A linkage of mind and brain: towards translational validity between neurobiology and psychiatry

Abstract

Aim: There are prominent discrepancies in the general approaches of psychology and psychiatry, many of them due to diverse and incompatible tacit positions on the mind-brain debate (MBD). For this reason we need to enhance the dialogue with neurosciences and other human sciences relevant to the problems of psychopathology. To achieve such goal we can reduce the level of diversity of mind-brain problem project-solutions as implied in different theoretical models and practices. Arguments: I shall trace the MBD to the one of the most relevant for the modern psychopathology areas: the group of neurosciences. We seek the interference of the philosophical assumptions, the evidence of neuroscience and the development of psychopathology. We prove by a post rem analysis that the reduced group of predominant project-solutions of MBD excludes genuine forms of dualism and extreme forms of physicalism (like epiphenomenalism or eliminative materialism). Conclusion: A predominant group of project-solutions is adopted including complementary combination of contemporary forms of physicalism: identity theory of mind applied to mental events and brain processes; supervenience principle applied to other mental phenomena. Biomed Rev 2011; 22: 65-76.

Adult brain activation during visual learning and memory tasks. An experimental approach to translational neuroscience

“…Therefore, the field is opened for further research related to the contribution of similar studies in translational neuroscience. It is supposed that neurobiology can further validate broad diagnostic prototypes and thus translate knowledge from fundamental studies to explanation of human brain function in health and disease, which reveals the original definition of translational neuroscience . Considering the multidisciplinary approach in most areas of science and medicine, the application of similar memory paradigms in everyday practice of psychologists, pedagogues, and clinicians should be considered appropriate.…”

The mind‐brain gap and the neuroscience‐psychiatry gap

“…In the last decades, many attempts have been carried out to find the neurobiological correlates of mental states. In this area, a dualistic view is not profitable . To find the brain‐mind correlations, it is necessary to establish “bridge laws bettween psychiatry and neuroscience” that should be “underpinned with factual connections based on real findings of clinical sciences and neurobiology in health and disorder” (p. 74).…”

“…In this area, a dualistic view is not profitable. 38 To find the brain-mind correlations, it is necessary to establish "bridge laws bettween psychiatry and neuroscience" that should be "underpinned with factual connections based on real findings of clinical sciences and neurobiology in health and disorder" (p. 74). 38 It is essential to develop in this area specific methodologies that can lead to the establishment of correlations between different subject matters (from different paradigms, eg, neuroscience and clinical psychiatry).…”

A Fallacious Forced Choice: Cloninger and Stoyanov, Machamer, and Schaffner Are Compatible

“…On the contrary, we have constantly argued against eliminative materialism (Stoyanov 2011) and in favor of the complex, nonlinear models of mental disorder (Stoyanov et al 2012a). For example, we have formulated explicit criticism against the radical forms of reductive theories of mind in psychiatry as adopted in eliminative materialism and epiphenomenalism.…”

“…As we are aware, individual assessment is always unstable because it is unique for every person. That is why we regard it as a kind of superstructure, which should be grounded on a preliminary fundamental transdisciplinary structure of knowledge, stabilized with cross-validity 'bridging' connections in the network of the basic explanatory sciences about mind-and-brain (Stoyanov 2011;Stoyanov et al 2012b).…”