Biopsychology as a Fusion of the Field of Biology and Psychology and Its Definitions - Research Paper Example

Abstract The paper tends to explore the origins of this ‘sub-field’ of psychology with respect to the very initial concepts and theories formulated with regards to this particular area of psychology, the various definitions that surfaced with the change in time; enlightening the initial application of the field and the treatments and methodologies used, in a chronological manner, right up to the current status; from where present techniques and applications will be discussed along with research pertaining to the people who developed concepts in the field for the present employed applications and those which tend to contribute to the further evolution of the field. Roots of Biopsychology Biopsychology; as the term implies, in its literal sense is evidently a fusion of the field of Biology and Psychology or as suggested by some definitions; the fusion of the ‘sub-fields’ of Biology and Psychology. What matters is the understanding of not only the term literally but to what it refers and is hence important for us to define and understand the correct meaning of the term and to what it implies to, in order to delve deep into its historical origins. As Stuart Hall states the importance of what we perceive of the word: It is by our use of things, and what we say, think and feel about them – how we represent them – that we give them a meaning[Hal68]. Meaning is important and extremely necessary to communicate the understanding of general terms, and is in this case important to represent the complete understanding of ‘Biopsychology’ with respect to the current theories, in order to investigate its origin. Basically (and by ‘basically’ the general idea is implied), what the term represents is the bond between our nervous system and our behaviour. The field implies the research based on what responses one produces in reaction to a certain emotion or what is behind our behaviour to particular situations; the ‘chemical composition’ of our behaviour or the biological reaction that triggers that particular behaviour and vice versa. The biological field that relates to neural activity in our body or how that neural activity is governed by the brain, is called neurosciences, hence a relation is established between neurosciences and psychology, for psychology is all about our behaviour and reactions; what goes on behind those reactions and that particular behaviour?: is explained through Biopsychology; thus linking the way our nervous system creates particular outcomes to the behaviour experienced. The field is currently experiencing large growth in research aspects, creating better understandings of what the relation of our brain and nerves might be to our behaviour. What bio-psychologists actually tend to research upon is the effects certain behaviour could induce upon our nervous system, or the effects our nervous system induces on our conduct, for instance a Biopsychologist may investigate a genetic problem and link it to psychological values. Another similar example would be of stress: consider stress as a psychological value and then evaluate what could the outcomes be in physical form, for instance extended stress could cause physical effects to the body in the form of fatigue or could cause the changes in physiological processes which could in turn cause the change in the blood chemistry and lead to a weaker immune system hence the physical or the biological (to be more precise) effect of a psychological function: stress. Likewise, stress can be caused by biological variables as in toxins, loud noise or drugs. Hence the relation being established and the field of ‘Biopsychology’ being explained in a manner understandable even to the unrelated, we can expand the paper to the history of Biopsychology and the origins of the field. The most primitive representation of the field of Biopsychology can be traced back to the works of Avicenna (980-1037) who was a Persian psychologist and physician. Avicenna always considered physical illnesses and psychological illnesses as being related to each other and hence recognized the relation through the treatment of patients involving emotional variables and thus mentioned his recognition of ‘Physiological Psychology’ in his book ‘The Cannon of Medicine’[Ibr02]. His one particular treatment, related to one of the many instances concerned with the field of Biopsychology, includes the case of a reportedly very ill person whom he diagnosed by “feeling the patient's pulse and reciting aloud to him the names of provinces, districts, towns, streets, and people” [Ibr02] to which he noticed a change in the patients pulse when certain names were spoken and repeated in front of him from which Avicenna deduced and diagnosed the patient to be in love with a particular girl, to whom those random names were connected in a manner of residence or visits and suggested the patient to marry the girl. Reports indicate that the patient recovered from the illness after he got married to her [Ibr02]. The connection that Avicenna found between the patients physiological illness and the psychological condition, through the patients emotions, were perhaps the very first research materials which can be analyzed as in relation to the field of Biopsychology. Biopsychology, as a field evolved in the 18th and the 19th century at which time many scientists pondered over the connection of the ‘psychological’ to the ‘biological’ and vice versa but it was perhaps men like Rene Descartes (1596-1650) who laid the basis of those discussions through his work completed centuries back to his time and laid the foundations of the intellectual thought process in the later 18th and the 19th centuries. It is well documented that the first systematic account of the mind-body relationship was through the account of a French Philosopher, Mathematician and Physiologist: Rene Descartes. What his general concept about the mind-body relationship was that: The rational soul, an entity distinct from the body and making contact with the body at the pineal gland, might or might not become aware of the differential outflow of animal spirits brought about through the rearrangement of the interfibrillar spaces. When such awareness did occur, however, the result was conscious sensation -- body affecting mind. In turn, in voluntary action, the soul might itself initiate a differential outflow of animal spirits. Mind, in other words, could also affect body [Rob92]. One of his great works ‘Les Passions de L’ame’ is still considered one of his grand contributions to the field of psychology. Detailed work pertaining to his study of emotions[Rob92], the mind-body relation and his concept about the pineal gland being the soul’s contact place to the brain have been compiled in the book and provides another basis of thought for the formulation of Biopsychology. What Rene Descartes had done was to create a platform for thought and considerations with regards to the mind-body relationship or the psychological-biological relationship. With the advent of the 17th century, his works were studied deeply and philosophers and physiologists enlightened history with their theories in return; which further helped to setup the stage for the formulation of Biopsychology as a field. Nicholas Malebranche (1638 - 1715) was one of the major researchers of the 17th century who explained the mind-body relationship with respect to a theory called ‘occasionalism’, he was perhaps the most persuasive researcher in his time for the theory of ‘occasionalism’. What the concepts state is that: Not only is there no influence of mind on body or of body on mind, there is no causality operative at all except insofar as God, the one true cause, intervenes to produce the regularities that occur in experience[Rob92]. Nicholas, as a supporter of the theory of occasionalism disagreed with Descartes’ proposed mind-body relation and stated God as the ultimate cause. Hence the theory, as an example, stated that any subjective movement of the body serves as an occasion for God to be the cause of that particular movement and insisted that any images formed in the mind were also the effect of God and thus in direct relation to the theory of ‘occasionalism’. A more accomplished concept as compared to ‘occasionalism’, is that of the ‘Double-Aspect Theory’ which was formulated by Benedictus de Spinoza (1632 - 1677) and conceptualised the notion that “the mental and the physical are simply different aspects of one and the same substance” [Rob92], which for Spinoza was the concept of One true God being that singular substance. The theory basically disregards Descartes’ ‘two substance view’ and incorporates the thought of Causality as being functional in both; the physical and the mental, along with retaining the idea of one true cause based on the work of Nicholas Malebranche and his supported theory of ‘occasionalism’. He perceived that the world of consciousness and extension are qualitatively separate[Rob92], but insisted that consciousness and extension be considered as the attributes of one infinite substance as opposed to two finite substances (as suggested by the Cartesian View); and this one infinite substance in the eyes of Benedictus de Spinoza was the presence of the true cause of one God. He formulated that since mental attributes can only be explained by other mental attributes and that the same aspect is followed in the case of physical motion; both (physical and the mental) exist in a coordinated setting in a manner that none contradicts with the other due to the presence of the one infinite cause. His theory gained much recognition and was supported by many and contributed a lot to the theoretical development of the mind-body relation. ‘Psychophysical Parallelism’ was another point of view which surfaced during the 17th century and dealt with the explanations regarding the relation of the mind to the body and vice versa. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was one of the firm believers and major researchers in relation with the theory of Psychophysical Parallelism. He was a known diplomat and a philosopher who argued that the physical and the psychological both exist in a manner harmonious to each other and have been created in such manner by God from the beginning. In one of his works, he gives the example of two clocks working in complete sync to each other, as a metaphor to the mind and the body and relates that: There are only three possible sources for this agreement. It may occur through mutual influence (interactionism), through the efforts of a skilled workman who regulates the clocks and keeps them in accord (occasionalism), or by virtue of the fact that they have been so constructed from the outset that their future harmony is assured (parallelism) [Rob92]. The theory of ‘Interactionism’ was answered and reasoned by Leibniz in a manner arguing that it was impossible to envision the transfer of material particles from one substance to another i.e. from the physical substance to the psychological substance while the theory of ‘Occasionalism’ was ruled out by his detailed debate on Psychophysical Parallelism. What remained to be the only reasonable explanation in the perception of Leibniz was that the mind and the body are pre-organized to exist in a harmonious manner by God right from their creation. After the conceptualising of the facts that based Biopsychology, the thoughts of Avicenna and the Greek philosopher’s and after the recognised research of Rene Descartes three of the many theories that helped develop the fundamentals of Biopsychology were the ones discussed above in detail namely: Occasionalism, Double – Aspect theory and Psychophysical Parallelism. As Descartes laid the grounds for the evolution of these three theories at the most basic level; so did these for the perfection of each other and the evolution of the other theories which were to surface later on in the near future. The pioneers of these theories namely: Nicolas Malebranche, Benedictus de Spinoza and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, respectively; though may be considered by some as right and by some as wrong in the present time, but all that matters is their fabricating the way for the future development in the field of Biopsychology and their contribution in the theoretical evolution of the field, for it is their reasoning that (be it right or be it wrong) led to the modern theories about the mind and the body. All most all the theories developed in the 17th century were based on the conception of mind being distinct to the body i.e. theories that suggested the separation between the two, yet there were other concepts in the era that regarded the mind-body relationship from a perception that greatly differed from the general theories of their time, one of which was known as ‘Immaterialism’. The theory was effectively symbolized by George Berkeley (1685-1753) in which he “denies even the possibility of mindless material substance”[Rob92]. The theory supports the lack of any kind of Mind-Body relation; in lieu of the concept that for anything to exist “it must either be perceived or be the active mind doing the perceiving”[Rob92]. Hence in lieu of this idea what we think of as ‘body’ is simply the perception of mind and thus the lack of separation. ‘Materialism’ was the concept that symbolized the thoughts of Julien Offray de la Mettrie (1709-1751) and the most extreme the theory has been is in idea that denies any mental occurrence or any other such phenomenon, whereas another version of the theory accepts the presence of the mental occurrences, yet restricts their presence to be dependent on bodily events or behaviour. Materialism is fundamentally based on the existence of Matter and the inter relation of matter suggesting that ‘everything’ is either matter or the result of matter or in some way dependent on matter. One of La Mettrie’s ingenious works included ‘L'homme machine’ which held great importance in the field of psychology and the relation of the material body to the immaterial mind. La Mettrie argued that there was a fundamental difference between voluntary and involuntary actions; which being complex and mechanical in nature of the substance hence proposing that the whole process was a complete, balanced dynamic system to which Vartanian related: Naturalistic view of man ... is offered mainly as a general heuristic hypothesis necessary in the positive study of behaviour, without the need being felt ... to make mental processes reductively identical with their physiological causes[Var67]. Pierre Jean Georges Cabanis (1757-1808) was one of the most dedicated supporter of the theory of ‘Materialism’ and La Mettrie’s work pertaining to it, even at a time when this theory in particular was considered absurd. His concepts about the theory and his work relating to it can be wrapped up in the form of the following: to have an accurate idea of the operations from which thought results, it is necessary to consider the brain as a special organ designed especially to produce it, as the stomach and the intestines are designed to operate the digestion, (and) the liver to filter bile...[Pie]. Hence Cabanis belief was supported by his logic and he considered it logical to believe that the brain, though acted as an organ, had an important role to the production of thoughts. Therefore it is vital to mention that the theories presented in the 18th century had moved a bit closer to understanding the min-body relation and that the two major theories: ‘Materialism’ and ‘Immaterialism’ played an important role in the development of this thought provoking progression of the development of Biopsychology through time. With the advent of the 19th century and the deeper research and investigation into neurological disorders and their basis, almost every philosopher was in search of answers to the mind body relation. What had been established by then (by most of the scientific world) was that the brain acted as the organ of mind along with the fact that mental processes do bring about changes to the physical body sometimes but as to the reasoning of ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’ a lack of answers and relevant information was felt which provoked further thought and led to the fabrication of several theories, the prominent ones of which are explained as under. Shadworth Holloway Hodgson (1832 - 1912) was the first one to express his concepts as the theory widely known as ‘epiphenominalism’ which considered the occurrences in the nervous system to be in the form of an independent and automatic state and mental occurrences as inept to effect the nervous system or the brain as a whole. The theory thus signifies the physical occurrences as independent of the psychological ones and being totally free of the effects of the psychological phenomenon. William Benjamin Carpenter (1813-1885) greatly supported the idea of ‘interactionaism’ as opposed to the concept of ‘epiphenominalism’. Carpenter himself presents an argument pertaining to his concepts and opposed to other theories in his exceptional work ‘Principles of Mental Physiology’ as: Nothing can be more certain, than that the primary form of mental activity, -- Sensational consciousness, -- is excited through physiological instrumentality. A certain Physical impression is made, for example, by the formation of a luminous image upon the Retina of the Eye ... Light excites Nerve-force, and the transmission of this Nerve-force excites the activity of that part of the Brain which is the instrument of our Visual Consciousness. Now in what way the physical change thus excited in the Sensorium is translated (so to speak) into that psychical change which we call seeing the object whose image was formed upon our Retina, we know nothing whatever; but we are equally ignorant of the way in which Light produces Chemical change ... And all we can say is, that there is just as close a succession of sequences -- as intimate a causal relation between antecedent and consequent -- in the one case, as there is in the other[Wil74]. Later on it was debated about both of these theories that none explained the exact ‘actions’ or the processes pertaining to the interpretation of a thought as a consequence of an accompanied physical process or could explain the relation of the psychological thoughts to the physiologically occurring processes. George Henry Lewes (1817- 1878) is considered to be the one who introduced the theory of ‘Dual – Aspect Monoism’ which also came to be known as ‘Neutral Monoism’ and was based on the “claim that there is only one kind of "stuff" and that mind and body differ only in the arrangement of that stuff or in the perspective from which it is apprehended”[Rob92]. The theory is explained in a manner that defines the relation of the physical (body) to the psychological (mind) through the metaphorical application of a curve suggesting that even though a curve is independently identified as a ‘single line’ or a simple ‘curve’; the classification of each and every point of that curve is characterised by “concavity and convexity”[Rob92]. The explanation hence depicts that both; the psychological and the physical, processes are merely two different aspects of the same psychophysical events. Thus when considered subjectively; the psychophysical process is a psychological process and when considered objectively: the process is physical in nature[Rob92]. William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879) is generally rewarded with the basic idea of the theory known as: ‘Mind-Stuff Theory’ – considered by most as very similar to the ‘Dual – Aspect Monoism’ and was one of the most prominent theories of the 19th century, which dealt with the issues regarding the relation of the mind to the body and vice versa by theorising the facts such as that stating that consciousness and other psychological processes are themselves based on physical elements that; in their own (individually), do not possess those psychological abilities. The theory classifies these physical elements as to possess ‘mind-stuff’ and suggests that very much alike to the formation of other organs or supposedly the brain by the combination of different molecules, the consciousness may also be formed in similar manner, in fact; is formed by the physical combination of the elements possessing ‘Mind - Stuff’ which as a consequence gives the formation of the psychological along with the expected formation of something physically complex. Morton Prince (1854 - 1929) was also considered to be an influential theorist pertaining to the work of this particular theory and discussed the basis of his concepts by stating that, "No amount of reasoning can argue me out of the belief that I drink this water, because I am thirsty"[Pri85].His explanation of the mind-stuff theory was known to be placed at a completely new level of perception and was explained by him the following manner: Instead of there being one substance with two properties or 'aspects,' -- mind and motion, -- there is one substance, mind; and the other apparent property, motion, is only the way in which this real substance, mind, is apprehended by a second organism: only the sensations of, or effect upon, the second organism, when acted upon (ideally) by the real substance, mind[Pri85]. The views of William James (1842 - 1910) pertaining to the mind – body relation and the theories concerning it hold a respectable place in the pages of history. His analysis of the ‘Mind - Stuff Theory’ and the ‘Automation Theory’ includes the following wordings: What shall we do? Many would find relief at this point in celebrating the mystery of the Unknowable and the 'awe' which we should feel at having such a principle to take final charge of our perplexities. Others would rejoice that the finite and separatist view of things with which we started had at last developed its contradictions, and was about to lead us dialectically upwards to some 'higher synthesis' in which inconsistencies cease from troubling and logic is at rest. It may be a constitutional infirmity, but I can take no comfort in such devices for making a luxury of intellectual defeat. They are but spiritual chloroform. Better live on the ragged edge, better gnaw the file forever![Wil90]. Though his own theory regarding the relation under discussion; abstain from the development of any hypothesis that may mislead and is restricted to the grounds of empirical science: “blank unmediated correspondence, term for term, of the succession of states of consciousness with the succession of total brain processes ...”[Wil90]. The above discussion was based on the different concepts and point of views regarding the mind – body relation and the theories that were produced in order to explain them for the sole purpose of elucidating the ‘Roots of Biopsychology’ which have been traced well through the pages of history and ideas extracted from the halls of time to be considered for the genuine purpose of reflecting what the topic depicts. Biopsychology is fundamentally based on the relation that the mind forms with the body, that the psychological forms with the physical and that our thoughts form with the nervous system. Numerous theories have been presented to explain the connection but the level of perfection has not been established yet so as to properly define the relation. The sole concept behind Biopsychology is to study what the physically present nervous system does to produce our thoughts (including all psychological phenomenon) and how the produced ‘mental processes’ can affect the physical. The field generally employs the study of subjects in which the physical state of the nervous system is either ‘different’ by birth or is altered for research purposes. The monitoring of a specific nervous component or area in relation to different mental processes is also employed in the field under discussion. Since the study employs the research of the nervous system in various manners, most of the subjects are not humans and the data analysed is therefore that which is relative to the behaviour in animals as well as animals. Since latest technologies have provided a safer way of research hence more data; directly attained from humans, is obtained in physical form. Most of the recent studies in the field of Biopsychology are related to and considered to be the result of the research and theories provided by Donald O. Hebb who was a Canadian Psychologist and in 1949 discussed his concepts in ‘The Organization of Behaviour’. In his book Hebb has theorized the facts that comprehensively cover the relation of brain activity to psychological processes in a comprehensive and convincing manner. The early 20th century still had concepts regarding the mind – body relation that labelled any theories that based psychological processes as a function of the neural physiology or the result of simple chemistry of the brain. Hebb’s publication discredited all such theories and supported the fact that all mental processes were a function of the physical chemistry of the Brain and the nerves, thus creating avenues for more research pertaining to the field. The Publication presents a simple and logical argument that reasoned based on his own personal experiences along with a few test subjects. It was not until the 20th century that Biopsychology evolved into an actual scientific study and the theories presented before the 20th century helped in the proper evolution of the field. Biopsychology as a subfield of psychology emerged to support the parent field in a manner practical in research and held experimental values. Information about the physical processes behind various neurological and psychological disorders was acquired and applied. Today Biopsychology does not only presents as an emerging field of scientific research but also a need to establish more physical grounds in the field of psychology. Of the various research methods that include theoretical analysis and observation along with the physical analysis, the most applied to human subjects are methods that include theoretical analysis. Data can also be retrieved by decreasing the neural function, increasing the neural function or by simply monitoring the neural activity during different behavioural activities. Currently employed methodologies applied in order to decrease the functionality of the nerves include lesions (which may be produced chemically, induced temporarily by cooling of a specific part of the brain or attained through electric shock). After the placement of a Lesion at the particular area as required, certain behavioural activities are monitored and changes are analysed and recorded; hence the production of data. Another general technique is to apply the use of ‘Antagonists’ which stimulate neural activity by means of disrupting with neural activity and can be injected through veins or surgically injected directly to the desired spot. Another regularly applied methodology for the acquisition of data is the enhancement of Neural Activity or transmission through electrical or magnetic stimulation. Methods to improve neural conduction through chemical means are also employed. The activity within the brain or the nerve cells there in can be monitored effectively by implanting a single or multiple electrodes in the brain which detect the electrical activity within the adjacent neurons and transmit the activity to be analysed. MRI’s are also a very effective way of detecting cerebral blood flows which is then analysed accordingly. EEG is another similarly effective method of monitoring the brain activity through the electrodes from the cortex region whereas certain tracers and markers are also employed in order to detect and interpret the neural activity. All the above mentioned research methods are those which have been completely developed and applied to obtain data pertaining to the brain activity of subjects in relation to their certain behaviour. Other techniques are also present to serve the purpose and some are also being developed or enhanced, constantly in order to increase the reliability and the availability of the data available for the study and research that the field of Biopsychology employs. What Psychology employs is the very simple therapeutic observance of the human behaviour pertaining to certain emotions or behaviour and Biopsychology has provided its parent field with the data that has proved to be of enough relevance that the sub-field is currently experiencing developmental boom in response to the helpful data acquired. The fact that the mind-body relation needed to be explained was weighty enough for the cause of the creation of this subfield and is the only reason why we find questions particularly related to this relation in history. Bibliography Hal68: , (Hall, 1968), Ibr02: , (Syed, 2002), Ibr02: , (Syed, 2002), Rob92: , (Wozniak, 1992), Rob92: , (Wozniak, 1992), Var67: , (Vartanian, 1967, p. 380), Pie: , (Cabanis, 1981, p. 116), Wil74: , (Carpenter, 1874, pp. 12-14), Pri85: , (Prince, 1885, p. 101), Pri85: , (Prince, 1885, pp. 28-29), Wil90: , (James, 1890, pp. 178-179), Wil90: , (James, 1890, p. 182), Read More