Mind-body problem dualism & psychiatry 6/6

http://www.NiallMcLaren.com
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.

Philosophy & Psychiatry 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/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:

• mind-body
• problem
• problems
• mind
• body
• psychology
• psychiatry
• mental
• disorder
• personality
• philosophy
• dualism
• dualist
• monism
• monist
• McLaren
• cognition
• ai
• consciousness
• Alan
• Turing
• universal
• computing
• machine
• reductionism
• biological
• Chalmers
• Searle
• Dennett
• biologism
• psychoanalysis
• behaviorism
• Descarte
• Biocognitive
• model
• Spinoza
• Descartes
• Fodor
• Leibniz
• theory
• theories
• resolution
• connection
• connections
• medicine
• therapy
• therapies
• science
• software
• interaction
• psychotherapy
• link
• soul
• dichotomy
• relationship

[rh001YT]

Dr. M: I will object to the form of the presentation. I say wrong form negates the conclusions. You present some aspects of other's work, some diagrams, and then offer your logic gate bit, & then suggest how your concept could map into the previously shown other's diagrams - but you do not offer physical neuronal/synaptic evidence for the two-way gate between ontologies. So you commit tyhe very same naughty you lay on others: well it looks about right, so we'll go with it. No math, no science.

[jockmclaren47]

@rh001YT These are just very brief popular presentations of some complex issues. The more detailed evidence is available in the literature. The maths I am working on although, as my son points out, I don't have anything like the mathematical knowledge to complete the causal chain. Still, we old people have to leave something to the rising generations.

[Superpureeliteful]

I look forward to reading your book!

[rh001YT]

@jockmclaren47 Which of your books explains your techniques - perhaps I will add it to my reading list. I think that Buddhims covers the technique of examining flows of emotions and emotionally charged thoughts. Chogyam Trungpa covers all that in Shambala: Sacred Path of the Warrior. A well-done lecture on Mindfullness can be found here, perhaps it will help your ruminatiing patients: coffeewithpierre D com/?q=node/60

[jockmclaren47]

@rh001YT I agree, that is exactly what happens in some forms of mental disorder, people enter a self-sustaining chain event. We can treat them very successfully by intervening on this basis using precisely targeted methods, whereas orthodox psychiatry has to hit them hard with large doses of powerful drugs. A huge different in cost, cost to the patient in terms of life disruption, and outcome.

[rh001YT]

@jockmclaren47 Ok then it seems to me you are using a specialized definition of "decision": any neuronal process that results in action or conclusion of whatever. But then the emotion produced from the reaction steers subsequent conscious decisions, which may cause an action which starts another chain event of your type of "decisions" leading to emotions which cause decisions as I partially define them, & who knows how many times this will go around? I think "decision" should be defined my way.

[jockmclaren47]

@rh001YT My work says that decisions drive emotions, but it is very fast and at an inaccessible level. Also, we need to distinguish clearly between the innate cognitive system (crude, primitive responses like chimps) and the adaptive cognitive system. Orthodox psychiatry does not recognize these.

[rh001YT]

A general criticism: This presentation is similar to that of most Anglo&American philosophs in two ways that express such a limitation as to lead me to question if the author's get out much: 1) the hypothetical person of the "theory of mind" or "language" etc is a complete dullard..more or less obedient chimp fully programmed by culture with no ability to object to anything. 2)the models don't account much for excellence/dominance/real power. Note that none of the authors radiate life.

[rh001YT]

@jockmclaren47 I will comment here. Feelings usually drive decision making, only in a small percent of decisions might the reverse be true. For instance, a driver pulls a rude move on the road, and then the offended driver flips the bird. Such is not a relflex like rubber hammer on knee, it is a decsion to let the other know the act was rude/unfair, and perhaps to thump one's chest - a threat. Decisions to buy a fashionable thing are caused by a feeling due to manipulation of psyche/ego.

[buckshotbrian32]

I for one really enjoyed the explanation and felt it was at least as viable (if not more so) than others. Success does not equal understanding; I can hit a golf ball 340 yards in the direction I choose, occasionally. To the mystics, magicians, and religiously bent individuals (if you can prove it, please do) Carex admitted their god is deceptive so how would we benefit from that? As far as creativity is concerned I believe it was addressed briefly with experiences & societal acceptance.