Being Homosexual and Religous Sentiment :p

[Dancing David]

In another thread a poster who I generaly find enlightening and entertaining has made the proposition that mental illness does not exist, except for maybe schizophrenia. The other mental illnesses, despite the fact that they exist in behavioral terms, do not exist, because they are solely defined by a subjective experience, never mind that Skinner set the world of psychology on it's ear, and allowed for the study of external and internal behaviors, persistant moods do not exist, and because there isn't a test for depression, it doesn't exist.

I think that this is comparable to being gay , lesbian, bisexual or transgender. The main event is the behaviors , internal and external that allow a person to define themselves as celibate,homo, hetero, bi or trans. But the experience is solely subjective, which allows for the 'down low syndrome' where a man who mainly engages in sex with other men, can claim that they are not 'gay', they just like sex with men.

I am using this political topic to point out what I feel is the fallacy of the other poster's argument, there are internal and external behaviors that allow someone to judge the sexuality of another person, which may be homophobic or not. So while the experience of sexual attraction is purely subjective, being homo sexual is a useful term, as it is defined by a set of behaviors.

It is not like believing in god or going to church, it is like being attracted to the same gender and engaging in same sex copulation.

So saying that being gay is comparable to believing in god seems silly to me.

Thank you for your time and patience. What do you say?

[Katana]

I echo your feelings for the most part about the poster that you mention. However, I fear that you may raise concerns about likening homosexuality to mental illness. Somehow I hear that coming.

I agree that what are purely subjective experiences or symptoms can translate into a specific "diagnosis", again being nervous to use that term because sexuality has been raised and people become very sensitive to that. Let us call it a condition then? Oh, hell.

In other words, I think I hear where you're going, but it could go south...Then again, with this poster, it most often does.

[Silly Green Monkey]

However, sexual orientation is not determined by behavior. Hence, a heterosexual person can have sex with someone of the same sex without suddenly changing orientations, a homosexual person or an asexual could have sex with the opposite sex to have children or for whatever reason, and not have to change orientations.

Sexual orientation is determined by sexual attraction, not sexual behavior. Judging by behavior would make every child asexual until their first sexual encounter, where they magically change orientation; behavior would mean that all those who have taken vows of chastity are asexual regardless of how they actually feel about other people.

[stamenflicker]

In another thread a poster who I generaly find enlightening and entertaining has made the proposition that mental illness does not exist, except for maybe schizophrenia. The other mental illnesses, despite the fact that they exist in behavioral terms, do not exist, because they are solely defined by a subjective experience, never mind that Skinner set the world of psychology on it's ear, and allowed for the study of external and internal behaviors, persistant moods do not exist, and because there isn't a test for depression, it doesn't exist.

I think that this is comparable to being gay , lesbian, bisexual or transgender. The main event is the behaviors , internal and external that allow a person to define themselves as celibate,homo, hetero, bi or trans. But the experience is solely subjective, which allows for the 'down low syndrome' where a man who mainly engages in sex with other men, can claim that they are not 'gay', they just like sex with men.

I am using this political topic to point out what I feel is the fallacy of the other poster's argument, there are internal and external behaviors that allow someone to judge the sexuality of another person, which may be homophobic or not. So while the experience of sexual attraction is purely subjective, being homo sexual is a useful term, as it is defined by a set of behaviors.

It is not like believing in god or going to church, it is like being attracted to the same gender and engaging in same sex copulation.

So saying that being gay is comparable to believing in god seems silly to me.

Thank you for your time and patience. What do you say?

Aww, you can name me, I won't be offended. :)

I think the analogy doesn't work as well due to physically manifested evidences. For example, as young 14 year old in the school gym locker room, I didn't get an erection while showering with the other boys. But I accept that maybe some boys might. Lord knows as a 14 year old boy, were I to be showering in the girls locker room I might poke an eye out.

Religious sentiment exists in another place :)
namely the place of the mind... where incidentally, "disorders" also reside.

[Katana]

Aww, you can name me, I won't be offended. :)

I think the analogy doesn't work as well due to physically manifested evidences. For example, as young 14 year old in the school gym locker room, I didn't get an erection while showering with the other boys. But I accept that maybe some boys might. Lord knows as a 14 year old boy, were I to be showering in the girls locker room I might poke an eye out.

Religious sentiment exists in another place :)
namely the place of the mind... where incidentally, "disorders" also reside.

No. It works very well. In any society where homosexuals are marginalized, you will have many living heterosexual lives. Outwardly, behaviorally they appear heterosexual. This neither makes them any less than what they really are nor does it diminish their constant desire to live their lives differently.

[brooklyn44]

However, sexual orientation is not determined by behavior. Hence, a heterosexual person can have sex with someone of the same sex without suddenly changing orientations, a homosexual person or an asexual could have sex with the opposite sex to have children or for whatever reason, and not have to change orientations.

Sexual orientation is determined by sexual attraction, not sexual behavior. Judging by behavior would make every child asexual until their first sexual encounter, where they magically change orientation; behavior would mean that all those who have taken vows of chastity are asexual regardless of how they actually feel about other people.

This is a very interesting take, I like it.
As for the fear of homosexuality being linked with mental illness, I, too, can see this happening.
This behavior vs, ideation is very tricky.

[Dancing David]

I echo your feelings for the most part about the poster that you mention. However, I fear that you may raise concerns about likening homosexuality to mental illness. Somehow I hear that coming.

I agree that what are purely subjective experiences or symptoms can translate into a specific "diagnosis", again being nervous to use that term because sexuality has been raised and people become very sensitive to that. Let us call it a condition then? Oh, hell.

In other words, I think I hear where you're going, but it could go south...Then again, with this poster, it most often does.


I am not comparing homosexuality to mental illness as a mental illness, but as an analogy for subjective states with observable behaviors.

Goodness, I did not intend to imply that homosexuality is a mental illness. Being a neo conservative, I am not sure about that!

[Dancing David]

However, sexual orientation is not determined by behavior. Hence, a heterosexual person can have sex with someone of the same sex without suddenly changing orientations, a homosexual person or an asexual could have sex with the opposite sex to have children or for whatever reason, and not have to change orientations.

Sexual orientation is determined by sexual attraction, not sexual behavior. Judging by behavior would make every child asexual until their first sexual encounter, where they magically change orientation; behavior would mean that all those who have taken vows of chastity are asexual regardless of how they actually feel about other people.


Internal behaviors are thoughts and emotions, they may not be intentional like motor activity but they are still behaviors in the modern psychological usage.

[Dancing David]

Aww, you can name me, I won't be offended. :)

I think the analogy doesn't work as well due to physically manifested evidences. For example, as young 14 year old in the school gym locker room, I didn't get an erection while showering with the other boys. But I accept that maybe some boys might. Lord knows as a 14 year old boy, were I to be showering in the girls locker room I might poke an eye out.

Religious sentiment exists in another place :)
namely the place of the mind... where incidentally, "disorders" also reside.


Which is where all words and concepts exist, there is no diabetes or heart disaease, there are only conditions which appear to exist in the physical world that we label as such. Gravity does not exist, it is a human concept that labels the apparent behavior of physical bodies in the apparent universe.

Disorder, gravity, dog , tree, they are all words.

[Skeptic]

The other mental illnesses, despite the fact that they exist in behavioral terms, do not exist, because they are solely defined by a subjective experience,

Am I the only one who reads that claim to literally mean, "there's no mental illness, it's all in our head!"?

[l0rca]

Am I the only one who reads that claim to literally mean, "there's no mental illness, it's all in our head!"?

Well according to him, however you read it is solely defined as a subjective experience. So maybe you are the only one. ;)

[Dancing David]

Am I the only one who reads that claim to literally mean, "there's no mental illness, it's all in our head!"?
Only he could answer, the arguments are rather circular and the line moves alot, only Stamen can say what he meant, and he won't give his conclusions to debate.

Basicaly he says that physical illness has physical signs but that mental illness is solely subjective, but then the line moves at times if you mention physical disorders that are diagnosed from subjective criteria.

[Mid]

Only he could answer, the arguments are rather circular and the line moves alot, only Stamen can say what he meant, and he won't give his conclusions to debate.

Basicaly he says that physical illness has physical signs but that mental illness is solely subjective, but then the line moves at times if you mention physical disorders that are diagnosed from subjective criteria.

Could you give a link to the relevant thread and/or posts?

[Cuddles]

Am I the only one who reads that claim to literally mean, "there's no mental illness, it's all in our head!"?

Where else would we expect to find mental illness?

[Dancing David]

Sorry, I thought it would come from my title, here is the thread, including all my rude and excessive behavior.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59878

[Mid]

Sorry, I thought it would come from my title, here is the thread, including all my rude and excessive behavior.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59878

Doh! on my part and thanks

[stamenflicker]

Only he could answer, the arguments are rather circular and the line moves alot, only Stamen can say what he meant, and he won't give his conclusions to debate.

I've more than once given specific debating points. And I've also made it clear that you're dealing with "belief," when it comes to mental illness. You can argue that I'm dealing with belief in my sexual orientation, and that's fine. But I have my erections as evidence, not a collection of moods to consider.

[stamenflicker]

Basicaly he says that physical illness has physical signs but that mental illness is solely subjective, but then the line moves at times if you mention physical disorders that are diagnosed from subjective criteria.

That's right. The line moves.

The line has always moved, especially in psychology. From hysteria, to Fugues, to MPD. From homosexuality in the DSM to out of the DSM.

Classic pot calling the kettle black.

And yet you maintain that somehow a "mood" defined by a psychologist carries more weight than one defined by your bartender or your priest. That's the illogic. And that's the point of the thread.

Your evidence? Surveys. Subjective report. Observation of behaviors. Ad Nauseum.

All of that says you can build a "science" around whatever mood you want.

[Dancing David]

I've more than once given specific debating points. And I've also made it clear that you're dealing with "belief," when it comes to mental illness. You can argue that I'm dealing with belief in my sexual orientation, and that's fine. But I have my erections as evidence, not a collection of moods to consider.


Yes but erections are not indicative of sexual orientation, it is a more fluid concept than that Stamen, because it is based upon a concept of preference. I have erections when I dream, does that mean I have a sexual orientation of dreamer?

You can have erections when you have no higher brain function at all, how do you determine the sexual orientation then? Or you can hav erections when your penis is not connected to your brain through paralysis, what would determine orientation in that case?

[Dancing David]

That's right. The line moves.

The line has always moved, especially in psychology. From hysteria, to Fugues, to MPD. From homosexuality in the DSM to out of the DSM.

Classic pot calling the kettle black.

And yet you maintain that somehow a "mood" defined by a psychologist carries more weight than one defined by your bartender or your priest. That's the illogic. And that's the point of the thread.

Your evidence? Surveys. Subjective report. Observation of behaviors. Ad Nauseum.

All of that says you can build a "science" around whatever mood you want.

Uhm, Stamen the line has always moved in medicine, you are the one wearing blinders, the line moves in all forms of medicine, it always has and always will.

You are aware the the pratice of diagnosis does not rely upon tests?

If a person comes into the ED, and they complain of intense chest pain, difficulty breathing, are pale and sweating. Should the doctor wait for test or give them nitreo on the spot?

What about GERD?

You ignore the fact that all medicine is based upon subjective reporting, tests are supportive but you can't always run them. There are areas where there aren't tests.

Say I went to my doctors and i stated, whenever this particular [plant is in bloom, my nose becomes congested, my eyes water, and I am very tired, Should the doctor say that I might have allegies and recomend an anti histamine, or should they wait to treat me util i have gone through a long series of skin tests to detrmine through testing that I appear to have reactive allergies?

You are singling out mental health treatment for the general way medicine is practised.

[Dancing David]

That's right. The line moves.



And yet you maintain that somehow a "mood" defined by a psychologist carries more weight than one defined by your bartender or your priest. That's the illogic. And that's the point of the thread.



I have never said that a mood is defined by other than sociiety, you do know that a heart beat is an involuntary behavior I hope?

When was the last time that you were in inpatient psychiatric unit Stamen? have you encountered the situation after the 1980s?

Do you think post traumatic stress disorder exists, or do you support the military in it's former misguided stance of saying that there is no such thing.

The issue of accuracy in diagnosis is there for all forms of medicine, not just mental health.

I agree that all words are subjective, but there is an objective and a subjective basis to medicine, test value are not always as meaningful and definitive as you might think, they can help a doctor make tghier diagnosis, but they also use the subjective report of the patient and the observation of the patients behavior, that is the way medicine is, a doctor may ask for a test and then completely disagree with it, it happens all the time. Whichc does not even get into the area of wether testing is relevant or valid.

[stamenflicker]

Uhm, Stamen the line has always moved in medicine, you are the one wearing blinders, the line moves in all forms of medicine, it always has and always will.

Sure it does. You're just frustrated because I would compare the current state of mental health to a doctor attaching leeches to me to treat my elevated body temperature.

You are aware the the pratice of diagnosis does not rely upon tests?

Yes.

If a person comes into the ED, and they complain of intense chest pain, difficulty breathing, are pale and sweating. Should the doctor wait for test or give them nitreo on the spot?

That's not my call is it?

What about GERD?

What about it?

You ignore the fact that all medicine is based upon subjective reporting,

No I don't. And it's not all subjective. And often the claims can be verified.

There are areas where there aren't tests.

So.

Say I went to my doctors and i stated, whenever this particular [plant is in bloom, my nose becomes congested, my eyes water, and I am very tired, Should the doctor say that I might have allegies and recomend an anti histamine, or should they wait to treat me util i have gone through a long series of skin tests to detrmine through testing that I appear to have reactive allergies?

Have you asked your doctor?

You are singling out mental health treatment for the general way medicine is practised.

Yes. I'm singling out. It rests on entirely different foundation. That of mood.

[stamenflicker]

I have never said that a mood is defined by other than sociiety, you do know that a heart beat is an involuntary behavior I hope?

Sure. But I can find my heart can't I?

When was the last time that you were in inpatient psychiatric unit Stamen? have you encountered the situation after the 1980s?

I was an employee in the early 90's. Women's unit... restraints, lock downs, the whole gambit.

Do you think post traumatic stress disorder exists, or do you support the military in it's former misguided stance of saying that there is no such thing.

I think people get stressed out after war, to varying degrees. I don't think it excuses behavior.

The issue of accuracy in diagnosis is there for all forms of medicine, not just mental health.

Yeah we covered that though, right?

I agree that all words are subjective, but there is an objective and a subjective basis to medicine, test value are not always as meaningful and definitive as you might think, they can help a doctor make tghier diagnosis, but they also use the subjective report of the patient and the observation of the patients behavior, that is the way medicine is, a doctor may ask for a test and then completely disagree with it, it happens all the time. Whichc does not even get into the area of wether testing is relevant or valid.

The more psychology tries to compare itself to medicine, the more the differences get illuminated. Just because you aren't medicating gays anymore doesn't mean you've jumped to the 21st Century. You are still inventing conditions by gathering data on the items you chose to gather data on. Such power in the wrong hands can create any illness it wants... and use the courts to force kids meds in order for them to attend school. O wait, you guys are already trying to do that, aren't you?

[Dancing David]

Sure it does. You're just frustrated because I would compare the current state of mental health to a doctor attaching leeches to me to treat my elevated body temperature.



Yes.



That's not my call is it?



What about it?



No I don't. And it's not all subjective. And often the claims can be verified.



So.



Have you asked your doctor?



Yes. I'm singling out. It rests on entirely different foundation. That of mood.


What I am trying to point out is that the sujective report of experience is an essential part of medical treatment, tests or objective measures are not always needed for medical treatment ,and often treatment procedes based solely upon the subjective reports of the identified subject.

The experience of mood is comparable to the experience of pain or heart burn, perhaps not an exact analogy, but a definite comparison. Why do you feel it is different for mental 'disorders' over other physical conditions. Emoptiona re physicaly based in the anatomy of a human being.

[Dancing David]

Sure. But I can find my heart can't I?



I was an employee in the early 90's. Women's unit... restraints, lock downs, the whole gambit.
And what led the people to be restrained, observable behaviors or subjective reports of internal states? In Illinois restraint is not a common option, the doctor hates to be called out in the middle of the night to right the paper, it does happen but is uncommon.

I think people get stressed out after war, to varying degrees. I don't think it excuses behavior.

I don't recall saying that mental illness excuses behavior, that is a judeo-christian hang-up that is in our legal system, I personaly oppose it.




Yeah we covered that though, right?

So what is the difference, why is the validity of a subjective report in the case of heart palpitations different? validity of the reported internal states is a crucial part of assessment and treatment, I dislike the number of individuals who have methamphetamine induced depression.




The more psychology tries to compare itself to medicine, the more the differences get illuminated. Just because you aren't medicating gays anymore doesn't mean you've jumped to the 21st Century. You are still inventing conditions by gathering data on the items you chose to gather data on.

You can point that finger at any endevour Stamen, not just mental health.

I don't use survey data to support anything, I just provided a likely source for the statistics that you original cited. And the sources that i recall stated that 30% of individuals had symptoms of depression over thier lifetime. Not that they were medicated. And not that they should get treatment.

I believe that peopole should only get treatment who seek it out, I also belive in charging people with mental illness with crimes.
Such power in the wrong hands can create any illness it wants... and use the courts to force kids meds in order for them to attend school. O wait, you guys are already trying to do that, aren't you?

And the efvgidence you have that I am trying to force people to take medication is?

I am not forcing any child to do any thing Stamen, and I do not encourage parents to force thier kids to take medication. If you had read some of my other posts you would have seen that I belive there are life conditions that should be changed before medication would be used.

What evidence do you have that this is the goal of the mental health providers, I know it is something many misguided teachers and parents support, I don't.

[Katana]

Some of what Stamen is saying is so ignorant that I'm beginning to think that he's making a sport of getting people to waste their time trying to appeal to reason. In other words, I think we have a troll on our hands.

Or, if he truly believes what he says, I think it comes down to the fact that he can't stand the idea that emotions and behavior may not be entirely within some people's control. He would never blame them for having an elevated blood sugar or appendicitis because we all know we didn't will those things to happen. But behavior and emotions? Perhaps he scoffs at the notion of mental illness as a matter of self-interest. He can feel good about himself because he would never have such problems.

It is very uncomfortable to think that your personality, emotions, and behavior might be beyond your control in times of depression, mania, psychosis, etc. That's very disturbing, and it's certainly disturbing to see in others. But it's particularly disturbing because, if it's not something that people can control, then it could happen to you. So denying the existence of mental illness is also emotionally protective because now you don't have to worry about it happening to you because you would never be so weak.

Anyway, I beginning to think that any attempts at reasoning with Stamen on this are futile at this point.

[stamenflicker]

Anyway, I beginning to think that any attempts at reasoning with Stamen on this are futile at this point.

Well, for starters you might try using reason. I've yet to see you acknowledge anything I've posted. Nothing. Not one, "You might be right," or a "Yes that's true, but..."

Instead, you jump to...

"Well... this is subjective. And that relies of self-report."

Great. I've never disputed any of that. How about addressing the fundamental differences between mood and physiological pain?

And again, the purpose of the original post was to say that if we choose to create and name "conditions," why not take a chapter from William James "Varieties of Religious Experience" and create a condition based on his research called the "Sick Soul?"

[Katana]

Well, for starters you might try using reason. I've yet to see you acknowledge anything I've posted. Nothing.
This is completely untrue. I have acknowledged many things that you have posted and their lack of merit. You have shown yourself quite incapable of reason, which is probably why you didn't recognize it when you saw it.

Not one, "You might be right," or a "Yes that's true, but..."
There's a reason for that. You haven't given me cause to do so.

Instead, you jump to...

"Well... this is subjective. And that relies of self-report."


Nope. That's your tactic.

Great. I've never disputed any of that. How about addressing the fundamental differences between mood and physiological pain?
I don't think that they are as fundamentally different as you do.

Edited to correct spelling.

[Dancing David]

Great. I've never disputed any of that. How about addressing the fundamental differences between mood and physiological pain?

And again, the purpose of the original post was to say that if we choose to create and name "conditions," why not take a chapter from William James "Varieties of Religious Experience" and create a condition based on his research called the "Sick Soul?"


Uh, Stamen, why don't you point out the differences between mood and physiological pain, as a biological materialist, I make the assumption (sort of supported by evidence) that all of the human condition is biologicaly based, there is no human experience outside of the biology of our bodies.

So why don't you explain to me why you feel mood is seperate from pain, it is a physiological process, it is a biological interpretation of a biological process rooted in biology and the interaction of the physical systems of the human body. So please elaborate why pain is different than mood.


create a condition based on his research called the "Sick Soul?"

The label applied to the condition matters little, it is the theory of the description of the possible process that matters, that is where the strategies for intervention are generated, in the current non-psychodynamic models (I am a strict behavioriest) mental illness is 1/3 biological, 1/3 psychological and 1/3 social. Only the biological third leads to the diagnosis of a possible label by the doctor that idicates the preffered treatment, which does change as the doctor finds which medication alliviates the target symptoms. The other two thirds are best address through cognitive behavioral strategies and skills improve ment. In the psychological and social areas an actual analysis of the person's functional weakness and behaviors is a better guide for intervention than the doctor's diagnosis.

But if a theory of a sick soul is out there, than the practioners can formulate there interventions and practice them as they will, I doubt that I would recommend them without further investigation. i don't mind psychodynamic modeels that are implemented behavioraly but if I here the words 'regression, subconscious, intergration of the self' than I usualy shy away from them.

[stamenflicker]

Uh, Stamen, why don't you point out the differences between mood and physiological pain, as a biological materialist, I make the assumption (sort of supported by evidence) that all of the human condition is biologicaly based, there is no human experience outside of the biology of our bodies.

That's a great assumption.

So why don't you explain to me why you feel mood is seperate from pain, it is a physiological process, it is a biological interpretation of a biological process rooted in biology and the interaction of the physical systems of the human body.

That's just the problem David, you cannot demonstrate anything you've just posted above. When we really start looking at physiology, we just don't find much worth blowing our horns about when it comes to moods. We find "tendencies." And our strongest arguments are that this drug works in this way.

Yet, when we start looking at the social construct, we see lots. And we see more we can work with within the fictional landscape. While medication might cure the "symptom," it's only through re-configuring thought and re-interpreting experience that we combat the "disease."

So please elaborate why pain is different than mood.

David, David, David... you can't counsel me out of my pain, unless of course it is psychosomatic pain, in which case it was never "real" to begin with. Since when do words heal physical pain? And if they do, then why not start praying?

Remember this is about mental disorders and religious sentiment... you've got to show me why you think your fictional world is better than anyone else's.

As to behaviorism, I move away from it as a form of therapy. I believe Auden hit the nail on the head...

"Of course behavorism works, so does torture."

[stamenflicker]

This is completely untrue. I have acknowledged many things that you have posted and their lack of merit. You have shown yourself quite incapable of reason, which is probably why you didn't recognize it when you saw it.

Nope... the best anyone has been able to do is say, "O well, that's just the way it is." Or "Pain is subjective, so mood disorders must exist."

But no one bothers to offer any evidence as to why mood disorders exist, other than because we say they do. That's fine, just pony up and admit it. And while we're at it, let's explore Kundalini.

[blutoski]

Just because you aren't medicating gays anymore doesn't mean you've jumped to the 21st Century.

It's a Gish Gallop! How many lies can he say per minute?



You are still inventing conditions by gathering data on the items you chose to gather data on.

ie: doing science. Shame on us.

[qayak]

However, sexual orientation is not determined by behavior. Hence, a heterosexual person can have sex with someone of the same sex without suddenly changing orientations,

The only reason they did not suddenly change orientation is because they were not a heterosexual to begin with. a heterosexual person does not have sex with someone of the same sex, ever. If they did, they would not be heterosexual.

. . a homosexual person or an asexual could have sex with the opposite sex to have children or for whatever reason, and not have to change orientations.

This is true but then they are not really having sex then are they, they are procreating. I suggest that there is a difference between sex for pleasure and intercourse for procreation.

Sexual orientation is determined by sexual attraction, not sexual behavior. Judging by behavior would make every child asexual until their first sexual encounter, where they magically change orientation; behavior would mean that all those who have taken vows of chastity are asexual regardless of how they actually feel about other people.

By definition a person who has sex with someone of the same gender is homosexual. If they have sex with both sexes they are bisexual.

You are trying to seperate two things that are inseperable. Sexual attraction and who you have sex with are one and the same. I have sex with women because I am attracted to them. I do not have sex with women because I am attracted to men.

[stamenflicker]

ie: doing science. Shame on us.

Not at all, you're cloaking your "magic" in scientific terms. Two-bit Shamanism.

[Silly Green Monkey]

By definition a person who has sex with someone of the same gender is homosexual. If they have sex with both sexes they are bisexual.

You are trying to seperate two things that are inseperable. Sexual attraction and who you have sex with are one and the same. I have sex with women because I am attracted to them. I do not have sex with women because I am attracted to men.

Not exactly. Sexuality is determined by sexual attraction, which influences your sexual behavior. For example, an asexual (who has no attraction to males or females) can still engage in multiple sexual relationships, marry, and have children ---- all while remaining asexual. A lesbian can marry without changing orientation. Sex does not require sexual attraction, it merely requires the ability and willingness to have sex (an antisexual asexual would have problems). Sex is also not done only for procreation or from sexual desire, it is also used as an identifying marker for romantic relationships versus frienships. So, when someone enters in a relationship with someone, sex is often expected and one person will abandon the relationship if the other is not interested.

Also, on our site (where we discuss this in depth) we have another type of attraction defined, that of romantic attraction. This determines which sex a person is interested in forming a long-term relationship with. It is quite possible for someone to feel physical attraction (their body looks nice) to one sex, and romantic attraction (it'd be possible to live with them) to quite a different one.

This may be a little more indepth than expected, sorry if I confused you.

[qayak]

Not exactly. Sexuality is determined by sexual attraction, which influences your sexual behavior.

That's pretty much what I said.

For example, an asexual (who has no attraction to males or females) can still engage in multiple sexual relationships, marry, and have children ---- all while remaining asexual.

Asexual means that there is no apparent sex or sex organ or that reproduction takes place without a fusion between male and female gametes. It is not a sexual orientation.

A lesbian can marry without changing orientation. Sex does not require sexual attraction, it merely requires the ability and willingness to have sex.

I think you are completely wrong. The willingness to have sex is completely dependent on sexual attraction. At least when force and coercion are taken out of the picture.

I would suggest that a lesbian who has sex in order to conceive is no different than the heterosexual male that has sex with another male under the threat of physical harm.There's another desire overriding the sexual desire, that of wanting a child or of self preservation. These are anomolies in our discussion and must be ignored.

Sex is also not done only for procreation or from sexual desire, it is also used as an identifying marker for romantic relationships versus frienships. So, when someone enters in a relationship with someone, sex is often expected and one person will abandon the relationship if the other is not interested.

I completely disagree. the defining marker is that one person does not wish to have sex with the other. There are many people who have sex with their friends and expect no romantic relationship. Or have sex with people they have no romantic interest in. Sex is not the definer here. Sex is simply something that some people choose to do while others choose not to in differing types of relationships. The only thing I will grant you is that sex is more common in romantic relationships than it is in friendships.

Also, on our site (where we discuss this in depth) we have another type of attraction defined, that of romantic attraction. This determines which sex a person is interested in forming a long-term relationship with. It is quite possible for someone to feel physical attraction (their body looks nice) to one sex, and romantic attraction (it'd be possible to live with them) to quite a different one.

I think this is also wrong. I am not saying that this is not possible, I am saying that it is not another type of attraction, it is just a variation on already defined meanings of attraction. What you define here is no different than a woman being attracted more physically to one man but marrying another because they are more financially secure or have a higher status in society.

Once again though you seem to leave out the fact that there are other factors besides attraction at work in these types of relationships. The fact that many societies still view homosexuality as abnormal is a big issue. You need to seperate all other fators leaving attraction as the only decider.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Quick definitions (how I'm using the phrases):
romantic attraction---desire to share one's life with a partner
sexual attraction---seeing someone in a sexual way, as someone one would want to have sex with
physical attraction---noticing physical beauty, as in symmetry or preferred facial features
romantic relationship---serious relationship possibly leading to permanent partnership
romance---courtship, convincing another person that one is a good partner while evaluating their eligibility as a partner
attraction--a feature or characteristic that attracts

Asexual means that there is no apparent sex or sex organ or that reproduction takes place without a fusion between male and female gametes. It is not a sexual orientation.

You need to check a dictionary, qayak.
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asexual)
a·sex·u·al P Pronunciation Key (-sksh-l)
adj.
Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
Lacking interest in or desire for sex.
a·sexu·ali·ty (-l-t) n.
a·sexu·al·ly adv.

There is attraction to the same sex [homosexual], attraction to the opposite sex [heterosexual], attraction to both sexes [bisexual], and attraction to neither sex [asexual]. Is it really so hard to imagine that people can feel to both sexes as a heterosexual feels toward the same sex or a homosexual feels toward the opposite sex?

I think you are completely wrong. The willingness to have sex is completely dependent on sexual attraction. At least when force and coercion are taken out of the picture.

Attraction is completely unnecessary for sex. Are you suggesting that all prostitutes and their customers feel attracted to each other, that that's why they have sex? The prostitute has sex because they are paid, the customer has sex because that's what they want. Who they do it with is immaterial. Sex can be easily divorced from any and all affections, reduced to essentially masturbation with a sex-toy partner. "Friends with benefits" is one example of sex exempted from love and treated very casually.

Force and coercion can take different forms, for example, most young people have sex in their early relationships because they think that's what they're supposed to do. It may not be what they want to do, but they have been told by society and their friends that sex is required for a relationship. Any friendship lacking the sexual signal is called 'just friends'.

Also, homosexuals can bow to society's demands and seek out sex only with women. They can even marry women, with or without children. They can simply run a fantasy in their heads (which I hear most people do anyway) where they see a man. Sex is mostly mechanical anyway, when the parts are working it's possible.

I would suggest that a lesbian who has sex in order to conceive is no different than the heterosexual male that has sex with another male under the threat of physical harm.There's another desire overriding the sexual desire, that of wanting a child or of self preservation. These are anomolies in our discussion and must be ignored.

My example was not that of a lesbian seeking a child, note that I did not speak of a child. I spoke of a lesbian having sex with her husband. She may have wanted the advantages of marriage, and sought the legal form. Most husbands and wives expect their partner to provide sex, so to keep her husband she provides sex. She can just run a fantasy too. She could even enjoy sex with her husband, without feeling sexually attracted to him. People who love each other try to do enjoyable things together, and sex is one of the forms of shared pleasure. It's what's in the head that counts, not what's between the legs.

I completely disagree. the defining marker is that one person does not wish to have sex with the other. There are many people who have sex with their friends and expect no romantic relationship. Or have sex with people they have no romantic interest in. Sex is not the definer here. Sex is simply something that some people choose to do while others choose not to in differing types of relationships. The only thing I will grant you is that sex is more common in romantic relationships than it is in friendships.

Are you saying here that the defining marker between 'just friends' and a romantic relationship is that friends don't want to have sex with each other? Sex is merely one aspect of romance, which is when two people (or more, though it's illegal) start working out how to live with each other. Romantic relationships are treated with more seriousness than friendships, because they must learn each other well in order to know if they can abide each others' presence for very long. Friends generally don't have to share each others' space as much as being married would keep a pair together.
Sex is expected in romantic relationships, as a marker that the relationship is serious. Serious relationships are given more precedence over regular friendships, as evidenced by the complaints by friends that they are abandoned every time a friend finds a boy/girlfriend only to be used as a tissue box when the relationship fails. The first question to someone who has entered a relationship is usually how good their partner is in bed. The assumption is that a serious relationship will include sex, and that a lack of sex indicates a lack of seriousness. Often, if one partner does not show sexual interested, the other will assume that a lack of sexual interest indicates a lack of interest in general and leave. This is a problem, as sexual interest is only one of many connections that can be made, including mental and physical attraction. Their partner may want to snuggle together on the couch and watch movies all night, or talk for hours on end, and want to spend the rest of their lives doing that together, and one will leave because the lack of sex must mean that their partner is too afraid to tell them that they don't love them. Love is not sex, sex is not love.

I think this is also wrong. I am not saying that this is not possible, I am saying that it is not another type of attraction, it is just a variation on already defined meanings of attraction. What you define here is no different than a woman being attracted more physically to one man but marrying another because they are more financially secure or have a higher status in society.

I think I understand what you're saying here....and you're right. Romantic and physical attraction are both subsets of attraction (defined at the top of this post from Dictionary.com definition 3a).

Once again though you seem to leave out the fact that there are other factors besides attraction at work in these types of relationships. The fact that many societies still view homosexuality as abnormal is a big issue. You need to seperate all other fators leaving attraction as the only decider.

That's just it....I'm not sure the other factors can be separated from attraction. All of these factors work at an almost instinctual level in the brain, which makes it hard to quantify the effects of each. Someone who chooses a rich mate over a handsome mate is simply more attracted to the moneyed aspects of the rich mate than to the physical attraction presented by the handsome mate. Assuming she is heterosexual, sexual attraction is considered equal to both men and another attribute takes precedence.

In the case of someone romantically attracted to one sex and physically attracted to another, all other attractions are considered equal. However, this person enjoys the bodies of one sex more than the other, but is more comfortable with members of the other. This person may feel that the more attractive sex is completely alien to them, shares none of the same interests, or is generally more unpleasant to be around than the less attractive sex.

I'm not sure what you mean by it being a big issue that society sees same-sex sexual attraction as abnormal. Certainly they all don't.

Pardon me while I call up something I just noticed from your earlier posts. Four posts back you said
The only reason they did not suddenly change orientation is because they were not a heterosexual to begin with. a heterosexual person does not have sex with someone of the same sex, ever. If they did, they would not be heterosexual.

You are wrong. The act of having sex is unconnected to sexual orientation. By that logic, no one who had ever had sex with the opposite sex will ever announce homosexuality, which has happened many times (usually destroying the marriages). If your statement were true, no homosexual would ever be able to 'pass'. No heterosexual would ever 'experiment' as teenagers do in high school with same-sex encounters. You underestimate the human mind and its ability to pretend, and even fool itself.

By your logic....nearly every person in the US is bisexual. Like most attributes of humans, sexuality is a spectrum. Genitals fall along a spectrum, from very male to very female, with a large area between the named sexes called intersex. Physical features from body types to noses range along a spectrum. Sexuality is no different, it cannot be defined by discrete points. Very few people are exclusively any of the orientations, most are somewhere between. Percentages would be better, but it's very hard to quantify sexual attraction.

[qayak]

[QUOTE]....I'm not sure the other factors can be separated from attraction. All of these factors work at an almost instinctual level in the brain, which makes it hard to quantify the effects of each. Someone who chooses a rich mate over a handsome mate is simply more attracted to the moneyed aspects of the rich mate than to the physical attraction presented by the handsome mate. Assuming she is heterosexual, sexual attraction is considered equal to both men and another attribute takes precedence.

I had made a long post in response to yours but I deleted it entirely because I think the point you make here eliminates all your other arguments.

You are saying that there are many aspects that decide who one has sex with, is attracted to or wishes to spend their life with. I agree and that has been my argument all along. I also suggest that orientation is the strongest of the attractions. I may have sex with a woman I am not physically attracted to but I will never sex with a man. (Attraction is a sliding scale though, so if I am desperate to have sex one can argue that an unattractive woman is attractive "enough" that combined with my desperation, I will have sex with her.)

Your argument above can be applied to the prostitute and client example you gave earlier. A prostitute may not be attracted to their client but that maybe overridden by a need for cash, or drugs, or to pay the rent on their luxury penthouse just as another woman's decision on who to marry maybe based more on who can support her financially than on who she is more attracted to.

All we have shown through all this is that attraction can take a back seat to other needs and wants. However, I suggest that the one aspect of attraction least likely to be overridden is orientation.

The other thing I disagree with you on is the assertion you made that a lesbian can marry a man, have sex with him for children or not and still remain a lesbian. By definition she would be bisexual.

I do think that some people will change their orientation to some degree. I
don't think that one act defines someone's orientation but I do think that it is defined by what their current actions are. So a man having sex with another man fifteen years ago isn't necessarily gay but if he is currently having sex with men exclusively because that is who he is attracted to, then I would say he most certainly is.

By your logic....nearly every person in the US is bisexual. Like most attributes of humans, sexuality is a spectrum. Genitals fall along a spectrum, from very male to very female, with a large area between the named sexes called intersex. Physical features from body types to noses range along a spectrum. Sexuality is no different, it cannot be defined by discrete points. Very few people are exclusively any of the orientations, most are somewhere between. Percentages would be better, but it's very hard to quantify sexual attraction.

You are correct. It is very hard if not impossible to quantify, what we have to do is generalize. Your first sentence in the above quote is absolutely true with one qualifier. . . in this generalization or fuzzy logic way of looking at it, bisexual does not just mean the act of having sex with both sexes. It also means accepting the behaviours of others. So, a woman who does not have sex with other women but accepts that it is perfectly fine for others to do it is closer to the bisexual orientation than a woman who does not have sex with other women and thinks that it is totally unacceptable behaviour for anyone to engage in. This way of expressing orientation addresses the point you made when you said "Very few people are exclusively any of the orientations, most are somewhere between."

Everything we do as humans depends on pressures exerted on us. You will not get out of bed in the morning until the pressure to get up is greater than the pressure to lay in bed. Those pressures come from many different sources and are different for everyone of us. It is a bit like predicting the weather, all we can do is look at the odds of various outcomes and get a general view of what is happening.

Great discussion by the way. It is nice to be able to discuss this subject without people getting bent out of shape or thinking it is too taboo to talk about.

Thank you

[Dancing David]

That's a great assumption.

So what does create modds, the IPU or the Flying Spaghetti monster?

Is there a biological basis to human existance or are you saying there is evidence of something opther than the material.



That's just the problem David, you cannot demonstrate anything you've just posted above.

What proof do you have that moods are not biologicalk based, what part of the human expeience is not?
When we really start looking at physiology, we just don't find much worth blowing our horns about when it comes to moods. We find "tendencies." And our strongest arguments are that this drug works in this way.

When we look at things that are not material then we are talking about god or the invisible pink unicorn, and there isn't much about to blow your horn about.


Yet, when we start looking at the social construct, we see lots.

And social constructs are part of mrntal health.
[quote]

[Katana]

What proof do you have that moods are not biologicalk based, what part of the human expeience is not?

Yes. Please provide evidence of this.

[stamenflicker]

So what does create modds, the IPU or the Flying Spaghetti monster?

That's just it isn't it? We have very little idea. In some cases it actually is physiology. In other cases, it clearly is the social landscape, or an event. Or the interpretation of an event, or the mental dwelling on a particular interpretation of the event.

Is there a biological basis to human existance or are you saying there is evidence of something opther than the material.

Yes. And you say so too, or are you going to take that back?

What proof do you have that moods are not biologicalk based, what part of the human expeience is not?

The most interesting thing about your question is that you are asking me to disprove your assumption. I'm not the one conjuring things into existence. You have summoned up the spectre of depression, or anxiety, or whatever. You've brought something into "existence" that I don't believe exists. Who is under the obligation to provide proofs?

I've stated I believe your evidence is weak. Rather than admit your weak evidence, you seem to think I have to offer better evidence.

Do you believe the social landscape we live in is biologically based? What area of my brain is democrat? Which chemicals are released in my body providing hope? What quandrant of the brain is purpose located in?

So you and I are going skydiving.... you have done it 100 times, and I never have. I am terrified. You are not. Two biological entities jumping off a plane. Two different emotions. Both biologically based. Neither biologically determined.

[Krandal2]

That's just it isn't it? We have very little idea. In some cases it actually is physiology. In other cases, it clearly is the social landscape, or an event. Or the interpretation of an event, or the mental dwelling on a particular interpretation of the event.


It isn't either/or. Its *both*. Its well understood that negative thoughts, opinions, interpretations, events, etc. themselves have a negative effect on the brains physiology, as well as vice versa. Depression and other mood disorders are, in most cases, simply the result of a number of negative beliefs that have been held too long and have begun to effect the brains chemistry. This is why patients with mental illness are usually encouraged to not only
to take pills to elevate thier mood, but to participate in therapy to treat the underlying beliefs and thought patterns which created the problem in the first place.

The idea that psychiatrists simply prescribe pills and don't recognize the importance of treating underlying psychological disorders is a widely held myth. Ideally, medication is used as a kind of temporary crutch used to get the patient to the point where he can be given effective psychotherapy.

[Dancing David]

That's just it isn't it? We have very little idea. In some cases it actually is physiology. In other cases, it clearly is the social landscape, or an event. Or the interpretation of an event, or the mental dwelling on a particular interpretation of the event.

I am asking this however is not the mental dwelling physical, ie the brain, cns and rest of the body?

Is not the interpretation done by the biological system of the brain?

Yes. And you say so too, or are you going to take that back?

I would say that there is no human event that it not part and parcel of a body and therefore all human experience is biologicaly based, the psychology and social aspects of a human are implemented and contained with the body, even though they have observable events to an outside perspective.

I would like to believe in the immaterial, I just havcen't seen the evidence of it.




The most interesting thing about your question is that you are asking me to disprove your assumption. I'm not the one conjuring things into existence. You have summoned up the spectre of depression, or anxiety, or whatever. You've brought something into "existence" that I don't believe exists. Who is under the obligation to provide proofs?

That was not my intenet, I am assuming that a human is solely biological because i have seen no evidence to a human event that does not devolve from the physical body. I have heard the arguments for the immaterial and i have not found the evidence sufficiernt to represent a non-physical aspect to human existance.

So if all that is ahuman is biological, I think it likely that there can be malfunctions due to stress or improper homeostasis. Especialy improper homeostasis due to streess, behaviors and substances.

I ask again what evidence is there for a compnent to a human being that is not material? I don't subscribe to the Platonic argument until someone demonstrates a non-corporeal being that can appreciate the eternal concept.

It is certainly plausible such things exist, but there is no evidence I have seen to support the immaterial.



I've stated I believe your evidence is weak. Rather than admit your weak evidence, you seem to think I have to offer better evidence.

I am asking id it not possible that there are people who have a mix of issues, a biological imbalance brought upon by a lack of homeostatsis, those who have that imbalance due to stress, and those who never have that imbalance.

If someone has 'depression' it involves more than just a sad mood, it also usually involves changes in sleep (I think the greatest cause of 'depression is poor sleep), so if someone has a problem from lack of sleep or that causes them not to slpeep it is a problem, either way.

Now something like motivation is a lot harder to find an objective criteria, just like mood, but anxiety does appear to have physical correlaries in panic.

So while I agrre there is a lot more to mental health than "Here take this pill". I do believe that there are people who benefit from medication that do not seem to benefit from soley lifestyle changes and CBT.

There is a very large social and psychological(the ineraction of thoughts, emotions and behaviors) to a human being, but there is also the biological component.

I have not said that there is 'just depression, there is situational stress and problems in life, those are very important. I don't send people to the hospital for them unless they say they are thinking about harming themselves and they ahve a plan to do so. They may or may not get medicine, they may get therapy and be released with no medication.

Most of the people I see in intake need the therapy more than the medicine.



Do you believe the social landscape we live in is biologically based?

Yes the things that do the interacting are bioplogical.
[/quote]What area of my brain is democrat?
[/quote]

I can't verify your party affiation or political preference, but such things are most likely part of the interafction or your brain and the attedant body.
Which chemicals are released in my body providing hope?
Good questions, I would say that it is a cognitive interpretation of a nuetral or positive state of physiological arousal. I agree that such things are just words used to communicate. Heck I can't prove that you have emotions, I can only communicate within the biological limitations of human existance.
What quandrant of the brain is purpose located in?

All human concepts are dependant upon the brain they reside in, from the evidence at hand.


So you and I are going skydiving.... you have done it 100 times, and I never have. I am terrified. You are not. Two biological entities jumping off a plane. Two different emotions. Both biologically based. Neither biologically determined.

Determination is a whole other issue as well, I just recently realized that I believe in free will but that it may be an illusion, just like the idea of a self that is more than a body.

[stamenflicker]

Determination is a whole other issue as well, I just recently realized that I believe in free will but that it may be an illusion, just like the idea of a self that is more than a body.

Determination is another issue but depression isn't? Free will an illusion but not depression? Similar physiological evidence could be gathered on either state... after all, they are occurring in the brain right?

The point of our parachute analogy is really simple:

1) the actual physical risks of jumping out of the plane are the same the first time as they are the 100th time.

2) your experience has convinced you its not all that bad, or better put, you have a belief structure about jumping out of planes that I don't share

3) you and Katana can argue all day that I'm wrong to say "moods are not biologically based," but in reality a huge portion of them are not. They grow out of our belief structures.

4) you can argue that the fear I'm experiencing is biological

5) you can argue that the fear you don't experience is biological

6) but you can't successfully argue whatever you think is going on biologically hasn't been altered by our beliefs.

7) And you can argue that our beliefs about jumping out of planes are biological and then we get caught in a circular argument, and we actually get away from the reality that the 100th jump is no safer than the 1st.

Our experience and understanding of that experience makes the difference in our biology. But with depression, we are taught that our biology makes the difference in our experience. Again, I'm only suggesting that rather than putting a finger in the dike, why not go backward and see where all the freaking water is coming from.

I'm sorry you dislike psychoanalytic counseling... but I'll take it over the medical model any day of the week.

By somehow speculating that free will is an illusion, or that determination is a separate issue than depression, you are once again jumping ship when it fits your argument. What I believe about falling out of airplanes and the physiology of jumping out of airplanes are two totally different things... and it should be obvious to you which one carries more authority-- BELIEF.

[stamenflicker]

It isn't either/or. Its *both*. Its well understood that negative thoughts, opinions, interpretations, events, etc. themselves have a negative effect on the brains physiology, as well as vice versa. Depression and other mood disorders are, in most cases, simply the result of a number of negative beliefs that have been held too long and have begun to effect the brains chemistry. This is why patients with mental illness are usually encouraged to not only
to take pills to elevate thier mood, but to participate in therapy to treat the underlying beliefs and thought patterns which created the problem in the first place.

The idea that psychiatrists simply prescribe pills and don't recognize the importance of treating underlying psychological disorders is a widely held myth. Ideally, medication is used as a kind of temporary crutch used to get the patient to the point where he can be given effective psychotherapy.

Hey, I am sincerely happy that someone is doing something...anything at all for people's moods. But that doesn't really change the fact that depression exists because we want it to. We categorize it and give it an empirical status that it has not earned, merely because it is helpful to us to do so...

(and I would argue it is also a method of control, and a means to monetary gain for our benevolent helpers, and often times a crutch for people who just don't want to get off the sofa, or who'd rather draw a check than work)

Outside of that people sometimes do need help in low spots. We'll call it "depression" if it makes everyone feel better. But by making it "real," we make a logical error.

[Dancing David]

Notes to Stamen before the response:

a. determinism is not a successful strategy in many ways, in a complex system the condition of the system may be observed but the proximal cause may not be determined. IE in some forms of cancer there are about ten things that have to happen for the cancer to occur. And that is just from doing the back research to find the proximal cause. It is often the case that the state of a complex system can be observed but the determination of the ‘cause’ of that state can not be.


b. the biological basis of human experience is a theory, and I acknowledge that I am biased towards it, in interactions with people I usually can have cogent conversations about a wide variety of belief systems, esp. about such things as politics and religion, and so I am able to use that communicative network, but as of yet I have seen no evidence for human existence outside the biological framework.

Determination is another issue but depression isn't? Free will an illusion but not depression? Similar physiological evidence could be gathered on either state... after all, they are occurring in the brain right?

That is my point, it would appear that all human existence is fundamentally dependant upon a human body, and that therefore whether your refer to the body as the vehicle of consciousness or the creator of consciousness, the body is the basis of human behavior.

To all appearances.


The point of our parachute analogy is really simple:

1) the actual physical risks of jumping out of the plane are the same the first time as they are the 100th time.

Yes but the last time I looked at the research of ‘fear of heights’ or whatever you want to call the experience that causes exhilaration/panic/arousal in jumping out of a plane, is learned, the body is the thing jumping out of the plane and it the container for that learning.


2) your experience has convinced you its not all that bad, or better put, you have a belief structure about jumping out of planes that I don't share

I am not sure what this is in reference to, I think that the ‘you’ here is the person that is not having panic at the jump. The belief system resides in a body from what I can see, so far, and therefore is carried in the body and a product of the biological structure.


3) you and Katana can argue all day that I'm wrong to say "moods are not biologically based," but in reality a huge portion of them are not. They grow out of our belief structures.


I have already said that, that is why CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) appears to be effective in many people, although it does appear to be more effective in certain areas than others.

I am also saying that something like a ‘belief system’ would appear to be part and parcel of a human brain.


4) you can argue that the fear I'm experiencing is biological

The fear is based in a biological system, what part of the human experience resides outside the body? I have thought about it and tried to study it, it would appear that all human experience is dependant upon, having a physical body


5) you can argue that the fear you don't experience is biological

6) but you can't successfully argue whatever you think is going on biologically hasn't been altered by our beliefs.


So where are those beliefs?

For therapy to be effective or individual supportive counseling, the belief structure is a vital part of the interaction, which again is why CBT appears to be effective.

If I had expressed the psychological and social aspects of my thinking more clearly then perhaps it would have been communicated more effectively. Beliefs, which I consider to be a form of conditioned cognition, are part of the human body. They are thoughts reinforced through ‘social’ interaction with other human bodies, personal experience (IE learning, also in the human body), and many things like memory and self interaction (internal behaviors) that are mediated within the human body.



7) And you can argue that our beliefs about jumping out of planes are biological and then we get caught in a circular argument, and we actually get away from the reality that the 100th jump is no safer than the 1st.


I am not saying that the beliefs are biological in the sense that a non-volitional system operates, such as the complex interaction that regulates a heart beat.

I am saying that beliefs, thoughts, emotions, habits, moods are all apparently dependant upon the human body, and it would seem that they are biological processes.


Our experience and understanding of that experience makes the difference in our biology.

Memory is biological from what I can tell, neurons are the carrier and reverberating storage system for experience.

But with depression, we are taught that our biology makes the difference in our experience.

And again the chemical component in the biological network is important, it is very important in things like arousal. But the biology is also where it would appear that thought and memories and habits are as well.

Again, I'm only suggesting that rather than putting a finger in the dike, why not go backward and see where all the freaking water is coming from.

I'm sorry you dislike psychoanalytic counseling... but I'll take it over the medical model any day of the week.


Psychoanalytic which is a subset of psychodynamic is effective in many cases, it should be used with many people and it part of psychodynamics, and some people don’t seem to benefit from it unfortunately.
Then it seems to be more effective to you, but the research I have seen says that short term behavioral therapy seems to be the most effective, and in fact that the greatest benefit to the individual in all psychodynamic treatment occurs within eight to twelve weeks. As Fred Kanfer used to say and maybe still does, it may be helpful to the person but it is not effective therapy it would probably more likely be spiritual counseling.

Although I feel that in family dynamics and trauma the benefit is often much longer than twelve weeks, his counter argument is that it is a matter of goal and intervention clarity and in the longer process there should be separate goals identified and worked toward in that longer term process.


By somehow speculating that free will is an illusion, or that determination is a separate issue than depression, you are once again jumping ship when it fits your argument. What I believe about falling out of airplanes and the physiology of jumping out of airplanes are two totally different things... and it should be obvious to you which one carries more authority-- BELIEF.


And again I have repeatedly said that belief is very important, I have never said that it is not, which is where CBT seems to have efficacy.

However I again see the evidence as pointing to the apparent fact that all belief is part of a biological system, especially when we look at the stranger end of the spectrum: compulsions, obsession and delusions.

[stamenflicker]

b. the biological basis of human experience is a theory, and I acknowledge that I am biased towards it, in interactions with people I usually can have cogent conversations about a wide variety of belief systems, esp. about such things as politics and religion, and so I am able to use that communicative network, but as of yet I have seen no evidence for human existence outside the biological framework.

I think to assume that there is "human existence outside the biological framework" is ludicrious. But saying depression exists outside the biological framework is quite a different question, would you agree?

But when it comes to mental "disorders," we really aren't debating the existence of people. We're debating quality of life, correct? And that quality relies heavily on moods which are influenced by biology on occasion, but more often than not, they are based on experiences and interpretations of those experiences.

That said, the world of experiences and interpretation of experiences may have a biological component by necessity, but where the rubber hits the road of it all is serialized fiction.

You've already stated that you believe medication should be given to a client long enough to stabilze and counsel. So why are we even debating?

Depression, when present without an obvious biological jumpstart exists in a fictionalized world of the client. That doesn't make it any less painful... it just makes it less real... no more real that someone's Kundalini awakening. There is no "scientific" footing, short of a decision to gather data on item A, while denying any form of data on item B.

That's been my only case in point.

[Dancing David]

I think to assume that there is "human existence outside the biological framework" is ludicrious. But saying depression exists outside the biological framework is quite a different question, would you agree?

But when it comes to mental "disorders," we really aren't debating the existence of people. We're debating quality of life, correct? And that quality relies heavily on moods which are influenced by biology on occasion, but more often than not, they are based on experiences and interpretations of those experiences.

I agree with that very much, however some pleople do not seem to benefit from lifestyle changes and CBT. So those I do wonder if they have a biological component.


That said, the world of experiences and interpretation of experiences may have a biological component by necessity, but where the rubber hits the road of it all is serialized fiction.

You've already stated that you believe medication should be given to a client long enough to stabilze and counsel. So why are we even debating?

I said I would recomend, they are the ones to chose what they want if anything at all, I am getting to the point that due to the biological nature of human existance there seems to be a percentage(small) of people who have a biological issue that recieves a categorical label. I only recomend the doctor when people seem to present with physical symptoms of the categorical label or report a significant decrease in role functioning. They are plenty of people who I recomend they not get treeatment, as they choose.


Depression, when present without an obvious biological jumpstart exists in a fictionalized world of the client.

I can see what you mean by that, it would be what i would characterise as a n adjustment disorder or relational issue usually, unless they presented a clear picture of mild:insert categorical label here:. I agree that often people do try toi shift acountability for poor life choices to something else, often depression. especialy if they have a substance abuse issue.

That doesn't make it any less painful... it just makes it less real... no more real that someone's Kundalini awakening. There is no "scientific" footing, short of a decision to gather data on item A, while denying any form of data on item B.

That's been my only case in point.

catergorical labeling is only for the convnience of the workers, and only partly determines the doctor's treatment.

I am stating though that there does seem to be a percentage of people who have a biological issue, in that there symptoms are reported as physical things, lack of sleep, panic attacks, loss of appetite and low energy.

[stamenflicker]

So those I do wonder if they have a biological component.

I wonder myself and I'm waiting on science to confirm it. Until then, I'm not a believer, except in places where the biology has already been confirmed. I don't think that makes me heartless as some seem content to label me.

I am stating though that there does seem to be a percentage of people who have a biological issue, in that there symptoms are reported as physical things, lack of sleep, panic attacks, loss of appetite and low energy.

But something like a Kundalini awakening also has symptoms reported as physical things:

Convulsions, particularly around the waist and lower spine.
Tingling in the body, up the spine and through the forehead.
Hot flashes, sweating.
Sleep loss, nightmares, etc.

[Dancing David]

I wonder myself and I'm waiting on science to confirm it. Until then, I'm not a believer, except in places where the biology has already been confirmed. I don't think that makes me heartless as some seem content to label me.



But something like a Kundalini awakening also has symptoms reported as physical things:

Convulsions, particularly around the waist and lower spine.
Tingling in the body, up the spine and through the forehead.
Hot flashes, sweating.
Sleep loss, nightmares, etc.


That would confirm my theory that they have a mental illness! ;)

[stamenflicker]

That would confirm my theory that they have a mental illness! ;)

No it would confirm that all disorders are spiritual. ;)

[Dancing David]

No it would confirm that all disorders are spiritual. ;)


MU!