Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

[Uncayimmy]

I'd almost be willing to call it a draw and be done with this argument. You don't have any evidence to actually back up your assertions that everyone ALWAYS has a "choice".

No, it's not a draw in the least. Here's the deal. You and I both agree that there are those who can make choices. This is stipulated. You and others make the argument that for some it is impossible (or they are unable or lack the functionality). That is a positive assertion. I cannot possibly prove that everyone has a choice just as nobody can prove any absolute. I can draw an inference, which is what I've done. I have seen no evidence that for anyone a choice does not exist. It is your job to prove your positive assertion, not mine to prove an inference.

I quoted the Harvard neurologist when he said, "all current mainstream formulations agree that addiction diminishes voluntary behavioral control. At the same time, none of the current views conceives of the addicted person to be devoid of all voluntary control and thus absolved of all responsibility for self-control."

This, this hand-waving that the "science says so" is just a load of malarkey. Science doesn't say that. Like the guy says, none of the current views conceives of the addicted person to be devoid of all voluntary control.

So, prove your assertion. You and others claim that some have choice and some do not. Explain how you make that distinction. Don't push it back on me to prove that every single person in the world has something that we both agree exists in most people. You made the distinction, so prove it. Your assertion needs to be supported whether I've made an assertion or not.

And don't come back at me with this stuff about degrees of control. That's a point on which everyone agrees. Everyone. You guys take it one step further and claim that no control exists. Support it or retract it. Don't cop out by calling it a draw.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..............
You haven't given why you feel at this point that choice is not constrained in some circumstances, such as diminished intellectual capacity or neurological issues with impulse control, so you picking on what you consider to be semantic juggling is merely pedantry.

Because I don't feel that way and neither has UY stated he feels that way ..

Quite the contrary. Read his latest post ..

.....don't come back at me with this stuff about degrees of control. That's a point on which everyone agrees.

You and others keep insisting we are taking some position that we do not, then proceed to argue with our imagined position.

 

[xjx388]

You and others make the argument that for some it is impossible (or they are unable or lack the functionality). That is a positive assertion. I cannot possibly prove that everyone has a choice just as nobody can prove any absolute. I can draw an inference, which is what I've done. I have seen no evidence that for anyone a choice does not exist. It is your job to prove your positive assertion, not mine to prove an inference.

I too have drawn an inference and supported it. Why are you allowed to draw inference without support but everyone else has to answer your questions and cite studies, etc.? Like I said, if you don't accept the position, then fine -I think you are wrong. You think I'm wrong. In the end it doesn't matter. The science goes on and finds new ways to help people that were previously not "helpable." Maybe one day, I'll have to admit that there exists a treatment that can help every case of alcoholism that I previously thought was incurable. Maybe one day you will have to admit that people have far less control over their behavior than you thought. Obviously, that day is not today.

This, this hand-waving that the "science says so" is just a load of malarkey. Science doesn't say that. Like the guy says, none of the current views conceives of the addicted person to be devoid of all voluntary control.

You aren't getting the context of why he says that. Clue: He's writing for an ethics journal.

 

[bookitty]

This is why the paradigm of "choicers" is so superior compared to the "it's impossible" crowd. We start with the person acknowledging that no disease is making them get money, procure liquor, hide it from a spouse, and pour drinks. That's their decision, and at the time, it probably seems pretty rational. When the person decides they don't want to be the person who engages in a long-term pattern of self-destructive behavior, then that person can attack the problem head on, whatever it is.

If it's depression, treat it. PTSD? Treat it. Stress? Treat it. Environment? Change it. Intense cravings? Try some medications and stop reinforcing the craving. It just feels good? Find something else to do. Just an unthinking habit? Make new thinking habits. Chances are it's probably a combination of several things.

It may take years to get on track, but the only constant in all of this is figuring out why you're making the choices you're making and finding ways to make better choices for the rest of your life by using any and all available resources.

The "it's impossible" crowd is actually the "it's complicated and involves many factors, some of which are unknown at this time" crowd. Poisoning the well, again?

And then by making the definition of choice so completely arbitrary as to include any act of volition, you have rendered it meaningless. It is now a blanket statement to cover any act that the person doesn't actually oppose.

If someone is arrested and sent to rehab because they were driving drunk, they still needed to make the choice to work at rehab. If a parent drags their depressed son to the doctor, he still needs to choose to walk in the door. We're back to the force of will, except now that will can be influenced by any outside source and called choice. It is a far cry from your previous statement that you can't help a person unless they really want to change.

As for "Depression? Treat it!" I wish it were that simple, I really do. First it needs to be diagnosed. Many people don't recognized the symptoms, or they buy into the choicers mantra of "just deal with it!" If they do manage to recognize their symptoms and they have medical insurance, then they are faced with finding both the cause of their depression (psychological, neurological, environmental or any combination) and the proper cure. (Therapy, drugs, diet, life-changes and any combination of these.) Sometimes even that only offers a temporary reprieve or a lessening of symptoms.

What doesn't help is the choicers mantra that one should always be in control and that punishment for failing to make the right choices is to live with depression, addiction, or obesity.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...What doesn't help is the choicers mantra that one should always be in control and that punishment for failing to make the right choices is to live with depression, addiction, or obesity.

That certainly doesn't help. Where is that coming from ?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

No, it's not a draw in the least. Here's the deal. You and I both agree that there are those who can make choices. This is stipulated. You and others make the argument that for some it is impossible (or they are unable or lack the functionality). That is a positive assertion. I cannot possibly prove that everyone has a choice just as nobody can prove any absolute. I can draw an inference, which is what I've done. I have seen no evidence that for anyone a choice does not exist. It is your job to prove your positive assertion, not mine to prove an inference.

I quoted the Harvard neurologist when he said, "all current mainstream formulations agree that addiction diminishes voluntary behavioral control. At the same time, none of the current views conceives of the addicted person to be devoid of all voluntary control and thus absolved of all responsibility for self-control."

This, this hand-waving that the "science says so" is just a load of malarkey. Science doesn't say that. Like the guy says, none of the current views conceives of the addicted person to be devoid of all voluntary control.

So, prove your assertion. You and others claim that some have choice and some do not. Explain how you make that distinction. Don't push it back on me to prove that every single person in the world has something that we both agree exists in most people. You made the distinction, so prove it. Your assertion needs to be supported whether I've made an assertion or not.

And don't come back at me with this stuff about degrees of control. That's a point on which everyone agrees. Everyone. You guys take it one step further and claim that no control exists. Support it or retract it. Don't cop out by calling it a draw.

A) What the others said.

B) Unless we can agree on the definitions of words like "Choice" or "Free Will" (and I quite liked DD's point regarding that, the jury's still out) then we're never going to get any further in this debate.

In the Mean-time, Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Jolly Kwanzaa, Happy Ramadan (belatedly), and Joyous Yule/Saturnalia to all ye Pagans, and to everyone else Happy Holidays.

GB

 

[Uncayimmy]

B) Unless we can agree on the definitions of words like "Choice" or "Free Will" (and I quite liked DD's point regarding that, the jury's still out) then we're never going to get any further in this debate.

Quit trying to evade the question. You said there are two groups: One that has some varying degree of choice and one that has no choice at all. It's your distinction, not mine. We can worry about agreeing on definitions once you actually provide one. So far, you haven't even come close. You just keep insisting there's a difference without explaining how you know. It's a classic woo tactic.

My argument is that I am unable to differentiate those who will not from those who cannot. I have tried and failed (repeatedly). You can. Show me the way so I can agree with you. Obviously you see a distinction where I do not. I can't make you not see what you see that I don't.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The "it's impossible" crowd is actually the "it's complicated and involves many factors, some of which are unknown at this time" crowd. Poisoning the well, again?

Poisoning the well again? Are you stalking me again?

That it's complicated and involves many factors has never been in dispute, but thanks for showing up in the thread several weeks after it started to tell us as much. Maybe we'd just forgotten. Your reminder is appreciated.

And then by making the definition of choice so completely arbitrary as to include any act of volition, you have rendered it meaningless. It is now a blanket statement to cover any act that the person doesn't actually oppose.

The part in bold is hilarious.
Volition: a choice or decision made by the will.

Your Comment Translated
...by making the definition of choice so completely arbitrary as to include any act of volitionchoice or decision made by the will , you have rendered it meaningless

<shakes head and walks way from what is clearly an uncritical, emotional response that reflects little understanding of what's been discussed in this thread>

 

[Uncayimmy]

WTF is moderately unable ? !

My friend's wife was moderately unable to conceive, so now she's just a little bit pregnant.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Quit trying to evade the question. You said there are two groups: One that has some varying degree of choice and one that has no choice at all. It's your distinction, not mine. We can worry about agreeing on definitions once you actually provide one. So far, you haven't even come close. You just keep insisting there's a difference without explaining how you know. It's a classic woo tactic.

My argument is that I am unable to differentiate those who will not from those who cannot. I have tried and failed (repeatedly). You can. Show me the way so I can agree with you. Obviously you see a distinction where I do not. I can't make you not see what you see that I don't.

I'm not being evasive. The fact is, if we can't even agree on terms, the rest of the argument is pointless.

For example, you are under the impression that I said there are two groups: one with varying degrees of choice, and one with no choice at all.

But that's a misunderstanding of my position: There is only ONE group: Humans. Humans are variable, physiologically, psychologically, whatever. Ergo, the variation in ranges of "choice making" can range from maximum to minimum, depending on the circumstances.

For the sake of argument, lets call the maximum, 100% Free Will and the minimum 0% Free Will. And even a single human being may have a variable rate of "Free Will," the variation being the circumstances that either increase or decrease the available options .

Anecdotally, I experience a variation myself, depending on variable pain levels, variable serotonin levels, variable financial levels, variable access to mind altering substance levels, and on and on.

Dancing David anecdotally said something very similar. Even you have indicated that you have struggled with varying degrees of choice, every time you talk about your problems that you have learned to manage with varying degrees of success.

You seem to define these things as "Influences," I define them as "Determinants" (even though I am not strictly a "Determinist"). Therein lies the rub. If we cannot agree on the definitions, we cannot reach an agreement on the issues we are attempting to define.

You will point to aspects of studies that you believe supports your position vis a vis "Influences", and I will point to the same studies and from my POV the factors being studied are "Determinants."

So again, there is little point in me continuing this debate with you. But at least I think I have a clear understanding of your position now. I hope to have clarified mine to you. Even if we still disagree, I think that's the best we can hope to accomplish on a forum.

I'm not afraid to concede that I may have indeed misjudged your views. But that doesn't alter the fact that I disagree with you on some issues and agree with you on others.

GB

 

[xjx388]

The "it's impossible" crowd is actually the "it's complicated and involves many factors, some of which are unknown at this time" crowd. Poisoning the well, again?

And then by making the definition of choice so completely arbitrary as to include any act of volition, you have rendered it meaningless. It is now a blanket statement to cover any act that the person doesn't actually oppose.

Bingo! Perfect and concise recapitulation of my own position.

 

[tempesta29]

Not a demon, the addict's neurophysiology. If the addict's neurophysiology (as detailed in the studies I've posted twice on this thread) isn't making the the choice then what is?

If one's neurophysiology takes over at some point in chemical dependency, then that person never had free will to begin with. That is self evident. Can consciousness just transfer from metaphysical to physical at some point?

A) Show me where I made the claim that "an addict can NEVER truly make a choice regarding 'substance abuse' (which is NOT the same as 'addiction' by the way)."

B) Demonstrate how my argument "presupposes that at no point in history has an addict ever chosen anything but to continue abusing." (Which you can't, as I didn't make the assertion in point A) that you claim I made).

As your premises regarding my statement are false, your facetious conclusion has no merit.

GB

You said no real addict can have volitional control over his or her actions. Either you're saying no real addict has ever had control or you're saying that none of those people who have made choices was actually an addict. I'm trying to discover which.

Where exactly does this control go, and at which particular point does it dematerialize?

 

[xjx388]

If one's neurophysiology takes over at some point in chemical dependency, then that person never had free will to begin with. That is self evident. Can consciousness just transfer from metaphysical to physical at some point?

Consciousness is not separate from biology. There is no "metaphysical."

You said no real addict can have volitional control over his or her actions. Either you're saying no real addict has ever had control or you're saying that none of those people who have made choices was actually an addict. I'm trying to discover which.

Where exactly does this control go, and at which particular point does it dematerialize?

Those are good questions, currently unanswered. There is evidence that genetics play a role. There is evidence that the substance abuse itself plays a role. What we do know is that SOME people cannot decide to stop drinking just because they want to.

 

[Dancing David]

Because I don't feel that way and neither has UY stated he feels that way ..

Quite the contrary. Read his latest post ..




You and others keep insisting we are taking some position that we do not, then proceed to argue with our imagined position.

I see that you are the master of strawman and can't read as well, I bid you adios.

 

[Dancing David]

I would say that any addict has control over the choices, they may not like the consequences of choosing not to use.

 

[Uncayimmy]

What we do know is that SOME people cannot decide to stop drinking just because they want to.

On what basis do you make the distinction between those who cannot and those who can? Obviously, we both agree there are those who can. I just don't understand how to make the distinction. Please explain how you "know" this to be the case.

 

[littleroundman]

I just don't understand how to make the distinction.

NOW we're getting somewhere.

 

[Uncayimmy]

NOW we're getting somewhere.

Please explain. A patient presents with the DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence. According to many people here, some (probably most) are "able" to make choices not to drink, but for some it is simply "impossible."

Tell me how to make the distinction.

 

[littleroundman]

Please explain. A patient presents with the DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence. According to many people here, some (probably most) are "able" to make choices not to drink, but for some it is simply "impossible."

Tell me how to make the distinction.

Why ???

This is an internet discussion forum, not a doctors' surgery, an AA meeting, a rehabilitation clinic or the laboratory of one of the countless number of research organizations involved in answering your question/s.

It simply doesn't matter what a forum poster understands and whether or not he or she has a superior Googling ability, considers themselves to have scored more points or even "won" a forum debate.

Tomorrow morning there will still be millions, if not billions, of people in the world with alcohol related problems and there still won't be singular definitions to cover the diagnosis and/or suggested treatment options available.

For sure, followers of the debate may have altered or reinforced their opinions of various posters' beliefs and/or motives.

Some may even have altered their personal understanding and/or their own personal belief system.

Many will have learned a great deal about the art of forum "debate"

However, the OP will still remain without a definitive answer to his or her question or one which is applicable to anything more than a percentage of the previously mentioned millions of "alcoholics" ( and I use the word VERY loosely)

 

[bookitty]

How does a doctor decide that treatment is no longer an option for any disease? When the treatment no longer has an effect. If it were cancer, there may come a point where further chemo or radiation will only weaken the patient, or a tumor might be inoperable.

It depends on the individual, on what treatment has already been tried, on what (if any) options are still available.