Opinions - @ the psychomimetic defenders

[terrordemon]

on the topic of syd barret, do people honestly believe that there are some people who are not at ALL genetically predisposed to schizophrenia? i personally believe its something in all of us

[jux]

what evidence is this belief based on?

[terrordemon]

i just believe that certain elements of schizophrenia are evident in all of us, so one degree or another. sorry if you dont but i value observation more than "evidence", as i dont feel that evidence really exists on these types of topics

[jux]

so in other words you believe conjecture over fact...

[terrordemon]

show me your "fact"

show me how its a fact

i believe what i see more than what i read and blindly believe is true just because it says its an experiment, just because it makes itself to be a fact

not to say that experiments dont show truths, i just dont see how you can try and prove that schizophrenia is ONLY in certain people. i just dont think that schizophrenia is understood enough, to all of its extents and degrees. maybe in modern (continental) philosophy (particularly delezue + guattari), but in science? nah

[Skeetastic]

Like how some people will talk to themselves and they are perfectly healthy mentally. I talk to myself, and i'm not crazy....

[jux]

german scientist have found that a WKL1 gene mutation is responsible for a person to be predisposed to skizophrenia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1229281.stm

read: gene mutation...its not the result of a normal gene that functions correctly (like the majority of the population)

if you like, i can provide more evidence, but i want to see YOUR evidence.

you keep taking about how your observations lead you to believe everyone is skizophrenic...but what observations have you made? please elaborate on your veiwpoint.

but i suppose i can see how your expert opinion based on superficial observations could trump years of research and experimentation.......

[terrordemon]

ok let me rephrase this

i dont think schizophrenia is abnormal

its just the people who can't control it that ARE "abnormal". this gene may lead people to have less of an ability to control it, but nowhere does what you showed me tell me "this is what causes schizophrenia, if you DONT have this youre NOT schizo"

am i saying these scientists are wrong? no

but what they have is NOT the answer, just a tiny tiny tiny piece in the enormous puzzle

so congrats research, you found something that will lead pretty much nowhere. atleast you got on the front page of bbc

and seriously, this is for one severe kind of schizophrenia, not common schizo that you, i, everyone, has

[Skeetastic]

You do realize that you guys are completely off topic and this arguing is really annoying. How's about we all kiss and make up here?

[terrordemon]

the reason why i made this thread is so find out other peoples views, and i think its quite sucessful actually.

why else would i have started it with a blatant statement like i did?

you say we're off topic but i think we're right on it. this topic is on the psychotic effects of drugs such as lsd (schizophrenia?)

[jux]

its not an arguement, its a discussion...and talking about the source of skizophrenia is relevant to this topic in my opinion...

[Skeetastic]

Eh. Maybe I'm just not used to connecting LSD with schizophrenia. Carry on if you must.

[terrordemon]

see? we do agree on something

[Heretic.Ape.]

Personally I'd be more inclined to look into the field of psychology than philosophy to come to opinions about a mental disorder. But that's just me, I may be biased since that's my field of study. Besides, aren't experiments simply more rigorous personal observations done in a manner that allows them to be varified by others observation? So the "evidence" is actually a statement of thorough and varified observation. Don't really see how one could value one and not the other...
Just my thoughts, not trying to be an @$$hole
h.a.

(holy crap, like 5 posts occured while I was writing that!)

[terrordemon]

i used to agree with you heretic, but then i took a psychology class. i dont see how you can see psychology as the same as observation. as soon as you put someone in an experiment, regardless of what else, things change. the mind is not in its "normal" state (whatever that is, thats not the point). being in an experiment changes things

that said there is a big rift between philosophy and... everything else. i like psychology, i really do, its just how its done in today's world i cant stand, i find it reveals so little

[jux]

the fact that evidence is tested and verifiable is why it holds more weight than a layman's personal opinion

[terrordemon]

true, which is why it holds value in society. but i dont find it as practical as personal oberservation

[Heretic.Ape.]

Believe me, there's a huge difference between an intro to psych class and doing actual research. Psychology may seem to be a rather soft science if you just look at the surface, there's a lot of speculation and it deals with something not directly observable: mental states. In actual research you don't put as much emphasis on those text book theories that resemble philosophical flights of fancy. You deal with statistical analyses of behavioral correlations to psychometric, neurological, physiological data.
Don't base your opinion of psychology on those lame intro classes or ANYTHING you read in a normal bookstore. Read through some peer reviewed journals. I started off studying philosophy but came to the conclusion that, while very interesting and fascinating, it was pretty much intellectual masturbation.

[Skeetastic]

I enjoy Psychology and Philosophy, but mostly the religion aspect of it. I mean the studies and viewpoints of religion. I don't really make connections between either and drugs, with the exception of addiction. That's something that is worth Psychological study.

[terrordemon]

heretic: it wasnt an intro class, even though i took one in high school. it was a 4000 level psychology/philosophy class, but was labeled psychology and studied moral development. i love the class because of the teacher and some of the material, but it was like whenever it got centered on the psychology i couldnt stand it because it either a. didnt matter to me (didnt seem like it was very relevant, most of it was just dealing with the bs of the psychology culture), or b. could have been handled better by theory

but that said yeah, psychology can be cool. i just hope you do cool non-bullshit stuff with it

[Nagognog2]

Yup. Psychotomimetic went out as a medical term for LSD-25 et al before "Leave It To Beaver" first aired on TV. And the Salk vaccine for Polio was just making the rounds. Ah, the good old days.

Regards drugs causing permenant changes to the mind, I must be a walking aspirin tablet from reading all the garbage I've had to sort through in my day.

[eltimmy]

>personal oberservation

Except ... personal observation has no chance whatsoever to control variables. Psychology research takes place in a clinical setting sometimes (far short of all the time) and tries to control variables, the more the better.

The average quality of psychology research is much, much worse than with the "harder" sciences: that much is true. That's why you keep your brain on. Read, read, read, and don't stop questioning, and don't rely on such faulty subjective lens such as personal observation, like the Creationists do.

Years ago, people personally observed that old, strange women are witches/possessed by Satan/lesbians to be burnt.

>all of those things you listed does something to the mind but does not physically alter your mind by putting a foreign substance in your body

Yes, they most certainly do physically alter the mind. Go read a little about neuroplasticity, please.