jockmclaren47's Channel

460 subscribers

92,562 video views

DSM-5: Critical Review - Part 1 6,722

by jockmclaren47 1 year ago

Featured Playlists

Uploaded videos

16 videos Play all(16)

Monism vs Dualism Dennett & Searle An explanation of the failures of the major monist models of mind in terms of their value for biological psychiatry. Daniel Dennett's functionalism and John Searles' biological naturalism are not monist at all, they are actually closet dualist theories in that the authors have retained the properties of a dualist model of mind even though they have given them different names. This is of major significance for biological psychiatry as there is now no possible explanation of mental disorder in a biological model. Note: This is a lecture taken from my paper due out soon "Monist Models...." and from the first chapters of my new book 'Humanizing Psychiatrists.' If you want to learn more you can find links to my books on my youtube channel or http://www.NiallMcLaren.com

4 videos Play all(4)

Mind-Body Problem Natural Dualist Solution An overview of my work showing a natural dualist resolution of the mind-body problem for psychiatry which leads directly to a model of mental disorder. Remember, dualism does NOT necessarily lead to spiritualism and my model fits perfectly within the material realm. When most hear dualism they think of Descartes and thus Cartesian dualism which IS spiritual/supernatural. However, the philosopher David Chalmers outlined a material form a dualism, termed natural dualism, which is what my model builds upon. We must understand that the mind is non-reducible, similar to the computer program I'm using to make this lecture. There is of course the substrate/hardware which runs the function, but knowing all there is to know about this hardware/brain will never reveal the program/mind, and this is where biological psychiatry fails. Suppressing an output state (with medications) without fixing the cognitive processes that give rise to that mental state is an incomplete treatment paradigm. If you have any questions or comments on my work please feel free to post a comment, email me, post on my blog etc. I always to try to answer questions and entertain criticisms as this is the engine of scientific progress.

6 videos Play all(6)

DSM-5: A Critical Review This is a critical examination of the concepts behind the new DSM-5, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which is due out in the next few years. My case is that it will fail because it is based in very bad science. Bad science will not produce good psychiatry. Here are some excerpts from the DSM-5 chapter of my new book 'Humanizing Psychiatrists,' The DSM-5 "will continue the process of damaging psychiatry and reducing its importance in the world of mental health, to the point where it becomes a commodity and psychiatrists themselves become irrevelant." "Not even death is so clear that we can definitively operationalize its definition. In the field of mental disorder, which is murky and uncertain at best, this is even more true." "That is, the DSM nosology of mental disorder is driven by the need to find a series of specific, internally uniform clinical pictures as the surface manifestation of specific unseen biochemical lesions. " "By answering the question of whether mental disorder is psychological or biological, we will ipso facto answer the question of whether the final nosology of mental disorder will be categorical or dimensional in form. Even though the Committee has not overtly embraced the reductionist, biological model of mental disorder, they have shifted the focus of thinking by implication." (see chapter for details) "Without specifiying their stance, they clearly imply that mind-body dualism is not scientific. This stance is completely unsupported by the literature, by philosophers, and by psychiatrists. The philosopher David Chalmers has outlined in great detail a convincing case for a rational (ie non spiritual) dualism." "If it emerges that the correct model of mental disorder is psychological in nature, and i have argued at length that it is, then the categorical model of DSM diagnosis will disappear as quickly as the psychoanalytic model did. Until this question is determined, openly and honestly, we are simply engaged in a vastly expensive exercise of drawing boxes in the sand, then watching impotently as the social winds blow them away."

4 videos Play all(4)

view all

About Jock's Psychiatry & Philosophy

I am a psychiatrist with some 35 years experience,
I write philosophical papers on the status of psychiatry and have now published three books which summarise my work. These show that modern psychiatry does not have a rational basis and therefore fails as a science. It is the only medical specialty that doesn't have a rational model of the nature of the disorders it treats.
I've also shown how a proper model of mental disorder should be assembled, starting with a partial resolution of the mind-body problem. This leads to a rational model of mental disorder, and thence to forms of treatment.
My work shows that biological psychiatry is not scientific and never can be. This includes modern drug management, the emphasis on the physical and chemical state of the brain, as well as the entire system of classification of mental disorders in DSM-IV and will soon appear in DSM-5.

less

NiallMcLaren.com

Facebook

Humanizing Madness

Humanizing Psychiatry

Humanizing Psychiatrists

Pubmed Literature

Google Scholar Lit

Created by

jockmclaren47

Latest Activity

Feb 9, 2012

Date Joined

Oct 31, 2009

About this user

I am a psychiatrist with some 35 years experience, most of it in the North of Australia, which is frontier country.

I write philosophical papers on the status of psychiatry and have now published three books which summarise my work. These show that modern psychiatry does not have a rational basis and therefore fails as a science. It is the only medical specialty that doesn't have a rational model of the nature of the disorders it treats.

I've also shown how a proper model of mental disorder should be assembled, starting with a partial resolution of the mind-body problem. This leads to a rational model of mental disorder, and thence to forms of treatment.

My work shows that biological psychiatry is not scientific and never can be. This includes modern drug management, the emphasis on the physical and chemical state of the brain, as well as the entire system of classification of mental disorders in DSM-IV and will soon appear in DSM-5.

Strangely enough, my colleagues don't like being told they are not practicing a scientific form of psychiatry. I don't understand that. Science progresses by criticising the prevailing model, but orthodox psychiatry does its best to suppress critical work.

Blog
http://www.NiallMcLaren.com
Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100001686409530&v=wall
Books (Amazon.com)
http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Madness-Psychiatry-Cognitive-Neurosciences/dp/1932690409/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287619866&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Psychiatry-Biocognitive-Niall-McLaren/dp/1615990119/ref=pd_sim_b_1
http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Psychiatrists-Toward-Humane-Psychiatry/dp/1615990607/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287619663&sr=8-6
Most of my peer reviewed work can be found via links on my wikipedia page.
You can also try a Pubmed or Google Scholar for the papers wikipedia doesn't have.

Please email or post with any questions or suggestions.

Cheers,
Jock

Age

Hometown

Darwin, Northern Territory

Country

Australia

Occupation

Psychiatrist in private practice.

Schools

Albany HS. University of WA, Perth. Royal Aus and NZ College of Psychiatrists

Interests

Anything that comes with a theory or Bigger Idea.

less