what evidence have these abductees shown you that their experiences are real and not delusions? all we have is their testimony which may be evidence that is admissible in court but has no place in science. scientists must be able to put material evidence to the severe scrutiny of scintific methodology if such claims are to be given credibility as being real experiences.

indeed, and being truely intelligent is being able to see the madness in ourselves.

There is plenty of evidence. However, no person can be made to believe the experience of another person because they did not personally experience it.

It might only be your opinion that their experiences are "delusions" simply because you cannot or you refuse to believe them.

We are not talking about "science." We are talking about what is real to the individual.

An outsider has no right to call a person Insane or delusional just because they do not believe that person's experience was 'real.'

Jeannie is right. This is not a matter of "science". It is a matter of subjective experience. Whether or not there is any scientific evidence has little, if anything, to do with the individual's personal beliefs or opinions.

"Proving that I am not mentally ill never even crossed my mind until you mentioned it."

That is absolutely true. Instead, you set out to show that mental illness does not exist, that it's a subjective opinion of a bunch of self-appointed experts, that it has no discenrable and machine-read characteristic (therefore nothing more than the mere infatuation with some particular theories by a bunch of eggheads), that mental illness is the only definition for mental illness, that mental illness is a phantom due to some reasoning with circular logic, that mental illness defies definition, and in several points you pointed out (unconvincingly) that the particular definitions or descriptors of mental illness are self-contradictory and paradoxical.

With all this, I am not surprised that you never thought that you're not mentally ill.

Yes, I got upset too in this debate, and it came out as sarcasm. My reason to get upset was your adamance to not accept arguments and state things over and over again that have been refuted by a number of arguments in this thread. I got upset over that, I admit. I don't like to bring up points and have them accepted by the other party, only to see on the next page that the other party is again using an argument or a point that had been refuted, sometimes repeatedly.

If you feel indignant and hurt because I was sarcastic, I feel indignant and hurt because obviously you ignored our pleas and our arguments.

This I found grossly unfair, much like you found my sarcasm grossly unfair.

I concede that sarcasm was not the best way to handle my upset, but hey, I'm mentally ill too, I do what I can.

See now that is a cop-out. Are you really mentally ill?

What does that mean?

Is an alcoholic mentally ill?

Is someone who is diagnosed as "bi-polar" mentally ill?

Are people who are suicidal mentally ill?

Are murderers mentally ill?

Are child molesters and pedophiles mentally ill?

Are people who claim to have been abducted by aliens mentally ill?

Are people who can't handle responsibility mentally ill?

Please tell me what mentally ill means.

Well done. With a few minor corrections I'd say you nailed it pretty squarely on the head.

So what’s your point? That I’m wrong because I’m mentally ill?


Again you have misinterpreted me.

I never felt any indignation or hurt by the sarcasm of your story. I thought it was a very amusing and entertaining story. I actually laughed out loud at it and thought it was very creative. I only labeled it sarcasm as a comparison to my own satire. Nothing more. Now if you feel that I was labeling anything, other than that story, sarcasm, I can assure I wasn’t . The label of sarcasm was intended to apply only to that story, nothing else.

The only time I ever got upset in this debate was when false claims were made about me personally. I rarely ever get upset about false claims regarding an issue under discussion. Amused maybe, but not upset.


Now if you feel I ignored your alleged refutations, I can only say that I don’t think I did. And I don’t think what I did do is “unfair” at all.

In most cases, I considered the alleged refutations to be no refutations at all. In those cases I would have no reason not to bring up the same point again, since in my view, it had never been refuted. And in some cases I simply did not understand them and felt that it would not be worth it to expend the effort to get them clarified. So I continued to bring up the same points in hopes that you would reword the alleged refutations in a way that I could understand. But I did not “ignore” anything. I read everything you wrote.

I've asked that question at least a half donzen times with no luck. But maybe you'll have better luck with it than I did.

Cognitively compromised for my condition just means nerve damage. With the brain being nerves. Similar to brain damage caused by an accident I would guess. Mine has a physical cause even if they do not know what causes the physical to do it in the first place.

Which is my point here too. Many physical medical conditions causes are unknown. Why would the mental aspect be any different. The stigma associated with mental illness is basically because it is so unknown and misunderstood. If more information were to be given to people about it, it would be as stigmatic as physical illnesses.

I have discovered the hard way that sometimes what we consider unbiased or uninsulting can still be that way to others.

Abso-maddening-lutely!

mental illness is REAL

mental health on the other hand is a notorious FAKE

I’m not sure I understood that, but here’s what I think you meant: The physical damage has a physical cause, but the physical cause of the damage is unknown.

Is that correct?

The reason I say that I’m not sure I understood is because I don’t see how they could know that the cause is physical if they don’t know what the cause is at all.

So I think I may have misunderstood what you meant.

From that perspective I would agree. So known cause is not a requirement for the existence, diagnosis or treatment of any condition. (Which is not to say that known cause is irrelevant. Only that it is not a required). Ok, I can live with that.

Now that still does not clarify the difference between “medical” and “mental” illness. One of my major points has been: If there is no difference (as some have claimed), then why are there different words? There must be some reason there are two words instead of one. There must have been some difference at some point between the meanings of the two words. What I’d like to know is what that difference is/was and why it is no longer valid.

Well that is certainly one valid opinion.

My opinion is that the stigma comes from the objectionable behavior associated with mental illness, not the fact that the causes are unknown and/or misunderstood.

Yes, I have discovered the very same thing the very same way.

Sky you got it correctly.

The physical cause is my own body attacks the nerves in my body and damages and destroys the myelin which is the sheath around the nerves leading to the disabling and destruction of nerves. Since nerves effect everything in your body it has all kinds of physical manifestations.

They cannot figure out what triggers the body to attack itself. So the cause is unknown but the problem is physical.

They are able to see the damage done to me on an MRI. I have scars on my spine and several in my head.

Treatment includes steroids to try to limit the damage when exaserbations happen. And immune blocking shots daily but I opted out of them.

Let me get back on track here...lol Sorry

Oh and by the way I do not bring up my illness other than for comparitive information. I do not want pity or anything like that. It is a part of my life and makes me a better person.


Medical and mental differences are just names as far as I can see. Another of the endless catagories and labels we have to have as humans to live. It is a catagory of illnesses and there are many many. Mine is considered an autoimmune, I believe, or somthing like that.

People only see the tv's personification of mentally ill people and it doesn't bode well on the tele.

You have drawn an illogical conclusion. You are confusing mental capacity (in this case deficiency) with mental illness. You are doing so because you have not been able, or perhaps willing, to take all the information presented in these posts and apply that information to what posters are saying.

For example: At the point when Wux said that one of the signs of mental disorder is “misjudging reality” you should have already been able to apply a combination of information from these posts to determine that it is the extent to which misjudgments affects the level of functioning in an individual that is in question.

People hold many beliefs, some are quite unique, and many people have idiosyncrasies that society as a whole do not consider normal. But they in no way affect a person’s ability to be productive, law abiding, happy citizens. Even the annoyances are not enough to proclaim one is mentally unstable.

Please read on, I will get to a better explanation.



Right and wrong are a matter for ethics. I don’t know who brought up this concept to begin with, but I know it was used to convey the idea that mental illness had long been considered a fearful, shameful, and often self-imposed thing and that idea is wrong.

So once again, Sky, you have avoided recognizing the points made in these posts and use instead fragments of ideas that are self-serving to your own arguments.

Again please read on – I’m getting to some important information here.

Jb wrote:


Substance abuse may become an addiction, which is a medical issue. However, we often treat such abusers both medically and psychologically. We know that substance abuse has some root cause, even prior to any addiction. So addiction may be a medical problem, but it normally stems from the inability of a person to cope, either with their real world, a specific incident, or a depressive disorder that is masked by the abuse.

In all the other cases, in fact in all areas of mental disorder, we look for factors of a “dysfunctional” quality. Does the disorder interfere with daily functioning? Does it upset and confuse people or distract them to the point that they are unable to care for themselves or for those dependent on them? Are they able to participate in ordinary social interactions, able to keep and perform their job acceptably? In some cases individuals have are not able to perceive reality and respond to it with acceptable or expected behavior considering the circumstances. That is what Wux referred to as “misjudging reality.”

Keep in mind that any one of these factors may be an indicator of a problem, but it is not one that alarms us, rather it is several of these in combination that alert us to a bigger issue.

As stated before, the first order of business is to see if there is a physiological reason for the abnormal behavior.

But here is the thing – psychologists DO NOT want people forced into a treatment situation. Even those who are temporarily subdued for their own, or others, well-being are not forced to receive treatment – of any kind. However, in the case of substance abuse, when a person is subdued, as stated above, it is often a good thing to follow medical practices to relieve a person’s discomfort and the dangers that accompany withdrawal. Once they pass the crisis, they are allowed to return to their life unless they ask for treatment.

(there are exceptions but if you want to talk about the exceptions then please give REAL examples and not hypothetical ones which have no history and little information from which to form an argument.)

So now do you and JB have a better understanding, at least of when we consider the possibility of a mental disorder?

Not really. I can't draw a line between mental illness and any other kind of illness other than "mental" illness effects thinking or behavior more so than other illnesses. But other illnesses also can effect thinking and behavior.

I think there are a lot of dysfunctional people in the world, but I would not call them "mentally ill."

I once met a woman who had spent 25 years in a mental institution until she decided she wanted out. I asked her how she got out and she said that she just decided to get (or become) sane. She also said that you could take a completely sane person and lock them in a mental institution and they would soon go insane or certainly be diagnosed as insane. (Probably just to fit in.)

Now I would ask the question is insanity the same thing as "mental illness?"

Is insanity temporary or permanent or can it be both or either?

In the case of the woman who decided to become sane so she could be released, I did not verify this story with the hospital. But she did have papers stating that she was declared sane.

I think some people who 'go insane' temporarily (like have a nervous breakdown) and then get over it, have just zoned out of life when it proves to be too much of a burden for them and they just can't deal with it.

I also knew a criminal who had spent so much time in prison that he could not handle the responsibility of the outside world and so he robbed a bank in order to go back to his life in prison.

Is this mentally ill, mentally unstable, insane, dysfunctional, or what would you call it?

It looks to me like you took that out of context. I don’t think the conclusion was illogical based on the full context. I’ll leave you to look up the full context, if you want, because I don’t feel like explaining it.

Again, out of context. This time it’s easy enough to explain.

If you’ll read the actual post I was replying to, you’ll see exactly where Wux specifically excluded any moral implications from the use of the words. He then went on to give examples of how his definitions referred to individual and group survival. So it looks to me like you’ve simply called the kettle black here.

To be honest, no. What you’ve said here is pretty much the same thing I have heard and read over and over again from many different sources. It always seems to be a long complex explanation about dozens of different, and sometimes interedependent, factors that, as far as I'm concerned, really just amount to "somtimes it is and sometimes it isn't".

And none of it answers any of the most important (to me) questions I have been asking.

For example, when I asked (several times) what differentiates a medical illness from a mental illness (which is probably the most important question to me) I got only two replies. One said that there is no difference and the other (yours) was a refusal to provide one at all, along with a demand that I provide one – which I did. And the only reply ever made to that was an accusation in a long tirade (by Wux).

Now if a simple question like that gets the replies that it got, I have no hope whatsoever of sorting out the differences between "mental illness", "mental derangement", "mental condition", "mental disorder", "mental instability", "mental dysfunction", "insanity" (thanks Jeannie) or any of the myriad of terms used in the field of "mental health".

Of course you are correct, abnormal behavior both phsyiologically and psychologically can signal a dysfunction of some system in the body. To categorize them all as disease, or illness would be better than to separate them based on shame or disappointment factors which lead to prejudice and even discrimination.

One of the problems those with psychological disorders face is derogetory language. Insanity is neither an illness or a disorder, in fact it has become part of the derogetory language that those in the health fielt are trying to get away from. I don't believe you mean it in that way, so I just wanted to let you know.

Well Sky, I will refrain from further attempts to reduce explanation to a level you would comprehend. I doubt I could comprehend all that you know about your work becasue I have not spent the time studying or practicing it that you have.

I don't expect everyone to understand the concepts of a scientific field, I don't understand most of science either but I know these concepts cannot necessarily be reduced to more simplified forms and still maintain integrity.

So with integrity in tack all around I will move on. I did appreciate the opportunity to use some of the knowledge I have been gaining but I have a lot of cell biology and newly learned conservation laws of energy and motion to apply to astronomy - so I'll take my leave.

Good health to one and all!