Dissociative Identity Disorder... and blindness

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

A blind woman with Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personalities) could suddenly see...but only in certain personalities and not others.

http://www.ndtv.com/health/the-blind-woman-who-switched-personalities-and-could-suddenly-see-1247145?pfrom=home-lateststories

************

After suffering a traumatic accident as a young woman, doctors diagnosed her with cortical blindness, caused by damage to the visual processing centers in her brain. So she got a seeing eye dog to guide her and grew accustomed to the darkness.

Besides, B.T. had other health problems to cope with - namely, more than 10 wildly different personalities that competed for control of her body. It was while seeking treatment for her dissociative identity disorder that the ability to see suddenly returned. Not to B.T., a 37-year-old German woman. But to a teenage boy she sometimes became.

With therapy, over the course of months, all but two of B.T.'s identities regained their sight. And as B.T. oscillated between identities, her vision flicked on and off like a light switch in her mind. The world would appear, then go dark.

Writing in PsyCh Journal, B.T.'s doctors say that her blindness wasn't caused by brain damage, her original diagnosis. It was instead something more akin to a brain directive, a psychological problem rather than a physiological one.

B.T.'s strange case reveals a lot about the mind's extraordinary power - how it can control what we see and who we are.

************

An interesting case. For information.

Cheers.

Sriram

PS: This is not about 'science'. It is about DID and the mind.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, yes, it is!

[floo]

Since my husband's brain haemorrhage in 2006 and subsequent brain damage, to all intents and purposes he is blind in his right eye. It isn't an eye sight problem, it is caused by the brain struggling to process what the eye is seeing. However, if he concentrates on the eye exclusively he appears to be able to see out of it.

[Outrider]

PS: This is not about 'science'. It is about DID and the mind.

Seems like a spectacular case to write up as a study in psychosomatic conditions - and therefore definitely part of 'science'. Just a reminder of the complexity to the human brain and what it can do to us when we least expect it.

O.

[Bubbles]

Hi everyone,

A blind woman with Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personalities) could suddenly see...but only in certain personalities and not others.

http://www.ndtv.com/health/the-blind-woman-who-switched-personalities-and-could-suddenly-see-1247145?pfrom=home-lateststories

************

After suffering a traumatic accident as a young woman, doctors diagnosed her with cortical blindness, caused by damage to the visual processing centers in her brain. So she got a seeing eye dog to guide her and grew accustomed to the darkness.

Besides, B.T. had other health problems to cope with - namely, more than 10 wildly different personalities that competed for control of her body. It was while seeking treatment for her dissociative identity disorder that the ability to see suddenly returned. Not to B.T., a 37-year-old German woman. But to a teenage boy she sometimes became.

With therapy, over the course of months, all but two of B.T.'s identities regained their sight. And as B.T. oscillated between identities, her vision flicked on and off like a light switch in her mind. The world would appear, then go dark.

Writing in PsyCh Journal, B.T.'s doctors say that her blindness wasn't caused by brain damage, her original diagnosis. It was instead something more akin to a brain directive, a psychological problem rather than a physiological one.

B.T.'s strange case reveals a lot about the mind's extraordinary power - how it can control what we see and who we are.

************

An interesting case. For information.

Cheers.

Sriram

PS: This is not about 'science'. It is about DID and the mind.

Interesting.

All I could think of was that the brain is supposed to have an ability to find other pathways to do something.

i wonder if it has something to do with that, but in a disjointed way.

I think it is about the brain Sriram, so it is science.

I read that the brain can compensate sometimes.

Maybe that's why, but only some personalities have access to some pathways.......


I'm explaining it badly 

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/neuroplasticity-and-how-the-brain-can-heal-itself/6406736

[Sriram]

The doctors are clear that the problem is not physiological. It is about the mind.....and we are not sure that the mind and the brain are one and the same (though many people might assume that).

It is about psychology and behaviour ....but then anything can be called 'science'. 

[Bubbles]

The doctors are clear that the problem is not physiological. It is about the mind.....and we are not sure that the mind and the brain are one and the same (though many people might assume that).

It is about psychology and behaviour ....but then anything can be called 'science'.

If you removed the brain and put it in a tank but it could still see and hear and speak , where would the mind be?

In the body left behind? Or in the tank?

IMO the mind would be in the tank.

[Outrider]

The doctors are clear that the problem is not physiological. It is about the mind.....and we are not sure that the mind and the brain are one and the same (though many people might assume that).

Is that your emphasis or that of the medical professionals?

It is about psychology and behaviour ....but then anything can be called 'science'.

By definition, anything that can be observed is a part of one science or another, yes. That's one of the reasons it's such a spectacularly useful and successful process.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sriram,

This kind of thread always reminds me my own little pet theory, within us all there is an Einstein, Mozart, Picasso, we just need to find a way of unlocking that talent.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Science needs to broaden its horizons, we are all made in Gods image.

This evolutionary stuff, that blows my mind, within in us all there is a bit of fish, ape, lizard, the answers are all there, but we can't see the wood for the tree's, what's that saying, known knowns, unknown knowns

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Dear Sriram,

This kind of thread always reminds me my own little pet theory, within us all there is an Einstein, Mozart, Picasso, we just need to find a way of unlocking that talent.

Science needs to broaden its horizons, we are all made in Gods image.

This evolutionary stuff, that blows my mind, within in us all there is a bit of fish, ape, lizard, the answers are all there, but we can't see the wood for the tree's, what's that saying, known knowns, unknown knowns

Gonnagle.

How can you broaden the horizons of science? Any phenomena you can observe, measure or demonstrate is in science's remit.

Science is the study of everything we actually have a reason to think is real. The only way to 'broaden' science is to open it up to unevidenced claims, and that just makes it meaningless.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Dear Sriram,

This kind of thread always reminds me my own little pet theory, within us all there is an Einstein, Mozart, Picasso, we just need to find a way of unlocking that talent.

Science needs to broaden its horizons, we are all made in Gods image.

This evolutionary stuff, that blows my mind, within in us all there is a bit of fish, ape, lizard, the answers are all there, but we can't see the wood for the tree's, what's that saying, known knowns, unknown knowns

Gonnagle.

Bought a science magazine this morning  (always trying to broaden my mind!), which apparently is casting doubt on Einstein's Relativity Theory.  Haven't read it yet, and it may be just a bit of sensationalism to sell the mag.

[Shaker]

Bought a science magazine this morning  (always trying to broaden my mind!)

Careful - it might hurt

which apparently is casting doubt on Einstein's Relativity Theory.  Haven't read it yet, and it may be just a bit of sensationalism to sell the mag.

I can guarantee that it will be/is. It reminds me that a few years back one popular science magazine (may have been New Scientist, not sure) splashed 'WAS DARWIN WRONG?' across the front cover. Well, of course he wasn't, and the article didn't say anything of the kind - it was just a ploy to shift the magazine. Einstein's theories have been tested to destruction and have passed all tests with flying colours.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

How can you broaden the horizons of science? Any phenomena you can observe, measure or demonstrate is in science's remit.

Science is the study of everything we actually have a reason to think is real. The only way to 'broaden' science is to open it up to unevidenced claims, and that just makes it meaningless.

Funny but your two sentences above, seem to me to be contradicting each other.

Dear Bashers,

Bought a science magazine this morning  (always trying to broaden my mind!), which apparently is casting doubt on Einstein's Relativity Theory.  Haven't read it yet, and it may be just a bit of sensationalism to sell the mag.

All science is up for grabs, there are no facts, well apart from me being windswept and interesting

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Funny but your two sentences above, seem to me to be contradicting each other.

I think that means you fail to appreciate why science is as successful as it is. You can hypothesise about anything you'd like, nothing is intrinsically off-limits - you want to claim gods, angels, spirits, souls, magic, voodoo and whatever else you can go for it.

Science then says 'OK, how do you test that'. If you can test it, and if you can show that it works, then it becomes part of the science canon. If you can't test it, or if you test it and it doesn't work, then it doesn't. If you can, in principle, test it, but not yet, then it remains within the speculation of science until you can.

Science doesn't intrinsically exclude anything.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

I think that means you fail to appreciate why science is as successful as it is. You can hypothesise about anything you'd like, nothing is intrinsically off-limits - you want to claim gods, angels, spirits, souls, magic, voodoo and whatever else you can go for it.

Fur fucks sake ( try it in a Rab C Nesbitt accent ) you are fixated, step away from the keyboard, it's for your own good.

Gonnagle.

[Sriram]

Is that your emphasis or that of the medical professionals?

By definition, anything that can be observed is a part of one science or another, yes. That's one of the reasons it's such a spectacularly useful and successful process.

O.

I have not 'quoted' anyone above. Just read the OP or the article... Here is a quote.

"... doctors say that her blindness wasn't caused by brain damage, her original diagnosis. It was instead something more akin to a brain directive, a psychological problem rather than a physiological one."

[Outrider]

I have not 'quoted' anyone above. Just read the OP or the article... Here is a quote.

"... doctors say that her blindness wasn't caused by brain damage, her original diagnosis. It was instead something more akin to a brain directive, a psychological problem rather than a physiological one."

If it's a psychological problem I don't see how that's outside of the remit of science: psychology is a science, after all.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can you broaden the horizons of science? Any phenomena you can observe, measure or demonstrate is in science's remit.

Science is the study of everything we actually have a reason to think is real. The only way to 'broaden' science is to open it up to unevidenced claims, and that just makes it meaningless.

O.

Science deals with unevidenced claims all the time and subsequently finds evidence or otherwise. You are distorting the definitions of science.

The rule of thumb is not having evidence nor verification but falsifiability.

[BashfulAnthony]

Careful - it might hurt :DI can guarantee that it will be/is. It reminds me that a few years back one popular science magazine (may have been New Scientist, not sure) splashed 'WAS DARWING WRONG?' across the front cover. Well, of course he wasn't, and the article didn't say anything of the kind - it was just a ploy to shift the magazine. Einstein's theories have been tested to destruction and have passed all tests with flying colours.

Haven't had time to sit down and read it.  If there's anything worth coming back on, I will.

[Sriram]

Interesting.

All I could think of was that the brain is supposed to have an ability to find other pathways to do something.

i wonder if it has something to do with that, but in a disjointed way.

Maybe that's why, but only some personalities have access to some pathways.......


I'm explaining it badly 

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/neuroplasticity-and-how-the-brain-can-heal-itself/6406736

The brain does not find other pathways. Its just a piece of flesh not a living being to be able to decide things. The mind finds different pathways in the brain when it is unable to use the regular ones.

[Bubbles]

The brain does not find other pathways. Its just a piece of flesh not a living being to be able to decide things. The mind finds different pathways in the brain when it is unable to use the regular ones.

Neural pathways.

That's what I meant.

[Sriram]

Neural pathways.

That's what I meant.

Yes...new neural pathways are not created by the brain. They are created by the mind acting on the brain.

[Outrider]

Science deals with unevidenced claims all the time and subsequently finds evidence or otherwise. You are distorting the definitions of science.

The rule of thumb is not having evidence nor verification but falsifiability.

Testability is the essence of science. In order to test something it must be perceivable either directly, or with instrumentation. Anything that falls within that is the remit of science - that's not 'stretching the definition' in the slightest.

O.

[Outrider]

Yes...new neural pathways are not created by the brain. They are created by the mind acting on the brain.

On what basis are you presuming that 'mind' and 'brain' are different things?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

On what basis are you presuming that 'mind' and 'brain' are different things?

O.

It's like homeopathy, water and its intrinsic controlling watermind are different. One is a mild mannered thing that makes you wet by instinct, the other has a memory and decides what paths it will take.