The metaphysics of mental disorders | A reductionist or dualist metaphysics will never be able to give a satisfactory account of mental disorder, but a process metaphysics can.

  1. And *this* is why philosophers should be required to actually read the literature of the field they're commenting on. The supposition that a purely physical model can't explain mental illness ignores the fact that *physics isn't reductive*. It can and does capture emergent behavior in complex systems. Do we have a good macroscopic model of the brain, let alone the mind? No! Is it "entirely impossible" as the article suggest? Also no!

  2. Tangentially related, Nagel even closes his essay "what is it like to be a bat", one of the most popular criticisms of reductionist theories, with that they aren't proven wrong, but rather, in those models, we still haven't found a way to explain qualia.

  3. Real philosophers do. You would never see something this stupid in an actual peer-reviewed philosophy journal. Random websites that make money from clicks of pseudo-intellectuals are the only places where "philosophers" ever post such stuff. Professional philosophers actually do work within their respective scientific disciplines.

  4. Soft emergence is still wholly reducible. The issue is hard emergence (the only potential example of which that we've ever observed is consciousness).

  5. A bit of a tangent but your comment (and the feelings I have about most modern academic philosophy) remind me of one of my favorite quotes from Hume's Enquiry Into Human Understanding: “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

  6. I am a big fan of Descartes so it piqued my interest when the subject mentioned "dualist metaphysics" since Descartes is commonly associated with "substance dualism". But it seems the article's treatment of dualism has little to do with the issue of whether mind and matter are different substances but just with how Psychiatrists think of disorders as being either related to one or the other. As far as I know this may be a justified criticism of the approach in the Psychiatric community...but I don't think it is particularly related to metaphysics.

  7. I know. IAI can’t even bother to proofread or edit these articles competently. ffs there’s a typo in the author description before the article even starts.

  8. This is not philosophy. Nothing this stupid would ever be published in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal. This is just pseudointellectual clickbait... at least judge philosophy by its professionals. This would be like judging the entire discipline of astronomy as hot garbage after reading an article on some website arguing for geocentrism to generate ad clicks lmao

  9. No, it's not a scam. Philosophers address questions that many fields have already assumed answers for. This works well enough for certain purposes, but once a field progresses enough, it has to re-examine these pillar assumptions in order to solve problems that the current paradigm isn't suited for. This is where philosophers come in to deal with the fundamentals. Usually when people in more specific fields like psychology think that what the philosophers are doing is silly since they've already answered those questions, they actually just don't understand the subject on that level. I can say as someone trained in both philosophy and mental health, philosophers are examining this stuff on a drastically deeper level than psychologists, which includes scholars.

  10. It's actually just the internet in general. People put up click bait that makes no sense for ad revenue. The only ones with genuine stupid takes are twitter users that clearly do it for free.

  11. I believe I agree, it seems to critique the (presupposed) metaphysics of the doctor who very quickly prescribes antidepressants to a patient. That is still a problem, and maybe this can be part of the root of that as a problem, but I am not sure if it is present in actual psychiatric literature, and this article doesn't help to answer that question for me.

  12. With mental health diagnosies on the rise, maybe our mental health professionals should more directly acknowledge the ways our society contributes to these problems. That doesn't mean we should expect any one care giver to do that alone though, it would require a unified effort including the communities around them. While I also have my problems with this article, I see the relevance of process metaphysics as a more robust form of ecological systems theory being used currently by community psychologists.

  13. Noticed seems to be posting some really bad quality content as of lately, through its admin account. The quality of the articles is so bad, that I'd argue it's borderline disinformation. However, the titles being catchy, the posts are getting upvoted and the userbase seems to be buying this load of crap.

  14. What they are explaining is equivalent to dialectical materialism. To see reality as a flux of interpenetrating processes. To paraphrase Marx: we are the sum of our social processes. Of our material processes and relationships.

  15. This reminds me of how in the US we are just throwing meth at our children and acting like there’s something wrong with them, instead of looking at how are actual schools are setup. You’re telling me a 7 years doesn’t like sitting still for hours everyday?! Must have a mental illness, oh well, here’s some meth. Sure it’s highly probably that a material model of the brain/mind is possible, however, we are nowhere near to actually having a model. We don’t know enough to give someone with a developing brain a medication, that could alter their development, without them really being able to give their consent. Sorry, I’m really ranting here, anyways I appreciate your comment.

  16. Can't wait for dualist theories to implode in the coming decades, really tiring to put up with people imagining magical dimensions with "souls" in them...

  17. I like your optimism. Unfortunately I don't think dualist thinking and theories won't go away so easily. BB (It's hard to name a culture or religion that doesn't use dualism as an underlying assumption. It's embedded in most languages. Souls populate so much Greek and Roman literature, the Rig Veda, Spanish records of the Aztecs and Inca. There are psychology motivation such as imagining dead love ones to still exist, to ease the fear of one's own death and to imagine injustices corrected in an afterlife. Let's not get into how it's used to control people.)

  18. Or we can combine monistic idealism with process metaphysics or Daoist flow and add a little bit of Antero Ali’s 8 circuit neural model. But that would implode the already overwrought nervous system of a materialistic atheist whose values are conforming to a social ruleset that sees overconsumption, depravation, addictions, consumerism and pointless creationist and religionist combative pursuits as the only means of achieving a somewhat stilted meaning in life.

  19. Disproving metaphysics with physics is fallacious. It’s no different than “proving” murder is wrong. You need baseline assumptions.

  20. There is a science based reason for mental health disorders rooted in biology and the brain. You may want to refer to quantum mechanics and the brain in your metaphysics journey.

  21. Do you even need quantum mechanics? You already have a complex network of neurons that work analog not digital, and we barely understand parts of it.

  22. If there is, we are nowhere close to understanding it. The current DSM doesn't even try to tie disorders to physical locations or properties. We currently have no way to physically detect a mental health disorder. Not even close.

  23. I've been a computer scientist working in AI and related fields since the early 1980's. One area I focused on was knowledge representation. I've also built more large object models that I can count to help clients develop large systems using object-oriented programming languages such as Java. The first thing we learn is to beware of mind sets like the one that wrote this article. The idea that there is some one and only one correct model of anything is nonsense. It leads to what we call "analysis paralysis", i.e., people spend forever tweaking the model rather than actually building software. Sometimes it makes sense to explicitly model processes (i.e. a "process metaphysics") and sometimes it makes more sense to leave the process implicit as methods or functions that work against the model. But there is never just one way (much less the only way) to model something.

  24. What do mental disorders have to do with philosophy? I thought this belongs to biology?! Mental disorders are deviations from the average. At what point philosophy comes in?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may have missed