Are we leaving out the mind to much?

[jimmy1200]

i was just curious about this, well here goes.
could the problem that doctors face when working with the body be a direct result of forgetting to include the mind within the process. i mean, could the reason why we haven't had breakthrough advances in human regeneration and what not, be a direct result of the fact that when we work on the body, there is nothing done to program the mind. for ex.
when someone is under getting surgery done. well the focus would be solely on the body of course, because that is where we believe the problem only lies, but really shouldn't we be including the mind through playing some type of self hypnosis or healing guidance tapes for the patient. maybe strap on a headset and play some little message while the patient is under and let it keep playing tell he/she wakes up. to me, this includes the mind and the body, because you have the doctor doing what he can to the body and the mind doing its work while the body is at rest. we can't deny the interactions of a healthy "mind" and a healthy "body". we also can't deny the subjective powers of the mind on the body.
so my question is, do you think that the body has no use for the mind when it comes to everything from research into human regeneration, to general surgery. will the body work the way you want without programming the mind.
do you think that is what is missing when scientist are struggling for a breathrough.
this idea came to me when i was watching "the hulk" and the frog exploded when they tried to gamma its ass and regenerate the cut tissue. i was thinking, would that have been a problem if the mind and the body where both trying to work and not just working with one and forgetting the other.

 

[Moonbear]

...when someone is under getting surgery done. well the focus would be solely on the body of course, because that is where we believe the problem only lies, but really shouldn't we be including the mind through playing some type of self hypnosis or healing guidance tapes for the patient. maybe strap on a headset and play some little message while the patient is under and let it keep playing tell he/she wakes up.

I responded to your other post entitled "instant evolution" with an answer that should address most of this question as well. One thing to add is that while under anesthesia, the brain is not functioning completely normally, which is the entire purpose of anesthesia, to render you incapable of processing sensory information so you are not in pain while they are doing the surgery. I'd much prefer they play whatever music the surgeon likes to listen to in the OR, to keep him/her calm and focused.

this idea came to me when i was watching "the hulk" and the frog exploded when they tried to gamma its ass and regenerate the cut tissue. i was thinking, would that have been a problem if the mind and the body where both trying to work and not just working with one and forgetting the other.

Movies and TV shows are not very good places to develop scientific ideas. Please do remember that "The Hulk" is fiction. That movie doesn't even attempt to incorporate real science.

 

[jimmy1200]

well, although the brain isn't functioning normally, that doesn't mean the mind isn't functioning normally, unless you believe consciousness is created by the brain. the tapes should still function by our current theories of the subconscious mind and how it works, so the sub should still hear the tape and process the information however it does, right?

well that is my point of view, because i don't believe the mind to be soley a creation of the body.

 

[Moonbear]

well, although the brain isn't functioning normally, that doesn't mean the mind isn't functioning normally, unless you believe consciousness is created by the brain.

Yes, consciousness is created by the brain. If you want to argue otherwise, you're going to have to take this to the philosophy forum.

the tapes should still function by our current theories of the subconscious mind and how it works, so the sub should still hear the tape and process the information however it does, right?

No, information is not being processed. Anesthesia interferes with neurotransmitter release, so neurons are not communicating normally.

well that is my point of view, because i don't believe the mind to be soley a creation of the body.

Scientific evidence doesn't support your point of view. The mind as an extra-corporeal phenomenon is a religious view, not a scientific one.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I agree, Moonbear.

Also, the five minutes before you go under for surgery is not a satisfactory time to try and program your mind to think positively. I've heard some bad procrastination stories before, but sheesh! I agree to an extent that a healthy mind and healthy body usually come in tandem, however, there is no such tape as can produce 'instant happiness'. A positive outlook must be cultivated outside of the hospital, and on a regular basis.

 

[jimmy1200]

it isn't supposed to be a magic tape but it is supposed to help. if it were the case that you just play "your healthy" over and over again, then you get healed forever, we wouldn't really need doctors, but the rest of your replies should be in a philosophical debate, partly, and there is currently nothing to make me believe that consciousness is a sole emergence behavior of the brain

 

[Moonbear]

I stand corrected, with regard to whether auditory signals can be processed during anesthesia, though only if fentanyl is not included as an anaesthetic. This article hasn't even come out in the printed journal yet; abstract is below.

Br J Anaesth. 2004 Oct 14; [Epub ahead of print]
Unconscious auditory priming during surgery with propofol and nitrous oxide anaesthesia: a replication.
Deeprose C, Andrade J, Harrison D, Edwards N.

BACKGROUND: Priming during anaesthesia has been hard to replicate and the conditions under which it occurs remain poorly understood. We replicated and extended a recent study to determine whether intraoperative priming during propofol and nitrous oxide anaesthesia is a reliable phenomenon, whether it occurs due to awareness during word presentation and whether it is suppressed by a dose of fentanyl at induction. METHODS: Words were played through headphones during surgery to 62 patients receiving propofol and nitrous oxide anaesthesia. Thirty-two patients received fentanyl 1.5 microg kg(-1) at induction and 30 received no fentanyl. Neuromuscular blocking drugs were not used. Depth of anaesthesia was measured using the bispectral index (BIS). Anaesthetic variables were recorded at 1 min intervals during word presentation. On recovery, implicit and explicit memory were assessed using an auditory word-stem completion test and a yes-no word-recognition test, respectively. RESULTS: BIS, blood pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide and heart rate during word presentation did not differ between the study groups. The infusion rate of propofol and the patients' ventilatory frequency were significantly higher in the group not receiving fentanyl. No patient had unprompted explicit recall of surgery, although there was above-zero performance in six patients on the yes-no recognition task (P<0.05). There was no physiological evidence of awareness during anaesthesia (median mean-BIS=38 in the no-fentanyl group and 42 in the fentanyl group). There was evidence for priming (mean priming score=0.09, P<0.05 in the no-fentanyl study group; mean priming score=0.07, P<0.05 in the fentanyl group) even when patients with momentary light anaesthesia (maximum recorded BIS>/=60) and/or positive recognition scores were excluded from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Existing knowledge can be primed by information presented during propofol and nitrous oxide anaesthesia. This priming is evidence of unconscious information processing and not the result of moments of awareness.

Of course, whether a "positive" tape would do anything for positive attitude, or if the patient would just remember random parts and words, I don't know.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Yes, consciousness is created by the brain. If you want to argue otherwise, you're going to have to take this to the philosophy forum. . . . Scientific evidence doesn't support your point of view. The mind as an extra-corporeal phenomenon is a religious view, not a scientific one.

A friendly disagreement here . One cannot state as a fact that consciousness is created by the brain, and one cannot state as a fact that extra-corporeal suspicions are only religious. Scientific evidence currently cannot support a purely physicalist theory of consciousness, and to recognize that doesn't mean one has to be religious or anti-science. Science has not discovered anything whatsoever to account subjectivity, for instance. So what one can accurately say is that science has only discovered certain physical aspects associated with consciousness. But a thinking person might also ask, why has science only discovered that?

If someone takes a metal detector out for a walk on the beach, and comes back with a bunch of metal it detected, is he then justifed in saying there is nothing on the beach but metal? If asked why he says that, he answers because the only thing his device detected was metal, so therefore there is nothing else indicated. But, a skeptic complains, the only thing a metal detector can sense is metal! How do you know another kind of device wouldn't pick up on something else? Similarly, one must assume science can reveal all revealable truths (a belief sometimes referred to as scientism) to conclude what it detects (or will detect in the future) in regard to conscousness makes up the complete model.

I wouldn't want to interfere (in any way, shape or form! ) with a scientist saying an issue is beyond the scope of science. But that is quite different from stating, as a representative of science, that "Yes, consciousness is created by the brain," or labeling everyone who isn't ready to sign up for the metaphysics of scientism as "religious."

 

[Moonbear]

Les, you are correct in your argument. I didn't take the time earlier to phrase my responses in the most appropriate way. And I think we both agree that a discussion of mind/consciousness outside of the direct involvement of the brain is beyond the scope of biology, and much better discussed as a matter of philosophy, at least for now. I introduced my own bias to that argument for a reason I won't go into here, and didn't give as objective an answer as I should have. Thanks for calling me on it.