I think that it comes down to the complex way in which mind is not just dependent on a brain, but the chemicals arising within the brain, especially the neurotransmitters. In particular, dopamine is believed to be implicated in psychotic disorders and serotonin in depression, and there are probably other chemicals which are involved.

What may be interesting for thinking about the mind and body problem is the way emotions work, especially in mood disorders. Treatment for depression often involves antidepressants, and these seem to be very powerful. I can say this on the basis of working with patients who were diagnosed with depression, and I have also taken antidepressants myself. However, what is interesting is the way in which mood can be affected by drug treatment but also by experiences. Life experiences affect moo strongly, as well as the way we process them, which is the basis for various therapy options.

On a slightly different level, we can think about psychiatry and delusions. It does appear that there is a genetic basis which predisposed people to psychotic disorders, and stress can be a factor. Use of recreational drugs also can be a trigger, especially cannabis. So, there is a definite chemical basis for psychotic disorders. However, it also involves the nature of thinking, which is based on chemicals and the brain. However, ideas come into play, and so we could say that delusions may even be seen as being a philosophy problem.

So, yeah, there are inorganic treatment modalities for psychiatric disorders like life experiences that have a lesson in them.

Also, a bullseye regarding how delusions could be managed by introducing the ill to philosophy. :point: Descartes treats Cotard Delusion

Should we discuss brain chemistry here? :chin:

The Psychiatry Paradox: Psychiatric illnesses are inorganic (software) in nature but the therapy is organic (hardware) in nature. — TheMadFool

Not entirely true, Schema Therapy, Talk Therapy, CBT, and arguably studies with psychedelic's show a way to rewrite the software by gaining chemical induced access. However, it is true and debated that in some cases the short term goal of stability is being over favored against a long term goal of resolution.

I remember very clearly a doctor friend of mine telling me that psychiatric illnesses were to be considered as a diagnosis only if organic brain syndrome is/was ruled out as impossible. — TheMadFool

That's right. My understanding of this issue is that on the one hand, if you have something physically wrong with your brain, you need a neurologist; and if you are having emotional difficulties adapting to life, you need a therapist. If you want to run a rat through a maze or convince a population to go to war or smoke cigarettes (think Edward Bernays, who realized that these two were the same problem) you need a psychologist.

In no case do you ever need a psychiatrist, and it's unclear exactly what they do.

Paging Doctor Freud!

Should we discuss brain chemistry here? :chin: — DrOlsnesLea

Yes, I thought about it but it falls under the organic category and psychiatric disorders are inorganic. Mind you, I'm probably using some outmoded ideas in psychiatry. If you read my abstracts in quotes, you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Not entirely true — Cheshire

Mind you, I'm not saying other, alternative methods of treating psychiatric illnesses don't exist. All I'm saying is they're usually adjuncts to treatment with a host of brain-affecting drugs. — TheMadFool

That's right. My understanding of this issue is that on the one hand, if you have something physically wrong with your brain, you need a neurologist; and if you are having emotional difficulties adapting to life, you need a therapist. If you want to run a rat through a maze or convince a population to go to war or smoke cigarettes (think Edward Bernays, who realized that these two were the same problem) you need a psychologist.

In no case do you ever need a psychiatrist, and it's unclear exactly what they do.

Paging Doctor Freud! — fishfry

Does everything have to be a psychological disorder these days? — Old Lady

In no case do you ever need a psychiatrist, and it's unclear exactly what they do.
Paging Doctor Freud! — fishfry

A psychiatrist is an MD and consequently can prescribe. Therapists usually cannot. So they work together: the therapist determines what is needed including medical tests, and if drugs are indicated, the psychiatrist is summoned to prescribe. Psychiatrists have often gotten a bad rap for being bad therapists - when they are not therapist at all! And it's taken more than 100 years and counting, and a lot of misery and expense, to figure it out, not least because the psychiatrists thought they were therapists!

I believe the credit due psychiatrists, and the only credit due them, is that in the 19th century they led recognition that mental illness was treatable, and that patients in institutions should be treated humanely.

There is a whole constellation of official job titles in the mental health field. Persons seeking services had better know the differences between them, because they make a difference!

So they work together: the therapist determines what is needed including medical tests, — tim wood

Uh oh. This is one of those flashpoint conversations that I shouldn't get involved in, because I actually haven't followed it in years.. It's just some stuff I read about 20 years ago.

If you have diabetes, you go in for a blood test and they tell you if you have high blood sugar. Then your doctor prescribes medications to keep your blood sugar under control.

If you have depression, you are told by the psychiatric establishment that you have "low serotonin," and you are given SSRIs. The problem is, there is no blood test for low serotonin. That's contrary to the statement you made about medical tests. The truth is you DON'T get a medical test to determine if an SSRI would help you.

There's an extensive literature on this subject, and like I say my knowledge comes from reading up on this many years ago and not having any ongoing interest. But as far as I know, it's not true that psychiatrists send you in for medical tests before prescribing powerful mind-altering drugs. One could note that all these 20-something boys who shoot up movie theaters and schools are invariably on SSRIs, and that immediately after every such event, politicians talk about guns but never about psych drugs. Another flashpoint conversation.

Are the kids crazy therefore they get put on psych drugs so it's no surprise that kids who do crazy things turn out to have been on psych drugs? Or do the psych drugs make some people crazier than they were before? Far too few inquiring minds want to know. Easier to blame guns, or bad parenting, or trench coats. You remember how schools nationwide banned trench coats after Columbine. No wonder the kids are crazy.

So my original point stands, that it's totally unclear what psychiatrists do. If there IS a medical test showing something wrong with your brain, you need a neurologist. Psychiatrists typically prescribe drugs for conditions that are NOT detectible by medical tests. That's an issue that many anti-psychiatry proponents bring up.

I am not disagreeing with you. The principled therapist wishes to eliminate as much as possible organic causes so that therapy won't at least be inevitably a waste of time and money. That done, the therapist proceeds with therapy. And if, say, anti-depressants are indicated for some symptomatic relief, then calling for them is part of the therapist's art, presumably in consultation with the patient!

What psychiatrists do on their own is unaccountable. Some years ago it was noted that psychiatrists were from the bottom of the barrel of med. school graduates, so what can one expect?

At the same time it's only fair to also note that a few shrinks do make the leap and become good therapists, but it's a mystery to me how they might be identified.

Psychiatry is a very broad area I have worked closely with quite a number of shrinks. Like any profession there is good and bad. I see no reason for fear or for claims of inherent mendacity although it's true that the media has demonised psychiatry for decades - Dr Lecter anyone...

Some shrinks practice psychotherapy; some work in diagnostic roles in hospitals; some work in research; some work in detox and drug rehabilitation programs, some work in the criminal justice sector. They are as diverse as any other occupations and although they can prescribe medication, the good ones privilege psychosocial interventions before medication. They usually conduct a robust differential diagnosis to rule out organic issues before making a tentative diagnosis based on the best available evidence they have.

The matter of therapy is a different one and there are a range of professions that practice interpersonal counselling and therapy modes. Again like any other profession there is good and bad. I've see this save too many lives to disregard its significance. But there is no question that there are dubious practitioners, just as there are dubious plumbers, lawyers, mechanics and teachers.

Paradoxes are markers for failure. You definitely have an excellent point if you mean why drug a healthy brain. My opinion is, the best use of an fMRI machine in psychiatry research would be to document the damage done by psychiatric drugs to healthy brains.

The paradox might have implications for Mind Body Dualism and its offshoots. I'm not all that certain. — TheMadFool

It certainly does! I doubt any type of dualism would get far in most psychiatry programs (academic) but psychosis cases always involve mental content. So, to do it right, both the physical brain should be considered and also the physically contained mental content. There is a problem with the psychiatric profession viewing dualism as the physical and the non-physical and discounting the non-physical. A better wording of the problem would be the physical brain and the physical brains mental content.
The profession has done a poor job on the fundamentals.
I hope that's on topic. I should add that some forms of dualism should not be considered such as stand alone non-physical models (because they are bad models).

Paradoxes are markers for failure — Mark Nyquist

I must admit I didn't see it that way although I suppose a paradox is by definition an inconsistency.

It certainly does! I doubt any type of dualism would get far in most psychiatry programs (academic) but psychosis cases always involve mental content. So, to do it right, both the physical brain should be considered and also the physically contained mental content. There is a problem with the psychiatric profession viewing dualism as the physical and the non-physical and discounting the non-physical. A better wording of the problem would be the physical brain and the physical brains mental content.
The profession has done a poor job on the fundamentals.
I hope that's on topic. I should add that some forms of dualism should not be considered such as stand alone non-physical models (because they are bad models). — Mark Nyquist

Buddhism - a treatment for depression?

Religion is the opium of the maases. — Karl Marx

Are you saying Buddhism or religion are a treatment for mental conditions? I don't have a clue. Some people find their own solutions and others can't.

Are you saying Buddhism or religion are a treatment for mental conditions? — Mark Nyquist

Yes! Religions, by and large, seem to be non-pharmaceutical modes of treating pain (to some degree) and suffering (to a greater extent). Mental reorientation/recalibration (software changes) is quite effective in alleviating/eliminating clinical depression or so the claim is.

It kinda makes sense you know, especially Buddhism and whatever other religion inspired it - Maya (the world as an illusion) sounds exactly like delusions in psychiatry as found in schizophrenia and a host of other mental illnesses. Buddhism strives to, aims to, free our minds from Maya (delusions) just like psychiatrists but the methodology differs - Buddhism, religions in general I suppose, basically offers a software package while psychiatry is, bottom line, hardware modding.

@TheMadFool
I think religions are therapy to a vast amount of people.

Your example of buddhism is pretty much on the mark.

That said philosophy science and secularism are also therapies to cope with the world.

Most of the planet suffers from anxiety.

That said philosophy science and secularism are also therapies to cope with the world. — Protagoras

I'll keep that in mind. Great observation!

Most of the planet suffers from anxiety. — Protagoras

Sad but (probably) true.

Does everything have to be a psychological disorder these days? — Wise Old Lady

Does everything have to be a psychological disorder these days?— Wise Old Lady

A lot of folk wisdom and psychology is excellent.

There are some rare people who use worldviews as an expression of their values rather than therapy.

Those people are great talkers and artists.

Most artist and talkers are neurotic as hell!

Most artist and talkers are neurotic as hell! — Protagoras

Oh well, nobody's perfect.

The perfect is the enemy of the good — Christopher Hitchens

Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes — Robert Watson-Watt

In the good old days of medicine, "diseases" were discomforts that gave his to "complaints". The pathogenic model deceives the unwary philosopher into imagining that illness is something other than the judgement of the mind. But what is wrong - that is to say, "ill" - about a tape worm or a corona virus is not that it is an alien invasion of the body by evolved physics, but that it makes one uncomfortable, and folks complain.

What is common to a broken leg and depression is pain and disability. What is peculiar about most other mental illness though is that it is other people's arses that the 'sufferer' is a pain in. This means that they are social complaints, and that is why the treatment is often social communication of some sort.

The pathogenic model deceives the unwary philosopher into imagining that illness is something other than the judgement of the mind. — unenlightened

It's all in your mind.

Bullseye! I recall writing in another thread that psychiatry and psychology perhaps has got the wrong end of the stick. For instance, given the magnitude of the suffering extant in the world, how callous people are to it, a "normal" person should be in the grips of severe depression and an "abnormal" person should be completely at ease with it. Shrinks and psychologists are looking at the world upside-down. They're treating the normal as abnormal and vice versa. :fear: :grimace:

They're treating the normal as abnormal and vice versa. — TheMadFool

I think it's more that they're treating normal as healthy and abnormal as sick. :sad: I, at any rate, am not at all saying 'it's all in the mind'; rather, I am saying that judgement is a relation between mind and world (body, perhaps), of the species giving-a-fuck. Thus alien hand syndrome, for example consists of the judgement of foreignness and revulsion towards one's hand (other limbs are available), the sufferer complains about the alien hand. The doctor in this case makes the opposite judgement that the hand is not a foreign body, and therefore calls it a 'syndrome'. In neither case is the hand 'in the mind', only the differing judgements.

Another line of thought would be that some philosophy itself could be a form of mental therapy. Just considering that our brains are limited in capacity and that psychosis might be on a spectrum (universal) could be a useful insight. We shouldn't be surprised that brains can fail under conditions of mental overload as any other physical system.

I think it's more that they're treating normal as healthy and abnormal as sick — unenlightened

That's exactly what's wrong, at least when it comes to clinical depression. The world is depressing and if you're not feeling the blues then something's wrong with you - I believe a lack of empathy is an illness, no?

I am saying that judgement is a relation between mind and world (body, perhaps), of the species giving-a-fuck. — unenlightened

Precisely. See my comment above. Of course it all depends on which you think is normal, giving a fuck or not giving a fuck. Is it like the joke that ends with the line, "I have no more fucks to give"? Pain and suffering are soul-sapping, you're drained emotionally, after some time you can't cry any more.

Thus alien hand syndrome, for example consists of the judgement of foreignness and revulsion towards one's hand — unenlightened

I don't think that's accurate but hey, you have the right to an opinion. I respect that.



Believe you me, we're all just one bad day away from ending up in a mental asylum.

This is an interesting post for philosophy and it should be on all our radars.
Be glad you didn't have a bad day in 1955. It could have been step one on the way to a lobotomy. Not a great profession even today and the science is whatever sells drugs. "Peer review and evidence based" is the current lingo. Some how my brain translates this to "junk science". Wow, how does that happen? Anyway, there doesn't seem to be a lot of psychiatry fans around here.

Be glad you didn't have a bad day in 1955. — Mark Nyquist

What happened in 1955?

lobotomy — Mark Nyquist

Yes, it was a method of "treating" intractable cases. I forget the conditions it was reserved for.

Peer review and evidence based — Mark Nyquist

The idea behind this seems to be scientific validation. "If it's not science then it's nothing" is the mantra!

junk science — Mark Nyquist

This is an oxymoron.

I agree with you 'if you're not feeling the blues there's something wrong with you.' I am surprised by people who seem impervious to everything around them in the world. It does seem that some people are much more vulnerable than others and don't seem to get affected by almost anything that happens to them, or in the world. I am not sure that it is even a good thing.

One interesting aspect aspect of it is how some people get a delayed response of depression, being unaffected by things when they happen. But, suddenly depression, or some other psychiatric problem arises, although I am wary of using the term 'psychiatric' because it has a certain diagnostic characteristic. As far as I can see, life comes in waves and it seems natural to me for our inner life to be turbulent, but, of course, if we are not strong it can become too much. We probably have to learn to surf the waves.

I was thinking 1955 was about the peak of the lobotomy era.
Here is something current to consider: Advocates of Electroconvulsive Therapy claim memory loss is caused by depression, not ECT itself.

I know many individuals who have had ECT and almost all of them claim a clear relationship with the treatment, The explanation for how the treatment works is not known clearly, but my own observations of witnessing people going through the treatment in mental health care makes me wonder if the main way it works is through enabling people to forget difficult memories, especially as they are frequently groggy for many hours afterwards.

When I was a student nurse I remember how we had so much class discussion about ECT and I was mostly on the side against it. However, having worked in psychiatric nursing, I see it a little differently. I know of some people who feel that the treatment had a really detrimental effect on them, mainly younger people. However, I know how many people over the age of 60 who feel it helped them so much. I think that this is recognised by psychiatrists and most now view the treatment as a better option for people over about the age of 60, and, from what I have seen in recent years, most to be cautious about using it for younger ones, except in rare cases.

I will just add that I have never come across lobotomy in England. However, I came across a trainee clinical psychologist last year who was involved in some clinical research which seemed to involve rods placed against the head. But I don't know the full details, and this form of therapy was only at an experimental stage.

I think that this is recognised by psychiatrists and most now view the treatment as a better option for people over about the age of 60, — Jack Cummins

And what, exactly, are the criteria in use?