For today, we have Daniel Siegel. I had the good fortune to meet him at couple of conferences (a Harvard Medical School one on mindfulness approaches, and another at the Garrison Institute on contemplative education). Both times he was remarkable- easy going, ready with data, and a coherent hypothesis for what the mind is and how reductionism just won't cut it. Fascinating.
It is people like Siegel who are guiding psychiatry and neurology into its next phase, and leaving psychopharmaceutical nostrums far behind. I really do believe that in ten years or so the "15 minutes appointment/take a pill" approach to mental distress will be seen for what it is: a simple minded, corrupt, but probably inevitable excess on the way to an integrated conception of the human mind.
That does seem opimistic, doesn't it? Let's say 20 years, then, since some giant institutions will likely resist.
Read the interview- it is an easy read. Here's a teaser:
I think the fact that we don't live in a vacuum really speaks to not just the subjective experiences that relationships are important to us emotionally or subjectively, but that when you look at the structure of the brain, it is hard-wired to be connected to other brains. This finding isn't just some phenomenon of modern life; it's an evolutionary fact about our brains that they are structured to connect to one another.
Human brains have evolved to connect to one another. "Mind" arises from the interaction, over time, of multiple persons. That is why the "source" of the mind will never be found in a particular brain. Or in a single android, for that matter.
Now, it might evolve someday as an extension of us and the Web, but for now my worries about a cybernetic super-robot are put to rest. I always like to start the week on a hopeful note.
It is people like Siegel who are guiding psychiatry and neurology into its next phase, and leaving psychopharmaceutical nostrums far behind. I really do believe that in ten years or so the "15 minutes appointment/take a pill" approach to mental distress will be seen for what it is: a simple minded, corrupt, but probably inevitable excess on the way to an integrated conception of the human mind.
That does seem opimistic, doesn't it? Let's say 20 years, then, since some giant institutions will likely resist.
Read the interview- it is an easy read. Here's a teaser:
I think the fact that we don't live in a vacuum really speaks to not just the subjective experiences that relationships are important to us emotionally or subjectively, but that when you look at the structure of the brain, it is hard-wired to be connected to other brains. This finding isn't just some phenomenon of modern life; it's an evolutionary fact about our brains that they are structured to connect to one another.
Human brains have evolved to connect to one another. "Mind" arises from the interaction, over time, of multiple persons. That is why the "source" of the mind will never be found in a particular brain. Or in a single android, for that matter.
Now, it might evolve someday as an extension of us and the Web, but for now my worries about a cybernetic super-robot are put to rest. I always like to start the week on a hopeful note.
No comments:
Post a Comment