What are 'Psychological Processes"?

[alex3619]

At the risk of getting into some possibly irrelevant and vague philosophy, I think we sometimes need to question these things. Questioning gives us better understanding and especially perspective.

The difference between knowledge and wisdom, in my view, is related to how much our knowledge and experience is connected to everything else. Questioning things is one way of building (and demolishing) connections.

There are no bad questions unless they are being used to harass people. There are however so many bad answers out there that its a real minefield of misinformation.

The things we need to question the most are the things that are important to us. Questioning everything is not practical.

A good question is very valuable, because it can lead to better answers. A good answer can be dangerous if it blinds us to even better answers.

 

[A.B.]

At the risk of getting into some possibly irrelevant and vague philosophy, I think we sometimes need to question these things. Questioning gives us better understanding and especially perspective.

I would be very surprised if anyone on this forum had not spent a lot of time questioning (and doubting) themselves. At some point, enough is enough. There has to be a reasonable balance.

People with supposedly psychological problems are taught to question themselves, because after all, any problem they're having can only be the result of their own personal flaws they need to overcome. Something like that is the message society gives them. I suspect this attitude has its roots in christian morale, where where the problem is seen as morale failure, and improvement can only come from confessing and acknowledging one's sins. At least I do see parallels here.

Another aspect is that mental and emotional symptoms are just that. They're not even evidence for a psychological problem, as often assumed. A lot more could be said about this, but I'm going to leave it at that.

So to make the point, I doubt self criticism is going to help.

 

[xchocoholic]

I'm confused. Is asking questions about having normal emotional responses to being chronically ill taboo ? Or is there something else I'm missing here ? Politics ? Feel free to pm me. I'm not offended by being called clueless. Lol.

Fwiw, most women's magazines would go out of business if women didn't question themselves. And we would never have heard of Oprah.

Just to be clear ... There's no doubt that me/cfs is a physical illness. But how we react to our illness is individual and separating our reactions from actual physical findings is complicated.

Tx .. x

 

[alex3619]

Philosophy alert! This is philosophical opinion, and subject to debate.

Self blame is nearly always harmful in my view. Doubt in ourselves is also used as a means of political manipulation. Criticism as blame is in my view a waste of time. Criticism as analysis isn't. The goal is not to assign blame, but to increase understanding.

I make mistakes all the time. Sometimes little ones, sometimes big ones. Nearly always this is ME related. Blaming myself for it would not be helpful. There is however a second kind of message out there: we need to be right, to be successful, to be perfect. These can drive self doubt. These are in part why the positive thinking movement is dangerous.

Political manipulation often works by fostering doubt. Political action comes in part from conviction, if your opponents are wasting energy doubting then they are not effective politically. The rhetoric used is to make people think about their own motivations.

Its similar to political manipulation by fostering dissent. You weaken a group by fostering strong disagreement within it. Its not that there should not be disagreement, and debate, its that outside interests can manipulate the debate and cause lots of energy to be wasted. Self-doubt is very much like internal dissent.

Advocacy has been sidelined so often in ME by arguing over things that while important do not lead to substantive outcomes. Because these issues are important we can get drawn in. Even me. Advocacy needs to focus on achievable goals, not just desirable goals.

Individuals with ME are in a psychological bind, as we are largely focused on survival. This is paramount. Its why so many cannot engage in advocacy, as they have to use their energy just to survive. I personally think we can learn more from survivors of extreme events than we can from happiness gurus. Yet we also need to be aware that there are limits to what we can learn from such people. We have no idea how many who developed the same attitudes failed to survive.

Yet, and this warrants my philosophy alert I think, there is a limit to rationality. The rationalists dilemma is that there is not enough time in a lifetime to be rational about everything. We have to ration rationality. So to do that there is indeed scope for questioning if things should be questioned, purely on practical grounds. Life is for living, however poor our health may be, not for thinking about living.

Yet wisdom comes from questioning, at least in part. Questions are good, but we also have to question questioning.

 

[lansbergen]

Wrong pain perception or decreased endogenous morfine and codeine production?

I kept taking the immunemodulator because it lessened the pain. It seems to do that by increasing endogenous morfine and codeine production.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9778663

 

[xchocoholic]

So I was thinking about this some more and realized that I only consider myself a pita at certain doctor's offices and at restaurants.

The only reason this thought surfaced / came out was that I moved and have been looking for new doctors. Several have gotten the "deer in headlights" look upon seeing my medical records. Sure it's a long list but I'm just happy most of it has been proven via labs, ct scans, etc.

I was telling a friend what a couple of these doctors had said about my long list of diagnosises. Things like this can't be right. No one has this many diagnosises. And my favorite "Anyone who has this many diagnosises is just looking for attention. Most people just learn to ignore these symptoms."

I actually felt bad for the doctors who were obviously overwhelmed by my medical records. Which led me to conclude that I was a pita. My friend disagreed calling them unprofessional morons who shouldn't be doctors if they can't handle it. I'm much too nice to think that way.

At restaurants when I place an order I have to be sure my food is gluten, dairy, corn and soy free. I get eye rolls from waiters who don't understand but for the most part since I only eat where gf menus are provided this doesn't happen.

I also googled coping with a chronic illness and have been doing what most recommend. Things like entertaining myself, avoid stress, avoid negative thoughts, etc. The pita concept was buried so that was unavoidable until now. I won't think this way anymore.

I didn't realize that some see not getting out of bed as a clear sign of depression. These people have probably never heard of dysautonomia. I wonder how many people with dysautonomia are being dx with depression.

Fwiw, I've never stayed in bed when feeling depressed or stressed. I do the opposite and stay busy.

Gotta rest. Tc .. x

 

[Indigophoton]

I'm a day behind here, and the discussion has changed direction a little, but going back briefly to where we were talking about consciousness and psychological processes, and their reality or origin, people in this thread may be interested in a talk given by B. Allan Wallace as part of the Google Tech Talks series:

In the talk, Wallace, who is well trained in both western science (physics and others) and in Buddhist practice and thought, argues that what is needed is a renaissance of empiricism in the scientific study of the mind.

He advocates a revolution in the mind sciences such that the focus shifts to direct empirical study of mental phenomena themselves, rather than just of the causal, neural correlates or of the output or effects of mental phenomena via behaviour.

It's an intelligent, well presented argument, quite provocative, perhaps, for those firmly convinced that mental phenomena are reducible to the physical, but not at all new-age-y, rather extremely science-y: Wallace's argument is above all for the rigorous application of the scientific method in examining phenomena like consciousness.

It's a shame that his answer to a good, challending, question from the audience at the end regarding verification of subjective phenomena gets faded out after a few minutes - I guess he went well over time - it would have been worth hearing all of what he said. I believe he has written one or more books on the subject though.

 

[lansbergen]

The question is what are psychological processes. Balls in space do not help me to understand what is meant. I need clear definitions.

Does there have to be a mind? What is the mind? Do animals have a mind? Do cells have a mind?

One translation of mind to my language is soul another is reason.

What are mental phenomena? What is mental?

Do cells have consciousness? Can they be aware of a danger or something good passes by if they do not have consciousness?

etc

 

[Indigophoton]

Balls in space do not help me to understand what is meant.

I'm not sure what that means.

As to exactly what is mind, what are mental phenomena, what has consciousness etc, the point is, we don't really know: these things need empirical research before clearly defined, scientifically rigorous, answers can be given.

In the meantime there are lots of theories, models, and assorted ideas - take your pick - but, as yet, we can't scientifically discriminate conclusively between them.

 

[lansbergen]

I'm not sure what that means.

As to exactly what is mind, what are mental phenomena, what has consciousness etc, the point is, we don't really know: these things need empirical research before clearly defined, scientifically rigorous, answers can be given.

In the meantime there are lots of theories, models, and assorted ideas - take your pick - but, as yet, we can't scientifically discriminate conclusively between them.

That is a clear answer.

 

[lansbergen]

I'm not sure what that means.

In my language we have a saying: gelul in de ruimte. Google translates that with balls in space. Maybe valentijn knows a better translation.

 

[alex3619]

For debates on mind, consciousness etc. people might like to read some of the threads I linked to earlier, though there are others too.

We are only just beginning to understand the human brain. Even a single brain has a complexity that is beyond most of what we study in science. Too much of what we "know" is speculation, which is why there is a call for empirical evidence. Yet empirical evidence can lead to confirmation bias, and over-generalization. So we need to demand that all the evidence is taken into account, that contrary evidence is not ignored, and that everything is questioned.

Philosophically my position is very much that of a pancritical rationalist. However, the modern (and ancient, and not so ancient) practice of this kind of thing is called Empirical Skepticism. Or to put it simply, to trust in an idea requires both evidence and reason, and even then you should throw away the trust.

PS Something to think about from the great philosopher Homer Simpson: "Relax. What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!"

 

[adreno]

I'm a day behind here, and the discussion has changed direction a little, but going back briefly to where we were talking about consciousness and psychological processes, and their reality or origin, people in this thread may be interested in a talk given by B. Allan Wallace as part of the Google Tech Talks series:

In the talk, Wallace, who is well trained in both western science (physics and others) and in Buddhist practice and thought, argues that what is needed is a renaissance of empiricism in the scientific study of the mind.

He advocates a revolution in the mind sciences such that the focus shifts to direct empirical study of mental phenomena themselves, rather than just of the causal, neural correlates or of the output or effects of mental phenomena via behaviour.

It's an intelligent, well presented argument, quite provocative, perhaps, for those firmly convinced that mental phenomena are reducible to the physical, but not at all new-age-y, rather extremely science-y: Wallace's argument is above all for the rigorous application of the scientific method in examining phenomena like consciousness.

It's a shame that his answer to a good, challending, question from the audience at the end regarding verification of subjective phenomena gets faded out after a few minutes - I guess he went well over time - it would have been worth hearing all of what he said. I believe he has written one or more books on the subject though.

Well, the video was interesting.

Basically he argues for introspection as a method of scientific inquiry. But introspection can never become objective science, as it is by nature subjective. We also know from cognitive science that the mind is really quite unreliable as a source of knowledge.

He also argues that we should use Occams razor to remove the common hypothesis of physical properties as a substrate for mental phenomena. This essentially causes us to become lost in dualism, again. If something is not in the physical, material realm, where is it? Even an alternate dimension would be material or physical. To be "outside of" physicality or materialism sounds very unlikely to me.

I guess the only salvation for this philosophy of mind would be that consciousness is somehow a quantum phenomena, somehow linked to the quantum field. In that case I guess mental phenomena could exist outside of einsteinian physics. But isn't everything a quantum phenomena? Isn't everything connected to the quantum field? So if both the mind and the body are quantum phenomena, you cannot use quantum mechanics to explain the uniqueness of consciousness.

I don't know the answers, but still subscribe to the monist view. It just seems to be the most simple and logical viewpoint. Mental phenomena is an emergent property of the brain, although they are not simply reducible to neurological processes. Similarly, you can't take a symphony by Beethoven and reduce it to "just tones", it's clearly more, although the substrate of the melody is just that, tones. But to say that neural tissue and processes cannot constitute human mental phenomena is similar to saying that atoms cannot constitute the human body. Clearly, we are more than "just atoms", although we do consist of them.

If I would be so bold as to venture a guess, I would say that we are patterns. Patterns of atoms, patterns of neurological structure and activity. Consciousness is a pattern. The mind is like a hologram.

 

[alex3619]

The pattern idea of mind and consciousness and self was first expressed in detail by Humberto Maturana, one of the researchers who was influential in my thinking on this. He is probably the father of modern systems biology. He came up with the word autopoiesis. He was very much into dynamically evolving biological systems, and applying systems theory to things from evolution of the hummingbird to the nature of human consciousness.

I met Humberto at a two day seminar of his in about 1993. It was interesting, and gave me a much better grasp of systems theory and how it can apply to a wide variety of topics.

 

[xchocoholic]

Was the purpose of this thread to discuss philosophical views of mind or where psychiatry went wrong or psychological processes ?

Psychological processes seems like an important topic for pwcs. I've had my revelation, ☺☺. I'm not a pita .. but others may need to think about their self image. Fwiw, if I'm NOT a pita, who is right ? Lol.

Tx .. x

 

[cmt12]

Psychological processes seems like an important topic for pwcs.

It is important, although I still haven't worked out what pwcs stands for. Hopefully, over time people will feel more comfortable asking questions about it and it won't be as stigmatized on this forum. I will respond to questions but I'm not going to push it any more than I have.

 

[Valentijn]

In my language we have a saying: gelul in de ruimte. Google translates that with balls in space. Maybe valentijn knows a better translation.

Gelul in de ruimte = "talking crap", or meaningless talking for the hell of it

 

[xchocoholic]

It is important, although I still haven't worked out what pwcs stands for. Hopefully, over time people will feel more comfortable asking questions about it and it won't be as stigmatized on this forum. I will respond to questions but I'm not going to push it any more than I have.

Hi cmt12,

Person with cfs. Some people use pwme.

It could be that pwcs living in the US or other countries where therapy is considered a sign of someone who just wants a better understanding of themselves is an acceptable topic.

I see therapists as honest unbiased friends. Who just happen to be able to guide you into productive thought patterns. My last one was great when it came to helping me de-stress.

Buyer beware tho. If your therapist isn't helping you, leave and find someone competent.

Tc .. x

 

[cmt12]

Hi cmt12,

Person with cfs. Some people use pwme.

It could be that pwcs living in the US or other countries where therapy is considered a sign of someone who just wants a better understanding of themselves is an acceptable topic.

Pwcs - got it. I've never had an interest in talk therapy (I'm more of a do-it-yourself type) and I'm not impressed at all with what I see from current mental health treatments.

In that regard, I'm with the majority opinion of this forum that mind based insights and treatments have been and are currently a failure. But where I differ is that I feel like the failure of introspection (collectively) is because we haven't taken it far enough yet. This is based on my experience (individually).

The problem I see is that it is pretty clear that harmful mental habits have negative effects on biology. This is pretty clear by now to doctors and researchers as well. Therefore, when patients deny the mental aspect entirely, it is probably just adding fuel to the fire and causing these BPSer's to feel even more validated in their view.

I understand the mistreatment that is occurring based on those that take the mental part to the extreme, denying any physical cause, but I don't think it is useful in the long term to react toward the other extreme.

 

[chipmunk1]

But where I differ is that I feel like the failure of introspection (collectively) is because we haven't taken it far enough yet. This is based on my experience (individually).

i disagree. chronic illness makes you horribly introspective because you have got nothing to do, you become insecure and start questioning your persona, you are isolated. in fact i think it makes you overanalyse your life. when you are healthy you just live without thinking too much about it. it's when things are not going well you start questioning yourself and your life. at least that's my experience. i don't think we lack insight, most healthy people do because they don't need it.