Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:04:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: BHA: Biological reductivism <--> 'indexicalism'



Tobin,



All this mountain of information is a molehill. 



Let us start with the article by Arthur L. Brody et al., "Regional brain metabolic changes in patients with major depression treated with either paroxetine or interpersonal therapy: preliminary findings," Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 58 (7), Jul 2001, 631-640. 



You say: 

"Subjects with MDD [major depression disorder] had regional brain metabolic abnormalities at baseline that tended to normalize with treatment. Regional metabolic changes appeared similar with the 2 forms of treatment [i.e., paroxetine and interpersonal therapy]." What you have not mentioned is that the report also states that its ‘results should be interpreted with caution because of study limitations (small sample size, lack of random assignment to treatment groups, and differential treatment response between treatment subgroups).’ It also mentions that after ‘treatment, paroxetine-treated subjects had a greater mean decrease in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score (61.4%) than did subjects treated with interpersonal psychotherapy (38.0%)’. In other words, the latter’s ‘success’ rate is half the former. As for the second article, you mention: ‘They further indicate that the changes made at the mind level, within a psychotherapeutic context, are able to functionally 'rewire' the
 brain.’ Now I could not locate this article and cannot comment on it, though it can be said the term is somewhat imprecise (at least in the information which you present); does rewiring imply returning to original position; if so, can we construe brain chemistry to have been radically transformed? Maybe you can enlighten with more facts as to how far this is a radical change in brain chemistry. A deeper level change should produce ‘desirable’ alteration in behaviour, actions, dispositions, etc. I could not get access to the third article, whose title seems quite interesting and would be interested in reading it, if you have a copy of the same. 



You say:

‘Maybe you think I'm unobjective simply because I disagree with you. But when I smell a rat, I'm reflecting the intellectual, political and ethical values I place on checking the evidence someone provides, especially when I suspect it's specious.’



The issue is not one of agreement or disagreement, but of inference to the best explanation. Besides, the philosophical recounting about ‘objectivity’ is not really required here. You began your mail with ‘smelling a rat’ and ended with a hasty conclusion of ‘so much for biological reductivism’. The text reveals the incredulity more than it conceals. Let me substantiate this with a fundamental flaw in your previous mail which should not have occurred, if all the aforementioned positions had been reflected upon which lends credence to the fact that you found out what you had set to find out. 



Without surrendering the MAIN argument (about BR), I now admit that technically, the point of ‘any type’ of OCD…is not fully affirmed by the website. It did mention a few OCDs, but agreed that does not imply ‘any type’. Although your criticism is correct, it is trivial. If you reread carefully the last line of your previous mail, it ends with ‘so much for biological reductivism’ and NOT ‘so much for reducing any type of OCD to genes!’ You are converting a swallow into a summer. My central argument is about BR and not OCD. My previous mail contained other points too which you did not rebut. Thus from the premise of OCD the conclusion about BR is deductively invalid. In addition, you are confusing the ‘transitive’ dimension with the ‘intransitive’ dimension. Your argument is fixated at my interpretation of OCD. In any case, the possibility of ‘any type’ has not yet been overruled.



You say:

‘For all anyone knows, perhaps some types OCD result from a childhood illness, an undetected parasite, an allergy to plastics, or some other cause.’



Do you think this (especially ‘perhaps’) constitutes an argument? This is simply a viewpoint (to affirm this, evidence is required); arguments cannot be clinched in this fashion.



You say:

‘If a "totalizing" critique means demonstrating that someone's claims are totally wrong, I'm pleased to be guilty.’



To reiterate, the central issue of BR has NOT been disproved by you. I would be interested if you could that for the issue would then be resolved. Let me put it in another way: once Lavoisier sufficiently demonstrated his case about absorption of oxygen during combustion, the case of phlogiston was laid to rest. Similarly, if it is sufficiently demonstrated that BR is a statistical artefact, the case would be laid to rest, right? Well, if you conclusively demonstrate BR as a statistical artefact, it will save trillions for the governments/firms of especially USA, Japan, and UK by telling them their pursuits are meaningless.



 

You say:

‘As for your bit on real negation, it's an irrelevant non sequitur.’



You have not mentioned how is it a non sequitur. Are you implying the properties of these ‘replicators’ are decided upon birth or even conception/fertilization, in the ‘here and now’? The biologists too do not have full knowledge, at least as of now, as to how these properties were appropriated over millions of years.



You say:

Because your argument that we reduce to our genetic make-up means we can do nothing to change our individual selves (only our present form exists), but now you also want to say we aren't limited to our present state. That's a contradiction. (It's delightful to see you admit the truth in your subject line: biological reductivism and indexicalism do indeed imply each other.)’

Your interpretation as well as your understanding of absences is flawed here. Here you are confusing the present form and not reckoning with absence. Hence, you incorrectly attribute the parenthetical remark to me.



 

You say:

‘Quite the opposite: I maintain that talk therapy is remarkably powerful, for it can alter the brain itself.’



This remark is too vague. ‘Alter the brain’ means what – alter the corpus callosum, right-left hemisphere balance, Broca’s area, Wernicke’s area, or……? Most debates are non-starters because the standpoints are either unclear or ambiguously defined. One can take this to mean anything. I can provide a response only when you specifically mention what is altered in the brain.



You say:

‘I think I've made my case: if thought itself can alter the brain's wiring, functioning and chemistry, then the mind cannot be reduced to biological elements.’



The ABCD of ‘thought’ is entirely wrong here. Even if thought is treated independently of brain, the movement of thought is the other way round and not as you are stating it to be. To say that thought alters brain wiring is further obscuring the issue than enlightening it. Biological substratum is elementary here. Work of Marvin Minsky (Society of the Mind) is enlightening here. 



You say:

‘I'm a far better and more amusing writer than you are or ever will be, Shiv.’



Well,…I hope it boosts your confidence. [By the way, the streak of legislating in advance (irrealism) is brought into sharp relief by ‘ever will be.’]



You say:

‘I did and will continue to improve through (social) practices, but you -- alas! -- are forever bound to the limits of your genes. Give 'em enough rope...."’



You are the best judge for the first part of the statement, but as for the second, I state in unequivocal terms that I am bound by the limits of my genes. FREEDOM IS RECOGNITION OF NECESSITY. Disciplinary boundaries should not preclude philosophical discussions, but imprecise knowledge about technicalities should not misdirect the debate. I cite one of the top British writers on the subject, viz. Richard Dawkins. In his book, ‘The Selfish Gene’, he states that only humans per contra rest of the animal world possess the ability to transcend the tyranny of their genes. This is a futuristic statement. Stated differently, this is a possibility for future, and that is precisely what part of the argument about BR is. So there is no case of having altered either brain wiring or genetic coding, up to November 2003. I do place my optimism for future.



Let us then keep a tryst with destiny, say, 2015 and reassess what difference/s do social practices make and where the then advances in genetics take us. 



Shiv




Tobin Nellhaus <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> wrote:Well howdy, Shiv.

You wrote:

> What follows is a post-mortem of the contents (including 'tone'/ 'tenor')
of your mail.

A post-mortem? Sorry, reports of my death are an exaggeration.

> 1. "Smelling a rat, I read this article."
>
> a. Instead of enquiring objectively, you let your pre-conceived
notions/prejudices intrude into the territory [or do they get the better of
'you']. You have thus found out what you had set to find out!

I must say, I packed a lot into "smelling a rat"....

Enquiring objectively? What exactly is that? The notion of an Archimedian
sort of objectivity has long been demolished. From RTS onward Bhasker has
consistently maintained that knowledge is a *social* activity. That entails
recognizing that values are intrinsically part of any investigative
practice -- but it does not entail the idea that the knowledge gained is
inherently false or distorted. "Epistemic relativity, judgmental
rationality." Maybe you think I'm unobjective simply because I disagree
with you. But when I smell a rat, I'm reflecting the intellectual,
political and ethical values I place on checking the evidence someone
provides, especially when I suspect it's specious. And of course, had your
article thorougly supported your assertion, then despite my initial doubts I
would be forced to concede your point.

So let's return to your original claim, the one I disputed:

> For the recent discovery on how (any type of) OCD - Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder - is reducible to genes, see
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/24by7panews/page.cfm?objectid=13548514&method=full&siteid=50143
>

On what grounds did I dispute your claim? On the grounds that the article
did not in fact say what you purported. It did *not* say that "any type of"
OCD is reducible to genes. It *only* said that a particular genetic
mutation appeared in two out of thirty patients with OCD. Whether I'm
objective or not, the article still states that that it was two out of
thirty patients. Consequently, your assertion that *any* type of OCD is
reducible to genes is extremely premature at best, and possibly just
false -- certainly unwarranted at the present time. So the shoe is on the
other foot: you're the one who found out what you had set to find out. You
could not be objective in reading the article. The same can be said of your
later charge against me:

> a. Astonishingly, in 13 lines of your mail, you have decided the issue in
a 'totalizing' fashion, whereas, scientists have spend decades (and still
are) on the same. Indeed, to paraphrase Bhaskar, you would like to LEGISLATE
IN ADVANCE. The verdict is out even before the result of the enquiries are
on our tables! This is an obverse form of foundationalism.
>

Shiv, *you* came out with a verdict ("any type of OCD is reducible to
genes") long, long before the results of the enquiries are on our tables.
Talk about legislating in advance! For all anyone knows, perhaps some types
OCD result from a childhood illness, an undetected parasite, an allergy to
plastics, or some other cause.

But I'll admit to the "totalizing" character of my dismissal, and in two
ways. (1) You claimed that the article states that all forms of OCD result
come from the genes. I demonstrated that the article says no such thing, and
therefore you're totally wrong about that statement being in the article.
(2) The fact that at least some types of OCD are *at all* treatable by
psychotherapy or cognitive-behavioral therapy (the two major "talk therapy"
approaches to depression, bipolar disorder, and OCD) means that those types
of OCD cannot simply be reduced to genetic causes. The talk therapy and the
restructuring of cognitive processes that results must have some sort of
effect on the brain in order to have a long-term therapeutic (as opposed to
palliative) effect. If a "totalizing" critique means demonstrating that
someone's claims are totally wrong, I'm pleased to be guilty.

>
> b. It should simultaneously enlighten why the findings of Copernicus,
Galileo, Newton, Darwin et al. were initially received with scepticism.
Those mechanisms have not disappeared; they are present in 2003 too, and
reflected in and through your superficial incredulity. Bhaskar describes
'real negation' as 'an absence from consciousness' (DPF).
>

"Smelling a rat": this phrase demonstrates that I possess healthy
skepticism, which is essential to the scientific attitude. However, the
fact that some ideas are received skeptically proves nothing in itself,
least of all that the ideas so greeted are therefore correct. Some people
"found" proof of spontaneous generation; some people today "find" evidence
for "intelligent design" (i.e. there must be a God to create the intricacies
of the body); some people "find" that extraterrestrial life forms have taken
over the US Congress. (Okay, the latter might be true.) As for your bit on
real negation, it's an irrelevant non sequitur.

> c. The doctrine of 'ontological monovalence' seeks to transcend a purely
actual notion of reality. Similarly, humans too cannot be described in terms
of their dispositions, interactions, linguistic skills, etc.
>

"Humans cannot be described in terms of their dispositions, interactions,
linguistic skills, etc."?? This is perverse. Even if you reduce humans to
their genes, genes have dispositions and interactions.

As for ontological monovalence, you've got the concept entirely backwards.
Bhaskar *rejects* ontological monovalence in order to transcend actualism.

>
> d. The response also suffers from 'indexicalism': the 'assumption that
only the present.exists' (DPF). That is how explications can be reduced to
mere 'talk therapy', as you do. The mechanisms to which I refer to have been
in existence since millions of years and have metamorphosed now. This is
another way of understanding 'absence'. Indeed as Bhaskar says in the
Introduction to DPF: 'In this study, I aim to revindicate negativity.
Indeed, by the time we are through, I would like the reader to see the
positive as a tiny, but important, ripple on the surface of a sea of
negativity.'
>

I don't see how my response suffers from indexicalism -- in fact, in making
that charge against me, you contradict yourself. How? Because your
argument that we reduce to our genetic make-up means we can do nothing to
change our individual selves (only our present form exists), but now you
also want to say we aren't limited to our present state. That's a
contradiction. (It's delightful to see you admit the truth in your subject
line: biological reductivism and indexicalism do indeed imply each other.)
In contrast, my argument is that we don't reduce to our genes and we are
able to alter our individual selves in various ways, hence we are not
condemned to our present condition.

And for the life of me, I can't figure out what you mean when you say that I
reduce explications to mere "talk therapy." First, I was far from saying
that talk therapy can ever be "mere." Quite the opposite: I maintain that
talk therapy is remarkably powerful, for it can alter the brain itself.
Second, I was not reducing explications to talk therapy (mere or otherwise),
a sentence that doesn't even make sense.

Meanwhile, your reference to negativity is another irrelevant non sequitur.

> e. Can you cite empirical evidence for change of brain chemistry? My
counterintuitive reply is that much of brain chemistry is determined at the
embryonic stage.
>

Can I cite empirical evidence for change of brain chemistry? Yes, I can!

Oh, you mean "Please cite such evidence." Well, when I put it so nicely,
how can I refuse? Here are few articles, which I cite along with quotes
from their conclusions:

Arthur L. Brody et al., "Regional brain metabolic changes in patients with
major depression treated with either paroxetine or interpersonal therapy:
preliminary findings," Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 58 (7), Jul
2001,
631-640. "Subjects with MDD [major depression disorder] had regional brain
metabolic abnormalities at baseline that tended to normalize with treatment.
Regional metabolic changes appeared similar with the 2 forms of treatment
[i.e., paroxetine and interpersonal therapy]."

Harold A. Sackeim, "Functional Brain Circuits in Major Depression and
Remission," Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 58 (7), Jul 2001, 649-650.
"Despite the specifics of the regional changes that were identified, both
studies found that the changes in functional brain activity following
pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy were remarkably similar."

V. Paquette et al., "'Change the mind and you change the brain': effects of
cognitive-behavioral therapy on the neural correlates of spider phobia,"
Neuroimage, Vol 18 (2), Feb 2003, 401-409. "These findings suggest that a
psychotherapeutic approach, such as CBT [cognitive-behavioral therapy], has
the potential to modify the dysfunctional neural circuitry associated with
anxiety disorders. They further indicate that the changes made at the mind
level, within a psychotherapeutic context, are able to functionally 'rewire'
the brain."

I think I've made my case: if thought itself can alter the brain's wiring,
functioning and chemistry, then the mind cannot be reduced to biological
elements. But I do want to make one final point about "smelling a rat":
this phrase is *scientific evidence* that I'm a far better and more amusing
writer than you are or ever will be, Shiv. How can I say with so much
assurance, "or ever will be"? Because of our theories. I did and will
continue to improve through (social) practices, but you -- alas! -- are
forever bound to the limits of your genes.

Give 'em enough rope....

Cheers and beers, T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-mail.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---