by Gerald D. Klee, MD, Editor
[Spring 1999; Vol.26 No. 1]
William James turns out to have been right about the indeterminate and unforeseeable nature of brain activity.(1) As a nineteenth century physician, psychologist and philosopher, James opposed the deterministic "automaton theory" of the brain, the prevailing paradigm of his time. Emphasizing indeterminacy, he asserted that adaptability would be greatly reduced and free will would be impossible in a brain that functioned deterministically. James stated that "The performances of the high brain (cerebral hemispheres) are like dice thrown forever on a table." He then went on to suggest that consciousness loads the dice, reinforcing favorable possibilities, while repressing the others.
It is only in recent years that "chaos theory" and the demonstration of chaotic activity in the brain have shown that James' speculations, over a century ago, were on the right track. Unfortunately, his words went unheeded as psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis spent the next century in a misguided search for certainty. According to Walter Freeman, a celebrated neuroscientist who has pioneered in chaos research, modern neuroscience, psychology and philosophy are grounded in fallacy and a revolutionary paradigm shift is overdue.(2) The major fallacy he speaks of is the adherence to the strict determinism of Newton and LaPlace that says, given the present state of the world in sufficient detail we can predict the future to the end of time. This is the form of determinism opposed by James. Since the advent of quantum theory and chaos theory, we know that this form of determinism has only limited applicability in the universe. Complete predictability is the exception, rather than the rule. Among the characteristics of chaos, is sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Tiny differences in input can lead to overwhelming differences in output.
The revolution is slow to make an impression in psychiatry and psychology. Computer science is another matter. This is demonstrated in The Age of Spiritual Machines(3), the latest book by Ray Kurzweil, a renowned computer scientist and inventor. In this book Kurzweil describes computers of the future, which he believes will match and then exceed human intelligence within a couple of decades. A pioneer in neural nets, Kurzweil asserts that the best way to design such computers is to model them after the human brain itself, which is by far the most advanced neural net. With the aid of rapidly evolving computer assisted imaging techniques, he believes it will become possible to copy the brain down to the last detail. Here's a brief outline of how he would then proceed. He would simulate each of the 100 billion or so neurons and arrange them in a true parallel system, rather than in series like most of today's computers. Each "neuron" would operate independently. The system would be non-linear, chaotic, self-organizing and emergent. This form of organization permits pattern recognition (such as faces, text etc.) and independent learning like the brain does. Serial computers can't learn on their own, but have to be programmed. Due to the randomness of their design, one can't predict precisely what the result will be when a neural net goes about solving a problem. This leads to novelty and also permits neural nets to be artistically creative. Though not all agree, Kurzweil believes that such computers eventually will even have consciousness, human emotions and free will.
What will be the consequences of such developments? The social and economic structure of society will be dramatically altered in ways difficult to imagine. Advances in biotechnology will dramatically improve medical care. As computer technology advances exponentially, knowledge in neuroscience will keep pace. Will there be a place for psychotherapy in this hi-tech world? About six years ago, I attended a lecture on the subject of chaos given by James Yorke, the pioneering mathematician who coined the term "chaos theory" years earlier. Yorke demonstrated chaotic action for the audience with a system of pendulums. He showed that when you attach a pendulum to the end of another pendulum, the action is "chaotic" and no longer predictable. Afterward, I asked him whether he thought that there is chaos involved in communications during psychotherapy. He agreed that such human interactions involve unpredictability that is likely to involve chaos. The next question was whether it would be possible to study psychotherapy using the paradigm of chaos theory. I was disappointed when Yorke replied that it isn't possible, because psychotherapy is far too complicated. It is true however, that psychotherapy is complicated, at least in the forms of therapy that allow the patient to speak freely. The chaos in psychotherapy may be a necessary part of what can make it creative. Will it ever be possible to study this chaotic process, or is psychotherapy too complicated for the scientific world? James might say that as with most things, the future of psychotherapy is indeterminate.