Psychiatrists study medicine and then forget it. That used to infuriate me, I told the juniors: "If you don't examine the patient properly, who will be the next person to do it? The pathologist." They didn't like that, they'd all been taught not to touch patients. Bloody ridiculous, as soon as a person gets a psychiatric diagnosis on their rile, nobody takes them seriously, they won't even take a history, just write in the file: "Well known patient, back again with usual complaints."
"If we conceptualise the mind as a “substance,” then it necessarily has magical properties and can’t be included in a science of human behaviour"
The Enactivist schools dominating philosophy of psychiatry right now would disagree with you. There are other kinds of substance metaphysics that do away with both Cartesianism and mechanism altogether while being grounded in dynamical systems theory and non-reductive physicalism.
The brain is a computational organ like the heart is a pumping organ and the pancreas is a secreting organ. From that arises the insubstantial mind which is a real and causally effective thing but not in any material sense. Mental functions emerge from recursive data processing in a myriad modalities to produce the experience of being something. I have set out the mathematical requirements for this phenomenon in "Natural Dualism and Mental Disorder". It follows Chalmers outline of how states of affairs are represented in a predetermined calculus, which is essential in order to avoid charges of "magical thinking."
This is a physicalist approach in that it says there is nothing in the universe other than matter and energy interacting in the time-space matrix, PLUS the emergent informational states that control those interactions. Descartes said mind stuff and matter stuff need nothing other than themselves to exist. I say that's not quite right, informational states can only emerge from a formal calculus implemented in a suitable data processing machine.
the biocognitive model says animals have minds, just not quite the same as ours, and that mentally endowed machines are not self-contradictory but we may never know the codes the brain uses.
I would not have said enactivism dominates philosophy of psychiatry. If you have some recent articles, flick me a link. Cheers, JMcL
Whence is the Uncaused Cause of this computational device or algorithm you speak of? It is nowhere to be found in the Mahabharata, no less, evolutionary record.
You use the word essential but then deny the word substance and magic.
You are correct I misspoke about 4e cognition’s status. But the schools I follow contains minds participating in things you cannot perceive by virtue of computational thinking. By participation, I mean this like how ancients mean it.
I shall read your theory soon, for I oft worry that the Thomistic dualists are onto something as well. But even they are antimechanist.
I will throw you a bone now: Deacon’s Incomplete Nature (2011), and moderated by Tabaczek’s Emergence (2019), overlapped to ERS Nijenhuis’ Trinity of Trauma (2015) both reveal what I see in real-time. Every word, every italization. But when the theories are combined and modeled with NDST, like how I have, there emerge visions no mortal can wield. It is dangerous. It is the only reason I will consider dualism.
Excellent question. My view is that the drugs cause emotional numbing, which is what they're intended to do, but they also cause akathisia, which is hugely distressing. In that state, people get the idea: "If this is life, might as well end it." I have heard from so many people that the idea of suicide just popped into their head, or even homicide, but they didn't react to it emotionally and just approached would could be a fatal act in a state of detachment.
Exactly and over here a dokter who istn even a psychologist can prescribe this on a hunch.
And with the excuse that it is the lightest drug, with the lowest dose. Just try it, it can't do any harm...
But no harm turns out to be turning a life upside down. And taking people on a path that destroys the rest of someone's life. And, in a way, ending oneself would have been the easy way out, compared to the unhinged heap of bureaucratic evil that was attached to this harmless experiment.
And the entire system just looked away, it still does.
On one side, blame the parents for bureaucracy induced crap. And then point to the Freudian system for 'help'.
But if somone nologer trusts that 'help' that I described above. Then you are on your own. And they describe those people as 'unwilling to accept any help from them, and the bureaucracy then cracks down on them. With all the stuff that destroys life on every level.
And then the question is how to get out of that situation.
As they close every door. Except crime... but those who refuse that path dont have many options left. We cant find any...
Not expecting you to have an answer either, just painting a situation that some people get confronted with here in Europe.
For some this is the current state of life, others turn to alcohol, drugs, aggression. And from there things get way way worse for those.
So I guess I seek a non Freudian remedy. But it may not come with a price tag. As there is no budget for anything.
Thanks for laying it out and walking us trough it.
Im glad I found clear, yet more complicated then expected, explanations about things im researching for a long time but always found difficult to find proof.
Now I found it i cant use it to turn back time. And confront a few people with it.
That's a few paragraphs to cover half a book, necessarily condensed.
In one of the few of his comments I like, Daniel Dennett said: "The final theory of mind will turn out to be counter-intuitive. It has to be, we've tried all the obvious ones." The idea of an insubstantial but causally-effective information space was counter-intuitive until Alan Turing came along.
Brilliant piece. Thanks for that.
Pity you didn't speak about Gustav Fechner. Nonetheless, good article.
A good psychologist should study everything. Even endocrinology etc. Avoiding it, would be abnormal.
Psychiatrists study medicine and then forget it. That used to infuriate me, I told the juniors: "If you don't examine the patient properly, who will be the next person to do it? The pathologist." They didn't like that, they'd all been taught not to touch patients. Bloody ridiculous, as soon as a person gets a psychiatric diagnosis on their rile, nobody takes them seriously, they won't even take a history, just write in the file: "Well known patient, back again with usual complaints."
"The brain is a computational organ."
"If we conceptualise the mind as a “substance,” then it necessarily has magical properties and can’t be included in a science of human behaviour"
The Enactivist schools dominating philosophy of psychiatry right now would disagree with you. There are other kinds of substance metaphysics that do away with both Cartesianism and mechanism altogether while being grounded in dynamical systems theory and non-reductive physicalism.
The brain is a computational organ like the heart is a pumping organ and the pancreas is a secreting organ. From that arises the insubstantial mind which is a real and causally effective thing but not in any material sense. Mental functions emerge from recursive data processing in a myriad modalities to produce the experience of being something. I have set out the mathematical requirements for this phenomenon in "Natural Dualism and Mental Disorder". It follows Chalmers outline of how states of affairs are represented in a predetermined calculus, which is essential in order to avoid charges of "magical thinking."
This is a physicalist approach in that it says there is nothing in the universe other than matter and energy interacting in the time-space matrix, PLUS the emergent informational states that control those interactions. Descartes said mind stuff and matter stuff need nothing other than themselves to exist. I say that's not quite right, informational states can only emerge from a formal calculus implemented in a suitable data processing machine.
the biocognitive model says animals have minds, just not quite the same as ours, and that mentally endowed machines are not self-contradictory but we may never know the codes the brain uses.
I would not have said enactivism dominates philosophy of psychiatry. If you have some recent articles, flick me a link. Cheers, JMcL
Whence is the Uncaused Cause of this computational device or algorithm you speak of? It is nowhere to be found in the Mahabharata, no less, evolutionary record.
You use the word essential but then deny the word substance and magic.
You are correct I misspoke about 4e cognition’s status. But the schools I follow contains minds participating in things you cannot perceive by virtue of computational thinking. By participation, I mean this like how ancients mean it.
I shall read your theory soon, for I oft worry that the Thomistic dualists are onto something as well. But even they are antimechanist.
I will throw you a bone now: Deacon’s Incomplete Nature (2011), and moderated by Tabaczek’s Emergence (2019), overlapped to ERS Nijenhuis’ Trinity of Trauma (2015) both reveal what I see in real-time. Every word, every italization. But when the theories are combined and modeled with NDST, like how I have, there emerge visions no mortal can wield. It is dangerous. It is the only reason I will consider dualism.
Not sure if I should ask this.
Why can someone who is not depressed get severely depressed from a low dosage of sertraline.
As it is used to raise serotonine in the brain. And depression is when serotonine levels go down.
How can this be rationalised?
Its the exact opposite of what should happen.
And it is actually a known side effect that people who use sertraline can get severe ideas of 'ending themselves'
Its stunning that a medication with such a side effect can be legal.
Excellent question. My view is that the drugs cause emotional numbing, which is what they're intended to do, but they also cause akathisia, which is hugely distressing. In that state, people get the idea: "If this is life, might as well end it." I have heard from so many people that the idea of suicide just popped into their head, or even homicide, but they didn't react to it emotionally and just approached would could be a fatal act in a state of detachment.
Exactly and over here a dokter who istn even a psychologist can prescribe this on a hunch.
And with the excuse that it is the lightest drug, with the lowest dose. Just try it, it can't do any harm...
But no harm turns out to be turning a life upside down. And taking people on a path that destroys the rest of someone's life. And, in a way, ending oneself would have been the easy way out, compared to the unhinged heap of bureaucratic evil that was attached to this harmless experiment.
And the entire system just looked away, it still does.
On one side, blame the parents for bureaucracy induced crap. And then point to the Freudian system for 'help'.
But if somone nologer trusts that 'help' that I described above. Then you are on your own. And they describe those people as 'unwilling to accept any help from them, and the bureaucracy then cracks down on them. With all the stuff that destroys life on every level.
And then the question is how to get out of that situation.
As they close every door. Except crime... but those who refuse that path dont have many options left. We cant find any...
Not expecting you to have an answer either, just painting a situation that some people get confronted with here in Europe.
For some this is the current state of life, others turn to alcohol, drugs, aggression. And from there things get way way worse for those.
So I guess I seek a non Freudian remedy. But it may not come with a price tag. As there is no budget for anything.
Its an interesting situation to work with...
Thanks for laying it out and walking us trough it.
Im glad I found clear, yet more complicated then expected, explanations about things im researching for a long time but always found difficult to find proof.
Now I found it i cant use it to turn back time. And confront a few people with it.
That's a few paragraphs to cover half a book, necessarily condensed.
In one of the few of his comments I like, Daniel Dennett said: "The final theory of mind will turn out to be counter-intuitive. It has to be, we've tried all the obvious ones." The idea of an insubstantial but causally-effective information space was counter-intuitive until Alan Turing came along.