Mind and Body in the Guardian again

[Chris]

The problem with mind body is that they take the «thoughs are physical»-paradigm way too far. It’s the age old mind over body spiel that has been around as long as humans have existed. They are currently branding it as something new and groundbreaking, mostly based on pseudo-neuropsychology.

Indeed, this is the true "old wine in new bottles".

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

It was often a romantic and hopeful view coupled with the idea that studying these diseases would tell us more about the nature of human kind and society. It wasn't so much about medicine but about psychology and sociology as well.

I have come to think that 'these diseases' have told us just how little we understand of human nature, or at least how little the human-naturologists (aka psychologists) do.

 

[Utsikt]

I have come to think that 'these diseases' have told us just how little we understand of human nature, or at least how little the human-naturologists (aka psychologists) do.

I get that feeling any time I read a meta-discussion about psychology. It’s essentially just philosophy described with a different language. Which is really concering, given how much resources and faith society gives the field.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

The problem with mind body is that they take the «thoughs are physical»-paradigm way too far. It’s the age old mind over body spiel that has been around as long as humans have existed. They are currently branding it as something new and groundbreaking, mostly based on pseudo-neuropsychology.

I actually see it the other way around, inasmuch as I think they even have coherent thoughts on this. The 'mind-body' or BPS people do not think thoughts are physical. That is what the standard science view thinks. They think that thoughts are causal in a non-physical way. They think they are challenging Cartesian Dualism but their own view is a caricature of Cartesian Dualism. Even Descartes did not consider thought non-physical. He thought it was non-material. He thought thought was what we now call 'force', rather than the static 'mass' or 'extension' of matter (Fermions) - which is pretty much what all physics has taught since.

In Descartes's schema all matter except human bodies was moved around by a general, rule-obeying force which was what people called God. God might break his own rules at times but Descartes's argument for the existence of God was just how much he did stick to rules, called physics. He was puzzled by the apparent presence of extra independent forces or souls in human heads. The modern scientific view is that these forces also follow God's rules of physics, based on a section of rules called electromagnetism.

People get puzzled by this because it does to seem to allow choice or preference but in fact it does, with a valid mathematical basis, but that gets complicated!

 

[Utsikt]

The 'mind-body' or BPS people do not think thoughts are physical. That is what the standard science view thinks. They think that thoughts are causal in a non-physical way.

I have talked to a few mind body practitioners, and they are very adamant that thoughts are physical. That might be because of their lack of reasoning and understanding of the teachings of the dogma, but they argue that the reason that thoughts can influence the body is because of their physical properties.

That being said, they also claim that you can have a software problem, which indicates that they simultaneously believe that the thoughts are separate to the physical «hardware» of the brain.

So their understanding directly contradicts itself. Which doesn’t surprise me.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

but they argue that the reason that thoughts can influence the body is because of their physical properties.

That does not surprise me at all but of course if they are physical just like other causes in the body then surely it is just the body doing its stuff? Which is the standard scientific position so what was all the mind-body fuss about?

But yes, it goes round in circles. And to be honest the standard science stuff is full of muddles and misconceptions.

 

[Hoopoe]

Nord writes, there is no “separate category of illness, one that is confined to the mind and does not involve biological changes. This category does not exist.” Not only that, she says, but the reverse also applies: there is no purely “physical” ailment in which your brain does not play a role.

But the brain is a physical organ.

And co-occurrence of physical changes with mental illness is entirely consistent with a view of illness where the mind is a function performed by the physical organ brain.

One gets the impression the "mind body dualism" discourse exists to strawman the opposition to certain dubious ideas. The dubious idea is presumably the belief that people are thinking themselves sick. Since this is offensive, it is rarely said clearly, and instead hinted at vaguely with phrases such as "mind and body are connected". Since no scientific evidence exists to support this belief, we get articles like this, inviting us to overcome our presumed mind body dualism.

 

[Yann04]

And co-occurrence of physical changes with mental illness is entirely consistent with a view of illness where the mind is a function performed by the physical organ brain.

In fact, nearly all physical illnesses cause changes in psychology and behaviour, so the division between “mental” and “physical” illnesses seems needlessly arbitrary and based on old conventions.

The psychobehaviouralists are right that the mind and the body are very linked. What they don’t get right is they assume the mind has a sort of magical power to change the body. The reality is that the mind is nearly certainly created by the body, so changes in the body will lead to changes in the mind. Not the other way around.

 

[ukxmrv]

So having read the article (through a haze of delirium from the flu) their evidence consists of

1. A woman who was too stupid to understand how steroids might have helped her pain problem (and was suffering for years not even considering a steroid injection might help?)

2. A 1970 (!) Study on rats. Which sounds very dodgy anyway. Would rats really die from non-poisoned water. It would certainly revolutionise pest control.

3. Self experimentation within their group of gullible subjects

4. Brain scans on people 'faking symptoms' (and probably not even relevant to their arguments)

 

[Utsikt]

The reality is that the mind is nearly certainly created by the body, so changes in the body will lead to changes in the mind. Not the other way around.

We can’t exclude the possibility that the mind can influence some parts of the body. The problem with BPS is that they take it way too far, and they have zero evidence of casuality.

 

[Yann04]

We can’t exclude the possibility that the mind can influence some parts of the body. The problem with BPS is that they take it way too far, and they have zero evidence of casuality.

Yes obviously, but to the best available evidence it seems the body influences the mind (because it is literally part of the body) far more than the mind influences the body.

The main way that the mind will influence the body is that behaviours have physical reprucussions. Ie. If I drink a lot it’ll f up my liver, or if I decide to walk to work often instead of taking the car as a healthy person, my cardiovascular endurance will likely improve. So basically “social and behavioural determinants of health”.

Not the zealous uk psychobehavioural fantasies of “If I want to get better I’ll get better”.

 

[ukxmrv]

A good number of people, some very sensible, regard the traditional core of people labelled with FND as a meaningful clinical coherent grouping of unknown aetiology. There are patients feel this is a helpful category and undoubtedly they experience very significant symptoms.

The problems arise when you introduce an unevidenced psychosomatic or conversion disorder theoretical underpinning, and/or expand the definition to include an ever growing range of diverse symptoms and conditions without any good justification.

It is important to remember there are a core of patients experiencing life impacting symptoms and that we don’t belittle their lived experience even though we are sceptical about the theoretical explanations put out by a growing number of clinicians and researchers. As people with ME we should be sensitive to the experience of having a frequently misdiagnosed and poorly defined syndrome that frequently is high jacked by those who want to promote their own pet theories.

Does it really do anyone any good being diagnosed with FND though? I am not seeing this on the POTS, ME, LC and other groups I belong to.

Where is this group that is benefiting from FND and how is that better for them than not being diagnosed with anything specific. There are plenty of claims on the Internet but when I look closely at these they never seem to get any better. Are they in a different country maybe?

All the UK people I see posting are not getting extensive work ups or investigations or physical monitoring that involves new testing as time goes on. They are only receiving CBT or physio (exercise based) or similar.

The only plus i can see is in benefit or health insurance type claims maybe and having a consultant who will write a report.

 

[Peter T]

Does it really do anyone any good being diagnosed with FND though? I am not seeing this on the POTS, ME, LC and other groups I belong to.

I agree that anyone being treated with these symptoms as though they have a psychosomatic condition is unlikely to benefit and indeed could see some of the same harms we see in people with ME.

My concern was that there may be in this situation a meaningful clinical grouping, which unfortunately is not helped by the ambiguous ‘functional’ label, but never the less contains individuals with very real issues. So we need to be clear when we reject the label that we are not seen as denying the lived experience of those so labelled.

 

[ukxmrv]

I agree that anyone being treated with these symptoms as though they have a psychosomatic condition is unlikely to benefit and indeed could see some of the same harms we see in people with ME.

My concern was that there may be in this situation a meaningful clinical grouping, which unfortunately is not helped by the ambiguous ‘functional’ label, but never the less contains individuals with very real issues. So we need to be clear when we reject the label that we are not seen as denying the lived experience of those so labelled.

But is that actually happening (denying lived experience) in enough cases to warrent a mention in this thread? I can't see anyone doing this.

Isn't it a bit like 'attacks on researchers'?

 

[Chris]

I actually see it the other way around, inasmuch as I think they even have coherent thoughts on this. The 'mind-body' or BPS people do not think thoughts are physical. That is what the standard science view thinks. They think that thoughts are causal in a non-physical way. They think they are challenging Cartesian Dualism but their own view is a caricature of Cartesian Dualism. Even Descartes did not consider thought non-physical. He thought it was non-material. He thought thought was what we now call 'force', rather than the static 'mass' or 'extension' of matter (Fermions) - which is pretty much what all physics has taught since.

Along those lines I'd add that a "thought" is not even some "thing" inside the brain, no matter how physical the latest psych rebranding claims it is (besides they seem to only pay lip service to the physical view while still believing full force in magical causality) - thinking is what you find in the brain, it is a process and a transient one, popping in and out of existence so to speak, to grasp it properly would require a rare person that has expertise in both physiology and quantum physics (oh wait, someone here does!)

But a crashed ME patient can at least confirm that, yes, it's a bloody physical process requiring blood with oxygen and glucose etc. Requiring ENERGY!

 

[Snow Leopard]

The Guardian regularly writes articles like this, they're paid articles intended to sell books. The Guardian is very much an establishment oriented profit-focussed media organisation, no matter how some pretend it is otherwise.

The article makes manifestly wrong or largely misleading statements, such as the excerpt:

Your brain can unconsciously predict physical symptoms. Sometimes these predictions are so strong that they generate the symptoms they anticipate

Unless we're talking about anxiety derived symptoms (and often the result of hyperventilation - so it isn't the brain inventing the symptoms, but inducing them peripherally through altered behaviour), this is manifestly false - the brain only makes predictions about sensory feedback when REAL TIME CONTROL is needed - eg the propiroception, visual and auditory systems. So psychogenic tremor is plausible, but the concept cannot be applied to all symptoms.

There is no such predictive processing for pain for example.

 

[ukxmrv]

Was the original date for this article Sunday? I wonder if it was published in the Observer or just intended as an online piece.

The Observer has been sold to another company now and might just be filling up pages with filler if they are still producing a printed copy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_O...4, a deal,the world's oldest Sunday newspaper.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

thinking is what you find in the brain, it is a process and a transient one, popping in and out of existence

Absolutely. Although one could perhaps insist that it was thinkings popping in and out transiently. A string of pearls (to quote James) rather than a stream. Since physics now tells us that everything is just poppings in and out of processes, or events of connection, I find that very satisfactory.

 

[John Mac]

Cat gives dog hypnotherapy

 

[rvallee]

Why always the Guardian? It feels like half of all the BPS drivel is published there.

Isn’t the Guardian a centre-left, feminist, mainstream news source. Why all the BPS? Is it because they accept opinion pieces from all sorts of people?

Health pseudoscience is a rare thing that allies left and right on the same outcomes, and where both are indifferent to actually knowing about real outcomes, unless it affects them right now. On the right it captures people who don't want to pay for 'freeloaders' who fake illness, and on the left it captures people who think that if it's done holistically then it's all good because holistically is good because it's holistic. Which is not at all different than if it were a national religion.

Even in the skeptic community you find the same trap. Every single accusation and denunciation of alternative medicine features all the same reasons why this brand of pseudoscience is just like the others. But it's super popular so they overlook the ends and focus on the means because it's holistic and that means it's good.

I tried to read this meandering drivel but could barely manage to catch a few bits here and there. It's just so bad and could have been written at any point in the last century with just a handful of style changes.

And of course like most people promoting this stuff, they got something to sell. They even got other people who have been selling this same idea, like Wessely. This is basically a mix of advertisement, the author has a book to sell on this topic, opinion editorial and bits of pseudojournalism sprinkled there. It's pure marketing infotainment. It's not meant to inform or report on anything, it's meant to sell. And they are selling the same idea: illness does not exist, only disease, and even then it's a mindset, so disability isn't really a problem either other than as a problem of motivation.

This ideology is mainly responsible for the crisis in health care. And like clockwork, the only solution they have to the wreckage they cause is more of the same solution. It's completely stuck in place and they have nothing else to work with here, the ideology is absolutist.