Hi
@richie, thanks for engaging.
Your point is forcefully expressed and I would think many on here sympathise with that force of feeling. I take a different view
1) Your own description of the mind as an abstract construct referring to some of the products of bodily function makes a definition of the mind as the same as the body contentious.
My point here is that the whole "mind and body are connected" claim is based on the notion that they are somehow separate entities that "talk to each other" in some unspecified manner. I was pointing out that this type of claim does not make a lot of sense when you consider what the "mind" really is - not a separate entity, but a name we give to some of the cognitive functions the body perfoms (I say body rather than brain, because the whole body is involved in cognition).
"Mind" and "body" are words in any case. Even if the body and mind are one and the same, the word "mind" will not necessarily meekly fall in line with this reasoning. I think it would be difficult to apply your definition across numerous languages which do not tend to show 1:1 correspondences as to mind;spirit;soul;intellect etc.
See also the italicised in 20 below
I'm not referring to the specific terms "mind" and "body",I'm referring to the concepts that underlie them, as they are understood in the vernacular. Whether they overlap with spirit/soul/intellect or whether they translate into other language is beside the point. But you are highlighting yet another problem with "the mind". Its a very vague term.
2) I think you are wrong to say that a condition can only have a psychological component when proven. A condition may have a mitochondrial component, but the fact of such a component is not dependent on its discovery, whereas the discovery is dependent on the fact and the same goes for psychological components. They may be there but not yet discovered.
Fair point in terms of logic. There could be an "undiscovered" psychological component to illness X, Y or Z. But then there could be an "undiscovered" family of fairies living at the bottom of my garden. But until its backed up by some evidence, its nothing more than speculation, and can be harmful speculation at that (as we have seen here with the treatment of PwMEs). I would like everyone, doctors included, to refrain from such speculation.
The psychological component of a disease may be far from small. A dangerously psychotic individual may be in desperate need of anti-dopamine medication, but that does not render the psychological component small. Their delusion may be what occasions them to murder. That is not small and in no way negates or diminishes the biophysical component. Components should imo be divided into cause/occasion, perpetuation, process and best treatment, and physical of psychological may be considered at each level.
I glossed over this, but the term "psychological component" is usually used to refer to that part of the problem space of the illness that is the consequence of thoughts/feelings/behaviours, and that part of the problem space that can be addressed through psychological/behavioural interventions.
I do not think it is theory-neutral to divide causal factors into cause/occasion and perpetuation. It assumes a certain model of how illness works that may or may not be true. I prefer proximal and distal causal factors.
If we replace the term psychological with mental and mental applies to mind and mind and body are one and the same, then we deprive the term psychological of any meaning other than physical and vice versa, rendering your point and mine moot in any case, and depriving doctors of a useful distinction in practice, whatever the philosophy.
My biggest problem is with the nominalisation of psychological processes, referring to them collectively as "the mind", which leads to to a trap where we start thinking of it as a separate entity, giving it the capability to somehow "talk" to the body. We wouldn't fall into this trap if we used more precise language.
On the point of denying doctors a "useful distinction" between mind and body, I think we would be much better off if they refrained from attempting to apply that distinction. I have no confidence in their ability to do so, and the outcome is a mess.
3) Addressing thoughts and feelings may benefit health, but if you've just had a heart attack, the ICU or A and E is where to be so are they saying addressing thoughts and feelings can benefit health or cure a given condition? Make them be specific, just as Gerada should have been forced into specifying how exercise could improve e.g. alopecia - all alopecia.
They might then talk sense about e.g. some patients with skin conditions but not patients who acutely need doulbe bypassess.
I personally doubt whether allopecia has anything to do with thoughts and feelings, but maybe there's a space for behavioural science professionals to help people manage some illnesses (I think I made this point in the post too).
4) I understand you sentiment entirely. MUPS bears, arguably, a greater stigma than psychological dysfunction and in any case the idea that exacerbation of physical symptoms by psychosocial circumstance necessarily indicates psychological dysfunction is unjustified. Plenty of of people with MS worsen under psychological stress/in psychological distress, but that does not indicate psychological dysfunction but the effect of circumstance and perception of circumstance on the body, which may occur in a mentally robust individual with no apparent psychological dysfunction. I would press them on specifics.
I also have my doubts about whether the worsening of MS is ever due to psychological distress, and suspect the direction of causation is in the reverse. I think it could be harmful to tell people with MS that they need to stay calm and happy to prevent their MS getting worse. Then those who have a flare will feel somehow responsible for it.
Again, I would find it difficult to express this point in the above words , if I accepted your "mind and body are one and the same" view. I do not know how I would express it or what words to consistently and meaningfully if I took your view, so I find your view problematic.
Sure you could. The "mind" as a term isn't that useful, when you think about it. If you want to talk about mental processes, then better to be specific. Talk about memory for past events, or fear conditioning, or reinforcement or reward, or even sad mood. They're all much better than "the mind", and there's no trap to fall into - people aren't like to make the claim that "sad mood is connected to the body". Because its really obvious when you use such as specific terms that that's stupid. The sad mood is generated by the body.
I am also worried that psychologisers may use the "mind and body are one and the same" line for their own nefarious purposes.
Your last point is a good one!
(edited for typos)