Although some would argue that revolution in science appear as phase-transitions, abrupt changes based on genius discoveries, in effect if one investigates these changes it is evident that some preliminary preparation was there before the changes occurred and that in effect science progresses in evolution, rather then by revolution.
In the case of the upcoming psychiatric revolution it precedents are already here, and even date back to the middle of the 18th century. In my mind the roots of the future revolution go back to
Ernest Bruck urged to study the human psych as a property of a physical mathematical and biological system the brain. In a time when psychical mental functions were viewed as detached from the brain, having to do with un-reached non-explainable phenomena, he asserted the fact that mental functions are brain functions. The need to use relevant physics and mathematics for the study of mental functions is embedded today in the developing sciences of neural-computation and computational-neuroscience. Neurons can be modeled as input-output processors neural network can be modeled by non-linear algebraic formulas linking these processors in various architectured neural network ‘tissues.’
The study of the brain using modern physics, offer the advantages of non-linear, complex-systems mathematics. It offers the physical outlook that mental disorders are emergent properties from this extremely complex system. The idea of an emergent property is valid for many biological systems where the property of the system as a whole is much more then the properties of its elements. As such, it is known that while the neurons, synapses or receptors have no feeling, awareness and consciousness, these properties are emergent from the brain as a whole organization. It is obvious that a circuit of neurons has additional properties not found in a single neuron, and that a brain region has properties not found in a circuit of neurons.
Thus one can view Ernest Bruck as one of the originators of current neural-computation approach to the study of the brain. If Ernest laid down this general approach, Meynert could be viewed as the first ‘algorithm’ provider. He said that when the brain presents a thought, it is represented by an activation pattern of neurons. Another thought is activated by another pattern of neural activation, and so on. When an idea, or thought, is associated with another idea, ‘pathways’ between the corresponding activated neural patterns occur, such pathway represent the association formed between the two (or more) ideas. Since ideas and thoughts are part of our ongoing experience, and so are the associations formed by this experience then each one of us develops a set of pathways connectivity formations relevant to his experiences. Since each of us experienced different occurrences and had a different background, then each person has his unique individual pattern of brain connectivity organization. Theodore Meynert called such individual and unique brain organization, ‘Ego.’
Here we have a great example of how science progresses in evolution rather then revolution, the idea of an ‘Ego’ as an organizing formation of mental activity is conceived before Freud made it famous. More importantly it was conceived as a network connectivity architecture that today readily lends itself to mathematical neuro-computational study. Today we know that complex dynamics involve neural activation, this dynamics is algorithm-specific and the understanding of the specific algorithms involved in brain organizations of high-mental functions is most relevant to understand our so called ‘psychic’ experience. Having stated this importance of algorithms, Meynert could be conceived as the father of this scientific direction.
But this is not all, Meynert gave us the basic idea of something much more important, something which is directly relevant to us as medical professionals of psychiatry. He gave us the view to our future clinical basic-science. He said that under certain toxic, (or diseased) conditions the connectivity organization forming the ‘Ego’ can be weakened resulting in a disordered disorganized thought processes and this leads to (and explains) psychosis. Here for the first time we are given a brain-related explanation for psychosis, an explanation that readily lends itself to the biological characteristics of the brain as a neural-network connectivity organ.
Anyone familiar with the current situation in psychiatry knows that the current psychiatric diagnosis DSM-IV is a descriptive diagnosis (based solely on signs and symptoms) and is totally unrelated to the brain. This is explained by the idea that not enough is known about the diseased brain in mental disorders, thus one must adhere to observations only.
It can be argued that the fault of such shortage of knowledge about the diseased brain originates from our failure to follow the foot steps of Meynert and Brook. Such a failure is the story of Sigmund Freud, although he is not to be blamed for all of it. Freud actually tried to follow in the foot-steps of his teachers. As is well known, Theodor Meynert and Ernest Brock where his mentors in
His attempt to follow his teachers is evident in the letters he wrote to his friend and confidant Dr Wilhelm Fliess. The writings of these letters were never published (or even printed) they were found when the Freud museum in
It is amazing to find Freud drawing of circles (neural-cell bodies) and connecting lines standing for synaptic connectivity, just as presented in computational-neuroscience figures today. In addition he marked the connections by sets of crossing short line marks trying to schematize barriers for the energy passing from one neuron to the other. Amazingly he was visioning both the activation membrane potentials as well as the idea of Hebbian synaptic facilitations (indicated in neuralcomputation symbols by the ‘w’ sign for weighted synaptic values). These letters and these drawings leave no doubt as to the direction Freud took at the start of his scientific journey. In these letters he sets-on to show that behaviors, even simple ones, like going to the kitchen to bring food to the living-room, can be explained and represented by neural-network activity. I am highly confidant that if Freud of that period were to live today he would have probably enrolled to one of the neural-computation brain research faculties.
However in his time there was not enough knowledge to progress and substantiate this direction and Freud made a critical shift continuing to explain mental functions, but not as brain-related explanations. By that he severed us from neuroscience and instated psychology. He emphasized that this shift calls for a future correction when enough is known, in other words he stated that the missing links between his psychological formulations and neuroscience should be established in the future (i.e., today).
This is exactly what I am trying to do for the last 15 years, by introducing computational neuroscience to the re-conceptualization of mental disorders as brain-related diseases of neural-network organizations.
