A suggestion for Mental Illness

Various theories are being used to help us in understanding problems related to emotional and behavioral adjustment, and to explore different approaches to mental health and treatment options. 

As a result, we continue to have a plethora of views or theories regarding mental health, giving rise to many specializations or paths. Like, Analytical/ Developmental approach, Behavioral psychology, Cognitive theories, and Social influences. Essentially, all these theories present the problem with two sides, a biological, self-serving side, and, a non biological, predominantly social side (e.g. intellectual, spiritual, philosophic, or aggressive influences), each needing our attention. Of late there is much discussions about how clinicians differentially weigh symptoms of mental disorders in diagnosis and cure.

A review of the broad models of mental health and illness that have been in use can show us how we think about the concept of mental illness.   The first and oldest explanatory system for mental illness is spiritual.  This was followed by the dictum that mental illness is moral in character.  As humans progressed, biological and neuro-physiologic reasons came to be the culprit.  Along with which, we also attributed mental illness to learning and developmental issues and other psychological reasons.  The final explanatory system is sociological, where we are willing to blame ourselves, at least partly.

But one thing is there common with all the above. Unlike other problems of our body, the central philosophical debate over mental illness is not about its existence or cure, but rather over how to define it. And we are constantly busy with questions of such nature. Whether it can be given a scientific or objective definition, or whether normative and subjective elements are essential to our concept of mental illness. Are we are on right track?

I think we need to attack mental issues with a holistic outlook. One can easily see, all our inventions and discoveries owe a lot to the desire some of us felt, for lessening their burden, or for adding to their comfort. In fact our constant effort, like that of other forms of life, is to make one's life more and more comfortable. Accordingly, all the developments in science and technology, which we celebrate as the principal proof of human accomplishment, can be seen as nothing but the result of such a path, that is, the desire to add comfort or oppose discomfort. In fact we actively pursued this thought when we attacked the issue of physical illness and found its cause lying in entities external to diseases, namely germs. Ever since, we are following this path successfully in the realm of physical health. What is causing discomfort to us, as far as the mind is concerned?

Why can't we think about germs of mind? Perhaps some entity external to us, or present in our life, that can initiate mental disorders at will?  Aren't the exhortations we constantly receive from our leaders, be it of spiritual domain, political arena, or cultural playground, a fit candidate here? Or things that can make us too uncomfortable, as well as those that can take us to a state of bliss?

This can definitely make classification and control of mental illnesses, more orderly and structured, like all other branches of medicine. Quite pointed, selective measures can then arise both for prevention and for treatment of mental disorders. I think, as a result, rather than feeling intimidated by a plethora of symptoms, medical practitioners in this area too shall be able to handle health issues objectively.

Isn't this the right track?

More Proof for my Theory

A nurse inject cardiovascular drugs like ajmaline, sotalol, lidocaine, amiodarone and calcium chloride, orchestrate medical emergencies, and then step in and resuscitate them. Why?

Another proof that we are in the age of the irrational?

What separates human from other forms of life?

What separates human from other forms of life?

There are many views, like: 

1. We Make Tools

2. We’re Killers

3. We Share Food

4. We Trade Food for Sex

5. We Cook Food

6. We Walk on Two Feet

7. We Adapt

8. We Unite and Conquer

So what’s wrong with all these theories?

Many of these ideas have merit, but all are at a loss, when it comes to the question, what caused its adaptation by humans. Why did humans resort to such deviations from the norm, that too choosing activities that are not only not essential, but also dangerous for life and longevity? 

I am of the opinion that there has to be a driving force behind everything. Just as there is something to promote whatever happens in life, whether among plants or animals, in case of humans too, there has to be an agent. For example, hunger promotes eating, or, fear promotes shelter, and there in nothing in nature, which is not widely advertised and rigorously promoted. We therefore need to look for a driving force, one that is responsible for making us behave the way we behave. 

Let us see. How did we acquire humanness? I mean erect posture and bipedal locomotion; manual dexterity and increased tool use compared to other animals; and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies.  What enabled our ancestor species to create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups? Like families, kinship networks, and political states? And start social interactions between themselves, establish an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society?

I think there is an easy answer. Walking on two feet is certainly more time taking compared to movement on all fours. Both for the one learning, and for the other who is in charge. So is the case with eating. It takes more time to fetch, prepare and have food in the manner we do presently, than in the pattern followed by rest of the animal kingdom. Further habits in this regard, like maintaining access to food surplus, domestication of animals, and the use of metal tools, might have triggered the formation of permanent human settlements. Complex brain and a multi faceted society have opened up a plethora of things to keep ourselves busy in activities other than those necessary for metabolism. 

Basis of this idea is my book, The Unsure Male. As I explain in that book, rather than the influence from an external force, what made us willingly choose the path of acquiring distinctive marks is the advantage we derived from those. In that process, we happened to be enamored by the irrational (since it served us better), and therefore are constantly in its search. Many of our escapades turn out to be rational later, which routinely lead to big celebrations, great names, and extraordinary ideas. A few of those ideas from our distant past still remain, causing consternation at will, especially when the original environment where such ideas would have been of help, is no more present. 

What caused us to choose this path, and for what gain? Yes. It is the ability of humans to substitute at will, one’s needs, desires, and fulfillment, with real or unreal things. Perhaps this is what we see today as the power of abstraction. We mastered the art of using this talent to suit to one’s convenience, unlike all other species of life. Which I think, is what can be called the distinctive human quality, the one that separates us from the rest of life.

(Now also we are behind the irrational; some of it helps us in maintaining peace and harmony, some of it leads to great inventions, and some others to alarming situations, rivalries, or wars, quite regularly)

Book Review: Physics of the future

'Physics of the future: how science will shape human destiny and our daily lives by the year 2100' by Michio Kaku is a scientist's peep at the days to come.

The book begins with the observation that almost all of the old predictions regarding future, like paperless office, or the prediction that the Internet would wipe out TV and radio, did not actually take place. "This", the author says, is thus because "we probably still think like our caveman ancestors." 

Thinking thus, author starts his predictions, dividing the future into three parts. The first part is our immediate future, upto the year 2030, where, I think the current state of the art in respect of the scientific world and its progress, takes precedence. For example, "A visit to the doctor’s office will be completely changed". For a routine checkup, when you talk to the “doctor,” it will probably be a robotic software program that appears on your wall screen and that can correctly diagnose up to 95 percent of all common ailments. Your “doctor” may look like a person, but it will actually be an animated image programmed to ask certain simple questions. Your “doctor” will also have a complete record of your genes, and will recommend a course of medical treatments that takes into account all your genetic risk factors.Or a fairy tale life. "Because computers will be able to locate many of the genes that control the aging process, we might be forever young like Peter Pan."

Next part examines mid centuries, years 2030 to 2070. Here, the author begins with reminiscenses of a previous visit to microsoft where he happened to predict the collapse of computer industry owing to Moore's law, and how it didn't happen. Predictions like a successor to silicon power, an altered computer growth rate,  fully functioning cyberworld that merges the real world, etc., abound this part. Vivid descriptions like the one of a future tourist where, "a tourist walking in a museum can go from exhibit to exhibit as one's contact lens gives a description of each object; a virtual guide will give a cybertour," kept taxing my imagination.

Thereafter comes the far future, 2070 to 2100. "By the end of this century, we will control computers directly with our minds', author begins. The ideas of controlling machines by mind and mind by machines might fructify. Recording dreams, controlling motion by thought, adding consciousness to machines, possibilities of genomic medicine, and a load of amazing scenarios follows thereafter. Then comes the idea of a designer life, where each of us can plan our present or future path at will, and the book concludes with the description of a day in the life in 2100. "..you drag yourself out of bed and reluctantly head off to the bathroom. While washing your face, hundreds of hidden DNA and protein sensors in the mirror, toilet, and sink silently spring into action, analyzing the molecules you emit in your breath and bodily fluids, checking for the slightest hint of any disease at the molecular level."

I greatly enjoyed this book, which is a scientific look at the romantic future in store for us. The dreaming part of my brain (if there be one) went into an overdrive right from the start of this book to its finish. 

Book Review: Think: A compelling introduction to philosophy

'Think: A compelling introduction to philosophy' by Simon Blackburn

"This book", author says, "resulted from years of wrestling with the problems of trying to interest people in ideas". It is about the big themes: knowledge, reason, truth, mind, freedom, destiny, iden¬tity, God, goodness, justice. Though these belong to the hidden preserve of specialists, through questions like, Why is there some¬thing and not nothing?, What is the difference between past and future?, Why does causation run always from past to future, or does it make sense to think that the future might influence the past?, Why does nature keep on in a regular way? Does the world presup¬pose a Creator?, etc., Simon familiarizes us with ideas and concepts that can be compared with the lenses through which we see the world. 

After such an introduction, the book goes on to discuss an unsettling thought many of us must have had since childhood, that the whole world might be a dream, or what is reality. After Descartes and the ideas of knowledge, we are shown the next big concept, mind, and it's function in making us with the know of things. How the range of our thoughts affect our own freedom, and how it controls our own identity is dealt by next chapter, namely, free  will. What is the self inside us?, is the next esoteric question to follow. Which is followed by the most mystic mytery of all, the concept of God. Does that concept exist only in understanding? Also in reality?

Next chapter takes a very brief glance at formal logic, and the problems of inductive reasoning, as well as some of the elements of scientific reasoning. After examining thoughts about our own existence, thoughts about mind and body, thoughts about freedom and fate, thoughts about the self, thoughts about God, and thoughts about the order of nature, the next chapter deals with the nature of thoughts itself - that is, the very structure of our thoughts, or the way to think properly. What changes we need to make to the premise we made in earlier chapters, for seamless integration of reality with our thoughts.

The last chapter studies the issue of putting all that we learned to use, so far as meeting all that matters to us. 

Book Review: Theory of Everything

'Theory of Everything' by Stephen Hawking contains seven lectures. In the first one, 'Ideas about Universe', past ideas in this regard are examined, indicating how, those continue to lead us to newer ideas. Further concepts, principles and thoughts are examined in the following chapters titled 'Expanding Universe', and 'Black Holes'.

In the next chapter, 'Black Holes aren't so Black', author explains how, the principles of quantum mechanics permit leakage of energy from black holes and how, that can affect the origin of universe. Next chapter is quite an abstract discussion. It tries to reason why the past is different from the future. The final lecture is a commentary of our efforts towards unification of quantum mechanics, gravity, and all other known interactions.

All the lectures give equal importance to abstract concepts, historical missives, and entertaining discussions. The book talks of the need to discover a complete theory, one understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exists.