Mind / Body question... (opinions wanted)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Logic Prevails

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
237
Reaction score
1
I presented recently on how neuroscience informs clinical practice (and vice versa). I spoke to clinically oriented individuals who may lack knowledge about the brain.

Although all of my statements were framed as tentative hypotheses, I did make a major statement that many people had a problem with:

"If a person has significant changes in thinking/behavior, there must be 'some kind' of corresponding change wihin the brain"

I don't understand how people could think otherwise really, and would like to have some feedback as to why this statement could be false or should be reframed as tentative.

There are many bodily diseases that are out there, and we're unsure as to how they are caused and how they work (like the brain), yet we still assume them to be biological (we don't say it's a working hypothesis) and we don't think that these diseases for example, could be caused by someone putting a 'hex' or 'voodoo' curse on an individual. Maybe I just don't understand. :confused:

Friendly opinions welcome.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Well, actually it has been suggested that voodoo works due to the self induced stress reponse of individuals who believe in it, but who knows for sure.

As far as your statement about physiological processes corresponding to changes in thought/ behavior, I tend to agree with it. However, many people are unsettled at the thought of the complex mental world within an individual being boiled down to a series of chemical changes. In my view, it is not a question of whether physiologic reactions are linked to mental functions, but rather if thoughts/behavior mediate physiologic changes in the brain, visa versa, or whether it is symbiotic with each affecting the other equally. There are many theories of cognitive function that can deal wih these questions and really isn't that one of the major mysteries of psychological and neuroscientific research. Let's just remember there are many very sensitive issues regarding, the brain, te mind, free will, etc.
 
I not only agree with your statement, but know it to be true. Anyone well trained in neuroanatomy/physiology and neurochemistry knows this. The only way one could disagree is if they had no training in the area such as MFT/MSW types.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I heard from a clinical neuropsychology PhD student/friend of mine that neuroplasticity resurged as a topic at this year's INS meeting in Boston. Lots of talk about experience-dependent brain changes and the like. Bryan Kolb was one of the main presenters on this topic. Neat stuff. Too bad I could not go. Did anyone attend?
 
Brad3117 said:
I presented recently on how neuroscience informs clinical practice (and vice versa). I spoke to clinically oriented individuals who may lack knowledge about the brain.

Although all of my statements were framed as tentative hypotheses, I did make a major statement that many people had a problem with:

"If a person has significant changes in thinking/behavior, there must be 'some kind' of corresponding change wihin the brain"

I don't understand how people could think otherwise really, and would like to have some feedback as to why this statement could be false or should be reframed as tentative.

There are many bodily diseases that are out there, and we're unsure as to how they are caused and how they work (like the brain), yet we still assume them to be biological (we don't say it's a working hypothesis) and we don't think that these diseases for example, could be caused by someone putting a 'hex' or 'voodoo' curse on an individual. Maybe I just don't understand. :confused:

Friendly opinions welcome.

Take a look at these papers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=14706942&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16164763&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16272874&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
 
no offense, but the problem might have been with the way you worded it or how you presented it in the context of your presentation (did you provide enough evidence to support your statement). Can you ask one or two of the people who attended your presentation why they had a problem with this part?

also I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with absolute statements...especially when you can think of examples that might prove that absolute statement untrue...for example, do all born-again people experience brain changes that can directly be tied to this experience? (maybe....) or say someone has a near death experience and becomes more loving or attentive to their family...does it necessarily translate to physical changes in the brain? (maybe...)
 
PublicHealth said:

These references are great! Thank you.

It's frustrating that people without a background in neurological process & function require studies that 'prove' reciprocal associations between changes in thinking/behavior and brain changes. I think a good understanding of these processes and knowing that these processes coincide with clinical knowledge should be enough to suggest that the two are intricately and necessarily related.

I think nay sayers will reject these ideas until we are able to prove that thought "A" is represented by neurons "B" through "E," and that altering thought "A" produces alterations in these same neurons. Though I doubt we will see this anytime soon. It's also really difficult to talk "neuro" language with those who are unaware of the research.
 
psisci said:
Answer me this Vesper, What is memory?

... My thoughts exactly! - and this is the point I was trying to drive home after people started arguing against my original statement.

I think maybe people were confused about what "change" means. After explaining what I meant a bit better, I think some people got it (though others are still skeptical).

I know in psychology we always refer to things as tentative hypotheses and fail to reject... but I don't see how we can see this statement as a hypothesis and still call ourselves scientists.
 
Jon Snow said:
I attended. Lots of interesting things this year.

Cool. What are your thoughts about the emphasis on rehabilitation neuropsychology? Tons of neuroimaging research as well, from what I hear.
 
It's definitely something interesting to think about. I've just started getting really interested in the neurobiology of attachment, trauma, and how corrective emotional experiences (in particular, the therapeutic relationship) have effects on the brain and affect regulation.
 
PsyDGrrrl said:
It's definitely something interesting to think about. I've just started getting really interested in the neurobiology of attachment, trauma, and how corrective emotional experiences (in particular, the therapeutic relationship) have effects on the brain and affect regulation.
it's an impossible question to solve at this point and time. in my history of system class, we've spent like the last month talking about the different views on it.
 
Forensic M.S. said:
it's an impossible question to solve at this point and time. in my history of system class, we've spent like the last month talking about the different views on it.

Well, so far it is impossible to solve, but we have a lot of evidence that there are neurochemical changes that result from trauma. And we see people get better in therapy, so I don't think that it's at all inaccurate to assume that there are similar changes that result from therapy.
 
PsyDGrrrl said:
Well, so far it is impossible to solve, but we have a lot of evidence that there are neurochemical changes that result from trauma. And we see people get better in therapy, so I don't think that it's at all inaccurate to assume that there are similar changes that result from therapy.
you are trying to solve a philosophical problem with science though, that's the problem, unless you are strictly speaking on the issue in an objective scientific way, then i'd totally agree.
 
Forensic M.S. said:
you are trying to solve a philosophical problem with science though, that's the problem, unless you are strictly speaking on the issue in an objective scientific way, then i'd totally agree.

I'm not sure it is a philosophical problem. Not all of it, anyway. Attachment is an observable phenomenon, as are brain structure and activity, both in humans and animals.
 
agreed. i am just playing devil's advocate.
 
Top