i was wondering about the presence or level of consciousness with schizophrenia or multiple personalities. consciousness is the awareness and recollection of your surroundings, right? well, with multiple personalities, would the supressed identity be conscious, if so, to what extent? what happens to the awareness associated with consciousness when schizophrenia is present?
ive noticed that nno-one has replied to your post yet, so i thought i would. unfortunatly though, i dont know much about schizophrenia (see, can t even spell it!) so i cant really comment…
but hey ive got your post to the top of the board!
ive just noticed that i did in fact spell it right, without looking
hey thanks for replying to my post. i had actually thought of replying as well just so it’d have at least one, so i’m glad someone else decided to reply before myself.
i believe that with schizophrenia the “supressed” identity is not conscious in the fact that it would not be aware of its surroundings. however, i think it is possible, perhaps through hypnosis, that the supressed identity could be made to “remember” or recollect the surroundings it was in while the other identity was conscious, just not at the same time. i feel this way because the multiple identities are both in the brain, which is recieving the same information from the outside world.
Dibit, I beleive that conscienceness and psychsomatic disorder go hand in hand in the sense that the individual with what we see as a psychotic disorder sees his conscienceness as being completely valid to society and normality
I think this is an extremely interesting topic and i think the lack or replies to your post is suggestive of the wider ignorance of society on the subject of mental health. It is a health problem which is never talked about and few still doubt that mental illness exists!! I feel it should be discussed more and more, not least because it opens the door directly to philosophical issues and is the bridge between the mental/physical or immaterial/material. We can learn so much from the schizophrenic. For he may well have a valid reality all to himself - he may form representations of the same phenomena which we have collective representations of. Thus he poses and argument for phenomenology against scientific materialism. Please, there must be somebody out there who is doing long over-due research in this area! Come forth and teach us!
Schizophrenia is just hearing voices/having hallucinations/ not being abletocontrol movements, the additional personalities can’t take over conciousness as I understand it, though they seem to the person to be controlling some parts of their body at time (it’s thought to be a disorder related to the origin of commands, the person doesn’t realise that the origin of a command was from them, hence it differs quite considerably from having a different personality). I think it’s hollywood we have to blame for this muddle.
For both schizophrenia and MPersonalities I would argue that they must be made up of parts your complete belief, knowledge and emotional systems, so I would suggest that they are probably just aspects of your own personality divorced from the whole thus an imbalanced personality.
As for multiple personalities, I’ve never read into it, ask someone who has multiple personalities if they are concious while the other one is in control, do they have two thoughts at the same time? I doubt it, so I would say they are not concious as they are not able to think while the other is control. They may be able to remember the experiences of the other personality but they key is can they remember thinking things like “I disagree” at precisly the same time as the other personality is thinking “I agree”.
As for scientific researxh I know that 1/1000 people will suffer from schizophrenia at some time, and this is a culturally universal illness (in other words this points to it being an actual defect in the makeup of the brain that has been with us since we first evolved in Africa rather than a societal mental illness). I have no idea about the prevalence of multiple personalities.
Schizophrenia and autism are two disorders that get a lot of discussion in modern theories of philosphy of mind. In this field there’s a lot of work being done between both philosophers and psychologists in developing an understanding of the mind as well as a theory of how the mind works. So if you wanna find out more just do a bit of reading in that field, I think schizophrenia has both been an argument for and against the meta-representational theory of mind and the simulation theory if you look it up on the internet you’ll find some work out there.
First of all, in case there is still any belief in this, I wish to state that Schizophrenia does not include multiple personalities. It includes hallucinations (especially auditory), over-acuteness of senses, anti-social behavior and other afflictions that I cannot recall at the moment.
Next I would like to state that I believe that, in Schizophrenia, there is no identity that is “suppressed.” The mind appears to be conscious of its surroundings. It may be the possible that the one suffering is incapable of acting in a regular fashion within this environment. I know this from experience because my aunt has schizophrenia and is quite conscious of what she sees (although she is on medication). Perhaps the person afflicted may be too aware of their surroundings due to their afflictions; i.e. over-acuteness of senses (seeing and hearing everthing at once).
Is it possible to be too conscious of your world?
Since I’m an just finishing up an introductory course in Psychology and we just dicussed this two classes ago, I thought I’d submit some information about it that’s relevant to the question.
Firstly, Schizophrenia does not modify or change conciousness in any way, but rather enhances it. The foremost theory about the causes of the symptoms of schizophrenia is that there has been a break down in ‘selective attention’ (viz. the ability to filter out irrelevant stimuli, such as the feeling of your underwear against your body at any given moment). This occurrence causes all the hallucinations and delusions reported by suffers of schizophrenia.
Secondly, I do not believe that ‘disassociative identity disorder’ (or it’s anachrontistic title, ‘multiple personality disorder’) is an authentic disorder, but rather that it is the result of role-playing induced by interaction between the therapist and the client. Current statistical data supports this. So whether or not people with ‘disassociative identity disorder’ experience different levels of conciousness is a moot question.
As far as MP is concerned, I think we’re all in some sense have multiple personalities, it’s a matter of degree (That would fit the analyzer/analysand distinction as well).
Schizophrenia, as has already been mentioned, is a kind of breakdown of selective attention. It’s the inability to construct a coherent narrative (Or Dennet’s narrative center of gravity) out of experience. It’s not that they are more in touch with consciousness or reality, it’s that their interpretations can’t be placed together coherently.
Still another interesting idea is FPD (Fractured Personality Disorder) which is very controversial (but it explains how twins and elderly couples can and do think for each other).
The usual complaint against this idea is to hold up a piece of paper to an isolated twin and see if the other twin can guess what’s on it. That doesn’t happen, of course, but there are plenty of things going on in my body right now that I’m not aware of and has very little to do with anything that we might call consciousness.
If I stub my toe, I usually don’t have a rushing pain in my finger.
yo! for the reason that was mentioned by Postadin:
and if we encorporate Matt’s earlier point (i seem to be following this guy around):
many philosophers have argued that the mentally ill are actually more human than the sane. their identities are forged compeletly from their internal facets and are exhibited without any filters to the world. i’m not sure that i agree with this because i do think there is something to be said for controlling and maintaining one’s irrational side that is inheriently far more human than going bonkers. but i think its a compelling arguement. thoughts?
Who said that? If identities were forged from internal facets solely, you wouldn’t have an identity. If such a thing could be exhibited without any filters, you wouldn’t be able to describe it.
You couldn’t even call it insane.
hey Brad –
although i have a good idea of who argued this position, i’m afraid that i might be wrong and would refer you to lionel tilling’s sincerity and authenticy for a more percise (and acurate) arguement for the history of this idea.
how so? each individual has been given a fixed set of faculties and capabilities that are expounded on or developed based on a person’s surrondings. for example, if a person has this great talent for playing the piano and grows up in a home in a country in a world were playing the piano is at the very least accepted, the person will play. part of that person’s identity now becomes a muscisian. the inherient faculties of an individual are the basic determining factor of a person’s identity – how these faculties are develop (or if they are made) depends on the environment.
the arguement for the insane would harp on the fact that the other half of the forged identity (that is the extent the environment shapes it) is completly eliminated. whlie a sane person will depend on the environment to at least allow the playing of piano to be acceptable, the insane one will do whatever the person’s faculties require regardless of the enviroment. you are right to say that
but the problem i have with this arguement is that i think the environment aspect is crucial to identifying your true identity. i know that i will be a compeltly different person if i were living in 18th century africa, but for me to be me i would still possess the same faculties. some will be more or less utilized than others. for a person to exist without reacting to the environment is for a person to only have half an identity, i believe.
[/quote]
Part of the difference between us, Trix, is that you say, I assume, genetic faculties, and I see them as genetic potentialities. I do not see how someone is born with a faculty for playing the piano. I can see how a person might be born with the potential for a stronger sense of rhythm, perfect pitch, a higher level of dexterity but this can only be actualized within an environment. Certainly, someone who is born with longer fingers at least has the potential for playing better than I do.
But of course that’s no gurantee.
In your last paragraph, you seem to accept that identity isn’t based on a core or essence, but on the contingent circumstances of time and place. I agree with that, but I don’t see how potentiality can manifest itself without a trigger or catalyst so no environment, no identity. I have no idea what ‘half an indentity’ means the way you use it.
In this paragraph, however:
implies a kind of genetic inevitability which would imply a core or essence. I would say that the insane are less in touch with their environment than the sane (rather than use the word acceptability which implies approval/disapproval, I would say hinders or enhances) and, as a result, less in touch with themselves. Insanity, as I’ve tried to point out, is a kind of incoherence or inability to react to what’s around you and that just can’t be a good thing.
brad –
i agree. (i’ve agreed with this for the last couple of posts, though…). if however, an insane person is not truly ‘themselves’ you seem to be strongly in favour of making the conditions such that the person will have to recognize the environment.
you and i both seem to accept that identity is not an inherient essence. that is why your position puzzels me. if someone is born with a mental illness, is this mental illness not simply a part of his or her potientialities?
you seem to be saying that the illness is a constraint on an inherient charater – albeit in a potiental phase. for example, a person with a high aptitude for extreme mood swings, if the conditions grant this, might become bipolar. these conditions will isolate the person from his or her environment and will prohibit the person from adequetly reacting to and shaping their identiy based on this external stimuli.
if the assumption of this arguement is that a developed potentiality that prohibits a person from compeletly recongizing his or her environment is ‘not good’ then can you not expand the category to include traits such as artistic talents and athletic abilities?
i know this is an exaggeration, but i think there is a stronger arguement here that you have not yet developed or i have not understood.
[/quote]
Well, I’m trying to say that insanity, by definition, is a constraint on the ability to cope with an evironment, not on inherent character. I’m certainly reacting to the idea that insanity might, in fact, be a positive thing. Now, if you’re sane enough to recognize that you’re insane (John Nash in “A Beautiful Mind”), then you have a decision to make, deal with the problems in order to do what you like to do (a decision I think we all make to some extent) or fix the problem. But art and athletics don’t come into play in this way of looking at insanity though they do come into play if it is possible to make that decision.
Um, is that clearer?
Hi, I’ve had a quick read through this thread and some of the ideas sound good.
I know it has already been said but Schizophrenia is NOT multiple personality syndrome, although I believe a person can be affected by both illnesses. As I understand it, Schizophrenia is a general heading of many different types of mental Illness. When diagnosed with mental Illness you are put under one of two headings, Schizophrenia or Bi-polar(manic depresive). I don’t know much about Bi-polar but I know a bit about Schizophrenia(cos I is one 
) but don’t take what I say as fact, it’s just my understanding of it,blah blah… Me, I have Acute paranoid Schizophrenia.
As for conciousness or awareness, I find my trouble is that I am to aware of my surroundings and have trouble filtering out stuff as has been said. I get kinda high on information overload and it can quickly ware me down, if I’m not careful it comes to the point of my brain shutting down or moving into a surreal state just so it can cope. I tend to notice alot of detail in stuff, usually irrelivant detail(also detail that just isn’t there). If you want to find a needle in a haystack ask a schizophrenic, they will usually find two needles and be able to tell you the the relationship between the two needles and the exact consequences of removing those needles concerning a small population of sperm whales off the coast of Greenland.
As far as “consciousness is the awareness and recollection of your surroundings”, I think that’s memory, conciousness as I see it is only the awareness of your surroundings, the actual abilty to feel what and who is around you and the ability to guage an acurate picture of your surroundings.
Myself as schizophrenic tends to see that picture all to clearly and sometimes not being able to handle that picture or finding it to dull, tack bits onto it to either liven it up or dull it down, but then don’t we all do that to some degree?
Anyway, sorry for rudely butting in, this seems like a nice place, think I may come take in the scenery every now and then…
Cheers,
MentulZen
Schizophrenia most commonly involves hallucinations, delusions and extreme paranoia. Think of most Republican senators and you won’t be too far off. It’s caused by severely impaired brain function in one particular area- I don’t remember the exact scientific terminology, but it was the area of the brain which performs the same function as RAM in a computer, i.e. making sense of your immediate surroundings.
Brad, I don’t know if insanity is a positive thing, but it might be a rational reaction to an irrational world.
I think schizophrenia is more to do with imagining people and there activitys as evolving around you: like been a child that hasnt realised its not the centre of the universe and other peoples problems. Hello grave, i would say everyone has suffered from paranoia, schizophrenia and depression but in consciously different degrees (i dont feel its a mental disorder-in only particular people get it). Like you have a neighbour and you hear that person is a noicey neighbour and is always looking at other peoples problems; a person less schizophrenic would be less conscious or bothered of this neighbour (thinking in a more objective manner) and simply getting along in there illusional existence:- a person much more schizophrenic adds up things other neighbours, friends, strangers and people who know you know about you. Imagining storys that have got around about you ( simply becoming hugely self conscious), this subjective tendency is terrible as you realise how weak and unimportant you are.
I wouldnt really say this is crazy, chinese wispers are a fact! word about you and other people goes around (even if true or false) a paranoid schizophrenic or manic depressive person isnt mad they are simply aware of things other people arent, many are imagined (like strangers talking about you, but other arent) but how does this differ from anyone else, how is it wrong and a decline in personality? isnt it a good old saying that the more knowledge you consciously have the less youll do?-manic depressives arent what id call them in the definition of manic, id say the false veil of happiness and purpose has been realised.
As the wise greek Silenus broke into shrill laugh a said of man: “What would be best for you is quite beyond your reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best is to die soon.”
I was watching a TV program the other night on Ch4 (UK) and it was talking about some research that had been done into the brain.
Basically they had severed links between right and left side of the brain in some patients in an effort to ease (I think it was) epilepsy.
Anyway, they did an experiment and asked the left side of the brain to match a picture on a card. It was something like a bucket and match that with a sandcastle.
At the same time they asked the right side of the brain to match a garden with some thing, in this case a spade.
The subject pointed to the correct pictures, BUT when asked why the right brain picked the spade they said becuase you have to dig the sand for the sandcastle with the spade.(something along those lines anyway)
The conclusion they came to (after other tests) was that conciousness resides in the left brain. The right brain although able to do all the tasks is not ‘concious’ of it.
They spoke of schizophrenia maybe being a result of this left concious/right unconious being faulty or something.
Anyone else see it or heard about this? I really would like to learn more about it.
Saying that…
Discalimer: The above may totally be a figment of my imagination…
Last week I was watching the early morning news,
One item was that the British Govt, were going to implement a lottery system to allocate University places.
I was outraged, and when my wife got up I told her of this absurd idea the Govt were going to introduce.
She checked the News several times that day, but could find no trace of it.
Also on the same news was a story of a rollercoaster in Disney Land in the USA that had de-railed. One person had been killed and some injured.
A spokesman stated that there was no sign of sabotage.
My wife could find no trace of this news story either.
I saw these stories with pictures actually on TV and heard with my own ears the reporters, reporting on them…
So I can not be sure that the above program I watched actually ever existed.
And no I’m not messing around, these things actually happen to me. 
MentulZen.