Psychiatry and Anthropology, In Search of “Science”
Psychiatry and Anthropology, In Search of “Science”
Have you been following the recent dust-up in the anthropology world? It all started, as Nicholas Wade wrote, “…after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.”1 Commenting on this radical move, Peter Peregrine, president of the Society for Anthropological Sciences,
“…attributed what he viewed as an attack on science to two influences within anthropology. One is that of so-called critical anthropologists, who see anthropology as an arm of colonialism and therefore something that should be done away with. The other is the postmodernist critique of the authority of science.”1
There are interesting parallels between the post-modern critique leveled against anthropology, and a similar argument—associated with Michel Foucault--directed against psychiatry, as Dr Nassir Ghaemi, Sarah Thommai, and I have argued recently.2 But right now, I’m interested in the other side of the double-edged sword often wielded against psychiatry: not the objections arising from the post-modern tradition, but those arising from logical positivism. This was an extreme form of empiricism associated with a group of philosophers known as the “Vienna Circle”—a very high-brow kaffee klatsch that met regularly near the University of Vienna. The Circle included luminaries like Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Kurt Godel, and Otto Neurath, and did much to promote logical positivism in the early 1920s. (The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein sometimes sat in, but never fully embraced the Circle’s views--preferring, some say, to read poetry during their meetings!).
Essentially, logical positivism (LP) rejected the “meaningfulness” of any claim that was not based either on a priori logical necessity (“All bachelors are unmarried males”) or direct observation. So, the claim “This rock weighs 0.5 kg” is a meaningful statement to logical positivists. Other kinds of claims, such as “The Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting,” or “Stealing is morally wrong,” were dismissed as meaningless expressions of emotion. This positivistic view of meaning has infiltrated and colored our modern concept of “science” to a profound degree—notwithstanding the devastating critique of LP from the American philosopher W.V.O. Quine (1908-2000).3
Sixty years after Quine’s broadside, many in the medical field, in my experience, still take a positivist view of what constitutes “real science.” This has left psychiatry open to the charge of not being “scientific”—much as some have said of anthropology. But should all “science” be equated with logical positivism, and held to the rules and paradigms of, say, physical chemistry or molecular biology? And, if we adopt a broader construct of “science,” can we maintain that psychiatry is, in fact, very much a science—though it is also far more than that?
A letter in the 12/14 New York Times put all these issues in the spotlight. Tom Boellstorff, Editor in Chief of American Anthropologist, took the position that “…anthropology helps broaden the definition of science itself.” He argued that “…Science takes place not just in laboratories but in field sites…” as one would find in many anthropological studies. So far, so good—I’m with Prof. Boellstorff on that point, and would add, “Science can also take place in the psychiatrist’s office!” But the professor goes on to make another claim—perhaps without realizing just how provocative it is. Science, he claims, “…involves not just experiments but forms of non-replicable observation…” Of course, Boellstorff is correct if he means that no two sets of observations are precisely the same: it is impossible to recreate exactly the same conditions of the universe at time T2 as at time T1. And, it is widely accepted in the philosophy of science that changing the observer inherently changes the nature of the observation. So up to this point, I have no quarrel with Prof. Boellstorff’s statement. However, if he wants to claim that non-replicable observation is an acceptable and intrinsic design element of science, I would respectfully disagree—particularly as regards the science of psychiatry.
To be sure: it is difficult, if not impossible, to produce an “essential definition” of either science or the “scientific method”4,5 Nevertheless, Okasha has listed “some of the main features of scientific enquiry” as including induction, experimental testing, observation, theory construction, [and] inference to the best explanation.5 I believe psychiatry partakes of all these elements of science. However, in so far as “observation” is a feature of science, I believe it must entail replicable observation. This follows from science’s aim to be objective (more on this anon). The philosopher Amartya Sen described two essential features of objectivity: observation dependence and impersonality.6 “Objectivity demands taking observations seriously,” Sen argued.6 The second term, impersonality, implies that in order for an observation to be objective, the observer's conclusions should be more or less reproducible by other observers, within the natural limits of human perception. If I write in my mental status exam that “Mr. A. shows marked loosening of associations”, I implicitly assert that most English-speaking clinicians are likely to concur with my assessment, assuming that Mr. A’s linguistic productions remain relatively constant. The same goes for my notation that “Mr. A. shows markedly flattened affect.”
Now—notice that neither notation (loose associations, flat affect) is a straightforward observation in the sense that logical positivists probably intended that term: I am not weighing a rock on a scale, after all. I am implicitly invoking a whole range of mediating and linking hypotheses--such as, “A tightly-associated train of thought does not contain three or more unrelated ideas within three contiguous sentences”—and reaching a clinical judgment. Inevitably, a measure of subjectivity inheres in all such judgments—including those in general medicine; for example, “This liver cell has borderline atypical morphology.” Nonetheless, my mental status exam is both “scientific” and “objective” according to the general criteria I have set forth.
All this goes down the drain, however, if I allow that my observations are “just mine”—that they are, to use Prof. Boellstorff’s term, “non-replicable.” Indeed, one would be inclined to ask, “Why bother writing them down, if all your notations are non-replicable?” Our entire therapeutic approach to the patient assumes that our observations are largely replicable, both within the circumference of our own observations—eg, from session to session—and within the perceptual field of another competent clinician. (Of course, the patient’s mental status may vary according to mood polarity, course of illness, and many other factors). Without such a general expectation of “replicability”, it would make no sense asking another psychiatrist to care for our patients, when we are away!
I have argued previously that psychiatry is a human science; specifically, a science of meaning.4,7,8 This is not the same as a “physical science”, like, say, mineralogy or bacteriology—but it is a science nevertheless. However, contrary to the implication I read in Prof. Boellstorff’s letter, we cannot maintain our scientific bona fides unless we assume that our clinical observations can be replicated, to a large extent, by other clinicians. Finally, I want to be clear that psychiatry is also more than mere science: it is also an intense human encounter that defies formula or theorem. The patient cannot be merely an “It” to be “observed.” We must meet the patient empathically, in what Martin Buber called the “I-Thou” relationship. Therein lies the art—and the heart—of what we do as psychiatrists.
References
1. Wade N.Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a Rift. New York Times, Dec. 9, 2010. Accessed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=1
2.Pies R, Ghaemi SN, Thommai S. Getting it from both sides: Foundational and Antifoundational Critiques of Psychiatry. Psychiatric Times (in press)
3. Quine, W.V.O. (1951), "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," The Philosophical Review 60: 20-43. Reprinted in his 1953 From a Logical Point of View. Harvard University Press.
4. Pies R. Psychiatry Remains a Science, Whether or Not You Like DSM5 . Psychiatric Times. February 25, 2010.
5. Okasha S. Philosophy of Science. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 125.
6. Sen A. Objectivity and position. [September 28, 2007]. Accessed at: www.globalhealth.harvard.edu/hcpds/wpweb/90_01.pdf. 7. Ghaemi SN. The Concepts of Psychiatry, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, pp. 90-93. 8. Wiggins OP, Schwartz MA. Is there a science of meaning? Integrative Psychiatry 1991;7:48-53.
Please note an updated URL link to A. Sen's article (ref. 6) on objectivity:
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} http://www.scribd.com/doc/39404596/Amartya-Sen
The original article appears in: Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 22, 1993: pp. 126-145.
R. Pies MD
RE: What has practical "science-philosophy"enquiry (or criticism) got to do with nowadays Psychiatry and Anthropology!? 1) Despite the good intent and aspiration -- if I'm not misreading the above article; and if I may analyze it further -- I thought Pies' proposition of "in search of science" in both the already-scientific disciplines of Psychiatry and Anthropology, sounds rather antithetically rhetoric; or at best scientifically enigmatic, on the current issues of pursuit and enquiry in our science and philosophy today!? On the contrary -- in my pursuit and inquiry of our common and universal humanities worldwide (since the 1990s) -- I thought it has always been that both the practical "science and philosophy" have had been exploring, illuminating, expanding, defining, and refining our concurrent academic as well as higher-level disciplines of pursuit in, especially, the interdisciplinary inquiries of Psychiatry and Anthropology at issue above!? In a deeper analysis: It seems that Pies' arguments might have had been heavily influenced and confused by -- and now attempted to redirect his current "science-philosophy" reading and issues against -- both the modern, pseudoscientific, neo-Darwinist, pseudo-genetic reductionism and corruption in science and philosophy today and the postmodern deconstructionist rhetoric, incomprehension, misconception, and vacuous criticism of our evermore evolving inquiries, theories, and philosophies in sciences today, especially the practical biomedical science, such as, Psychiatry -- as well as those pertinent science-philosophy-based pursuits and enquiries in Anthropology in general; in and throughout our human history, worldwide!? In fact, by modern observations, and by our intellectual and spiritual developments, definitions, and professions, both the disciplines of Psychiatry and Anthropology have had been -- and continued to be -- illuminated, revealed, founded, built, consolidated, and culminated in, and expanded on, both the advances in our practical and biological science and philosophy, especially those critical inquiries -- [but not those reductionist positivism (logical or otherwise), pseudoscientific rhetoric, and/or irrelevant, vacuous, postmodernist deconstructionism] -- of our common and universal humanities, ingenuities, creativities, fragilities, frailties, maladies, remedies, etc on Earth, since our recorded antiquities -- or to be more anthropologically accurate -- since our unrecorded (but excavated or fossilized) history of humanities over 50 thousand years ago on Earth!? 2) Briefly, and more importantly, although the American Anthropological Association (AAA) has recently attempted to appropriately refine and emphasize its goal and functional duty, as one that is to focus on an inclusive promoting of the "public understanding" of our human practical science and philosophy in Anthropology, Psychiatry (in and of itself a biomedical science) has had since antiquities been probed, attended, attempted, characterized, and categorized in practice, and in science and philosophy -- and especially had been realized, recognized, and practiced as such a biomedicine, since the times of the Greek physician, scientist, philosopher; or the father of Western medicine, Hippocrates (460-377 BCE). And that it was Hippocrates, a holistically (or naturally) scientific (and spiritual) healer and thinker, who first intuited and speculated that our mind is in the brain; and that our body is controlled by the mind! 3) Unfortunately, since the ascension of modern sciences -- especially the physical science and mathematics -- the holistic Hippocratic "theory of mind" was at once fossilized or shelved; and our body (or brain) and mind issues were soon distorted, disintegrated, misconceived, and further split up, by the then arising intuition and speculation of the "duality of mind" theory, by the renowned French mathematician and philosopher, René Descartes (1596-1650)! Even today, there are aplenty dualists, the Cartesian disciples and/or followers, who would believe (albeit unscientifically and unequivocally) that our mind (or intellect) is separate from the brain; and that our freewill (if that can be proven at all) arises from the mind -- in strict accord with the famous Cartesian dictum: Cogito, ergo sum -- translation: I think, therefore I am -- meaning: As long as I can think (having a freewill), therefore I shall exist (in "my mind or intellect" of course); where the Cartesian "I" does not represent "my body or brain" at all! So, here is a rhetorical question for the dualists, or the pseudoscientific reductionists, positivists, and the postmodern deconstructionists alike: If the Cartesian "I" does not represent "my body or brain", where can "I" or "my mind" or "my intellect" exist or subsist biologically; or evolutionally (especially since the antiquities) on Earth!? Ergo, here is another antithetical "chicken or the egg" conundrum, or the dilemma issue for the dualists, et al since Descartes: Am I a mind without life (the Cartesian declaration as discussed above)!? Or, am I a life without mind (the neo-Darwinist, materialist reductionism polemics to be queried more below)!? -- Where (in the above conundrum polemics) "life" represents "body or brain" evolutionally and holistically, as in both the practical science and philosophy today; and since the antiquities: the subject matters that are being queried and discussed herein, and more below: Academically, and even more psychologically-nebulous or confused -- or antithetical in our scientific pursuit and inquiry of the human mind -- especially since the ascension of the mid 19th-century British naturalism -- [or Darwinism of the great naturalist (and not a neurologist) overview of the gross (or macro) evolution of organism-species -- (or I would hereon call it "bio-phenomenology" or the naturalist, biologist observations and studies, that are -- categorically and materially -- unrelated with the conventional priori (nonmaterial) metaphysics: including supernaturalisms, shamanisms, ritualism or any spiritualism or spiritual phenomena, that are to be categorically and characteristically termed "psycho-phenomenology" herein; and more categorically characterizations below) -- or the "theory of evolution" as outlined in his 1859 masterpiece-treatise "The Origin of Species" (TOS) by Charles Darwin (1809-82); and in it, Darwin boldly speculates that all species of organisms, may have had descended and evolved from their respective common lineage-ancestors, by means of his long intuited thought-experiments -- specifically those thoughts and notes that had been based on his over 20 years of global observations, studies, examinations: on his specimens (fossils and live) collections; interpretations; classifications (both taxonomic and paleontologic); etc since his return from the around-the-world HMS Beagle voyage (1831-36); and very likely, that Darwin may have had thus queried and modeled his then budding theory of evolution (of species from the paleontologically fossils to the biologically specimens connecting and arising in the form of a branching tree): based on his then a very broad-ranging perspective of the global naturalist observations and intuitions of the flora and fauna growths, propagations, and disseminations, in the then domesticated animal husbandry and breeding (or artificially selection) methodology and reproduction-selection theory and results -- especially of the animal (or organism selection) breeding system, that he thus later conceived, theorized, argued, and presented in and as an analogy in TOS as his long-thought evolutionary synthesis: that all organisms may have had been "reproduced, descended, and evolved, selectively, among each species of themselves" in nature, by means of his soon formulated (as well as observed from the animal husbandry) terms: such as "natural selection" (NS); flora and fauna "struggle for survival and adaptation"; "trait selection"; "sexual (trait) reproduction"; "somatic (trait) modification"; etc all the observable bio-phenomena or bio-phenomenology (as defined above) that were very similar or analogous in nature and in husbandry; especially in both the wild and domesticated flora and fauna in the 19th-century England, as well as elsewhere that Darwin and several other British naturalists might have had also observed and experienced around the world; eg, Russel Wallace (1823-1913)] -- the "theory of mind" or our brain, or psycho-phenomenology, has had never been factored in or accentuated in and by the grand old theory of evolution by NS, etc by Darwin at all! Consequently, the theory of mind has had since been eliminated -- or considered to be irrelevant or immaterial in and for any organisms at all in evolutionary biology -- especially in the subsequently materialists, neo-Darwinists, armchair evolutionists; or in their subsequently pseudoscientific reductionism as well as scientism of their extended evolutionary "theory of organisms without mind" especially in their boldly and ineptly regarding the human beings (or organisms) as the "absence of mind" species*1 at all, on Earth!? [*1) Please note: The "absentminded-human species" is herein coined after the title of a new philosophy book, by the American religion-scholar novelist Marilynne Robinson, entitled "Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self (The Terry Lectures Series)" (2010); and in it, Robinson deftly analyzes and criticizes -- in her strongest terms in both the "science and philosophy" pursuits and erudition -- against the most "self-righteous" super-egoistic, neo-Darwinists cum sophists' attempts: in their self-righteously propagating, corrupting, and denying of our true human condition (our biology; not sociobiology or the Wilsonian "empire or superorganism of ants" theory, please see note *2 below); our cultural evolution (socio-psychology, including socioeconomics and politics, etc); and consciousness (our intellectual and spiritual transcendence, memory, experience, etc); including especially those religious, secular, or otherwise, aspirations and/or inspirations to do good (not evil); justice (not prejudice); liberty (not imposition or self-limitation); and pursuit of happiness (not suffering or depression, etc) worldwide; especially since the (Western) antiquities!] Also academically, and more importantly, we (the science-philosophy readers, writers, students, professionals, critics, et al) must recognize the fact that (in TOS) Darwin did attempt to delineate his wide-ranging perceptual works of naturalism (or bio-phenomenology by NS; etc as defined above) from the more socioeconomic or cultural behavioral works (or social psychology) or socioeconomic psycho-phenomenology of one of his British contemporary scholars, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903); as Darwin did indeed -- as distinctively as he could implicate -- conclude and predict -- especially in the Victorian socio-psychological terms in TOS -- that "In the future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be securely based on the foundation already well laid by Mr Herbert Spencer, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." Whereas -- disregarding this critical and crucial Darwin's intent and suggestion to segregate his naturalism in both the 19th-century "biology and psychology" issues and pursuit and inquiry -- the later-day positivists and neo-Darwinists have had taken their own ineptitude into and upon themselves; and thus extended their so-called evolutionary theory of the "denial or absence of mind" by NS, etc into the biology of organisms, including human beings: A fait accompli of their pseudoscientific reductionism par excellence of the 20th century -- since the Modern Synthesis*2 by the neo-Darwinist conference and consensus in the 1940s -- that is clearly and scientifically irrational, inept, unfathomable, nor logical; in both practical science and philosophy, at all! [*2) Please see the fallacies of the Modern Synthesis: in (i) the late British evolutionary biologist, humanist and internationalist Sir Julian Huxley's first neo-Darwinism synthesis book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis" (1942); (ii) the retired Harvard myrmecologist (an expert on ants; not an erudite anthropologist or sociologist) E O Wilson's 1975 subsequently controversial book "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" and in it, he wildly boasts that "Sociology and other social sciences as well as the humanities are the last branches of biology waiting to be included in the Modern Synthesis" instantly exercising his first neo-Darwinist scientism: so as to turn his "myrmecology into anthropology and/or sociology" thesis -- as "sociobiology" the new synthesis -- that consequently led him to absurdly proclaim that "Genes hold culture on a leash" as his very own pseudoscientific myth-synthesis and fallacy; and last, but not least, (iii) the retired Oxford armchair ethologist (an expert on animal behaviorism; albeit not a trained field or bench biologist, biochemist, or geneticist; nor even an erudite anthropologist or sociologist) Richard Dawkins' 1976 pseudo-genetics book "The Selfish Gene" wherein he reductively turns the fallacy of the Modern Synthesis into his best-selling neo-Darwinist dogma: "geneticism by rhetorical reductionism" or "evolutionism as scientism" or the Dawkinsism "meme" or myth-genesis par excellence of the 20th century!] Even nowadays, the "organisms without consciousness" theory has had (since the publication of TOS) been readily (albeit antithetically, uncritically, unequivocally, and unscientifically) subscribed and adopted by the even then, and now, modern-day neo-Darwinists, armchair pseudoscientific evolutionists, materialists, pseudo-genetic reductionists, sophists alike, worldwide! -- Among whom, including the 19th and 20th-century neo-Darwinists, positivists: Thomas Huxley (1825-95) and son, Sir Julian (1887-1975); the present-day armchair evolutionists E O Wilson and Richard Dawkins (both as referenced in note *2 above); the neo-Darwinist disciple-sophist Daniel Dennett at Tufts; and the aspiring Dawkinsian disciple-purveyor of the "Darwinism vs. Creationism" or "naturalism vs. supernaturalism" fallacies and irrationalism, Jerry Coyne at Chicago; all being the most ephemeral, enigmatic, and antithetical neo-Darwinists, sophists of them all! -- [As all of their simplistic reductionist worldviews -- (which having been affected by their own misconceived or corrupted neo-Darwinist scientism; please see note *2 above) -- have had been clearly defined and characterized in and by their own wildest, corrupted, or "supernaturally"-egoistic and steadfast denial and/or miscomprehension of our evermore evolving common and universal human life and mind issues; theories; and philosophies: especially in Psychiatry (including psychology, social and personal; interactive mind and emotion issues; morality and ethics; etc) and/or in Anthropology in general (including bio and psycho-phenomenology; theology, academic or religious; symbolism; ritualism; shamanism; supernaturalism; psycholinguistics; etc) -- especially since the dawn of our humanities, over 50 thousand years ago on Earth!] 4) However, not until the mid-1990s, has had the subject matter of a "holistic mind" or "consciousness" or "holism" been brought forth and out of the high (but in cloister or armchair) academia; and thrust into the broad daylight or the eventual frontline and close scrutiny of our evermore serous, modern, common and open, scientific and philosophic inquiries and criticisms; as well as the practical and clinical and experimental evaluations and treatments of mental malaises in neuropsychiatry today (please see the ARH debates that have had been extensively and intensively presented elsewhere in the Psychiatric Times recently)! Nevertheless, it's very heart-warming and spirit-uplifting, to see that both the scientific disciplines of Psychiatry and Anthropology, have had been able to open up, self-criticize, review, and refine from within and outside the disciplines, themselves (as exemplified by the AAA and Pies' queries above) under nowadays a very open, modern, scientific and philosophic, close scrutiny since the mid-1990s! -- What an inspiration to start up a new decade of enquiry and pursuit in science and philosophy issues; especially in Psychiatry and Anthropology today, in the 21st or the postmodernist; or the post-neo-Darwinist or armchair evolutionist, or sophist century!? 5) Last, but not least, I thought I would attempt to meet the challenge of Judith Bohlmeyer's acute perceptivity of the "Jesus, angels" paradoxes, as follows*3: [*3) Caveat lector: Especially for the religiously inclined; and the "supernaturally"-egotistic, "self-righteous" anti-religious neo-atheists of the 21st century (please see note *2 above and Richard Dawkins' 2006 pseudoscientific, literary, self-degrading, reductionist, nihilist, neo-atheist manifesto "The God Delusion" for their incomprehension and misconception of our "Mind and God" issues, since antiquities, etc): The following holistically scientific (intellectual and spiritual) explanations of our common, human, curious, psycho-phenomenology, may alter (via contemplative introspection, rumination, transcendence, etc) the priori knowledge, inquiry, pursuit, and/or perceptions -- or the neo-Darwinists, neo-atheists mocking and denying laypeople -- of religious (or supernatural) fascinations, imaginations, inspirations, aspirations, and so on thereof. Readers discretion is advised!] Specifically, and psycho-dynamically -- or because of the "neural plasticity" in our brain -- (a) Bohlmeyer's subjective experiences, observations, and subconscious perceptions of her Jesus or angels imagery, are as real as her own "memory recall" mechanisms could allow or experience: especially under her pre-op and/or during operation, anesthesia-induced conditions!? Likewise unique and intrigue, under other emergency situations, a large number of "heart attack" patients, may readily encounter varied "acute but revivable cardiac arrest" or fainting spell-induced near-death experiences (NDEs): especially during which short period of time during the cardiac resuscitation, the patients may generally experience a certain "afterlife" imagery memories or religious visions, that are usually associated with their varied, idiosyncratic, personal, priori, philosophic or religious visions, ruminations, intrigues, or fantasies, etc. -- [Specifically, for more scientific and spiritual research and survey of NDEs, curious readers might be interested in scrutinizing a recently-released excellent short book, by the U of Kentucky neurophysiologist Kevin Nelson, entitled "The Spiritual Doorway In the Brain: A Neurologist's Search for the God Experience" (2011).] Whereas, (b) Bohlmeyer's photographic images of the Jesus or angels, are purely mechanically produced by any varied optical interferences -- such as dust particles; and/or any moisture condensates (evening dews?) on the lens, film emulsion, and/or otherwise, elsewhere in the camera -- that were "caught" at the time of her evening "photo-taking" shoots!? These 2 (a and b) seemingly analogous but often easily-misinterpreted as "psychological vs. physical" mechanisms of the "image-making, sensing, representing, and presenting" processes in our brain and in the camera -- where the higher-level process of (a) is psychogenic in our brain (as one "memory-imagery" mechanism that is scientifically and empirically dubbed "memophorescenicity"); and the mechanism of (b) is merely photogenic in the camera (which is called photography) -- have had all been extensively and intensively "captured" and "memophoresced" (or presented) in my seminal book "Gods, Genes, Conscience" especially in Chapter 11 The Wonderous Working of Mind, Section 11.4 Visual Perceptivity and Mental Imagery; Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind, Section 15.4 Memory Modulation and Recall: A New Hypothesis of Psychic Imagery, Perceptivity, Creativity, and Reflectivity; and Section 15.5 Lights, Music, Marching Band, and A Spherical Cinema: An Analogy and A New Model of Mind/Gods as Perceived through Both the Scientific and Spiritual Prisms, Extrinsic and Intrinsic, respectively (linked below). In conclusion: It is the plasticity of our brain, memory, and mind -- the intellectual and spiritual dynamism, rationalism (orirrationalism as so frivolously pursued by Richard Dawkins in his 2006 pseudoscientific and nihilist book "The God Delusion" please see note *3 above); and the power and capacity of memophorescenicity in our brain, memory, and mind, etc -- that have had enabled us -- the human beings (or organisms) -- to create, intuit, empathize, differentiate, and appreciate all the "rhetoric" (or expression of subjectivity) and/or "reality" (comprehension of objectivity) -- (including those observations and experiences made by Bohlmeyer's camera and mental perceptivity of imagery-memory paradoxes; Darwin's attempt on his differentiation of the modern biology and psychology issues in TOS; and Descartes' existentially and experientially physical and mental dilemma or the Cartesian duality issues, etc) -- of our common and universal humanities, ingenuities, creativities, fragilities, frailties, maladies, remedies, etc including our practical science-philosophy inquiries and pursuits, especially in Psychiatry and Anthropology today, ever since our hominid-ancestors -- (especially those who may have had descended from their very likely primate-ancestors, as Darwin had boldly and paleontologically speculated and predicted the primate-lineage fossil-finds in Africa before, in his 1871 treatise "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex") -- our hominid-ancestors might have had further evolved; and soon begun to roam, strive, thrive, settle, and establish culturally, creatively, and constructively, worldwide, over 50 thousand years ago (please see analysis/commentary 1 and 3 above)! Furthermore, we must also be very critical and aware of the fact that there will always be those aspiring, self-proclaimed and opinionated "scientists" and/or "philosophers" (especially those in the armchair academia) who would be very prone to their self-indulgence; scholarly transgressions and corruptions; and/or losing focus on their own fields of research and inquiry; and instead, who would be super-egotistically priming themselves on their rhetorically and reductively dominating, transgressing, imposing, and/or dictating their pseudoscientific worldviews (or scientism) on other fields of our human inquiry -- (including those global observations and studies of the bio and psycho-phenomenology in Psychiatry, as well as in Anthropology today; as those that are being queried and discussed in the Psychiatric Times herein; especially please see notes *1-*3 above) -- that all these self-degrading pseudo-scientists and/or sophists may have had no priori knowledge, training, education, or erudition in: especially both the practical and biological scientific and philosophic fields of research and inquiry, at all -- and since our recorded and unrecorded antiquities on Earth!? Best wishes, Mong 1/17/11usct3:08p; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since 2006).
Ok. Ya'll look smart. I will ask u a question. A year or two before I died I experienced a massive blow from Massive Depression. I had an anuerysm and almost died. However, an Angel came and brought me back from estacy. 2 or 3 months after I got out of the hospital I did a strange thing, I went out with my camera early in the evening just when it was starting to turn dark and found some startling things in the pix I took. It looked like the Angel that brought me back from death. I'm not joking. So anyway, would u guys judge my vision of the Angel a hallucination? Especially if I showed u a pix of them I got? I have a page at WebShots/Democratbrat if you want to go see the 'Jesus, Angels' pix. Plz tell me. Blessings. This is the pix I took just outside my door/http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2546639280099808764vVDcym?vhost=outdoors