Well, in the case of schizoid mathematician John Nash, his
"psychotic" behaviour was also clearly linked to his maths ability.
After imbibing anti-psychotic medication, not only did his "unreal"
friends disappear, but his mathematical perception as well. The bind
he found himself in was surely then to be at once an unreasonable
machine (under yours and Bruno's definition) and a reasonable machine
as well - and to be both simultaneously!!! For Nash, the delusional
was the doorway to provability. He could not separate the two, except
under the influence of heavy chemistry. Can we do any better? Should
we even try?
On 27/05/2006, at 10:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> It is interesting that in psychiatry, it is impossible to give a
> reliable method for recognizing a delusion. The usual definition is
> a delusion is a fixed, false belief which is not in keeping with the
> patient's cultural background. If you think about it, why should
> cultural background have any bearing on whether a person's
> reasoning is
> faulty? And even including this criterion, it is often difficult to
> without looking at associated factors such as change in personality,
> mood disturbance, etc. The single best test is to treat someone with
> antipsychotic medication and see if the delusion goes away.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at