Man killed by Scientology guard

[De Selby]

I submit that God matters, and that the human spirit matters.  I further submit that a failure to consider the involvement of the spirit in the processes of thinking and emotion is an egregious error.  The development of a science of the mind that omits these factors cannot but result in wrong answers and treatments that are ultimately harmful.

I agree that the spirit and God matter.  I think most psychiatrists would agree with you as well, given that they're mostly religious just like the rest of the population.

The jump you're making here is between "matters" in the absolute, or in any sense, and "is relevant to designing a medication to treat some particular illness." 

How, for example, would affirming the existence of God and talking about the spirit cure, even in theory, cortical blindness?  How would you fit these views in to developing a medicine for autism?

The fact that religion matters to people does not mean that you need to somehow (I'm not even sure how you would do this-is there a prayer or something the scientists should say while they're measuring brain waves?) to include religious beliefs into the results of scientific research.

Saying that religion isn't relevant to studying the functions of the brain doesn't mean it's irrelevant-it just means that you can't add anything to your measured knowledge of the brain with it, and consequently, that it can't produce the sorts of repeatable and tangible results that you need to develop medicine.

[ArfinGreebly]

Taking yourself too seriously:  The way of the Cult.

. . . my favorite cult . . .

Yeah, the problem with any religious organization that strongly believes in the rightness/validity of its teachings, to the point where "everybody must be told" is that serious evangelism is a nuisance to most people.

Some people object to the concept of two dudes in white shirts and ties on bikes cruising the neighborhood, proselytizing their faith.  Others just say "not interested" and let them go on their way.  Others have a problem with parents going door-to-door with their kids spreading the word.

And so it goes.

Kind of a quandary, really.  I mean, if you really believe™ then, well, you really should spread the word.  Which annoys people who don't want to hear the word.


Don't worry about having Mental Health representatives knock on your door, though.

They use a different mechanism to spread the word.  They use the law.  Using the law, they station themselves strategically in schools.  And their doctrine is inserted into the curriculum, along with teacher training.  And schooling is kind of mandatory.  And they brief the teachers on what to look for and what to report.  And when a kid hits the radar (like, maybe he draws a gun on the page where he's doodling), then you get an invitation from the school to come discuss it.  And, if they feel that you're not on board with "the program" or don't fit some template, they can hint that they suspect abuse, and they'd hate to involve Child Protective Services . . .

But, hey, at least they don't bike through your neighborhood, annoying you with pamphlets.

They don't need to proselytize.  All they have to do is enforce.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you don't think synanon was a cult?

[MicroBalrog]

Saying that religion isn't relevant to studying the functions of the brain doesn't mean it's irrelevant-i

If institutional psychiatry was only about studying psycho-somatic stuff like schizophrenia [sp?], which is known to emanate from chemical imbalances in the brain that can be proven and detected, this would be a scientific activity.

However, a lot of the time, that's not what the mental health profession is about. A lot of the time, the disorders are diagnosed by holding a conversation with the patient.

This is something I went through with Army shrinks - first, they nearly committed me and scared me half to death telling me I was completely out of it all, and then - when the doctor was replaced - told me it was all BS and that I was quite sane. The new doctor gave me a lot of educational pep talks about the nature of psychiatry, and encouraged me to read up on the nature of the science. Which is how I gained my new set of opinions.

It turns up that a lot of the non-somatic diseases cannot - and they admit this -be reliably diagnosed.

In summary, when a person is curled up in the corner, whimpering that aliens from Mars are coming to probe him, it's rather easy to tell he's not all right up there. Same when you can do scans of a person's head and tell something is wrong. But it is the weird eccentric guy who can really get hit wrong with the system.

There are a lot of controversies going on with the mental health/child developement/psychiatry/psychology set of professions because of this.

Most rankling for me are the tendencies of these people to invent addictions out of thin air - sex addiction, Internet addiction, anything that people find fun to come back to more than twice = addiction - and the whole thing with Ritalin over-prescription.

This gets worse when they get in touch with the drug industry.

Here you have a product - psych drugs - that they don't have to market to you, they can tie you down - or threaten you with loss of education for your children - and force you to use it. There's billions of dollars involved.

This gets even worse when they get in with coercive government. They're awesome at producing excuses to expand state power.

Does this mean I agree with Scientology's rants that ALL PSYCHIATRY IS EVIL? No. But I see why this is so popular.

[ArfinGreebly]

I agree that the spirit and God matter.  I think most psychiatrists would agree with you as well, given that they're mostly religious just like the rest of the population.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that.

The jump you're making here is between "matters" in the absolute, or in any sense, and "is relevant to designing a medication to treat some particular illness."

I'm not sure how you go about designing a medication for an "illness" whose dynamics are not understood.  If the human spirit is involved in the process, and you pretend that doesn't matter, then you will devise a treatment that attempts to "treat" a condition you think you understand, based on some signals you see on the wire.  Never mind where those signals originate.

How, for example, would affirming the existence of God and talking about the spirit cure, even in theory, cortical blindness?

Uh, I wasn't aware that blindness was a "mental" condition.

How would you fit these views in to developing a medicine for autism?

I guess we'd first have to understand what autism is.  Beyond a set of symptoms.  Yes, I know there are medications that are being used to "treat" autism.  No, I am not aware of any clear definition of what autism even is, beyond vague symptomatic expressions of the problem.  I'd like to know by what means the medical community concluded that the actual being -- the person himself -- the spirit, if you will, is somehow not involved in the problem, and that the condition is completely organic.  That's rhetorical, of course.  The medical community would never look there.

The fact that religion matters to people does not mean that you need to somehow (I'm not even sure how you would do this-is there a prayer or something the scientists should say while they're measuring brain waves?) to include religious beliefs into the results of scientific research.

Prayer?  "Include" religious beliefs?  Uh, no.  You would do what scientists do.  You would discover how to detect the interaction of a spirit with a body.  You might have to infer some stuff, much in the way that the sub-atomic particle guys infer the existence of little tiny itsy-bitsy too-small-to-measure things by the effects they have on their surroundings.  Along the way, you might discover that, for example, the "mind" isn't necessarily the same thing as the "brain."

I don't know why it is that visions of mysticism are evoked by mentions of a spirit.  It just is.  That we have no way in physics to describe it and no way in current science to account for its interaction with bodies is largely a problem of observation and derivation.

Saying that religion isn't relevant to studying the functions of the brain doesn't mean it's irrelevant-it just means that you can't add anything to your measured knowledge of the brain with it, and consequently, that it can't produce the sorts of repeatable and tangible results that you need to develop medicine.

Conventional wisdom is that the brain is the seat of thought and intellect.  If we accept that thought and intellect are the product of chemistry and bio-electronics, then -- as long as the actual mechanisms are properly understood -- the development of chemical medicines is valid.

The existence of a human spirit, as a component of the human condition, however, messes with that model.  If there is a spirit (sorry, we just don't have a handy technical term for that) involved in the business of thought and intellect, and if the mind involves certain non-physical structures as a consequence, then what?  You're looking at the machinery for ways to create remedies for the operator.  Who happens not to be physical.


Look, you've invested a ton of time into a line of study, and I have no illusions that I can snap my fingers and change how you look at things.

I would, however, invite you to take extra care to watch for bits of evidence -- anomalies, if you will -- that point toward the existence of something beyond what your learning has thus far presented to you.

Just keep your eyes open.  That's really all I can ask.

I did, and it changed things for me.

[ArfinGreebly]

you don't think synanon was a cult?

Actually, I wasn't addressing them at all.  I was using the "cult" reference as a starting point for a bit of levity to introduce a different point altogether.

I wasn't really trying to ignore your statement, I was using part of it as a springboard.

That's actually kind of rude.

For which, really, I must apologize.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

no apology needed i was just wondering if you knew something about em i didn't .wouldn't be the first time i got schooled  hopefully not the last

[MicroBalrog]

Many religious history scholars don't even like the use of the word 'cult' altogether, FWIW.

[De Selby]

Arfin,

Well, for one thing I'm religious myself.  However, I do think this creation that we call the body has properties that we can study without reference to religious texts or beliefs, and obviously, that is a good thing to do. 

See, the thing that bothered me most about the scientologist rants on psychiatric care was the general lack of knowledge as to what the discipline entails in the first place.  Studying the brain, it's obvious that physical problems correlate to mental ones-blindness being a good example.  There is such a thing as blindness even with a perfectly functional set of eyes; it's called "cortical blindness" because it originates in the brain (cortex), and not in the organs that give you sight.  That's one of the things these psychologists are dealing with in the lab.

You're right that autism is hard to define-that's why it's the subject of hotly disputed claims in psychology.  There isn't a consensus as to what it is, or how it's caused.  As far as I'm aware, however, no one has presented evidence that some special religious method, or scientology in particular, can cure it or explain it.  That's why investigation goes on using the scientific methods available, to study the brain and the cognitive symptoms that are (arguably, since psychologists do not agree) part of autism.


This statement: 

   That we have no way in physics to describe it and no way in current science to account for its interaction with bodies is largely a problem of observation and derivation.

Is entirely true.  You can't observe a spirit, at least by any definition put forth so far except for the odd ones used by strict materialists, and you therefore can't observe its interaction with anything. 

You can, however, observe the relationship between the brain and cognitive function.  That's why it's called a science.

I guess my experience with this debate is somewhat colored by the results I've personally seen.

I was, in the interactions I had with scientologists, introduced to the claim that scientologist methods could cure blindness and actually provide wizard like powers to practitioners.  However, I never saw any evidence of it.  As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single person who has verifiably been cured of any physical or diagnosed mental illness by an e-meter and talking session.

In my minor dealings with psychiatric/psychological studies, however, I saw concrete results.  There is a machine in the lab at Georgetown that can move your arms and fingers via stimulating your brain-without any action on your part.  I'm not sure how much contact you've had with the mentally ill, but the results of some of the better drug therapies can be dramatic (although, not for every illness of course.) 

[MicroBalrog]

Did you read my post up there, SS?

[De Selby]

There are a lot of controversies going on with the mental health/child developement/psychiatry/psychology set of professions because of this.

Most rankling for me are the tendencies of these people to invent addictions out of thin air - sex addiction, Internet addiction, anything that people find fun to come back to more than twice = addiction - and the whole thing with Ritalin over-prescription.

This is key, however: unlike the claims that I've seen put for by scientologists, the controversial treatments and "word diagnoses" are hotly disputed in psychology.  There is an active debate about the nature and cause of the disorders that everyone agrees are a disorder, and there is also a debate about what is or is not a disorder.

It's not like they force you to memorize the DSM and never deviate from it-the thing changes radically every time it's updated, and it does so because of the fierce debate and frequent cries of "bs" within the discipline.

If you question some method, diagnosis, or category of illness, the odds are extremely high that a vocal and significant psychologist shares your view.

But yes, I do see why this anti-psych view is popular.  It is scary to think your whole life could be changed by one diagnosis that may or may not even correspond to an actual illness.  But for the most part, such things are a product of the social institution that wishes to select a certain kind of candidate, and are entirely independent of the scientific study of the mind.

Edit: Micro, posted a reply as you asked...

Edit 2:  This whole interesting chat reminds me....Micro, if you speak German, as of 2003 there was some work by a german named Wilhelm Windelband that was of keene interest to at least some psychology types in America, but as far as I know the translation had only been piecemeal for particular studies and classes.

Any familiarity with it, or heard of a relatively complete english version of his works?

[MicroBalrog]

You see, here's the problem.

A lot of psychiatry/psychology is not a science in the same sense that medicine is -as you probably know. Which is not in itself a problem - what I am studying is not a science in the same sense medicine and physics are, either.

The problem is the social context.

In the classical liberal thinking, we assume most humans are morally competent/sane/rational by default, responsible to make their own decision. To some extent, having a 'science' whose representatives are empowered socially to declare individuals incompetent - and in some countries, even get them imprisoned/committed, is highly disturbing.

We now have claims that up to 50% of the population is mentally ill to some extent and requires 'caring'.

We now have demands that mental health screening should be made mandatory for all to make sure you are not one of these 50%.

We now have up to 10% [15% in some countries] of our children on psych drugs, and parents get threatened for refusing them.

This is highly creepy in my mind.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

and you can take thesame person with sa me symptoms to 5 docs and get 5 different diagnosis   heck i can get as much consistency from witch doctors

[Tallpine]

As far as this spirit vs brain thing, I have to agree with Sir Francis Bacon who said "I stink, therefore I ham."

[ArfinGreebly]

introduced to the claim that scientologist methods could cure blindness and actually provide wizard like powers to practitioners

Oh, gawd.

You know, every subject seems to have its idiots.

There are actual texts, you know.  And a literate person can actually read them.  And they don't say that *expletive deleted*it.

I will stipulate that the mind has an unusual ability to hamper and hinder the body, and that when relief from that hampering and hindering is experienced, the results can seem miraculous.  Don't take that to mean that one can claim "miracles" in the conventional sense.

Like I said, every subject . . . idiots.

[ArfinGreebly]

"I stink, therefore I ham."

Clearly, sig line material.

 

[Perd Hapley]

This is highly creepy in my mind.

I'm pretty sure that everything going on in your mind is creepy.   

[KD5NRH]

Sorry to unjack the thread, but has the security video leaked to youtube yet?

[roo_ster]

KD5NRH:

Now you done it!  Thread jacking is not just optional, it is mandatory at APS.

Getting us back on track is the surest way to doom the thread.

[ArfinGreebly]

Those guys are serious about their security and privacy.  The CIA could learn a thing or two from them.

I don't imagine you will see a "leaked" version of the video unless the police leak it.

What you might find is a released version of the video, although I can't imagine what might incline them to want to release it.

All said and done, I think there's a good chance that video will not be appearing on the web.

[Perd Hapley]

Those guys are serious about their security and privacy.  The CIA could learn a thing or two from them.

Shucks.  Maybe that is why people are so creeped out by the CofS.  Just a thought. 

[ArfinGreebly]

Shucks.  Maybe that is why people are so creeped out by the CofS.  Just a thought.

More than a little truth in that.

Pretty clear that they learned early on that talking in public (i.e. to the press) can produce unexpected and harmful results.

Here's a little piece of trivia:

Back in the sixties, Hubbard offered to make his techniques available to NASA to improve things like reaction times in astronauts.  The government's response was an FBI raid on the DC church.  That case was ten years in the courts before CofS won it and had all the confiscated materials returned.  Ten years.  I was in Europe working with them when that happened, and I had to ask what all the celebrating was about.  There were pictures of the FBI returning a large truckload of stuff.  I couldn't believe what I was hearing and reading.  The government -- MY government -- that I had served in the military, had raided a church for offering to help NASA??

Of course, that kind of established the battle lines.  The church made the Nixon "enemies list" and had to start paying attention to things like security, where that stuff had never really been a concern before.  I mean, hey, here you are, you're a new church, you have some cool stuff you'd like to share, so you offer to make it available in what you believe is the national interest . . . and you score . . . a raid?  Great.  Fabulous.  Okay, I guess the world isn't all sweetness and light.  I guess we need to starting thinking about security and defense.

Of course, from the government's perspective, that didn't entirely turn out like they'd hoped.  The CofS was instrumental in exposing their COINTELPRO operation.  Remember?  Hoover's little program for the repression of dissent?

So, you might think the CofS could be somewhat justified in being . . . uh . . . circumspect in matters of trust and privacy.

They've had to deal with a real bogeyman.  The kind of thing about which the tinfoil hatters just speculate, they've experienced live and in person.

So, yeah, I would guess they take security seriously.

In their shoes, so would I.

[Perd Hapley]

Please quit calling it a church. 

[MicroBalrog]

Please quit calling it a church. 

Why? Because you insist it is not one?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Perd Hapley]

   I'm not asking you to buy anything.  I'm certainly not asking you to buy the notion that some group is a church, just because they say they are.  And I'm not the one saying "Ooh, how can you raid us?  We're a church!  See, you can't investigate us, because we call ourselves a church." 

He can call it whatever he wants.  It just turns my stomach.   


I've been looking around for this CofS, NASA, raid thing, but all I can find is Snow White.  Is that it?