Science Without a Soul

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

How is it different? ALS is a brain abnormality and so is OCD or Schizophrenia.

Plato was a quack if you ask me. I think him and Aristotle were smart for their time, but totally off their rocker by today's knowledge. If those guys were alive today, they wouldn't be saying the same things.

Herein lies the problem: You call something an "abnormality" because you choose to see it that way. The highly functional people in question above, who heard voices, did not have "illness" symptoms.

Apparently, ALS "is the most common cause of neurological death on an annual basis" in Canada. http://www.als.ca/manual-whatisals.shtml
Schizophrenia and OCD are verrrryy different than that--they are still arbitrary labels meted out by doctors, without understanding of the organic base.
In terms of Hawking you are refering to obvious debilitation. In terms of Ghandi, where is the debilitation? In terms of Jung, where is the debilitation? These men were highly functional by anyone's standards, and accomplished a lot. They both claimed to have spirit guides who directed them to high achievement. They did not have a backlash of negative symptoms like Hawking obviously does. Much less ones that can cause physical death on their own.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Herein lies the problem: You call something an "abnormality" because you choose to see it that way. The highly functional people in question above, who heard voices, did not have "illness" symptoms.

Apparently, ALS "is the most common cause of neurological death on an annual basis" in Canada. http://www.als.ca/manual-whatisals.shtml
Schizophrenia and OCD are verrrryy different than that--they are still arbitrary labels meted out by doctors, without understanding of the organic base.
In terms of Hawking you are refering to obvious debilitation. In terms of Ghandi, where is the debilitation? In terms of Jung, where is the debilitation? These men were highly functional by anyone's standards, and accomplished a lot. They both claimed to have spirit guides who directed them to high achievement. They did not have a backlash of negative symptoms like Hawking obviously does. Much less ones that can cause physical death on their own.

Well herein lies your problem. Psychiatry is on a continua. OCD can range from thought perseveration as you've somewhat shown in this thread, which I would consider to be a benign symptom, to perseveration in handwashing, the prototypical case of a man (like my uncle) who washes his hands so much that he burns a whole through a towel every week, it also took it's toll on his hands. There are different ends of the OCD spectrum. Same with schizophrenia, I've personally known paranoid schizophrenics who could not function normally in society without pharmocology intervention. On the other end of the spectrum, there is a woman who speaks of schizophrenia on youtube, she is schizophrenic, but she manages her symptoms w/ treatment, and she doesn't seem as bad off as some of the people I personally knew.

The only problem psychiatry has is some practicioners stretch the line, giving treatments to those who may or may not need them, and who are on the shallow end of the spectrum. This is a problem being addressed currently in psychiatry.

angelica

Also:

"Dr Al Siebert writes: "The large majority of people diagnosed as having schizophrenia show no neuropathological or biochemical abnormalities and a few people without any symptoms of schizophrenia have the same biophysiological abnormalities as do a few people with 'schizophrenia'." [Journal of Humanistic Psychology Vol. 40, No. 1, 2000, pp. 34-58.] "

What kind of scientific diagnosis is schizophrenia, based on the brain, when it's remains completely arbitrary--some people have the signs, and the majority with "schizophrenic" behavioural symptoms don't; some who have no symptoms also show the "brain abnormalities".....?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Psychiatry is on a continua. OCD can range from thought perseveration as you've somewhat shown in this thread,

Here we go again....a complete misreading/misunderstanding of was "perseveration" is. The psycho-social power plays, whether you are doing so consciously, or unconsciously, is about you.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Also:

"Dr Al Siebert writes: "The large majority of people diagnosed as having schizophrenia show no neuropathological or biochemical abnormalities and a few people without any symptoms of schizophrenia have the same biophysiological abnormalities as do a few people with 'schizophrenia'." [Journal of Humanistic Psychology Vol. 40, No. 1, 2000, pp. 34-58.] "

What kind of scientific diagnosis is schizophrenia, based on the brain, when it's remains completely arbitrary--some people have the signs, and the majority with "schizophrenic" behavioural symptoms don't; some who have no symptoms also show the "brain abnormalities".....?

Sorry, that's out of our league. Neither of us is sophisticated enough to debate that. Leave it to the psychiatrists. Or wait, you think there is a huge conspiracy of psychiatrists who are secretly manipulating society. *playing scarey music*

angelica

I'm not surprised, Ahnimus, that when you cannot address a point, that you revert to emotional arguments, much less of the psycho-social nature.

Again, when you have something to say on the points, I'm here to discuss them.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Here we go again....a complete misreading/misunderstanding of was "perseveration" is. The psycho-social power plays, whether you are doing so consciously, or unconsciously, is about you.

You didn't.

In clinical psychology, the uncontrollable repetition of a previously appropriate or correct response, even though the repeated response has since become inappropriate or incorrect.

It's oddly similar to the word persevere.

If you look up "perseveration" on wikipedia, it says "Also see; Obsessive Compulsive Disorder". The first time I heard the word "perseveration" was on a brain-mind.com lecture on OCD. What does it say in your Psychobabble lexicon?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

You didn't.

In clinical psychology, the uncontrollable repetition of a previously appropriate or correct response, even though the repeated response has since become inappropriate or incorrect.

It's oddly similar to the word persevere.

If you look up "perseveration" on wikipedia, it says "Also see; Obsessive Compulsive Disorder". The first time I heard the word "perseveration" was on a brain-mind.com lecture on OCD. What does it say in your Psychobabble lexicon?

Go ahead, continue to pathologize human behaviour. It's on you. If it makes you feel better.....

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'm not surprised, Ahnimus, that when you cannot address a point, that you revert to emotional arguments, much less of the psycho-social nature.

Again, when you have something to say on the points, I'm here to discuss them.

Ok, why does Prozac work? How does it work?

We aren't sure what OCDs neurobiological cause/effect is, but we know that administering Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors like Fluoxetine/Prozac decreases the symptoms of OCD to managable levels. SSRIs don't actually cause more seratonin (HT-5) production, so how do they work? And if HT-5 isn't related to OCD, then why does fluoxetine affect the symptoms of OCD? Furthermore, what is the psychological cause, remedy and correlation with neurophysiological events?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Go ahead, continue to pathologize human behaviour. It's on you. If it makes you feel better.....

I do, I pathologize my own behavior and I feel fine, I'm at least as happy as you are. If I find out I have TMJ joint problems, then I'll be even happier, because I love truth, it sets me free from the abyss of ignorance and allows for treatment.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, why does Prozac work? How does it work?

We aren't sure what OCDs neurobiological cause/effect is, but we know that administering Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors like Fluoxetine/Prozac decreases the symptoms of OCD to managable levels. SSRIs don't actually cause more seratonin (HT-5) production, so how do they work? And if HT-5 isn't related to OCD, then why does fluoxetine affect the symptoms of OCD? Furthermore, what is the psychological cause, remedy and correlation with neurophysiological events?

Yes, there are many questions that stand in science today--that are as yet unanswered. The nature of science is that as much as we want to draw conclusions when what we know is inconclusive, we cannot do so. And when we draw false conclusions based on what we assume, we are not being scientific.

It certainly makes sense that OCD's neurological cause is that the person has personal and sociological issues in their lives and it shows up in the brain to be seen. I can see if one is coming from a "deterministic" paradigm, one would be unable to see this completely sensical point of view as being valid. That inability to see beyond a determined point of view would be like a self-fulfilling prophetic view from my view, rather than a truly truth-seeking/understanding point of view.

As in my own case, there was never a proven neurological correlate. It was all a theory that such existed, as there was no test done on me. And if we assume that there was a neurological correlate, I do know it was remedied, as the signs of illness in my behaviours disappeared. It was remedied by altering my behaviours, coping skills and changing my environment. All of that happened long after I went off of medication for OCD treatment.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I do, I pathologize my own behavior and I feel fine, I'm at least as happy as you are. If I find out I have TMJ joint problems, then I'll be even happier, because I love truth, it sets me free from the abyss of ignorance and allows for treatment.

Except you blind yourself to the ignorance of the good vs bad dichotomy that you continue to perpetuate. One can step beyond that ignorance to a place of understanding and knowledge when one is willing to clear their own inner filters.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Yes, there are many questions that stand in science today--that are as yet unanswered. The nature of science is that as much as we want to draw conclusions when what we know is inconclusive, we cannot do so. And when we draw false conclusions based on what we assume, we are not being scientific.

It certainly makes sense that OCD's neurological cause is that the person has personal and sociological issues in their lives and it shows up in the brain to be seen. I can see if one is coming from a "deterministic" paradigm, one would be unable to see this completely sensical point of view as being valid. That inability to see beyond a determined point of view would be like a self-fulfilling prophetic view from my view, rather than a truly truth-seeking/understanding point of view.

As in my own case, there was never a proven neurological correlate. It was all a theory that such existed, as there was no test done on me. And if we assume that there was a neurological correlate, I do know it was remedied, as the signs of illness in my behaviours disappeared. It was remedied by altering my behaviours, coping skills and changing my environment. All of that happened long after I went off of medication for OCD treatment.

You can't rule out your treatment as being successful. That is a self-serving point of view. It seems like your post doesn't address my questions, the real issues worthy of debate, rather it seeks to attack my point of view. All-the-while your assertions of psychiatry are even less founded in any kind of science, they are supported only by your prophecy. You are a troubling individual Angelica.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Except you blind yourself to the ignorance of the good vs bad dichotomy that you continue to perpetuate. One can step beyond that ignorance to a place of understanding and knowledge when one is willing to clear their own inner filters.

No, I'm not blinded by that dichotomy. You are blinded by the assertion that everything is peachy. You wouldn't label ALS as bad, but I would certainly say its dysfunctional. OCD and Schizophrenia are dysfunctions as well. Look, I know a lot of people on drugs, and I've taken my share as well. I'm not totally for or against prescription treatment. You on the other hand are very one-sided. Asserting that their is a conspiracy of psychiatry and pharmacological treatment. All that's needed to diagnose you paranoid schizophrenic is the claim that the FBI is behind it all. I'm not saying that would be an accurate diagnosis, but this thread is troubling.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

No, I'm not blinded by that dichotomy. You are blinded by the assertion that everything is peachy.

This is a straw man argument. Having suffered with OCD, bi-polar issues, addictions, etc. I well know things are not peachy.

Just like when I have a cold, I know things are not peachy. However, there is no point in demonizing the symptoms--the effects of what one has experienced. I tried it for years and it did not work in resolving these issues.

I talk of resolving the issues, and have done so myself with numerous "illnesses" and therefore know how it is done.

You wouldn't label ALS as bad, but I would certainly say its dysfunctional. OCD and Schizophrenia are dysfunctions as well. Look, I know a lot of people on drugs, and I've taken my share as well. I'm not totally for or against prescription treatment. You on the other hand are very one-sided. Asserting that their is a conspiracy of psychiatry and pharmacological treatment. All that's needed to diagnose you paranoid schizophrenic is the claim that the FBI is behind it all. I'm not saying that would be an accurate diagnosis, but this thread is troubling.

If you want to continue seeing me as "one-sided" you will. It's irrespective of what I've said. Either you deliberately misconstrue my argument, or you don't understand it.



The bottom line is that by your "pre-disposition" to the deterministic view-point, you are bound to the illness models. Your preconceptions prevent you from seeing the whole picture--as is the issue with psychiatry. It's the same as people who are bound to the dichotomy of good/bad judgments due to other types of predisposed beliefs.

You are bound to believe the brain as the cause. You are bound to seeing things linearly rather than seeing the holistic truth of what exists as is. Only when we accept what is, without moral judgment and blame can we understand it and change it.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not saying that would be an accurate diagnosis, but this thread is troubling.

My guess is that someday you will awaken to what is beyond the current mass-accepted paradigms of the mind and be able to understand this issue.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

This is a straw man argument. Having suffered with OCD, bi-polar issues, addictions, etc. I well know things are not peachy.

Just like when I have a cold, I know things are not peachy. However, there is no point in demonizing the symptoms--the effects of what one has experienced. I tried it for years and it did not work in resolving these issues.

I talk of resolving the issues, and have done so myself with numerous "illnesses" and therefore know how it is done.


If you want to continue seeing me as "one-sided" you will. It's irrespective of what I've said. Either you deliberately misconstrue my argument, or you don't understand it.

The bottom line is that by your "pre-disposition" to the deterministic view-point, you are bound to the illness models. Your preconceptions prevent you from seeing the whole picture--as is the issue with psychiatry. It's the same as people who are bound to the dichotomy of good/bad judgments due to other types of predisposed beliefs.

You are bound to believe the brain as the cause. You are bound to seeing things linearly rather than seeing the holistic truth of what exists as is. Only when we accept what is, without moral judgment and blame can we understand it and change it.

No susbtance here. Just wild speculation. I see more of the picture than you do Angelica. Not only do I see the complete work of art, I also see the detailed blobs of paint. That is the nature of reductionism, as I've already explained and it's far superior to your holistic-holon-integration-source-consciousness-blah-blah whatever.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

My guess is that someday you will awaken to what is beyond the current mass-accepted paradigms of the mind and be able to understand this issue.

Oh yes, someday I will have a supreme enlightening experience and I will be as awesome as you are Angelica. Then I will know everything through introspection and I'll make accurate prophetic predictions like Nostradamus.

anotherclone

are you two still at it? Looks like you're getting nowhere fast.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Oh yes, someday I will have a supreme enlightening experience and I will be as awesome as you are Angelica. Then I will know everything through introspection and I'll make accurate prophetic predictions like Nostradamus.

When you understand my perspective or the perspective of the millions of others who have realized the path to recovery, you will show it by being understanding. It's plain and simple.