Posted by zeugma on June 4, 2004, at 20:47:24
In reply to Re: mind/brain, posted by Chairman_MAO on June 3, 2004, at 21:51:48
> The interest in spect scans was in re: linkadge's last post (although he said MRI, but I believe what he meant was SPECT, or fMRI).
>
> I empathize with you, as I've always felt all my life that my CNS is broken. My life story is 99.44% the classic "inattentive ADD" life story. Without something like stimulants or desipramine--which thank God I stumbled upon because I'm now politically prohibited from taking stimulants due to a past drug problem--I cannot even come close to actualizing myself. There are psychological factors involved in my ADD strife as well, e.g. my lack of concentration becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. I do not understand why everyone seems to think that my position is untenable if I recognize that these disorders exist.
Of course there are psychological factors, and self fulfilling prophecies wherever we turn. I don't think your position is untenable, because you recognize that these disorders exist. It is Szasz who does not think that these disorders exist- or rather, that they merit the name of 'disorder.' If he puts ADD which is treated by stimulants or desipramine on a par with masturbation treated by some kind of chastity belt, it is his position which is untenable.
>
> I feel you are "explaining away" the existence of mind. You are no doubt aware of the philosophical distinction between mind and brain; you probably know a hell of a lot more about philosophy of science than I do, anyway. There are correlates between mind and brain, but ultimately we do not live in the brain, we live in the mind. Moreover, one can make a cogent argument that we do not possess the epistemic tools necessary to apprehend the mind-brain link and bridge the so-called "explanatory gap".
I wrote my senior thesis on Colin mcGinn's "The Problem of Consciousness", where he argues as you do, that we may not possess the epistemic tools necessary to bridge the 'explanatory gap' between the neural level and that of consciousness. I prefer McGinn's position to that of Daniel Dennett, who to my mind 'explains consciousness away' (in his book misleadingly titled "Consciousness Explained"). Psychiatry sits uneasily on the interface between McGinn's levels. We are involved in a much deeper debate than anything Szasz engages, who appears to have a simple 'pathogen' model of illness. Depression, ADD, etc., do not fit this model. So, they are not illnesses. I certainly accept that depression, etc., do not fit szasz' model. If they did, a cure would be forthcoming, and none will be. For a model of consciousness, however, that may deal with mental illness in a more direct way than the high-theoretical speculations of McGinn and Dennett, I would look at J.A. Hobson's AIM model of consciousness, which is certainly crude, but it's a start, and is fascinating (at least to me). See "Dreaming", "The Dream Drugstore", and other works.
>
> Psychiatry means "healing the soul". I do not understand how a discipline that heals the soul could ever be considered part of neurobiology. No psychiatric disorder exists in a biological vacuum: Patients with major depression with successful antidepressant outcomes and those with successful psychotherapy outcomes are known to undergo the same neural changes. Are you sure all that's at work here in your suffering and recovery are the medications? Believe me, I am all too aware of how seductive it is to look for an explanation for one's suffering in neurotransmitters and receptors. There is obviously a neurobiological substrate to it; there is a neurobiological substrate to all consciousness! Saying that one's suffering is wholly rooted in neurobiology is, in my view, just as mistaken as those counselors who kept steering you away from it, for there is always mind, and there is always brain.I don't know what the causes are of the changes I am undergoing. I don't even know if they are for the better or worse half the time! I do, however, console myself with thoughts that what seemed like contemptible weakness are in fact expressions of a disordered CNS. It also occurs to me that one of the things the mind can occupy itself is with the brain, and that this preoccupation brings benefits (greater understanding of what is going in one's own head, possible insights into how others' brains' [and by extension, minds] work) and harms ( it becomes an obsession in itself, albeit one that is relatively socially acceptable. It is also very time-consuming, as I struggle to understand texts that are mostly unintelligible to me. "The fascination of what's difficult", as yeats once said.) i hope i have addressed your key points.
>
>
>
>
poster:zeugma
thread:353129
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040602/msgs/353897.html