Going all philosophical

lol so this would be like a benign fascism?

We are turning into machines

this thread turned out pretty good

thanks joshier

should natural selection work the same way on every planet inhabited by living beings?

one would think

  On 2/15/2010 at 2:02 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 2/15/2010 at 1:55 AM, fox said:

  On 2/15/2010 at 1:49 AM, lumpenprol said:

If they cure schizophrenia, we may no longer have schizophrenic artists. It's hard to advocate for mental illness, and yet a world without mental illness would be a less human place.

 

i can think of any number of mentally ill folks who would happily disagree with you.

 

 

disagree with me about what, though? I'm talking about a cure for schizophrenia, not just treatment to make someone functional, but a real cure. If they could genetically modify people to "cure" schizophrenia, I think it's likely that a certain unique view on the world would be lost. To give you an example, I knew a girl with multiple personality disorder who was an amazing painter. If she hadn't been sexually abused, she probably wouldn't have developed multiple personality disorder and who's to say if she would have become such a unique artist. To put it less controversially, would Robert Graves have been the same artist he was if WWI hadn't happened? Would Monet have painted his late masterpieces if his vision could have been corrected? If we succeed in our goal of making the entire world secure and predictable, we lose something. It's a catch-22. Our very human desire for security is somewhat at odds with preserving the full spectrum of human-ness.

i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you're getting awfully close to condoning some pretty bad shit there. i don't see how I would be any less human if I didn't have tragic things like mental illness going on in other people. it's very easy (and, i'll admit, tempting) to look at someone else's screwed up life and say "yeah, but their art really made me happy" - that does not make human tragedy morally, socially or otherwise desirable in my opinion. schizophrenia is not just a way of seeing the world. it is a progressive, degenerative disorder which slowly robs a person not just of reality but also their ability to function period, and for far too many people medication does little to help. too many people are tortured by their symptoms for me to see much of an upside. one of the most dangerous times for someone with schizophrenia is when they realize they have it and everything that that means.

Did anyone explain double guitars?

  On 2/16/2010 at 12:06 PM, thejacketloose said:

Did anyone explain double guitars?

Christ, that was the easiest question asked on this thread.

Double necked guitars exist so that a musician can have two different guitar sounds available without having to switch between instruments.

Typically, the two necks will either have different stringing (such as 6-string and 12-string) or different tonal ranges (standard guitar and tenor) or simply different tunings.

That way, during a live performance, 2 very different guitar sounds can be used in the same piece without having to have two guitarists, or switch guitars while playing (which can be very tricky, not just from a point of having to stop playing while you take the guitar off, but also setting levels, effects chains and the like.)

  On 2/15/2010 at 4:22 AM, fox said:

  On 2/15/2010 at 2:02 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 2/15/2010 at 1:55 AM, fox said:

  On 2/15/2010 at 1:49 AM, lumpenprol said:

If they cure schizophrenia, we may no longer have schizophrenic artists. It's hard to advocate for mental illness, and yet a world without mental illness would be a less human place.

 

i can think of any number of mentally ill folks who would happily disagree with you.

 

 

disagree with me about what, though? I'm talking about a cure for schizophrenia, not just treatment to make someone functional, but a real cure. If they could genetically modify people to "cure" schizophrenia, I think it's likely that a certain unique view on the world would be lost. To give you an example, I knew a girl with multiple personality disorder who was an amazing painter. If she hadn't been sexually abused, she probably wouldn't have developed multiple personality disorder and who's to say if she would have become such a unique artist. To put it less controversially, would Robert Graves have been the same artist he was if WWI hadn't happened? Would Monet have painted his late masterpieces if his vision could have been corrected? If we succeed in our goal of making the entire world secure and predictable, we lose something. It's a catch-22. Our very human desire for security is somewhat at odds with preserving the full spectrum of human-ness.

 

i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you're getting awfully close to condoning some pretty bad shit there. i don't see how I would be any less human if I didn't have tragic things like mental illness going on in other people. it's very easy (and, i'll admit, tempting) to look at someone else's screwed up life and say "yeah, but their art really made me happy" - that does not make human tragedy morally, socially or otherwise desirable in my opinion. schizophrenia is not just a way of seeing the world. it is a progressive, degenerative disorder which slowly robs a person not just of reality but also their ability to function period, and for far too many people medication does little to help. too many people are tortured by their symptoms for me to see much of an upside. one of the most dangerous times for someone with schizophrenia is when they realize they have it and everything that that means.

what is the benefit to society of works created by the mentally ill? sure you can play the card "well i know someone with mental disorder x and it really makes their life miserable!" but that's not an objective way to measure benefit to society as a whole. sure it could be called selfish to look at these people, sometimes completely unable to function but producing fantastic works of art, and say "the benefit to society clearly outweighs the misery brought upon this one person." but if the art is affecting thousands or millions of people, is it worth it? what if it introduces a whole new technique or perspective in its creative arena?

  On 2/16/2010 at 12:55 PM, Masonic Boom said:

  On 2/16/2010 at 12:06 PM, thejacketloose said:

Did anyone explain double guitars?

 

Christ, that was the easiest question asked on this thread.

 

Double necked guitars exist so that a musician can have two different guitar sounds available without having to switch between instruments.

 

Typically, the two necks will either have different stringing (such as 6-string and 12-string) or different tonal ranges (standard guitar and tenor) or simply different tunings.

 

That way, during a live performance, 2 very different guitar sounds can be used in the same piece without having to have two guitarists, or switch guitars while playing (which can be very tricky, not just from a point of having to stop playing while you take the guitar off, but also setting levels, effects chains and the like.)

No, i'm saying like, double guitars. You know what i mean? What is that? Think about it.

Although all this talk about mental illness is an interesting topic of debate, I think many of you are going down the wrong path with this.

There's been a long strand of dissent that much of what we think of as "mental illness" is actually exaggeration of or extreme examples of behaviour that would otherwise be fairly normal and even adaptive.

The same mental processes that in extreme states produce schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are the ones that in less extreme examples produce creativity. Extreme states that manifest as asbergers or autism can be on the same spectrum as those that manifest intelligence.

There's a whole movement - which started WRT autism but can also be applied to varying levels of other mental illnesses - about "Neurodiversity".

The idea that there isn't a black/white litmus test of normal/sane and autistic/mentally ill - but rather a spectrum of behaviour, some of which may be more or less helpful or problematic in different situations. These same genes that have different expressions are actually quite healthy for the human race at large, or we wouldn't have evolved them.

So it's not a question of benefits to society/plight of the individual. It's a question of Neurodiversity within humans actually being an adaptation which is in some way beneficial to the human race.

I'm also wondering about the double guitars

By "double guitars" are you guys talking about something other than this?

If so, please provide examples, because I wasn't aware of any other usage. (Indeed, if there was, I'd kinda like to know about it.)

are you Data?

Ha ha, no, just someone who really likes weird guitars.

it's not so much about the physical neurodiversity as it is about functioning socially. the society is able to accept extreme cases of certain things and not others. we make our aggressive males into military generals and ufc fighters and they appear to function just fine. it's acceptable in our society for teenage girls to be anorexic, as long as they're not fat. however we do not accept paedos, not even a little.

the amount of benefit to society absolutely depends on what the society accepts and rejects. neuroscience is essentially a random number generator in that it produces an incredible amount of variations, some fit to function in the society, some not even close. "mental illness" in many cases is the result of the societies perception of unique behaviors and not being able to rationalize them within the current norms of the society.

i'm not really disagreeing with you here MB, just pointing out that while neuroscience gives us all these kooky behavioral combinations, society ultimately determines whether these are beneficial or not and has often exercised the power to eradicate the "illness" (to an extent).

  On 2/16/2010 at 6:00 PM, Masonic Boom said:

 

 

The idea that there isn't a black/white litmus test of normal/sane and autistic/mentally ill - but rather a spectrum of behaviour, some of which may be more or less helpful or problematic in different situations. These same genes that have different expressions are actually quite healthy for the human race at large, or we wouldn't have evolved them.

 

i like this idea but its a long way off from being popularly accepted.. i mean, the mental health field seems to be going in the other direction. too much binary thinking

  On 2/16/2010 at 6:25 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 2/16/2010 at 6:00 PM, Masonic Boom said:

 

 

The idea that there isn't a black/white litmus test of normal/sane and autistic/mentally ill - but rather a spectrum of behaviour, some of which may be more or less helpful or problematic in different situations. These same genes that have different expressions are actually quite healthy for the human race at large, or we wouldn't have evolved them.

 

 

i like this idea but its a long way off from being popularly accepted.. i mean, the mental health field seems to be going in the other direction. too much binary thinking

i don't think the mental health field is becoming more binary at all. maybe when you look at pharmaceuticals and their "drug you for anything" philosophy, but heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy capitalism.

  On 2/16/2010 at 6:29 PM, theSun said:

  On 2/16/2010 at 6:25 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 2/16/2010 at 6:00 PM, Masonic Boom said:

 

 

The idea that there isn't a black/white litmus test of normal/sane and autistic/mentally ill - but rather a spectrum of behaviour, some of which may be more or less helpful or problematic in different situations. These same genes that have different expressions are actually quite healthy for the human race at large, or we wouldn't have evolved them.

 

 

i like this idea but its a long way off from being popularly accepted.. i mean, the mental health field seems to be going in the other direction. too much binary thinking

 

i don't think the mental health field is becoming more binary at all. maybe when you look at pharmaceuticals and their "drug you for anything" philosophy, but heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy capitalism.

well how can i not factor in the whole pharmaceutical industry thing? its completely toxic and extremely influential..

  On 2/16/2010 at 6:22 PM, theSun said:

it's not so much about the physical neurodiversity as it is about functioning socially. the society is able to accept extreme cases of certain things and not others. we make our aggressive males into military generals and ufc fighters and they appear to function just fine. it's acceptable in our society for teenage girls to be anorexic, as long as they're not fat. however we do not accept paedos, not even a little.

I dunno... seems like it's OK in this society to have non-consensual sex with children if you're a movie director that occasionaly comes out with something like Chinatown, but that's another story...

  Quote

the amount of benefit to society absolutely depends on what the society accepts and rejects. neuroscience is essentially a random number generator in that it produces an incredible amount of variations, some fit to function in the society, some not even close. "mental illness" in many cases is the result of the societies perception of unique behaviors and not being able to rationalize them within the current norms of the society.

 

i'm not really disagreeing with you here MB, just pointing out that while neuroscience gives us all these kooky behavioral combinations, society ultimately determines whether these are beneficial or not and has often exercised the power to eradicate the "illness" (to an extent).

I agree that it's about being able to function within one's society. The whole idea about "coping" and "coping skills" as opposed to trying to "cure" certain illnesses.

The problem is that we are living in a society that increasingly medicalises any sort of deviation from The Norm (and I'm not even sure how that norm is defined, considering the way that very very normal things like pregnancy are medicalised.) If one can create and market a pill or operation for something, it's fine to call it a medical condition or even a disease.

So the whole idea of "curing" mental illness is really a very strange one, considering that in erradicating extreme (and non-functioning) behaviour, you'd have to erradicate genes which produce a whole lot of benefit for humans.

So yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing at all. It's just an odd idea to start with.

THAT WAS LOTS OF X-POSTS - I mean, yeah, the whole pharmeceutical industry - yup, spot on. Exactly.

i understand, but i don't think that whole method of treatment has a whole lot of the research community behind it.

  On 2/16/2010 at 6:33 PM, theSun said:

i understand, but i don't think that whole method of treatment has a whole lot of the research community behind it.

Yeah - that x-posted. The problem is, the idea of accepting neurodiversity and teaching coping skills is a lot more labour intensive and less product-oriented therefore of course the "research community" isn't interested, even if it works.

other way around. the *academic* research community is not philosophically in line with the business practices of pharmaceuticals.

the problem is simply that there is too much money to be made, so there will always be a market for this shit.

also, many people are too lazy to understand complex issues such as neuroscience and how it affects them day to day, so they want to believe this magic pill will work and won't have a slew of unintended consequences.

  On 2/16/2010 at 6:38 PM, theSun said:

also, many people are too lazy to understand complex issues such as neuroscience and how it affects them day to day, so they want to believe this magic pill will work and won't have a slew of unintended consequences.

This is 100% OTM in so many ways.

It's a seductive idea, Happiness in pill form. But kind of up there with the philosophers stone in terms of whether such a thing is even possible.

women tend to look for a quick fix, i find.