Philosophy Now Forum

Brain technology has identified disorder in the brain, such as serotonin imbalances.

Can this technology identify disorder anywhere else in the universe, such as disordered chemicals in the sea or space? Is there disorder anywhere else?

Or is disorder a chemical fiction?

.


I'm detecting disorder in the explanation of this thread.


Recheck-revise-rewrite. Really.


Or an imbalance in the original poster.


Don't push so hard JohniJones. It will come.





.

JohniJones wrote:Brain technology has identified disorder in the brain, such as serotonin imbalances.

Can this technology identify disorder anywhere else in the universe, such as disordered chemicals in the sea or space? Is there disorder anywhere else?

Or is disorder a chemical fiction?

Can walking my dog lead to the discovery of new galaxies?

HexHammer wrote:Can walking my dog lead to the discovery of new galaxies?

Depends how far you walk him (or her).

JohniJones wrote:Brain technology has identified disorder in the brain, such as serotonin imbalances. Can this technology identify disorder anywhere else in the universe, such as disordered chemicals in the sea or space? Is there disorder anywhere else? Or is disorder a chemical fiction?

If Huttamo became shaman of his tribe due to any "visions" it caused, I suppose it would actually be interpreted as a "gift".

If Gamoosh, with another inheritable brain chemistry that deviated from the rest of his tribe members, still managed to knock-up many women because he was well-endowed and a good hunter, then I suppose the next couple of generations or so of his descendents and their spouses could elude slightly veiled prejudices by going elsewhere to start their own semi-inbred clan. As long as they continued to thrive and reproduce despite the deviation, biological processes in general apparently couldn't care less about labeling it a defect or disorder -- assuming a nonsapient and nonconceptually organizing system as Nature had the capacity to be so counterfactual.

thalarch wrote:

JohniJones wrote:Brain technology has identified disorder in the brain, such as serotonin imbalances. Can this technology identify disorder anywhere else in the universe, such as disordered chemicals in the sea or space? Is there disorder anywhere else? Or is disorder a chemical fiction?

If Huttamo became shaman of his tribe due to any "visions" it caused, I suppose it would actually be interpreted as a "gift".

If Gamoosh, with another inheritable brain chemistry that deviated from the rest of his tribe members, still managed to knock-up many women because he was well-endowed and a good hunter, then I suppose the next couple of generations or so of his descendents and their spouses could elude slightly veiled prejudices by going elsewhere to start their own semi-inbred clan. As long as they continued to thrive and reproduce despite the deviation, biological processes in general apparently couldn't care less about labeling it a defect or disorder -- assuming a nonsapient and nonconceptually organizing system as Nature had the capacity to be so counterfactual.

If defect and disorder aren't chemical descriptions, then what else are they? We assume that they are chemical descriptions. BUt are they?

Are you saying that the actions of those with such identified 'disorders' should be judged and treated the same as those without?

John wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Can walking my dog lead to the discovery of new galaxies?

Depends how far you walk him (or her).

LOL?

JohniJones wrote:

thalarch wrote:

JohniJones wrote:Brain technology has identified disorder in the brain, such as serotonin imbalances. Can this technology identify disorder anywhere else in the universe, such as disordered chemicals in the sea or space? Is there disorder anywhere else? Or is disorder a chemical fiction?

If Huttamo became shaman of his tribe due to any "visions" it caused, I suppose it would actually be interpreted as a "gift".

If Gamoosh, with another inheritable brain chemistry that deviated from the rest of his tribe members, still managed to knock-up many women because he was well-endowed and a good hunter, then I suppose the next couple of generations or so of his descendents and their spouses could elude slightly veiled prejudices by going elsewhere to start their own semi-inbred clan. As long as they continued to thrive and reproduce despite the deviation, biological processes in general apparently couldn't care less about labeling it a defect or disorder -- assuming a nonsapient and nonconceptually organizing system as Nature had the capacity to be so counterfactual.

If defect and disorder aren't chemical descriptions, then what else are they? We assume that they are chemical descriptions. BUt are they?

It is whatever any particular system, practice, or research discipline chooses to classify or label it as, when such a group effort has isolated, abstracted, or diagnosed the circumstance itself -- or chosen to adopt the work and nomenclature from another system, practice, discipline, etc.

Eclecticism (in the generic sense) is only a conceptual approach that ignores the fine issues of commensurability between schemes, in the course of selecting and relating "this" to "that". Not an overarching authority that offers a final word on identification (via having worked-out a satisfactory framework of bridging principles between various knowledge/skill enterprises). That is, quasi-absolute claims like that are often actually anchored in eclecticism, or maybe BS, and so forth.

thalarch wrote:[q

Eclecticism (in the generic sense) is only a conceptual approach that ignores the fine issues of commensurability between schemes, in the course of selecting and relating "this" to "that". Not an overarching authority that offers a final word on identification (via having worked-out a satisfactory framework of bridging principles between various knowledge/skill enterprises). That is, quasi-absolute claims like that are often actually anchored in eclecticism, or maybe BS, and so forth.

DEscribe a chemical reaction that is disordered. Not even chemists are familiar with the term.

Arising_uk wrote:Are you saying that the actions of those with such identified 'disorders' should be judged and treated the same as those without?

What identification are you referring to?

JohniJones wrote:What identification are you referring to?

So you are saying that we should treat those, as you appear to say, falsely identified with a chemical 'disorder' the same as those without?

JohniJones wrote:

thalarch wrote:Eclecticism (in the generic sense) is only a conceptual approach that ignores the fine issues of commensurability between schemes, in the course of selecting and relating "this" to "that". Not an overarching authority that offers a final word on identification (via having worked-out a satisfactory framework of bridging principles between various knowledge/skill enterprises). That is, quasi-absolute claims like that are often actually anchored in eclecticism, or maybe BS, and so forth.

DEscribe a chemical reaction that is disordered. Not even chemists are familiar with the term.

You originally claimed that "brain technology" has identified disorder in the brain. I personally doubt that's the case -- that the inventors and technicians made such a judgment or interpretation, but it would rather be those in other fields (medical, psychology, etc.) who made use of data their equipment yielded. At any rate, you now leap from "brain technology" to a supposed descriptive approach of chemists, exhibiting that very "eclectic" unconcern about issues of compatibility between systems, or apparently asserting that Investigative Enterprise A holds authority over Investigative Enterprise B. One discipline's ascription of 'evil' may be another's ascription of 'not liked for this or that reason' and yet another's 'who even gives a #^$% about it how it is conceived from the standpoint of affecting the life of a person'.

Which is to say, the problem or confusion is resolved by noting what is ignored by either generic eclecticism or other practical "I can't bother with the fine details and issues of commensurability among them", so such practical and commonsense BS can pursue its business/agendas.

Arising_uk wrote:

JohniJones wrote:What identification are you referring to?

So you are saying that we should treat those, as you appear to say, falsely identified with a chemical 'disorder' the same as those without?

What identification are you referring to?
How do you "identify" a chemical disorder? Chemically? How?
What sort of identification are you referring to?

I assume that whoever it is who is responsible for your words, "Brain technology has identified disorder in the brain, such as serotonin imbalances." is not identifying a 'chemical disorder' in the sense that the chemicals are disordered but that they find that certain behaviours in certain people can be correlated consistently, identified, with serotonin levels that are of a different level than a control group that does not display these behaviours. Whether there is a causal correlation I have no idea.

My question is, in your opinion should these correlations, causal or not, have any effect upon any judgement we may or may not make with respect to the actions.