Nature of the Mind

I've had some interesting discussions on this forum, dealing with the topic of mind as it relates to the physical brain (neurochemistry, etc...), and I've read countless other interesting postings on the same topic. In that vein, I'd like to see what kind of views people have on this interview;

Link

I've always liked taking an on-the-fence position when it comes to things I either don't yet understand, or when I think something is not clearly understood by science yet, and this is one of the topics that falls under this category of thought. It's clear to me that in this range of science, there exists a constellation of presupposed axioms that are as of yet untested (or are, perhaps, untestable), and people tend to take for granted that the definitions of the words they use are clear and unambiguous. I could argue that it's a tendency centered in the left-hemisphere of the brain, and that the people who hold such a view are predominately right-handed, but what does that actually mean?

Thoughts?

P.S. I'd like to avoid argument, myself, because I'm not a neuroscientist and don't have a thorough understanding of the topic. As such, I can only say I find the topic interesting, and the arguments that Iain McGilchrist makes in the video corroborate with views I've held in other areas of life unrelated to neuroscience or the mental health profession. At the same time, I have a problem accepting something as valid just because it fits with my understanding of some other topic; I love science and the scientific method. I like science that is testable, and falsifiable, and I'm not sure how falsifiable the arguments in this video are, in reality.

Hey Lilnumber9,

It's somewhat disappointing that we don't have a theoretical psychology sub-forum on our site to talk about topics like this. It comes up very often and people usually discuss in Anti-Psych which is odd because philosophy of mind and theoretical psychology only have a loose relationship with the Anti-Psychiatry. Nonetheless, here the topic is.

I guess my main question for you is, what about this interview do you find contentious? It sounds like pretty run-of-the-mill biological psychology/psychiatry. Is there something about biological psychology/psychiatry that you think misses the mark?

I'm not sure; that's part of the problem.
A lot of what he's saying sounds to me like metaphysical conjecture and speculation. For instance, in his anthropomorphic metaphor about the relationship between the left and the right hemispheres of the brain, it seems to me that the conclusions he draws might easily have political or social biases underlying them. Like I said, though, a lot of it reverberates with my own thinking on certain topics, such as consumerism, art, science, et al, so I probably share some of those biases, if such is the case.

Yes. His conclusions do seem pretty weighty. I suppose we would have to read his book and look at his evidence in support of the things he's saying.

I agree - I'm going to grab a copy once I have some extra money for book splurging.

I think it's interesting that he implicates industrial society as a culprit in the reinforcing and promulgation of a large spectrum of mental illness; that sounds reminiscent of a lot of the thinking of academic anarchists - for example, Derrick Jensen. They approach the issue from a more anthropological and ecological perspective, though.

Now, I really don't know anything about biological psychiatry, and the only exposure I've ever had with the mental health industry is as a patient, so looking at the theories involved is a new thing for me. The most exposure to that end of the thing is from what I've read about ADHD and related topics, and multiple readings of some of Viktor Frankl's work. I wasn't expecting to hear this sort of thing from an academic, due to the light it puts on the whole status quo of medicating patients, and sending them off to therapy. If what he's saying is representative of, as you put it, "run-of-the-mill biological psychology/psychiatry," then, unless I'm terribly mistaken, the status quo is seen academically as nothing but a stop-gap - not a meaningful solution to the problem itself, just an attempt to alleviate the symptoms while not addressing the problem at all. Oddly enough, it wouldn't surprise me, granted that western cultures seem militant about using that sort of strategy for almost everything.

Hopefully that all makes sense - I'm going to start feeling like I'm going crazy since I'm not as familiar with the terms involved as I'd like to be. It's like you need a specialized dictionary just to talk about this type of thing.

Oi, I just re-read that last post and I'm probably coming across wrong; I'm not a proponent of that view, it's just a thought from drawing associations there. I do think there's a sort of foundational problem within the mental health industry as a whole, and that it's the same as what's wrong in the economy as well, but I don't think it means mental health issues are just a structural problem or that they can't be helped through proper counseling and medication. That's kind of a divergence from the topic, though.

My issue lies in the ambiguity between mind and brain - the physical and the intangible, as that's the best way I can think to put it. It strikes me as odd that, despite the lack of a precise understanding about the nature of how the world of the mind actually arises from the physical activity of neurotransmitters and electrical activity within the brain, we can talk about mental illness and mental health through the use of a range of connotative language. For me, that creates a lot of confusion in terms of what people are trying to say about this topic. That's why I tend to like a more neutral position; there might be some pragmatic value in how language is used, but that value is a bit lost on me.

So what's the problem here? I have a friend whose father was dx'd with schizophrenia in his late '50s. He's currently taking a cocktail of antipsychotics to stabilize him. When he stops taking the antipsychotics, his personality re-emerges, but while he's under medication, he acts bored, detached, lethargic, inattentive, etc..., and his mental faculties just seem diminished. He is not himself. At the same time, when he was dx'd, it was due to a psychotic break, of which I got to see the beginning. He was definitely not himself at that time, either. I've had a number of other people in my life who suffered from the same illness, and it's remained a constant source of perplexity for me. I have trouble reconciling how their thinking relates to what's going on physically. It seems degrading to think of it as a purely mechanical issue that just requires a bit of oiling of the gears to get the system working right again. Especially when the oil seems to cause a new set of problems. Granted how he appears to act and think while medicated, I'm unsure how therapy might help him; it doesn't seem like he's there anymore when he's on his meds.

Now, I don't think stopping his treatment is any more reasonable than continuing it, so I suppose I'm more questioning here than supporting a thesis of my own. I don't know the answer, and have trouble understanding the question itself. This also seemed the most reasonable subforum to post this thread; I'm hoping I can gain a better understanding of the issue here.