Science Without a Soul

Ahnimus

I would suggest only going to a psychiatrist for psychiatric problems. Go to a pyschologist for pyschological problems and a sociologist for sociological problems. Perhaps a general practitioner can help determine which one is best suited.

About six months ago I asked a therapist online where I should direct my friend for help. Her answer, was that I contact child services, have the children removed, have the parents charged and avoid the evil family. That's not my idea of help. So, I suggested the mother educate herself on child psychology and take the proper steps to a flourishing relationship with her children. Her "problem child" was diagnosed ADHD and given a psychotropic, by her pediatrician, that is typically meant for adults and is unsafe for children. The child "is the problem" according to professionals, who obviously are lacking some professional knowledge. The child, now age 12, has an avoidant attachment profile, meaning she is not attached to her parents or siblings, but avoids them. Oddly, she does prefer attachment to strange men, something quite rare in it's self, and likely the result of sexual abuse. But, I'm largely ignorant of any such incidents and the home dynamics. All I could do was make suggestions to the mother, suggestions she ignored, and there is nothing else I can do.

I imagine this is how many practitioners feel at times. Their patients don't take their advice, so they write them off. If their patients want a prescription, fine, but they aren't accepting the advice, so it's two-fold, patients need to step up to the plate as well.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I would suggest only going to a psychiatrist for psychiatric problems. Go to a pyschologist for pyschological problems and a sociologist for sociological problems. Perhaps a general practitioner can help determine which one is best suited.

This makes sense in theory. And yet, I see a few problems. First of all, as I said earlier, people in Canada with psychological problems often cannot afford psychologists, and since psychiatry is covered as health care, they go right into that system.

Secondly--and this was the case with me...I was a modern, logical objective person. I didn't believe in psychology. I believed that these issues were neutral chemical imbalances that happened randomly in some families. I didn't think it had anything to do with my behaviour, and I was completely unconscious of my real issues. I had a psychologist explain to me why I'd benefit from his help...I didn't listen. I chose the "easy" method of having a brain disease.

Thirdly, all three are involved in any mental health situation. The human is never outside of society. The human is never outside their brain chemistry, and they are never outside of their psychology. Fortunately strides are being made by our wonderful front-runners in all fields, and I see new degrees of blended programs happening all the time. Holistic approaches are becoming more commonly accepted.

Fourthly, neither potential patients nor expert can tell which system is best suited for which problem. The average person has no idea who to go to or why. The average expert has been taught to see through the lens of their discipline. So a psychiatrist will see from their model, how the patient will do best. A psychologist will see from their model how to treat the patient, and same for the sociologist. They are trained to do their best with the tools they have, not to send the patient elsewhere. This is why as synthesis takes more and more hold, we will see more overlap and blended programs. I get that a gp can look at an overview, and yet, they don't understand the nuances of the various fields or of the patient in question.

About six months ago I asked a therapist online where I should direct my friend for help. Her answer, was that I contact child services, have the children removed, have the parents charged and avoid the evil family. That's not my idea of help. So, I suggested the mother educate herself on child psychology and take the proper steps to a flourishing relationship with her children. Her "problem child" was diagnosed ADHD and given a psychotropic, by her pediatrician, that is typically meant for adults and is unsafe for children. The child "is the problem" according to professionals, who obviously are lacking some professional knowledge. The child, now age 12, has an avoidant attachment profile, meaning she is not attached to her parents or siblings, but avoids them. Oddly, she does prefer attachment to strange men, something quite rare in it's self, and likely the result of sexual abuse. But, I'm largely ignorant of any such incidents and the home dynamics. All I could do was make suggestions to the mother, suggestions she ignored, and there is nothing else I can do.

I imagine this is how many practitioners feel at times. Their patients don't take their advice, so they write them off. If their patients want a prescription, fine, but they aren't accepting the advice, so it's two-fold, patients need to step up to the plate as well.

I feel for the situation, Ahmimus. And I feel your sense of futility, and I agree the experts must feel that at times, too. This is partly why I complain about the objectification in our society. It's not because I think science is bad. It's because we're taught to completely overlook our reality. I talk to mentally ill people all the time that are completely unaware that they have any power or say in changing the circumstances in their lives. You can see the paths people are on, and you can do your best and that's it. It's evolution. I'm also trained to be an active listener, because bearing witness to people, and giving them a safe place to talk and to feel unconditionally accepted helps, even if they are doing very poorly. It's about progress not perfection. It's shocking how far I've come, so I never write someone off because they are very maladjusted and because their path looks bleak.

I agree 100% that patients are entirely responsible for their choices. That's why in order to heal, I had to realize that every step of the way I contributed to my own state of affairs by the choices I made. No matter how bad it was for myself and my children, I always had access to my personal power, even if I had no idea how to use it, or that it was there. I lived the consequences of my maladaption.

angelica

"Many eminent, non-medical neuroscientists have pointed out that the brain is far more complex than psychiatrists believe. Critics of the medical model maintain that the scientific evidence at hand does not adequately support the claim that neurochemical factors cause the behaviors which are labeled "mental illness." Nevertheless, due to a vigorous marketing program, the claim is widely believed to be true. "



"The medical model is the dominant paradigm of psychiatry. Over the past forty years it has become the target of a rising tide of criticism. What is the medical model? Why is it the object of criticism? The medical model is not a scientific concept or theory. It cannot be confirmed or falsified by facts. A model is a conceptual-linguistic construction, a metaphor. The balsam wood model airplane is a metaphor for a real airplane. It is not a real airplane. It is a representation which highlights similarities and ignores differences. A fire in the eyes may sparkle but it doesn't burn. The medical model is a metaphor which portrays psychiatry, psychiatrists, and psychiatric patients in the language of medicine. Medicine does not need a medical model. It is the standard on which psychiatry models itself, like the real airplane is to the toy. The medical model projects the metaphors of illness on to the patient and the metaphors of medicine on to the psychiatrist."



"The modern critique was inaugurated in 1961 with the publication of The Myth of Mental Illness by Thomas Szasz. In this now classic work, Szasz offers a conceptual and logical critique of the medical model broadly based in philosophy, psychology, and political theory. The basic problem with the medical model is that people take it literally rather than understanding it as the metaphor it is. The medical model portrays the mind as an object. It equates mind with brain and uses this assumption to justify defining certain thoughts, feelings, and behavior as medical diseases. It is like thinking that a model plane can actually board passengers and fly, or that spring fever is a medical symptom. It is pure imagination. Szasz criticizes the view of mind as object by reminding us of the well established ontological, epistemological and linguistic differences between mind and matter. Simply stated, mind is different than matter, or body, or brain, for the obvious reason that the body is an object and the mind is not. The body is known through the methods of physics and chemistry. The mind is known through introspection, communication and interpretation. The language used to describe the body is literal. The language used to describe the mind is metaphorical. The thesis of The Myth of Mental Illness is that mental illness is a metaphor. The medical model of psychiatry is a metaphor which psychiatry, the media and, hence, the general public take literally."


http://www.iaapa.de/zwang/leifer.htm

angelica

"As a psychiatrist in private practice I get many calls from people who say they want treatment for their "biochemical imbalance." I ask them if they have had a chemical test that demonstrated the imbalance. The answer is always no because there is no test. I ask them whether they know which chemical is imbalanced. They typically have no idea. I ask them how they know they have a chemical imbalance. They tell me either their primary physician told them, or that their aunt was told she has it, or they saw it on television. So called "biochemical imbalances" are the only illnesses I know of which are spread by word of mouth. The claim that depression is a disease is propaganda promoted by psychiatry and the state and marketed by drug companies: the State-Science Alliance. ~ Ron Leifer


"The medical model serves the interests of the pharmaceutical industry by proclaiming that mental illnesses are brain diseases which can be treated with drugs the pharmaceutical industry makes, markets, and sells. The pharmaceutical industry, in turn, subsidizes research, training, education and professional journals which support the medical model. Psychiatric theories are drug driven. Psychiatric therapies are drug driven. The pharmaceutical industry grants millions of dollars to psychiatrists for research on psychiatric drugs from which the industry profits. It's advertising supports psychiatric journals which publish the positive findings of this research. It contributes money for the training of psychiatric residents and the continuing education of psychiatrists at conferences and seminars which support the use of psychiatric drugs. Pharmaceutical companies spend between eight to thirteen thousand dollars per physician in this country on gifts, meals, speaking honoraria, consulting fees, luxurious travel to conferences, and free samples of their products. In most other circumstances, the default presumption would be that money buys influence. But psychiatrists deny that money from the pharmaceutical industry influences their thought and practices."

http://www.iaapa.de/zwang/leifer.htm

angelica

"California psychiatrist Al Parides, remarked that the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) that lists disorders which are supposedly "biologically based" is a "masterpiece of political maneuvering." He stated: "...What they [referring to DSM] have done is medicalize many problems that don't have demonstrable, biological causes."




"Excerpts from the article "Respondents Urge Caution When Using the DSM - IV" printed in Clinical Psychiatry News - January 2000 "There has never been any criterion that psychiatric diagnoses require a demonstrated biological etiology' [cause], said Dr. Harold Pincus, vice chairperson of the DSM-IV task force. In fact, virtually no mental disorder, except those that are substance induced or due to a general medical condition, has one."

http://www.resultsproject.net/writing_on_the_wall.html

Ahnimus

The mind is a process of the brain.

I don't see the plane metaphor as being similar. The mind to the brain, is more like the spinning of propellars and shifting of rudders is to a real plane, than a model of the real plane. I don't agree that the prominant paradigm is like the latter. Nor does neuroscience suggest that the mind is separate from the brain, quite the contrary, it suggest the mind is a process of the brain.

Before I get into specifics let's define 'mind'. What is the mind? Generally speaking, it's the assortment of qualia characterizing external stimulus, as pain for example. Pain is not the quality of an external object, but rather an internal sensation evoked by an external object. Another quality of mind, is the recurrent thoughts of one's self representation and representations of other minds or external objects. As demonstrated by clinical cases of brain damage, the mind is internal to the brain, that is, the mind exists with the brain and cannot exist without the brain. So, what are the correlates between certain qualities of mind and certain qualities of brain?

We've learned how the brain is structured of neural networks consisting of neurons interconnected in an overwhelming complexity. Similar to the mesh topology of computer networks. Each brain has approximately 100 billion neurons, with 10^4 synapses (connections with other neurons) per neuron, totalling an enormous 100 trillion synapses. The cortex consists of several layers of nerve cells, each projecting upwards, with some axons projecting back to lower layers, the basic structure is called a recurrent network. Information from layer 6, the input layer projects up to layer 5, layer 5 to layer 4 and so on to layer 1, the output layer. Some layers provide recurrent connections back to layer 5, layer 5 handles these backprojections as inputs from the input layer. There are two kinds of synapses, chemical and electrical, both vary in the way they communicate between neurons, but bother serve the same functional purpose. An area of the thalamus, called the intralaminar nucleus, which should really be called the inralaminar nuclei (plural) projects towards several high-order regions of the brain, the frontal lobe for example, these regions then project back to the intralaminar nucleus. It would appear that the "mind" if it has a physical correlate is this arrangement of recurrent connections to and from the intralaminar nucleus. But this theory is, as yet, unconfirmed.

There is nothing in the brain that looks anything like psychology. Psychology uses experiments with large sample groups to determine predictable behavior. For example, low-income families with two working parents tend to provide less support and stimulus to a newborn child, the same may occur if the primary caregivers are depressed or largely introverted. The predictable result is the child will exhibit resistant attachment or avoidant attachment and will have difficulties in social atmospheres. Such children will become irratable and avoid participating in social events. Somehow this translates into the 100 trillion synapses evident in neuroscience.

One computational model explains this gap; Recurrent Vector Processing. This model uses the previously mentioned recurrent pathways to give feedback into future deliberations, essentally adding a temporal element to the processing of information. Information is stored by a diffuse coding of synaptic weight adjustments across several neurons. This model seems very overwhelming to the lay person, how could vector coding give rise to representations of the real world and the thoughts humans have, the mind. However, several BDDs and ANNs have been developed by scientists in artifical intelligence, these devices have been modeled after neurosciences observations of the brain and have succeeded in creating seemingly intelligent and aware machines. Much needs to be done to create a computer that acts and feels like a human with all the qualities we attribute to 'mind'. This may take ten or twenty more years, but it does appear it will become a reality.

So, what I'm saying is, the paradigm of the plane metaphor is way off base. I don't believe neuroscience is suggesting the mind is separate from the brain, it suggests the mind is a process of the interaction of nerve cells. The computational output of a 100 trillion synapses. Psychology succeeds in readjusting these synaptic weights by methods that don't require an understanding of neuroscience. While psychiatry aims to directly affect the workings of the brain. The important distinction is between what is a result of incorrect firing of synapses, unused cortices of the brain, and what is the result of synaptic weight adjustments. The latter should be the realm of psychology with the former being the realm of psychiatry.

I believe this is what you are saying Angelica. But it's not only the psychiatrists who need to be careful. It does no good for a psychologist to tackle ALS when it's a problem of the autoimmune system destroying nerve cells. Similarly, OCD and Schizophrenia are directly correlated with neurological function and not necessarily an issue of psychology. On the other hand, any neurological disorder is bound to have psychological effects, and possibly psychological antecedents. Thus it might be important for a patient to be treated psychiatrically and psychologically. I thought psychiatry was suppose to be interdisciplinary, if not, then a field of interdisciplinary pracitice is much needed.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

"California psychiatrist Al Parides, remarked that the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) that lists disorders which are supposedly "biologically based" is a "masterpiece of political maneuvering." He stated: "...What they [referring to DSM] have done is medicalize many problems that don't have demonstrable, biological causes."

"Excerpts from the article "Respondents Urge Caution When Using the DSM - IV" printed in Clinical Psychiatry News - January 2000 "There has never been any criterion that psychiatric diagnoses require a demonstrated biological etiology' [cause], said Dr. Harold Pincus, vice chairperson of the DSM-IV task force. In fact, virtually no mental disorder, except those that are substance induced or due to a general medical condition, has one."

http://www.resultsproject.net/writing_on_the_wall.html

It has always been part of the political domain. Not much has been known about biological bases until recently. Homosexuality was listed as a sexual deviancy, but once it hit the political realm it was pulled from the book. There is no reason why beastiality is listed, but homosexuality is not. Neither has a direct biological correlate that is known to psychiatry. On the other hand, homosexuality does appear to be the result of genetic or developmental variations, reseach in the last 10 years has shown. Yet, even though homosexuality appears to have a biological basis, it will never be in the DSM, it's a political issue. Always has been, always will be.

Ahnimus

We are probably going to see Autism pulled from the DSM as well. A huge movement is now afoot seeking to make the term Autism taboo and have it refered to as neuraldiversity. They would also like to see autism unlisted as a mental disorder.

catefrances

it is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. it is impossible to imagine how it should know itself. - pascal.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

it is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. it is impossible to imagine how it should know itself. - pascal.

Only in pascal's ignorance.

angelica

When I talk about my thoughts and feelings, the expression of the experience is not about matter. It exists on a different conceptual level, even if it has a material correlate. This is why mind is considered different than brain.

I know mental health stuff, because of these criticisms, is growing more and more multi-disciplinary. I've seen many awesome programs, especially as it has become more community based, and patient centered.

For my own personal path, it were the clinical social workers who were by far the most effective for my own help. Unfortunately, it was not easy to get access to them. There was a program I received full interdisciplinary help from, after my suicide attempt, and that very much helped me hold myself together for a long while, until other environmental factors came into play that were to my benefit.

I realize all of these disciplines have lacks, including psychology. When I stand behind psychology, it's not the discipline, but it's certain specific dynamics that are known about in the profession that I've personally experienced in healing. So it's not the principle as interpreted by a fallible expert but the actual life dynamic/principle or what I would call a natural law that I go on about.


I think the kinds of help people are responsive to has to do with their personality. For example, my brother with schizophrenia is a strictly science guy who was stricken when he was finishing his physics degree. He is not at all predisposed to see much less care about my subjective psychological view stuff. It doesn't work for him at all.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

When I talk about my thoughts and feelings, the expression of the experience is not about matter. It exists on a different conceptual level, even if it has a material correlate. This is why mind is considered different than brain.

What is your concept of heat?

Do believe that heat is a separate quality that is emitted from objects by friction? Such as Phlogiston.

Or do you believe that heat is friction and how our brains represent the sensation of that friction?

Heat is something that is purely physical, although our brains/minds interpret it as being something besides the excited behavior of molecules. How exactly could a brain represent to it's self the sensation of heat, without the sensation of heat?

For those that hold that mind separates humans from animals, how do animals interpret or sense pain? And if they don't represent pain as a sensation in a mind, how do they respond to it?

The mind is very much, not a separate ordeal from the brain. The mind, is a autonomic view of internal processes.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Only in pascal's ignorance.

tell me why you think pascal is ignorant.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

tell me why you think pascal is ignorant.

Because he lacked the knowledge that we have today.

It's the old caloric theory, phlogiston, flat-earth, elan vital, etc.. etc.. etc..

It's easy to think like Pascal if you don't know how matter can represent it's self, but it most certainly can. It's widely believed that newborns don't represent themselves either, they cannot distinguish between themselves and their environments. Some research suggests that babies learn they are separate entities by social observations, by observing other independant agents and internalizing those qualities. Some babies up to 2 years of age, still cannot recognize the person in the mirror as being themselves. Keep in mind, that you only know of your mind, you believe in other minds because of your aquired theory of minds. But you can only directly know your own mind. So whether or not an arrangement of matter has a mind, is beyond your theory of mind, and likewise it was beyond pascal's. An alternative theory of mind might incorporate some physical requisites for a mind, and under that theory matter can represent it's self.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

What is your concept of heat?

Do believe that heat is a separate quality that is emitted from objects by friction? Such as Phlogiston.

Or do you believe that heat is friction and how our brains represent the sensation of that friction?

Heat is something that is purely physical, although our brains/minds interpret it as being something besides the excited behavior of molecules. How exactly could a brain represent to it's self the sensation of heat, without the sensation of heat?

For those that hold that mind separates humans from animals, how do animals interpret or sense pain? And if they don't represent pain as a sensation in a mind, how do they respond to it?

The mind is very much, not a separate ordeal from the brain. The mind, is a autonomic view of internal processes.

I can only speak to what I see and know, and that doesn't include specific ideas on heat.

The difference between humans and animals is that animals and their perceptions do not give them the illusion they are separate from nature as it is for humans. Animals do not perceptually detach from their ground state. We have a degree of mind that can detach itself from reality.

angelica

Have you read the book "Flowers For Algernon", Ahnimus?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Have you read the book "Flowers For Algernon", Ahnimus?

Nope, it sounds like fiction, I don't read fiction.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I can only speak to what I see and know, and that doesn't include specific ideas on heat.

The difference between humans and animals is that animals and their perceptions do not give them the illusion they are separate from nature as it is for humans. Animals do not perceptually detach from their ground state. We have a degree of mind that can detach itself from reality.

How can you know that animals do not have ideas of God's or metaphysics?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Nope, it sounds like fiction, I don't read fiction.

I don't like fiction either. And it's one of my favourites. You've got to read it, if only to tell me what you think. It would take one day.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

How can you know that animals do not have ideas of God's or metaphysics?

I'm sure they have impressions and sensations of God and metaphysics.