The meaning of a word depends on the context of a speaker, situation, and some purpose of this word. In any formal knowledge, such as understanding how medicine works, words an illness and disease are not synonyms. They are formal concepts that later can be analyzed and ordered to be increasingly programmed as data. Without such understa…
The meaning of a word depends on the context of a speaker, situation, and some purpose of this word. In any formal knowledge, such as understanding how medicine works, words an illness and disease are not synonyms. They are formal concepts that later can be analyzed and ordered to be increasingly programmed as data. Without such understanding how philosophy is the foundation of some kind of medical knowledge and practice, it is impossible to understand the use of statistics and how to use or avoid using medicine. You simply can’t know how to use it without understanding the meaning of words in context.
But you are confounding things here. In your first message to me you don't explain that you use the word 'disease' in a technical sense, but you seem to be using it as an everyday term.
Which sounds a lot like a tactic of rhetoric.
You and I agree that there is major fraud in medicine, and it's not a recent development. But I say that if a person actually has an illness or disease (as commonly understood) it's morally wrong to tell him that he doesn't. And if a person does not have an illness or disease, it's also morally wrong (perhaps even worse) to tell him that he does have it. That seems to be the the first step of this method of slavery.
And in the world we live in now, if a person has a real disease, and you have a cure, it may be impossible or even illegal for you to inform that hypothetical person.
Which is even worse than fraud. Censorship has killed more people than any virus.
Any person who believes that there is such thing as "homicide by failing to give assistance" should also be against any form of medical censorship for a comparable reason, including the subtle bludgeon of deplatforming and debanking.
Statistics and uncertainty in the realm of science deal with disease. Not an illness. What is moral and immoral has nothing to do with “having a disease” that he or she does not know he or she “has”.
You speak as a person with a very particular understanding of self as a body. It is an average statistical body that can “have a body” that “has a disease”. This is as hardcore as philosophy gets. Not everyone “has a body” or “has a disease”.
Telling a person a lie about his disease, with the result of hurting him is not immoral?
I don't understand what you are saying.
--
I think you are not using clear definitions, but you think you are.
I think illness and disease are the same. These words refer to some harm happening in the body. The appearance of the harm does not tell much about its origin.
I think a spiritual pain, like sin, or a mental pain, can cause actual harm in the body.
I don't know the mechanism, and I loathe the word mechanism to talk about this.
The people who argue that the body does not exist are at pain to describe this phenomenon.
A the people who argue that diseases (in the commonly understood meaning) are not real have even more difficulties in explaining anything that happens.
But the so called 'psychosomatic' disease is not the same as making up a disease or acting ill or anything like that.
And I think that most diagnoses and definitions are bogus, and don't help anyone. To the contrary, people are often hurt when they get a diagnosis. That's an indication of an immoral use of science, either by accident or purposely.
Again, when you conflate illness and disease, then assert that both mean that they “cause harm”, you declare a philosophical framework that is uniquely secular, Western, mechanical. When you divide the totality of a person into body, spirit, and “mental”, you are already far gone in a very particular philosophical understanding of the totality of reality — fractured, reductionist.
Words and metaphors that we use as well as particular way of seeing, ordering, and classifying typically fit into some worldview for some particular purpose. If you change words and metaphors, you essentially change the conditions of a problem you are trying to solve.
You haven't defined the terms. What is the technical definition of disease and illness that you use? Please explain how are they different.
About mind-body dualism. There are two escape paths out of that: eliminative physicalism, which sucks, and absolute spiritiualism (I refuse to call it immaterialism, a horrible term for it) which denies the existence of bodies, which sucks at least as much as the former.
Maybe there is a third way out of the mind-body dualism?
--
Let me ask: Do you think the body exists? Do you think that death of the body is real? If so, do you think that there are chemical substances that can harm the body?
Let's call "toxemia" the theory that certain chemical substances natural or synthetic, can cause harm to the body, as the blood carries and distributes chemicals through all the body. Do you think that toxemia can explain all illnesses and all diseases, in the common use of those terms which is purportedly different from your technical use?
I think not. Toxemia probably explains many things better than germ theory of disease. Sadly, most doctors are way behind on that. Perhaps learning to neutralize and remove toxins is the way to cure many real diseases, and to prevent many of the so called degenerative diseases. But, in my unlearned opinion, there are other causes of disease, one of them fear.
All Western countries live enslaved by the products of the industry of fear. Many diseases are not even caused by toxins, but by the machinations of political power. For example, children sometimes have fever and vomits but there is no sign of food poisoning, or any intoxication. It's possible that they are echoing the fear their parents suffer, from whatever source. Then the children are given drugs to suppress the symptoms, an action that guarantees that the parents will not realize they have to confront their fear, for that's also part of the health of their children. Thus, fear becomes a chronic condition that most people take to be natural, and all culture goes to hell. Thus, adults are lost and children are wide open to be taken in the communist cult.
It's not normal to have so many parents suffering from psychological strain.
(note: I subscribe to the idea that the word strain is better than stress to explain, by way of analogy, the effects of cognition on the health of the body. In Physics, stress is a cause of strain deformation. Thus, when we talk about the consequence of the effects of terror on the body, the expression strain should be used instead of stress, lest we confuse cause and effect.)
In the West an understanding of self as a body dictates the kinds of questions you ask about the “causes” of “disease”. If we begin with “suffering man”… there is no compelling reason to think that suffering is a disease that needs to be treated or cured. The interpretation of the meaning of suffering is varied. When we explore the “causes”, it becomes clear that the choice of the cause rests on something else what we call “worldview” as well was what we are trying to do. Our methods are subordinated to something else.
There are such concepts as semantic vagueness and epistemic vagueness aka uncertainty. You adequately demonstrated why AI will fail where a wise man will prevail.
I will take that as an insult, and I will not pay back in kind. In my hopinion (a myx of hope and opinion, not a typo) you do a great service by informing the public that diseases are not what they think they are, and although there is so much censorship your are poisoning the machine by writing.
It is not an insult. It is an observation. The system is impervious to attacks because there are few people left who are not parts of the system. Coupled with a particular education of all literate people into disassociating from the suffering physical body into system or statical understanding of discreet autonomous self, there is little hope anyone can be saved, healed, or cured of anything at this point.
The meaning of a word depends on the context of a speaker, situation, and some purpose of this word. In any formal knowledge, such as understanding how medicine works, words an illness and disease are not synonyms. They are formal concepts that later can be analyzed and ordered to be increasingly programmed as data. Without such understanding how philosophy is the foundation of some kind of medical knowledge and practice, it is impossible to understand the use of statistics and how to use or avoid using medicine. You simply can’t know how to use it without understanding the meaning of words in context.
But you are confounding things here. In your first message to me you don't explain that you use the word 'disease' in a technical sense, but you seem to be using it as an everyday term.
Which sounds a lot like a tactic of rhetoric.
You and I agree that there is major fraud in medicine, and it's not a recent development. But I say that if a person actually has an illness or disease (as commonly understood) it's morally wrong to tell him that he doesn't. And if a person does not have an illness or disease, it's also morally wrong (perhaps even worse) to tell him that he does have it. That seems to be the the first step of this method of slavery.
And in the world we live in now, if a person has a real disease, and you have a cure, it may be impossible or even illegal for you to inform that hypothetical person.
Which is even worse than fraud. Censorship has killed more people than any virus.
Any person who believes that there is such thing as "homicide by failing to give assistance" should also be against any form of medical censorship for a comparable reason, including the subtle bludgeon of deplatforming and debanking.
Statistics and uncertainty in the realm of science deal with disease. Not an illness. What is moral and immoral has nothing to do with “having a disease” that he or she does not know he or she “has”.
You speak as a person with a very particular understanding of self as a body. It is an average statistical body that can “have a body” that “has a disease”. This is as hardcore as philosophy gets. Not everyone “has a body” or “has a disease”.
Telling a person a lie about his disease, with the result of hurting him is not immoral?
I don't understand what you are saying.
--
I think you are not using clear definitions, but you think you are.
I think illness and disease are the same. These words refer to some harm happening in the body. The appearance of the harm does not tell much about its origin.
I think a spiritual pain, like sin, or a mental pain, can cause actual harm in the body.
I don't know the mechanism, and I loathe the word mechanism to talk about this.
The people who argue that the body does not exist are at pain to describe this phenomenon.
A the people who argue that diseases (in the commonly understood meaning) are not real have even more difficulties in explaining anything that happens.
But the so called 'psychosomatic' disease is not the same as making up a disease or acting ill or anything like that.
And I think that most diagnoses and definitions are bogus, and don't help anyone. To the contrary, people are often hurt when they get a diagnosis. That's an indication of an immoral use of science, either by accident or purposely.
Again, when you conflate illness and disease, then assert that both mean that they “cause harm”, you declare a philosophical framework that is uniquely secular, Western, mechanical. When you divide the totality of a person into body, spirit, and “mental”, you are already far gone in a very particular philosophical understanding of the totality of reality — fractured, reductionist.
Words and metaphors that we use as well as particular way of seeing, ordering, and classifying typically fit into some worldview for some particular purpose. If you change words and metaphors, you essentially change the conditions of a problem you are trying to solve.
You haven't defined the terms. What is the technical definition of disease and illness that you use? Please explain how are they different.
About mind-body dualism. There are two escape paths out of that: eliminative physicalism, which sucks, and absolute spiritiualism (I refuse to call it immaterialism, a horrible term for it) which denies the existence of bodies, which sucks at least as much as the former.
Maybe there is a third way out of the mind-body dualism?
--
Let me ask: Do you think the body exists? Do you think that death of the body is real? If so, do you think that there are chemical substances that can harm the body?
Let's call "toxemia" the theory that certain chemical substances natural or synthetic, can cause harm to the body, as the blood carries and distributes chemicals through all the body. Do you think that toxemia can explain all illnesses and all diseases, in the common use of those terms which is purportedly different from your technical use?
I think not. Toxemia probably explains many things better than germ theory of disease. Sadly, most doctors are way behind on that. Perhaps learning to neutralize and remove toxins is the way to cure many real diseases, and to prevent many of the so called degenerative diseases. But, in my unlearned opinion, there are other causes of disease, one of them fear.
All Western countries live enslaved by the products of the industry of fear. Many diseases are not even caused by toxins, but by the machinations of political power. For example, children sometimes have fever and vomits but there is no sign of food poisoning, or any intoxication. It's possible that they are echoing the fear their parents suffer, from whatever source. Then the children are given drugs to suppress the symptoms, an action that guarantees that the parents will not realize they have to confront their fear, for that's also part of the health of their children. Thus, fear becomes a chronic condition that most people take to be natural, and all culture goes to hell. Thus, adults are lost and children are wide open to be taken in the communist cult.
It's not normal to have so many parents suffering from psychological strain.
(note: I subscribe to the idea that the word strain is better than stress to explain, by way of analogy, the effects of cognition on the health of the body. In Physics, stress is a cause of strain deformation. Thus, when we talk about the consequence of the effects of terror on the body, the expression strain should be used instead of stress, lest we confuse cause and effect.)
In the West an understanding of self as a body dictates the kinds of questions you ask about the “causes” of “disease”. If we begin with “suffering man”… there is no compelling reason to think that suffering is a disease that needs to be treated or cured. The interpretation of the meaning of suffering is varied. When we explore the “causes”, it becomes clear that the choice of the cause rests on something else what we call “worldview” as well was what we are trying to do. Our methods are subordinated to something else.
I understand now: you are a Buddhist.
Sorry, I think Buddhism is bull shit, literally and figuratively.
Where you are going I cannot follow.
Thank you very much for speaking with me, even in your difficult to understand responses.
There are such concepts as semantic vagueness and epistemic vagueness aka uncertainty. You adequately demonstrated why AI will fail where a wise man will prevail.
I will take that as an insult, and I will not pay back in kind. In my hopinion (a myx of hope and opinion, not a typo) you do a great service by informing the public that diseases are not what they think they are, and although there is so much censorship your are poisoning the machine by writing.
I like your substack, keep attacking the system!
It is not an insult. It is an observation. The system is impervious to attacks because there are few people left who are not parts of the system. Coupled with a particular education of all literate people into disassociating from the suffering physical body into system or statical understanding of discreet autonomous self, there is little hope anyone can be saved, healed, or cured of anything at this point.