Philosophy Now Forum

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 11:10 pm IN the lounge forum, someone asks that question.

Well, we know that there are two types of Identity, Perceptible and Intelligible,
Now, we can ask anybody almost and get the right answer, in the perceptible. But, is mankind defined physically, or mentally, or both.
We have standards to answer it in the physical, but do we have standards to answer in the intelligible, Yes, and no.
Both questions derived from Evolution, but Evolution has these two identities also, the perceptible and intelligible.
We know that anything exists, as long as its fitness to exist exceeds the environmental hazards it has to face.

Once again 'we' have 'another one' who has not yet grasped and understood the 'fitness' word in relation to evolution, itself.

Survival of the 'fittest' has nothing to do with 'fitness', strength nor power, over, exceeding, nor against something else.

'Survival of the fittest' means and/or refers to 'fitting in with' 'the environment', and nothing at all about 'over' any thing.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 11:10 pm We even have material testing based on it.
But what is the fitness of a mind?

Before any one asks a question like this one, I suggest discovering and working out, firstly, what the 'Mind', Itself, is, exactly.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 11:10 pm What standard is there for that?

Once you also learn, understand, and know what the 'Mind', Itself, is, exactly, then you will automatically also know what is the so-called 'fitness' and so-called 'standard' for the 'Mind', exactly.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 11:10 pm Actually it is simple literacy. Not the dime store version of literacy, the popular version of literacy, but the standard laid down not only in the Bible, but laid down by physical fact. As long as a mind can, with the aid of grammar, master his environment, can he be said to be doing the work of a mind.

Quite a bit of conflation and confusion 'you' are spreading throughout this, here.

Allow 'us' to replace the 'mind' word with the 'person' and 'tree' word, and then let 'us' see how it then works.

As long as a person or tree, with the aid of something else, master their environment, can they be said to be doing the work of themselves.

Now, as can be very clearly seen, what you said and claimed, here, is just nonsense, or what you might call gibberish.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 11:10 pm Any one can see, by current news casts around the world, we have not attained to that level of literacy yet. So, we have to answer no. We are no yet, by definition Man.

And to finish it all off you add on more absolute nonsense.

note above

Schizoaffective disorder, can be characterized by antisocial pattern behavior.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 11:10 pm Am I Human?

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system.
What is scientifically real is conditioned upon a specific human-based scientific framework and system which is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity. There is none better, is there?

As such if you want to determine 'Am I human' the most credible and objective answer has to be from science, i.e. in this case science-biology FS. Only the biology FS can confirm you are indeed human after all the necessary verification and justification procedures.

If you answer yourself 'I am Human' that is not credible and objective because it is from a first person beliefs and opinion thus cannot be objective but merely subjective.

If the answer comes from any other collective-of-subjects, you will need to assess their credibility and objectivity.

If you rely on words and grammar, that cannot be as credible and objective i.e. the linguistic FS, that cannot be as credible and objective as the science-biology FS. Note the limitations of language games re Wittgenstein.

But these days, whichever the group or the individual, they will rely upon the science-biology FS to affirm whether one is a human or not.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 1:53 am note above

Schizoaffective disorder, can be characterized by antisocial pattern behavior.

Schizoaffective disorder is generally a diagnosis for someone who has both a thought disorder, such as hallucinations or delusions, and a mood disorder, such as depression. It can also occur with antisocial behavior in some cases. However, it's not the same as APD (antisocial personality disorder). One of the signs of APD is showing little or no concern for the feelings or well-being of others, and the person may not experience remorse for their actions. They also tend to display aggressive behavior toward others.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:20 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 1:53 am note above

Schizoaffective disorder, can be characterized by antisocial pattern behavior.

Schizoaffective disorder is generally a diagnosis for someone who has both a thought disorder, such as hallucinations or delusions, and a mood disorder, such as depression. It can also occur with antisocial behavior in some cases. However, it's not the same as APD (antisocial personality disorder). One of the signs of APD is showing little or no concern for the feelings or well-being of others, and the person may not experience remorse for their actions. They also tend to display aggressive behavior toward others.

You do know, there is a diagnostic manual, regularly updated, for hospitals around the word in order to standardize mental illness diagnostics. I have about six different updates of it on one my drives. I believe they are put out by WHO, or a sister organization.
Make a study of them. All you have done is fuck up a joke.

Here is link for the 5th edition.
https://www.psychiatryonline.org/dsm


Here you can get a list of editions
https://psychiatryonline.org/dsm/dsmPreviousEditions

As I said, I have had the volumes for years.

So, if you want to quote anything about diagnostic, being serious, you have to note the edition, text, etc, but notice I did not do that.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:40 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:20 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 1:53 am note above

Schizoaffective disorder, can be characterized by antisocial pattern behavior.

Schizoaffective disorder is generally a diagnosis for someone who has both a thought disorder, such as hallucinations or delusions, and a mood disorder, such as depression. It can also occur with antisocial behavior in some cases. However, it's not the same as APD (antisocial personality disorder). One of the signs of APD is showing little or no concern for the feelings or well-being of others, and the person may not experience remorse for their actions. They also tend to display aggressive behavior toward others.

You do know, there is a diagnostic manual, regularly updated, for hospitals around the word in order to standardize mental illness diagnostics. I have about six different updates of it on one my drives. I believe they are put out by WHO, or a sister organization.
Make a study of them. All you have done is fuck up a joke.

The DSM is not put out by the WHO. It's put out by the APA.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:42 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:40 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:20 am

Schizoaffective disorder is generally a diagnosis for someone who has both a thought disorder, such as hallucinations or delusions, and a mood disorder, such as depression. It can also occur with antisocial behavior in some cases. However, it's not the same as APD (antisocial personality disorder). One of the signs of APD is showing little or no concern for the feelings or well-being of others, and the person may not experience remorse for their actions. They also tend to display aggressive behavior toward others.

You do know, there is a diagnostic manual, regularly updated, for hospitals around the word in order to standardize mental illness diagnostics. I have about six different updates of it on one my drives. I believe they are put out by WHO, or a sister organization.
Make a study of them. All you have done is fuck up a joke.

The DSM is not put out by the WHO. It's put out by the APA.

Oh! thank you for that wonderful information, I cannot fucking read.
So tell me Gary. Is Psychiatry actually a science? Does it comply with the definition of science, or are you so witless as to think that those who pretend that they know are just as fucking crazy as those they accuse? Out of two idiots, which is functional?

The criteria for what a science is, was stated as long ago as at least the Bible, restated as science, and ignored in psychiatry.

So, keep telling me you are simple, I will try not to notice.

I took up the study of psychology and psychiatry when a teenager. The first thing I noticed, the very first thing, They not only do not define their terms, they cannot. Which means both of them are no more than modern day folklore. The job of a mind is biologically defined, and they are too stupid to treat the mind like any other life support system.

If you could comprehend metaphor, you will find that the source of the Bible did know, it is even the solution to the name of the beast. Plato knew, and taught it outright, but reading comprehension is so low, people could not follow him. The computer demonstrates it, but mankind is still oblivious to what it is trying to teach him.

A functional mind can not only master the literal equality, but the metaphorical as well, and can demonstrate it, as geometry is wholly metaphorical.

There are, therefore, objective standards for a functional mind, A functional mind does not do what you find today, play the name game, renaming name and never using actual objective operations on them.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:55 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:42 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:40 am

You do know, there is a diagnostic manual, regularly updated, for hospitals around the word in order to standardize mental illness diagnostics. I have about six different updates of it on one my drives. I believe they are put out by WHO, or a sister organization.
Make a study of them. All you have done is fuck up a joke.

The DSM is not put out by the WHO. It's put out by the APA.

Oh! thank you for that wonderful information, I cannot fucking read.

You're welcome.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 4:10 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:55 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:42 am

The DSM is not put out by the WHO. It's put out by the APA.

Oh! thank you for that wonderful information, I cannot fucking read.

You're welcome.

I like your emoticon

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:55 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:42 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:40 am

You do know, there is a diagnostic manual, regularly updated, for hospitals around the word in order to standardize mental illness diagnostics. I have about six different updates of it on one my drives. I believe they are put out by WHO, or a sister organization.
Make a study of them. All you have done is fuck up a joke.

The DSM is not put out by the WHO. It's put out by the APA.

Oh! thank you for that wonderful information, I cannot fucking read.
So tell me Gary. Is Psychiatry actually a science? Does it comply with the definition of science, or are you so witless as to think that those who pretend that they know are just as fucking crazy as those they accuse? Out of two idiots, which is functional?

The criteria for what a science is, was stated as long ago as at least the Bible, restated as science, and ignored in psychiatry.

So, keep telling me you are simple, I will try not to notice.

One of the signs of APD is showing little or no concern for the feelings or well-being of others, and the person may not experience remorse for their actions. They also tend to display aggressive behavior toward others.

Out of "gary childress" and "yourself" "phil8659" there is 'one' showing the above signs, here, and 'we' all know 'which one' that is, exactly.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 4:16 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 4:10 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 3:55 am

Oh! thank you for that wonderful information, I cannot fucking read.

You're welcome.

I like your emoticon

Thank you.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 4:24 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 4:16 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 4:10 am

You're welcome.

I like your emoticon

Thank you.

Looks like a patient just woke up.