Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
And how is this connected? Yes, our brain is able to kill the body along with itself under certain loads, even if the physical body can still live quite well. This is his strength and his vulnerability, which is why, for example, psychological torture is no less effective than physical torture.
Regarding your premise: it's not accurate, a person can't literally die from psychological trauma.�
Psychological trauma can trigger a behavioral mechanism that will lead to death: for example, a person will throw himself out of a window, or stop eating and drinking and die of exhaustion, or go into a hopeless drug “binge”.
Psychological trauma can trigger or trigger physiological processes that lead to illness and death: for example, cancer or heart attack.
In all these cases, the cause of death will not be psychological trauma, but specific physical factors. In other words, a person gets wet on the street not because it rained, but because he did not take an umbrella with him.�
Regarding your conclusion: it has nothing to do with the premise.�
The phenomenon of consciousness is one of the most controversial and interesting issues in modern psychiatry and neurophysiology, but it is not clarified by the fact that “a person can die from psychological trauma (especially since we have already found out that he cannot).�
It seems to me that the most reasonable hypothesis is that consciousness is one of the possible forms of brain activity (the other is “unconscious”), which makes possible for a person the subjective existence of his so-called “personality”.�
In this sense, consciousness is certainly “reduced” to the brain, as just a form of its work.�
But the results of his work, both consciously and unconsciously, are quite possibly relatively stable and can “exist independently” – in much the same way that what is written on a piece of paper continues to exist independently of a pencil. This makes it possible to discuss interesting phenomena, such as Jung's “collective unconscious” and a number of others.
Your premise is correct, I think. The phenomenon of consciousness cannot be reduced and linked to the material brain. How many years neurophysiologists, histologists, and representatives of various branches of neuroscience in general have not studied the brain – how thoughts and feelings are born there is still not clear. And it seems to me that as long as science operates with a purely materialistic paradigm, this connection will not be revealed. Trying to attach consciousness to the brain is like thinking about how the liver produces bile. And this is a dead end. Or, as philosophers put it, the paradox of consciousness.