Syrup,
Though I appreciate where you’re coming from, the question of whether spiritual possession is real or not (and in what way is it real) has, for me, never been as black and white as this. I don’t know what counts as the “most rational explanation.” I’m sure a scientific minded person would agree with you. I’m sure a deeply religious person would disagree. Typically, I find that when pressed to explain what counts as a “rational” explanation, most people reveal something along the lines of: it makes the most sense to me, or: it leaves the least number of questions lingering. ← But even there, it’s a whole can of worms to decide why more questions would arise from one explanation rather than another, and how do you enumerate the number of questions that arise, and are there really more questions that arise or simply the questions that arise draw more attention or seem more important to answer. I think the last thing “rationality” means in this case is: when the rules of formal logic are applied, this is the conclusion we arrive at.
But in any case, I know I’m drawn to spiritual explanations for things a lot more than the average person. This is partly because spirituality fascinates me, but also because of my anti-epistemicism–that is, my heightened skepticism over so-called knowledge–and this is not just a consequence of how limited I think human beings are in their ability to know things, but of how politically motivated people are in disseminating information. People lie. They deceive. Even in expounding scientific reports and teaching children in our schools. The process by which religious institutions indoctrinate children so that they become believers is the same process by which scientific institutions indoctrinate children so that they become believers. Formally speaking, unless I was actually there to see it myself, I don’t say that I know this or that scientific fact, I say I’m told this or that scientific fact, or that I read this or that scientific fact. So setting the epistemic bar so high, and not knowing the true nature of the universe and spiritual reality, I’m inclined to place different interpretations of things (like cases of DID) on relatively equal footing.
I have no idea how DID works. Again, it’s probably not as black and white as this. I know Autumn calls herself an atypical case of DID primarily because she doesn’t deny the existence of her alters, and when push comes to shove, admits they are all her (and I think this is probably in large part a result of therapy). From what I can tell, DID is acting, but it’s acting on an unconscious level using defense mechanisms that can result in loss of memory and “black outs,” leaving the subject on a conscious level to not know what the hell’s going on. But as such, this means that the host can call upon the alters at will if she believes she can–that is, if this is all play acting, then all she has to do is play act that she can call upon them at will.
James,
Interesting concept, James, but I don’t know if this is the concept of a demon, just a concept. The layman’s concept, and that of deeply religious people following traditional Western theology, is that of a literal incorporeal spirit who invades a person’s body and takes control of it, essentially overriding the host’s control. This may be a misconception of the original concept, but if it is, the original concept is lost to history and this is what the modern concept has come to mean.
You’re right about computers (although they don’t always work this way), but I’m not sure this is how it works in the brain (have you studied this?). But on an abstract level, I agree that it works this way. Each personality has its own set of memories that it keep separate from the others. If personality A sensed, during a pre-conscious stage, that memories from personality B are coming to consciousness, then she will block those memories out. Since DID is just play acting on an unconscious level, she would have to know, on an unconscious level, that those memories are associated with personality B, and therefore would know to block them out (as opposed to letting them in an wondering where the hell they came from). ← If this is the case, I would surmise that the organizational structure of the memories is driven more by associations (i.e. which personality it is associated with) rather than where in the brain they are stored. Metaphorically, you might think of the personalities as colors. Personality A might be red. Personality B might be blue. If the subject is currently acting out the red persona, and she senses a blue memory coming in, it’s the blue that signals to here to repress it. In the brain, you can imagine the red and blue memories being scattered all about, or strewn amongst each other (such that if you were to look at it from a distance, you’d see a blotch of purple in the brain). So it’s more a property of the memory, its associations, rather than where it is in the brain.
I agree with this. Memory associations are not just records of things that happened, of experiences from the past, but emotions and attitudes and such as well. The latter come from things that happened and experiences from the past, which almost always come with some kind of emotional tinge, leading to attitude formations, but the actual event or experience need not always be stored in memory, or come to consciousness from some kind of trigger, whereas the attitudes and emotions associated with the memory more often do come to consciousness. It’s the latter which really define, or at least heavily taint, the personality who, in the past, experienced those events.
Mm-hm.
Well, if we go with the play acting theory of DID, this is a good analogy.
These medications which result in DID, were they around in mideival Europe when demon possession was thought to be commonplace?
But not dissociation… or is there dissociation with these disorders? If not, in what way does the mechanism for storing memories change with cases of autism and AD(H)D? Being distracted or failing to pay attention, in the case of AD(H)D, would result in certain inputs not being remembered at all (for example, what the teacher is saying to the class). Or are you saying it is always remembered, just that if the subject is not paying attention, they will be remembered in a different spot in memory (dissociated) and the subject will find it hard to recall those memories since being distracted or not paying attention results in no associations being formed to those memories?
You know this from personal experience or you just done a lot of heavy studying?
That sounds like saying: if a dark “evil” personality comes off as a possessing demon, then exorcism can be achieved by nurturing a more light, benevolent, confident personality in one’s self. One simply has to concentrate on acting out that personality and sticking with it. ← Is that what you mean?
In Autumn’s case, those would be the protectors I suppose.
Yes, I agree with that. It’s much easier to crack an egg than to mend one.
On the note about medication causing disorders, what would you say about my own case? I have ADD (or something close to that). In grade 3, I was put on ritalin. It seemed to work in terms of helping me focus in school and improve my grades, and not only while I was on it, but after they took me off (it was like I learned how to focus, at least in school). Now, it was obvious to everyone that I had something like ADD before they put me on medication (so obviously, the medication didn’t cause it) and after putting me on medication, the problem, at least insofar as my ability to focus in school and get good grades, went away, and seemed to stay away even after the medication was lifted. ← What do you say about that?