MONISM VS DUALISM & PSYCHIATRY 4/4 DENNET & SEARLE

http://www.NiallMcLaren.com
Niall McLaren- Psychiatrist and author of 'Humanizing Madness', 'Humanizing Psychiatry' and 'Humanizing Psychiatrists'.

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
http://www.NiallMcLaren.com
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.
Books (Amazon.com)
http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Madness-Psychiatry-Cognitive-Neurosciences/d...
http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Psychiatry-Biocognitive-Niall-McLaren/dp/161...
http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Psychiatrists-Toward-Humane-Psychiatry/dp/16...

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• biological
• psychiatry
• Daniel
• Dennett
• John
• Searle
• Niall
• Jock
• McLaren
• monist
• monism
• dualist
• dualism
• philosophy
• mind
• science
• psychology
• medicine

[robert56371]

It took until the last slide to discover what the point of all this was. I found it a poor, shallow treatment of consciousness (even granted its shortness). Dennett is unfairly represented here (even though I don’t think he has the answer yet). What needs to be grasped is the nature of “matter”. We need to truly understand that actually we don’t understand matter, and in fact the distinction we make between “natural” and “supernatural” is itself a product of our senses and our brains.

[jockmclaren47]

@robert56371 So far, "matter" is a brute fact. We have to start somewhere. I distinguish very forcefully between physical matter/energy, and the informational states that control the physical universe. Information arises from but is not the same as the matter/energy realm. There can be no disembodied informational states, i.e. supernatural is absurd.

[mrrobertfair]

@jockmclaren47 I see this thought pattern that you are expressing here played out so frequently. You say more or less that if Dennet and Searle would only have given naturalistic dualism a fair look, they might have seen that dualism can describe the phenomenon better. Then you make the same kind of exclusionary write-off of supernaturalism using the strong emotive word "absurd," without giving the supernatural a thorough look thus providing a nice example of Piaget's notion of assimilation.

[jockmclaren47]

@mrrobertfair The problem with any element of the supernatural is that there is no innate restriction on it, i.e. no demarcation criterion between "reasonable" supernaturalism and unreasonable. if you allow any such element, you have to allow them all. I choose not to allow any because the program becomes absurd the moment we admit any non-naturalist factors in the equation.

[mrrobertfair]

@jockmclaren47 thanks for writing back. To me, given your assumptions, your conclusions follow,e.g., you assume there can be no inate restrictions on a supernatural explanation of the extra stuff that Chalmers alludes to regarding conscious experience, therefore, exclusion of a supernatural explanation is warranted. You want to stick to the Quantitative Method to explain the "why there is even experience at all" question. I get that. But, you will remain stuck at this level of understanding.

[jockmclaren47]

@mrrobertfair My goal is a naturalistic explanation of human mental life. Conceptually, it is enormously difficult but what is the alternative? A supernatural explanation? That has no limit so the prize would go to the person with the most vivid imagination. Stick to the real world, deal with the difficulties and see what emerges BEFORE giving in to the temptation of the supernatural. If I can't find my cat, I don't assume he has been abducted by aliens.

[robert56371]

@jockmclaren47 Thank you very much for your response to my comment. It’s impossible to adequately comment of course within the allocation of 500 characters. If you’re interested, a fuller treatment of my position can be found at  guernseywalker.me.uk/Mind_and_­God.html.

[Heissenburger]

but what if monism works at a higher level: if the universe is a simulation (like The Matrix or The Sims Game), then "brain" and "mind" are just part of the bigger System?

[Heissenburger]

he could have said "brain" is the hardware, "mind" is the software; it would be silly to treat them as the same, and to ditch the hard-disk if the computer is infected by a computer virus.