Because he lacked the knowledge that we have today.
It's the old caloric theory, phlogiston, flat-earth, elan vital, etc.. etc.. etc..
It's easy to think like Pascal if you don't know how matter can represent it's self, but it most certainly can. It's widely believed that newborns don't represent themselves either, they cannot distinguish between themselves and their environments. Some research suggests that babies learn they are separate entities by social observations, by observing other independant agents and internalizing those qualities. Some babies up to 2 years of age, still cannot recognize the person in the mirror as being themselves. Keep in mind, that you only know of your mind, you believe in other minds because of your aquired theory of minds. But you can only directly know your own mind. So whether or not an arrangement of matter has a mind, is beyond your theory of mind, and likewise it was beyond pascal's. An alternative theory of mind might incorporate some physical requisites for a mind, and under that theory matter can represent it's self.
thank you.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Keep in mind, that you only know of your mind, you believe in other minds because of your aquired theory of minds. But you can only directly know your own mind.
I only know my mind. . . I. am. mine.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
"The notion of mental illness derives it main support from such phenomena as syphilis of the brain or delirious conditions-intoxications, for instance -- in which persons are known to manifest various peculiarities or disorders of thinking and behavior. Correctly speaking, however, these are diseases of the brain, not of the mind. According to one school of thought, all so-called mental illness is of this type. The assumption is made that some neurological defect, perhaps a very subtle one, will ultimately be found for all the disorders of thinking and behavior. Many contemporary psychiatrists, physicians, and other scientists hold this view. This position implies that people cannot have troubles -- expressed in what are now called "mental illnesses" -- because of differences in personal needs, opinions, social aspirations, values, and so on. All problems in living are attributed to physicochemical processes which in due time will be discovered by medical research."
"The term "mental illness" is widely used to describe something which is very different than a disease of the brain. Many people today take it· for granted that living is an arduous process. Its hardship for modern man, moreover, derives not so much from a struggle for biological survival as from the stresses and strains inherent in the social intercourse of complex human personalities. In this context, the notion of mental illness is used to identify or describe some feature of an individual's so-called personality. Mental illness -- as a deformity of the personality, so to speak -- is then regarded as the cause of the human disharmony. It is implicit in this view that social intercourse between people is regarded as something inherently harmonious, its disturbance being due solely to the presence of "mental illness" in many people. This is obviously fallacious reasoning, for it makes the abstraction "mental illness" into a cause, even though this abstraction was created in the first place to serve only as a shorthand expression for certain types of human behavior. ".
Yea, Kim Peek thinks he's the shit too, but he can't dress himself. He needs constant assistance. Which is fine, but you can't look a gift horse in the mouth. If people are willing to help you function normally, it's rather rude to complain about the type of help your getting.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I personally agree with the destigmatization of mental illnesses and greater support for those afflicted. But this is ridiculous. They are disorders, they are illnesses. I'm tired of everything being PC. Shellshock, became PTSD and soon enough it will be called "Post-Traumatic Awesomeness and Bonuses" which will then be found to be sarcastic and changed back to something that elicits empathy from the public and on and on we go.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Earlier in this thread, MahoganySouls, a self-admitted person in the mental health field, told me I'd have a disease ( mental health) for the rest of my life. Edit: my mistake--she said I was "managing my disease".
1) She says this, even though there is not a scientific test to give me that would indicate that I have a disease.
2) She said this, even though I have no symptoms of a psychiatric disease.
3) She said this, even given the fact that if I died right now, and was subsequently autopsied, no disease would be found in my brain.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I personally agree with the destigmatization of mental illnesses and greater support for those afflicted. But this is ridiculous. They are disorders, they are illnesses. I'm tired of everything being PC. Shellshock, became PTSD and soon enough it will be called "Post-Traumatic Awesomeness and Bonuses" which will then be found to be sarcastic and changed back to something that elicits empathy from the public and on and on we go.
i agree 110% with this post. let it be marked in the record
Earlier in this thread, MahoganySouls, a self-admitted person in the mental health field, told me I'd have a disease ( mental health) for the rest of my life. Edit: my mistake--she said I was "managing my disease".
1) She says this, even though there is not a scientific test to give me that would indicate that I have a disease.
2) She said this, even though I have no symptoms of a psychiatric disease.
3) She said this, even given the fact that if I died right now, and was subsequently autopsied, no disease would be found in my brain.
If your situation is OCD then there is a real neural correlate. Unfortunately it's difficult to detect and the causality is not understood. Progress is being made however, and we know that Fluoxetine (Prozac) reduces the effects of OCD by blocking the reuptake of Seratonin (HT-5). OCD can be detected by measuring Seratonin (HT-5) consistency in the synaptic cleft, but this is also characteristic of Manic-Depression and other brain states considered to be mental health issues.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If your situation is OCD then there is a real neural correlate. Unfortunately it's difficult to detect and the causality is not understood. Progress is being made however, and we know that Fluoxetine (Prozac) reduces the effects of OCD by blocking the reuptake of Seratonin (HT-5). OCD can be detected by measuring Seratonin (HT-5) consistency in the synaptic cleft, but this is also characteristic of Manic-Depression and other brain states considered to be mental health issues.
Show me the empirical scientific evidence that shows I have a psychiatric disease, Ahmimus. Until you can show it, "progress is being made" in our ability to show it continues to mean my disease is a figment of imagination.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Show me the empirical scientific evidence that shows I have a psychiatric disease, Ahmimus. Until you can show it, "progress is being made" in our ability to show it continues to mean my disease is a figment of imagination.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
This is a pointless conversation. Go back to posting your propaganda.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
This is a pointless conversation. Go back to posting your propaganda.
If something cannot be scientifically proven, it's not a science concept. When a theory of disease isn't proven it's speculation. No matter how many gather together and share the "belief" of the non-scientific concept. It's pseudo-science.
For myself or anyone who has ever experienced a mental health issue, the dynamics are very, very real. And very very painful. There are an interaction of variables at play that are obvious and undeniable. It's just not a disease. I know it's difficult to let go of stigma, and to treat these people with the equality they deserve. But the time has come. It's time for awareness and understanding. It's time for us to let go of our mis-understanding the psycho-social imbalances we are unconscious of and that we perpetuate as "good/bad" duality judgments. Whether we demonize someone through religion or through science, it's the same thing. What we have beyond this good/bad dichotomy is reality and understanding.
And humankind is starting to figure this out. It's so cool watching evolution at play.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If something cannot be scientifically proven, it's not a science concept. When a theory of disease isn't proven it's speculation. No matter how many gather together and share the "belief" of the non-scientific concept. It's pseudo-science.
For myself or anyone who has ever experienced a mental health issue, the dynamics are very, very real. And very very painful. There are an interaction of variables at play that are obvious and undeniable. It's just not a disease. I know it's difficult to let go of stigma, and to treat these people with the equality they deserve. But the time has come. It's time for awareness and understanding. It's time for us to let go of our mis-understanding the psycho-social imbalances we are unconscious of and that we perpetuate as "good/bad" duality judgments. Whether we demonize someone through religion or through science, it's the same thing. What we have beyond this good/bad dichotomy is reality and understanding.
And humankind is starting to figure this out. It's so cool watching evolution at play.
OCD is scientific. I don't see where you find it to be speculation. Your theories are mere speculation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Funny how the propaganda that claims to be the voice of truth doesn't have any stated evidence in itself. Constantly saying "Psychiatry doesn't work" in a dramatic hollywood voice doesn't make it true.
There are plenty of credible published papers in psychiatry and mental health. Sure, this current fad of "everyone has a mental illness" with antidepressants being chucked all over the place to sell expensive presciptions is stupid, but that's not to say you can blame the entire field for that problem. How can you possibly say psychiatric conditions like Schizophrenia can't possibly exist? Can you state any credible scientific paper to prove that everyone's health is 100% a-ok? And no, wikipedia and youtube videos don't count.
Paul
'06 - London, Dublin, Reading
'07 - Katowice, Wembley, Dusseldorf, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
'09 - London, Manchester, London
'12 - Manchester, Manchester, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen
OCD is scientific. I don't see where you find it to be speculation. Your theories are mere speculation.
"OCD is scientific" is a very vague thing to say. You can say whatever you want. Proving something is held to a much higher standard.
Proving a set of variables that are social/psychological as a disease is held to the standard of the scientific method. If you are admitting it's a metaphorical disease, I'll accept that--it's a philosophical disease, then...existing between doctors/patients/society...
You can philosophically make statements about how OCD may be genetically connected or even that OCD is a disease. Proving it is another matter altogether. Unless scientism and pseudo-science standards are what we're going by here.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Funny how the propaganda that claims to be the voice of truth doesn't have any stated evidence in itself. Constantly saying "Psychiatry doesn't work" in a dramatic hollywood voice doesn't make it true.
There are plenty of credible published papers in psychiatry and mental health. Sure, this current fad of "everyone has a mental illness" with antidepressants being chucked all over the place to sell expensive presciptions is stupid, but that's not to say you can blame the entire field for that problem. How can you possibly say psychiatric conditions like Schizophrenia can't possibly exist? Can you state any credible scientific paper to prove that everyone's health is 100% a-ok? And no, wikipedia and youtube videos don't count.
The problem I think Angelica is trying to articulate but failing at is our propensity to catagorical thinking. We typically place mental health into two catagories; healthy and unhealthy. However, the science suggests this is not the case at all, it's on a continua. There is a lot of diversity in the configurations of the human brains determined by genetic and environmental factors. So much that no two brains are alike, this is evident by our varying personalities. However, this does not mean that some configurations are not ideal. Most certainly there are ideal configurations and other configurations which can be considered dysfunctional. As Sapolsky notes, the authors of the DSM are struggling to incorporate a less catagorical framework into the next version, as psychiatrists are encouraged to think of disorders on a continua. However, I'm not sure what other motivations Angelica has to present psychiatry with such a bleak and imbalanced perspective.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Funny how the propaganda that claims to be the voice of truth doesn't have any stated evidence in itself. Constantly saying "Psychiatry doesn't work" in a dramatic hollywood voice doesn't make it true.
There are plenty of credible published papers in psychiatry and mental health. Sure, this current fad of "everyone has a mental illness" with antidepressants being chucked all over the place to sell expensive presciptions is stupid, but that's not to say you can blame the entire field for that problem. How can you possibly say psychiatric conditions like Schizophrenia can't possibly exist? Can you state any credible scientific paper to prove that everyone's health is 100% a-ok? And no, wikipedia and youtube videos don't count.
Oh, I fully agree there are a set of variables at play that cause suffering in the individual. And that these variables include all the interpersonal interactions in the individual's lives--the environment.
The problem is, in order for a scientific claim to be made, it must have scientific proof. So until these conditions have been proven to be "disease", it's just not scientific to call them diseases.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It seems to me the current tired old dysfunctioning perspective, wherein we fudge the scientific facts a little to coerce people to take their meds is bleak and imbalanced, not to mention unethical. There are consequences for that type of thing--such as being held to account.
It seems to me to openly and continuously state false scientific claims while falsely ascribing imaginary disease to the very stressful and painful conditions one is dealing with is bleak and imbalanced.
The problem when a flawed premise is ingrained in society for so long is the illusion becomes the "truth". The double speak is normal to everyone.
It's normal that the actual truth will then cause cognitive dissonance to the masses, but, oh well! Better that we all own our environmental contributions to mental illness than continue to heap the stigma on a select few who already have a LOT on their plates.
Just for the record, the "anti-psychiatrists practise psychiatry--they just do it ethically, including prescribing meds. They don't make inaccurate power claims about science because of their own unconscious issues.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The problem is, in order for a scientific claim to be made, it must have scientific proof. So until these conditions have been proven to be "disease", it's just not scientific to call them diseases.
Sure they don't know the exact cause of many mental illnesses, because the brain is complex. But of course then the video says "That's what they want you to think". No, it's bleeding common sense!! They give no proof to their argument, it's propaganda trying to kid you into thinking you know something everyone else doesn't. It's the same as that 9/11 conspiracy theory youtube video.
The bottom line is the brain is a complex organ that we barely understand. But that's not to say that all we do know should be disregarded just because we don't have the 100% full picture. As far as I can see that video is saying that we shouldn't diagnose everyone with the 'mental illness' of the month, which I totally agree with, but then takes everything way out of context. Are you saying autistic kids should snap out of it and behave normally? Are you saying Schizophrenics are people having a laugh? Anyone with Gulf War Syndrome must be a wuss? Anyone with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is lazy? There are WAY too many psychiatric conditions with pretty obvious symptoms to disregard them all.
Paul
'06 - London, Dublin, Reading
'07 - Katowice, Wembley, Dusseldorf, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
'09 - London, Manchester, London
'12 - Manchester, Manchester, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen
Sure they don't know the exact cause of many mental illnesses, because the brain is complex. But of course then the video says "That's what they want you to think". No, it's bleeding common sense!! They give no proof to their argument, it's propaganda trying to kid you into thinking you know something everyone else doesn't. It's the same as that 9/11 conspiracy theory youtube video.
The bottom line is the brain is a complex organ that we barely understand. But that's not to say that all we do know should be disregarded just because we don't have the 100% full picture. As far as I can see that video is saying that we shouldn't diagnose everyone with the 'mental illness' of the month, which I totally agree with, but then takes everything way out of context. Are you saying autistic kids should snap out of it and behave normally? Are you saying Schizophrenics are people having a laugh? Anyone with Gulf War Syndrome must be a wuss? Anyone with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is lazy? There are WAY too many psychiatric conditions with pretty obvious symptoms to disregard them all.
So it's propaganda to make a video using no proof for your argument. What is it then when doctors label ludicrous amounts of people as diseased without proof of disease?
We cannot distort what we know in order to get people to feel they are diseased. It's highly questionable to tell people they are diseased when there is no conclusive proof. Again, no one is saying these mental health experiences don't exist--even the anti-psychiatrists. What's being said is that to paint them as a biological disease is a matter of opinion. Psychiatry is not open or clear about this being a matter of opinion in general at all, and thereby they successfully pathologize people all the time, convincing them they have an inherent defect even when it's based on speculation. I'm all for all the supports, options, and avenues for improvement for someone experiencing mental health issues. That is very different than convincing someone who is at a point in their lives when they are necessarily very reliant on and suggestible to "expert" advice that they have an inherent genetic flaw, which actually prevents recovery. This "help" coming from the psychiatric profession in general consistently tells the patient that they are diseased, to substantial human loss.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Whew, this thread has grown! Admittedly, I haven't read every post, but I have some thoughts.
I think lots of folks are misdiagnosed or falsely diagnosed. There seems to be a pill for everything these days. I think a lot of folks are 'diagnosed' with certain mental issues when they are, indeed, just having normal reactions to life circumstances. I think other routes should be pursued before meds are prescribed for most. I believe meds should be the last resort and only used temporarily for most. I also believe that the patient should be more proactive. There are a lot of folks that just want to take a pill to mask underlying issues. I also think that the term 'mental illness' is used pretty loosely, sometimes, to include both physical disease of the brain/nervous system (schizophrenia, alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, parkinson's, etc), as well as behavioral disorders that may be part of the normal variation of learned behaviors but inappropriately expressed in modern society (i.e., fear).
That said, I also believe that there are legitimate organic illnesses that require meds. I would need to locate some peer-reviewed articles, but, I have read that many mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, can be detected as brain malfunctions on MRI scans. I realize there are many folks that greatly benefit from meds. I also realize that these meds can have horrible side affects, which explains why many prefer not to take them. This is just my opinion, but I do feel that these organic issues can go in to 'remisssion'. I definitely feel folks are predisposed due to genetic factors and there are environmental triggers. Meds can be helpful in acute phases.
Just an interesting aside, I do think there is something in the view of schizophrenics as people who sometimes do possess an extraordinary clairvoyance in narrow fields (look no further than John Nash). They may see meta-attributes and abstract relationships that others cannot see, but they also have the negative aspects, such as delusions, and they also hallucinate.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
'In a chapter by Harry Wiener, M.D., he asks "What is the nature of the predisposition to schizophrenia?" (p. 199). He concludes: "The results of these 80 years of research are clear and indisputable: nothing has come of it to date except utter confusion" (p. 200). He mocks biological psychiatry saying: "The belief that schizophrenia is a specific organic disease or a group of organic brain diseases has never been confirmed. We have been on the verge of confirming it since the dawn of modern psychiatry, and we are still on the verge" (pp. 193-194). He makes fun of genetic theories of mental illness by proposing the idea that impoliteness might be genetically transmitted and using the illogic of biological psychiatry to "prove" the hypothesis that impoliteness runs in families for genetic reasons. (pp. 194-197).'
' Among the most poignant insights in the book is Dr. Ross' argument against biological testing for "mental" illnesses. He says: "The dream of biological psychiatrists is that an 'objective' laboratory test for one of the major mental illnesses will be discovered. ... This dream is logically unsound and can never be realized. Although biological psychiatrists speak of external validation of psychiatric diagnoses by laboratory findings and specific markers, this can never happen. Why?" (p. 101): Suppose psychiatrists decided that people become depressed because of too much or too little of a particular chemical or enzyme in the body as shown by an examination of cerebrospinal fluid or a blood test or urine test or whatever. Suppose further that you tested positive for depression on this test but that you felt perfectly fine, cheerful, and happy? Would you nevertheless start taking (supposedly) anti-depressant drugs or electroshock therapy as treatment for the depression you were not experiencing? Similarly, suppose there were some kind of biological test for schizophrenia - however defined? Despite many other definitions that have been popular in previous decades, today schizophrenia is usually thought of as psychosis, i.e., hallucinations or delusions. Suppose psychiatrists concluded "schizophrenia" is caused by some biological factor the presence of which could be determined by X-ray or MRI or PET scan of the brain. In Dr. Ross' words: "According to this logic, it would be possible to be diagnosed and treated successfully for schizophrenia without ever having had any psychiatric symptoms" (p. 102). If you were a physician or other therapist and had a patient whose X-ray of the brain or MRI or PET brain scan showed the presence of schizophrenia, but who had no behavioral or perceptual symptoms of schizophrenia - i.e., no abnormal thinking, no hallucinations, and no delusions - would you start treating the patient for schizophrenia? The conclusion is obvious: A mental or behavioral "illness" can not be diagnosed with a biological test. It's not even theoretically possible.'
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
'By repressing its critics, psychiatry violates one of the basic principles of the scientific method, namely free, critical inquiry and debate. Psychiatry claims to be a science. Society regards the psychiatrist as an expert in medical science. But the hallmark of the scientific method is the "null hypothesis," the systematic effort to falsify and criticize methods, observations, and theories . In principle, any statement which is not possible to falsify, or which is not subject to critical evaluation, cannot be claimed as scientific. Psychiatry's successful efforts to silence its critics is contrary to the rules of science and refutes the psychiatric claim to psychiatric validity.
By repressing its critics, psychiatry has marked itself as intolerant and indifferent to the great debates of intellectual history and resistive to the development of new ways of understanding human behavior, including that behavior on which they designate themselves to be the final authority. As Nietzsche observed there are some truths that people don't want to see. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the critical intellectual to open the debate, to propose new ways of understanding ourselves and the world. New ways of viewing human behavior might help us to understand vexing modern problems such as our endemic domestic aggression and violence, a spreading depression, and pervasive anxiety and stress. New paradigms for understanding human behavior might provide a new insights into the problems of people who seek professional help. It may even serve as the basis of a constructive critique of society. But the development of new ways of thinking is obstructed by those who control the discourse: psychiatry, the state, and the pharmaceutical industry. The State-Science Alliance. ' http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/critique.htm
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
'At present, there are two principle competing paradigms for understanding human behavior. the deterministic paradigm, of which the medical model is the driving example, and the moral paradigm. The deterministic paradigm explains human behavior in terms of causes. The moral paradigm refers not to any particular morality but to the person as moral agent who desires, intends, plans, acts and experiences the consequences of those actions, for better or for worse. It explains and judges human behavior in terms of desires, intentions, motives, purposes, ideals, actions, values, ethics, context, contracts, and laws. There are several versions of the causal deterministic paradigm: biological determinism explains behavior as caused by body and brain; social determinism explains behavior as caused by social conditions; and psychological determinism explains it in terms of historical events and traumas. Each of these paradigms discounts moral agency and hence, personal responsibility.
On the deterministic model, behavior cannot be free. It is contradictory to say an act is both caused and free. There is no freedom in causality and no cause of freedom. They are antithetical terms. If an individual's behavior is viewed as caused and, hence, not freely chosen, that person cannot be held responsible for his or her actions. If a person's behavior is viewed as a choice, then that person is responsible and accountable. The paradigm chosen to explain an individual's behavior thus defines that person socially. On the moral model, a person is defined as responsible and entitled to freedom under law. On the deterministic model, a person is defined as non-responsible and vulnerable to being deprived of freedom without accusation or trial.
Each paradigm has its own special discourse and discourse community. Academic, medical-coercive psychiatry and public mental health facilities use the deterministic paradigm. Private psychotherapists use the moral paradigm, whether they know it or not and whether they like it or not. Often they use both, explaining the patients suffering and symptoms as caused but assigning to the patient responsibility for change. The state and the pharmaceutical industry and their champions in the media favor the deterministic model. They control and dominate the public discourse with the result that the medical model, the causal-deterministic model of human behavior is the unquestioned dominant paradigm.' http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/critique.htm
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
angelica, your thread has sparked my interest in the subject and I have read information from both the experts you have presented, as well as those from mainstream psychiatry. I disagree that the scientific method is not applied when it comes studies concerning mind and brain science. I have to say, and you know this about me, I have in the past expressed 'snobbery' towards the 'soft' sciences and I classified the field of psychiatry in that camp. While I may still hold some concerns and skepticism, I'm not willing to declare the entire field as pseudo-science as I think there is valid and needed research. I'm also not willing to declare all psychiatrist as quacks or control freaks. And being in the medical field, I do not feel psychiatrists are 'repressing' their critics any more than any other medical doctors. I can tell you from experience, they ALL tend to have big egos. As you know, I have a dear friend that is a psychiatrist and has chosen to dedicate his career to helping veterans experiencing PTSD. It wasn't too long ago that our government did not recognize this as a disorder and refused to provide treatment to our ailing vets. So I think we have to be careful to chose our words wisely and avoid terms such as 'anti-psychiatry'. I do, however, feel it is necessary for all of us to question and research all 'expert' conclusions. As far as one of the excerpts you provided concerning the dangers of biological testing. I feel the excerpt was a bit misleading and fear-mongering, imo. I do concede that there was a dark history concerning psychiatry, as well as the medical profession in general, and there are still folks out there that subscribe to counter-productive 'treatments'. Earlier I expressed my concern with the 'the chemical straightjacket' mentality and do feel meds should be reserved as a last resort and for extreme cases.
There has been a lot of research concerning schizophrenia. Although there is still a lot work to do, I do see the validity of a biological origin. There is,of course, many more factors involved and it can't be diagnosed solely on this alone. Mind & brain science is a complex field. Cancers work in a similar fashion. We can link Chronic Myeloid Leukemia to the philidelphia chromosome. This is a biological predisposition. This was one of the sites that my 'shrink' friend recommended showing particular scientific findings concerning the subject of biological origins. http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/chap07.htm#EVIDENCE
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
angelica, your thread has sparked my interest in the subject and I have read information from both the experts you have presented, as well as those from mainstream psychiatry. I disagree that the scientific method is not applied when it comes studies concerning mind and brain science. I have to say, and you know this about me, I have in the past expressed 'snobbery' towards the 'soft' sciences and I classified the field of psychiatry in that camp. While I may still hold some concerns and skepticism, I'm not willing to declare the entire field as pseudo-science as I think there is valid and needed research. I'm also not willing to declare all psychiatrist as quacks or control freaks. And being in the medical field, I do not feel psychiatrists are 'repressing' their critics any more than any other medical doctors. I can tell you from experience, they ALL tend to have big egos. As you know, I have a dear friend that is a psychiatrist and has chosen to dedicate his career to helping veterans experiencing PTSD. It wasn't too long ago that our government did not recognize this as a disorder and refused to provide treatment to our ailing vets. So I think we have to be careful to chose our words wisely and avoid terms such as 'anti-psychiatry'. I do, however, feel it is necessary for all of us to question and research all 'expert' conclusions. As far as one of the excerpts you provided concerning the dangers of biological testing. I feel the excerpt was a bit misleading and fear-mongering, imo. I do concede that there was a dark history concerning psychiatry, as well as the medical profession in general, and there are still folks out there that subscribe to counter-productive 'treatments'. Earlier I expressed my concern with the 'the chemical straightjacket' mentality and do feel meds should be reserved as a last resort and for extreme cases.
There has been a lot of research concerning schizophrenia. Although there is still a lot work to do, I do see the validity of a biological origin. There is,of course, many more factors involved and it can't be diagnosed solely on this alone. Mind & brain science is a complex field. Cancers work in a similar fashion. We can link Chronic Myeloid Leukemia to the philidelphia chromosome. This is a biological predisposition. This was one of the sites that my 'shrink' friend recommended showing particular scientific findings concerning the subject of biological origins. http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/chap07.htm#EVIDENCE
I undestand that you and I come from very different perspectives on this subject that have to do with our life experiences.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
thank you.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I only know my mind. . . I. am. mine.
-C Addison
banished from society, used as court jesters, drowned and burned during the Inquisition,
gassed in Nazi Germany, and still continue to be segregated, institutionalized,
tortured in the name of behavior management, abused, raped, euthanized, and murdered.
Now, for the first time, people with disabilities are taking their rightful
place as fully contributing citizens. The danger is that we will respond with
remediation and benevolence rather than equity and respect. And so, we offer you
A CREDO FOR SUPPORT
Do Not see my disability as the problem. Recognize that my disability is an attribute.
Do Not see my disability as a deficit. It is you who see me as deviant and helpless.
Do Not try to fix me because I am not broken. Support me.
I can make my contribution to the community in my way.
Do Not see me as your client. I am your fellow citizen.
See me as your neighbor. Remember, none of us can be self-sufficient.
Do Not try to modify my behavior. Be still & listen.
What you define as inappropriate may be my attempt to communicate with you in the only way I can.
Do Not try to change me; you have no right. Help me learn what I want to know.
Do Not hide your uncertainty behind “professional” distance.
Be a person who listens, and does not take my struggle away from me by trying to
make it all better.
Do Not use theories and strategies on me.
Be with me. And when we struggle with each other, let that give rise to self-reflection.
Do Not try to control me. I have a right to my power as a person.
What you call non-compliance or manipulation may actually be the only way I can
exert some control over my life
Do Not teach me to be obedient, submissive, and polite.
I need to feel entitled to say No if I am to protect myself.
Do Not be charitable towards me. The last thing the world needs is another Jerry Lewis.
Be my ally against those who exploit me for their own gratification.
Do Not try to be my friend. I deserve more than that. Get to know me. We may become friends.
Do Not help me, even if it does make you feel good.
Ask me if I need your help. Let me show you how you can best assist me.
Do Not admire me. A desire to live a full life does not warrant adoration.
Respect me, for respect presumes equity.
Do Not tell, correct, and lead. Listen, Support, and Follow.
Do Not work on me.
Work with me.
http://www.cclswi.com/CCLS_Homepage_Files/CCLS%20Credo%20for%20Support.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"The term "mental illness" is widely used to describe something which is very different than a disease of the brain. Many people today take it· for granted that living is an arduous process. Its hardship for modern man, moreover, derives not so much from a struggle for biological survival as from the stresses and strains inherent in the social intercourse of complex human personalities. In this context, the notion of mental illness is used to identify or describe some feature of an individual's so-called personality. Mental illness -- as a deformity of the personality, so to speak -- is then regarded as the cause of the human disharmony. It is implicit in this view that social intercourse between people is regarded as something inherently harmonious, its disturbance being due solely to the presence of "mental illness" in many people. This is obviously fallacious reasoning, for it makes the abstraction "mental illness" into a cause, even though this abstraction was created in the first place to serve only as a shorthand expression for certain types of human behavior. ".
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Szasz/myth.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
1) She says this, even though there is not a scientific test to give me that would indicate that I have a disease.
2) She said this, even though I have no symptoms of a psychiatric disease.
3) She said this, even given the fact that if I died right now, and was subsequently autopsied, no disease would be found in my brain.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i agree 110% with this post. let it be marked in the record
If your situation is OCD then there is a real neural correlate. Unfortunately it's difficult to detect and the causality is not understood. Progress is being made however, and we know that Fluoxetine (Prozac) reduces the effects of OCD by blocking the reuptake of Seratonin (HT-5). OCD can be detected by measuring Seratonin (HT-5) consistency in the synaptic cleft, but this is also characteristic of Manic-Depression and other brain states considered to be mental health issues.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.healthlink.mcw.edu/article/930977015.html
Unless we're talking pseudo-science.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Your introspection doesn't prove anything either.
This is a pointless conversation. Go back to posting your propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esl2NNOtHQE
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If something cannot be scientifically proven, it's not a science concept. When a theory of disease isn't proven it's speculation. No matter how many gather together and share the "belief" of the non-scientific concept. It's pseudo-science.
For myself or anyone who has ever experienced a mental health issue, the dynamics are very, very real. And very very painful. There are an interaction of variables at play that are obvious and undeniable. It's just not a disease. I know it's difficult to let go of stigma, and to treat these people with the equality they deserve. But the time has come. It's time for awareness and understanding. It's time for us to let go of our mis-understanding the psycho-social imbalances we are unconscious of and that we perpetuate as "good/bad" duality judgments. Whether we demonize someone through religion or through science, it's the same thing. What we have beyond this good/bad dichotomy is reality and understanding.
And humankind is starting to figure this out. It's so cool watching evolution at play.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
OCD is scientific. I don't see where you find it to be speculation. Your theories are mere speculation.
There are plenty of credible published papers in psychiatry and mental health. Sure, this current fad of "everyone has a mental illness" with antidepressants being chucked all over the place to sell expensive presciptions is stupid, but that's not to say you can blame the entire field for that problem. How can you possibly say psychiatric conditions like Schizophrenia can't possibly exist? Can you state any credible scientific paper to prove that everyone's health is 100% a-ok? And no, wikipedia and youtube videos don't count.
'06 - London, Dublin, Reading
'07 - Katowice, Wembley, Dusseldorf, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
'09 - London, Manchester, London
'12 - Manchester, Manchester, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen
Proving a set of variables that are social/psychological as a disease is held to the standard of the scientific method. If you are admitting it's a metaphorical disease, I'll accept that--it's a philosophical disease, then...existing between doctors/patients/society...
You can philosophically make statements about how OCD may be genetically connected or even that OCD is a disease. Proving it is another matter altogether. Unless scientism and pseudo-science standards are what we're going by here.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The problem I think Angelica is trying to articulate but failing at is our propensity to catagorical thinking. We typically place mental health into two catagories; healthy and unhealthy. However, the science suggests this is not the case at all, it's on a continua. There is a lot of diversity in the configurations of the human brains determined by genetic and environmental factors. So much that no two brains are alike, this is evident by our varying personalities. However, this does not mean that some configurations are not ideal. Most certainly there are ideal configurations and other configurations which can be considered dysfunctional. As Sapolsky notes, the authors of the DSM are struggling to incorporate a less catagorical framework into the next version, as psychiatrists are encouraged to think of disorders on a continua. However, I'm not sure what other motivations Angelica has to present psychiatry with such a bleak and imbalanced perspective.
The problem is, in order for a scientific claim to be made, it must have scientific proof. So until these conditions have been proven to be "disease", it's just not scientific to call them diseases.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It seems to me to openly and continuously state false scientific claims while falsely ascribing imaginary disease to the very stressful and painful conditions one is dealing with is bleak and imbalanced.
The problem when a flawed premise is ingrained in society for so long is the illusion becomes the "truth". The double speak is normal to everyone.
It's normal that the actual truth will then cause cognitive dissonance to the masses, but, oh well! Better that we all own our environmental contributions to mental illness than continue to heap the stigma on a select few who already have a LOT on their plates.
Just for the record, the "anti-psychiatrists practise psychiatry--they just do it ethically, including prescribing meds. They don't make inaccurate power claims about science because of their own unconscious issues.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The bottom line is the brain is a complex organ that we barely understand. But that's not to say that all we do know should be disregarded just because we don't have the 100% full picture. As far as I can see that video is saying that we shouldn't diagnose everyone with the 'mental illness' of the month, which I totally agree with, but then takes everything way out of context. Are you saying autistic kids should snap out of it and behave normally? Are you saying Schizophrenics are people having a laugh? Anyone with Gulf War Syndrome must be a wuss? Anyone with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is lazy? There are WAY too many psychiatric conditions with pretty obvious symptoms to disregard them all.
'06 - London, Dublin, Reading
'07 - Katowice, Wembley, Dusseldorf, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
'09 - London, Manchester, London
'12 - Manchester, Manchester, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen
We cannot distort what we know in order to get people to feel they are diseased. It's highly questionable to tell people they are diseased when there is no conclusive proof. Again, no one is saying these mental health experiences don't exist--even the anti-psychiatrists. What's being said is that to paint them as a biological disease is a matter of opinion. Psychiatry is not open or clear about this being a matter of opinion in general at all, and thereby they successfully pathologize people all the time, convincing them they have an inherent defect even when it's based on speculation. I'm all for all the supports, options, and avenues for improvement for someone experiencing mental health issues. That is very different than convincing someone who is at a point in their lives when they are necessarily very reliant on and suggestible to "expert" advice that they have an inherent genetic flaw, which actually prevents recovery. This "help" coming from the psychiatric profession in general consistently tells the patient that they are diseased, to substantial human loss.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think lots of folks are misdiagnosed or falsely diagnosed. There seems to be a pill for everything these days. I think a lot of folks are 'diagnosed' with certain mental issues when they are, indeed, just having normal reactions to life circumstances. I think other routes should be pursued before meds are prescribed for most. I believe meds should be the last resort and only used temporarily for most. I also believe that the patient should be more proactive. There are a lot of folks that just want to take a pill to mask underlying issues. I also think that the term 'mental illness' is used pretty loosely, sometimes, to include both physical disease of the brain/nervous system (schizophrenia, alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, parkinson's, etc), as well as behavioral disorders that may be part of the normal variation of learned behaviors but inappropriately expressed in modern society (i.e., fear).
That said, I also believe that there are legitimate organic illnesses that require meds. I would need to locate some peer-reviewed articles, but, I have read that many mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, can be detected as brain malfunctions on MRI scans. I realize there are many folks that greatly benefit from meds. I also realize that these meds can have horrible side affects, which explains why many prefer not to take them. This is just my opinion, but I do feel that these organic issues can go in to 'remisssion'. I definitely feel folks are predisposed due to genetic factors and there are environmental triggers. Meds can be helpful in acute phases.
Just an interesting aside, I do think there is something in the view of schizophrenics as people who sometimes do possess an extraordinary clairvoyance in narrow fields (look no further than John Nash). They may see meta-attributes and abstract relationships that others cannot see, but they also have the negative aspects, such as delusions, and they also hallucinate.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/br-pibp.htm
' Among the most poignant insights in the book is Dr. Ross' argument against biological testing for "mental" illnesses. He says: "The dream of biological psychiatrists is that an 'objective' laboratory test for one of the major mental illnesses will be discovered. ... This dream is logically unsound and can never be realized. Although biological psychiatrists speak of external validation of psychiatric diagnoses by laboratory findings and specific markers, this can never happen. Why?" (p. 101): Suppose psychiatrists decided that people become depressed because of too much or too little of a particular chemical or enzyme in the body as shown by an examination of cerebrospinal fluid or a blood test or urine test or whatever. Suppose further that you tested positive for depression on this test but that you felt perfectly fine, cheerful, and happy? Would you nevertheless start taking (supposedly) anti-depressant drugs or electroshock therapy as treatment for the depression you were not experiencing? Similarly, suppose there were some kind of biological test for schizophrenia - however defined? Despite many other definitions that have been popular in previous decades, today schizophrenia is usually thought of as psychosis, i.e., hallucinations or delusions. Suppose psychiatrists concluded "schizophrenia" is caused by some biological factor the presence of which could be determined by X-ray or MRI or PET scan of the brain. In Dr. Ross' words: "According to this logic, it would be possible to be diagnosed and treated successfully for schizophrenia without ever having had any psychiatric symptoms" (p. 102). If you were a physician or other therapist and had a patient whose X-ray of the brain or MRI or PET brain scan showed the presence of schizophrenia, but who had no behavioral or perceptual symptoms of schizophrenia - i.e., no abnormal thinking, no hallucinations, and no delusions - would you start treating the patient for schizophrenia? The conclusion is obvious: A mental or behavioral "illness" can not be diagnosed with a biological test. It's not even theoretically possible.'
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
By repressing its critics, psychiatry has marked itself as intolerant and indifferent to the great debates of intellectual history and resistive to the development of new ways of understanding human behavior, including that behavior on which they designate themselves to be the final authority. As Nietzsche observed there are some truths that people don't want to see. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the critical intellectual to open the debate, to propose new ways of understanding ourselves and the world. New ways of viewing human behavior might help us to understand vexing modern problems such as our endemic domestic aggression and violence, a spreading depression, and pervasive anxiety and stress. New paradigms for understanding human behavior might provide a new insights into the problems of people who seek professional help. It may even serve as the basis of a constructive critique of society. But the development of new ways of thinking is obstructed by those who control the discourse: psychiatry, the state, and the pharmaceutical industry. The State-Science Alliance. '
http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/critique.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
On the deterministic model, behavior cannot be free. It is contradictory to say an act is both caused and free. There is no freedom in causality and no cause of freedom. They are antithetical terms. If an individual's behavior is viewed as caused and, hence, not freely chosen, that person cannot be held responsible for his or her actions. If a person's behavior is viewed as a choice, then that person is responsible and accountable. The paradigm chosen to explain an individual's behavior thus defines that person socially. On the moral model, a person is defined as responsible and entitled to freedom under law. On the deterministic model, a person is defined as non-responsible and vulnerable to being deprived of freedom without accusation or trial.
Each paradigm has its own special discourse and discourse community. Academic, medical-coercive psychiatry and public mental health facilities use the deterministic paradigm. Private psychotherapists use the moral paradigm, whether they know it or not and whether they like it or not. Often they use both, explaining the patients suffering and symptoms as caused but assigning to the patient responsibility for change. The state and the pharmaceutical industry and their champions in the media favor the deterministic model. They control and dominate the public discourse with the result that the medical model, the causal-deterministic model of human behavior is the unquestioned dominant paradigm.'
http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/critique.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There has been a lot of research concerning schizophrenia. Although there is still a lot work to do, I do see the validity of a biological origin. There is,of course, many more factors involved and it can't be diagnosed solely on this alone. Mind & brain science is a complex field. Cancers work in a similar fashion. We can link Chronic Myeloid Leukemia to the philidelphia chromosome. This is a biological predisposition. This was one of the sites that my 'shrink' friend recommended showing particular scientific findings concerning the subject of biological origins. http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/chap07.htm#EVIDENCE
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!