Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: the brain » alexandra_k

Posted by SLS on September 23, 2006, at 21:32:57 [reposted on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:10 | original URL]

In reply to Re: the brain, posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2006, at 8:54:13

> What is an emergent property?
> (I've heard the term, I'm just not sure that the notion is clear)
> Is it a property like liquidity?

It is sort of like the concept of gestault where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This is something we see most often with living things. I would refer you to Wikipedia, but I find its explanation to be verbose and ineffective. How can we account for personality by simply dissecting neurons? As we travel up the heirachy of elements that compose an organism from quark to behavior we see properties emerge along the way that can only come into being as a result of the interactions between the components. Oh, what the heck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_properties

> The atoms that make up the molecule H2O don't individually or together have the property of liquidity. But if you have enough H2O molecules together (in the right kind of way) then you get the emergent property of liquidity. Is that what you mean?

I think that is close enough to win a cigar.

> What would the emergent properties of mental illness be?
> The behaviour?

Yes.

> The only way to change emergent properties is to change the lower level properties that realize them.

Gosh. That sounds as if you would like to change the biology; something closer to the level of the neuron.

It depends upon the illness. To change the behaviors in some illnesses, cognitive therapies are necessary and biological therapies are of little value.

Regarding my example of treating a manic episode of bipolar disorder:

> > It might be that you and I agree on this. I will be interested to see.

> I think we probably do agree. Medication, sure.

Why?

> But... I'd be interested to know why the problem emerged at that particular point in time.

We can't be sure. His girlfriend had broken up with him about two weeks prior. After interviewing her, it seems that he was calling her at all hours of the night for the first week or so. Apparantly, he wasn't sleeping or eating.

> But you know time is a limited capacity resource and you don't get through as many patients in a day if you actually talk to them...

But this is your family member, and you have the resources to treat him in any way you feel is best.

> > And from the previous post, you neglected to answer my question: Do you think schizophrenia is a biological disorder?

> I don't think schizophrenia is a natural kind

What is a "natural kind"?

> hence I'm not sure that the same explanation

What explanation are you referring to?


> can be offered for all the conditions that currently are dx'd as schizophrenia.

Let's talk about the real schizophrenia. You know, the one with the thought disorder - word salads, hearing voices, delusional paranoia, hallucinations, etc.

> I asked you a question (sort of). Do you think the people with sluggish schizophrenia (the political dissentors in Russia) had a biological disorder?

I am unfamiliar with this historical event. However, you are portraying these people as having been persecuted for their political beliefs and probably being condemned as being mentally ill so that they could be sequestered. They did not have a biological disorder if it was as you say. And this is meant to teach us what?

Schizophrenia is probably the most misrepresented of the mental illnesses.

> Modelling can be hard... Models are typically developed at the level of dx category. That is only interesting in so far as members of the same dx category are importantly similar. Unfortunately there is often more variability between members of the same dx category than there is between members of different dx categories. Basically... We aren't carving mental illnesses up right. I think it is likely that for some people... Biological intervention is likely to be most effective.

Which people do you think this would be true for?

> For some other people psychological intervention is likely to be most effective.

Agreed.

> For some other people sociological / envioronmental is likely to be most effective.

Yup.

For some people a combination of two of those... For some people a combination of three...

Multidimensional thinking. Multimodal approach to recovery.


- Scott

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:SLS thread:688931
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060922/msgs/688954.html