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

[Sushan]

The argument depends on the belief of the presence of 'mind'. Some say there is a seperate thing called mind. But some say mind is also a result of chemical reactions that occur in our brain cells. If the latter is correct, whatever the emotions we feel will be a chemical balance or an imbalance. But if mind and brain are two seperate things then the relationship in between and the affect from one to the other has to be considered.

There is no empirical basis for a non corporeal "mind", or "soul".
How would such a thing be affected by or have an effect upon the physicality of the world.
It seem to me that it makes more sense to say the "mind" is what the brain does.

There is a massive sleight of hand in the medical profession in which practicioners fool the patient into thinking that they know more than then. Like many experts they rely on a more detailed lexicon. "Bulsh.. Baffles the Brains" as the saying goes.
For example a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis sounds like the doctor knows what he is talking about, yet the phrase is no more than a literal description of scarring of the lungs and the word idiopathic means cause unknown.
Macroglossia might sound like a specific disease but its just a literal description. Swollen Tongue.
I had a friend who got an ear "disease" when she was a child. For years she thought she had had a disease otitis media until she was told 25 years later that otitis media just means inflamation of the inner ear.

"Chemical Imbalance" is just a catch all phrase for a brain state that is undesirable and points to no cause, no diagnosis and no specific treatment regime.

Speaking of sleight of hand, you are implying deceit where there isn't any. You are pointing out symptoms, conditions, diagnoses and diseases as if they are all diseases.

IPF as you correctly noted means the cause of the fibrosis is unknown, not everything is known. Conditions with unknown causes commonly have diagnostic tests and treatments, that's what most patients care about.

Macroglossia is a symptom. So is headache. Not controversial.

Otitis media is a condition, commonly caused by bacterial infection secondary to eustachion tube malfunction, treated with antibiotics and ear tubes if recurrent. Not a disease.

Chemical imbalance is a lay term (used for simplistic conversations), not a medical term.

I can tell you now that you have an odd idea what a disease is. An infection is a disease.
Chemical imbalance is not a lay term, but one invented by psych medicine to assure lay persons that they know what they are talking about, when in fact they are mostly clueless. It is a reassuring platitude, and an excuse to treat with chemicals, rather than more expensive treatments.

This is what google says for the definition of disease,

a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

I think this is enough to settle any misleads.

Chemical imbalance is a lay term used to explain the etiology of psychiatric illnesses to patients. Yes we can go on explaining how neurotransmitters work and how the brain acts normally, what happens in pathological conditions, and the basis of the treatments that we offer. I think it is obvious that such an effort is impractical as well as useless. I am not clear why you are trying so much to prove that doctors treat psychiatric conditions without having a knowledge about them. And also what are these more expensive treatments that you say other than so called 'chemicals'?

[Sushan]

Sculptor wrote:

------ An infection is a disease.
Chemical imbalance is not a lay term, but one invented by psych medicine to assure lay persons that they know what they are talking about, when in fact they are mostly clueless. It is a reassuring platitude, and an excuse to treat with chemicals, rather than more expensive treatments.

I'd define as a disease any constant syndrome, whether or not it was acute or infectious or both.

I have very limited experience of so called mental illness. My best friend got what was called manic depression at the age of nineteen following heatstroke. He had it all his life Electric shock treatments did him no good but the specific mood stabiliser lithium seemed to stop the most damaging mania. All sorts of talking therapies did him no good but owning his life's purpose helped him quite a lot.

A small correction with all due respect. A syndrome is a collection of symptoms which occur together. This may later be found as a particular disease or a set of diseases.

Regarding your friend's issue I think he had Bipolar disorder, which is comprised of depressive episodes as well as manic episodes. It is quite difficult to treat because the treatment to one side may move the illness to the other side. But the balanced treatment will let the person to experience a normal life as any other person, and I think that is what your friend is experiencing now. ECT (electro convulsive therapy) might have been used when he had some psychotic symptoms or severe depression which is quite difficult to control with drugs alone.

[Sculptor1]

There is no empirical basis for a non corporeal "mind", or "soul".
How would such a thing be affected by or have an effect upon the physicality of the world.
It seem to me that it makes more sense to say the "mind" is what the brain does.

There is a massive sleight of hand in the medical profession in which practicioners fool the patient into thinking that they know more than then. Like many experts they rely on a more detailed lexicon. "Bulsh.. Baffles the Brains" as the saying goes.
For example a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis sounds like the doctor knows what he is talking about, yet the phrase is no more than a literal description of scarring of the lungs and the word idiopathic means cause unknown.
Macroglossia might sound like a specific disease but its just a literal description. Swollen Tongue.
I had a friend who got an ear "disease" when she was a child. For years she thought she had had a disease otitis media until she was told 25 years later that otitis media just means inflamation of the inner ear.

"Chemical Imbalance" is just a catch all phrase for a brain state that is undesirable and points to no cause, no diagnosis and no specific treatment regime.

Speaking of sleight of hand, you are implying deceit where there isn't any. You are pointing out symptoms, conditions, diagnoses and diseases as if they are all diseases.

IPF as you correctly noted means the cause of the fibrosis is unknown, not everything is known. Conditions with unknown causes commonly have diagnostic tests and treatments, that's what most patients care about.

Macroglossia is a symptom. So is headache. Not controversial.

Otitis media is a condition, commonly caused by bacterial infection secondary to eustachion tube malfunction, treated with antibiotics and ear tubes if recurrent. Not a disease.

Chemical imbalance is a lay term (used for simplistic conversations), not a medical term.

I can tell you now that you have an odd idea what a disease is. An infection is a disease.
Chemical imbalance is not a lay term, but one invented by psych medicine to assure lay persons that they know what they are talking about, when in fact they are mostly clueless. It is a reassuring platitude, and an excuse to treat with chemicals, rather than more expensive treatments.

This is what google says for the definition of disease,

a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

I think this is enough to settle any misleads.

QED and infection is a disease.

Chemical imbalance is a lay term used to explain the etiology of psychiatric illnesses to patients. Yes we can go on explaining how neurotransmitters work and how the brain acts normally, what happens in pathological conditions, and the basis of the treatments that we offer. I think it is obvious that such an effort is impractical as well as useless. I am not clear why you are trying so much to prove that doctors treat psychiatric conditions without having a knowledge about them. And also what are these more expensive treatments that you say other than so called 'chemicals'?

[Sushan]

Well you're the one implying that "psych medicine" folk are using clueless platitudes to fool patients to pay for less expensive treatments. In other words to pay their practitioners less.

All medicine has used symptomic desriptors in place of knowking the real causes since they adotped Latin as jargon. This has been going on for 100s of years. I never said any thing about "clueless platitudes to fool patients to pay for less expensive treatments.". So I do not feel obligated to respond to an obvious baiting.

I believe this is a direct quote: "It is a reassuring platitude, and an excuse to treat with chemicals, rather than more expensive treatments".

Yes that is what I said.
It is a no brainer that psychological and psychiatric medicine tends to reach for the drugs rather than offer group therapy, art therapy cognitive therapy, and time consuming consultancy.
I am sure you will agree.

I am sorry but I do not understand your attempt to prove that psychiatrists go for wrong and cheap medication while a patient can be offered with other therapies like counseling, CBT, etc.

Yes, there are various treatment modalities in psychiatry. But that does not mean all patients are eligible to everything. Some can be treated simply by counseling or CBT, but some need oral medication. Some has to be given IV or IM medication and some need to be subjected to Electro Convulsive Therapy. And all these therapies have a scientific basis.

Let me take another example. If we consider cardiology, myocardial infarction is a critical condition that we see in this speciality. Treatment options can be listed as giving Enoxaparin, Streptokinase, Tenecteplase, etc. But the eligibility depends in individual patient conditions. Some may not need any treatment other than supportive treatment and rehabilitation, but some might need surgery. It is up to the clinician to choose accordingly, so in psychiatry as well.

[Sushan]

Speaking of sleight of hand, you are implying deceit where there isn't any. You are pointing out symptoms, conditions, diagnoses and diseases as if they are all diseases.

IPF as you correctly noted means the cause of the fibrosis is unknown, not everything is known. Conditions with unknown causes commonly have diagnostic tests and treatments, that's what most patients care about.

Macroglossia is a symptom. So is headache. Not controversial.

Otitis media is a condition, commonly caused by bacterial infection secondary to eustachion tube malfunction, treated with antibiotics and ear tubes if recurrent. Not a disease.

Chemical imbalance is a lay term (used for simplistic conversations), not a medical term.

I can tell you now that you have an odd idea what a disease is. An infection is a disease.
Chemical imbalance is not a lay term, but one invented by psych medicine to assure lay persons that they know what they are talking about, when in fact they are mostly clueless. It is a reassuring platitude, and an excuse to treat with chemicals, rather than more expensive treatments.

This is what google says for the definition of disease,

a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

I think this is enough to settle any misleads.

QED and infection is a disease.

Chemical imbalance is a lay term used to explain the etiology of psychiatric illnesses to patients. Yes we can go on explaining how neurotransmitters work and how the brain acts normally, what happens in pathological conditions, and the basis of the treatments that we offer. I think it is obvious that such an effort is impractical as well as useless. I am not clear why you are trying so much to prove that doctors treat psychiatric conditions without having a knowledge about them. And also what are these more expensive treatments that you say other than so called 'chemicals'?

Infection, often the first step, occurs when bacteria, viruses or other microbes that cause disease enter your body and begin to multiply. Disease occurs when the cells in your body are damaged — as a result of the infection — and signs and symptoms of an illness appear.

(www.mayoclinic.org>germs)

According to this definition infection and disease are two different things. An infection can progress into a disease depending on its ability to damage the cells of the body or not.

[Sculptor1]

All medicine has used symptomic desriptors in place of knowking the real causes since they adotped Latin as jargon. This has been going on for 100s of years. I never said any thing about "clueless platitudes to fool patients to pay for less expensive treatments.". So I do not feel obligated to respond to an obvious baiting.

I believe this is a direct quote: "It is a reassuring platitude, and an excuse to treat with chemicals, rather than more expensive treatments".

Yes that is what I said.
It is a no brainer that psychological and psychiatric medicine tends to reach for the drugs rather than offer group therapy, art therapy cognitive therapy, and time consuming consultancy.
I am sure you will agree.

I am sorry but I do not understand your attempt to prove that psychiatrists go for wrong and cheap medication while a patient can be offered with other therapies like counseling, CBT, etc.

99% of people with mental health problems are dependant on the state for help, since being mad means you tend not to be able to afford private care.
This is what we call a no brainer.

Yes, there are various treatment modalities in psychiatry. But that does not mean all patients are eligible to everything. Some can be treated simply by counseling or CBT, but some need oral medication. Some has to be given IV or IM medication and some need to be subjected to Electro Convulsive Therapy. And all these therapies have a scientific basis.

Let me take another example. If we consider cardiology, myocardial infarction is a critical condition that we see in this speciality. Treatment options can be listed as giving Enoxaparin, Streptokinase, Tenecteplase, etc. But the eligibility depends in individual patient conditions. Some may not need any treatment other than supportive treatment and rehabilitation, but some might need surgery. It is up to the clinician to choose accordingly, so in psychiatry as well.

I'm not sure if you are just naive, or just an optimist.
The "tendancy" of which I speak is a fact of life for millions of people, and the existence of other treatments does not change my statement.

[Sculptor1]

I can tell you now that you have an odd idea what a disease is. An infection is a disease.
Chemical imbalance is not a lay term, but one invented by psych medicine to assure lay persons that they know what they are talking about, when in fact they are mostly clueless. It is a reassuring platitude, and an excuse to treat with chemicals, rather than more expensive treatments.

This is what google says for the definition of disease,

a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

I think this is enough to settle any misleads.

QED and infection is a disease.

Chemical imbalance is a lay term used to explain the etiology of psychiatric illnesses to patients. Yes we can go on explaining how neurotransmitters work and how the brain acts normally, what happens in pathological conditions, and the basis of the treatments that we offer. I think it is obvious that such an effort is impractical as well as useless. I am not clear why you are trying so much to prove that doctors treat psychiatric conditions without having a knowledge about them. And also what are these more expensive treatments that you say other than so called 'chemicals'?

Infection, often the first step, occurs when bacteria, viruses or other microbes that cause disease enter your body and begin to multiply. Disease occurs when the cells in your body are damaged — as a result of the infection — and signs and symptoms of an illness appear.

According to this definition infection and disease are two different things. An infection can progress into a disease depending on its ability to damage the cells of the body or not.

Pedanticism.
You must have missed the common phrase infectious disease.
Not all diseases are infections. But all infections are diseases.

[LuckyR]

If you are hypothesizing that prolonged exposure to stress can cause clinical depression independent of further stress in someone without previous mood disorder, I am unaware of data to support it.

There are psychiatric disorders that need more genetic predesposition to occur. But some like depression are related more with environmental factors. That does not totally exclude genetic factors and personality traits. But there are people (whom I have met in my clinical practice) that succumbed to depression without any history of mood disorders or a known genetic predesposition (no known family history). I agree that there is a high chance that their brains have been acting differently from the beginning. But we currently have no methods to check such things, and also we usually don't do such tests since we diagnose people depending on their physical and mental outcome in psychiatric disorders (this does not include organic psychiatric disorders).

So these folks had no history of depression, suffered a stressful situation, naturally felt sad, then later after the stress was lifted continued on to clinical depression?

The stressor may have been lifted physically, but the person might have been having the mental ssuffering throughout the time despite his/her family being very much supportive.

One example was about a law student who was diagnosed with depression following a relationship breakup. She had no psychiatric history, and her traceable family history also was clear from any psychiatric illness. She was a bright student until she came to the university, fell in love, and finally ended up in a breakup. Then she started to act wierdly and all her academic performances reduced. Then it continued to become a widespread unhappiness which affected her day to life as well. Ultimately she was diagnosed with clinical depression without psychotic symptoms, and I happened to meet her in the asylum for the mentally ill people.

No doubt because clinical depression can have it's onset at any age and since life stressors are common, there are going to be individuals (like your example) who note a correlation in timing between a particular life stress and the onset of their disease. However such correlation is not de facto causation.

[Ariparkhurst]

You are correct, the term "stress", is lazy shorthand for "too much stress". So, yes small amounts of stress are a good thing.

Yes, stress is a more general term and for a deep discussion I think it has to be quantified correctly. But as per my experience the issue is not the amount of stress, but the time that you are exposed to it. Short term stress can be really productive though one is overwhelmed by it. At the same time even a small amount of stress can be harmful when one is exposed to it for a long time.

seems very much like a performance enhancing substance. I am convinced that most people have an addictive relationship with stress, unaware of the chemical dependence.

[not a thing]

Computer, some, has windows program, so we do, human,..., stress is one of this program.

Stress make sure, something important gets done. What is important to us we always make this decision in our head.

Process you assess: you can do it - "good stress", you assess: to much a diference between you capabilities, time, and what has to be done,...then nature pushes you in anger or you are starting to back off with help, stories,...

But the question is where is a challenge, which is most powerful healthy thing, you done more, you are happier, healthier - dont forget to eat and sleep.

Stress makes you physically ill, the point of that is, if you dont get through exam in school is gona hurts you, so i - nature i am hearting you, so i will make sure things which are important gets done. Nature tells you, done this thing and i wont hurt you.

Challenge, sit down figure it out what you really want to do in life, not in 5years, not in 25 years, but when you die you are doing, or you done this thing, only this way you get your keyboard of challenge in your hand, if not STRESS "good" and "bad".

[Sushan]

I believe this is a direct quote: "It is a reassuring platitude, and an excuse to treat with chemicals, rather than more expensive treatments".

Yes that is what I said.
It is a no brainer that psychological and psychiatric medicine tends to reach for the drugs rather than offer group therapy, art therapy cognitive therapy, and time consuming consultancy.
I am sure you will agree.

I am sorry but I do not understand your attempt to prove that psychiatrists go for wrong and cheap medication while a patient can be offered with other therapies like counseling, CBT, etc.

99% of people with mental health problems are dependant on the state for help, since being mad means you tend not to be able to afford private care.
This is what we call a no brainer.

Yes, there are various treatment modalities in psychiatry. But that does not mean all patients are eligible to everything. Some can be treated simply by counseling or CBT, but some need oral medication. Some has to be given IV or IM medication and some need to be subjected to Electro Convulsive Therapy. And all these therapies have a scientific basis.

Let me take another example. If we consider cardiology, myocardial infarction is a critical condition that we see in this speciality. Treatment options can be listed as giving Enoxaparin, Streptokinase, Tenecteplase, etc. But the eligibility depends in individual patient conditions. Some may not need any treatment other than supportive treatment and rehabilitation, but some might need surgery. It is up to the clinician to choose accordingly, so in psychiatry as well.

I'm not sure if you are just naive, or just an optimist.
The "tendancy" of which I speak is a fact of life for millions of people, and the existence of other treatments does not change my statement.

In my country healthcare system is totally free including mental healthcare. We even maintain hospitals for the mentally ill with no charges at all, but with good quality clinicians and medicine, and also other treatment modalities. At the same time anyone who can afford private sector treatment is allowed to have it. There is no difference in these two fields other than the involvement of money and private ssector not legally being able to treat such patients as in-ward patients (as per our mental health act).

For the second part, it is you who mentioned other treatment modalities. I am not simply mentioning their existence, but claiming that there are criteria that has to be fulfilled to use each of them. No one is prescribing medicine just for the sake of 'easyness'. And in medicine trial and error is used quite often and that is how the field has developed so far throughout the history. But that does not mean that all the patients are lab rats. Some conditions are straight forward while some are tricky. And that is why clinicians are not replaced by robots until today.

[Sushan]

This is what google says for the definition of disease,



I think this is enough to settle any misleads.

QED and infection is a disease.

Chemical imbalance is a lay term used to explain the etiology of psychiatric illnesses to patients. Yes we can go on explaining how neurotransmitters work and how the brain acts normally, what happens in pathological conditions, and the basis of the treatments that we offer. I think it is obvious that such an effort is impractical as well as useless. I am not clear why you are trying so much to prove that doctors treat psychiatric conditions without having a knowledge about them. And also what are these more expensive treatments that you say other than so called 'chemicals'?

Infection, often the first step, occurs when bacteria, viruses or other microbes that cause disease enter your body and begin to multiply. Disease occurs when the cells in your body are damaged — as a result of the infection — and signs and symptoms of an illness appear.

According to this definition infection and disease are two different things. An infection can progress into a disease depending on its ability to damage the cells of the body or not.

Pedanticism.
You must have missed the common phrase infectious disease.
Not all diseases are infections. But all infections are diseases.

Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

There are subjects that really stress on definitions, and medicine is one of them. So the minor details are important to prevent misunderstandings, in order to prevent serious consequences. It is the way of medicine. I am sorry if you felt my definition as an insult, but I had no intention to do so.

Yes, there is a term called infectious disease. And that is used for the contagious diseases. There is another common term, Non infectious disease, which is used for the non contagious diseases like Diabetes, Dislipidaemia, etc.

I agree, all diseases are not infections. But that does not necessitate every infection to be a disease.

[Sculptor1]

Yes that is what I said.
It is a no brainer that psychological and psychiatric medicine tends to reach for the drugs rather than offer group therapy, art therapy cognitive therapy, and time consuming consultancy.
I am sure you will agree.

I am sorry but I do not understand your attempt to prove that psychiatrists go for wrong and cheap medication while a patient can be offered with other therapies like counseling, CBT, etc.

99% of people with mental health problems are dependant on the state for help, since being mad means you tend not to be able to afford private care.
This is what we call a no brainer.

Yes, there are various treatment modalities in psychiatry. But that does not mean all patients are eligible to everything. Some can be treated simply by counseling or CBT, but some need oral medication. Some has to be given IV or IM medication and some need to be subjected to Electro Convulsive Therapy. And all these therapies have a scientific basis.

Let me take another example. If we consider cardiology, myocardial infarction is a critical condition that we see in this speciality. Treatment options can be listed as giving Enoxaparin, Streptokinase, Tenecteplase, etc. But the eligibility depends in individual patient conditions. Some may not need any treatment other than supportive treatment and rehabilitation, but some might need surgery. It is up to the clinician to choose accordingly, so in psychiatry as well.

I'm not sure if you are just naive, or just an optimist.
The "tendancy" of which I speak is a fact of life for millions of people, and the existence of other treatments does not change my statement.

In my country healthcare system is totally free including mental healthcare.

Where is that?
That claim is also true where I live. And that is exactly why I say that there is a tendancy to drug rather than offer more expensive treatments.

[Sushan]

There are psychiatric disorders that need more genetic predesposition to occur. But some like depression are related more with environmental factors. That does not totally exclude genetic factors and personality traits. But there are people (whom I have met in my clinical practice) that succumbed to depression without any history of mood disorders or a known genetic predesposition (no known family history). I agree that there is a high chance that their brains have been acting differently from the beginning. But we currently have no methods to check such things, and also we usually don't do such tests since we diagnose people depending on their physical and mental outcome in psychiatric disorders (this does not include organic psychiatric disorders).

So these folks had no history of depression, suffered a stressful situation, naturally felt sad, then later after the stress was lifted continued on to clinical depression?

The stressor may have been lifted physically, but the person might have been having the mental ssuffering throughout the time despite his/her family being very much supportive.

One example was about a law student who was diagnosed with depression following a relationship breakup. She had no psychiatric history, and her traceable family history also was clear from any psychiatric illness. She was a bright student until she came to the university, fell in love, and finally ended up in a breakup. Then she started to act wierdly and all her academic performances reduced. Then it continued to become a widespread unhappiness which affected her day to life as well. Ultimately she was diagnosed with clinical depression without psychotic symptoms, and I happened to meet her in the asylum for the mentally ill people.

No doubt because clinical depression can have it's onset at any age and since life stressors are common, there are going to be individuals (like your example) who note a correlation in timing between a particular life stress and the onset of their disease. However such correlation is not de facto causation.

The real cause for many psychiatric illnesses are still not clear. And that is why the term 'multifactorial' is used. I agree that the correlation can very well be a mere coincidence. But when we consider most of the stories related to clinical Depression, there is a high amount of associated stressful and depressive events. So, though it may not be de facto causation, I think it is quite unfair and even be harmful to reject the relevance and relationship between stressors and depression.

[Sushan]

You are correct, the term "stress", is lazy shorthand for "too much stress". So, yes small amounts of stress are a good thing.

Yes, stress is a more general term and for a deep discussion I think it has to be quantified correctly. But as per my experience the issue is not the amount of stress, but the time that you are exposed to it. Short term stress can be really productive though one is overwhelmed by it. At the same time even a small amount of stress can be harmful when one is exposed to it for a long time.

seems very much like a performance enhancing substance. I am convinced that most people have an addictive relationship with stress, unaware of the chemical dependence.

I agree. People tend to be lazy when there is no stress, and some even wait for the last moment to feel the stress and then only they can productively work. Yes, it is a sort of an addiction for some people. And there are many who succeed when they are under stress, but do otherwise if there is no stress involved. This situation is explained in a biochemical basis, giving much credit to Cortisol and Adrenaline. But no one see how these chemicals act and react, so ultimately it is what people feel mentally as 'stress' is THE performance enhancing substance.