings
of euphoria, etc., but for the "response" to be "addiction" seems pretty
far out. It's not a stimulus-response view, it's a cause-effect view --
or are they the same in your view?

In any case, what, specifically, is "bad science" about the idea that one shot
of a drug could lead to an addiction? I don't consider myself an expert on
what makes bad science. I know I don't like the president praying to Jesus
to solve the country's problems, when he could spend the time running
computer simulations of the economy or something.

Animal studies seem to show a big change in "wanting" after sampling a new
"buzz." There are studies of rats starving because they wouldn't stop self-
administering cocaine long enough to eat, not to mention the total commitment
to intercranial brain stimulation (e.g., medial forebrain bundle stim) animals
display after one only "shot" (no matter how messy it makes the test chamber!)

On the negative side, we only need to touch a hot wire once to start
investing a lot of behavior to avoid doing it again. Throw a snake
near a spider monkey while he's eating and he may never eat again.

My point here is that once you sample something for the first time,
it may be something you suddenly want to have lots of contact with (I just used
crack for a dramatic example, but it could have been sushi) or, if it's
negative, you may engage in a lot of behavior to avoid it.

In general, are you saying that there must already be control systems in
place for a multitude of perceptions you may never actually
experience (e.g., levels of crack concentration)? Or maybe crack is just
an example of something that does, let's say, what an existing neurotransmitter
already does, and therefore the "one shot" just disturbs an existing reference
level in a closely related control system -- and, in fact, resets it?

I had actually started out asking about learning in general, but
the topic of PCT vis-a-vis drug-related behavior is interesting to me too.

Best regards,
cc

[ By the way, I don't believe the "war on drugs" is effective, in
addition to involving intrusions into people's private lives. ]

[From Rick Marken (951116.1600)]

Bruce Abbott (951116.1740 EST) --
Chris Cherpas (951116.1322 PT) --

You both ask essentially what Bruce asked:

Why is it that, after you have experienced certain perceptual values, do
you WANT to experience them again?

This is a great question. The answer applies to all perception, not just
those produced by drugs. I think it's becuase wanting certain things
(setting a reference for certain perceptions) satisfies other, higher level
wants; then you have learned that you can want the low level perception, as
necessary, in order to achieve the higher level perception. For example,
after my first shot of a Bach fugue (god, I couldn't have been more than 12)
I just couldn't get enough. I had never heard Bach before but someone (my
Dad, I think) offered me some and I took it straight. What a rush. Now I
still use it whenever I want to perceive myself in direct contact with god.

Thank god for records and CDs or I would have had ot be breaking into the
Brandenberg castle to make my connection.

Best

Rick

[From Shannon Williams (951116)]

Rick Marken (951116.1230)--

Addiction (presistant use of crack in higher and/or more frequest doses)
probably results from two different factors: 1) the drug elimites error and,
hence, the need to reorganize further - - ie. the need to learn to control
anything other than ingestion of crack and 2) the drug probably has
phyiological and physical consequences that make it necessary for the person
to increase the dosage if the drug is to have the desired effect.

Beautiful post. I am forwarding it to a lot of people.

-Shannon

<[Bill Leach 951116.23:01 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[Chris Cherpas {951116.1322 PT)]

A "what" view of behavior? An S-R view _might_ say the "stimulus" is
the crack smoked & that response(s) would include increased heart rate,
feelings of euphoria, etc., but for the "response" to be "addiction"
seems pretty far out. It's not a stimulus-response view, it's a
cause-effect view -- or are they the same in your view?

I'll answer this for Rick (lest he is tired or something)... YES!

Lineal cause-effect is what we are referring to by "S-R". The physical
effects that you describe are not necessarily perceptions that are
satisfying a reference.

If we at least agree that the drug is not the controlled variable that
has a reference but rather something that happens within the person that
is a result of ingesting the drug then we at least are on a start toward
a PCT discussion of this subject.

The problem with such examples as you provide is that there are examples
that are counter to what is implied in your examples... ergo, it is not
the drug itself that is wanted and maybe not even the effects normally
caused by the drug.

-bill

<[Bill Leach 951116.23:07 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[Rick Marken (951116.1600)]

Ah yes! Bach! I almost always have at least one Bach CD in the player
at all times!

-bill

[Martin Taylor 951120 15:40]

Rick Marken (951116.1230)

Whether a person continues to take crack or not after the first experience
probably depends a lot on why it was taken in the first place.

I don't know whether this is still understood to be the case, but a few
years ago it used to be said that people who tried heroin for "recreational"
reasons usually became addicted, whereas people who were given it for
medicinal reasons did not. If true, this suggests that it is indeed not the
drug that "causes" addiction, but a combination of the drug and the reasons
for taking it in the first place--falsifying, as you point out, the idea that:

one shot of a drug leads to addiction...

Martin