Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

[waauw]

You can use any definition you want. Human consciousness, the part of you that thinks, the "self-aware". Either is equally invalid. By that I mean that until you prove there is such a thing as the mind, one can't base public policy on it. I haven't seen any evidence of thought, rational or otherwise in human beings. Have you?

There has been ample evidence that mental illnesses(not allways) are chemical, are brain diseases, are genetic diseases. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and schizo-affective disorder for instance are all three linked to an over-production of dopamine D2-receptors and an astonishing 60+ genomes in the human DNA-helix. All three are threated with anti-psychotic medication that specifically targets dopamine.

In other diseases, despression for instance is linked to food-intake and lack of exercise, both which influence serotonin levels of the brain, which on its turn disproportionately starts influencing the way people think, feel and act. Anti-depressant medication herefor specifically targets serotonin. Much the same for anxiety-disorders sometimes, which are also linked to serotonin.

The list goes on and on, and though some of these diseases might prove to be solvable by mere change of lifestyle, others are not. Prolonged exposure to unbalanced hormonal productions during youth can have lasting effects, as does the maternal state of health during pregnancy.

In other instances science has proven that psychological issues, like trauma's, can be solved through medication. Recent research has shown that PTSD can be treated by chemically calming a patient whilst triggering his traumatic memories in therapy with the purpose of normalizing the reactions; a sort of trick to manipulate thought patterns.

However you look at it, mental illnesses are real and they are chemical and brain-related.

[DoomYoshi]

Chlorpromazine was used in 1954 before anyone knew what the D2-receptor was. In the 1980s it was shown that antipsychotics attached to the D2 receptor after 30 years of quacks administering them to patients under the auspices of "if it works, let's keep doing it". But how do you know if it works? Can you prove that such a thing as schizophrenia actually exists? Have you ever read through the DSM? It's absolute baloney. Here is the entry on schizophrenia:

A. Characterisitic Symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated). At least one of these should include 1-3:
1. Delusions
2. Hallucinations
3. Disorganized Speech
4. Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
5. Negative symptoms (i.e. diminished emotional expression or avolition)

That's 5 things that I can check off about anyone who I have ever known. None of it means anything.

Finally, the brain is actually relatively simple in terms of neurotransmitters. There's some acetylcholine and norepinephrine, which are used in the periphery nervous system. A handful of amino acid receptors (Aspartate, Glutamate, Glycine and GABA). Serotonin, dopamine, Histamine, adenosine and maybe Nitric oxide or some steroids can count. Think of the 100 billion neurons in your body that use less than a dozen different molecules for communicating and less than 50 different receptors (closer to 100 if you count some of the subtypes which we have yet to design drugs which distinguish among). There are significant clusters of D2 receptors in the Striatum, Substantia nigra and the Pituitary gland. When treating schizophrenia they only want to target the mesolimbic (maybe also the mesocortical) systems. It's no surprise that D2-blockers result in Parkinson-like symptoms because they use dopamine precursors (levodopa) or MAO inhibitors (both of which increase dopamine expression and therefore dopamine levels) to combat Parkinson's disease (yea, you can also use amantadine, trihexyphenidyl or benztropine but we don't have all day for this). In short, using the drugs available now to "cure" schizophrenia is like using a howitzer to perform circumcisions.

But why do we even care about schizophrenia? It isn't a disorder in the simple sense of the word, the brain still works, it just works in a socially unacceptable way. It's a social ill and requires a social response. By this I mean DSM used to include an entry on homosexuality because homosexuality was a socially unacceptable thing. Now that sodomy is mostly legal, it's not treated as a "mental illness" even though it happens in the brain (like all lust and desire).

----

tl;dr - fire a howitzer at psychiatrists (and psychologists) gonads

[hotfire]

----

tl;dr - fire a howitzer at psychiatrists (and psychologists) gonads

Sounds like you have personal reasons to dislike them. Care to lay back on this comfy couch, stare at the ceiling fan and talk about it?

[DoomYoshi]

----

tl;dr - fire a howitzer at psychiatrists (and psychologists) gonads

Sounds like you have personal reasons to dislike them. Care to lay back on this comfy couch, stare at the ceiling fan and talk about it?

Those are nice couches, but I'll stick with my Eames chair, thank you.

[waauw]

Chlorpromazine was used in 1954 before anyone knew what the D2-receptor was. In the 1980s it was shown that antipsychotics attached to the D2 receptor after 30 years of quacks administering them to patients under the auspices of "if it works, let's keep doing it". But how do you know if it works? Can you prove that such a thing as schizophrenia actually exists? Have you ever read through the DSM? It's absolute baloney. Here is the entry on schizophrenia:

A. Characterisitic Symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated). At least one of these should include 1-3:
1. Delusions
2. Hallucinations
3. Disorganized Speech
4. Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
5. Negative symptoms (i.e. diminished emotional expression or avolition)

That's 5 things that I can check off about anyone who I have ever known. None of it means anything.

Finally, the brain is actually relatively simple in terms of neurotransmitters. There's some acetylcholine and norepinephrine, which are used in the periphery nervous system. A handful of amino acid receptors (Aspartate, Glutamate, Glycine and GABA). Serotonin, dopamine, Histamine, adenosine and maybe Nitric oxide or some steroids can count. Think of the 100 billion neurons in your body that use less than a dozen different molecules for communicating and less than 50 different receptors (closer to 100 if you count some of the subtypes which we have yet to design drugs which distinguish among). There are significant clusters of D2 receptors in the Striatum, Substantia nigra and the Pituitary gland. When treating schizophrenia they only want to target the mesolimbic (maybe also the mesocortical) systems. It's no surprise that D2-blockers result in Parkinson-like symptoms because they use dopamine precursors (levodopa) or MAO inhibitors (both of which increase dopamine expression and therefore dopamine levels) to combat Parkinson's disease (yea, you can also use amantadine, trihexyphenidyl or benztropine but we don't have all day for this). In short, using the drugs available now to "cure" schizophrenia is like using a howitzer to perform circumcisions.

But why do we even care about schizophrenia? It isn't a disorder in the simple sense of the word, the brain still works, it just works in a socially unacceptable way. It's a social ill and requires a social response. By this I mean DSM used to include an entry on homosexuality because homosexuality was a socially unacceptable thing. Now that sodomy is mostly legal, it's not treated as a "mental illness" even though it happens in the brain (like all lust and desire).

----

tl;dr - fire a howitzer at psychiatrists (and psychologists) gonads

Schizophrenia itself is much like Parkinson's disease. 50% of all schizophrenics suffer severe degenerative effects on the brain every time a period of psychosis starts, and this at an age where it shouldn't happen. Historically schizophrenics were thought to be sufferers of mere dementia, until they started cutting brains open and found out that even 20yo's were being severely effected.

Let me ask you a question. Do you know anyone with schizophrenia? Because I do. And believe me it's not a pretty sight when that person gets off her meds. It's utter chaos, destruction, and mad rage and anxiety. She becomes a physical hazard to her environment. Schizophrenics are well-known to lose self-control during psychosis and are well capable of homicide and suicide during such periods. And guess what, not surprisingly she went through all that shit ONLY when she was off her meds. Whenever she was on her meds, she was fine; by which I mean she didn't go nuts.

Sure, medication against many mental illnesses, especially schizophrenia are known to merely treat symptoms and not the disease, and they have very strong side-effects. But that's still the better option, when a permanent cure is simply not available. Even when you're between the Scylla and the Charybdis, you still have to make a choice.

ps: your five point list is simplified for the purpose of listing and isn't even complete.

[DoomYoshi]

The five point list is directly from the DSM-V. Here's the rest of the entry (I didn't want to type it all but I guess I need to):

B. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning, such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved before the onset (or when the onset is in childhood or adolescence, failure to achieve expected level of interpersonal, academic, or occupational achievement).
C. Duration of 6 months: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least 6 months. This 6-month period must include at least 1 month of symptoms (or less if successfully treated) that meet criterion A (i.e. active-phase symptoms) and may include periods of prodromal or residual symptoms. During these prodromal or residual periods, the signs of the disturbance may be manifested by only negative symptoms or tow or more symptoms listed in Criterion A present in an attenuated form (e.g. odd beliefs, unusual perceptual experiences).
D. Schizoaffective and mood disorder exclusion: Schizoaffective disorder and mood disorder with psychotic features have been ruled out because either (1) no major depressive, manic or mixed episodes have occured concurrently with the active-phase symptoms, or (2) if mood episodes have occurred during the active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods.
E. Substance/general medical condition exclusion: The disturbance is not attribuatable to the direct physiologic effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.
F. Relationship to a global developmental delay or autism spectrum disorder: If there is a history of autism spectrum disorder or other communication disorder of childhood onset, the additional diagnosis of schizophrenia is made only if prominent delusions or hallucinations are also present for at least 1 month (or less if successfully treated).

I only left out at the end the classification of longitudinal course which you can look up on your own time.

Schizophrenia itself is much like Parkinson's disease. 50% of all schizophrenics suffer severe degenerative effects on the brain every time a period of psychosis starts, and this at an age where it shouldn't happen. Historically schizophrenics were thought to be sufferers of mere dementia, until they started cutting brains open and found out that even 20yo's were being severely effected.

Let me ask you a question. Do you know anyone with schizophrenia? Because I do. And believe me it's not a pretty sight when that person gets off her meds. It's utter chaos, destruction, and mad rage and anxiety. She becomes a physical hazard to her environment. Schizophrenics are well-known to lose self-control during psychosis and are well capable of homicide and suicide during such periods. And guess what, not surprisingly she went through all that shit ONLY when she was off her meds. Whenever she was on her meds, she was fine; by which I mean she didn't go nuts.

Sure, medication against many mental illnesses, especially schizophrenia are known to merely treat symptoms and not the disease, and they have very strong side-effects. But that's still the better option, when a permanent cure is simply not available. Even when you're between the Scylla and the Charybdis, you still have to make a choice.

Schizophrenia is not like Parkinson's at all. Parkinson's is a degradation of dopamine activity affecting the nigrostriatal pathway and schizophrenia is a hyperactivity in the mesolimbic pathway, with a hypoactivity in the mesocortical system. These are all D2-pathways but affecting different regions of the brain. So far, dopamine isn't even conclusively linked with schizophrenia, so it's still called a "dopamine hypothesis", compared to a "gluatamate hypothesis". Becoming a "physical hazard" isn't a mental condition, it's a social condition. Homicide and suicide are natural human behaviors and calling it a mental disorder ignores the problem which is, that as a society we have determined that homicide and suicide are unacceptable.

Your earlier genetics argument is terrible because studies with identical twins show that only about 50% of schizophrenic cases can be explained by genetics. That means 50% are environmental causes, which means since you can't change a person's genetics (yet) you can change their environment.

Your only argument seems to be "I know this person who got better" which is a terrible argument to make. That was the argument that kept bloodletting in the medical field for thousands of years. Unless you can get statistical proof that it is working, it's not science. The statistical proof is absent in the case of schizophrenia because of a) totally subjective criteria for what constitutes schizophrenia and b) incomplete knowledge of the mechanisms of schizophrenia. The thing that has kept the glutamate hypothesis alive even after no drugs have been found that tackle that pathway is because the science is mostly inconclusive and contradictory. It's not like it's a binary condition where "I have schizophrenia or I don't". It's an elusive condition to even define and we can only know about it through it's external manifestations, not through studying the "mind".

[waauw]

The five point list is directly from the DSM-V. Here's the rest of the entry (I didn't want to type it all but I guess I need to):

You keep mentioning this DSM, as if that's supposed to mean something to me, but I've never heard of it. I'm guessing it's something american. Now I'm not an expert on the topic, not at all, but much like the issue global warming I'd rather put my faith in the judgements of the international scientific community than in what some local organizations might say. Currently the international medical community acknowledges the existence of schizophrenia and mental illnesses.

Schizophrenia is not like Parkinson's at all. Parkinson's is a degradation of dopamine affecting the nigrostriatal pathway and schizophrenia is a hyperactivity in the mesolimbic pathway, with a hypoactivity in the mesocortical system. These are all D2-pathways but affecting different regions of the brain. So far, dopamine isn't even conclusively linked with schizophrenia, so it's still called a "dopamine hypothesis", compared to a "gluatamate hypothesis". Becoming a "physical hazard" isn't a mental condition, it's a social condition. Homicide and suicide are natural human behaviors and calling it a mental disorder ignores the problem which is, that as a society we have determined that homicide and suicide are unacceptable.

Your earlier genetics argument is terrible because studies with identical twins show that only about 50% of schizophrenic cases can be explained by genetics. That means 50% are environmental causes, which means since you can't change a person's genetics (yet) you can change their environment.

Your only argument seems to be "I know this person who got better" which is a terrible argument to make. That was the argument that kept bloodletting in the medical field for thousands of years. Unless you can get statistical proof that it is working, it's not science. The statistical proof is absent in the case of schizophrenia because of a) totally subjective criteria for what constitutes schizophrenia and b) incomplete knowledge of the mechanisms of schizophrenia. The thing that has kept the glutamate hypothesis alive even after no drugs have been found that tackle that pathway is because the science is mostly inconclusive and contradictory. It's not like it's a binary condition where "I have schizophrenia or I don't". It's an elusive condition to even define and we can only know about it through it's external manifestations, not through studying the "mind".

I never meant Parkinson's was EXACTLY like schizophrenia, I said they were alike in the fact that they were both degenerative. This was to point out that schizophrenia is not just a made up fairy tal, as there are physical effects to the brain that can not be denied. At the very least they point out that there is something wrong, and to deny that is like plugging your ears and assuming everything you don't hear doesn't exist.

And dopamine IS CONCLUSIVELY linked to schizophrenia through too strong a correlation alone. What is put to question, and what the fuzz surrounding the dopamine hypothesis is about, is the causality between the two. The processes aren't fully comprehended, as you mentioned, but the existence of certain elements in or connected to the chain are known.

Concerning genetics and your so-called social solution. Yes, it's 50% environmental factor, but in no way is it proven that a person with schizophrenia can be cured or treated by social means only. Up until now a combination of both medicin and therapy has proven to be the most effective. Psychology alone falls short. Maybe at some point in the future the exact environmental triggers will be confirmed and will be reversable through therapeutic means, but at the moment that's not realistic. At the moment science knows environment triggers chemical responses in the brain, but does not know whether there is a way back for all of them. For depression solutions have been found, but for schizophrenia the medicinal method is the ONLY somewhat succesful one. It might be crude but it's currently the only viable option.

[karel]

they will never get rid of guns,so get the f*ck over it

[notyou2]

they will never get rid of guns,so get the f*ck over it

Or you'll shoot?

[karel]

they will never get rid of guns,so get the f*ck over it

Or you'll shoot?

hell yes ill shoot,to protect me or my family,i wont ask ?....no time for that shit

[DoomYoshi]

The five point list is directly from the DSM-V. Here's the rest of the entry (I didn't want to type it all but I guess I need to):

You keep mentioning this DSM, as if that's supposed to mean something to me, but I've never heard of it. I'm guessing it's something american. Now I'm not an expert on the topic, not at all, but much like the issue global warming I'd rather put my faith in the judgements of the international scientific community than in what some local organizations might say. Currently the international medical community acknowledges the existence of schizophrenia and mental illnesses.

DSM-V is indeed an American publication and I am surprised that somewhere else in the world there is a different version. My apologies. However, since the initial topic was American budgets, you will forgive if American publications are used as the standard.

Schizophrenia is not like Parkinson's at all. Parkinson's is a degradation of dopamine affecting the nigrostriatal pathway and schizophrenia is a hyperactivity in the mesolimbic pathway, with a hypoactivity in the mesocortical system. These are all D2-pathways but affecting different regions of the brain. So far, dopamine isn't even conclusively linked with schizophrenia, so it's still called a "dopamine hypothesis", compared to a "gluatamate hypothesis". Becoming a "physical hazard" isn't a mental condition, it's a social condition. Homicide and suicide are natural human behaviors and calling it a mental disorder ignores the problem which is, that as a society we have determined that homicide and suicide are unacceptable.

Your earlier genetics argument is terrible because studies with identical twins show that only about 50% of schizophrenic cases can be explained by genetics. That means 50% are environmental causes, which means since you can't change a person's genetics (yet) you can change their environment.

Your only argument seems to be "I know this person who got better" which is a terrible argument to make. That was the argument that kept bloodletting in the medical field for thousands of years. Unless you can get statistical proof that it is working, it's not science. The statistical proof is absent in the case of schizophrenia because of a) totally subjective criteria for what constitutes schizophrenia and b) incomplete knowledge of the mechanisms of schizophrenia. The thing that has kept the glutamate hypothesis alive even after no drugs have been found that tackle that pathway is because the science is mostly inconclusive and contradictory. It's not like it's a binary condition where "I have schizophrenia or I don't". It's an elusive condition to even define and we can only know about it through it's external manifestations, not through studying the "mind".

I never meant Parkinson's was EXACTLY like schizophrenia, I said they were alike in the fact that they were both degenerative. This was to point out that schizophrenia is not just a made up fairy tal, as there are physical effects to the brain that can not be denied. At the very least they point out that there is something wrong, and to deny that is like plugging your ears and assuming everything you don't hear doesn't exist.

I'll admit it's been at least 4 months since I did a literature review on dopaminergic pathways but I'm pretty sure that isn't true. Who has proven schizophrenia is a degenerative disorder?

And dopamine IS CONCLUSIVELY linked to schizophrenia through too strong a correlation alone. What is put to question, and what the fuzz surrounding the dopamine hypothesis is about, is the causality between the two. The processes aren't fully comprehended, as you mentioned, but the existence of certain elements in or connected to the chain are known.

Concerning genetics and your so-called social solution. Yes, it's 50% environmental factor, but in no way is it proven that a person with schizophrenia can be cured or treated by social means only. Up until now a combination of both medicin and therapy has proven to be the most effective. Psychology alone falls short. Maybe at some point in the future the exact environmental triggers will be confirmed and will be reversable through therapeutic means, but at the moment that's not realistic. At the moment science knows environment triggers chemical responses in the brain, but does not know whether there is a way back for all of them. For depression solutions have been found, but for schizophrenia the medicinal method is the ONLY somewhat succesful one. It might be crude but it's currently the only viable option.

Imprisonment, death penalty, exorcisms... all viable options. The easiest one is to slowly start degrading the individualism of the Renaissance, and have people stop imagining they need to live their own life by themselves. What makes people crazy is a lack of familial and social support. It's ok to rely on other people, and I don't mean in an economic sense. There is a reason schizophrenia usually doesn't kick in until the 20s, because that is when the expectations to succeed are placed on people.

You are ignoring the main point. Schizophrenia, as much as it can be defined as brain issue, is due to hyperactivity in a particular pathway, the same pathway used for generic lust. According to your reasoning, thinking an apple might be delicious is the same as homicide, since your only attempt to define the issue of schizophrenia has been on the "potential harm". Pathways for depression use the same pathways as language. Is learning French the same as being despondent? I don't know why you can't understand that you aren't describing a physical reality, only a social reality.

[Thorthoth]

And now, for all you basket case posters: ...Trigger!

[waauw]

I'll admit it's been at least 4 months since I did a literature review on dopaminergic pathways but I'm pretty sure that isn't true. Who has proven schizophrenia is a degenerative disorder?

It falls under the cognitive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Negative symptoms: “Negative” symptoms are associated with disruptions to normal emotions and behaviors. Symptoms include:

“Flat affect” (reduced expression of emotions via facial expression or voice tone)
Reduced feelings of pleasure in everyday life
Difficulty beginning and sustaining activities
Reduced speaking

Cognitive symptoms: For some patients, the cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia are subtle, but for others, they are more severe and patients may notice changes in their memory or other aspects of thinking. Symptoms include:

Poor “executive functioning” (the ability to understand information and use it to make decisions)
Trouble focusing or paying attention
Problems with “working memory” (the ability to use information immediately after learning it)

Apparently it's still under much heavier debate than I initially thought. Click on the url if you want to know more. It's part of a much much larger text, that does somewhat compile and list multiple researches.

Neuropsychological data indicate that neurocognitive functions are relatively stable over time after illness onset. Several studies show that there is a decline in neurocognitive functioning prior to and in connection with onset of illness. There is no convincing evidence, however, that there is a progressive neurodegenerative process after onset of illness. Morphological data, on the other hand, indicate a degenerative process. Several novel longitudinal studies indicate a rapid reduction of vital brain tissues after onset of illness.

...However, a few years ago the hypothesis of schizophrenia as a degenerative disorder re-emerged. This was primarily based on several new longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies that showed substantial increases in the brains cavities (see next section), and corresponding excessive shrinkage of vital brain tissue, during the first years after the onset of illness. These studies have led some to opine that the neurodegenerative hypothesis may have been overshadowed by the ascendancy of the neurodevelopmental hypothesis (Weinberger and McClure, 2005).

...Another issue supporting a neurodegenerative hypothesis can be found in a study by Harvey et al. (1996). They found that in elderly patients with schizophrenia (above 65 years) there is a further reduction of neurocognitive functions beyond what would be expected from ageing. These results are based on a large patient sample. The findings of Harvey et al. (1996) may lead to speculation as to whether schizophrenia in some way makes the person particularly sensitive to the development of dementia in old age, or whether the brain in this group of patients is more sensitive to neurocognitive impairments as a response to normal age-related neurodegeneration (2003).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773152/

Imprisonment, death penalty, exorcisms... all viable options. The easiest one is to slowly start degrading the individualism of the Renaissance, and have people stop imagining they need to live their own life by themselves. What makes people crazy is a lack of familial and social support. It's ok to rely on other people, and I don't mean in an economic sense. There is a reason schizophrenia usually doesn't kick in until the 20s, because that is when the expectations to succeed are placed on people.

You are ignoring the main point. Schizophrenia, as much as it can be defined as brain issue, is due to hyperactivity in a particular pathway, the same pathway used for generic lust. According to your reasoning, thinking an apple might be delicious is the same as homicide, since your only attempt to define the issue of schizophrenia has been on the "potential harm". Pathways for depression use the same pathways as language. Is learning French the same as being despondent? I don't know why you can't understand that you aren't describing a physical reality, only a social reality.

I'm not as studied in the topic as you are apparently, so I simply don't understand the functioning of pathways and such. Those things go over my head. I'm basing myself on the conclusions-sections of articles, books and researches; the parts that are understandable for the general public, like me.

As such knowing I have a lack of specialized knowledge, I can only put my trust in the conclusions, accepted and spelled out by the general medical associations. And for the moment, though the disease and its functionings are still under debate, the overlapping organizations do generally accept it as a brain disease rather than purely psychological.

But yes I do focus more on the symptoms and consequences. How can I not? The disease is for the moment incurable, the only thing we can try is mitigation, which currently means therapy and medication. This goes for every disease. If it can't be cured yet, doctors and society still have to do all they can according to their limited options.

ps: imprisonment is actually proven to exacerbate the onset of schizophrenia. Some of the environmental factors associated with the disease are stress and malnourishment, both of them the case in prisons especially american prisons, where people are exposed to maltreatment by guards and other inmates and to the torture that are isolation cells. These are circumstances that can have negative effects even on the healthy, how can they be expected to have any positive effect on the mentally ill.

pps: please don't mention exorcism again. I know you mean it as an attempt of ridicule but it's plain disrespectful to mention hocus pocus in the same breath as medical research, even if inconclusive. It's not as if I'm suggesting sticking them in Bedlam Asylum or lobotomizing them.

[DoomYoshi]

This thread has become convoluted so I'll start from the top.

For their to be "mental health", there must be a mind. This hasn't actually been proven, philosophically or scientifically. You can't prove that you are capable of rational thought.

Why does this matter? It probably doesn't for the case at hand.

Exorcisms aren't about a joke. They have equal success rate of any particular scizophrenia treatment plan. None of the monotherapies or drug combinations is all that predictably successful. Usually patients have to try quite a few different treatments before anything close to a cure is reached. These doctors aren't applying a skill, they are drawing numbers out of a hat and firing bullets at a patients brain. You might think there's some grand science behind this stuff. There isn't. Even with all our knowledge, it's still pretty much a folk-medicine "if this works, we'll use it" which is also exactly the point you made earlier. Why are we paying folk healers hundreds of thousand to millions of dollars a year?

[mrswdk]

So was the shooter religious or not?

[DoomYoshi]

So was the shooter religious or not?

No.

[mrswdk]

I don't see how you could know that.

[DoomYoshi]

I don't see how you could know that.

Do you mean this in a philosophically skeptic sense?

[mrswdk]

Smart ass.

[waauw]

For their to be "mental health", there must be a mind. This hasn't actually been proven, philosophically or scientifically. You can't prove that you are capable of rational thought.

Why does this matter? It probably doesn't for the case at hand.

Exorcisms aren't about a joke. They have equal success rate of any particular scizophrenia treatment plan. None of the monotherapies or drug combinations is all that predictably successful. Usually patients have to try quite a few different treatments before anything close to a cure is reached. These doctors aren't applying a skill, they are drawing numbers out of a hat and firing bullets at a patients brain. You might think there's some grand science behind this stuff. There isn't. Even with all our knowledge, it's still pretty much a folk-medicine "if this works, we'll use it" which is also exactly the point you made earlier. Why are we paying folk healers hundreds of thousand to millions of dollars a year?

Let's not turn this about semantics. People can think, feel and be conscious of themselves. That's it. I really don't see why you're trying to start up a debate about whether a mind exists, when it's basically just a word grouping certain brain manifestations.

Anyway, back on-topic: the issue at hand is that too many mentally ill roam the neighbourhoods untreated forming a danger to themselves and others. And it's especially important to make sure these people do not get their hands on dangerous weapons.

Acts of aggression committed by patients with schizophrenia is a major public health concern affecting patients, their families, treating clinicians as well as the community at large. In the At Issue section of this issue of the Bulletin, Fuller Torrey1 examines stigmatization of the mentally ill at it relates to aggression, taking issue with gaps in the nation's mental health system that fails to adequately treat schizophrenia patients which in turn increases violence risk.1 Failure to treat is in fact a major predictor of aggression in patients living in the community.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160226/

[patches70]

Let's not turn this about semantics. People can think, feel and be conscious of themselves.

I'm not sure you can say that as fact. Are you telepathic? You can only know if you can think, feel and be conscious. And you can't even really be sure of that either. Unless you can somehow pigback your consciousness upon someone else's and be an observer through their eyes, living inside their body and have complete access to their thoughts and internal processes, you can' know shit about anyone else. Not really.

You assume other's think like yourself, feel like yourself, are conscious like yourself, but you can't know.

[waauw]

Let's not turn this about semantics. People can think, feel and be conscious of themselves.

I'm not sure you can say that as fact. Are you telepathic? You can only know if you can think, feel and be conscious. And you can't even really be sure of that either. Unless you can somehow pigback your consciousness upon someone else's and be an observer through their eyes, living inside their body and have complete access to their thoughts and internal processes, you can' know shit about anyone else. Not really.

You assume other's think like yourself, feel like yourself, are conscious like yourself, but you can't know.

By that same thought pattern I also only assume the USA exists, but I can't be sure because I've never been there. Maybe it's as imaginary as Hogwarts. Ergo the USA doesn't exist until I've visited.

[DoomYoshi]

So how do you know that your mind exists? To rephrase the question - what is the part of you that is "you" and not just a physical reality?

[waauw]

So how do you know that your mind exists? To rephrase the question - what is the part of you that is "you" and not just a physical reality?

The mind is a physical reality only, everything is physical. But that doesn't mean thoughts can't exist. A computer is physical as well, yet software programming exists.