Manic depressive dsm code Videos

+Michael Funkerton Just nod occasionally and say "Yes, Dear". Married men have been doing it for years. :)

+jakeizlove I'd hit it, but then I'd have to listen to her talk. No, nevermind, I wouldn't hit it.

+Michael Funkerton Why bother studying when you're pretty? :)

+Razomir Regarding your remark, I quote: "So you're arguing that before we knew something we had to rely on something else to tell the difference?"No I'm not arguing that! what I say is that we based on other criteria can argue what plants and animals are, without having any knowledge of their DNA.The fact that we now have knowledge of the DNA structure only allows us to try to classify different families such as plants and animals, or animals and bacteria based on DNA; however, as micro biology advances it seems that there is no clear cut between one group and the other - in the same way that there is a clear cut between solids and liquids - that explains the sentence "darkened clear cut lines".You say, I quote: "To the best of human knowledge nothing is black and white but everything is on a scale".This is rather a bold statement for someone that seems to profess that matter is all there is - this is clearly a black and white statement!You say, I quote: "I admit I had to look up King and her research but from what I see, there's nothing to point to us being spiritual beings as was your original claim, remember?"Man, wake-up stop distorting things! The link to King's article was only to show you that you cannot find always a clear cut between one group and another based on DNA - it was certainly not meant to demonstrate that we're spiritual beings - are you trying out the straw man on me? No games please.Are you really taken me for a fanatic religious zealot or a GOD of the gab promoter?  you'll need more refined arguments to make your points sound.Again, with spiritual being I mean a being that in general strive to find alignment with GOD - something animals can't do!Thus,  although man, in view of his/her instincts and physical appearance, might be classified as animal-like; man is above all a mental and spiritual being, hence, in contrast to animals, must uncover his/her true recoverable nature, so that he/she might live in accordance to the law of inherent purpose which in our case is rather of implicit nature.Therefore, I have used this main distinctive guiding behavioral principle as the attribute that distinct humans from animals - this doesn't mean that all humans have to do it! you could now say' well proof me that GOD exist...but this is all together another discussion. You say, I quote: "Every aspect of the spiritual from meditation to chakras to out of body experiences has been accounted for via scientific methods and there's nothing spiritual about it aside from the practitioner's desire to be."What do you mean with being accounted for? Do you mean with this 'be explained away?'However, explaining things away doesn't make the explanation truth related! Has the scientific method really shown that awareness is generated by the brain, or that it is an emergent property of the brain?You accuse me of wishful thinking, but this, according to my view, is rather double standards.For the record: all things that come into being are not from themselves, hence, are always  instrumental. Therefore, man, and his brain included, are instrumental.  Given that the brain is an instrumental thing we might be certain that certain brain functions are always related with consciousness, and self-identity (just to name a view); therefore, showing that certain brain regions are activated for specific things, or that self-identity get lost by certain trauma to the brain, doesn't show that awareness is produced by the brain. If my radio is broken than no music comes out of it, if the tuner is not working properly than only noise will come out (if we're lucky), if the batteries are flat than no music nor sound will be emitted by it, when there is a lots of dirt on the components than the sound of the music will often be distorted. Certain functions are involved with sound, others with the transformation of EM waves in sound waves, other components take out the noise, etc..However, the important thing to understand is that the EM waves containing the music are still out there, even when our radio is broken! Therefore, concluding that the radio generated the music, because we can demonstrate that by taken out certain components the radio doesn't produce music any longer, is a faulty conclusion.For the record I'm not saying that thoughts come from out site of us; what I say is that the substance that allows us to become conscious thru brain processes is not generated by the brain. But let us forget all this for the moment for sake of simplicity.You say, I quote: "I am sorry, and I mean no offense by this but if you go through the leaps of saying that neuroscience has found a "purpose" for the brain". Where have I said that? besides that, do you profess that neuroscience have not found purpose for the brain - i.e. do you claim that neuroscience state that the brain has no purpose?You asked me for  a reference that shows that the part of the brain that is involved with the search of GOD is the same as the one we use for doing science.Well, in this regard I advise you to read the book 'the accidental mind' of David Linden, atheist and neuroscientist - so at least this part isn't biased. with a little big luck you'll find these remark of Linden himself of some of his interviews posted on YouTube. Indeed, it's a documented fact that the search for GOD and science are branches of the same cognitive stream.Furthermore, all cultures, since the existence of mankind have in one case or the other always been engaged with the search for GOD, what has changed are the methods and tools to investigate GOD - the same holds true for science.Your statement that naturalist science has simpler ' hypothesis correlated to it' and that 'god requires a hell of a lot more auxiliary hypothesis and assumptions' is rather a flawed position.It seems to me that you have not understood so well what hypothesis are; hypothesis can be truth related or not, and non truth related hypothesis within a coherent (mathematical) frame works can still produce results in conformity with first order observational facts. Nevertheless, good science should require truth related hypothesis, not just workable hypothesis! But allow me to come back later to it in other discussions. I would also like that you discus more on a fair base. Look, here is a another example of how you try to distort things to make your point.Let me quote you: ' ...you said that deviations from the seeking of a god is due to a brain deficiency? So you would claim that 95% of academic society suffers from brain deficiency because they are not religious? ''First of all I have given different reasons for why people could not believe in GOD, you pick out this one and make a new sentence out of it that was not made by me. So for your recollection this was my exact quote: 'Regarding people not seeking alignment reason might vary. These reasons can be: personal, educational, structural (brain deficiency) or simply the product of faulty reason'..I have strongly the impression that you're deliberately misquoting me to try to take advantage out of it - grow up please.Concerning your claim that 95% of scientist don't believe in GOD is just another unjustified statement.Here follow some observations about the study:• The study never asked about belief in God in general, but about belief in a very personal God who answers prayers and communicates actively• The figure was 72 percent (hardly “near universal     rejection”) who said they rejected this specific view of God.• The questions were worded poorly. So much so, that Eugenie C. Scott, executive     director of the National Center for Science Education, examined the study and concluded that the questions were so poorly worded  that that the survey was “not well  designed for investigating the religious views of scientists (or anyone else)source: //randalrauser.com/2013/06/are-top-scientists-overwhelmingly-atheists/Furthermore, the general tendency is that biologist start to be in general atheist. much cosmologist and physicist tend to be Deism, agnostic or pantheist of some sort (not truly atheist - this regardless the fact that the most mediated scientist seem to be atheistic from nature, but this is all together another discussion). What the applied science concerns, such as engineering, it is seen that the majority are theistic or deistic inclined; probably because in applied science you can't just go with a model, but you have to use models that actually works in practice (not just on the pure theoretical level as in theoretical science) - system engineers and genetic engineers are strongly inclined towards deism or theism of some sort. Also physicians seem in general more inclined to accept that there is more than matter alone.But most important of all, let us say that 95% of the working scientist postulate that they don't believe in any GOD, be it deist or not, than this says nothing at all, because science has become an institution (just as the church), thus has his own doctrines. not adhering to the doctrines laid down by the ruling elite will not give you much change to find a job at the most important universities. These similarities holds true for becoming priest - e.g. can you become a Christian priest if you believe somehow that the story of Christ is rather of spiritual nature (as the Gnostics initially did) , or can you become a Iman if you recognize the Koran but not Mohammed as GOD's Prophet?Truth and science are not always the same thing, because science works on the basis of workable models; yet, the hypothesis contained in their workable models have not to be truth related.Did Jesus walked on the water because most christian institutions and their adherents claim so?You say, I quote: '...if such an innate urge can be overcome by a simple personality trait or some education (notice you said education not indoctrination) is to say there's no such urge or it's so weak it is by no means universal or otherwise compelling.'Man, what kind of simplistic conclusions is that. First of all, we mostly come to believe the things we believe because of education, when education, on the fundamental level, is wrong than the fundamental ideas that follow from it will mostly be wrong to. Education, often pushes us to look in one direction and hinders us of looking in to another , that's why it didn't feel the need to use the terms indoctrination because the latter becomes self-evident. Our relation with the Divine is of implicit nature and has therefore to be activated and stimulated by us through mental efforts and commonsense related observational reasoning. Education, is therefore important to help us activate that what is implicit, yet, inherent contained within us, thus, wrong education can certainly hinder us in this task.Concerning the requested definitions:I don't care how you want to define the terms: energy, matter, mass and force; go and read them, afterwards formulate them in your own wording by outlining their general features and attributes. it doesn't matter if it is on the level of 9th grader or university level - what is important is that they are truth related!I therefore see no reason why we should safe time here because if we have to investigate if matter is all there is than we have to look to our basic notions of physics and see if our concepts are in conformity with observational facts. If so, than I have to admit that naturalism has much truth potential to it.This is the only thing I want to do here with you in our discussion, i.e. based on our concepts of energy, matter, mass and force see if your position is a solid one - that's to say, to see if your position, based on observational facts and commonsense related reasoning, is indeed the most founded one; if so then this would bring much doubt on the truth potential of the factuality of GOD.All other discussions and argument, such as the nature of consciousness, the plausibility of Darwinism, or positions and visions of prominent atheist, theist or deist scientist, are not of order here. We have to do what Leonardo Da Vinci was a master in doing; that's to say, not appealing to authority, but simple investigating the matter by use of commonsense related reasoning, and from thereupon draw your own conclusions and see if they have enough truth potential in them.I therefore not address any other remarks, neither will I response to other kind of questions that deviate from the task we set out to do here - i.e. to see if the naturalistic view has much ground to stand upon; and again, to do this we have to start from our most fundamental concepts of physics - not biology, cosmology, chemistry, neurology, mathematics, etc. For the record, I'm not a 9th grader, so give me your best shot, as you claim you're very able of doing those things.Thanks in advance.

+GodinciI'll be looking forward to it :) have a good one!

+Razomir ok, Razomir we retake discussion on Monday. Good weekend.

+GodinciSo arguments but no proof...what proof would you require other than every living being in existence? Anyway let me answer you in a "step ward"order.So you're arguing that before we knew something we had to rely on something else to tell the difference? That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that now we do have dna sequencing. Also I did address your complaint when I said that we had more shallow forms of classification aside from DNA. You need to clarify what you mean by "darkened clear cut lines"? To the best of human knowledge nothing is black and white but everything is on a scale. And those clear cut lines are fairly arbitrary in most cases. So my argument stands.I admit I had to look up King and her research but from what I see, there's nothing to point to us being spiritual beings as was your original claim, remember? All you've done is proven that there's more to discover in animal biology and I never argued otherwise. The most notable research I see of King's is on the origins of multicellularity and pushing back some of the lines we previous thought on the origins of animals in general. It's fascinating for sure but unless you take the huge leap of faith in thinking that her research somehow indicates a "spirit" or a divine creator it simply doesnt help your case."How can you say that this is going ahead if it is an observable fact that humans have been doing this all of their existence"  See here's where you need citations because that is absolutely wrong on all accounts. Every aspect of the spiritual from meditation to chakras to out of body experiences has been accounted for via scientific methods and there's nothing spiritual about it aside from the practitioner's desire to be."neuro-scientist point out that the brain seems to be wired for this specific task (the search for GOD)"  again you need citations because that's a ridiculous claim. The only thing that comes close to my knowledge is the god helmet which has been pretty thoroughly refuted. I seem to remember some study that actually stated the parts of the brain responsible for creativity are the ones that fire up while thinking of god, not the ones for logic and science but I have to find it to look over it again.I am sorry, and I mean no offense by this but if you go through the leaps of saying that neuroscience has found a "purpose" for the brain and it's finding god and then to leap once more to the conclusion that a god (despite all incredibly contradictory supposed evidences) is the one with the FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS is to say you do not understand how occam's razor functions. When everything you mention has a simpler naturalistic hypothesis correlated to it, god requires a hell of a lot more auxiliary hypothesis and assumptions. In fact it is the exact opposite of Occam's razor.On to the next point, you said that deviations from the seeking of a god is due to a brain deficiency? So you would claim that 95% of academic society suffers from brain deficiency because they are not religious? I wont even indulge the "personal or educational" explanations because if such an innnate urge can be overcome by a simple personality trait or some education (notice you said educatino not indoctrination) is to say there's no such urge or it's so weak it is by no means universal or otherwise compelling."You further seem to suggest, as all materialist do, that awareness is a by product from the brain, however, this view isn't in large shared with all neuro-scientists" That is simply an incorrect statement. As has been on an overwhelmingly large amount of occasions been proven, damaging or manipulating parts of the brain has a DIRECT effect on what we call awareness. Furthermore there has never been observed an awareness without a brain ergo it is nothing other than a byproduct. You could go so far as to call it an intended effect but it's bond to the brain is absolutely irrevokable by what today's neuroscience knows.For your last point, I am not sure what contradiction you see in the standard definitions of mass, energy force and matter? So since you seem to have something in particular in mind would you first care to point me to where you see the contradiction so I can begin from there. And I ask this because these concepts can be defined in 9th grade fashion in several words and equations or in several chapters. So I ask this to save us some time as I am quite capable of the latter.Btw thanks for the read. I wasnt familiar with King's research and it seems worth the read.

+Razomir​ For the record, with family I was just referring to the fact that the new entity that follows from the old entity isn't longer  part of the same group of entities. let us not enter in the nomenclature of biological divisions that becomes more and more complicate as our knowledge of micro-biology increases.Indeed, you give arguments but no proof and now you want me to give proof.I didn't know that I was dealing here with some kind of resurrected Nostradamus because you declare to know what I believe. Never mind.let me address your points in step ward fashion.The argument of genetic traits is not a good argument because in this case you could not tell the difference between plants and animals before the DNA structure was discovered and well enough understood; yet, people have always understood the difference between plants and animals without having any knowledge of the DNA structure.Once these observation are made than the genetic traits can be investigated for plants and animals and see where the genetics of plants and animals differ  - i.e. afterwards you can use this data to make genetic distinctions - it was not done by first principle.Thus again your genetic arguments fails, if you understand what I mean. Besides that the whole revolution of micro-biology has only darkened clear cut lines.Again using genetics for identifying the difference between animals and plants is certainly not clean cut. The reason hereof is that all biological entities, human included,  have many genetic similarities because they all have DNA, RNA, Basic chemical composition, energy need for preservation and functioning, use mainly the same regulating principles for nutrient flow and waste, etc.The evolutionary biologist Nicole King of the University of California, Berkeley, who has been studying choanoflagellate biology for over 10 years, says, I qoute:"...this gene family that was thought to be essentially a trigger that unleashed animal origins, we can now say with great confidence evolved long before the origin of animals” “Probably the more data we collect, the fewer and fewer animal-specific genes there are going to be,”. “And we’re going to have to explain the origins of multicellularity in terms of changes in the way these gene products interact with each other.”//www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/30827/title/From-Simple-To-Complex/Again using Genetics is not so clear for making clear cuts!Concerning your argument of going ahead of myself  in relation to my deduction that humans are spiritual beings.How can you say that this is going ahead if it is an observable fact that humans have been doing this all of their existence, even atheist will admit this but will try to down play it with Darwinian psychological claptrap ( such as benefice for survival). However, neuro-scientist point out that the brain seems to be wired for this specific task (the search for GOD); furthermore it has been found that the part of the brain people use to do science is the same part of the brain that we use for looking for GOD; after all this is logical because GOD is immaterial and therefore requires the ability of strong abstract related reasoning and experimentation to understand observational things - animals lack in this ability.All this gives substantial weight to the GOD hypotheses, and Ockham's razor would make this the most apparent choice.That's is just one reasonable argument that point towards an innate urge to align with GOD.Regarding 'people not seeking alignment' reason might vary. These reasons can be: personal, educational, structural (brain deficiency) or simply the product of faulty reason. Nevertheless, if people, for one reason or another, don't seek alignment than they don't live in accordance  to their law of inherent purpose, thus, don't live to their full potential.You further seem to suggest, as all materialist do, that awareness is a by product from the brain, however, this view isn't in large shared with all neuro-scientists, and more and more evidence comes in that awareness isn't a by-product, but rather something essential for the brain to function. Can you please outline me how you could proof that awareness is a by product of the brain? is it because you take out the brain that the substance that allows us to become conscious is not longer there? Never mind, to avoid all these difficult question and for sake of our discussion let us start from the beginning, and see if your materialistic standpoint, based on observational facts and commonsense related reasoning has much truth potential to it. Would you therefore be so kind to define me matter, energy, force and mass in non contradicting terms so that we can have some basics to start our discussion with. All other arguments for the moment are not relevant, we have to start from the most fundamental concepts to get our discussion started. ok?Thanks in advance

+GodinciUm on the contrary I gave you a perfectly good argument. In fact why is it that you claim that what you call a new thing will be from an entirely different family? Where have you seen an example of that?And yes I do assume several things about said wishful thinking but that's because I have had conversations with people that believed the same things you purport to believe. If you have a different notion of "spiritual beings"do enlighten me.Also my argument of genetic traits is perfectly good. Yes, we do distinguish animals and plants based on traits and DNA similarities for technical categorization and we based the distinction on overall (shallow) traits for non-technical classification. I see nothing wrong with it.When you say something like ".being a spiritual being relates to our endeavor to align ourselves with the Divine" you're getting ahead of yourself. First you need proof that there IS a devine then you need proof that we have some innate urge to align with it and only THEN can we claim further things on the matter. Also...how did you come to the conclusion that our behavior differs from that of animals because we supposedly seek alignment with something divine? What about people who dont seek such an alignment? Would you classify them as animals because they lack said urge? Also just because we are an advanced form of animal absolutely DOESNT mean we can no longer be classified as animals. We have developed our consciousness which is merely a trait. That is like saying fish arent animals because they have developed gills. That isnt how classification works as much as you may wish it to. We dont get classified because we're equal to anything. We get classified based on traits common accross all members of said group and we do have those. Ergo - animals.

You didn't give me any argument that justifies the notion that 'if a new thing follows from an old thing that the new thing is by default of the same family as the old thing (this relates to human and animal). Furthermore you reason on arguments that were not given by me and than say 'wishful thinking...flawed thinking''. Hmmm?In addition to that your argument of genetic lines (genetic treats) isn't a good one because we still distinct animals from plants. We do this on the basis of their main guiding behavioral principles.Furthermore, being a ''spiritual being'' doesn't mean that you're made of spirit...being a spiritual being relates to our endeavor to align ourselves with the Divine because we have the mental containing capacity to do so, thus our behavioral guiding principle differs from the one of animals,and so, we can't longer be classified as animals; although we have much in common with them we're not longer equal to them.

+Godinci That was quite a bit of nonsense. It's not "something" that follows anything. It's a genetic line with genetic traits and if you classify many others "things" as animals and we share a vast vast majority of our traits with them (than say we do with robots or spirits)  then yes we are for all intents and purposes classified as animals. I get the urge to think we're spiritual beings but it's nothing more than wishful thinking, trying to ascend the human form of self-consciousness to higher grounds. You see animals and think we're more so you add the spiritual aspect because if it isnt here then we're as simple as they are. That is flawed thinking. It's a case of us and them with us always being more because, you know, US...What makes us special (read as advanced social) isnt some supernatural capacity but the fact that we ARE something so simplistic as animals and yet we can experience emotions such as awe and wonder, love and hate and reflect upon them because our consciousness has advanced enough to allow it. Tey it's on the very same line of development and THAT makes us, the social animal more than any supposed spiritual being could hope to be.

Would you please be so kind to explain me what an animal is? If something follows from another thing than this doesn't mean that the new thing is still of the same Nature...in many cases there will be distinguishable attributes; so classifying the new thing under the same group can sometimes be illusive.

We are neither actually. We're simply social animals.