WIP

The reason why obesity is more measurable (but not necessarily more treatable) is because the brain is so much more complex and difficult to understand. Many, if not most psychiatric drugs were developed for other purposes and were further researched for their psychiatric potential after unexpected mental benefits were discovered. I have never had to take psychiatric drugs myself, so I can't speak from firsthand knowledge. But I have seen a few people reject drug treatments to their own detriment because of paranoia and fear of drug side-effects. The problem I have with the anti-drug movement is that they are issuing a blanket dismissal of treatments that may be necessary for some people. Just like everyone who's overweight may not need bypass surgery, not everyone who's depressed needs antidepressants. But the people who do need them should feel free to use them without being faced with intimidation and condemnation from antipsychiatry zealots.

I doubt any of the medical professionals who research mental illness would advocate drugs alone to solve depression or even psychosis. Every illness can benefit from a holistic approach, and if some psychiatrists are pill-poppers and are too quick to write prescriptions for Ritalin and antidepressants, that's probably because of the same factors that encourage MD's to prescribe drugs: they have too many patients and not enough time to spend diagnosing illness, so it's easier to just prescribe drugs and send them on their way. An MD who has an overweight patient with high bloodpressure has the same situation as the psychiatrist with the patient suffering from depression- and that's further proof that depression and mental illness is not an ethereal condition of the psyche, but is instead just as physical a problem as heart disease and cancer! They can advocate lifestyle changes to help solve the problem or they can prescribe a drug. In both cases, the alternative cure depends largely on the patient's own initiative. If the doctor advocates diet and exercise, it won't do any good if the patient cannot or will not act on that advice!

The philosophical belief called Substance Dualism - which teaches that mind and body are separate substances had its origins in the teachings of Plato and some other Greek philosophers. But Aristotle, whom you mentioned previously, did not teach that the psyche was a separate, immaterial substance. He said that the soul of man is thinking. His concept of the soul being the essence of the person, implies that it is a form that does not exist separately from our physical bodies. This version of dualism would be closer to property dualism - that matter may have forms or undiscovered, non-material properties, but those properties do not have a separate existence. Later Greek philosophers such as Plotinus, went back to the Platonic teaching of a separate spirit that was animating the body. And of course this was the doctrine that was adopted by Christian theologians such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. It's interesting that although this became orthodox Christian teaching, the doctrine of immortal soul is almost nonexistent in the Bible itself. Especially if you read the Old Testament, written before Greek philosophy became influential, you'll notice that the writers of philosophical books such as Job, the Psalms and Proverbs do not teach that there is an immortal soul. When Job is suffering, he is tempted to curse God so that he may die and be relieved of his pain. This passage would make no sense if the writer believed in an immortal soul. In such a case, his soul would be sent to hell to even greater suffering! So, long story short, you can't assume that the doctrine of immortal souls was universal, even in the Judeochristian tradition. In this day and age, the doctrine of the soul should be deep-sixed since it's ludicrous in an age when we are learning how the brain stores memories and thanks to the Libet Volition experiments, we have learned that our decision-making processes start working a fraction of a second before we are even consciously aware of our decisions. There are a number of ways of interpreting the results; even Benjamin Libet himself, didn't like the implications they had on Free Will. But to me, I don't see any way around the conclusion that we do not have complete free will that is separate from brain function.

I'm having a little trouble trying to post links on this forum. I thought I had it all set up right, but the webpage I linked above is broken. Anyway, this idea that depression is a lifestyle illness is as dangerous as it is misleading. Some of us are fortunate enough to rarely, if ever feel depressed, while others are almost constantly in a state of clinical depression through no fault of their own. Some neuroscientists are coming to the conclusion that each of us may have a "happiness" set point that's similar to the metabolic set point that regulates body weight and body fat levels. Sure there are a lot of over-lapping factors between lifestyle, physical illness, traumatic childhood events and their effects on the brain. But people who are suffering from severe clinical depression are not going to get better with exercise or new age b.s. All it will do is make them feel guilty or despondent when things don't get better. Remember, this Scientology connection first became a news story when that idiot Tom Cruise condemned Brooke Shields for taking antidepressants after post-partum depression. "Dr. Cruise" based his expert analysis from the cult pseudoscience offered up by John Breeding and his analysis of L. Ron Hubbard's wise insights into the workings of the mind......in other words, he had nothing intelligent to offer on the subject.

Just a thought! Is there any villain, present or historical, that doesn't have a dedicated core of loyal apologists who are trying to rehabilitate and re-package as misunderstood heroes? It looks like Stalin still has his wing of the communist movement. Hitler has nazis, neo-nazis and apparently some new found friends in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein still has his backers. How about Atilla The Hun or Genghis Khan? Are there any fans interested in writing a sympathetic essay for these guys too?

Okay! I've got to say this Dr. John Breeding that you've linked to is just a quack who promotes the Scientology movement's claims against psychiatry. He's presenting the same b.s. about psychiatrists drugging children that famous couch-jumper Tom Cruise spouts off about. Considering that this garbage is presented as fact by a cult that teaches that the mind is "spirit" and not a product of brain function, this is dogma that can cause harm to people who need psychiatric drugs. And, if you've ever had to deal with people who are seriously schizophrenic, you'd realize that the people who most need the drugs are also the ones who can be most easily led to refuse medication because of paranoia inspired by this crap! Psychiatry has increased its effectiveness with the development of new antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. The psychotherapies that this guy promotes don't work for everyone, and they take a long time to show positive results even where they are useful. The side effects and other problems of psychiatric drugs don't disprove their value, but instead show us how altering the brain's neurochemistry can change our emotions, such as happiness or sadness. The therapies that Dr. Breeding advocates, such as psychotherapy and exercise work in the same manner of altering the brain's neurochemistry. When you exercise, for example, your body will release a rush of endorphins. The amount and rate of endorphin release you feel from aerobic exercise will determine the mood-elevating benefits you feel from your chosen exercise. There's nothing magical about it! It's just a different pathway to altering the brain's chemistry.

No, did you actually read it? The Liberals are aware of how politics works in third world dictatorships and democracies. Political parties represent local interest groups that could be defined by geography, race and/or religion. When they are able to emigrate to Canada, they naturally view the political structure that allowed them in as their patrons. I experienced this first-hand back in the 70's when I got to know some Ugandan refugees that were forced to flee Idi Amin's regime. They not only voted Liberal, they immediately signed up as party members and volunteered in each and every election, provincial and federal, for the next ten years regardless of what the Liberal Party was doing or what the isssues were. Obviously, their children are less likely to feel the same partisan loyalty, so that keeps fueling the need to recruit future Liberals from overseas.

And there's a key to bogus statistics: 8% DESCRIBE THEMSELVES as conservative. On what basis? How do they define conservative? I thought I was a conservative too until the religious right took over the word! Now, I don't even feel comfortable using libertarian, since it's been co-opted by christiofascists who want to dismantle secular government for a return to the church rule of the middle ages. If you don't believe me, check out some of the writings of "libertarian" supporters of Ron Paul, like Christian Reconstructionist Gary North, or Vox Day of Worldnetdaily. And Hagee and Parsley are seen up on stage with McCain. That's what disappoints me about this guy! Back in 2000, he called these same dangerous charlatans: "agents of intolerance." Now he wants to be seen as their man in Washington! Barach Obama's political beliefs are too left for my liking, but at least he is offering a positive message! What are the Republicans running on? Every slogan, every policy position I have read taps into greed, fear or outright hatred. Even McCain, the most reasonable of the lot, offers nothing postiive. All he would do is carry on the endless war that the Bush Administration started.

It would be nice if serious issues like immigration had honest brokers, but such a thing does not exist in the world of politics. Looking at the big picture, I would say that the pluses of immigration outweigh the minuses. Most of the people who are motivated to leave family and friends behind in third world countries are ambitious and more than pay back for what they've received in benefits. And of course we likely have no choice other than maintain at least present levels of immigration since our low birthrate would leave us with an ageing population unable to sustain itself( something like what's happened in Japan). Dealing with immigration as a political issue means that all fair-minded people will have to walk a tightrope between pro-immigration Liberals, who have used immigrants as a tool to win elections, and the new Conservatives, who are picking up the potential windfall of tapping into white racism and xenophobia.

I'm new here and I am interested in the U.S. election. I have to say off the top, that I didn't bother answering the poll question because it is based on a bogus premise that Barach Obama is a failure??? Oh well, garbage in, garbage out, as they say! This is why you have to scrutinize statistical analysis in the first place. Many special interest groups wave polls around proving their case on all sorts of issues that have been biased by the way the questions have been phrased. My apologies if this issue has already been dealt with, I haven't read all of the posts in the 10 pages of this thread. Now, since the Clinton campaign, the Republicans and rightwing media have successfully kept so much focus on from what I gather are words used in only two of Rev. Wright's sermons, I want to know why no one on the right or even in the mainstream media has put any significant focus on McCain's dangerous religious allies? I'm speaking specifically of these two: John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Doesn't it seem a little odd that Obama is trashed and his words are twisted to imply that he's condemning his grandmother by FoxNews, while McCain can cozy up to the ever-growing Reverend who claims the pope is the antichrist? Personally, I think the whole issue points out that religious influence is dangerously potent in the U.S., and thanks to the Reformers, it's invaded conservative politics here in Canada also! In Obama's book: "The Audacity of Hope" he informs us that he considered himself more of an atheist or an agnostic before meeting Rev. Wright, but was advised when he first became involved in local politics, that he could not connect with the black community if he didn't have a connection with the black Church. And I hope his religious conversion was superficial, rather than genuine, because at least he wouldn't follow the pattern of the present idiot who occupies the White House of making every major decision a "faith-based" decision!