On 12/28/06, Johnathan Corgan <jcorgan.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 00:37 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > Sure, it's a defect in the brain chemistry, but the delusional person
> will give
> > you his reasons for his belief:
>
> [...]
>
> > This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious
> convictions, who will cite
> > evidence in support of their beliefs up to a point, but it soon becomes
> clear that no
> > matter how paltry this evidence is shown to be, they will still maintain
> their belief.
>
> I do wonder how many non-religious beliefs are the same way, i.e.,
> incorrigible in spite of the absence of evidence, or even contrary to
> evidence, simply because they are convenient or permeate one's
> surrounding culture.
>
> > The difference is that these people do not change their way of thinking
> in response to
> > antipsychotic medication.
>
> Which is fascinating to behold, as I have witnessed this very same, in
> both directions, on many occasions, as patients have gone on and off
> their medication. They will also go to great lengths to justify their
> change in belief structure when it's obvious it's the effect of the
> chemical on their disease process.
>
> There is a subtlety to the religious qualification you make above,
> however. There are indeed religious-oriented delusions which go away on
> medication, but they tend to be ones that were only acquired through the
> course of the patient's illness. Those acquired through detailed
> indoctrination in youth tend to be unaffected, as you mention.
>
> -Johnathan
--------------
to Johnathan's
" I do wonder how many non-religious beliefs are the same way, i.e.,
incorrigible in spite of the absence of evidence, or even contrary to
evidence, simply because they are convenient or permeate one's
surrounding culture."
JM:
"Evidence" is tricky. An acceptance may be controlled by personal
experience, but also by one's belief system. FOR ANOTHER INDIVIDUALITY
(included: belief system) some 'hard evidence' may sound silly, and vice
versa in an argument. Convenience is a good point IMO. This is in my opinion
the futility of discussions (like this one here) about argumentation between
different belief systems.
Chemicals work on the strength of connecting parts (polarity change?) and so
whatever looked unshakable, seems by those 'chemicals', in the changed
connectivity volatile (and vice versa). (Chemicals don't 'make' thoughts -
they work on the conveying tools).
------~----~------~--~---
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Dec 28 2006 - 15:09:35 PST