Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Grecorivera5150]

If anyone would volunteer to sign a waiver for an experiment that would involve you submitting your freedom and removing liability from any physical harm or potential death from me I can ensure you a case of PTSD in under 48 hours.

[Apiannini]

Mental illness is and is not a legitimate condition. It is framed and termed in a way that harms the person ascribed and makes others who are not "mentally ill" see those who are as other, sick, broken, crazy, insane, etc. Rather, Mental disorder is better. Mental gift is helpful, in that, if people who are different can do unique and important things, perhaps thinking of them as gifted with a difference would cause our concepts of the people, of whom I am one, who have been labeled. How about, instead of "Schitzophrenic" we called these people "Extra-dimensional receptives" and bipolar people "Heightended emotion extreme cyclers" or something? Our culture and western science in general, breaks and demeans those who come under the definitions of the DSM. We are latching on to a scientific realism paradigm that does not even allow for the possibility that entities exist on other planes/dimensions and some can see them, and that some people are given the chance to feel more elated and more depressed than others. These are not illnesses necessarily, and they can be seen as just differences, or even as gifts. Many great leaders, of both good and bad natures, were bipolar as this condition (as I know from being one) causes the individual to endure such contrasting mental states that they become impervious to fear of suffering as the lows tend to be suicidally so and the highs teach the sublime state of happiness and energetic production in art or science or politics. Manic people write volumes, paint masterpieces, and change scientific theories. Depressed people learn to sympathize and empathize with the suffering of others. Schitzophrenics are possibly aware of a real aspect of reality and, even if not, are aware of a great diversity of both wonderful and horrible things. I think it best to be much more agnostic about reality in terms of what is here, around us, sending us signals or messages, etc. It may sound bizarre to Americans, especially academically trained westerners, who have bought the belief that we are alone because we looked/listened says SETI (front) and NASA (front) and religions like Catholicism (control structure). Do not look to famous people for truth. Do not look to geniuses who are egotistically saturated for truth. Do not look in any particular book or group or system as a description of this place. Keep an open mind rather than have a rigid paradigm. Be skeptical of anyone who wants money, loyalty, sacrifice, or devotion as they are usually not good but trying to brainwash you- this happens from both the indoctrinated and brainwashed members of a group or from the aware leaders who know the story they profess is complete garbage but appears like a shiny gem of wisdom to many who are in awe of "experts" "authorities" and "geniuses" who are seen as truth holders. The truth is, if you see them a lot on TV, in the media, in government leadership, in University chairs, in lecture halls, most are just masturbating and stroking their egos and some are outright lying through their mostly, but not always, human teeth. Remember that is a very big assumption to think that anything is what it appears to be and that technology and mental ability of just a few more hundred or thousands of years always appears like magic or godly ability. We are just beginning to understand our situation on Earth as a relatively enslaved species, as we are engrained with great hubris about ourselves given that we are the only smart things that exist. If we were smart, we would know we don't have a clue as we are the victims of a great campaign of disinformation and those who can see this are "Mentally Ill" because this is the perfect way to invalidate the views of someone. Conspiracy theorists, such as 9-11 truthers, are now being considered as the largest mentally ill segment emerging in American society. Well, either that, or too many people are becoming aware of the obvious nature of the false-flag operation- which is the NORM of history to go to war, not some anomaly. But, we buy anything we are offered in print, online, and through the television because it is a massively diverse program of all-encompassing propaganda. If you were a twisted being who is very powerful, bored, and sadistic in an immortal state, how would you rule a planet of talking monkies who are the youngest and dumbest species around the block? Tell them whatever will make them demand whatever it is that they would have never wanted if you had not mentally raped them first. "You are so smart with your science, etc!" "We are alone in the universe, look SETI found nothing." "NASA is our highest tech space agency" "We are here to help you" "War is necessary to stop them" "Terrorists are everywhere" "Conspiracy theorists are kooks, nutjobs, tin-foil hat wearers" "Those people are sick and delusional and in need of help" "The idea that people are abducted by aliens is just nonsense" are all the things they do say and I would say, to a populace of my slave species if I wanted to remain in control. Put in a few cronies at the head of any organizational pyramid and the billions of people under that head will fall into place as that is part of the academic, political, economic, militaristic, and religious institutional character. All of these hierarchies require obedience and devotion to join and make us into factions of believers and non-believers, right-wing and left-wing, mentally ill and sane, black and white, etc. It is best to keep your slaves fighting and divided as this will never require any shackles to be put on their hands because they allowed their minds to be chained and boxed willingly by tricks, lies, deceptions, and appeals to ego, and hubris.

[Bermudj]

How about, instead of "Schitzophrenic" we called these people "Extra-dimensional receptives" and bipolar people "Heightended emotion extreme cyclers"...

After a little while if you put down in an job application form that you are an "extra-dimensional receptive", they would immediately discard you. The term is not so important, it is more important to recognise that mental illnesses are a legitimate condition and that people who suffer from them can work and live normal lives.

[Misty]

I am no scientist, and in the realm of science, Two of the many descriptions about science in itself can be hard and soft, and perhaps, scales of gray between the two. Physics, Microbiology, Chemistry, are hard. I don't know why, other than I think they have laws that are verifiable, exact, and provable. Soft, without stepping on any toes, is less than what is stated above, I think. Psychology and psychiatry may be considered soft because they are new, and not provable because of the subjective qualities of the mind. From what I understand, the branches from Behaviorism are most hard, because they measure behavior based on empirical data (?)

Mental illness falls somewhere between the two and falls outside the realm of our understanding. Only centuries ago, asylums put away people who were considered "insane". Now there are Diagnostic books, which categorize each illness as far as psychiatrists know, and update it frequently. Questions, for me, arise though. Is mental illness a legitimate condition? By that I mean is the science of the mind too soft and subjective and so unverifiable and provable? Can something like psychosis be anywhere in the same vicinity as diabetes?

These may be flawed thoughts on the subject, so correct me if I'm wrong on all counts.

There is a spectrum to all life. Mental illness is evident when some are born, i.e., down's syndrome being one. Children are born with mental conditions that show up at different ages not apparent at birth. Mental illness is a legitimate condition. The spectrum is also evident with sexuality, intelligence, etc..

[DanLanglois]

Over the years I'd had to combat a certain tendency of some people that think that there is no such thing as mental illness - people are only outside the arbitrary limits or normality set by society, not mad - the result of 1960s revisionism. I'd love them to spend a hour in the same room as my brother when he has had no medication.

I wouldn't say that there is 'no such thing' as mental illness, but defining it as being outside the arbitrary limts or normality set by society, does have its points, I think. Maybe the word 'arbitrary' is hard to swallow. But my understanding of the way the field of psychology functions, is that it is moving towards a statistical understanding of the phenomenon of mental illness. For example, ADHD is not intended to be diagnosed in 80% of children. If that were to happen, the criteria of diagnosis would be modified. Those criteria are only intended to capture abnormality statistically, as I understand. It's not like we have a consensus theory of mind that we are working from, here, like for example if we were all Freudians. This also explains how mental illnesses can be both newly posited, and removed, from the (note the title) Diagnostic and Statistical manual. There's effort being made, to regulate what percentage of people are diagnosed as being mentally ill. "Unusual", statistically abnormal, is I think the only 'real' meaning of these mental illness diagnoses, though that's news to some, and there's a long legacy here. Once upon a time, one might have supposed schizophrenia, for example, to be caused by bad mother hood. These days, it's more judiciously ascribed to bad luck, bad genes, whether it's autism, whether it's whatever. The idea that there needs to be a theory, turns out not to be the way things are being run, in my perception. It's just statistical. I have no objection to this, I think it's prudent, but of course philosophically it's kind of unsettling.

How about, instead of "Schitzophrenic" we called these people "Extra-dimensional receptives" and bipolar people "Heightended emotion extreme cyclers" or something? Our culture and western science in general, breaks and demeans those who come under the definitions of the DSM. We are latching on to a scientific realism paradigm that does not even allow for the possibility that entities exist on other planes/dimensions and some can see them, and that some people are given the chance to feel more elated and more depressed than others. These are not illnesses necessarily, and they can be seen as just differences, or even as gifts. Many great leaders, [etc.]..It is best to keep your slaves fighting and divided as this will never require any shackles to be put on their hands because they allowed their minds to be chained and boxed willingly by tricks, lies, deceptions, and appeals to ego, and hubris.

I have a doubt, about somebody's mental health, I'm just sayin..I'd distinguish my own perspective from this. I'm not quite totally bored with the scientific realism paradigm. But I do know how taken aback doctors can be, when they are questioned.

[wanabe]

XavierAlex, re Post #1:

Neuroscience is all about perfecting psychiatry and then some. Mental illness is certainly legitimate, the majority of suicides make depression blatantly legitimate. It does not have to be that extreme.

Are conditions overly diagnosed or blown out of proportion, absolutely. That does not bastardize, the legitimate cases of mental illness.

[Gulnara]

Asylum or jail, those are extreme steps society takes when it lacks other methods to deal with mental illness or criminals. Mentally ill person can be harmless, or can be very dangerous. The interests of mentally healthy people come first, so that is why the need to separate from mentally ill exists. Mental illness presents a great challenge to a medical world.

[Grotto19]

Illness I believe would be well characterized as an abnormal condition within the body not caused directly by physical trauma which renders one or more functions of the body less effective.

The brain and central nervous system are within the body and can be affected by non traumatic conditions which render its function less effective. Thus mental illness can be legitimate.

Now as to who gets to determine what is and is not a fully functional CNS is subject to debate and speculation.

[Bermudj]

...Mental illness presents a great challenge to a medical world.

Or to the spiritual world. I am Bipolar-I under a terrible depression which the medical world failed to assist me, I had a witch exorcise the evil spirit that got hold of my body.

[Andlan]

Even biology and chemistry are considered emergent sciences that are soft -- or emergent -- compared to more fundamental sciences like quantum mechanics. However, these emergent sciences allow us to make meaningful predictions that are usually for all intents and purposes completely and reliably correct (e.g. "if I swallow this pill, microbiology says the bacteria that is infecting my arm will go away and I will probably feel better." or "if I take this pill, psychiatry says it will block the absorption (reuptake) of the neurotransmitters serotonin and norepinephrine in my brain which will probably make me less depressed and feel better.")

But there is no evidence that biology will ever be reduced to chemistry or chemistry to physics.

Yes, psychiatry says that taking this pill will probably make me feel better, not will definitely make me feel better. Many people find that taking an anti-depressive drug works for a short while, and then ceases to have any noticeable effect. That is because depression is more than "the absorption of serotonin and norepinephrine". There is also what happened to a historical individual. If someone is depressed because they were fired from their job, just giving them a pill is not the solution, and could actually be harmful because it might prevent them "facing up" to the problem and discovering any possible reasons for their dismissal. This type of psychiatry is profoundly moral, and so science is limited in what it can contribute.

More fundamental sciences could predict these with "harder" scientifically theoretical framework but that is impractical because it would take too much information and information processing power, and the extra information and extra certainty provided would presumably be quite practically useless.

These are statements of naturalistic faith (akin to religious faith). There is no evidence for claiming that "soft sciences" are just "soft" because the "hard" sciences have not yet got advanced enough to solve them; that mental illnesses are currently just too complex on the neuroscientific level to be able to frame proper diagnoses, implying that one day we will have complete aetiologies of all mental conditions.

Of course it's based on trial and error, that's how all science works. 'Trial and error' is another name for the experiment part of the scientific method.

I agree that trial and error are an essential part of scientific method, but they are not sufficient to describe it. If I try out a theory for when a friend of mine is going to have his lunch break based on an analysis of his past movements, I am quite likely to be proved correct, but no-one would seriously claim that this prediction is science.

the idea that psychiatry and psychology are just some kind of psuedo-science lacking empirical evidence and not being based on scientific inductions resulting from controlled experiments and statistical analysis is incorrect.

In my view, we cannot avoid distinguishing between those scientific theories like physics based on necessity and causation, and those like psychology based on statistical correlation. There is a difference in kind here, not just in the degree of accuracy. In my view, probability is not sufficient to justify scientific theories. True, epidemiological studies make extensive use of statistics, such as the famous 1854 study by John Snow of a cholera epidemic in London, in which he traced the source of the outbreak to a particular water pump in Broad Street using a map that exhibited clustering of cholera cases. But conclusive proof that the pump was to blame was only obtained when cleaning the handle succeeded in stopping the outbreak. The clustering could have been due to any number of causes. It was the cleaning that provided the proof and the scientific justification.

Also, if the non-mental medical sciences are so precise, why hasn't cancer been cured but many mental illnesses have?

Name me one mental illness that has been "cured".

[Bermudj]

...Name me one mental illness that has been "cured".

Name me an illness that has been cured.

[Grotto19]

I wish to clarify something. A study is not an experiment. Observation of phenomena and documenting the present variables is a study. We can learn a lot from that method but it is not an experiment. One can not determine causality well by this method. An experiment requires that we hold as many variables as possible constant (preferably all) and then manipulate one and measure the results.

This is why psychology is considered a soft science. What is required to conduct experiments on the mind is very often unethical. Thus we do not perform these types of experiments anymore. Also in order to implement such controls puts the subject in a wholly unnatural state which tells us little about the practicality of the results. Changing a variable such as someones medication could be considered an experiment but their are too many other uncontrolled variables to allow results to be considered absolutely conclusive. Psychologists and Psychiatrists work as best as they can within these ethical constraints to establish scientific results but their findings will always be viewed as more dubious than the hard sciences due to this lack of controls.

[DeeElf]

Mental illness falls somewhere between the two and falls outside the realm of our understanding. Only centuries ago, asylums put away people who were considered "insane". Now there are Diagnostic books, which categorize each illness as far as psychiatrists know, and update it frequently. Questions, for me, arise though. Is mental illness a legitimate condition? By that I mean is the science of the mind too soft and subjective and so unverifiable and provable? Can something like psychosis be anywhere in the same vicinity as diabetes?

These may be flawed thoughts on the subject, so correct me if I'm wrong on all counts.

Hi XavierAlex,

Some mental illnesses are legitimate, if by legitimate you mean real. However, legitimacy goes directly to issues of what exactly "mentality" and "illness" are, and are strongly connected to how we view science and especially how this relates to the proposition that "psychology is the science of the mind."

Best wishes,

DeeElf