Why?

I think this is the most important question there is – Why? It betokens a curiosity to find out more about – anything – and is a very human trait. I suppose that being a person with a “curious” and seeking mind I have, seemingly, always had a questioning outlook to the world around me.

 

My curiosity must have started very early – my mother told me that she was very amused by my asking, when aged about two years old, “Have moffers got mouffers?” – (translation – “ have moths got mouths?”). I’m not sure of the reason for the question. It was quite a long time ago!

 

The question “why?” is followed closely by its corollary “how?” And also, of course, the equally important, “why not?” 

 

Some questions that have exercised far greater minds than mine will forever, I assume, remain unanswered. Such as, “why are we here – why us?” Likewise, the hard question, “ what is consciousness?”

 

There is an illuminating quote from the book “Why us” by James Le Fanu, wherein he writes, regarding the discovery of the literal blizzard of electrical activity in the brain:

 “But the greatest perplexity of all was the failure to account for how the monotonous electrical activity of those billions of neurons in the brain translate into the limitless range and quality of subjective experiences of our everyday lives – where every transient, fleeting moment has its own distinct, unique, intangible feel: where the cadences of a Bach cantata are so utterly different from the flash of lightning, the taste of Bourbon from the lingering memory of that first kiss.

            The implications are clear enough. While theoretically it might be possible for neuroscientists to know everything there is to know about the physical structure if the brain, its ‘product’, the mind, with all its thoughts and ideas, impressions and emotions, would still remain unaccounted for.”          

 

And which comes first – is it the activity of the neurons which by some means create the thoughts, sensations and memories or do the thoughts, sensations and memories somehow activate the neurons? 

 

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” and “Consciousness”, are considered in the light of quantum physics which states (very 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 (The first Law of Thermodynamics). Likewise with the conservation of Matter – it is constant but changes its form - The Law on the Conservation of Mass (matter). 

 

Then there is a further problem, our freedom to choose – known as the “problem of mental causation”. It is a fundamental fact of science - a precept - 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. For example, how 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? This has yet to be resolved.

 

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 fulfillment 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.  

 

This all seems a bit circular! We are back where we started – what, actually, is Life? And why?    

Biology of “Mental illness” – fact or fiction?

The majority of physical illness diagnoses can be verified by objective clinical tests. The majority, if not all, of psychiatric 'mental illnesses' cannot be (those caused by alcohol, drugs and certain real diseases, Alzheimer’s and Huntingdon’s excepted). Many medical diseases have verifiable causes. Psychiatry has none. 'Mental disorders' are simply categorizations of behaviours or thought processes which are then given labels.

The truth is finally – after too long a period of denial – “coming out”:

There have been claims, published in professional journals and in the media for decades, of gene discoveries and that mentally disordered patients have faulty genes and chemical imbalances in their brains. All are now shown to be wrong.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has now officially admitted that there are no genes for mental disorders. In an official APA press release dated May 3rd, 2013, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders version 5 (DSM-5) Task Force head David Kupfer MD stated, “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.” 

 In this statement, American psychiatry has at last come clean about its failure to support its claims of a biological basis for “mental illness” with actual scientific findings.

The hope is that one day, as David Kupfer MD plaintively tells us, research may, “culminate in the genetic and neuroscience breakthroughs that will revolutionize our field. In the meantime, should we merely hand patients another promissory note that something may happen sometime? Every day, we are dealing with impairment or tangible suffering, and we must respond. Our patients deserve no less.”

I have raised the fact before that almost by definition, psychiatric disorders are not medical conditions. If they are shown to have a biological basis, they cease being psychiatric disorders and are transferred to other areas of medicine, such as neurology. This point has been made repeatedly by others more qualified than I. As far as I can determine there is no evidence that DSM “mental disorders” are true medical conditions, but if such evidence comes in, they will be treated as medical conditions and not psychiatric disorders.

As I understand it, psychiatry and psychology have been 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 hope of arriving at some meaningful answer.

I know that various scanning techniques have identified parts of the brain that “light up” when emotions or thoughts are invoked. But no one has ever been able to determine what comes first; do the thoughts “light up” the neurons or do the “lit up” neurons generate the thoughts?

We need to know the answers to this conundrum because the present level of psychiatric research conformity demands that any mental disorder can only be the result of some biological/chemical deficiency in the brain which can be cured by pharmacological products alone. The fact that the APA (above) has had an unusually reflective moment and realised that it may be wrong in promoting the quest for biological markers for mental disorders is illuminating to say the least and well over due.

Pharmaceutical drugs are not the answer – so what now?

I suggest that if it took years for any particular individual to develop whatever mental disorder symptoms are presented to the health professional concerned, popping a pill may, temporarily, alleviate the problem but will not cure it. What is needed is a long and time consuming, gentle, empathetic, holistic approach to the person concerned – listen, LISTEN to what the person has to say. There is always a message in there somewhere. It may need deciphering. The message will undoubtedly be garbled and may, for example, be an attempt to interpret an event which occurred when the person was an infant who would have lacked the relevant emotional or cognitive abilities to arrive at a satisfactory answer.

Once more, pharmaceutical drugs are not the answer. They are only marginally more efficacious than a placebo (and in some cases – generally not reported by the pharmaceutical companies concerned – may actually perform worse than placebos). Drugs, without exception, have severe side effects and have physical effects on the body, which often reduce life span by many years.

So, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this post - it now accepted that the assertions mental disorders are caused by biological factors are myths and based on fantasy, not facts.