XKCD.com
I was out for dinner with some friends – Physics, Biology, Computer Science majors – when the discussion turned towards Psychology, the pseudo-science. Obviously the proponents of this view targeted psychology’s – granted – questionable non-scientific origins (damn that Freud!) and further towards its many unfounded theoretical perspectives regarding the etiology of mental illness. The critique was primarily on counseling and the inevitability that any such personal dialogue based interaction, whether steeped in theory or not, would have a similar beneficial impact on the people it was directed towards.
I myself have struggled with similar views, and have taken most theories as a general nudge on how to conduct your talk-therapy rather than why the mental illness has occurred. And many of these theories have provided a framework, a focus, specific styles and a language to be used during therapy; one can imagine that some styles may suit certain people and illnesses more than others.
I myself have struggled with similar views, and have taken most theories as a general nudge on how to conduct your talk-therapy rather than why the mental illness has occurred. And many of these theories have provided a framework, a focus, specific styles and a language to be used during therapy; one can imagine that some styles may suit certain people and illnesses more than others.
No longer merely a cooling vat.
Eventually the discussion led to the inevitable glass ceiling, that without understanding what consciousness is – a huge gaping hole in understanding the workings of the human brain - one cannot even begin to posit theories on how people become mentally ill; nods of agreement bobbed all around and the discussion was concluded. Thus if consciousness can be scientifically explained mental illness can be explained along with why counseling works.
The idea, which is by all means an acceptable one calls for a top down approach. Unfortunately science tends to work bottom up, connecting pieces of a puzzle together and then zooming out to try and figure out what the bigger picture is. To begin a rational exposition of what consciousness is, we must begin with how the mind gives rise to consciousness, and even before that what the mind is (and we must do this very rationally in order to circumvent the criticism brought on by earlier psychologists).
I will be tackling this issue in later blog posts by discussing the computational theory of mind (CTM), which states that the human mind is analogous to a symbol manipulator. CTM envisions complex thoughts as symbols being processed and governed by a set of rules.
In the meantime, here’s a video lecture on CTM to get you started, by Stephen Pinker, author of How the mind works.
Muneeb
The idea, which is by all means an acceptable one calls for a top down approach. Unfortunately science tends to work bottom up, connecting pieces of a puzzle together and then zooming out to try and figure out what the bigger picture is. To begin a rational exposition of what consciousness is, we must begin with how the mind gives rise to consciousness, and even before that what the mind is (and we must do this very rationally in order to circumvent the criticism brought on by earlier psychologists).
I will be tackling this issue in later blog posts by discussing the computational theory of mind (CTM), which states that the human mind is analogous to a symbol manipulator. CTM envisions complex thoughts as symbols being processed and governed by a set of rules.
In the meantime, here’s a video lecture on CTM to get you started, by Stephen Pinker, author of How the mind works.
Muneeb
RSS Feed
