The fields of psychiatry and psychology do not have a brain science definition for the mind or mental, so when they speak about mental health, there is no reference to components within the cranium, as parallels.
This is different from saying the limbic system is for emotions, or a circuit is for pleasure, or that the prefrontal cortex is responsible for thoughts. What are the mechanisms that can be used to tell mental disorders apart?
What are the mechanisms behind mental disorders?
The cognitive model that includes automatic thoughts, behaviors, situations, feelings, is outdated and probably obsolete. What are thoughts? What are feelings? What is behavior? What are emotions? Better attempts at presenting answers to these questions by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) would have done more to moving understanding forward, as well as to explore new paths to therapy, than to continue to lead with unstructured labels for the mind.
It is common in medicine to have medical terms and general descriptions, just like brand names in pharma and names of drug compounds or active ingredients. Yet, in psychology and in psychiatry, emotion is emotion, feelings are feelings, behavior is behavior and so forth.
Electrical and chemical signals
It is known that all emotional processes involve electrical and chemical signals. What if, conceptually, there is a description that both signals have to interact at a certain angle, to produce emotions, but differ from how they interact to produce feelings or memory, since emotions [like trauma, depression] may sometimes seem heavier than memory—say, of language?
It is also possible to have proposed that electrical signals and chemical signals have states during the interactions, becoming how they measure [the extents of] those interactions. These concepts could have been be used as parallels to conditions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), and then become ways to explore how to have biomarkers for mental disorders. The field of psychiatry and psychology would not have been the same.
The reason to try is not just for the sake of it, but for the seriousness of mental disorders, including addictions, and how it is problematic for people living with the conditions, globally. There is no way that psychology and psychiatry would remain this static, especially using non-brain science parallels, and not expect that advances in technology may not one day, take over some parts of their work that appears so plain or nearly basic.
AI chatbots masquerading as therapists
There is a recent analysis [February 24, 2025] in The NYTimes, Human Therapists Prepare for Battle Against A.I. Pretenders, stating that, “The nation’s largest association of psychologists this month warned federal regulators that A.I. chatbots “masquerading” as therapists, but programmed to reinforce, rather than to challenge, a user’s thinking, could drive vulnerable people to harm themselves or others.”
“In a presentation to a Federal Trade Commission panel, Arthur C. Evans Jr., the chief executive of the American Psychological Association, cited court cases involving two teenagers who had consulted with “psychologists” on Character.AI, an app that allows users to create fictional A.I. characters or chat with characters created by others. The American Psychological Association has asked the Federal Trade Commission to start an investigation into chatbots claiming to be mental health professionals. The inquiry could compel companies to share internal data or serve as a precursor to enforcement or legal action.”
AI impersonating human therapists
There is another analysis [February 10, 2025] on Vox, AI is impersonating human therapists. Can it be stopped?, stating that, “Over the past few years, AI systems have been misrepresenting themselves as human therapists, nurses, and more — and so far, the companies behind these systems haven’t faced any serious consequences. A bill being introduced Monday in California aims to put a stop to that.”
“The legislation would ban companies from developing and deploying an AI system that pretends to be a human certified as a health provider and give regulators the authority to penalize them with fines. The bill has support from some of California’s health care industry players, such as SEIU California, a labor union with over 750,000 members, and the California Medical Association, a professional organization representing California physicians.”
Eventual replaceability
There is a recent idea [February 24, 2025] on TIME, I’m a Therapist, and I’m Replaceable. But So Are You, stating that, “Therapy is a field ripe for disruption. Bad therapists are, unfortunately, a common phenomenon, while good therapists are hard to find. When you do manage to find a good therapist, they often don’t take insurance and almost always charge a sizable fee that, over time, can really add up. AI therapy could fill an immense gap. In the U.S. alone, more than half of adults with mental health issues do not receive the treatment they need. With the help of AI, any person could access a highly skilled therapist, tailored to their unique needs, at any time. It would be revolutionary.”
There are problems with psychobots, but AI [artificial intelligence], underpinned by large language models [LLMs], has language as a major strength. While clinical psychology exceeds language, LLMs are able to simulate aspects of consultations in the ways that the weaknesses in the fields may appear like an opening for AI.
Legislation, litigation, regulation, and adjustments are possible, but it is unlikely that AI would not be able to overtake Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in the present form, at some point, unless psychiatry and psychology expands into neuroscience in ways to use the components of mind to answer questions around mental health.
What is the human mind? How does the human mind work? The answers expected would not be to mention thoughts or feelings. The right answers would be components, their relays, interactions, attributes, and so forth. The bigger threat to the field of psychology and psychiatry is their lack of exploration of theoretical neuroscience to the point that evidence [electrical and chemical signals] reaches.
This article was written for WHN by David Stephen, who currently does research in conceptual brain science with a focus on the electrical and chemical signals for how they mechanize the human mind with implications for mental health, disorders, neurotechnology, consciousness, learning, artificial intelligence and nurture. He was a visiting scholar in medical entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. He did computer vision research at Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona.
As with anything you read on the internet, this article should not be construed as medical advice; please talk to your doctor or primary care provider before changing your wellness routine. WHN does not agree or disagree with any of the materials posted. This article is not intended to provide a medical diagnosis, recommendation, treatment, or endorsement.
Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of WHN/A4M. Any content provided by guest authors is of their own opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything else. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
