Scientism

catefrances · March 2007

gue_barium wrote:

"Stood to Reason" and "predictiblity" are not one in the same.

who said they were?

angelica · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

A photon is a quantum of energy, more accurately.

I don't think it is simple to see whether I have a liberal or conservative bias. You could not tell my gender. I am very liberal on many issues, but extremely conservative on, for example, gun control. I used to think you were a right wing Christian nutter, but many of your posts over the last few days have had a much more open-minded flavour.
When people tell me that can can look inot their bodies and activate mystical systems, yes, my scientific cynicism gland kicks into overdrive. That's because, when you remove observer and reporting bias, there is no discernible effect or activation of anything. If you were to tell me that you can see my aura, or activate my inner healing, or re-pattern my DNA ( people around here actually claim that), that is ENTIRELY depenendent on your perception and your bias.
With regards to mental illness, a PET scanner can show whihc pasrtts of the brain are not functioning correctly, to the point that if we could get hold of Jesus' brain, we could settle the schizophrenia question. That is not a bias, that is a reproducible clinically useful and relevant test.

Okay, I'm going through the thread and I wanted to respond to a few things here.

I fully agree that it's not scientifically proven that my mystical experiences are real. You probably know that when you're feeling deep lasting love for someone, that subjective experience of love cannot be proven, and yet it is very real to you, none the less. These types of experiences can enliven us and inspire us in our lives. I'm not attempting to pass my experiences off as objective proof, nor as "scientific". I am merely sharing my experiences as they occurred. I also relate my ongoing mystical experiences directly to my healing that occurred step by step.

As far as a brain "not-functioning correctly", first it's interesting that it seems it's assumed that because a brain is not functioning normally that it means it's not functioning correctly. Second of all, I agree, you could prove an "abnormal" brain scan if it in fact existed in this case. I would accept that as factual evidence of an abnormal brainscan. I could see that such a brainscan is consistant to the diagnosis of schizophrenia. What I call as bias is a personal opinion that believes Jesus had schizophrenia, which is not based on proof at all, but rather on personal opinion, coming from a personal, not objective, perspective. Particularly in regards to the mentally ill, who can tend to have poor ego definition, and can be heightened in their perception of what the medical profession assumes of them, I find such preconceptions concerning. I personally recall the days when I internalized the derogatory views people held of me. It was interactive. The mental health professionals are a part of the equation they become involved with. They are not passive, objective, observers. They are quite predisposed towards seeing certain potential outcomes, depending on which discipline they are a part of, thereby directly affecting the patient.

Edit: I, nor the numerous mental health patients I've known, were given brain scans as a part of diagnosis.

lucylespian · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Okay, I'm going through the thread and I wanted to respond to a few things here.

I fully agree that it's not scientifically proven that my mystical experiences are real. You probably know that when you're feeling deep lasting love for someone, that subjective experience of love cannot be proven, and yet it is very real to you, none the less. These types of experiences can enliven us and inspire us in our lives. I'm not attempting to pass my experiences off as objective proof, nor as "scientific". I am merely sharing my experiences as they occurred. I also relate my ongoing mystical experiences directly to my healing that occurred step by step.

As far as a brain "not-functioning correctly", first it's interesting that it seems it's assumed that because a brain is not functioning normally that it means it's not functioning correctly. Second of all, I agree, you could prove an "abnormal" brain scan if it in fact existed in this case. I would accept that as factual evidence of an abnormal brainscan. I could see that such a brainscan is consistant to the diagnosis of schizophrenia. What I call as bias is a personal opinion that believes Jesus had schizophrenia, which is not based on proof at all, but rather on personal opinion, coming from a personal, not objective, perspective. Particularly in regards to the mentally ill, who can tend to have poor ego definition, and can be heightened in their perception of what the medical profession assumes of them, I find such preconceptions concerning. I personally recall the days when I internalized the derogatory views people held of me. It was interactive. The mental health professionals are a part of the equation they become involved with. They are not passive, objective, observers. They are quite predisposed towards seeing certain potential outcomes, depending on which discipline they are a part of, thereby directly affecting the patient.

Edit: I, nor the numerous mental health patients I've known, were given brain scans as a part of diagnosis.

One dead chicken later.....................

True, I have no objective proof that Jesus had schizophrenia. I am grateful that you have acknowledged that I can express the view though, without interptring it as a derogatory statement. I can also understand why you assumed it was though, as it so often is.
PET scans are not often used as a diagnostic tool in mental health. The diaagnosis is nearly always made on a history given by the patient and others. PET scans CAN diagnose schizophrenia though, in a dynamic way, showing in real time what neurotransmitters are active in what brain parts. "Normality" is established in a comparative way, comparing to "normal" control subjects, not in an absolute sense.

I would hope that your MH professional interact with you, they would be useless if too detached. AS far as having expectations, that happens at 2 levels. First, experiences teach what will PROBABLY, as opposed to certainly happen with people. Probabilities apply to populations, though, not individuals. It is a mistake to apply probailies to indivduals.
Secondly, people want to know what is going to happen, so a best estimate prognosis is given. This is always going to be inaccurate at least to some degree. The deiscrepancy is then held up as proof that doctors are idiots, and can't tell peple what is going to happen to them. Well, don't ask next time !!!!!

gue_barium · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

One dead chicken later.....................

True, I have no objective proof that Jesus had schizophrenia. I am grateful that you have acknowledged that I can express the view though, without interptring it as a derogatory statement. I can also understand why you assumed it was though, as it so often is.
PET scans are not often used as a diagnostic tool in mental health. The diaagnosis is nearly always made on a history given by the patient and others. PET scans CAN diagnose schizophrenia though, in a dynamic way, showing in real time what neurotransmitters are active in what brain parts. "Normality" is established in a comparative way, comparing to "normal" control subjects, not in an absolute sense.

I would hope that your MH professional interact with you, they would be useless if too detached. AS far as having expectations, that happens at 2 levels. First, experiences teach what will PROBABLY, as opposed to certainly happen with people. Probabilities apply to populations, though, not individuals. It is a mistake to apply probailies to indivduals.
Secondly, people want to know what is going to happen, so a best estimate prognosis is given. This is always going to be inaccurate at least to some degree. The deiscrepancy is then held up as proof that doctors are idiots, and can't tell peple what is going to happen to them. Well, don't ask next time !!!!!

I think you need to post here more often. Only my opinion, and as long as you're comfortable. I have this opinion based on the time and wisdom that went into this post of yours.

lucylespian · March 2007

gue_barium wrote:

I think you need to post here more often. Only my opinion, and as long as you're comfortable. I have this opinion based on the time and wisdom that went into this post of yours.

Thank you, I fogot to mention that it is based on the history that I make the diagnosis of schizophrenia in Jesus, rather than a physical examinatoin or lab test, which is patently impossible.

This is a great forum, with lots of interesting peple. I have bene posting here more, as I get intelligent thoughtful responses, which make it worthwhile.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · March 2007

I've had 3 MRI's and a CAT scan done on my head.... for two of them they injected me with contrast agent so all the blood vessels light up. It's pretty cool looking at the CD's of them. I have a bunch of really detailed pics of my brain in slices.

Ahnimus would probably orgasm to have something like that...lol

angelica · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

One dead chicken later.....................

True, I have no objective proof that Jesus had schizophrenia. I am grateful that you have acknowledged that I can express the view though, without interptring it as a derogatory statement. I can also understand why you assumed it was though, as it so often is.
PET scans are not often used as a diagnostic tool in mental health. The diaagnosis is nearly always made on a history given by the patient and others. PET scans CAN diagnose schizophrenia though, in a dynamic way, showing in real time what neurotransmitters are active in what brain parts. "Normality" is established in a comparative way, comparing to "normal" control subjects, not in an absolute sense.

I would hope that your MH professional interact with you, they would be useless if too detached. AS far as having expectations, that happens at 2 levels. First, experiences teach what will PROBABLY, as opposed to certainly happen with people. Probabilities apply to populations, though, not individuals. It is a mistake to apply probailies to indivduals.
Secondly, people want to know what is going to happen, so a best estimate prognosis is given. This is always going to be inaccurate at least to some degree. The deiscrepancy is then held up as proof that doctors are idiots, and can't tell peple what is going to happen to them. Well, don't ask next time !!!!!

Everything I suggest for empowerment of the individual is in terms of being integrated along with traditional treatments, as long as they are beneficial. I have great respect for the awesome things the mental health profession did provide me, including the help and support of the many conscientious mental health professionals themselves, on numerous levels. Nothing can diminish that.

I agree that a professional must interact, and I will add that while they do so, they are 100% responsible for their input. We all make mistakes, have off days, and have our own unconscious biases that show when we least expect it. I'm talking more about this kind of fallibility, rather than the possible error of misdiagnosis, etc. I also believe that any patient, no matter how needing of help, is also accountable for where they seek help, and what they accept in terms of getting a consequence for their action. This has not come up in this conversation, but I also believe that by the person with mental health issues, learning through trial and error what works for them, and owning their role of choice, it is in such a way that they make conscious progress. I realize many people hold the professionals to unrealistic expectations, and by passing off accountability to the professional or the system, one can avoids finding their own empowerment. One must live with the consequences of doing so. And many do.

angelica · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Thank you, I fogot to mention that it is based on the history that I make the diagnosis of schizophrenia in Jesus, rather than a physical examinatoin or lab test, which is patently impossible.

This is a great forum, with lots of interesting peple. I have bene posting here more, as I get intelligent thoughtful responses, which make it worthwhile.

What negative symptoms of schizophrenia does Jesus' history imply?

gue_barium · March 2007

angelica wrote:

What negative symptoms of schizophrenia does Jesus' history imply?

after they crucified him, he thought he was still alive?

angelica · March 2007

gue_barium wrote:

after they crucified him, he thought he was still alive?

What's with you people and the crucifixion? Ah, athiests and Easter...

lucylespian · March 2007

angelica wrote:

What negative symptoms of schizophrenia does Jesus' history imply?

Amazing how we are coming to common ground again.

Not sure about the negative symptoms. Positive symptoms are more dramatic of course, so get a more lurid description in the Bible. I might presume to ask you to see if there are any relevant references, as I can't see me sitting down and reading the New Testament any time soon. Would rather sepnd the time playing musci, and it may surprise you to learn that I am not actually aiming to change your mind about tnything here.
My initial comments I made about Jesus were actually just me exercising my freedom to express my opinion just as teh faithful feel free to express theirs. I fugured I would be lowled down or dismissed as a loony and I prety much was. "Outlandish", I think was teh dismissal phrase, but IMO my opinion about Jesus is less outlandish than the notion that he ws teh snoo of the creator of the Universe. Now that is outlandish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gue_barium · March 2007

angelica wrote:

What's with you people and the crucifixion? Ah, athiests and Easter...

I'm not so certain about the "afterlife". At least not at my age. Maybe as I get older...

catefrances · March 2007

angelica wrote:

What's with you people and the crucifixion? Ah, athiests and Easter...

hmmmmmm chocolate.

angelica · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Amazing how we are coming to common ground again.

Not sure about the negative symptoms. Positive symptoms are more dramatic of course, so get a more lurid description in the Bible. I might presume to ask you to see if there are any relevant references, as I can't see me sitting down and reading the New Testament any time soon. Would rather sepnd the time playing musci, and it may surprise you to learn that I am not actually aiming to change your mind about tnything here.
My initial comments I made about Jesus were actually just me exercising my freedom to express my opinion just as teh faithful feel free to express theirs. I fugured I would be lowled down or dismissed as a loony and I prety much was. "Outlandish", I think was teh dismissal phrase, but IMO my opinion about Jesus is less outlandish than the notion that he ws teh snoo of the creator of the Universe. Now that is outlandish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, it looks like we've basically hashed this thing out. I'll leave your opinion--if it even is your real opinion--be. I can't help with bible references. I'm very non-bible-savvy. I don't know a lot about Jesus, except basically from sunday school. My spiritual understandings have come from within, and don't really include Jesus. I realize you are not asking me to change my mind. Peace.

scw156 · March 2007

Originally Posted by Jeanie
Ahnimus, please don't patronise me. I spent 13 years working in a laboratory for farks sake! I've spent plenty of time around science and scientists. And I have read and seen plenty of scientific data and experiments.
And I think you'll find that people are fallable. And that scientists are humans just like the rest of us. AND my point is that science has been proven wrong as well as "right" AND "right" is only what we or scientists know now.

I guess the thing that I'm struggling with most here is that you have been scornful of other people's perspectives and beliefs but you seem to me to be sounding just a wee bit evangelical about science and scientists and their bloody experiments. So how is your absolute belief in science any different to other people's beliefs in things that you just don't agree with?

i'm back... anyways, I quickly noticed this... I didn't care to read any of the other posts so this may have been said...

I agree that science has been proven wrong and "right" is as "right" as the scientist currently know... HOWEVER... at least science CONTINUES to look at the thing and try to get to the correct answer eventually... where you have religion that has one answer "god did it" (or some other oogy booggy thing like that) and leaves it at that with no further explanation.

i've been drinking so maybe this will sound stupid in the morning

lucylespian · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Okay, it looks like we've basically hashed this thing out. I'll leave your opinion--if it even is your real opinion--be. I can't help with bible references. I'm very non-bible-savvy. I don't know a lot about Jesus, except basically from sunday school. My spiritual understandings have come from within, and don't really include Jesus. I realize you are not asking me to change my mind. Peace.

Peace to you too sister !! I was going to suggest that there needs to be a "Schizophrenia Monologues", where it is brought out of the closet and understood properly and de-shamed alongside the vagina. But, the result might be school kids getting suspended for saying "schizophrenia".

Never mind, peace again !!!!!!!

scw156 · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

So, while science tells us a lot about our physical world, it is not the only guide we should have in this life.

i agree and disagree at the same time.

science does tell us a TON about our world. but as we know, our brains are much more sophisticated than that. So, do i believe at the current time that it would be easier for us to understand some things with science AND something else? yes. do i believe that one day we will finally, as humans, grasp what our mind is capable of and will be able to comprehend it and no longer have a need for "religions" etc... yes. that day may be a hundred years from now or 10,000 years from now but eventually we will get there.

as for right now, i suppose i'm ok with people having "faith" in some things (like i said earlier) i just thing its ridiculous that there are people out there who use religion to "answer" everything and make elitist statements like they "see" or "know" something that only people who are "special" can also appreciate.

an i even making sense?
maybe i'll go lie down

angelica · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Peace to you too sister !! I was going to suggest that there needs to be a "Schizophrenia Monologues", where it is brought out of the closet and understood properly and de-shamed alongside the vagina. But, the result might be school kids getting suspended for saying "schizophrenia".

Never mind, peace again !!!!!!!

lucylespian · March 2007

scw156 wrote:

i agree and disagree at the same time.

science does tell us a TON about our world. but as we know, our brains are much more sophisticated than that. So, do i believe at the current time that it would be easier for us to understand some things with science AND something else? yes. do i believe that one day we will finally, as humans, grasp what our mind is capable of and will be able to comprehend it and no longer have a need for "religions" etc... yes. that day may be a hundred years from now or 10,000 years from now but eventually we will get there.

as for right now, i suppose i'm ok with people having "faith" in some things (like i said earlier) i just thing its ridiculous that there are people out there who use religion to "answer" everything and make elitist statements like they "see" or "know" something that only people who are "special" can also appreciate.

an i even making sense?
maybe i'll go lie down

Oh dude, don't think for a second that I am anything other than a rabid athiest. I am not suggesting for even a nanny-second that religion has nay other use than startn wars and inciting mayhem and murder.
But teh guides I was referring to I guess are own humanistic moral compasses, as well as other ethical ideas philosophies and principals, which I believe should not revolve around coercive patriarchial punishment fearing religious concepts. I guess I was mostly trying to paraphrase what Jeanie was saying, to ackowledge the limitations of science withotu deriding it's value. It's scince that makes this computer owrk , for example.

scw156 · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Oh dude, don't think for a second that I am anything other than a rabid athiest. I am not suggesting for even a nanny-second that religion has nay other use than startn wars and inciting mayhem and murder.
But teh guides I was referring to I guess are own humanistic moral compasses, as well as other ethical ideas philosophies and principals, which I believe should not revolve around coercive patriarchial punishment fearing religious concepts. I guess I was mostly trying to paraphrase what Jeanie was saying, to ackowledge the limitations of science withotu deriding it's value. It's scince that makes this computer owrk , for example.

"I was referring to I guess are own humanistic moral compasses, as well as other ethical ideas philosophies and principals, which I believe should not revolve around coercive patriarchial punishment fearing religious concepts."

i agree.

I also agree that science does have its limitations... again without deriding its value.

I know I can't speak for anyone here but myself. I know for the most part i'm over my head in this conversation. As far as I can tell, most of you are a good bit older than me and have "figured" things out...

I'm young and still am trying to completely hash out my own beliefs. it is hard to "change" and acquire your own belief system when you've been taught to think a certain way for 90% of your life.

I don't agree with many of the things stated in this thread but I can appreciate why some people think one way and others think differently.

Scientism

Comments

Categories