Posted by smokeymadison on December 21, 2004, at 19:39:06
In reply to 1.3, posted by alexandra_k on December 20, 2004, at 13:21:35
>>After considering problems with several attempts to characterize the nature of the second factor Davies et al. (2002 p. 149) maintain that the second factor may be described as ‘a loss of the ability to reject a candidate for belief on the grounds of its implausibility and its inconsistency with everything else that the patient knows’. They then consider that ‘attempts to say in more detail what this loss of ability amounts to face many problems’ (2002 p. 149). They note that typically normal subjects believe what they perceive and they call this tendency a pre-potent doxastic response. Normal subjects are thought to be able to inhibit this response when what they perceive diverges too radically from prior perceptions or beliefs. Delusional subjects, on the other hand, are thought to develop delusions because they are unable to inhibit this response in the face of an erroneous perceptual experience (Davies et al., 2002 p.153). This line is similar to one interpretation of Stone and Young’s suggestion that the delusional error is that the subject favors observational adequacy over conservativeness, or accepts bottom-up (perceptual) information over top-down (rationally considered) evidence (1997 p. 349).
In the case of the delusional statement "I am dead" it makes sense what Davies et al. said about delusional subjects being unable to inhibit the knowledge that they cannot be dead because their hearts are still beating, etc (which would be the "prior perceptions/beliefs" mentioned above) instead, the delusional subjects are going with what they are experiencing at the moment. And that experience is telling them that they are dead mentally, emotionally, etc. the delusion is "understandable" in my humble opinion.
as far as a second factor, i think that there must be one. i agree with the two factor theory in as much as it takes an experience and a person who has the capacity to beleive p and q at the same time. these people who are saying that they are dead, i think that a part of them knows that they are not, as with any delusional subject, but the part that believes that they are is the one who is "doing the talking"
i would like some feedback on the notion that in order to have a delusion, there has to be a fragmentation of the conscious mind. i am speaking from my own experience only, really, and haven't done any research on the subject myself. but it makes sense to me.
Basically, extreme emotion fragments the mind and different parts rationalize reality to different ends. a delusion is born when reality is p but the part of the mind that believes q is in control and does the talking, producing the utterances you are talking about.
SM
poster:smokeymadison
thread:432064
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20041210/msgs/432627.html