asperger's is not a mental illness

Post Reply New Topic

The disagreement over the right name for diagnosis have existed since Hans Asperger and Leo Kanners work; it is a normal scientifically diagreement which exist for all kind of topic. Further, a mental disorder relies on so much more than brain research, so an understanding of brain would not be much more than that; AN understanding of the brain. It would not blow out the water of the DSM or ICD, because the mind-body problem still is a big schism in cognitive science and it results in a wide different and conflicting view of the brain's working. Finding one way the brain work would be in conflict with another way the brain work from another perspective on the mind-body problem. Personal I believe in the theories of externalism which dismiss the theories of localization in brain. An understanding of the brain in which only describe it neurological would therefore not make any difference to me and all the others proponents of externalism.

When I agreed to be diagnosed with F84.5 Asperger syndrome I understood it as a 'collection' of symptoms which had been observed together in so many patients that it could be called empirical, not a condition in which the cause was known. Further I understood it clearly, as a result of it being the result of an empirical research, as a condition which had its own scientific name; Asperger syndrom. A change in name, to Autism spectrum disorder (or for that part any other name), would not do anything with the observed symptoms; they will still be they same, and so the changes of a diagnostic manual would not influence me much as long as the empirical observed symptoms which defined me in the first place still is included.

The medical science defined my condition, in which I agreed through signing a medical document. The pervasive developmental disorders are therefore something I regard as medical conditions defined by its diagnostic manual since that is the only thing I have signed upon on. People who define themself as someone with a condition with the same name as the medical conditions but which not follow the medical classifications do I not feel to be in the same social group with.

It get treated as an authority because it is the inventor of the medical conditions known as pervasive developmental disorders. The understanding of the eventually mechanisms of it does not belong to it; it would require a completely different methodical research approach than it was designed for, and it would move away from a descriptive classification to discourse analysis or even a deconstruction if done so.

Social control issues relies not on the medical classification but the laws of the nation. In my country involuntarily commitment is the only way to gain a social control over someone in the medical system, and a pervasive developmental disorder diagnosis in itself would not be a good enough basis for that.

I only put the xfiles line in to amuse myself. However, a lot of drugs are being sold.

I disagree regarding brain research but I do respect your view and how you stated it.

My views on the brain are in my book. I can show you if you want.

I believe AS is BDNF rising too fast too quick in infancy. I believe that rise causes plasticity to differ - wired in a food the brain is leveled. I also believe epigentetics has a large role and that a good caveman diet goes a long way...............there is a chain of events involved imo and a number of issues go together to form Aspergers Syndrome.

I do also a respect your view; it is rather one of the more common outside the research community. I do absolutely open up for the possibility that brain mechanisms has a serious role; that is not again my view. But I believe it is much more to it which make it impossible for me to believe in an internalism which find the brain mechanism's alone the answer to all the questions. This kind of philosophical view exclude the possibility of bodily, social and environmental influences. To be able to locate a given function in a neuromechanical action any influences who may be a part of creating this given function would make it impossible to locate it in the neuromechanical action, since the totality of the function is a result, in such a case, of the complex and everchanging interplay of the brain and its influences.

I dont exclude that view. I think epigenetics is a factor.

Epigenetics may both be of an internalist and externalist view. It may both be a view that the environmental factors influence the brain in a linear way and so an internalist argument would still be valid (and the brain can explained with enough neuroscientifically research), or it may a view that the environmental factors influence in a non-linear way in which it would be an externalist view (where the brain can't be described because of, what I underlined in the statement, the complex and everchanging interplay between brain and its influences).