100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Mental Illness - myth or science? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 10/02/09 09:58 PM
|
|
Let's talk about people that are bi-polar and in the hospital getting blood tests until their med dosage is correct. Ok go ahead. What are the tests, what do they show, and how are the results used in the treatment of bi-polar disorder? Allright, after searching through seven paragraphs, I find that all three questions could have been answered with 20 words. The rest may be edifying, but it is mostly irrelevant. So here are the actual answers… What is the test? A lithium blood test. What does it show? The amount of lithium present in the bloodstream. How are the results used in the treatment of bi-polar disorder? Monitoring the amount of lithium in the bloodstream So the lithium blood test does not measure the condition, it only measures the treatment. Which has always been my point. That mental disorders are not quantifiable by any objective means, so unlike true medical conditions, they are always dependent on subjective interpretations. What I do believe is that the casues were unknown and that any claim that the causes were known were false claims. But that’s not the issue. The issue is claiming that the theory is proven fact. I will come back to, is this discussion not dangerous in that it will bring more pain and discomfort to those who live with these problems everyday? They are already dealing with the fact they have something of which there is no cure, they are already dealing with the fact that in most cases their will not be a cure, etc.... Well as far as I am concerned, any pain and suffering cause by discussing them starts with insisting that they are “diseases that need to be cured”. And who is doing that? It most certainly is not me. If you want to blame someone for causing pain and discomfort by discussing them, try blaming the people who started it all in the first place - the DSM task force. They are not “diseases” until the DSM Task Force says they are. I just don't know the purpose here. You do not agree with the theories of causes and........???? Yes, I do not agree that the claimed causes are the actual causes. Here are a couple critical and telling questions: Do you believe that “the spirit” can or does have any effect on personal behavior? Or do you believe that “the spirit” is completely unrelated to personal behavior? Obviously, if you do not believe in the existence of spirit at all, then you must believe that all action , behavioral or otherwise, is nothing more than probabilistic interactions of particles and energy. Thus, the only true cause that can be assigned to mental disorders is whatever you think may be the ultimate cause of the universe. Everything else is the effect of that. And even if you do believe in spirit, but believe that spirit has no relationship to behavior, then the exact same logic, and thus the same conclusion, applies. On the other hand, if you believe that spirit is the source of any behavior at all, then you must conclude one of two things: 1) the spirit is the source of all behavior and thus the ultimate purpose of psychiatry is “to cure spiritually caused behavior”, or… 2) some behavior is caused by the spirit and some behavior is cause by the physical and thus the ultimate purpose of psychiatry is “to cure only the physically caused behavior”, ignoring the spiritually caused behavior. However, in order to do that, it is necessary to differentiate between spiritually caused behavior and physically caused behavior. And therein lies the fundamental basis of what I consider to be wrong with psychiatry. They are claiming the ability to differentiate between spiritually caused behavior and physically caused behavior. But what is that differentiation based on? What are the factors involved in the determination? It can’t be the behavior itself. That would mean that the behavior determines the behavior, which is an identity, not a difference. It can’t be science. That would require some objectively demonstrable cause=>effect relationship between spirit and physical. So what’s left? The only thing left that I can see is subjective opinion. And that is exactly how it’s done. A group of people (the DSM Task Force) vote on what is, and what is not, “mental illness”. And that is my major beef with psychiatry in general. They are essentially self-appointed arbiters of the existence and/or nature of spirit. Now I ask you: How is that different from religion? Spiritual behavior? Do mean like the Native Americans used to believe that a crazy person was touched by the spirit world? I fail to see how that even relates to this. Sounds like a personal view here. At the expense of a people who need all the help they can get, by the way. Psychiatry and psychology have both had their bad moments in the past just as regular medicine has. It is a learn as you go thing this health thing. At all levels. Yes, I understand that viewpoint. And I am truly sorry if you or anyone else suffers because they feel I have taken away their legitimacy. Let me tell you how this insults mentally ill patients, yet again and maybe you will see this time. I had symptoms of my MS years before my diagnosis. I was misdiagnosed over and over and over, everything from depression to hormones, every kind of different doctor and I struggled almost daily to get through it. Being misdiagnosed and not recieving the help you need makes you suffer. They make you feel as though you are a hypochondriac or something because you keep coming back to them and keep coming back to them with no relief. Finally the day came when after my going numb from my feet to my chest and losing the ability to walk, I was sent to a neurologist who tentatively diagnosed me with MS. He expected dramatics from me because it is incurable, not immediately deadly most of the time but a serious life changer. I was relieved to have a name for it. I was relieved that it wasn't just me being a hypochondriac like they were acting like before. Sure, the attack was terrible, I lost memory, I lost IQ, I lost feeling in my body, I lost more than people can imagine but I now knew what it was. It cannot be cured. But I am okay with the burden I carry here because I know what it is. People with mental disorders feeling lost and confused, angry and frustrated, uncontrollable and outside of the "norm" need to have a name for what they go through, even if the docs are going on a theory. The mentally unwell need the attempt to help them. I needed someone to legitimize my pain and struggle. So do the mentally unwell. Does this help you at all? To see how you taking what little legitimacy they have been given by names of illnesses and attempts to help from the medical society dimisses them. But there are two sides to every coin. Am I not just as entitled to feel my legitimacy is being taken away by being labeled as “mentally ill”? Spirituality is our body and mind so they are one entity not separate entities. It is the trinity, body, mind and spirit. All in one person. Well I appreciate and accept that you hold that opinion. Just know that I do not share it. As for the association with religion, you lost me there. So no comment. Since the whole post was intented as a logical train of thought, I can only assume that you disagree with some premise, corollary or conclusion. So if you would please, specify which premise or conclusion you disagree with? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as knowing the cause of any disease.... I think medical science is lacking too. Do they REALLY know what causes cancer? If they did, they could cure it or at the very least, prevent it completely. The natural condition of spirit is wellness. Any disease then, is probably caused by the mind, not the spirit. And by the mind I don't mean the brain. So assuming that an individual 'mind' is malfunctioning, what would cause it to do so? I think its electrical, and that there are positive and negative problems that cause things to get unbalanced and out of sync with spirit. Do you think that thoughts can effect your health? I think it has been proven that they do. Therefore you must then locate the originator of thought. There again you are opening the question of spirit, mind or brain. Yes indeed this is the question. Do we have souls? Is illness a spiritual matter at its core? Some people think so. Lacking or limited? Yes, we are limited in our knowledge even those who have the most of the knowledge are still limited. I know the conspiracy theorists claim all kinds of things like we know a cure to all diseases but do not allow the medical staff to use them, etc... Bullarky. Our limitations are frustrating especially when we are watching people struggle and possibly die. But to dismiss their struggle and take away what names or legimitizing they are given in this limited environment is more harmful. It makes them unworthy of consideration. The natural condition of mind, body and spirit is wellness. So to believe one would sabatoge the others is ridiculous. No, its not ridiculous. We sabotage our bodies all the time. We know that smoking is bad for us. We over eat and we eat the wrong things. We think negative thoughts. We engage in negative emotions. We worry. We stress ourselves out with worry. Stress is a major cause of many illnesses. I don't just 'believe' that mind can sabotage the body and ignore the spirit, I know it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skyhook the post was getting too long.
Anyway, I guess it can go both ways but the consideration needs to be made for both sides. I felt and saw a dismissive nature on several posts on here and that is disturbing. Not just by one person. It comes down to the fact that our science is by no means completely accurate in this field or any field in medicine for that matter. It is all a guessing game which leaves lots of room for error. Blame never solves anything. I know that the book that is designed to assist psychiatry in their job is not by any means perfect since it was written by humans. The fact is they are working on it. But for those mentally ill who need to know what the docs think they have and it is important for them, they should have it for themselves. For those who consider the stygma insulting, they can dismiss it for themselves but not for others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also don't believe it when I am told, "There is no cure for this disease."
What they should say is "We do not know how to cure this disease." They should not say "There is no cure." They don't know that. I believe there is a cure for all disease. We may not know what it is, but I believe there is a cure. To say "There is no cure." is like saying, "There is no hope." I believe there is even a cure for death. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Fri 10/02/09 09:56 PM
|
|
As far as knowing the cause of any disease.... I think medical science is lacking too. Do they REALLY know what causes cancer? If they did, they could cure it or at the very least, prevent it completely. The natural condition of spirit is wellness. Any disease then, is probably caused by the mind, not the spirit. And by the mind I don't mean the brain. So assuming that an individual 'mind' is malfunctioning, what would cause it to do so? I think its electrical, and that there are positive and negative problems that cause things to get unbalanced and out of sync with spirit. Do you think that thoughts can effect your health? I think it has been proven that they do. Therefore you must then locate the originator of thought. There again you are opening the question of spirit, mind or brain. Yes indeed this is the question. Do we have souls? Is illness a spiritual matter at its core? Some people think so. Lacking or limited? Yes, we are limited in our knowledge even those who have the most of the knowledge are still limited. I know the conspiracy theorists claim all kinds of things like we know a cure to all diseases but do not allow the medical staff to use them, etc... Bullarky. Our limitations are frustrating especially when we are watching people struggle and possibly die. But to dismiss their struggle and take away what names or legimitizing they are given in this limited environment is more harmful. It makes them unworthy of consideration. The natural condition of mind, body and spirit is wellness. So to believe one would sabatoge the others is ridiculous. No, its not ridiculous. We sabotage our bodies all the time. We know that smoking is bad for us. We over eat and we eat the wrong things. We think negative thoughts. We engage in negative emotions. We worry. We stress ourselves out with worry. Stress is a major cause of many illnesses. I don't just 'believe' that mind can sabotage the body and ignore the spirit, I know it does. People who smoke know what they do to themselves, people who over eat or eat the wrong things know what they do to themselves. Just because someone is not afraid of these bad things doesn't make them self sabotaging. Your entitled to your opinion of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 10/02/09 10:01 PM
|
|
As far as knowing the cause of any disease.... I think medical science is lacking too. Lacking or limited? Yes, we are limited in our knowledge even those who have the most of the knowledge are still limited. Do they REALLY know what causes cancer? If they did, they could cure it or at the very least, prevent it completely. The natural condition of spirit is wellness. Any disease then, is probably caused by the mind, not the spirit. And by the mind I don't mean the brain. So assuming that an individual 'mind' is malfunctioning, what would cause it to do so? I think its electrical, and that there are positive and negative problems that cause things to get unbalanced and out of sync with spirit. Do you think that thoughts can effect your health? I think it has been proven that they do. Therefore you must then locate the originator of thought. There again you are opening the question of spirit, mind or brain. Yes indeed this is the question. Do we have souls? Is illness a spiritual matter at its core? Some people think so. I know the conspiracy theorists claim all kinds of things like we know a cure to all diseases but do not allow the medical staff to use them, etc... Bullarky. Our limitations are frustrating especially when we are watching people struggle and possibly die. But to dismiss their struggle and take away what names or legimitizing they are given in this limited environment is more harmful. It makes them unworthy of consideration. Personally, I feel more harmed by the naming. To me it is a legitimization of someone else’s viewpoint at the expense of my own. The natural condition of mind, body and spirit is wellness. So to believe one would sabatoge the others is ridiculous. There si some debate possible over “natural condition”, but in the main, I agree wholeheartedly. So who is asserting that there is sabotage going on? If anything, it is the APA that is asserting that the body is sabotaging the mind. edit: And I see tht Jeannie has offered an example of us sabataging out bodies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as knowing the cause of any disease.... I think medical science is lacking too. Lacking or limited? Yes, we are limited in our knowledge even those who have the most of the knowledge are still limited. Do they REALLY know what causes cancer? If they did, they could cure it or at the very least, prevent it completely. The natural condition of spirit is wellness. Any disease then, is probably caused by the mind, not the spirit. And by the mind I don't mean the brain. So assuming that an individual 'mind' is malfunctioning, what would cause it to do so? I think its electrical, and that there are positive and negative problems that cause things to get unbalanced and out of sync with spirit. Do you think that thoughts can effect your health? I think it has been proven that they do. Therefore you must then locate the originator of thought. There again you are opening the question of spirit, mind or brain. Yes indeed this is the question. Do we have souls? Is illness a spiritual matter at its core? Some people think so. I know the conspiracy theorists claim all kinds of things like we know a cure to all diseases but do not allow the medical staff to use them, etc... Bullarky. Our limitations are frustrating especially when we are watching people struggle and possibly die. But to dismiss their struggle and take away what names or legimitizing they are given in this limited environment is more harmful. It makes them unworthy of consideration. Personally, I feel more harmed by the naming. To me it is a legitimization of someone else’s viewpoint at the expense of my own. The natural condition of mind, body and spirit is wellness. So to believe one would sabatoge the others is ridiculous. There si some debate possible over “natural condition”, but in the main, I agree wholeheartedly. So who is asserting that there is sabotage going on? If anything, it is the APA that is asserting that the body is sabotaging the mind. No that deduction is not accurate in my mind at all. To say they believe there are chemical imbalances in the body and brain does not assert that the body is sabotaging itself necessarily. It could be caused by an outside influence and the body is reacting, it could be caused by a whole slew of things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also don't believe it when I am told, "There is no cure for this disease." What they should say is "We do not know how to cure this disease." They should not say "There is no cure." They don't know that. I believe there is a cure for all disease. We may not know what it is, but I believe there is a cure. To say "There is no cure." is like saying, "There is no hope." I believe there is even a cure for death. To accept our human limitations I guess can be optional to some using your analogy. There is no cure does not mean no hope. It means that we have to live within these limitations. All of life has limitations. Again your opinion is yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodnight folks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as knowing the cause of any disease.... I think medical science is lacking too. Lacking or limited? Yes, we are limited in our knowledge even those who have the most of the knowledge are still limited. Do they REALLY know what causes cancer? If they did, they could cure it or at the very least, prevent it completely. The natural condition of spirit is wellness. Any disease then, is probably caused by the mind, not the spirit. And by the mind I don't mean the brain. So assuming that an individual 'mind' is malfunctioning, what would cause it to do so? I think its electrical, and that there are positive and negative problems that cause things to get unbalanced and out of sync with spirit. Do you think that thoughts can effect your health? I think it has been proven that they do. Therefore you must then locate the originator of thought. There again you are opening the question of spirit, mind or brain. Yes indeed this is the question. Do we have souls? Is illness a spiritual matter at its core? Some people think so. I know the conspiracy theorists claim all kinds of things like we know a cure to all diseases but do not allow the medical staff to use them, etc... Bullarky. Our limitations are frustrating especially when we are watching people struggle and possibly die. But to dismiss their struggle and take away what names or legimitizing they are given in this limited environment is more harmful. It makes them unworthy of consideration. Personally, I feel more harmed by the naming. To me it is a legitimization of someone else’s viewpoint at the expense of my own. The natural condition of mind, body and spirit is wellness. So to believe one would sabatoge the others is ridiculous. There si some debate possible over “natural condition”, but in the main, I agree wholeheartedly. So who is asserting that there is sabotage going on? If anything, it is the APA that is asserting that the body is sabotaging the mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as knowing the cause of any disease.... I think medical science is lacking too. Do they REALLY know what causes cancer? If they did, they could cure it or at the very least, prevent it completely. The natural condition of spirit is wellness. Any disease then, is probably caused by the mind, not the spirit. And by the mind I don't mean the brain. So assuming that an individual 'mind' is malfunctioning, what would cause it to do so? I think its electrical, and that there are positive and negative problems that cause things to get unbalanced and out of sync with spirit. Do you think that thoughts can effect your health? I think it has been proven that they do. Therefore you must then locate the originator of thought. There again you are opening the question of spirit, mind or brain. Yes indeed this is the question. Do we have souls? Is illness a spiritual matter at its core? Some people think so. Lacking or limited? Yes, we are limited in our knowledge even those who have the most of the knowledge are still limited. I know the conspiracy theorists claim all kinds of things like we know a cure to all diseases but do not allow the medical staff to use them, etc... Bullarky. Our limitations are frustrating especially when we are watching people struggle and possibly die. But to dismiss their struggle and take away what names or legimitizing they are given in this limited environment is more harmful. It makes them unworthy of consideration. The natural condition of mind, body and spirit is wellness. So to believe one would sabatoge the others is ridiculous. No, its not ridiculous. We sabotage our bodies all the time. We know that smoking is bad for us. We over eat and we eat the wrong things. We think negative thoughts. We engage in negative emotions. We worry. We stress ourselves out with worry. Stress is a major cause of many illnesses. I don't just 'believe' that mind can sabotage the body and ignore the spirit, I know it does. People who smoke know what they do to themselves, people who over eat or eat the wrong things know what they do to themselves. Just because someone is not afraid of these bad things doesn't make them self sabotaging. Your entitled to your opinion of course. That they 'know' what they do to themselves does not stop them from doing it, nor does it negate that they are sabotaging their bodies and their health and life. They still do it. But do they really know they are shortening their lives and causing illness and disease? They may be in denial about that. It makes no difference if they know or if they do not know. The fact is they do it. They blame stress on situations, and on everything else outside of themselves, and stress is a major contributing factor to disease. What exactly is stress? It is fear, worry and resistance to what is. It is negative thinking which perpetuates negative unwanted situations that perpetuate the stress in their lives. Yes we sabotage ourselves. This is quite clear and obvious in so many ways I can't believe anyone would refute it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“What exactly is the difference between a “medical illness” and a “mental illness”. Now to anyone who chooses to answer that question, please be as unambiguous as possible. By that I mean that if you define “mental” in terms of the “mind”, please supply an unambiguous definition for “mind” – or at least unambiguous definitions for any ambiguous terms in that definition. In other words, I want to avoid starting out with semantic problems. Interesting question. Unambiguously, let's say that there is a difference I here call "A" between mental disease medical disease. There is a difference "B", however, two classes of medical diseases (injuries and infections, for instance), and there is a difference "C" between every disease genetically passed down and every disease which is not. I assert that in their magnitude and in their import, A=B=C And therefore I assert that while there are differences between medial and mental diseases, a difference of the same magnitude exists between all major medical classes of diseases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
☺ Interesting question. Unambiguously, let's say that there is a difference I here call "A" between mental disease medical disease. Now to anyone who chooses to answer that question, please be as unambiguous as possible. By that I mean that if you define “mental” in terms of the “mind”, please supply an unambiguous definition for “mind” – or at least unambiguous definitions for any ambiguous terms in that definition. In other words, I want to avoid starting out with semantic problems. There is a difference "B", however, two classes of medical diseases (injuries and infections, for instance), and there is a difference "C" between every disease genetically passed down and every disease which is not. I assert that in their magnitude and in their import, A=B=C And therefore I assert that while there are differences between medial and mental diseases, a difference of the same magnitude exists between all major medical classes of diseases. If you'll pardon my saying so, that doesn't answer the question at all. You've stated that there is some unspecified "magnitude" that exists, but not how it is measured. There are no differences stated nor is there anything stated that can be measured or compared. It is simply a list of labels for to different categories, but with nothing specified as to what constitutes any category or how those categories or their members are to be compared. Now if I may say so, that seems to me to be just about how the APA explains it - i.e. it doesn't. So again, “What exactly is the difference between a “medical illness” and a “mental illness”? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 10/03/09 10:13 AM
|
|
{Wux}: And therefore I assert that while there are differences between medial and mental diseases, a difference of the same magnitude exists between all major medical classes of diseases. [Skyehook}: Ummm... If you'll pardon my saying so, that doesn't answer the question at all. You've stated that there is some unspecified "magnitude" that exists, but not how it is measured. There are no differences stated nor is there anything stated that can be measured or compared. So again, “What exactly is the difference between a “medical illness” and a “mental illness”? I merely meant to say that the difference to me is not at all of import; it is of import to you. I merely meant to say that I'm not a fool who will design his own trap into which he will fall. If there are differences, I meant to say that differences of similar magnitude exist between say infections and injuries, etc., and we still say that injured people are ill and infected people are ill; or people who had been born with a disease are ill and those who acquired a disease in their life are ill. The mere fact that there is a difference between types of diseases means, in and by itself, nothing, inasmuch as acknowledging whether something is a disease or not. If, however, one states some differences between mental illness and physical illness, of which some are not always true, and the list is incomprehensive, then a VERY futile argument would ensue in which the argument would focus on discussing, essentially, the mistakes in the list, and drawing conclusions from that debate, which ought not to be drawn. This is what I meant by digging my own trap and being pushed into it. If you can prove it by examples and by logic that a psychiatric (or mental) illness is so different from physical illness -- hold, if it's a psychiatric illness, then we agree it's an illness no? How can something be a disease if it's not a disease in the first place? So finally we got to an agreement. Psychiatric or mental diseases or illnesses are diseases and illnesses. Whew. Thanks for settling this debate, Skye. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 10/03/09 10:28 AM
|
|
So again, “What exactly is the difference between a “medical illness” and a “mental illness”?
Woops, I got entangled in the quotes. I just interpreted it now (successfully?) that you put quotation marks around "mental illness" and "medical illness". Which semantically means, "so-call mental illness" etc. Which negates my conclusion in my one previous post. I got entangled with the quotes because the quote starts with a quote (in your originally uttering it in your post which was your second post on page seven of this topic thread), and therefore I got confused, and the best line of defense against confusion is to ignore the confusing part if it cannot be settled. So I withdraw the claim for agreement, if you withdraw one and only one quotation mark in your second post on page 7 of this topic. I maintain my intention to not get trapped and therefore staying away from listing the differences between mental disease and physical diseases. ------- What we could do, instead, is to have you list the differences, and we would discuss which of your listed differences are acceptable, and what percentage of differences are decisive to say that "mental disease is not a medical disease". Mind you, the rules include that for every difference you meantion we, your opponents, have the right and are entitled to 1. prove that what you think is a difference is not, and 2. list a similarity, which you have the righ to debunk as a similarity. Thus, if we could agree ahead of the time on an arbitrary number, at or below which the resultant for (number of differences btw mental and physical diseases + debunked similarities) divided by (similarities + differences debunked) falls, we, your opponents win this debate, and at above which you win, that would be one way of deciding this topic. If it's decision and closure we seek. I prefer decision and closure. I suggest the number be 1 (one). We also need a time limit, a deadline by which the debate ends. I shalt be a double dead-line: the one date is when all assertions must cease, and another one, in which all debunking of all assertions must cease. Of course it's hard to do without an impartial judge, but no system is perfect. Not even the human body or the human mind; that's why they can get ill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 10/03/09 12:42 PM
|
|
So again, “What exactly is the difference between a “medical illness” and a “mental illness”? You’re right. Good catch. I can see how that would be confusing. I apologize for the typo and withdraw that one quote. Woops, I got entangled in the quotes. I just interpreted it now (successfully?) that you put quotation marks around "mental illness" and "medical illness". Which semantically means, "so-call mental illness" etc. Which negates my conclusion in my one previous post. I got entangled with the quotes because the quote starts with a quote (in your originally uttering it in your post which was your second post on page seven of this topic thread), and therefore I got confused, and the best line of defense against confusion is to ignore the confusing part if it cannot be settled. So I withdraw the claim for agreement, if you withdraw one and only one quotation mark in your second post on page 7 of this topic. I maintain my intention to not get trapped and therefore staying away from listing the differences between mental disease and physical diseases. What we could do, instead, is to have you list the differences, and we would discuss which of your listed differences are acceptable, and what percentage of differences are decisive to say that "mental disease is not a medical disease". Mind you, the rules include that for every difference you meantion we, your opponents, have the right and are entitled to 1. prove that what you think is a difference is not, and 2. list a similarity, which you have the righ to debunk as a similarity. Hmmm..... Thus, if we could agree ahead of the time on an arbitrary number, at or below which the resultant for (number of differences btw mental and physical diseases + debunked similarities) divided by (similarities + differences debunked) falls, we, your opponents win this debate, and at above which you win, that would be one way of deciding this topic. If it's decision and closure we seek. I prefer decision and closure. I suggest the number be 1 (one). We also need a time limit, a deadline by which the debate ends. I shalt be a double dead-line: the one date is when all assertions must cease, and another one, in which all debunking of all assertions must cease. Of course it's hard to do without an impartial judge, but no system is perfect. Not even the human body or the human mind; that's why they can get ill. My purpose in asking that quesion was not really to come to an agreement so much as to find out what you (and others) believed to be the differences. But be that as it may, if you want to use that formal debate format, I will agree. And since this is mainly to find out what your (collective) view is, I will freely agree ahead of time to any time limit, and in fact any judge, you wish to choose. So here is my opening assertion: There is only one difference between a mental illness and a medical illness that is common to all – the former is listed in the DSM and the latter is not. (start of clock - tick….tick…tick) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 10/03/09 12:52 PM
|
|
{Wux}: And therefore I assert that while there are differences between medial and mental diseases, a difference of the same magnitude exists between all major medical classes of diseases. I merely meant to say that the difference to me is not at all of import; it is of import to you. I merely meant to say that I'm not a fool who will design his own trap into which he will fall. [Skyehook}: Ummm... If you'll pardon my saying so, that doesn't answer the question at all. You've stated that there is some unspecified "magnitude" that exists, but not how it is measured. There are no differences stated nor is there anything stated that can be measured or compared. So again, “What exactly is the difference between a “medical illness” and a “mental illness”? If there are differences, I meant to say that differences of similar magnitude exist between say infections and injuries, etc., and we still say that injured people are ill and infected people are ill; or people who had been born with a disease are ill and those who acquired a disease in their life are ill. The mere fact that there is a difference between types of diseases means, in and by itself, nothing, inasmuch as acknowledging whether something is a disease or not. If, however, one states some differences between mental illness and physical illness, of which some are not always true, and the list is incomprehensive, then a VERY futile argument would ensue in which the argument would focus on discussing, essentially, the mistakes in the list, and drawing conclusions from that debate, which ought not to be drawn. This is what I meant by digging my own trap and being pushed into it. If you can prove it by examples and by logic that a psychiatric (or mental) illness is so different from physical illness -- hold, if it's a psychiatric illness, then we agree it's an illness no? How can something be a disease if it's not a disease in the first place? So finally we got to an agreement. Psychiatric or mental diseases or illnesses are diseases and illnesses. Whew. Thanks for settling this debate, Skye. Part of my purpose in asking the question was to poin out pretty much just wat you said – only I would have phrased it differently. On can assign any label one wants to anything one wants. But unless there is agreement on the referents for those labels, it is very unlikely that any discussion using those labels will be very coherent. And that is the main reason for asking the question – to try to discern exactly what your referent is in an effort to make the discussion more coherent. And I consider that to be the ultimate purpose of our "formal debate". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But be that as it may, if you want to use that formal debate format, I will agree. And since this is mainly to find out what your (collective) view is, I will freely agree ahead of time to any time limit, and in fact any judge, you wish to choose. I name myself the judge. Now I am the presiding judge of this debate. The time limit is one minute before midnight, June 7th, 1949. I declare myself the winner, and you, the loser. Debate closed, as far as I am concerned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 10/03/09 06:03 PM
|
|
But be that as it may, if you want to use that formal debate format, I will agree. And since this is mainly to find out what your (collective) view is, I will freely agree ahead of time to any time limit, and in fact any judge, you wish to choose. I name myself the judge. Now I am the presiding judge of this debate. The time limit is one minute before midnight, June 7th, 1949. I declare myself the winner, and you, the loser. Debate closed, as far as I am concerned. Not so fast... (number of differences btw mental and physical diseases + debunked similarities) divided by (similarities + differences debunked) number of differences btw mental and physical diseases: 1 debunked similarities: 0 similarities debunked: 0 differences debunked:0 (1 + 0) / (0 + 0) = infinity So actually, I win by a score of infinity to zero But since the ending time was before the starting time. The debate never occurred, so there is no winner. And that’s just exactly what the APA is depending on. That no one will debate them. No one wants to actually look at it, but instead just says “Well they have fancy titles so they must know all about it. So I don’t have to learn anything. I’ll just depend on them to do it all for me.” The APA loves people who believe the myth and never actually look at the Emperor to see if he is wearing any clothes or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medical illness vs. Mental illness – what is the difference.
Sky, the question you have asked was answered quite well by wux, as well as an “ambiguous” question can be answered. For example you put together two words “medical illness”. What is that? If by “medial illness” you infer a ‘disease’ then we can define disease as listed in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms. 2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful. Since you use the word ‘illness’ in the term mental illness we can only define it as a disease, therefore they mean the same thing. However, as I have previously explained – those in the field of psychology do not refer to abnormal behavior as ‘illness’ but as disorders. NEVER-THE-LESS ---- All disease/illness will eventually manifest some kind of physical symptoms, and sometimes abnormal behavior is the most common or only manifestation to alert us to an illness. Wux has done a fine job in explain this to you, and the fact that you see ambiguity in these explanations can only stem from the ambiguity that exists in your own definition and thus in how you have asked the question. So please, YOU DEFINE what YOU think “medical illness” means and then define “mental illness”. AND PLEASE – be unambiguous in your definitions AND if you expect the definitions to be accepted, they must specifically, logically, and universally cover all aspects of “illness” in each term, no matter the type, its origin, or its cure. |
|
|
|
|
