The reductionist methods of neuroscience have created psychiatric practices that treats mental disorders exclusively using chemical solutions.
There is of course no doubt that a person cannot think his way out of chemical imbalances. However, the brain's function is also to develop for itself the methods to find equilibrium.
Therefore, if we never give the opportunity for brains to learn how to do this, then we will always have people dependent of artificial crutches.
Imagine a world where physical therapy is completely absent. That's the kind of world we have today for psychology. We construct the crutches but we don't provide the methods to ween oneself away from those crutches.
Yes, the brain is extremely complex and we simply do not know how to do physical therapy for the brain. But surely we must know to perform exercises for the healthy brain?
Which highlights another problem of society. We don't know how to educate our youth and our selves! We have developed mechanistic ways of education based on reductionist ideas of the nature of the brain.
It is so bad that many people's understand education as just the distillation of information. Education for many isn't how to think but rather just the absorption of information. It is as if brains were like computers.
What really sucks is that I am neither a psychiatrist or an educator, yet I see the obvious flaws in both professions. But why can I see it? Because I've realized that the metaphors that we use to describe the living and the brain are entirely wrong.
Unfortunately, how we reason about solutions is dependent on the metaphors we use. If we have the wrong metaphors, we create not very useful solutions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Our noun-centric language generates a bias in many that the word balance implies a state that is unchanging. That something that is inanimate is in balance. Search unsplash for 'balance':
But from a verb-centric frame of reference, balance is a process. Everything that is alive is in movement. To be in balance is to keep something the same while in movement within an environment.
This movement is driven by a multitude of opposing forces, both originating from the self or from the environment. It is a complex process that evolution has been fine-tuning for billions of years.
Is it possible to create a verb-centric language with only a sequential language?
One can classify noun-centric languages in how they construct their verbs. English and German follow satellite-framing, while Romantic languages follow verb-frame. The former express paths and the latter express manner. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_fram…
I'm an English speaker but I often get stumped in my writing with particles like in, at, on etc. It is ambiguous to me as to what is the appropriate path term to use. My way to validate it is to actually vocalize so I can tell if it sounds right.
"Real business value" is a cognitive bias of what is deemed important and not what actually is. The correlation between what a business pays for and what it needs is rarely a strong one.
A lot of public companies buy their own stock. Does that create 'real business value' or are they just gaming perceptions?
This reminds me of Wittgenstein's language game. Wittgenstein argued that to understand the meaning of words, one has to know what language game is being played. This is the same for 'value'.
Indeed, a recent paper question the notion of biological plausibility. It's a fuzzy concept that too many researchers have a bias that it is well defined. royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
"Claims of biological plausibility are shown to be incoherent from a level of mechanism view and more generally are vacuous."
Wolfram explains why his theory of physics emphasizes causation (computational irreducibility) and causality (observer reference frame of computational reducibility). It's a fascinating model of reality that I also subscribe to.
Wolfram writes "Consciousness is not about the general computation that brains—or, for that matter, many other things—can do. It’s about the particular feature of our brains that causes us to have a coherent thread of experience."
Wolfram is unique in that he identifies the possibility of a different kind of consciousness that is alien from human consciousness. There is not just one kind of consciousness, but many kinds that create an empathy with reality in distinct ways.
The notion of differences between individuals and differences across classes of individuals isn't precisely quantifiable for brains. I think neuroscience is doing civilization a disservice by insisting on reductionist theories to quantify people.
A natural human tendency is to think like people think in the same way. Some people are surprised that other people might not vocalize their thoughts. Other people are surprised to find that some people can't visualize their thoughts.
But the brain is constructed by the accumulation of a multitude of mental habits. We grow by favoring one kind of habit over another. Many habits are not necessary, but we favor them because that is what we are used to.