I am not asking for proof in as far as I am asking you not to make up lies.

In case you are unaware, there is an alternative view that is at least semi-respectable. https://www.hearing-voices.org

It is, of course a mere dogma that identity is or ought to be unitary, and that dogma, that demands that 'other' voices be silenced, does tend to make those voices antagonistic and sometimes violent; which then becomes the 'evidence' of pathology.

there is an alternative view that is at least semi-respectable. https://www.hearing-voices.org — unenlightened

The hearing voices approach is supported by all the psychiatrists and mental health services I know of here. I think it is well understood that not all voices are problematic.

The hearing voices approach is supported by all the psychiatrists and mental health services I know of here. I think it is well understood that not all voices are problematic. — Tom Storm

I'm very glad to hear it. Shame you waited for me, a rank amateur, to point it out. Such support, mind you, is a rather recent development.

Shame you waited for me, a rank amateur, to point it out. — unenlightened

Well I was talking about psychiatry, not psycho-social and peer support which is where this comes in.

I was talking about psychiatry, not psycho-social and peer support — Tom Storm

The distancing is noted. and it seems, therefore, that the dogma of unitary identity remains in psychiatry. and the 'support' you speak of is that condescending kind that give not an inch of power but 'allows' what was previously forbidden, because it is conveniently cheap.

No, I think that's just a determinedly negative view you've put based on what seems to be prejudice. You're certainly not alone in thinking this way. Some people hate religion, others think psychiatry is like religion and hate it.

Next they will suppress vision too for they are the judge of what should or should not be seen.

That is the application of thought and vision control that Orwell so predicted.

Welcome our new masters the psychotherapists who are the thought police.

They need help but do not admit it.

If by chance the therapist denies therapy then they are worse then the patients they portent to treat.

Hypocrisy of Hypocrisies

a determinedly negative view you've put based on what seems to be prejudice. — Tom Storm

Do you have some evidence for that? I have presented a particular criticism of psychiatry that it legitimises unitary identity and delegitimises divided identity, without any justification. Your response is not to attempt any justification, but instead to delegitimise my view by fiat and without argument. That seems to me to be prejudicial on your part.

But this is but modern day psychology still entrenched in dogma, prejudice and psychobabble and executes these with hitlerian authority.

Let’s just legalise eugenics next

Maybe you could start by making an actual argument with evidence? All I see here is prejudice - why else write:

The distancing is noted — unenlightened

the 'support' you speak of is that condescending kind — unenlightened

give not an inch of power but 'allows' what was previously forbidden — unenlightened

because it is conveniently cheap. — unenlightened

Tom, no offence but you are part of the problem with the current state of psychology.

Peddle the psychobable and prejudice all day it won’t make it right.

Self-reflection on your part is required with introspective honesty.

Perhaps then you might offer some fresh insight and pioneer new ideas for your profession rather than parroting the same old outdate concepts.

Maybe you could start by making an actual argument with evidence? — Tom Storm

It is, of course a mere dogma that identity is or ought to be unitary, and that dogma, that demands that 'other' voices be silenced, does tend to make those voices antagonistic and sometimes violent; which then becomes the 'evidence' of pathology. — unenlightened

This was the actual argument I started with, which you passed by, and continue to pass by. The evidence is already linked to on the hearing voices network site, that when 'voices' are engaged with and responded to, they are less likely to be negative and violent.

Tom, no offence but you are part of the problem with the current state of psychology. — Deus

I'm not a psychologist, or psychiatrist, so I can't really take offence.

Peddle the psychobable and prejudice all day it won’t make it right. — Deus

Err... what prejudice? What psychobabble?

I work within psycho-social context which is mostly an alternative to psychiatric or clinical hospital services, and we generally argue that people often don't need psychiatry or clinical services and are more likely to need housing, meaningful activities and purpose. We encourage peer support and the principle that the client is the expert on what they need.

The evidence is already linked to on the hearing voices network site, that when 'voices' are engaged with and responded to, they are less likely to be negative and violent. — unenlightened

Yep, hearing voices is useful and those groups are well attended and supported. Much better always not to use medication or clinical treatment.

But you'll note -

they are less likely to be negative and violent. — unenlightened

So not always, and probably not even mostly. And for some of these folk, treatment is the only thing which works. But maybe some day better ways of supporting people in this situation will be found.

Forgive my hasty assumption then in that case although you work in a related field I believe you can still exert some influence on the psychology-psychiatry field and can be a force for good.

I hope

I think it's fair to say that current psychiatry is able to diagnose itself and more so too.
It's philosophy that's the output of the chemical mix in the brain. To put it simply: a person suffering from depression is a pessimist and a successful person enjoying life is an optimist along with a schizophrenic who feels the evil is advancing in the World.
Though there are problems with corrupt psychiatry and that a schizophrenic psychiatrist will not be able to pull out of one's insanity by oneself. There are objective criteria for psychiatry found in blood samples, specific descriptions of symptoms and the computer-AI analysis.
So who is healthy? Perhaps the easiest answer says those who are young, but they have also the least information to rely on vis-a-vis the old age in terms of accumulated information and IQ.
What to think of a person who walks in for a philosophical consultation, i.e., the conversation to clear things up? Well, for most, they are their brain-chemistry. Therefore, I feel philosophy falls short in terms of "medicine for the soul".

Edit: Note on hearing voices: The danger with schizophrenia is not hearing voices, I guess we all do, but them generating voices in their heads and then acting on them blindly.

As a best practice, I would recommend any practitioner or researcher in psychology or psychiatry abandon physical monism as a philosophy because of the problem of defining information. Information in a technically useable form is brain state and only brain state. And brain state is the physical brain and its contained mental content.

So, Information is Brain State = [the physical brain;(mental content)]

Where the square brackets [ ] represent an irreducible unit and the semi colon parentheses ;( ) represents mental content's dependence on the physical brain. This relation is universally present when information is present.

In the case of psychosis:
-a delusion is information as the physical brain and mental content.
-a false belief is information as the physical brain and mental content.
-a conspiracy theory is information as the physical brain and mental content.
-also memories, time perception, fears of the future, on and on, are information that exists as the
physical brain and mental content.

In troubleshooting a psychosis case this relation always should be considered.

How come there are no documented cases of insanity in wild animals? Also, there are no animal philosophers.

How come there are no documented cases of insanity in wild animals? Also, there are no animal philosophers. — Agent Smith

And there are no animal psychiatrists. Diagnosing a mental illness in humans requires the human mind of a trained individual.

Remember that when a trained animal in a circus all of sudden becomes a killer, no one says it's gone insane. What do we always say? It's unpredictable. Animals are unpredictable and become aggressive from time to time.

I see. Which is to say there's no such thing as mental illness in animals, oui mon ami?

Ouais.

Ouais. — L'éléphant

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

My hunch is the psychiatric profession will be discredited.

My hunch is the psychiatric profession will be discredited — Mark Nyquist

Why? Oh, ok, just a hunch!

A hunch or my opinion.
I didn't short you on the philosophic details. They're in my previous comments.

If psychiatry has a good working understanding of what information is or theories of mental content in psychosis cases then what are they?

A hunch or my opinion.
I didn't short you on the philosophic details. They're in my previous comments.

If psychiatry has a good working understanding of what information is or theories of mental content in psychosis cases then what are they? — Mark Nyquist

Psychosis is good in my humble opinion. We should all be given an opportunity to taste from the pool of madness! Please kindly refer to the safety manual before you do though.

There are some good reasons a philosophy forum should pay attention to the profession of psychiatry especially in the area of psychosis. Within psychiatry there is an admission that psychosis, madness, insanity or schizophrenia are not well understood so heads up to all of us as the solution could come from the philosophy of mind.

Within psychiatry this could be ignored or resisted since research study funding is coming largely from the pharmaceutical industry. Even claimed philanthropic funding traces to big pharma through undisclosed donations and doner restrictions.

There is also a problem with the general public and scientists who know little about information
believing everything is information and information exists everywhere in the universe. Unless you put some rigor into this problem you will be unaware that information is brain state and only brain state. For example the term genetic information is a term that should never have been used. Genetic processes are entirely physical both in expression and replication so why would the use of the term information even be needed? More of a false projection of our minds onto our environment than anything real.

In the case of psychosis we are dealing with information in its true form. A physical brain and mental content. An example of how ridiculous the psychiatric profession is is the symptom of conspiracy theories. Clearly mental content but often used as a basis for forced drugging. And forced it is. If you observe these cases going through the courts there is no doubt people are being drugged against their wills with the backing of governments without knowing how bad the underlying science really is.

The concept of mental content as emergent from biological brains is key to understanding what the problem really is. In our person to person communication there certainly is a transfer of mental content but no transfer of physical matter. Some dualists might like this as their instincts are correct but the best understanding of this is that information is a special case of unique abilities that emerge from biological brains. Given that so many are lost in the subject of information a good reset would be that psychosis is universal to our existence.

If hunches are being accepted, here's one of mine: 60% of the US population, including philosophers, are under some kind of psychiatric medication for disorders ranging from insomnia to schizophrenia. With so many mad people, it's amazing how we can get anything done at all!

With so many mad people, it's amazing how we can get anything done at all! — Agent Smith

I see Smith is suspended. That was a pretty dickish post right there.

In the case of psychosis we are dealing with information in its true form. A physical brain and mental content. An example of how ridiculous the psychiatric profession is is the symptom of conspiracy theories. Clearly mental content but often used as a basis for forced drugging. And forced it is. If you observe these cases going through the courts there is no doubt people are being drugged against their wills with the backing of governments without knowing how bad the underlying science really is. — Mark Nyquist

So we should allow a catatonic schizophrenic incapable of consenting to taking medication to languish when we know that putting them on some good old Clozaril will benefit them cognitively?

What about someone so deluded they cannot even understand that they are mentally ill? Should we not intervene and help them readjust to society and recover some functionality via medication and therapy, even if it is initially forced?

An example of how ridiculous the psychiatric profession is is the symptom of conspiracy theories. — Mark Nyquist

What does that even mean? Are you saying that psychiatrists are conspiracy-theorists? Or that people center conspiracy theories around psychiatrists? You are not writing clearly.

Genetic processes are entirely physical both in expression and replication so why would the use of the term information even be needed? More of a false projection of our minds onto our environment than anything real. — Mark Nyquist

It is designated as information because it regulates the characteristics that are passed on to offspring. Yes, information might be ubiquitous, but some collections of information can be understood as being essential for understanding certain processes and, thus, such linguistic distinctions are useful and not so redundant.

A Turing machine can implement any computer algorithm that supplies a table of instructions for where symbols are to be printed on strips of paper. Would you say that calling the instructions for where the symbols are printed on the strips of paper information would be redundant? I certainly wouldn't, as the instructions are a collection of rules - which are a form of information - demarcated solely to execute said processes, and thus it is not redundant to designate it as a form of information, even though it reads physical instructions and executes its functions physically.

I mean I can read self-help books about quitting smoking and then quit smoking. Quitting, while it may be a physical process, is indeed a function of the physically stored information in the book, yet you wouldn't not call a book a book, would you?