So you tell me, you tell TimeLine, you tell fdrake that we ought not to talk about the pathological anxiety, because that's a complicated phenomenon, we ought to talk about the normal one, and I'm the liar? Yeah right... — Agustino

I never said that, that's why I called you a liar. I said that if you define anxiety as a pathological condition, then count me out of that discussion of anxiety. I do not object to discussing pathological anxiety, I object to restricting "anxiety" to being a pathological condition.

As I said, I consider anxiety to be the result of normal bodily functions. And, like things such as body temperature, and blood pressure, etc., we might determine a normal range of anxiety. But also like things such as body temperature and blood pressure, I believe that when anxiety goes out of the normal range, it is a symptom of an illness, it is not an illness itself.

There are no benefits to monkey-mind - what makes you think there are? Why do you think people work so hard to get rid of it? — Agustino

As I said, we as the monkey-minded, do things, we get things done, and this is very satisfying, extremely enjoyable. And then there is the wide ranging, and extremely important fact, that being active is the only way that we can serves others. If you insist that these are not benefits, then I can't help you. Go meditate yourself, (pleasure yourself), because you are obviously ill if you don't see activity as a benefit.

Put down the crack pipe. I honestly have no clue what you're smoking now, but it must be potent. So according to your silly logic, highly functioning human beings like Steve Jobs, Admiral Stockdale, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Miyamoto Musashi, and so on aren't really highly functioning because they have taken control over the monkey mind. What nonsense. You should read some more. — Agustino

Consider the people whom you have just named. Do you think that these people have never ruminated, been preoccupied, or obsessed? These are the symptoms of anxiety, which you seem to associate with the monkey mind. And you think that these are symptoms of illness?

You should read some more. — Agustino

That's contradictory,coming from the one who keeps telling me to do philosophy from experience rather than from what I have read. Now I am doing philosophy from my experience, and you tell me I should read more. Get a life, and quit criticizing for the sake of criticizing. It will get you nowhere if you don't at least think about what you are saying.

While her voice is essentially trapped in this social network, her anxiety is evidence of this inner voice calling out to her that she still does not know or understand how to use
...

It was only when I got harassed and then had the car accident that the anxiety surfaced because my identification started changing; it became the impetus to recognise this 'voice' within me that something is wrong. — TimeLine

I think you might do well to recognize that this "inner voice" is not a voice within you, it is you. Otherwise you're like Agustino, seeing a need to suppress it. That is authenticity, the voice that comes from within you. the most trustworthy source. It is necessary to recognize this in order that there is a whole you, unified. We, as members of society are urged to suppress the inner voice, to parrot the others, what Plato called the mob. But the mob is a false unity, an inauthentic sameness of individuals, created by those who desire similar pleasures. You will not understand unity until you grasp the authentic unity, yourself. Then only you can tell yourself what you really want, and sometimes this is not easy to determine.

I do not object to discussing pathological anxiety, I object to restricting "anxiety" to being a pathological condition. — Metaphysician Undercover

Where did I say anxiety should be restricted to a pathological condition? I recall multiple times in this thread when I told you the opposite.

And, like things such as body temperature, and blood pressure, etc., we might determine a normal range of anxiety. But also like things such as body temperature and blood pressure, I believe that when anxiety goes out of the normal range, it is a symptom of an illness, it is not an illness itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

It may be the illness itself, not a symptom of it. I have always had borderline high-blood pressure of no identifiable cause - the doctors ran all possible tests. Do I have an illness according to you that is different from the high-blood pressure itself?

As I said, we as the monkey-minded, do things, we get things done, and this is very satisfying, extremely enjoyable. — Metaphysician Undercover

What makes you think those who control the monkey-mind don't get things done, and do so faster, with greater ease, and with higher spirits than you?

And then there is the wide ranging, and extremely important fact, that being active is the only way that we can serves others. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure - I didn't say don't be active. I said don't be active just for the sake of tiring yourself out so that you can rest.

Do you think that these people have never ruminated, been preoccupied, or obsessed? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not that they have never done it, since we're flawed human beings, all of us have failings. But yes, those people did make it a priority to avoid rumination and obsession. Preoccupation on the other hand is usually a good thing. Rumination and obsession are most often negative (though in some very limited amounts they could be seen as indifferent or even good).

These are the symptoms of anxiety, which you seem to associate with the monkey mind. And you think that these are symptoms of illness? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think for the most part rumination and obsession are symptoms of illness (or illnesses themselves), yes. This article talks about the benefits of breaking free of rumination, which is clearly treated as a disorder:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201508/the-brain-mechanics-rumination-and-repetitive-thinking

So no, someone cannot be superior to another because of ruminative behaviour or obsessions. Where's your evidence that ruminative behaviour and obsessions are productive, healthy, high-functioning or good?! That seems to be only YOUR idea, not the idea of scientists, doctors, and researchers. Really, your lack of knowledge in this area seems to me to be appalling.

That's contradictory,coming from the one who keeps telling me to do philosophy from experience rather than from what I have read. — Metaphysician Undercover

I said you ought to do both, not just rely on the one.

Where did I say anxiety should be restricted to a pathological condition? I recall multiple times in this thread when I told you the opposite. — Agustino

Here:

It's true that we can sometimes call the feeling one has before having to go on stage for a musical performance as "anxiety", and it involves a fluttery feeling in the chest and stomach, and heightened focus. But that's not what I mean by anxiety when I talk about anxiety the medical condition. — Agustino

Where's your evidence that ruminative behaviour and obsessions are productive, healthy, high-functioning or good?! That seems to be only YOUR idea, not the idea of scientists, doctors, and researchers. Really, your lack of knowledge in this area seems to me to be appalling. — Agustino

My OED defines ruminate as "meditate, ponder". And you insist that meditation is so good, and rumination is so bad. How do you spin "rumination" such that it is suddenly something bad?

You say so much without even having a clue as to what you are saying, constant double-talk, just spouting out words in a critical manner; criticizing everything you come across, merely for the sake of criticizing, without understanding the thing you are criticizing, or even your own criticism itself. That's the form of the inauthentic, an individual nervously spouting words without even knowing what oneself is saying. If you would direct that energy inward to actually think about what you are saying (ruminate), then you might learn to avoid putting your foot in your mouth

My OED defines ruminate as "meditate, ponder". And you insist that meditation is so good, and rumination is so bad. How do you spin "rumination" such that it is suddenly something bad? — Metaphysician Undercover

Have you read the article I linked? What are your remarks about it?

Looks like a very twisted description of rumination. Rumination is not repetitive in the negative sense described, as if the exact same thing is gone over in the exact same way. It is to look at the same thing over and over again in numerous different ways, to find minute differences which constitute the key to resolving the problem. If, through rumination, one never resolved any such problems, then it would be negative. Rumination is what gets you out of that vicious circle, it is not the vicious circle itself.

tl;dr2: exercise: derive why a person continues to suffer from a persistent delusion they are a robot using only existential hermeneutics of the general experiential character of humans. No one will freakin' be able to do this. — fdrake

I hadn't realised eliminative materialism was an actual mental illness, I always thought it was just bad philosophy.

I don't understand the joke, sorry.

It's not really a joke. Are you so sure we are not robots, and that it is a delusion? Or am I pathological in even asking?

Okay, so then how would you differentiate between the kind of rumination expressed in the article, and the kind of rumination you're talking about? Should a different word be used for each? And what is the difference between each?

And in addition to that, I obviously agree that if we define rumination as:

My OED defines ruminate as "meditate, ponder" — Metaphysician Undercover

Then it is not at all a negative thing.

How would you describe the case of a person (it happened to me when I suffered of anxiety/OCD) who spends 2 hours trying to remember if he has closed the door to the house when he left, and questioning every detail of his memory, while he has other work to do at the same time, and therefore doesn't get on with that work?

Are you so sure we are not robots, and that it is a delusion? Or am I pathological in even asking? — unenlightened

Yes, seems quite unlikely.

I'm not interested in debating whether we're all robots in some unspecified sense which will inevitably retreat to a broader and more abstract sense until we're all living in the Matrix. We're certainly not like current robots that are made, even sophisticated learning ones are too highly constrained and task specific.

Eliminative materialism = we are all robots is pretty specious too.

I'm not interested in debating whether we're all robots in some unspecified sense — fdrake

Nor am I. I simply wonder, since it is a widely discussed notion of biology, neuroscience and philosophy, why you bring it up as an incontrovertible delusion and symptom? Perhaps philosophy is indeed the disease for which it should be the cure?

I'm asking, in a particular context that you brought up, a more general question that is problematic for psychology, which is, 'on what island of sanity does one stand from which to define the difference in others, between delusion and reality?' From my point of view, I would say that psychology is at least as mad as philosophy.

I brought it up because I spoke to a schizophrenic recently who had that delusion and it troubled him greatly. More generally, I brought that up to say that the way different people have function-impeding anxiety differs a lot.

Ah, right. That almost answers my question... a troubled and anxious robot is a malfunctioning robot. Whereas a smug, self-satisfied robot is a philosopher.

There's something troubling me about all this, that I'm having a hard time articulating. I wonder if I can say, that to be anxious about being a robot is not to have fully accepted (the delusion) that one is a robot. Like I might be anxious that my leg is going to fall off, but once I am convinced that it really has fallen off, I have to move on and start worrying about how I'm going to ride my bike or whether I can fix it on again, or something.

By the sounds of it it wasn't like an intellectualised belief like the kind you find on this forum, it was an intrusion that overwhelmed him sometimes. If someone held an intellectual position that contended that they were a robot - like generalising Descartes' comments about animals, or viewing a mind as 'software' in some sense, that would be a lot different from the belief of the bloke I spoke to.

I think what matters is how the position is held, and in some cases how that belief integrates their believers into a society. Like the difference between imaginary friends telling you to burn things and divine beings telling you to burn things.

Right. When you say 'intrusion' that conveys to me something that appears to come from outside - as it well might, it has the flavour of the zeitgeist - 'someone in my head, but it's not me', telling me I'm a robot, and I'm anxious that 'it' might be true.

But at this point 'delusion' seems almost redundant as a descriptor. There are purveyors of this sort of stuff, promising, the year after next, to upload our consciousnesses to a computer, and so on. And shit does intrude on one, and can feel overwhelming. I might even suggest that the social function of the schizophrenic is to manifest the social anxieties of the time. If the 'belief' is an intrusion, perhaps the anxiety is also an intrusion. "What? You think you might be a robot?" we all say in unison, mechanically, as though such a notion has never crossed anyone's mind, ever.

I don't think it's particularly ridiculous. People feel they have different amounts of control over the intrusive thoughts or delusional fantasies. There's an attempt to ascertain levels of perceived control in CBT and metacognitive therapy, too. The therapeutic questions usually being 'how could you act to diminish the effect of these intrusions on you?' and 'what circumstances bring these intrusive thoughts to you?'. An attempt to disarm them, not necessarily eliminate them.

I see no reason based on what you said to throw away the distinctions between snake-oil salespeople, weird philosophical positions, delusions and intrusive thoughts. This isn't to say that in a different time, schizophrenics weren't (generally believed as) 'touched' by God or spirits and perhaps were afforded more formal respect by some. On the other hand, it's probably better that modern medicine isn't trying to treat autism with exorcism.

People feel they have different amounts of control over the intrusive thoughts or delusional fantasies — fdrake

Well of course they do, and some of them may have it about right. But a lot have the illusion that they can control the intrusions, yet find themselves drinking coke and eating Mcdonalds, because they're worth it, or something. Talking of snake-oil...

But I'm standing on the island of sanity, and making the same distinctions right alongside you, because there's nowhere else to stand, and we need to know the differences between idiots, assholes, weirdos, and loonies

Did they do that? treat autism with exorcism? I have the feeling that in simpler, smaller societies there would be more tolerance up to a point, and beyond that point, more intolerance.

Still happens today, un. But not from doctors.

Ah. I fear I am far too naive; or perhaps it's intrusive thoughts that people are more often daft than depraved. Anyway, point taken.

I think you might do well to recognize that this "inner voice" is not a voice within you, it is you. Otherwise you're like Agustino, seeing a need to suppress it. That is authenticity, the voice that comes from within you. the most trustworthy source. It is necessary to recognize this in order that there is a whole you, unified. We, as members of society are urged to suppress the inner voice, to parrot the others, what Plato called the mob. But the mob is a false unity, an inauthentic sameness of individuals, created by those who desire similar pleasures. You will not understand unity until you grasp the authentic unity, yourself. Then only you can tell yourself what you really want, and sometimes this is not easy to determine. — Metaphysician Undercover

That certainly is exactly what I mean; ever had those dreams where you need to move or get out of somewhere, but you physically just cannot go and try all you can, your body will not move? Or, say you are afraid in this dream and want to scream but there is no sound to the scream? Is there any direction or energy without the arrow of time? We all each have - as part of our mind - our own individuality formed through our cognitive capacity to store memories, something that computes and creates decisions and opinions and ideas independently because we are capable of becoming self-aware; but if this consciousness has never been used, its function lacks the stimulation needed to actually work and so it appears to be some sort of an abyss.

I do not agree with the suppression of this voice, but really to simply transcend the noise that makes it hard to hear what it is attempting to convey. Like a muscle that requires exercise, we need to build a new language as an autonomous agent, similar to synaptic pruning where we begin to selectively discard what is unnecessary and keep what is necessary.

That certainly is exactly what I mean; ever had those dreams where you need to move or get out of somewhere, but you physically just cannot go and try all you can, your body will not move? — TimeLine

Hmm when that happens to me, I just give in to it and accept it. It takes some time though to move from state of panic to state of acceptance. Then usually I wake up.

Okay, so then how would you differentiate between the kind of rumination expressed in the article, and the kind of rumination you're talking about? Should a different word be used for each? And what is the difference between each? — Agustino

I don't claim to be a doctor on this matter. You, not I, seem to think that there is a clear distinction between anxiety of the healthy type, and anxiety of the ill type, so perhaps you should offer your expert opinion. I would say though, that if one consistently ruminated on some problem, and failed to ever resolve that problem, the person's failure to recognize one's own inability to solve the problem, might be a problem itself.

It would be like an issue of trial and error. How many times can you keep trying to have success in relation to a particular endeavor, before you realize that it is time to quit trying? Notice though, that an athlete never gives up, by initiating a strategy of practise, with increments of success as goals. The athlete keeps trying and trying, and in so doing, betters oneself. I would say that the same thing is probably the case for mental activity. The more you ruminate, the better you get at it. So if one can discipline oneself to ruminate over the same problem for a very extended period of time, without suffering negative consequences (frustration, panic, etc.), this would be very good. But if an individual without practise in ruminating suddenly found oneself to be immersed in it, this might be like a person with no experience in skiing suddenly finding oneself in the middle of an Olympic slalom course, with skis on.

How would you describe the case of a person (it happened to me when I suffered of anxiety/OCD) who spends 2 hours trying to remember if he has closed the door to the house when he left, and questioning every detail of his memory, while he has other work to do at the same time, and therefore doesn't get on with that work? — Agustino

That is an issue of determining one's inability to solve the problem, knowing when to quit. If you are driven toward attempting to resolve problems which cannot be resolved, and you cannot recognize your own inability to solve that problem, that is an issue. It is a case of trying to do the impossible, setting yourself up for failure. And the more time you spend trying to do it, the bigger the disappointment when the reality hits you. Imagine someone hands you a jigsaw puzzle in which each piece came from a different puzzle, so that no pieces fit. How long would you work at that puzzle before you realized, something's wrong here, I'm trying all these different things with no success, this is a waste of time? If something drives you to continue, thinking for some reason that you can actually make things fit, by sheer willpower, then you've got a problem.

That certainly is exactly what I mean; ever had those dreams where you need to move or get out of somewhere, but you physically just cannot go and try all you can, your body will not move? Or, say you are afraid in this dream and want to scream but there is no sound to the scream? — TimeLine

Recently, in a dream, I climbed onto a high roof with someone else, to do some repair. Suddenly, I started screaming as if for help, like a little child. This surprised me, even in the dream, because the roof wasn't extremely steep and I'm not afraid of heights. Then I was going down the sloop of the roof as if I was being drawn toward the edge. I was panicked with fear, but at the same time, I knew that this is not difficult, the roof is not too steep, I must just keep away from the edge, and I will not fall. For some reason though, I could not control the fear. And the fear overwhelmed my power to do what I knew I could do, stay away from the edge. The fear overcame me to such a great extent, that I was ready to give in and let the thing I feared take me. It was like the fear was so strong that it forced me to give in to the thing that I feared, when I knew that I could avoid it. This dream very much surprised me because that is not something I would normally do. In a dangerous situation, such as driving a car which has gone out of control, I'll fight it to the end, trying to regain control.

The only real life thing which I can find to compare this to, is falling asleep when I'm driving. As I get mesmerized by the monotony of the road, my eyes want to close all by themselves. I know very clearly in my mind, that I cannot let this happen, and I believe that I have the power to prevent this from happening. However, the more I concentrate on, or focus on preventing my eyes from going closed, it is such a singlized, simple, boring thing, that it produces an inactive mind which actually increases the urge for my eyes to go closed.

I suppose this is just like death itself. It's one of those things that you try to avoid, and we can usually avoid it by being in control of ourselves. However, eventually we have to face the decision. Am I going to resist and fight it to the end, in which case, the fear, panic, or even just the effort, might actually bring it on earlier, or should I just go with the flow?

I do not agree with the suppression of this voice, but really to simply transcend the noise that makes it hard to hear what it is attempting to convey. Like a muscle that requires exercise, we need to build a new language as an autonomous agent, similar to synaptic pruning where we begin to selectively discard what is unnecessary and keep what is necessary. — TimeLine

The synaptic pruning is to throw away all the errors of trial and error. The inner voice may be very excited in fits of passion, and that's why those passages need to be pruned, to ensure that we don't mistakenly go back to what was already been determined as the wrong way. But that does not mean that we cannot continue to seek new ways, continue in our method of trial and error, long past the days of childhood.

I don't claim to be a doctor on this matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

No one here does.

You, not I, seem to think that there is a clear distinction between anxiety of the healthy type, and anxiety of the ill type, so perhaps you should offer your expert opinion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting.

I would say though, that if one consistently ruminated on some problem, and failed to ever resolve that problem, the person's failure to recognize one's own inability to solve the problem, might be a problem itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, let's take a condition where rumination is one of the primary symptoms. What would you say about the case of a man who, for example, thinks that there is some government conspiracy against him and continuously ruminates on that? It's something called paranoid delusions, thinking that someone is out there to harm or hurt you, and often people ruminate on such issues to no avail, since these problems cannot be solved.

It seems to be a problem with thought itself, with the very nature of possibility. If you really want to, you can interpret any event so that it fits with the story. The man smiling on the street was really giving you a secret sign. The taxi in front of your house was really a government agent spying on you. The popup you got while navigating a website was designed to be there and give you a virus so the government can have access to your computer. Etc. These are all thoughts that can occur in the mind of a person who suffers from this condition.

So since according to you, there is no difference between the healthy type and the ill type of rumination (or anxiety, they are somewhat associated), how would such a man go about extricating himself from such habits of thought? It is the nature of possibility, that no matter how much evidence to the contrary you get for something, you could always interpret it as actually confirming evidence! The less pathological cases of this, we refer to them as "being in denial".

So it seems that it is the nature of thought itself that such a person does not have means, through thought alone, of extricating himself from that condition.

The more you ruminate, the better you get at it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Personally, I would say it depends on why you're ruminating, what's your goal? If you are like the person with paranoid delusions, then ruminating on the subject of your delusions is definitely a bad idea - the issue cannot be solved.

If you are driven toward attempting to resolve problems which cannot be resolved, and you cannot recognize your own inability to solve that problem, that is an issue. It is a case of trying to do the impossible, setting yourself up for failure. And the more time you spend trying to do it, the bigger the disappointment when the reality hits you. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with you somewhat, however, the point is that you can never be 100% certain that the so-called problem cannot be resolved. And you never know if what you're trying to do is really impossible - maybe you've missed something, etc. So the mentally ill person will generally find refuge in this - not being able to be certain. Not to mention that if a problem is very very big - let's say that their survival depends on it - even if it is just a teeny tiny bit short of impossible to succeed in it, it is still worth trying to solve it! So as you can see, for these two reasons, the approach you suggest is problematic when it comes to pathological types of anxiety and rumination. Now you claim that there is no clear distinction between the healthy type, and the unhealthy type - so does this mean that the unhealthy type can switch over to the healthy type, and how would this happen?

For me personally, in dealing with anxiety, I found meditation and Stoicism helpful - not ruminating more on it, since there was no end to the rumination, nor could an end be rationally determined.

Well, let's take a condition where rumination is one of the primary symptoms. What would you say about the case of a man who, for example, thinks that there is some government conspiracy against him and continuously ruminates on that? It's something called paranoid delusions, thinking that someone is out there to harm or hurt you, and often people ruminate on such issues to no avail, since these problems cannot be solved. — Agustino

I think that such a person has an illness which makes him feel like there is a conspiracy against him. The rumination itself is not the problem, it is what he is prone to be ruminating on, that is the problem.

It seems to be a problem with thought itself, with the very nature of possibility. — Agustino

No it isn't a problem with thought itself. It is a problem with what the person is inclined to think about, the person's attitude toward thought.

So since according to you, there is no difference between the healthy type and the ill type of rumination (or anxiety, they are somewhat associated), how would such a man go about extricating himself from such habits of thought? It is the nature of possibility, that no matter how much evidence to the contrary you get for something, you could always interpret it as actually confirming evidence! The less pathological cases of this, we refer to them as "being in denial". — Agustino

As I said, I am not a doctor. The man in your example has an illness which affect his attitude toward thinking. Preventing him from thinking (ruminating) may address the symptom, but it doesn't address the problem.

So it seems that it is the nature of thought itself that such a person does not have means, through thought alone, of extricating himself from that condition. — Agustino

Right, the man is ill. The man cannot cure his own illness "through thought alone". Would you expect to cure a flu by thinking about it?

I agree with you somewhat, however, the point is that you can never be 100% certain that the so-called problem cannot be resolved. And you never know if what you're trying to do is really impossible - maybe you've missed something, etc. So the mentally ill person will generally find refuge in this - not being able to be certain. Not to mention that if a problem is very very big - let's say that their survival depends on it - even if it is just a teeny tiny bit short of impossible to succeed in it, it is still worth trying to solve it! So as you can see, for these two reasons, the approach you suggest is problematic when it comes to pathological types of anxiety and rumination — Agustino

I don't see the "problematic" you refer to. The healthy person has a healthy attitude toward what to think about, and what not to think about. The attitude does not come from the thinking itself, it comes from elsewhere. So the thinking itself is not the problem.

Now you claim that there is no clear distinction between the healthy type, and the unhealthy type - so does this mean that the unhealthy type can switch over to the healthy type, and how would this happen? — Agustino

Yes, the unhealthy type can switch to the healthy type if the reasons for the unhealthy disposition are determined and cured. And vise versa of course. Imagine for example, a person who uses psychoactive drugs habitually, for recreation. That person might suffer delusions similar to what you have described. That person can quit using the drugs and develop healthy thinking.

I think that such a person has an illness which makes him feel like there is a conspiracy against him. The rumination itself is not the problem, it is what he is prone to be ruminating on, that is the problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why is the illness different than just the thinking there is a conspiracy against him? I would say the illness is the thinking itself. That has certainly been my experience with anxiety - there is nothing behind the thinking that causes it as it were.

Preventing him from thinking (ruminating) may address the symptom, but it doesn't address the problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

These conditions are self-perpetuating habits of thought if you prevent the thinking, you prevent and many times improve the problem. For example, meditation allowed me to become detached from the anxious thoughts. They didn't disappear at first, but I went around no longer caring that I had them. Over time they slowly decreased in intensity, and then disappeared (for the most part, I still get a pathological kind of anxiety if I am super stressed).

Right, the man is ill. The man cannot cure his own illness "through thought alone". Would you expect to cure a flu by thinking about it? — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a very very big problem with what you're saying here. You assume anxiety is like having the flu, and that's NOT the same thing, not even close. The flu is caused by something that is clearly biological - namely a virus, which we can find and identify in people who have the flu. There are no such things in the case of anxiety.

The brain has what is known as neuroplasticity, and it can alter its own structure, it can alter what substances and in what quantity it secretes, etc. The thoughts you have and the habits you have influence this greatly. That is why CBT - which is basically curing your anxiety by thought - is one of the most successful methods.

So I don't see why you find "curing pathological anxiety through thought alone" so hard to get your mind around. It seems to me that you just don't have solutions to the problems I raised earlier.

I don't see the "problematic" you refer to. The healthy person has a healthy attitude toward what to think about, and what not to think about. The attitude does not come from the thinking itself, it comes from elsewhere. So the thinking itself is not the problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

The thinking itself is the illness, and quite possibly contributes to the persistence of the illness.

I brought it up because I spoke to a schizophrenic recently who had that delusion and it troubled him greatly. More generally, I brought that up to say that the way different people have function-impeding anxiety differs a lot. — fdrake

I think the deeper and more perplexing question is in regards to what scares the schizophrenic the most. It seems that the diagnosis itself is the greatest source of frustration and compels one to be anxious. Paradoxical. Some would rather have cancer than be schizophrenic. Such is the amount of fear and stigma associated with the process of labeling the patient with a diagnosis.

In other words, diagnosing seems to bring more hard than good.

I have also gone through a decent amount of fear for being labeled as a schizophrenic in the past. What scared me the most was the diagnosis itself and reading what kinds of behavior pigeonholes one into that diagnosis. The fear was not against anyone or anything in particular, but, was directed at me. The only logical thing to do in that case is to take the meds and hope that the problem goes away or some such matter.

I've done my fair share of reading about schizophrenia and there's a decent amount of evidence that points towards better patient outcomes for people off antipsychotics.

In general, people ought to be told how to live with a 'disorder' and not fight against it. I don't see much utility in telling a patient that they'll be better off if on a medication when the majority of evidence points towards better outcomes (in specific cases) when the patient accommodates or changes their lifestyle to accommodate for the disorder.

Why is the illness different than just the thinking there is a conspiracy against him? I would say the illness is the thinking itself. That has certainly been my experience with anxiety - there is nothing behind the thinking that causes it as it were. — Agustino

We all think, thinking is not an illness. What is "behind the thinking that causes it" is the person's interests. We all have interests, and we all think. Our interests determine the objects we direct our thought toward What makes the thinking that there is a conspiracy theory against him, different from normal thinking, is that it is an odd and unsubstantiated object, produced by an unhealthy form of personal interest, paranoia.

There is a very very big problem with what you're saying here. You assume anxiety is like having the flu, and that's NOT the same thing, not even close. — Agustino

No I don't assume anxiety is like having the flu. We've been through this already. I assume that anxiety is a normal aspect of a normally functioning human being, just like body temperature. Raised anxiety is a symptom of illness just like raised body temperature is a symptom of the flu. You just can't seem to grasp the concept that normal, highly functioning human beings have anxiety. You want to insist that having anxiety is not normal, that it's an illness.

The flu is caused by something that is clearly biological - namely a virus, which we can find and identify in people who have the flu. There are no such things in the case of anxiety. — Agustino

I think it is clearly false to say that there are no biological causes of anxiety. The human body is a very complicated biochemical system. Adrenaline for instance is known to be associated with anxiety, as a cause. And, there are many other chemicals which are known to influence anxiety.

That is why CBT - which is basically curing your anxiety by thought - is one of the most successful methods. — Agustino

CBT is not curing anxiety with thought, it is activity. It is a therapy of coordination between thought and behaviour.
WIKIPEDIA:"Instead, CBT is a "problem-focused" and "action-oriented" form of therapy.

I already told you that I deal with my anxiety through the means of activity, and you scoffed at me, saying that I had a monkey mind and that I should meditate instead. You still persist with your double talk.

So I don't see why you find "curing pathological anxiety through thought alone" so hard to get your mind around. It seems to me that you just don't have solutions to the problems I raised earlier. — Agustino

If CBT is your evidence of curing pathological anxiety with thought alone, then you haven't got a case. As I said in the last post, I haven't seen these "problems" with my position, which you keep alluding to, yet. I think you're imagining things.

The thinking itself is the illness, and quite possibly contributes to the persistence of the illness. — Agustino

Wow, thinking is an illness which contributes to the persistence of itself. Now I've heard everything. Are you sure you're not suicidal?

We all think, thinking is not an illness. What is "behind the thinking that causes it" is the person's interests. We all have interests, and we all think. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, please make an effort to read what I write charitably, trying to understand what I am actually telling you. My statements are made in a certain context, I do not understand why you take them to be blanket statements about thinking in general.

No I don't assume anxiety is like having the flu. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, you're reading uncharitably. Obviously I was referring to the unhealthy type of anxiety. Do I really need to specify that, can't you make an effort to understand based on the context what I'm telling you?

You just can't seem to grasp the concept that normal, highly functioning human beings have anxiety. You want to insist that having anxiety is not normal, that it's an illness. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is false. Of course everyone has anxiety, I can cite you multiple statements from me in this very thread saying that anxiety itself cannot be eliminated and is a normal part of life.

I think it is clearly false to say that there are no biological causes of anxiety. The human body is a very complicated biochemical system. Adrenaline for instance is known to be associated with anxiety, as a cause. And, there are many other chemicals which are known to influence anxiety. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, and guess what, the relevant part of the biology can be changed since the brain has neuroplasticity.

CBT is not curing anxiety with thought, it is activity. It is a therapy of coordination between thought and behaviour. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, it is the activity of thinking in a certain way :-} - not through thought, right...

If CBT is your evidence of curing pathological anxiety with thought alone, then you haven't got a case. As I said in the last post, I haven't seen these "problems" with my position, which you keep alluding to, yet. I think you're imagining things. — Metaphysician Undercover

What else is the activity that you mentioned above if not thought?

Wow, thinking is an illness which contributes to the persistence of itself. Now I've heard everything. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the context of unhealthy anxiety, sure! What's wrong with something being self-perpetuating? Have you ever heard of positive feedback loops?

Having read a book on CBT and keeping in mind the list of cognitive distortions mentioned in it, I have seen no mention in most CBT books, that activity is an essential part of therapy. Most often, one has a thought, professes an attitude of indifference towards the thought, and then analyzes it within the framework of identifying cognitive distortions. Of all the cognitive distortions that are of significance, emotional reasoning has to come up as #1 on the most difficult to treat.

And, that is rather miraculous in my opinion. That intervention without the need for (costly) supervision can alleviate one's suffering and pain in regards to depression and/or anxiety.

My only question that remains, is why aren't we handing out these books for free to people who need them the most based on the efficacy of treatment on said disorders.