Merged Psychological conditions are illusory

[quadraginta]

Seems to me that someone already explained to you that there's evidence from MRI images, CAT scans, or the like that directly shows that there's a problem in the brain.

Do you intentionally dismiss evidence that shows you to be wrong, or is this something you do unconciously?

These are empty wonderings. There's no significance to these brain studies.
The brain studies and brain maps are predicated on peoples reports and abilities. There's nothing they can add to these except empty, reductionist, science intrigue.

It would seem it is intentional, Dinwar.

Too bad. Ignorance can be cured by education. Willful ignorance cannot.

Not worth our time.

 

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy View Post
You believe that we are affected by our brains only when we feel bad or can't do things as well as others. So we say things like "dyslexia" is caused by the brain. This belief is, I hope, obviously irrational.

As all sensory data, including words on a page, are processed by the brain it is obviously a problem with the brain.

Your statement is completely void of meaning.

As all sensory data, including words on a page, are processed by the brain it is obviously a problem with the brain.

Your statement is completely void of meaning.

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

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".

 

[Jonesboy]

Fifty years ago any sort of problem with learning was considered simple dimness. Now we have the idea that at least some of these problems are due to differences in the brain. This leads us to study the problems and try to figure out what's going on in the brain.

My son is dyslexic. Educators have some good idea what to do about this.

My daughter has an receptive/expressive language disorder. Educators have a vague notion what to do about this.

She also has some sort of dyscalculia. Educators don't have the foggiest notion.

~~ Paul

But we always knew that differences in experiences were associated with differences in the brain. It takes two to make a difference.
you can't cite a problem on the grounds that one element or state is different from another.

 

[Jonesboy]

I'm fine talking about any of that, but I just wanted to point out I think it is silly to say a problem involving the body isn't a medical condition.

As to how to fix it? Well, use whatever way works best. Sometimes therapy does the trick (cognitive-behavioral therapy is a great for a lot of things), sometimes drugs alone can do the job and little else will, sometimes there are a wide variety of options, sometimes they just have to learn particular techniques, etc, etc. But figuring out what works and applying it is part of evidence-based medicine for these conditions. These medical problems are carefully studies as are potential methods of dealing with them.

Seems to me that arguing it isn't a medical condition is a why to argue we should just ignore all the research that has gone into these problems.

Why is it a problem of the body?
It's only a problem of the body if you can't tinker with the body to get the result you want.

 

[Jonesboy]

Wow, I guess my wikki-fu isn't so great. Thanks for showing me this, that's fascinating stuff! Definitely points out that written language and spoken language are normally separate sections of the brain. Maybe this is why I cannot listen to a lecture and take notes at the same time? I always wondered how other people could do that, I find that if I try to read or write I can no longer hear what people are saying around me. Strangely I can draw and listen to a lecture at the same time...must be wired to a different part of the brain.

Why do people even need woo when real science is so weird and amazing?

It's a surprise how many things can be fascinating yet have no significance.

 

[Dinwar]

What bothers me is that people take this sort of stupidity seriously--and people like my family members suffer the consiquences.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

This sentiment is emotional gobblty-gook without any factual value whatever. It in essence boils down to "But I don't LIKE that word!!!!" As soon as you admit that X is harmful, and Y helps, what you call it becomes irrelevant to any rational person. To refuse to call it by a certain name because of an emotional outburst is to admit to not being rational in that case.

Exactly! I tried to summarise the position to show how ridiculous it actually is.

 

[Jonesboy]

One thing affects another thing, and by Newtons law, the other thing affects the first thing.

So if one of these things is the brain, what's the other thing?
And what is it like for us not be affected by the brain?

You made it to the second comma, which is progress of a sort. Now can you try reading a little further this time? Be brave and take a deep breath
"No, please try to be affected by your brain, especially the visual cortex and the areas associated with processing written language and read the bit that says that "I am my brain". Now try to be affected by the parts of your brain (it's a struggle, I know, work with me here) dealing with logic and try to work out what that means. "

Now all you are repeating is that we are affected by our brain, in whatever way we carve it up physically. The pronblems remain.

 

[Jonesboy]

Seems to me that someone already explained to you that there's evidence from MRI images, CAT scans, or the like that directly shows that there's a problem in the brain.

Do you intentionally dismiss evidence that shows you to be wrong, or is this something you do unconciously?

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

 

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
This sentiment is emotional gobblty-gook without any factual value whatever. It in essence boils down to "But I don't LIKE that word!!!!" As soon as you admit that X is harmful, and Y helps, what you call it becomes irrelevant to any rational person. To refuse to call it by a certain name because of an emotional outburst is to admit to not being rational in that case.

Exactly! I tried to summarise the position to show how ridiculous it actually is.

You have equivocated.
You say that a word, like dyslexia, is a synonym or reference for something like 'a difficulty in reading'. But then, like everyone else, you indicate that dyslexia is causal. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Now all you are repeating is that we are affected by our brain, in whatever way we carve it up physically. The pronblems remain.

Incorrect... again... again.

Wudang said that we are our brain.

Clear enough now?

Sure, our brain can be affected by itself, if you want to strain the point, but ultimately, the brain is what creates our self.

 

[quadraginta]

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 it isn't?

 

[Jonesboy]

I'm not going to say it's always easy, especially when my husband was irrationally accusatory towards me or people I care about, but he's worked so hard to overcome his issues and while he's not 100%, he's come so far.

Still, whenever things get hard, I just have to think about all you service men and women have to go through and sacrifice. As hard as it can be to deal with his emotional fallout, I can always recognize and appreciate how much harder it is for him, and how hard the experiences that caused this must have been.

You folks give up so much of yourselves. The society you come back to owes it to you to support you as much as we can. And yes, Jonesboy, that means recognizing when behavior and emotions are unhealthy and harmful and seeking to help them deal with it appropriately and change their behavior. The pain they feel is real, and it can be downright debilitating. This is not a fiction imposed on them by society.

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.

 

[Jonesboy]

So, it seems clear at this point, having seen no compelling reason not to do so, that we can privilege the state of not having PTSD over the state of having PTSD. Having done so we can now consider that there is no impediment taking steps to alleviate the symptoms of having PTSD as we have been confronted with no compelling reason not to treat the condition.

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

 

[Jonesboy]

Funny, up until very recently the 'emotional puritanism' was trying to make it look like PTSD didn't exist or, at worst, was a minor issue. Seems like you're supplanting your reality on everyone else's.

Flashbacks and intense experiences are not pTSD - are not destructivbe illnesses. They are natural healers that need support. Video support is too weak.

 

[Jonesboy]

How do you know it's a lie?

Give me something other than your word. You're a random internet guy. Show me that you have actual insight--and note that degree of confidence in one's claims has nothing to do with whether said person has actual insight.

Give me your sales pitch, or I've no reason to believe you, especially if you're saying that the established experts are wrong.

Unless they're the ones making a point, or I'm trying to make a particular point to them for some reason, then I ignore them.

e.g. HYperventilation is a common reaction among animals and is made as a natural response to a threat. Like laughing and crying, it can catalyse the emotions to bring resolution, it is more powerful, that is all. Some doctors use hyperventilation as a techniqwie, while the medical model as a whole rejects or pathologises it.
Flashbacks can be resolved by allowing them to emrge. That's no different to other natural reactions.

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.

 

[Jonesboy]

Acid flashbacks don't count.

Unless you have something closer to personal experience and proof, You're talking out your fundemental.

I've lived with my own PTSD for long enough to have recovered to an extent, and volunteer my time with StP to help others - your OP is complete nonsense.

A flashback is a flashback, lsd or natural. It's a memory trying to emerge.
The problem is that we all think it's mad to have a memory emerge. Well, the body does it, and does it well. but we muck it up with medicine.

I ran about 50 workshops over the years that dealt directly with these things.

 

[quadraginta]

You have equivocated.
You say that a word, like dyslexia, is a synonym or reference for something like 'a difficulty in reading'. But then, like everyone else, you indicate that dyslexia is causal. You can't have it both ways.

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.

 

[Dinwar]

You say that a word, like dyslexia, is a synonym or reference for something like 'a difficulty in reading'.

No. YOU have said this. We have not. In fact, we've linked it with specific errors in where the brain processes information. So this quote is what we call a "lie".

But then, like everyone else, you indicate that dyslexia is causal.

Dyslexia is a name for a condition. If it makes you feel better, we can call it Dinwar Syndrom. Do you really think that what we call it makes any difference? Are you REALLY that bad at the whole philosophy thing?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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

Cancer is natural. Losing consciousness from uncontrolled bleeding is natural. Landslides and earthquakes and tsunamis and asteroid impacts are natural. Natural, contrary to popular belief in alternative circles, is not a synonym for good or beneficial.

One more time, since you seem to have missed it the first time:

Jonesboy, can I ask you something?

I've been skimming this thread, and you've been making a whole lot of statements on the subject, but I see very little if anything in the way of actual evidence? I really don't think it could hurt if you told us a little about where you got these ideas from and what convinced you they were true.

Claims don't support themselves.

I'm sure you just accidentally missed it in all the posts in this thread, but it'd be nice if you could address it now. Thanks!

I ran about 50 workshops over the years that dealt directly with these things.

* Safe-Keeper keeps waiting for that supporting evidence.