Note:  While I do hold a masters degree in social work mental health and a bacehlors degree in psychology, I am not a licensed professional and am not legally qualified to speak professionally on the diagnoses of mental illnesses.

That being said, the DSM-IV is the basis upon which all mental illnesses are diagnosed.  The DSM-IV itself is simply a book outlining categorical criteria that form the basis for mental illnesses.

Do I think that mental illnesses exist?  Well, that depends.   Now, if I were to say definitively that "yes, mental illnesses exist," then I would seem to be contradicting myself when I went into the whole "identity implies stability over time."  In other words, if someone was and is mentally ill, then this would imply that the mental illness would never, EVER go away, nor would that person have been free of mental illness at any time in the past.

So, why use the phrase 'mental illness' to begin with?  Well, why say 'AIDS' or 'cold' or 'flu'?  Isn't every AIDS case different in intensity, duration, etc.?  Don't some people recover from colds in 5 days while others recover in 7?

The phrase 'mental illness' is used to reflect a certain group of characteristics that seem to reflect certain patterns.  The term 'depression,' for example, is simply used to describe a certain number of categorical criteria in an individual.  Using such phrases have benefits -- for example, they make communication between professionals and academics easier.  In other words, they help you to form a general idea of what a given person is going through, what their characteristics might be, what you may be able to expect from them, etc.

My personal belief is that the phrase 'mental illness' is a term just as any other, but truly it is the 'experience' that we must try to understand.  When I say the word 'apple,'  what kind of apple did you think of?  Was it a red apple?  Why didn't you think of a green apple?  Should we hound anybody that uses the phrase 'apples and oranges' for not saying 'red apples and green apples?'

Long story short, any good mental health professional/paraprofessional/student should learn to understand experiences, and from that understanding we can learn ways to bring about more positive experiences.

It is from my emphasis on understanding experiences that my emphasis on identifying with an observer arises.  Observation is a fundamental, self-evident experience.  It aligns with Occam's Razor, and it is hard to get more fundamental than statements like "I observe" or "I am."

A great question:

Here is my humble advice.

1)  First, try to identify more with yourself as being an 'observer' rather than a 'participant.'  If you think "I am thinking," try to shift it to the idea that "there is thinking."  If you think "I am sad," try to shift it to the idea that "there is sadness."

Thoughts are like boxes.  Whenever we have a thought or idea, its as if our mind jumps inside that thought-box and whatever that thought-box contains becomes our entire reality.  Now, if that thought-box is full of negative things and we jump inside of it, then all of those negative things can hurt us.

The trick is to learn how to float above and hover around those thought boxes.  If we can make the box be "over there," then our mind becomes free.  Thoughts are the constraints on the freedom of our mind.  By learning to identify ourselves as observers, we can place some distance between ourselves and the boxes.

Now, you might be thinking, "Well, what about good thoughts?  Why not jump inside those boxes?"  Well, why need to?  Have you ever just looked up at the clouds and enjoyed the view, or watched the sunset?  It's not like you need to be right next to the clouds or the sun to enjoy them, you can enjoy them from afar.  Besides, if there's many good thought boxes, why jump inside only one of them?  Why not simply enjoy all of them from a distance?

2.)  When you learn to identify with yourself as being an observer rather than a participant, then naturally your desires will decrease in frequency and intensity.  You will learn to be more content and satisfied with what you observe. 

Keep in mind, observation is related to stillness.  Any good photographer knows that in order to get the most clarity in a photograph, he needs to be calm and still.  Observation itself is the method of stillness and calmness.  When we become better observers, we naturally become more calm and more still, and less anxious and stressed. 

I agree with you completely, so I'm actually not sure why you disagreed with what I said.


I acknowledged this in my original post when I stated that root cause #2 is an offshoot of root cause #1.  Perhaps it is the phrase "root cause" that tripped you up, and to this extent I agree that it is a misnomer.  In fact, I would say that root causes #1 and #2 are both offshoots of root cause #3, in which case both are misnomers.  And, I also could point to ways in which root cause #3 is an off shoot of some other primary cause.

When I began typing this post, I faced an immediate conundrum:  How do I convey what I want to say in a way that speaks to a wide variety of people, but also in a way that won't leave some logical/philosophical purist in the dust.  This is why I completey left out any discussion of a comprehensive model which would necessarily entail self-resolving logical paradoxes explained by relative levels of syntax (where higher level logical syntaxes can help resolve paradoxes in lower level logical syntaxes).  I didn't want things to get so utterly confusing to the point where the intended message would be lost to 99.9% of the population.  I am posting this more for practical reasons.


My reply to this is mostly conveyed above.  Again, it's hard to present a comprehensive model for such assertions without getting into a "tower of turtles" which requires a very lengthy philosophical argument to even attempt to explain and resolve.  I am trying to present the information in a way which I recognize is ultimately fallible in its logic but will still provide a basis by which people can benefit.  And, by benefit, I mean to benefit in ways that I think are both atypical with respect to typical psychological therapeutic models, and are also not so overwhelmingly complex that it would take months if not years of contemplation to understand.

Don't forget, virtually any 'sound' conclusion is true on one syntax level, but is invalid on a higher syntax level.

Edit:  A good analogy for the "tower of turtles" would be the physical dimensions.  Let's say that I assert "That bird is over there."  Well, in the 3rd-dimension, that statement can be true.  In the 4th dimension, that statement is both true and false because the 4th dimension represents the sum of all possible configurations of the 3rd dimension.  So, in the 4th dimension, that 'bird' is both 'over there' and 'not over there,' and the 'bird' is also a 'non-bird.'  

But, then any statement made about the 4th dimension yields the same problem, and you need to go to a higher syntax (the 5th dimension) to shed light on the issue.  And so on, and so on.

Logic itself works the same way.  "A barber has a sign in front of his shop that states 'I will shave all those, and those who do not shave themselves.'"   This is a paradox.  If the barber doesn't shave himself, then he shaves himself.  Most people would just say "this is plain stupid," but we must remember that the assertion has already been made, and if we simply shift to a higher level of syntax, then these paradoxes become self-resolving.

The problem with human intellect is that it only works according to yes OR no operations, and not yes AND no operations.  Every (not-every) word (not-word) in (not-in) this (not-this) sentence (not-sentence) is (not-is) only (not-only) understood (not-understood) through (not-through) yes (not-yes) or (not-or) no (not-no) operations (not-operations).

As a result, we must pick one syntax level and use it as the highest level of syntactic operation, and then try to explain everything else as a lower level of syntactic operations.  If we were able to intellectually perform yes AND no operations simultaneously, then this wouldn't be so fucking confusing

I'm not sure I understand what your point is with respect to your first sentence.  Pain is pain, and it is simply an experience as any other.  As I have stated, I contend pain is not equivalent to suffering.  The distinction I am making here is that pain (for lack of a better term) is experienced prior to any interpretation of it, even the interpretation of calling it pain.  But, for the sake of this discussion, I have to call it something to convey the message.  The 'suffering' that can result after the experience has been interpreted as pain is the product of the drama that unfolds in the mind through negative thoughts about the future as a result of some past experience (e.g. "I hurt my arm in the past, and now my future will be worse because of x, y, and z."  But, as I do not understand what your point was, this was probably an off-topic response.

Also, as I stated in a previous post, blaming "desire" as an isolated phenomenon is not accurate.  Desire is intended, and the intent to follow (attach) or let go of (detach) from desire is also a choice.  The choice of whether to attach to, or detach from, a given desire is what makes desire itself intended.  In other words, the desires that we have now are the product of attaching ourselves to (or following) similar desires in the past.  Desire is habitual in nature.

I'm off for the evening.  I will gladly respond to all posts tomorrow

Good question.

To clarify, I'm not saying that desire itself is to blame, for each person has the choice of whether to follow that desire (and thus perpetuate it) or work to overcome that desire (and thus decrease the intensity and frequency with which it arises).

The nature of desire is that it can never be fulfilled.  Take sex or drugs for example.  The desire to use drugs (and then actually using them) tends to increase the desire to use drugs.  The desire to have sex (and then actually going out and trying to get or having it) tends to increase the desire to have sex.

Desire itself is intentional whether it is conscious or unconscious desire.  And, because it is intentional, it can be systematically increased or decreased by chasing after the object of desire or letting go of the object of desire respectively (attachment vs. detachment).

Ok, but let's break down what you said.

1)  Why did the damage occur to the brain?  Was it the act of abuse alone that damaged the brain, independent of anything else?  Was there in fact something else that caused the damage?  Was it a combination of things?

Science and evidence also shows us that the beliefs and thoughts we have have indirect and direct changes on brain and body.  Indirectly, this can be through intention.  For example, the thought of wanting to smoke marijuana --> leads to intention and action of smoking marijuana -- > leads to effects on the brain which can be damaging over time.

Directly, thoughts can also have an impact on the brain/body.  The most obvious example would be thinking of moving your arm and then actually doing it.  Next, try focusing on a positive word like "love" or "happiness" for hours on end and you will feel the effects of more efficient dopamine transmission.  Studies have also shown that the muscles of those who mentally imagined themselves performing a workout routine received about 30% the amount of stimulation that they would have received had they actually physically performed the same workout routine.  This gives credence to the idea that if a person simply believes they have been damaged, then the damage can manifest itself physically.

2)  Also consider the event from the offenders point of view.  The offender commited said abuse through some combination of the 3 root causes I mentioned as well, especially desire.  Now, as I have already pointed out that nature-vs.-nurture is a false dichotomy, then his desire will have its consequences on the environment as well as himself.  In other words, the root causes of mental illness as manifested in one person can cause negative effects on the environment, including other people.  This is how community psychology functions, and there truly are such things as "sick" and "healing" communities.

Actually, I think it's based primarily and fundamentally on root cause #3 that I listed (i.e. identifying with a false sense of concept), and that this one little/huge mistake leads to virtually everything else.  Although, I also think that this mistake is not entirely our 'fault' as it is something that also has been passed down as a 'predisposition' of sorts through countless generations.

Excellent question.  I would respond as follows:

First, I remember in my undergraduate psychology class a study we reviewed in class with our professor.  This study studied the effects of child abuse on children of various ages.  I truly need to find this study again as I've brought it up in many conversations, but the results of the study indicated that if the abuse occurred before a certain age (specifically, before the time of memory formation or concrete identity formation) then the negative effects of this abuse were minimized to some degree.  While the brain naturally and continually forms associations of the world, it can do so consciously or unconsciously.  As a result, while these early-abused children may still grow up with feelings and associations that the world is a more dangerous and stressful place relative to children who were not abused at all, there was less internalization of the abuse relative to children who were abused at later ages because a concrete concept of identity had not formed yet.  

Second, I contend there is a difference between pain and suffering.  For example, let's say you break your arm.  Obviously, this is painful and this pain can be experienced.  But, I contend that suffering comes from subsequent mental processes such as "now that I've broken my arm, I cannot do x, y, and z, in the future and so my future will be bad."  Relating this to child or sexual abuse, the actual event of abuse is temporary, and while this event can be extraordinarily painful, it is from the following mental processes that mental suffering occurs.  Please do not mistake me for being insensitive to those who have experienced this kind of trauma.  I am in no way saying that the negative associations formed from such an experience are easy to overcome; I am simply trying to provide a logical understanding of mental illnesses themselves.

Third, the preceding 2 paragraphs encompass elements of all 3 root causes that I listed.  For example, the person who has experienced child abuse likely desires that the abuse never happened.  This incorporates both the dissatisfaction associated with desire itself as well as wanting to control things that are beyond that person's control (i.e. to change a past event).  Finally, I would contend that the 3rd root cause, identifying with a false concept of identity, is also present.  Who was abused?  This can be analyzed on 2 levels:

Level 1:  Who was abused?  If you were the child that was being abused, are you still the child and are you still being abused?

Level 2:  If you are an observer, and you observe yourself as having the body of the child that was abused, then were you even abused?  (I.e. was the 'observer' abused?)  This is the hardest concept to grasp.  If I, the observer (the subject) can witness my body (an object), my thoughts (objects), or pain/discomfort (objects), then this implies that I am not any of these observed things.  In other words, I contend that I as an observer cannot possibly be my body, my pain, or my thoughts because I am observing them.  The things that I observe are "over there."

I have boiled down the root causes of mental illness to 3 things; feedback and comments/challenges are encouraged.

1)  Desire (I'll go with the Buddha on this one)
2)  Attempting to control things that are beyond one's control (an offshoot of desire)
3)  Identification with a false concept of identity.

Brief explanations:

1)  Desire:  Whenever a person has any type of desire, it implies that they are dissatisfied with what currently 'is.'  Dissatisfaction implies discontent and a lack of happiness.  If you want something that you don't currently have, this is a problem.

2)  Attempting to control things that are beyond one's control:  This is one of the leading causes of anxiety, anger, etc.  How often do we define our own happiness according to the actions of other people, communities, governments, girlfriends/boyfriends, husbands/wives, etc.?  How often do we become frustrated when our attempts to change these people, communities, governments, etc. fail?

3)  Identification with a false concept of identity:  Who are you?  How did you reach that conclusion?  According to all 11 definitions of identity in Webster's Dictionary, identity implies stability over time.  Yet, how often do we identity/define ourselves conditionally?  For example, let's say that someone says, "I am a teacher."  Ok, great.  Now, if your job is in jeopardy, then your identity is also in jeopardy!  Now, in contrast, how many would have answered this question by saying "I am an observer"?  For, as long as we live, we observe.

Note:  I would expect one of the most common challenges to these assertions would be, "Well, what about chemical imbalances?  What about genetic predispositions?"  To this, I would remind everyone that environment vs. genes (i.e. nature vs. nurture) is a false dichotomy.  It is known scientifically that interactions with our environment has effects on the genome which are then passed down and inherited generation by generation.  Thus, I would assert that any 'genetic predispositions' for a mental illness are the results of the 3 root causes that I listed to begin with, but in previous generations.

False dichotomy.  I'm a miner, and a certain % of my mined Bitcoins currently goes towards the purchase of gold and silver while the rest gets stashed.  I've already paid off my mining hardware.  So yes, I am spending coins, and I'm also getting more without having to expend any additional resources (especially because electricity is included in my rental agreement).

And yes, I've determined that I will not remove those BTC until it becomes accepted globally.  It's my lotto-ticket-retirement-fund. 

Ok...3 questions:

How many coins have been created already?

How many current Bitcoin users are there?

Now, why do you think that suddenly the rest of the entire world is going to get a proportionate cut of not only the remaining BTC, but also the BTC currently in existence?

If you need another example, I'll give you a personal one.  I keep a balance of between 50-500 BTC in my savings.  It will never go below this.  Why?  Because I've determined so.  Now, how many others do you think keep a minimum balance or a savings balance?  My guess is, quite a lot.

Seriously, this isn't hard to understand.

In practical terms it means just exactly what I said -- disproportionate wealth distribution is likely to perpetuate itself.  The consequences of this would likely be similar to what we see in society today, namely that social distancing between the extremely wealth and the non-wealthy leads to things like corruption.

Ok, so they spend some BTC.  Right now that doesn't mean anything because the Bitcoin community is still extremely small.  Again, if Bitcoin becomes totally mainstream, then we will all be a part of that upper echelon.  1% of the world population is ~60,000,000 people.  The problem will come if (the hypothetical if) Bitcoin becomes accepted as the dominant form of currency by billions of people.  As long as you have at least a few BTCs, you will be among the most wealthy Bitcoin owners in the world if this happens.  By this point, prices would be denominated in things like mBTC and uBTC.  

I'm not really sure what you're not understanding.  You're talking about BTCs being spread around the (hypothetical) future 1%, or more like .01%.  It doesn't matter if people are spending them now...it only matters if they spend all of them (e.g. such that they would have a balance of < 1 BTC) at the time that Bitcoin is used globally by the mainstream population.

Edit:  In other words, a likely future scenario is this:
100 people own > 1000 BTC
10,000 people own > 100 BTC
100,000 people own > 1 BTC
7,000,000,000 own ~ .001 BTC

I actually agree with the "the rich get richer" contention.

But, it's not necessarily because of what's happening now, but because of what has already happened in the few short years of Bitcoins existence.

Bitcoin is already distributed to extreme disproportion.  What was it that Zhoutong claimed?  Something along the lines of '5% of the Bitcoinica population carried 98% of the wealth?'  Not sure whether this was referring to BTC or fiat or if I quoted these percentages correctly, but they are close.

Even still, I think it's fair to say that an overwhelming percentage of Bitcoins are distributed among a relatively few number of people.  It doesn't matter whether this is due to the risk that early adopters took.  If Bitcoin becomes mainstream, it is likely that this disproportionate distribution of BTC wealth will continue to perpetuate itself.

To this extent, I think this is a legitimate issue and it's not an easy one to solve.  Regardless, I think a world with disproportionate Bitcoin distribution is better than one with disproportionate fiat distribution.

I also realize that if Bitcoin becomes totally mainstream to the extent that we hope it will, almost everybody on this forum will be included among the 'relatively few' at the top of the pyramid.  But, I think we're kidding ourselves if we think that Bitcoin is some kind of answer to the wealth distribution problem in the world.  It will take something else entirely to address poverty issues.

You're honestly proud of this?  Why?  Let me guess, you rationalize your ethics along the lines of something like, "Well, they were dumb enough to fall for it!  If they were smarter they wouldn't have gotten scammed!"

Or, maybe you're just so totally in denial of the relationship between actual innocence (child-like innocence) and trust that you've successfully managed to convince yourself of a certain sense of entitlement, despite the fact that you've failed to realize that you're a complete and utter failure to society and can't admit to yourself or anyone else that you wouldn't have the slightest chance of competing for an honest job.  Why?  Because you're stupid, cowardly, and can't adapt to the hard world we live in.  Weakling.

Face it dude, your parents failed to teach you responsibility, and you failed to learn any respectable skills and traits that would allow you to redeem your utter lack of value.

Fucking dunce. 

Oh yes, and I must be allowed to take a picture of you with a shoe on your head.

Yes, I saw your 'other' loan request thread for the 'biggest loan ever' on these forums.

And I'm sure you'd be willing to provide all the necessary information such as two forms of Gov't ID, photo ID, proof of residence, phone-number corresponding to said residence, and preferably a face-to-face meeting to sign the contract?  Oh, and I'd like video evidence of those two mini-rigs you say you have up and running.

If you "don't care" what the percentage cut is, I'd gladly buy a plane ticket to come meet you as I'm sure the cut would cover the plane fees.  You offered  'double' or even 'triple' repayment in the other thread, correct?

I remember a long time ago, I made a post with a similar idea, but Bitcoin would instead be "backed" by the one thing that is essential to its continued existence:  Computers.

A joint also means a club or a location.  As in " 'eyyyyy welcome to da joint!"