I heard a story on NPR about a lady who had an accident that put her in a coma. When she emerged from the coma she couldn't form even short term memories. Thus, she was forced in to "be here now" on a 24/7 basis. This of course created many practical problems for her. Eventually they were resolved as her memory ability gradually returned.

She was glad to have her regular life back, but also deeply missed the "be here now" immersion, calling it the most profound and beautiful experience of her life.

I found it a very interesting story, and regret I can not link you to it. — Jake

I am that lady! That story was about me. At least as far as I can remember... it’s still a little fuzzy. :chin:

Sorry, bad joke. Seriously though, interesting story. Thanks for sharing it.

It seems your concern here is primarily aesthetic. — Jake

Not really.

Hmm, good question... — Jake

Good analogies provoke good questions.

It seems to me that depression is not so much pain as it is a general lowering of affect, almost a withdrawal from the world. Perhaps a better vegetative picture would be a tree shedding its leaves in autumn. And the candidate for an environmental trigger that comes to mind is a hostile social situation - there might even be an epigenetic effect whereby a parent's experience of aggressive dominance, for example, that cannot be avoided or resisted leads to a proclivity for depression in their offspring.

Edit: Wiki definitely thinks that's a thing.

To tell you the truth, I've been reading this thread, and haven't yet figured out exactly what disidentification is. — Metaphysician Undercover

I had to DuckDuckGo it before I worked it out. :up: :smile:

What is a metacognitive belief? — unenlightened

A belief about the effects, positive or negative, your strategies of thought will have on you.

We take in data from the environment (experience) and then we process that data (thinking). You can see this for yourself if you look closely enough. — Jake

I don't accept theories of cognition that posit raw sense data; all human experience is concept-laden. To separate experience and thinking is possible only in the abstract.

What is a metacognitive belief?
— unenlightened

A belief about the effects, positive or negative, your strategies of thought will have on you. — Janus

Sorry , but what's a strategy of thought?

A repeated pattern of thinking that is believed to be helpful, protective or whatever.

What is a metacognitive belief? On the face of it, it looks as though it is a belief about the nature of cognition, which is a psychological theory. Such as the one being described. Which makes this about as close to a religion as you can get without mentioning God. 'Believe, and you will be saved.' — unenlightened

I've only just begun reading about MCT, on account of hearing about it in this thread. I am not an adherent or a practitioner, just an interested layman, but from what I have heard and read about the effectiveness of various forms of psychotherapy, CBT (of which MCT is in some ways apparently an extension) has been one of the best performers. The effectiveness of MCT is yet to be definitively shown, but the theory seems, so far, to be eminently commonsensical to me, and to have nothing at all to do with any kind of "religious" belief. Have you read Andrew Well's book, or examined studies of the effectiveness of MCT? If not, then you are criticizing something you know little or nothing about, which is never a good idea.

Links to some empirical studies (in case you are interested):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939994/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052963/
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&ei=T7-RW7eqIZCmoASo0b_IAQ&q=metacognitive+therapy+effectiveness&oq=metacognitive+therapy+effectiveness&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0i8i30k1.11120.17232.0.21612.21.20.0.0.0.0.383.3054.2-9j2.11.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..10.11.3038...0i7i30k1j0i8i7i30k1.0.Us-WYYuDcTw

I don't accept theories of cognition that posit raw sense data; all human experience is concept-laden. To separate experience and thinking is possible only in the abstract. — Janus

I think there are many experiences that do not have concepts attached to them. If you only have experience of already understood, demarcated and distinguished, formal gestures of concepts how could your experience be authentic? Would you not just be a machine of language; of an impoverished conscious mind completely separated from the wealth of imagination and fantasy, belief and vision within, rejected for the without? How could you thus be creative, if all experience is concept-laden? If all experience is concept laden then what is experience? Does this idea not assume that all experience can be conceptualized?

I disagree.

Or perhaps I have misinterpreted you?

The relation of time to itself (past, present, future) and to us (past me, future me) is one of the main philosophical topics for sure. It touches on physics and metaphysics, mortality and morality. — 0 thru 9

I think that the notion of immortality is derived from the idea of being at the present. If one could truly exist at the present then that person would not take part in the past or the future, and have an existence which is non-temporal, eternal. But on the other hand, when we look at a thing's continued existence in time, we consider that it has existed in the past, and will continue existence into the future, neglecting the importance of the present. The present is the only time when change occurs, and to understand change we must allow for a discontinuity at the present. The immortal self is a continuous existence at the present. The mortal self is an object with continuous existence through the past and into the future. The discontinuity of the present annihilates both these selves.

I’ve wondered about the nature of time, as everyone probably has. Like for instance, the direction of time. Does time move from past -> present-> future ? This is the time-line view. Or does it move from future -> present -> past ? This is like being in a car and seeing up ahead a mile or so. Then that space ahead is soon where one is at, becoming the present. Then it is in the rear view mirror, representing the past. I tend towards the latter view, though I don’t dismiss the former. It seems to be relative to the point of view. — 0 thru 9

I agree with the conceiving of time in this direction, future>present>past. That's why I said that the future is like a force of oppression on us. We can consider that at the present, the past is coming into existence. As time passes, there is always more and more past, so the past is coming into being at the present. If we were to assume a beginning of time, there would be no passing of time prior to this, therefore no past. But we cannot eliminate the possibility that there was a future, at this point, when time started to pass. So if something forces time to pass, or causes time to pass, that must be the future.

I like your car analogy, but this is the way I see it. All we are seeing is the past. That is all that is evident to any of our senses. It takes time for light to reach the eyes, from what is seen, so what is seen is always in the past. Likewise, it takes time for the neurological activity required for any sensation, so everything sensed is in the past by the time it is sensed. Say you are looking out the back window of the moving car. In the case of time, unlike the car, you can imagine the present as a static observation point, and everything else is moving past you, into the past.

Everything is coming from the future, and what you are seeing is things flying by you and disappearing into the past. We can't turn around and face the front because the nature of sensation does not allow this. We only grasp the future with our minds, its existence is a logical necessity to account for where everything is coming from, but our senses cannot sense anything there. It is like a black wall in front of us, where sensation cannot go, when we face it directly. But now that we've turned around to face the true forward direction, we must account for this "turning", and this is where we need the "rear view mirror" analogy. When we were facing the past, and learning about things from our senses, we didn't realize that we were looking backward in time. Our minds, however, were always oriented to look forward into the future, we being intentional beings, so when we were "facing the past" with our senses, we weren't really facing the past, we were looking into a rear view mirror, while our minds were facing the future. The mirror inverts the appearance of directions, so when we establish the real orientation, of facing the future which is coming at us, we need to account for this, sort out, and "deconfuse" all the confusion which was caused by thinking that what we see while we are looking into the rear view mirror, is really what is in front of us.

But I would repeat that on some level, separateness has a certain reality. A relative and impermanent and maybe ultimately illusionary nature, but still having a certain superficial factual nature. Like the difference and physical boundary between the United States and Canada. Sure, it is totally artificial, except for lakes and such. But one disregards that boundary at their own risk. But anyone who completely and absolutely denies the distinction between self and other... please contact me! I am accepting monetary donations, and will give you my Paypal address! — 0 thru 9

I agree with the need to accept the reality of boundaries, individuals, and separate objects. After all, this is what we sense, especially with our eyes. We sense boundaries and separations. The problem is that the existence of these boundaries is not a good starting point because they are so difficult to define. We cannot define these boundaries because we really do not know what they consist of. This problem foils any analysis which proceeds in this direction. Analysis is dependent on creating such divisions, so if the division cannot be created cleanly, the analysis is doomed to failure. The temporal division between past and future however, gives us a much cleaner boundary to start an analysis, than does the spatial separation between individuals.

How could you thus be creative, if all experience is concept-laden? — Blue Lux

Creativity consists in the imaginative combination of concepts. Surely you don't think any creative works are concept-free?

Whenever we perceive anything we perceive it as something; this means we have a concept of what we are perceiving. When we see a tree this is made possible by the fact that we understand the concept 'tree' for example.

If all experience is concept laden then what is experience? Does this idea not assume that all experience can be conceptualized? — Blue Lux

What do mean when you ask "what is experience?"? We all know what experience is. All conscious experience can of course be conceptualized, otherwise how could we be conscious of it? Do you mean to claim that you could consciously experience something that you would be unable to say anything at all about?

I think there are many experiences that do not have concepts attached to them. — Blue Lux

Yes, the concepts get attached AFTER the actual experience.

You're walking down the hall and someone emerges in to the hall from a room. You look to see this addition to the scene and for a moment you are just looking, observing, absorbing data. And then your mind begins organizing the data, ie. thinking.

It's easier to see this process if we use exaggerated examples. You're walking down the hall and someone sets off a firecracker behind you. This could be a mortal threat, so your mind pushes the thinker and thinking aside, no time for that right now.

the theory seems, so far, to be eminently commonsensical to me, and to have nothing at all to do with any kind of "religious" belief. — Janus

A metacognitive belief is "a belief about the effects, positive or negative, your strategies of thought will have on you."

A strategy of thought is "a repeated pattern of thinking that is believed to be helpful, protective or whatever."

CBT is a practice based on a psychological theory. Psychological theory is a repeated pattern of thinking that is believed to be helpful and protective.

Belief in CBT is a metacognitive belief.

Now as a philosopher, or a scientist, one is committed to believing and advocating belief in whatever is true, rather than whatever makes one feel good. This is in stark contrast to the CBT therapist who has in common with the religionist a commitment not to truth in the first place, but to - what shall I say? - "benefit". It doesn't matter whether CBT is true or not, or possibly, at least in public, the guarantee of its truth is that it makes folks feel better.

And so what it comes down to, without the cloaking of complicated scientific terminology is "think happy thoughts and don't worry whether they are true."

It's all rather depressing, and therefore it must be wrong.

And so what it comes down to, without the cloaking of complicated scientific terminology is "think happy thoughts and don't worry whether they are true."

It's all rather depressing, and therefore it must be wrong. — unenlightened

I don't think it's that bad as you say. CBT and MCT have their foundations in scientific inquiry. They have empirical grounds where their efficacy has been determined. Therefore, they aren't just another set of metacognitive beliefs devoid of meaning. Their use is determined by the ability to get one out of depression. And, they seemingly work for that purpose.

I've been pretty stable for about 4 years now, following decades of depression. Medication has played its part, and so has CBT and rTMS. Despite the mental and emotional training I've done, there are still certain triggers that will send me into a mini depressive episode. Thankfully, though very uncomfortable, the effect is very temporary now, and seems to lessen with every occurrence.

There's also a lot to be said for treating your body and mind right, as hard as that can be when you lack motivation. Proper sleep, a decent diet, plenty of exercise, healthy relationships, fairly regular sex (if you can get it haha), and healthy distractions/hobbies go a long way toward improving your chances of maintaining a more positive or at least more neutral state of mind.

And, what are your thoughts about disidentification, if I may ask? My depression isn't that bad recently. Manageable; but, still bothersome.

As far as 'disidentification' goes, CBT and mindfulness practices played the biggest roles in that for me. Having been depressed for so long, the associated narratives became quite ingrained, but I learned to stop seeing them as significant when they arose - kind of just observing them without attaching meaning to them or identifying with them as being part of 'me'.

their efficacy has been determined. Therefore, they aren't just another set of metacognitive beliefs devoid of meaning. Their use is determined by the ability to get one out of depression. And, they seemingly work for that purpose. — Posty McPostface

This is why it is so depressing; It makes people happier, therefore it is true.

I don't quite see what is so depressing about it. Care to elaborate?

Suppose I said to you that if you believe in Jesus as your saviour, and showed you with statistics that people who believe in Jesus as their saviour are much happier, than those who don't, would you believe in Jesus as your saviour?

I think that's a little different than what Posty was saying...

I can't just decide to believe in Jesus. I have to first be convinced of his existence.
However, I can decide to engage in CBT to exercise my brain, just like I can decide to lift weights to exercise my muscles. I don't have to believe in CBT or lifting weights for them to work.

That being said, CBT in isolation will not necessarily work for everyone (some forms of mental/emotional trauma may be too severe), and definitely not at a pace that most would find palatable. That's why it's useful to combine CBT with things like medication and rTMS, especially when dealing with someone in the midst of deep depression. The effort required to fully engage in CBT can be difficult to muster when you don't really feel like being alive.

Also, the road to recovery from depression is usually a very winding one, where it sometimes feels like you're right back where you started. Especially early on in the process, if something triggers a depressed mental/emotional state, it can feel like you've made absolutely no progress. However, over the long term, the negative reactions typically become less frequent and less intense. The trouble with depressive episodes is that when they do come on, it often feels like it will never go away. But over time, every time you resurface intact, your strength and confidence builds.

Now, I don't know how to (dis)-identify with depression anymore, it's been with me for so long, that I've become accustomed to it — Posty McPostface

I've had meetings with therapists where I've pretended to accept I have depression but I'm always unconvincing, I feel. In the long run I've just concluded: I have a melancholy disposition, and the way things have turned out seem to demonstrate how right I was to be melancholy.

But depression is a thing in a systematic world of diagnoses and therapies, pills and cures, that I don't subscribe to. I have subscribed to it, but not now. Is this dis-identification?

A more fundamental example for my personal situation over a period of time is 'alcoholism'. I drink too much and some days my primary thoughts have been about where the next drink is coming from. Still, I got most of my best ideas when boozed up, even though I needed to sober up to get them straight and in order. People who want to help me use this word 'alcoholic' and it bugs me. The founders of AA died, one of drink, he relapsed, the other of lung cancer as an addictive smoker. This stuff about helplessness, a higher power and disease that is built into the system that uses the term 'alcoholic' just leaves me alienated.

I would add: therein lies a danger of disidentification. Alienation. If you refuse the label you're given when you go into the therapeutic room you'll find yourself isolated, and that itself may not be wise. I remember Lawrence Block novels with affection: he had a melancholy detective called Matthew Scudder who went to AA meetings whenever he could, not out of belief, but in a habitual practice that to me resembled religious practice: you may not believe the theology ('alcoholism', 'depression') - but to enact the rituals, to join in the fellowship, to experience the mutuality, all these activities are tremendously helpful and enhance your feeling of your own humanity. So maybe it's best to keep going to the Depression/Booze clinic, and take some of the medication if it doesn't ruin your creativity too much, and keep doing your best.

Now as a philosopher, or a scientist, one is committed to believing and advocating belief in whatever is true, rather than whatever makes one feel good. — unenlightened

If you are, just for example, someone who suffers from health anxiety, and act unconsciously on the unexamined, misplaced and indeed untrue metacognitive belief that continually checking for physical signs that something might be wrong and compulsively reading about what kinds of nasty health conditions could afflict you is the right way to maintain your best chance of remaining physically, emotionally and mentally healthy, then why would seeing the error of this way of 'coping', and ceasing to act on it not be beneficial?

It is with these kinds of insights, and asking the critical questions about the compulsive behaviors that undermine our wellbeing and the erroneous and unexaminesd beliefs that support them that MCT seems to be concerned.

By referring to psychotherapies as "metacognitive beliefs" you seem to be conflating explicit theories about the effectiveness of various psychotherapeutic methodologies with implicit individual beliefs about the effectiveness of various coping strategies.

You make a distinction between truth and "benefit" contrasting the CBT practitioner with the philosopher, claiming the former is concerned with truth and the latter with mere benefit. This is misleading; CBT is concerned with discovering the truth about which kinds of thoughts and coping strategies are actually, as opposed to being merely imagined to be, beneficial.

The fact that you personally find it all "very depressing" has absolutely no bearing on whether it is beneficial to others.

This reads like an apologetic for personal addiction. I used to be addicted to various substances, then in my early 60s I finally gave them all up. Now I am much happier and much more productive with my creative pursuits, work and other activities. So here is an alternative apologetic for sober self-awareness and discipline.

Suppose I said to you that if you believe in Jesus as your saviour, and showed you with statistics that people who believe in Jesus as their saviour are much happier, than those who don't, would you believe in Jesus as your saviour? — unenlightened

Pragmatically, I would have nothing against believing in Jesus. But, I could create another belief in something else that may better suit my inclinations. But, I guess I see where you're coming from. It's just that psychotherapy, be it CBT or MCT, is validated by empirical studies and since it would be hard to argue that no person does not have cognitive distortions, then what's wrong with pointing them out if they actually do occur, which they do.

Thanks for sharing mcdoodle.

In the long run I've just concluded: I have a melancholy disposition, and the way things have turned out seem to demonstrate how right I was to be melancholy. — mcdoodle

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

I would add: therein lies a danger of disidentification. Alienation. If you refuse the label you're given when you go into the therapeutic room you'll find yourself isolated, and that itself may not be wise. — mcdoodle

There is that danger, yes. But, the goal is to get better, so, as long as that goal is being satisfied then why worry? But, I no longer believe in disidentification. I find it impossible to not think of the polar bear once brought up, or the fact that I have depression...

I can't just decide to believe in Jesus. — CasKev

Why not?

I have to first be convinced of his existence. — CasKev

I think you have this backward, believing in it is what convinces you of it. That's known as "faith". One has faith in Jesus (believes in Jesus), practises religion, and becomes convinced. How does this differ from having faith in CBT? You believe in CBT, practise it, and become convinced of it, just like a religion. Faith and belief are first. Practise follows. When the practise works, one becomes convinced. It's like learning how to play a musical instrument, if you do not believe in your ability, you will not succeed, because the practise will appear useless for one reason or another. Belief is prior to practise, conviction follows from practise.

Results

Presence of depression was related to less frequent worship attendance, more frequent private religious practice, and moderate subjective religiosity. Among the depressed group, less severe depression was related to more frequent worship attendance, less religiousness, and having had a born-again experience. These results were only partially explained by effects of social support and stress buffering.

Conclusions

Religion is related to depression diagnosis and severity via multiple pathways.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266521/

I need to make clear that I am not down on religion, and I am not down on CBT etc. Whatever gets you through the night.

What I am down on is the mask of scientism; and in particular the claim that the efficacy of practice demonstrates the truth of theory. The world is such a state that it is perfectly understandable that folks should prefer to live in Lala Land and be happier there. But personally, I do not advocate for it; I advocate for facing the horror that pervades one's being and the world, and doing one's negligible bit to ameliorate it.

I think that the notion of immortality is derived from the idea of being at the present. If one could truly exist at the present then that person would not take part in the past or the future, and have an existence which is non-temporal, eternal. But on the other hand, when we look at a thing's continued existence in time, we consider that it has existed in the past, and will continue existence into the future, neglecting the importance of the present. The present is the only time when change occurs, and to understand change we must allow for a discontinuity at the present. The immortal self is a continuous existence at the present. The mortal self is an object with continuous existence through the past and into the future. The discontinuity of the present annihilates both these selves. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks very much for your reply. This paragraph was particularly interesting, dealing with the present and its possible relation to the person. Could you expand on the idea, if you don’t mind? I think i was following up until the last three lines of the quote, especially the last sentence. (Or maybe I wasn’t following as well as I thought! :wink: )

Also, this reminds of a quote or an idea, but can’t remember who said it and Google failed me. It was something along the lines of “in our dimension, time is limited but space is infinite. In higher dimensions (or approaching light speed) time expands and space contracts.” Thoughts?

What clinical experience teaches in fact is not that psychological distress and emotional suffering are the result of individual faults, flaws or medical disorders, but arise from the social organizations in which all of us are located. Furthermore, damage to people, once done, is not easily cured, but may more easily (and that not easily at all!) be prevented by attending to and caring for the structures of the world in which we live. These are questions neither of medicine nor of 'therapy'. If anything, they may be seen more as questions of morality and, by extension, politics.

David Smail Power, Responsibility and Freedom