Mm-k so this is a topic that I've been bitching at Catfish over for a while but after looking back and thinking on the topic I realize that what was happening was I was confronting him over the idea that there are NO means of determining mental illness and disorders. His statement, instead, is that there is no biological tests...specifically, biological tests as in the kinds usually used to determine the pathological results of viral diseases. Now, I'll be the first to admit that my judgment might have been instantaneously soured and clouded over his claims that individuals with mental illness can just think said illnesses and disorders away and thoroughly jaded me to actually considering what was being said.

There have been promising developments lately for a few types of mental illness, the main one being PTSD, but also a few for schizophrenia-related mental illnesses and dissociative disorder, in terms of biological tests, but, as I have read, there is no way to test someone's blood, for example, to determine a mental illness.

So, Catfish, consider this a concession; you are correct, there are no biological tests for mental illness.

However, before you go "AHA, PROOF THAT MENTAL ILLNESSES ARE A LIE!", please consider the following: The symptoms of mental illness cause discomfort, take away from quality of life, and can often cause erratic, abnormal behavior. I put it to you; does this not sound like an illness? All we can currently do is treat the symptoms of mental illnesses and disorders...but the same can be said of diabetes; all we can do is treat the symptoms, but we cannot cure it. Diabetes is not caused by a diabetes virus, it is caused by a failure of the human body, a genetic glitch. It can also be caused by a couple types of infections that cause the pancreas to malfunction, thus leading to diabetes. The same can be said of mental illnesses; outside factors including certain kinds of infections can cause it, but it's largely caused by failures or fuckups of the various hormonal glands in the human body, though it can also be caused by other means, such as trauma to the head, chemical ingestion, etc.

So, I am curious, with this in mind, why do you dismiss mental illnesses as not being valid illnesses?

Oh, fuck me. Do we really have to keep rehashing this?

I don't totally dismiss them. I just pointed out the fact that all mental illnesses are diagnosed by anecdotal evidence. Questions and answers and observation of behaviors.
I also made reference to drugs clouding one's mind.

(June 7, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Oh, fuck me. Do we really have to keep rehashing this?

Yes. I'm not saying Catfish is right to dismiss mental illnesses as being invalid, but I AM saying he is right at least in that there is no way to biologically test for mental illness. There are other means of doing it, of course. Brain scans, for example, but technically, that's not a biological test, it's a mechanical one.

Part of being a freethinker means admitting when you are wrong. I thought there were biological tests for mental illness. I was wrong, so I'm admitting it.

Also, I do appreciate you keeping my quote in it's entirety. "definitive"...

---

(June 7, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(June 7, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Oh, fuck me. Do we really have to keep rehashing this?

Yes. I'm not saying Catfish is right to dismiss mental illnesses as being invalid, but I AM saying he is right at least in that there is no way to biologically test for mental illness. There are other means of doing it, of course. Brain scans, for example, but technically, that's not a biological test, it's a mechanical one.

Part of being a freethinker means admitting when you are wrong. I thought there were biological tests for mental illness. I was wrong, so I'm admitting it.

It's not definitive though. "Normal" people fit the same images as well as "ill" people fitting normal images. The images themselves are generated using all kinds mathmatical hulahoops (algorithms). Then those images need "interpreted".

(June 7, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Yes. I'm not saying Catfish is right to dismiss mental illnesses as being invalid, but I AM saying he is right at least in that there is no way to biologically test for mental illness. There are other means of doing it, of course. Brain scans, for example, but technically, that's not a biological test, it's a mechanical one.

Part of being a freethinker means admitting when you are wrong. I thought there were biological tests for mental illness. I was wrong, so I'm admitting it.

I get that, but you had to add the question about denying that it's an illness at the end. We've had plenty of chances to discuss this, and since it is a touchy issue and neither side seems to be winning over the other, I see no reason to continue it. You are free to, however, I for one am out of energy to debate the topic and think it has been done to death.

The way I look at it is the same way I look at the arguments over the definition of "atheist." Does the definition of "atheist" have any bearing on my beliefs? No. Just as whether or not someone recognizes what I have been through as an illness does not take away from how horrifying and painful my experience was. It doesn't change the fact that I would rather saw my testicles off slowly with a rusty spoon that have to go through that again.

(June 7, 2013 at 7:42 pm)catfish Wrote: I don't totaly dismiss them. I just pointed out the fact that all mental illnesses are diagnosed by anecdotal evidence. Questions and answers and observation of behaviors.

True enough, this. But until we have something better, it's all we've got. It is clear that mental illnesses and disorder often tend to cause discomfort in those that suffer from them, and even in those around those that suffer from them.

I think the biggest thing was that I realized that it's a poorly-understood science. We have a little bit better than anecdotal evidence in some cases. Again, you can use brain scans to determine levels of activity. And, technically, there are proposed ways that are being considered for testing brain chemistry but doing so is...well, difficult to say the least. It would require tissue samples of the brain, and opening up someone's cranium and poking around at the brain is generally poorly-recommended, especially if the situation is not life-threatening.

---

(June 7, 2013 at 7:44 pm)catfish Wrote: Also, I do appreciate you keeping my quote in it's entirety. "definitive"...

Yeah, I'll get rid of it in a second.

Quote:It's not definitive though. "Normal" people fit the same images as well as "ill" people fitting normal images. The images themselves are generated using all kinds mathmatical hulahoops (algorithms). Then those images need "interpreted".

Well no, of course it's not definitive. But then, consider that there isn't a whole lot in the world that can be called definitive. A lot of what we do tends to be making do with what is available to us. Certainty is a hard thing to come by and ultimately all you're left with is probabilities.

The best we can do, best that is currently being done, involving mental illnesses, is to collate typical behavioral patterns. To start with, it's safe to assume that if my daily routine tends to be X, practically every day, and then I do something to change things up a bit, I'm not mentally ill, I'm just bored. But if I suddenly, out of nowhere, break up with my girlfriend for no reason whatsoever even though I know I still love her, sell a bunch of my belongings and move to Mexico and a week later I'm wondering "...why the fuck did I do this??" it's pretty clear something's not entirely right. If I suddenly start thinking that a half a million people are watching me and stalking me, even if I truly, absolutely believe it...it doesn't make it true, and if there's absolutely no reason for it other than "just a feeling," then chances are there's something short-wiring in my head to cause this intense paranoia.

Man's not a rational animal, but it IS a rationalizing one, and if rationality can't be provided, it's a safe bet something's not entirely right in the noggin. Wouldn't you agree? Imagine one day you go apeshit. You swear your TV is trying to sell your innermost personal secrets to the government. In a fit of sudden rage you put a chair through it. Would you, in your current, [hopefully] rationalization-capable state of mind, consider such a scene to be indicative that you were losing your grip on reality?

---

(June 7, 2013 at 7:49 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I get that, but you had to add the question about denying that it's an illness at the end. We've had plenty of chances to discuss this, and since it is a touchy issue and neither side seems to be winning over the other, I see no reason to continue it. You are free to, however, I for one am out of energy to debate the topic and think it has been done to death.

Well, I'm nothing if not inquisitive. I always want to know why people think or act in certain ways because, well, people fascinate me. Last time this topic was approached it was approached with people spitting bile everywhere, myself included, and nothing really came of it. I want to actually discuss this to understand why the point of view is laid out as such, and if possible, correct any errors in logic either side are or might be presenting.

Quote:The way I look at it is the same way I look at the arguments over the definition of "atheist." Does the definition of "atheist" have any bearing on my beliefs? No. Just as whether or not someone recognizes what I have been through as an illness does not take away from how horrifying and painful my experience was. It doesn't change the fact that I would rather saw my testicles off slowly with a rusty spoon that have to go through that again.

Well as you said, if you're burnt out on the topic, I sure won't blame you for not wanting to broach it, but since I've recently become diagnosed with a mental illness myself I find myself curious over the topic all over again.