No matter what – banks are still bastards!

It is not just me complaining about the lack of ethics and morals evidenced by banks in Australia. Australian politicians are now supporting what I have been saying for a long time, and it is unfortunately all too true. Banks, ALL banks, direct their activities at preserving and protecting shareholders, their “market position”, their liquidity and their profitability, with SERVICE and the poor old CUSTOMER way down the list of priorities.

We have had, in the recent past, the terrible social effects of the blatant greed evidenced by Wall Street banks in 2007-2008; we have had the LIBOR scandal in London; we have seen many billions of dollars in penalties paid by banks world wide for aiding and abetting questionable  activities and money transfers - now it is the Australian banks falling foul of the regulators.

So far all four of Australia’s biggest banks, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), the Australia and New Zealand Bank (ANZ), National Australia Bank (NAB) and Westpac (and some of the smaller ones) have allegedly been guilty of breaching laws and regulations set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). They have been variously accused of defrauding customers through questionable investment advice and dodgy insurance cover, rigging the Inter Bank Rate, lacking moral judgment and generally being unethical in their dealing with their customers money.

I will reiterate what I have said, many times before – without customers (people) there would be no money, no need for banks and therefore by default no need for shareholders.

Pursuing the logic of this it would appear to be a “no brainer” that customers – i.e. people, are the vital part of the banking system, not just in Australia but world wide. It should be a simple case of “look after the customer” first and foremost, legally, ethically and with moral undertaking. Do this and the money will look after itself. And what is of utmost importance, trust in the banking system would be restored and banks would no longer invite opprobrium and be considered “bastards”.

This will require a cultural shift  - their “fiduciary culture” - by all concerned, starting with the boards of directors, chief executive officers and managers. Until these people conduct banking with ethical and moral underpinnings nothing will change.

Unfortunately, for all concerned, until they do change and adopt customer best practice they will continue to be mistrusted.

Reflections on a peaceful time.

I seems a long time ago now – in a different “age”; in a different country and certainly in a different culture. But in reality it was only about fifty years ago.

I was attending Rhodes University, in Grahamstown, South Africa, as a student – a few years older that the teenagers around me, but still only in my early twenties. I soon found a comfortable place to reflect and be at peace  – which is something I have always found, somewhere, as I rightly or wrongly consider myself to be of a relatively solitary disposition, and have never been afraid of my own company. My peaceful place was a viewpoint on a hill behind the University campus. I have forgotten the name of the hill but it provided a wonderful view of Grahamstown and the hills and mountains in the far distance.

My preferred time for a “visit” was in the evening just before sunset. I would sit there watching as the twilight faded into darkness and the streetlights suddenly flicking on brightly. I also witnessed the lights in homes suddenly turn on as people returned from their work – giving a strangely domestic feel to the scene as it unfolded before me.

Poetry, as those who read my posts will attest, has always given me solace and this scene, as described, always reminded me of the poem “The Day in Done”, by the American, Henry Longfellow. I won’t inflict on you the entire poem but the first verses are what have stayed in my mind when I remember this time of my life. It is also apposite now, I suppose, as I find myself having to contemplate my future and whatever it may hold:-

The day is done, and darkness

Falls from the wings of night,

As a feather is wafted downward

From an eagle in his flight.

I see the lights of the village

Gleam through the rain and the mist,

And a feeling of sadness comes o’er me

That my soul cannot resist:

A feeling of sadness and longing,

That is not akin to pain,

And resembles sorrow only

As the mist resembles the rain.

Come read to me some poem,

Some simple and heartfelt lay,

That shall soothe this restless feeling,

And banish the thoughts of day.

Is the Brain the only factor in the determination of Mental Disorders?

My Opinion:

The express purpose of this opinion piece is to question the current widely held belief that biology, in the form of the brain, provides the best explanation of, and holds all the answers to, “Mental Illness”. Firstly the Mind/Brain is examined from an objective, reductionist point of view to try and establish from biological criteria, just what it is that is being discussed. Secondly a subjective, even philosophical approach is taken which adopts a more general, holistic view of life experiences and the mind and how this alternative may hold the key. The difficulties in reconciling these differing views are considered.

This approach may be deemed appropriate in light of recent revelations that a significant percentage of published psychological/psychiatric clinical research fails the replication test, together with the related problems of publication bias.

It is worth remembering that the words Psychology and Psychiatry derive from the Greek ‘Psyche’ (pertaining to the Mind or Soul). It would be to the advantage of all not to lose sight of this primary meaning because it should guide our thoughts on these matters. In this regard, personal life experiences, a psychology degree, the examination of published papers and extensive reading, have led to the rather uncomfortable conclusion that research into mental health is trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. There is an attempt to reconcile the objective, quantitative, scientifically measurable aspects of the biological brain with the subjective, qualitative and immeasurable aspects of the mind with the intention of arriving at some meaningful answer.

Any answers arrived at, however, will be dependent on the deep consideration of some difficult concepts which in themselves give rise to many questions. For instance, what is Intelligence? Is there a difference between brain and mind? What is “Life”? Is Life the same as Consciousness? What is it that is absent when something that was “alive” is now “dead”? What is a thought or an emotion and how are thoughts or emotions generated? These terms (intelligence, alive, dead, consciousness, mind, thought and emotion) are in the common lexicon, yet there is no agreed definition or consensus as to what they are. The brain is considered to “contain” the mind and yet the mind may not be confined to the brain – even though they appear to be related in some manner as one affects the other.

Regarding the brain, while imaging techniques, for instance, have shown that certain areas of the brain are activated when thinking, it has yet to be determined whether thoughts, by some means, activate the neurons or whether the activated neurons, somehow, create the thoughts.

It is unfortunate that reason, when considering the issues of mental disorders and aberrant behaviour, is often sidestepped with the statement that such issues are “genetic” in origin. Yet genes are not self-emergent. Genes are “switches”, activated - turned on or off - by environmental “triggers”, something not generated within the body, triggers introduced from external sources or via the senses. Over reliance on genetics, however, is personally disempowering (“Doc – it’s in my genes – I can’t do anything about it”) and fraught, particularly as it is now known that we humans share half our genes with the banana.

It will be recalled that all living things are formed from cells and all life forms live and operate, in their disparate ways, by the functioning of these cells. This is a biological function, but we seldom consider the cells – estimated at some 100 billion – which comprise our individual body forms (excluding the many billions of bacteria that inhabit our bodies and which are so necessary for our well-being). Yet these billions of cells – which are individual entities in their own right – somehow co-operate to create the human form. This, by any standard, is an astonishing achievement. Likewise these cells, which have a limited lifespan, replicate themselves many times over, more or less  exactly, to maintain what was there before. Furthermore these cells, when replicating, not only somehow maintain the same, recognisable body form, they also transfer the same genes and by some means maintain the same traits, thought patterns, characteristics and mannerisms that presented themselves at birth or developed during a human being’s formative years. The extraordinary thing is that these traits, characteristics and mannerisms may be altered by life experience, with training or by self-will.

Is this a case of some cells telling other cells what to do?

For this to occur a signal-integrating mechanism would be required. In particular, once a cell in a multicellular organism is committed to differentiate into a specific cell type, the consequence of this “choice” is generally maintained through many subsequent cell replications, which means that the changes in gene expression involved in the choice must be “remembered”. This phenomenon of cell memory is essential for the creation of organized tissues and for the maintenance of stable, differentiated, cell types. Epigenetics is certainly involved – this is when modifications to the proteins that help to pack the long strands of DNA into our cells are added to or removed. These modifications may determine whether or not a particular gene is active in a cell. This process is unlikely unless cells have an element of consciousness (however this is defined).

First consideration:

In this first consideration a reductionist approach is adopted to try and establish, from an objective stand point, the difference between a person’s brain and the associated mind.

It will be recalled that all observable forms of matter are constructed from atoms and molecules. This becomes interesting if “Matter” (in the form of the human body and brain) together with “Life”, are considered in the light of quantum physics which states (basically) that Energy = Matter (remember E=MC²?). Einstein, with this famous equation, revealed that the Universe is not just billions of distinct items separated by inert space but in fact is a dynamic construct in which matter and energy are so inextricably mixed that it is not possible to consider them as separate elements. If this is true, where does this leave ‘life’, the ‘mind/consciousness’ and ‘intelligence’? How can energy/matter be intelligent or conscious? What is ‘dead’ energy (i.e. some matter which was alive and is now dead) compared to ‘live’ energy (i.e. some matter which is animated and alive)? Furthermore, physics tells us that there is no foundation for a view of life based on the pre-eminence of matter. Energy is indestructible and outside of time, and as a result the total quantity of energy is constant. This is known as the law of conservation of energy. But one of the surprising results of relativity theory is that there is no law on the conservation of mass (matter).

These questions, relating to life, matter and energy, need to be seriously considered if the part played by the brain in psychological/psychiatric theory is to be questioned. Consider, now, the progression from Inanimate Matter to Human Awareness, with Mankind, the last link in the chain, believed to have evolved with the widest range of qualities.

Ø   Inanimate Matter. This consists of atoms and molecules, which are the constituents of all matter in the known Universe. This “inanimate” matter, as far as can be determined, has neither life, nor consciousness, nor awareness. The atomic and molecular structure of the subject matter may be examined and its physical qualities determined and measured. 

   

Ø  Inanimate Matter + Life. This ranges from single cell microscopic life (e.g. amoeba and bacteria) to plant life. The physical structure of these will be found to consist of the same atomic and molecular structure as inanimate matter (above). Yet they have something else – a vivifying essence, an infusion, which we call “Life”. We know Life is present because we can see the bacteria move, subdivide and replicate. We may also note the growth of plants; we observe plants change to the rhythm of the seasons. We also know when Life is absent, because a plant or a cell is dead. But we do not know what the particular vivifying essence called “Life” is. No “Living” thing has ever been “produced” from inanimate matter in a laboratory setting.   

Ø  Inanimate Matter + Life + Consciousness. This is the next stage in the progression. Consciousness cannot be objectively examined in a laboratory setting. It is assumed that to be conscious something must be alive. It is always possible that Life and Consciousness are different sides of the same coin, as it were, that one cannot exist without the other. If so, by default therefore, consciousness is assumed to require a living organism – something which, from the evidence, it may be inferred that consciousness is present. This begs a range of (possibly unanswerable) questions – if plants (or amoeba) are “alive” are they also “conscious” (e.g. an amoeba extending and retracting pseudopods when searching for nourishment)?

Ø  Inanimate Matter + Life + Consciousness + Awareness. This is the final, most subtle stage – awareness of existence. Human beings assume they are the only life forms aware of their own existence. But this may not be so. Other life forms may share this ability – dolphins, elephants and magpies are apparently able to recognise their image in a mirror.   

 This great sweep of the Cosmos from inanimate matter to Human Beings, may be tabulated for clarity - see Table 1, below:

1                    2                     3                     4                        Subject             Basic  Chemical                   Consciousness                                       Building Blocks        Life                                      Awareness
Inanimate Matter	Yes	No	No	No
Lower Life – Amoeba) Plants etc                    )	Yes	Yes	?	No
Higher Life Forms –  ) Animals etc                )	Yes	Yes	Yes	?
Humans	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Table 1. It should be stressed that these are not discrete items but are shown in this form purely for descriptive purposes. Their interaction is accepted as a “given”.

In the four columns shown above, the first, the Basic Chemical Building Blocks, which form the physical world as we know and see it, are common to all substances. These constitute the only “parts” that may be objectively, scientifically and physically examined.

The remaining three columns represent concepts which are defined only by their opposites and may be identified only by inference. There is Life and Lifelessness; Consciousness and Unconsciousness; Awareness and lack of Awareness. These do not conform to any current scientific laws or accepted theories, and yet Life, Consciousness and Awareness exist and together with Matter, constitute a Human Being.

It must be emphasised that all the “parts” are interrelated even though they are qualitatively different. For instance while the physical attributes of the brain are objective and may be verified independently (column 1, above), the subject matter of the “mind” (presumed to be contained within columns 2, 3 and 4 above) – the thoughts, imaginings, emotions, desires, memories and beliefs – are subjective and known only to the possessor. The objective brain and the subjective mind, however, are assumed to be causally related in some way as injury to the brain appears to impair the activity of the mind, just as a “change of mind” may result in altered behaviour – facilitated by the brain.  

It will be seen from Table 1 that matter is the common factor in the observable universe – there are no exceptions. Using the same logic and believing that Nature (which is not defined) does not “allow” anomalies, it is reasonable to consider “Life” - the essence, whatever it is and however defined - as common to all living forms. The same would apply to consciousness and that likewise, there would be no exceptions. This gives rise to the possibility that there is a common, “Universal Life” and “Universal Consciousness”. But as we are not consciously aware of these they may be described as “Unconscious” elements – a “Universal (or Collective) Unconscious”.

Furthermore humans presume to consider themselves the epitome of the universe. As confirmation of this assertion the human brain has been described as the most complex single object known to science, with an estimated eighty six (86) billion neurons. The feasible connectivity of these gives rise, literally, to an astronomical number of possibilities. But does this connectivity explain the mind?

In this regard it is interesting to note the curiously plaintive comment made by David Kupfer, MD,  Chair of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version 5 (DSM-5) Task Force (American Psychological Association (APA) press release No. 13-33, dated 3^rd May 2013) wherein  he stated:

“The promise of the science of mental disorders is great. In the future, we hope to be able to identify disorders using biological and genetic markers that provide precise diagnoses that can be delivered with complete reliability and validity. Yet this promise, which we have anticipated since the 1970s, remains disappointingly distant. We’ve been telling patients for several decades that we are waiting for biomarkers. We’re still waiting.”  

The majority of physical illness diagnoses may be verified by objective clinical tests. The majority, if not all, of psychological or psychiatric “mental illnesses” cannot be (those caused by alcohol, drug abuse, Alzheimer’s and Huntingdon’s diseases are excepted). Many medical diseases have proven, verifiable causes. “Mental illness” has none. Mental disorders are categorizations of observed behaviours and the presenting person’s self-reported thought patterns which are then given labels. As far as can determined there is no evidence that DSM defined “mental disorders” are true medical conditions, but if such evidence is ever confirmed, they would, presumably, by default, be treated as such.

Current theories tend towards asserting that all mental disorders stem from aberrant or faulty brain activity which can be best resolved only with pharmacological products and/or electrical current (ECT). The efficacy and long term side effects of such medications and procedures are subject to considerable discussion which remain largely unresolved – the Psycho-pharmaceutical industry, for instance, is notoriously reluctant to reveal all results of their research. Similarly the actual manner by which applied ECT affects changes in the brain is unknown. There are many reasons why all concerned should be critical about psychotropic drug treatment, such as uncertain causes, the problematic accuracy of the few diagnostic tests available, commercial conflict of interest, poor understanding regarding the mechanism of drug action and their side-effects together with the related problem of publication bias [Note: The recent reanalysis of the –ghost written- GlaxoSmithKline Study 329 relating to their antidepressant drug formulation paroxetine, Paxil, (also known as Serotax or Aropax) provides an excellent, if unfortunate, example of these issues].

Furthermore it is all very well for neuroscientists to point out that with the various brain imaging and scanning techniques now available it can be seen that different parts of the brain are activated when a patient recalls earlier events or when thinking about a problem. But HOW does the excitation of neurons translate into memories of an experience or the solution to a problem? And which comes first – is it the activity of the neurons which create the thoughts and memories or do the thoughts and memories activate the neurons? These questions remain unanswered. The nature of even the “simplest” thought has yet to be determined.

Then there is a further matter, our freedom to choose – known as the “problem of mental causation”. It is a fundamental fact of science - a maxim - which states that nothing can happen that is not governed by natural laws of material causation (i.e. physical things cause physical effects). Thoughts are non-physical (they are subjective), therefore by definition cannot cause anything physical to happen. How then is it possible for subjective (non-material) thoughts of the “self” to so influence the function of the (material) brain that they compel the brain to direct the body to perform a particular action?

Similarly it is worth noting that prescribing mind altering drugs to people already suffering mental disorders is counterintuitive. Yet this is what happens. The issue, which has yet to be resolved, is that medications in various formulations and strengths have been prescribed for mental “illness” since the 1950s – some sixty years ago. Yet the problems remain. Logically this leads to the conclusion that, ipso facto, either the medications are ineffective or the causes of mental disorders is misunderstood and therefore, by default, misdiagnosed – or all three.

Is it sufficient, therefor, to claim that chemicals in the brain, alone, are responsible for all mental disorders and all the attributes (good, bad or indifferent) that make us human? Again, this assertion is greatly disempowering. Is it simply a case of, “Doc, my brain chemicals are out of wack – gimme a pill”? Is there not a possibility that there exists a dynamic unconscious (or Life), beyond the physical, that must be considered and respected in relation to every phase of Life and the Mind of every individual and which affects the personality and gives testimony – for better or worse – to their personal history? This, it is suggested, should be considered as a “Collective Unconscious” – common to all.

Second consideration:

Adopting a more philosophical or holistic approach, the three concepts of Life, Consciousness and Awareness (refer Table 1 above) are now considered. The whys and wherefores of these three are unknown, yet they exist. The millions of life forms comprising the flora and fauna of the world, together with Humans, are a testament to their presence. As a “group” these three concepts have historically been considered, collectively, as the Spirit, the Psyche, the Metaphysical, the Soul, the Tao or, more lately (and possibly controversially), as something dynamic, as the “essence” of Life and the associated Consciousness (however these are defined) or a “collective unconscious”.

A belief in Spirituality and the Divine/God/Allah/Creator/Supreme Being/Tao, is common to all societies through all ages but is something which many people in today’s (Western) secular world are uncomfortable discussing, and in fact, some deny exists at all. Yet such beliefs presumably have a deep psychological purpose. They may bring comfort and lend meaning to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Furthermore they give credence to the need for kindness, compassion, morality, courage, temperance, virtue and ethical behaviour in our relationships.

All the ancient devotional writings, known to us as scriptures; all the philosophical texts from ancient India, China, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, through Confucius to Plato and many more recent contributors; all great literature, great music, great poetry and all great art, start from the premise that the basis of life is spiritual. They all attempt to inspire the listener, reader or viewer to look beyond the immediate, apparent existence, to something more; that a “Great Artificer” exists and that Humans have souls and a higher purpose than mere existence. This was never questioned. The quest for and the fulfilment of this purpose is (or was considered to be) a Human Being’s guiding star.

In this context the possibility of a collective unconscious gains traction. It is as if “Life” needs to be expressed, to be made manifest, to be appreciated in all its beauty and variety of form. It must be remembered that there has been no known break in the continuity of expressions of Life since primordial times (many hundreds of millions years ago). In the Human context three, possibly unanswerable, questions arise, “Who am I?”; “Who or What made the Universe?”; “What is my relationship to that Who or What?”

It was the view of the ancients that the cause of the Universe is the permanent and indivisible Divine, whereas the effects (all matter, flora and fauna) are impermanent and decay over time.  Be this as it may, the tenacity and determination of all life forms in propagating and maintaining their existence is phenomenal. All sentient beings will fight to stay alive; flora and fauna persist in the most wretchedly harsh environmental and climatic conditions – in fact there is no “corner” of the Earth that is totally lifeless.

Life (however defined) MUST be expressed – this is the imperative – this is the charge placed upon all life forms.  It is instructive to note that the Bhagavad-Gita (an ancient Indian Hindu classic compiled over three thousand years ago) states: “Wherever life is seen in things moveable or immovable, it is the joint product of Matter and Spirit”.

All human life is bound to individuals who manifest it, and is simply inconceivable without them. But every human is charged with an individual destiny and destination, and the journey to that destination or the fulfilment of that destiny is the only thing that makes sense of human life. The individual journeys and destinations may differ but the fundamental purpose is the same – the expression of Life.                                                                           

It will be recalled that there is evidence, personal, anecdotal and “unscientific” it may be, but evidence none-the-less, in the power of prayer. Further, it has yet to be determined how positive thinking has such a beneficial effect on a person’s well-being. Likewise, currently, there is no acceptable scientific explanation for the medicinal benefits of the “placebo effect”, or how it comes about that an extreme emotional shock, inducing stress (emotional and subjective), may cause a physical death, or by what process this (subjective) stress affects a person’s (physical and objective) immune system, or to explain the immense influence of self will or will-power on an individual’s desire to live.

Much is explained when it is remembered that Human Beings are made or unmade by themselves.  In the armoury of our thoughts we fashion the means by which we build for ourselves all that is necessary for happiness, health, prosperity and peace of mind. Alternatively, we may forge the weapons with which to destroy ourselves. The “Mind of Man” is, indeed, a powerful tool!

The Bhagavad-Gita also states, “Man is made by his beliefs. As he believes, so he is.”

Further consideration must be taken regarding the moral and ethical aspects of humanity. It may be safely stated that virtues are at the core of both morality and ethics regardless of the society or culture concerned. Virtues are defined as the qualities all people admire and recognise in a “good person” - the qualities of kindness, compassion, courage, honesty, temperance, humility, integrity and justice.

A person cannot be either ethical or moral without also being virtuous; these are dependent on their set of values and their beliefs; something that is at the core of their being. Values are not just mannerisms or a set of preferences. They refer to something much deeper and more subtle, to a line that cannot be transgressed. Values cannot be measured and may be inferred only by the actions of the individuals under consideration; they are on “display” with someone’s behaviour and general demeanour. A person’s mind cannot be observed (their virtues, values or morals) but these are all there for anyone to deduce from their ethical (or unethical) conduct. No one can think one thing and do another (opposite to their thoughts) and remain in their comfort zone for long without the impact of generally unforeseen consequences.

It has been suggested (possibly unkindly) that human beings as a species are neither intelligent nor creative enough to have invented morality, virtues, values or ethics; that these are innate and part of the human psyche. It is further suggested that these universal, core aspects of human conduct are evidence of there being a dynamic unconscious or collective unconscious, common to all.

Finally the following quote, from “Anatomica - The Complete Reference to the Human Body” (Random House), further illustrates the extraordinary qualities of Nature (not defined) and which transcends any known neurological process and which may be considered as a working example of the “collective unconscious”:-  

“Women are characterized as the weaker sex but it is men who need a helping hand from Mother Nature. The male disadvantage extends throughout life. From birth, male babies are less likely to survive childhood, while at the other end of life, on average men die younger. Nature maintains the balance between men and women by ensuring more boys are born than girls. A study published by the European Society of Human Reproduction found that ... the usual ratio is 511 boys for every 489 girls in every 1000 births (statistically 104.5 boys for every 100 girls).”

Concluding opinion:

 On one hand applying a biological approach to Mental Health, focusing just on the Brain, does not explain how or why a person is “alive” or how their individuality comes about. There is an inescapable conclusion that all life forms are not just an agglomeration of matter – not just ‘mechanisms’; that a human being is not just a watertight skin bag filled with blood, flesh and bones; that there is something above and beyond the observable Universe which affects all sentient beings in different ways according to their kind. This something, this vivifying essence, it is proposed, is a dynamic unconscious or a “collective unconscious” which is present in all matter which somehow, when the conditions are suitable, has been “infused” with Life. This collective unconscious is the bond between all living things, that allows for the benefits of relationships between sentient beings (between humans, with animals and between animals) and between human beings and plant life (the peace felt in a wilderness setting or by someone who creates and tends a garden).

On the other hand a holistic consideration of all the aspects of Life, Consciousness and Awareness which have been the subject matter of Philosophical discussion since ancient times leads to the same conclusion. That there is something above and beyond the observable which many term as the Divine/God/Allah/Spiritual/Metaphysical/Tao; something which infuses all things that are “alive” with Life; infuses all with the same emotional responses to fear, anger and affection; the same essence that is withdrawn when something dies; the same essence that requires, needs and thrives on nurture (love). This essence, this Life, which is common to all living things, should be considered, it is suggested, as a dynamic or collective unconscious.

Finally, in relation to the determination of Mental Disorders, biology – neuroscience – should not be considered on its own. There is a need to consider all aspects of Human Life in a balanced manner.  Such consideration questions the inference that “Life”, “Consciousness” and all the attributes that make us human are generated, exclusively, within the confines of the dark, silent, recesses of the skull. Concentrating on one (the objective Brain) and ignoring the other (Life and the subjective Mind) is similar to a bird trying to fly only with one wing. Biology and Neuroscience alone do not, and cannot, provide answers to all mental health issues. Trying to reconcile matter (the body and brain) with the subjective Mind and Life (however these are defined) – in a laboratory - will prove to be very difficult if not impossible, but regardless, one is left in awe of the wondrous thing that is a Human Being.