Merged Psychological conditions are illusory

[NobbyNobbs]

Yes, as I was saying "dyslexia", "disorder", "condition" are arbitrary divisions made upon the range of human experience.

So we should no longer label people as "tall" or "short"? We should not make concessions for people who suffer from gigantism or dwarfism?

The MRI evidence of a problem is only defined as a "problem" because we define having difficulty in reading as a problem.

Are you claiming that a difficulty in reading is not a problem? Because that's what the above sentence implies.

And what is it like for us not be affected by the brain?

I suspect you know the answer to this better than anyone here.

 

[yy2bggggs]

e.g. HYperventilation is a common reaction among animals and is made as a natural response to a threat.

Okay, so it's natural.

Like laughing and crying, it can catalyse the emotions to bring resolution, it is more powerful, that is all.

Okay, maybe it can. That is not enough to convince me that hyperventilation is an effective treatment regiment or under what conditions it should be induced, and it doesn't really tell me much about PTSD.

Some doctors use hyperventilation as a techniqwie, while the medical model as a whole rejects or pathologises it.

Okay, maybe some doctors do use it as a technique. That does not tell me if it's an effective treatment regiment or under what conditions it should be induced, and it doesn't tell me much about PTSD.

Flashbacks can be resolved by allowing them to emrge. That's no different to other natural reactions.

Okay, maybe flashbacks can be resolved by allowing them to emerge. But this doesn't tell me if encouraging flashbacks is an effective technique, or under what conditions flashbacks should be encouraged.

You're repetitively using "can" language, but that's not good enough. I "can" get a lot of money in the stock market if I invest all of my funds in it, but that's not useful to me. I need to know what the risks are, the likelihood of payback, and the like.

In order to convince me that a treatment is effective, telling me how natural it is tells me nothing useful. Telling me what it can do tells me nothing useful. Telling me whether or not there exists people who use it tells me nothing useful. I believe treatments can only be called effective if they have an established likelihood to achieve a desired end without causing more harm. Whether they merely have the possibility to bring about a desired end is severely undershooting this dare I say very reasonable burden.

The reason for our intolerance of these natural process is our christian past, I suspect, a past to which most of us, including atheists, are deeply indebted.

And this is less than useful to me. You're simply speculating on why people don't agree with you. This doesn't tell me anything at all about the validity of your views. Even if this speculation is entirely true--even if we develop an intolerance to the notion of hyperventilation treatment and encouraged flashback regiments because we're somehow culturally influenced by christianity--it could still be a bad thing. Whether or not it is true, therefore, has no use to me.

The motivations that people have behind forming an opinion for or against a treatment regiment tells me nothing about the effectiveness or lack thereof of the treatment. Again, what I need is something that convinces me that you have knowledge of its likelihood to effect a desired outcome without causing greater harm (and by knowledge, I do not mean certainty or belief, because I'm already convinced you have that, and that does me no good; I mean, instead, some sort of reason to think that the actual truth of your claim is the cause for your belief, as opposed to the banal psychological forces that people use to convince themselves of things that are not the case.)

 

[Craig4]

pTSD is a fictional, medical representation of a natural state.

Why should I take your word for that?

 

[bruto]

Why not?

"Dyslexia" is the name assigned to a particular, specific, diagnosable human condition which is a cause of reading difficulties.

So is "hyperopia". And "presbyopia". Might as well debunk those, too.

We can quit wasting valuable time and money on all those ridiculous corrective lenses. They're just dis-empowering.

You can't argue that dyslexia is a word that means a difficulty in reading, and then say "I find it hard to read because I have dyslexia". A synonym isn't a cause.

From your response here it appears you do not comprehend what Quadraginta was saying, since he explicitly and directly separated the condition from the symptom. Perhaps you should read it again more carefully.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Sorry, maam, you've attributed an argument to me for something I would never argue for.
I argued agianst the idea that emotions are unhealthy, not that they are social fictions. It is you who are saying they are fictions, as destructive illusions that only appear to be emotions, that need medicating away.
Read with a bit more charity.

Apparently you didn't understand me. I was not claiming you said emotions are fiction. I was stating exactly what you say above, that what you think is fictitious is the idea that the symptoms of PTSD and emotions associated with it are unhealthy, or as I said, debilitating. That you think PTSD itself is fictitious.

Can you explain to me why you think beating your children, killing your spouse, or going around thinking your loved ones are secretly wishing you dead are things that we should encourage and not treat as unhealthy behavior that should be corrected?

Can you explain why you think I should have encouraged my husband and told him it was both correct and healthy for him to accuse me and other people close to him of secretly being out to get him, hating him, etc? Why I should have validated and encouraged his paranoia and emotional instability?


ETA. Hmmm, not sure why there's a big smiley face on my post, I didn't knowingly put it there.

 

[Dinwar]

The MRI evidence of a problem is only defined as a "problem" because we define having difficulty in reading as a problem.

Yeah...this confuses me. If it demonstrably causes harm, and is demonstrably different from some other, similar thing (for example, if it has a completely different cause, even though the superficial symptoms are similar), and it is best treated via different methods, why not give it a new name? And how can you say "it's not a problem" when it's trivially obvious that it IS a problem (our world, in the USA and most of Europe, is built on reading)?

 

[Roboramma]

It isn't clear to me that our grandparents' present had any sense that their future was going to be rosier than we do about ours. I think that the opposite might be the case. Change is always threatening, and the changes going on then, social as well as technological, were much more fundamental to their way of life than the incremental changes we are seeing.

I don't think that's true: the changes occurring now are much faster and deeper than the changes that occurred a few generations ago. We're just able to look back at those changes in hind sight and sum up the degrees of change that happened over several decades. Of course that's more extreme than the change that occurs over, say, five years now.

In the last 25 years we went from almost no one having a cell phone to almost everyone in developed countries having them (and a large percentage of those in developing countries as well). The internet was barely visible to most people 25 years ago, now it's a huge part of all our lives.

Worldwide demographic shifts are also extreme, if you look for instance at the number of rural chinese who are moving to the cities.

Advances in healthcare have by no means stopped, and I don't think that purpose-grown organs are far away (just for instance). Look at all the changes that are occurring with drugs that effect our neurobiology. That a person who is depressed can get anti-depressant drugs to deal with that problem is a huge difference from 50 years ago.

Anyway, I'm only saying that technological development, and it's impact on the lives of average people, has not only not slowed but instead accelerated.

 

[Drachasor]

You can't argue that dyslexia is a word that means a difficulty in reading, and then say "I find it hard to read because I have dyslexia". A synonym isn't a cause.

Again, there are many reasons why someone might have difficulty reading. Dyslexia does not cover all of them by a long shot. ADHD, for instance, can cause difficulty with reading for some people (without dyslexia). A low IQ can cause difficulty with reading. There are many other possible causes.

Dyslexia DOES have symptoms peculiar to it beyond difficulty with reading. (again, click the link). It seems to cover a certain way of processing information.

 

[Jonesboy]

So we should no longer label people as "tall" or "short"? We should not make concessions for people who suffer from gigantism or dwarfism?




Are you claiming that a difficulty in reading is not a problem? Because that's what the above sentence implies.

If I show you an animal you haven't seen before how do you assess whether it is tall or short?

A difficulty in reading is a difficulty in reading, not some other problem. Any material associations we make don't introduce to anothjer problem.

 

[Drachasor]

If I show you an animal you haven't seen before how do you assess whether it is tall or short?

Irrelevant. We've all seen humans before.

A difficulty in reading is a difficulty in reading, not some other problem. Any material associations we make don't introduce to anothjer problem.

That doesn't specify a cause. There are multiple possible causes. Dyslexia is one of them.

 

[Jonesboy]

Because the causes aren't invented. They are discovered in the course of research. And they are becoming less mysterious as we study them. That's called "learning", and it is what science does.

If a person suffering from dyslexia is given a pair of glasses with corrective lenses this will not address difficulties with reading which are a result of the dyslexia.

If a person suffering from hyperopia is taught different methods of parsing written language for comprehension this will not address difficulties with reading which are a result of the hyperopia.

These are two different names for two utterly different disorders which require completely different "clinical" methods to achieve beneficial results.

Both can have different solutions which might be aimed toward a similar goal. That doesn't make them the same. Why do you think they do not merit different names?

Why invent causes? I can say the thought of a window is caused by the brain. I can say normal behaviour is caused by the brain.
If I am suffering is my suffering caused by suffering condition? Is it an "explanation" to say it is caused by a suffering condition or by the brain? How about happiness? Is that caused by the brain?
You can say any thought or experience is caused by the brain if you want to? Does it add anything?

Why invent empty causes?

 

[Drachasor]

Why invent causes?

Dyslexia isn't an invented cause. There's a been a lot of research done on it and how it affects people. Their brain processess differently than other members of the population.

Why do you not want to pay any attention to the research and work that has been done on this? People have linked to it, yet you continue to act like Dyslexia is something it isn't. Why?

You might as well be saying allergies don't have a cause and ignore all the research that has gone into them.

 

[Jonesboy]

Irrelevant. We've all seen humans before.



That doesn't specify a cause. There are multiple possible causes. Dyslexia is one of them.

Tall and short are relative properties. They are not exhibited by individuals. Same goes for the ability to read.

Why invent causes? Let's say "oh it's all caused by the brain". But that applies to everything we think or do.

"Caused by the brain" adds nothing. You can't say diificulty is a problem because it is caused by the brain. It is a problem because there is a difficulty in reading.

 

[Multivac]

Data isn't processed by the brain. Data is already a conceptualization.

Of course data is processed by the brain. The only inputs to the brain are data inputs from eyes, ears, nose, mouth, nerve ending etc.

When we read the light is reflected from the page, TV, display etc. to our eyes. The eyes send this data along the optic nerve into the brain. The brain processe this data into words that we can understand. If the light hits the eyes, and the eyes are working and sending the data to the brain then it can ONLY be a problem with the brain if this data is not decoded correctly.

Do you realise what else you have said? You have unwittingly done me a good turn by eliminating the significance behind phrases such as "the brain causes conditions like dyslexia".

I have not supported your position at all, and can't imagine how you have twisted what I said to fit your view. If you believe that dyslexia has nothing to do with the brain, can you please enlighten me by stating what you believe is the cause.

 

[Jonesboy]

Dyslexia isn't an invented cause. There's a been a lot of research done on it and how it affects people. Their brain processess differently than other members of the population.

Why do you not want to pay any attention to the research and work that has been done on this? People have linked to it, yet you continue to act like Dyslexia is something it isn't. Why?

You might as well be saying allergies don't have a cause and ignore all the research that has gone into them.

What cause? If every ability or thought is caused by the brain, you can't single out one ability as being any worse or better than another.

You can find out the cause for allergies, but the cause won't tell you if an allergy is a good thing or not.

 

[Drachasor]

Tall and short are relative properties. They are not exhibited by individuals. Same goes for the ability to read.

And if someone is short, there are reasons for it. Maybe it is genetic and not a big deal, maybe they have had bad nutrition, maybe it is a genetic disease that comes with a host of other effects, maybe it is something else. You don't stop at "hey, that person is REALLY, REALLY short...oh well!"

Why invent causes? Let's say "oh it's all caused by the brain". But that applies to everything we think or do.

Do you have a similar attitude about a heart attack? "It's caused by the heart, so let's not look into what's going on inside the heart"? If someone breaks a bone for no apparent reason (force wasn't strong enough to break a bone normally), is that "caused by the bone, so let's not look into why the bone broke"?

Investigating the chain of effect and what is going on is NOT "inventing" causes. It's finding out the cause.

"Caused by the brain" adds nothing. You can't say diificulty is a problem because it is caused by the brain. It is a problem because there is a difficulty in reading.

Well, they don't stop at "caused by the brain" now do they? It's more like:

Modern neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) have produced clear evidence of structural differences in the brains of children with reading difficulties. It has been found that people with dyslexia have a deficit in parts of the left hemisphere of the brain involved in reading, which includes the inferior frontal gyrus, inferior parietal lobule, and middle and ventral temporal cortex.

There is of course research that backs it up.

 

[Drachasor]

What cause? If every ability or thought is caused by the brain, you can't single out one ability as being any worse or better than another.

Explain your reasoning, here, because I don't see how it follows. Are you saying someone with late stage Alzheimer's is no better or worse off than someone functioning normally? Seems to me you CAN single out certain things as being better or worse.

You can find out the cause for allergies, but the cause won't tell you if an allergy is a good thing or not.

The fact it causes suffering and when you do the research you find out it serves no purpose tells you it is not a good thing.

 

[Jonesboy]

Of course data is processed by the brain. The only inputs to the brain are data inputs from eyes, ears, nose, mouth, nerve ending etc.

When we read the light is reflected from the page, TV, display etc. to our eyes. The eyes send this data along the optic nerve into the brain. The brain processe this data into words that we can understand. If the light hits the eyes, and the eyes are working and sending the data to the brain then it can ONLY be a problem with the brain if this data is not decoded correctly.



I have not supported your position at all, and can't imagine how you have twisted what I said to fit your view. If you believe that dyslexia has nothing to do with the brain, can you please enlighten me by stating what you believe is the cause.

But we don't see something AS something. An infinite regress looms here. How do we know what "the thing we see" is correctly meant to be? Have we already formed an idea about it?

AS I recall you supported my position by indicating that dyslexia was not causal but grammatical. I haven't got time to look back. There is no thread view here.

 

[Jonesboy]

Explain your reasoning, here, because I don't see how it follows. Are you saying someone with late stage Alzheimer's is no better or worse off than someone functioning normally? Seems to me you CAN single out certain things as being better or worse.



The fact it causes suffering and when you do the research you find out it serves no purpose tells you it is not a good thing.

You don't find problems in the brain. YOu find causal associations.
For problems you have to look at living itself.

A problem is not a physical property, like a brain state. A problem is a social or living event.

 

[Drachasor]

But we don't see something AS something. An infinite regress looms here. How do we know what "the thing we see" is correctly meant to be? Have we already formed an idea about it?

One uses the scientific method.

AS I recall you supported my position by indicating that dyslexia was not causal but grammatical. I haven't got time to look back. There is no thread view here.

I think this risks becoming a semantic argument. Dyslexia is a classification of a problem based on symptoms, and it is associated with certain brain abnormalities. You could say the brain abnormalities cause dyslexia or are dyslexia. Most importantly, the classification is USEFUL because it determines what sort of treatments are effective.

Again, note that not all reading problems are a result of dyslexia, and treatment for dyslexia does not help all reading problems.