Soul searching: a brief history of the mind/body debate in the neurosciences

Abstract

<jats:p>✓Anatomical and physiological understandings of the structure and function of the brain have worked to establish it as the “seat of the soul.” As an organ of reflection, meditation, and memory, the brain becomes synonymous with what defines the “self” through the existence of consciousness—of mind. Thus, the brain has been associated with a range of transcendent concepts—the soul, spirit, mind, and consciousness—that all relate in fundamental ways to each other both in terms of their perceived location within the brain and because of the way each works ultimately to define the person to whom the brain belongs. In this article, the author provides a brief exploration of how interrelated these categories have been when seen in the context of ancient, Renaissance, early modern, and modern philosophical and medical concerns; how the brain has variously been perceived as home to these intimate states of being; and how practitioners from the neurosciences have reflected on these questions. The author provides novel insights into the interrelationships of philosophy, theology, and medicine by examining these issues through the lens of the history of neuroscience.</jats:p>

The Task before Psychiatry Today Redux: STSPIR

“…Especially noteworthy are the following: combining neuroplasticity, psychosocial genomics, and the biopsychosocial paradigm in the 21st century (Garland and Howard, 2009[29]); understanding mental health clinicians’ beliefs about the biological, psychological, and environmental bases of mental disorders (Ahn, Proctor and Flanagan, 2009[2]); essentials of psychoanalytic process and change and how we could investigate the neural effects of psychodynamic psychotherapy in individualized neuro-imaging (Boeker et al ., 2013[8]); the clinical case study of psychoanalytic psychotherapy monitored with functional neuroimaging (Buchheim et al ., 2013[10]); operationalized psychodynamic diagnosis as an instrument to transfer psychodynamic constructs into neuroscience (Kessler, Stasch and Cierpka, 2013[45]); collaboration between psychoanalysis and neuroscience historically (Sauvagnat, Wiss and Clįment, 2010[85]); psychoanalytic self psychology and its conceptual development in light of developmental psychology, attachment theory, and neuroscience (Hartmann, 2009[33]); relational trauma and the developing right brain: an interface of psychoanalytic self psychology and neuroscience (Schore, 2009[87]); grounding clinical and cognitive scientists in an interdisciplinary discussion (Ottoboni, 2013[72]); mind/body debate in the neurosciences (Dolan, 2007[18]); mind, brain and psychotherapy (Sheth, 2009[89]); psychoanalysis and the brain (Northoff, 2012[67]); linking neuroscience and psychoanalysis from a developmental perspective (Ouss-Ryngaert and Golse, 2010[73]), and dialogue between psychoanalysis and social cognitive neuroscience (Georgieff, 2011[30]), with psychoanalysis on the couch and neuroscience providing answers (Mechelli, 2010[59]).…”

Psycho-oncology: Searching for practical wisdom?

“…Prior to the 18th century, the soul was at least a dimension of medical discourse and medical care regardless of its contested meanings and implications within medical practices (Dolan, 2007;Hankinson, 2009;Yoshikawa, 2009). Yet, questions need to be asked: "What do these discourses mean when using this term soul within 'medicine?'"…”

“…This “something missing” signposted by the reemergent soul was lost, according to some medical historians (de Pablo & Evans, 1994; Hacking, 1995), along with the philosophical and biomedical splitting of body and mind. Prior to the 18th century, the soul was at least a dimension of medical discourse and medical care regardless of its contested meanings and implications within medical practices (Dolan, 2007; Hankinson, 2009; Yoshikawa, 2009). Yet, questions need to be asked: “What do these discourses mean when using this term soul within ‘medicine?’” And, more importantly, what might soul 's meaning(s) be for those living with cancer in our treatment centers?…”

Human Brain Anatomy: Prospective, Microgravity, Hemispheric Brain Specialisation and Death of a Person

“…After discussing the whole brain as an organ in microgravity environment and cortical brain anatomy and function (the superficial part of the brain),finally, in this chapter, we also dis cuss on the major issue related to the death of a person, which has a close anatomical link with structures at the 'deep and central part of the brain'. This deep anatomical area seems to play a crucial role in either cardiac or brain death and was labelled as 'the seat of human soul' by many ancient philosophers including Plato and Leonardo Da Vinci [15,16]. This deep periventricular area covers anatomical structures of the brainstem, reticular system, hypo thalamus, thalamus, basal forebrain or septal area, amygdala, hippocampus and pineal and pituitary glands, and it is better known as the 'greater limbic system', which was introduced by Nieuwenhuys et al in 1988 [17,18].…”