[markjones87]

What do people think of this theory? The body storing trauma? I know this theory has become very popular in wellness circles for explaining a raft of mental health illnesses.

I'm sceptical.

 

[Aridity]

The most well known expert on trauma Bessel van der Kolk, also says this is true. Read his book the Body keeps the Score.

 

[markjones87]

Alas, most of this article is behind a paywall but this expert is none too impressed with the theory.

https://www.painscience.com/blog/vagus-nerve-hype-and-hope.html

Also, talked about here. Resetting the Hype Around the Vagus Nerve

 

[Aridity]

Well this is just about the Vagus Nerve.. there's way more to it.

 

[Chip1021]

Call me extremely skeptical

 

[Aridity]

Call me extremely skeptical

What do you think then, all brain related?

 

[Chip1021]

What do you think then, all brain related?

No. I think anybody who claims that emotional trauma is stored in the body is confusing words with things.

 

[leminaseri]

No. I think anybody who claims that emotional trauma is stored in the body is confusing words with things.

where it is stored then

 

[Aridity]

where it is stored then

Wanted to ask the same thing.. lol. I think this theory is very true, tension and emotional baggage definitely leaves marks in your body. When my body is relaxed, I feel better unfortunately that's not very often I have this 24/7 of low level stress.

 

[Trith]

I am skeptical of most things that make such a difference between mind and body, I usually don't agree with how they view things. For me, the brain is material just like the rest of the body. And the mind is an abstraction, just like the software is a useful abstraction that helps us understand intuitively what the hardware is doing. But the software is not something separate from the hardware, it is just what concept we use to describe features of the activity of the hardware. I think the same of the bind/body thing. So as far as we know, there is nothing that the mind does that isn't the result of something in the body with it's very material neurons.
I know some people who seem to believe that feelings happen in the body and only thoughts happen in the brain, but so far we know where emotions happen in the brain, even when we have "gut" feelings. But even proprioception happens in the brain, even the information that tells us where a sensation is felt in the body happens in the brain. In the case of phantom limbs, someone can feel something in a non existing limb just because the corresponding part of the brain got activated, whereas there is nothing at that place in space. People lose their feelings of emotions when they get some damages in some regions of the brain, but I have never heard someone losing the feeling of love because they had a heart attack or a heart transplant. Or the brain area dedicated to vision is in the back of the head, but I never feel something in the back of my head when I use my vision. That information about the actual location of where things happen is totally useless from an evolutionary point of view. So it might very well be only illusions just like the thousands of other illusions we have and it wouldn't matter. Some lesions in the brain can change the feelings of proprioception, so the information about the location of limbs themselves. This is all happening in the brain. So even if some things feel like they happen in the body, they actually happen in the brain as far as we know. And even the feeling that they happen in the body happens in the brain. For me heart cells and liver cells don't process information and traumas, they already have their own job to do and the brain does it fine.
What many people want to say, when they say they want to be more connected to their body feelings, is that they want to pay more attention to subtle feelings rather than on conscious "rational" thoughts.
I'm fine with using this as a figure of speech, like when we say "the sun rises" but we know it's the earth rotating, but I am not fond of when people pretend that something actually happens in the "body" just because it feels like it, when all science says the opposite so far. I don't know where you stand about this, but I have met people who believed this, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. In the same kind of groups, you also hear about that "second brain" which would be the guts, because there are lots of neurons there. Somehow they believe they were right all along because it proves what they were saying. But those are used not for "gut feelings" but to control digestion as far as we know, and the serotonin they produce never reaches the brain because it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. So it's all mixed. First they say it's not only neurons, and when we find neurons in the body they say it's neurons again but somewhere else.
Several people I have met who were into this were also into a kind of war between the so called rational and the irrational. Where science and doctors were all about "rationality" and denying their feelings, but they wanted to be more connected to their intuition without those rational people telling them what they are allowed to think or not to think. The intention could be legitimate for them depending on their history, but it doesn't mean that these valid feelings are rooted in physical reality. So yes, maybe traumas can be more easily accessed when we connect to our intuition, and that connection feels like it is in the body. Maybe it does feel like that. But that sort of confusion, for me, is often borderline anti-science. But it depends how it is phrased and how it is explained.

 

[leminaseri]

I am skeptical of most things that make such a difference between mind and body, I usually don't agree with how they view things. For me, the brain is material just like the rest of the body. And the mind is an abstraction, just like the software is a useful abstraction that helps us understand intuitively what the hardware is doing. But the software is not something separate from the hardware, it is just what concept we use to describe features of the activity of the hardware. I think the same of the bind/body thing. So as far as we know, there is nothing that the mind does that isn't the result of something in the body with it's very material neurons.
Some people seem to believe that feelings happen in the body and only thoughts happen in the brain, but so far we know where emotions happen in the brain, even when we have "gut" feelings. But even proprioception happens in the brain, even the information that tells us where a sensation is felt in the body happens in the brain. In the case of phantom limbs, someone can feel something in a non existing limb just because the corresponding part of the brain got activated, whereas there is nothing at that place in space. People lose their feelings of emotions when they get some damages in some regions of the brain, but I have never heard someone losing the feeling of love because they had a heart attack or a heart transplant. Or the brain area dedicated to vision is in the back of the head, but I never feel something in the back of my head when I use my vision. That information about the actual location of where things happen is totally useless from an evolutionary point of view. So it might very well be only illusions just like the thousands of other illusions we have and it wouldn't matter. Some lesions in the brain can change the feelings of proprioception, so the information about the location of limbs themselves. This is all happening in the brain. So even if some things feel like they happen in the body, they actually happen in the brain as far as we know. And even the feeling that they happen in the body happens in the brain. For me heart cells and liver cells don't process information and traumas, they already have their own job to do and the brain does it fine.
What many people want to say, when they say they want to be more connected to their body feelings, is that they want to pay more attention to subtle feelings rather than on conscious "rational" thoughts.
I'm fine with using this as a figure of speech, like when we say "the sun rises" but we know it's the earth rotating, but I am not fond of people who pretend that something actually happens in the "body" just because it feels like it, when all science says the opposite so far. In the same kind of groups, you also hear about that "second brain" which would be the guts, because there are lots of neurons there. Somehow they believe they were right all along because it proves what they were saying. But those are used not for "gut feelings" but to control digestion, as far as we know, and the serotonin they produce never reaches the brain because it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. So it's all mixed. First they say it's not only neurons, and when we find neurons in the body they say it's neurons again but somewhere else.
The people I have met who believe these things were generally into a kind of war between the so called rational and the irrational. Where science and doctors were all about "rationality" and denying their feelings, but they wanted to be more connected to their intuition without those rational people telling them what they are allowed to think or not to think. So yes, maybe traumas can be more easily accessed when we connect to our intuition, and that connection feels like it is in the body. Maybe it does feel like that. But that sort of confusion, for me, is often borderline anti-science.

btw if we talk about science: they did believe 25 years long that depression is related to serotonin. 25 years later: SURPRISEEEE WE WERE WRONG.

science and medicine (let alone mental health) is for me not compatible. individual outcomes biases research a lot. science can and will never be able to pull conclusions about one (ill) individual
science should stay on physics and chemistry.

 

[Chip1021]

where it is stored then

Wanted to ask the same thing.. lol. I think this theory is very true, tension and emotional baggage definitely leaves marks in your body. When my body is relaxed, I feel better unfortunately that's not very often I have this 24/7 of low level stress.

I am skeptical of most things that make such a difference between mind and body, I usually don't agree with how they view things. For me, the brain is material just like the rest of the body. And the mind is an abstraction, just like the software is a useful abstraction that helps us understand intuitively what the hardware is doing. But the software is not something separate from the hardware, it is just what concept we use to describe features of the activity of the hardware. I think the same of the bind/body thing. So as far as we know, there is nothing that the mind does that isn't the result of something in the body with it's very material neurons.
I know some people who seem to believe that feelings happen in the body and only thoughts happen in the brain, but so far we know where emotions happen in the brain, even when we have "gut" feelings. But even proprioception happens in the brain, even the information that tells us where a sensation is felt in the body happens in the brain. In the case of phantom limbs, someone can feel something in a non existing limb just because the corresponding part of the brain got activated, whereas there is nothing at that place in space. People lose their feelings of emotions when they get some damages in some regions of the brain, but I have never heard someone losing the feeling of love because they had a heart attack or a heart transplant. Or the brain area dedicated to vision is in the back of the head, but I never feel something in the back of my head when I use my vision. That information about the actual location of where things happen is totally useless from an evolutionary point of view. So it might very well be only illusions just like the thousands of other illusions we have and it wouldn't matter. Some lesions in the brain can change the feelings of proprioception, so the information about the location of limbs themselves. This is all happening in the brain. So even if some things feel like they happen in the body, they actually happen in the brain as far as we know. And even the feeling that they happen in the body happens in the brain. For me heart cells and liver cells don't process information and traumas, they already have their own job to do and the brain does it fine.
What many people want to say, when they say they want to be more connected to their body feelings, is that they want to pay more attention to subtle feelings rather than on conscious "rational" thoughts.
I'm fine with using this as a figure of speech, like when we say "the sun rises" but we know it's the earth rotating, but I am not fond of when people pretend that something actually happens in the "body" just because it feels like it, when all science says the opposite so far. I don't know where you stand about this, but I have met people who believed this, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. In the same kind of groups, you also hear about that "second brain" which would be the guts, because there are lots of neurons there. Somehow they believe they were right all along because it proves what they were saying. But those are used not for "gut feelings" but to control digestion as far as we know, and the serotonin they produce never reaches the brain because it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. So it's all mixed. First they say it's not only neurons, and when we find neurons in the body they say it's neurons again but somewhere else.
Several people I have met who were into this were also into a kind of war between the so called rational and the irrational. Where science and doctors were all about "rationality" and denying their feelings, but they wanted to be more connected to their intuition without those rational people telling them what they are allowed to think or not to think. The intention could be legitimate for them depending on their history, but it doesn't mean that these valid feelings are rooted in physical reality. So yes, maybe traumas can be more easily accessed when we connect to our intuition, and that connection feels like it is in the body. Maybe it does feel like that. But that sort of confusion, for me, is often borderline anti-science. But it depends how it is phrased and how it is explained.

I wanted to quote all three of you in my reply because I feel like this is a response to all three of you to one extent or another.

I am not proposing a “Cartesian” substance dualism here, where man consists of two interconnected substances: mind and body. What I am suggesting is that mind and body are two radically different kinds of discourses or conversations about experience and reality (there was another thread where I responded to Peter about this topic, so I’ll try not to repeat too much of what I said there). Concepts such as “leg” or “immune system” or “brain” or “neurotransmitter” belong to a body discourse, whereas terms such as “thought,” “memory,” “depression,” or “(emotional) trauma” belong to a mind discourse. In your post, Trith, you suggested a distinction between brain and body, that some people (you might have been referring to me here) view certain experiences as coming from their gut or their heart or wherever, when in reality that experience is coming from their brain, even though they don’t feel that sensation in the brain. I suppose I both agree and disagree with you. I believe that the expression “gut feeling” is a metaphor that some people might interpret literally, and I also that emotions do not come from the heart (again, literally). But I also don’t believe that these feelings or sensations “come from” the brain either, though those experiences may be reflected in that organ. My objection to the claims that OP were making have to do with my objections to positivist neuroscience generally; that author, in my view, is reifying trauma just like neuroscientists have a strong tendency to reify thought, memory, rationality, morality, even the mind itself—all of which are nouns that don’t actually refer to things, and are better understood as actions that a (human) agent are performing. Thought= to think; memory = to remember; and reason and morality are tools that we use to talk about our experiences in different ways. None of them are best understood as things that spew forth from the brain or any other organ of the body.

So let’s just talk about depression, for instance. What is the referent of that word? Well, we could conceptualize it in a number of different ways. If we are ok being very old-fashioned, we could conceptualize it in theological terms, as being possessed or controlled by demons or witches. Few people in the modern world would suggest such an understanding, so I’ll just move on. Others would define depression in more existential terms—depression is the label we attach to the affective experience we have as the result of a perceived loss or lacking of something that is valuable to us. This is my preferred understanding of depression.

Still others (especially those of a strongly scientific bent) insist that, since the material world is all that is “real,” depression (and all the other “mind” terms I mentioned) must be understood in materialist terms. In this sense, depression would be defined by observations about the neurological and physiological correlates of that experience. Which of these models offers the best way to understand and respond to depression? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this claim about depression being a serotonin imbalance of the brain were empirically valid (it isn’t, and I’ve always considered that claim to be ridiculously over simplistic and a comical recapitulation of the “humoral imbalance” theory of disease, but for this exercise, let’s just assume that claim were grounded in solid science). If that is how we are understanding depression, then it would be possible (at least in theory), for a person to “have depression” without being depressed, and it would also be possible for a person to be depression but not “have depression” (this is of course the primary reason why psychiatrists don’t—and never will—have any organic tests for identifying their conditions). A corpse or an unconscious person, in other words, could “have depression” just like he could have Alzheimer’s. Furthermore, if a person who becomes depressed conceptualizes his problem as a chemical imbalance, he will respond to his problem, not by asking himself how he can cope with his loss, or figure out how to make a life that is more meaningful and rewarding to him. Instead, he will ask himself “how can I give my brain more of that sweet, sweet serotonin.” And so he might start taking SSRI’s, or buying OTC serotonin supplements, or do research on foods and exercises that are associated with boosting serotonin. I even heard one person claim that her therapist told her that starting a new relationship can help create serotonin in the brain! And when a person engages in these activities, he might notice some improvements which he of course attributes to a boost in his serotonin, but he will often feel only temporary benefits and wonder why he can’t sustain those good feelings. And I think the reason why is this: the eternal quest for serotonin is not a very meaningful or valuable activity for most people.

I have said said many times on this forum that I do think that a semantic and teleological model offers the best way to understand human experience and behavior, and nothing I’ve heard from neuroscientists or psychiatrists has convinced me that their materialist-mechanistic-evolutionary approach is better. I do think that modern man is prejudiced to accept positive science as, prima facie, the best way to understand everything and I think that is a mistake. I mean, we can understand a cultural artifact like a wedding rink entirely by its materialist composition and physical provenance, but is that the only “proper” way to understand it? And is that understanding necessarily superior to an economic, emotional, or cultural account of its value? All human behavior must be situated in a matrix of values, and this includes the activities we call science.

When it comes to my own personal issue (whatever it is), I do have reason to think that some structural issue is underlying it—what that issue is, and whether it’s “in” my brain, or inner ear, sinuses, hormones, or immune system (though I do suspect the brain for many reasons I won’t go into here). However I also can’t deny the role that the language I’m using to talk to myself about my problem plays in this whole drama. And it seems clear to me that the language I’m using is coming from my own attempts to make sense of my life, and is not just spewing out from my brain beyond my control.

 

[Aridity]

I wanted to quote all three of you in my reply because I feel like this is a response to all three of you to one extent or another.

I am not proposing a “Cartesian” substance dualism here, where man consists of two interconnected substances: mind and body. What I am suggesting is that mind and body are two radically different kinds of discourses or conversations about experience and reality (there was another thread where I responded to Peter about this topic, so I’ll try not to repeat too much of what I said there). Concepts such as “leg” or “immune system” or “brain” or “neurotransmitter” belong to a body discourse, whereas terms such as “thought,” “memory,” “depression,” or “(emotional) trauma” belong to a mind discourse. In your post, Trith, you suggested a distinction between brain and body, that some people (you might have been referring to me here) view certain experiences as coming from their gut or their heart or wherever, when in reality that experience is coming from their brain, even though they don’t feel that sensation in the brain. I suppose I both agree and disagree with you. I believe that the expression “gut feeling” is a metaphor that some people might interpret literally, and I also that emotions do not come from the heart (again, literally). But I also don’t believe that these feelings or sensations “come from” the brain either, though those experiences may be reflected in that organ. My objection to the claims that OP were making have to do with my objections to positivist neuroscience generally; that author, in my view, is reifying trauma just like neuroscientists have a strong tendency to reify thought, memory, rationality, morality, even the mind itself—all of which are nouns that don’t actually refer to things, and are better understood as actions that a (human) agent are performing. Thought= to think; memory = to remember; and reason and morality are tools that we use to talk about our experiences in different ways. None of them are best understood as things that spew forth from the brain or any other organ of the body.

So let’s just talk about depression, for instance. What is the referent of that word? Well, we could conceptualize it in a number of different ways. If we are ok being very old-fashioned, we could conceptualize it in theological terms, as being possessed or controlled by demons or witches. Few people in the modern world would suggest such an understanding, so I’ll just move on. Others would define depression in more existential terms—depression is the label we attach to the affective experience we have as the result of a perceived loss or lacking of something that is valuable to us. This is my preferred understanding of depression.

Still others (especially those of a strongly scientific bent) insist that, since the material world is all that is “real,” depression (and all the other “mind” terms I mentioned) must be understood in materialist terms. In this sense, depression would be defined by observations about the neurological and physiological correlates of that experience. Which of these models offers the best way to understand and respond to depression? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this claim about depression being a serotonin imbalance of the brain were empirically valid (it isn’t, and I’ve always considered that claim to be ridiculously over simplistic and a comical recapitulation of the “humoral imbalance” theory of disease, but for this exercise, let’s just assume that claim were grounded in solid science). If that is how we are understanding depression, then it would be possible (at least in theory), for a person to “have depression” without being depressed, and it would also be possible for a person to be depression but not “have depression” (this is of course the primary reason why psychiatrists don’t—and never will—have any organic tests for identifying their conditions). A corpse or an unconscious person, in other words, could “have depression” just like he could have Alzheimer’s. Furthermore, if a person who becomes depressed conceptualizes his problem as a chemical imbalance, he will respond to his problem, not by asking himself how he can cope with his loss, or figure out how to make a life that is more meaningful and rewarding to him. Instead, he will ask himself “how can I give my brain more of that sweet, sweet serotonin.” And so he might start taking SSRI’s, or buying OTC serotonin supplements, or do research on foods and exercises that are associated with boosting serotonin. I even heard one person claim that her therapist told her that starting a new relationship can help create serotonin in the brain! And when a person engages in these activities, he might notice some improvements which he of course attributes to a boost in his serotonin, but he will often feel only temporary benefits and wonder why he can’t sustain those good feelings. And I think the reason why is this: the eternal quest for serotonin is not a very meaningful or valuable activity for most people.

I have said said many times on this forum that I do think that a semantic and teleological model offers the best way to understand human experience and behavior, and nothing I’ve heard from neuroscientists or psychiatrists has convinced me that their materialist-mechanistic-evolutionary approach is better. I do think that modern man is prejudiced to accept positive science as, prima facie, the best way to understand everything and I think that is a mistake. I mean, we can understand a cultural artifact like a wedding rink entirely by its materialist composition and physical provenance, but is that the only “proper” way to understand it? And is that understanding necessarily superior to an economic, emotional, or cultural account of its value? All human behavior must be situated in a matrix of values, and this includes the activities we call science.

When it comes to my own personal issue (whatever it is), I do have reason to think that some structural issue is underlying it—what that issue is, and whether it’s “in” my brain, or inner ear, sinuses, hormones, or immune system (though I do suspect the brain for many reasons I won’t go into here). However I also can’t deny the role that the language I’m using to talk to myself about my problem plays in this whole drama. And it seems clear to me that the language I’m using is coming from my own attempts to make sense of my life, and is not just spewing out from my brain beyond my control.

tldr