Jump to content
Avant Labs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MattG187

  • Rank
  1. Treatment options

    what are your thoughts on pregabalin vs neurontin for GAD, OCD. in terms of side effects and effectiveness. ive read that pregabalin is certainly better for neuropathic pain, and pain in general and will perhaps gain approval for GAD treatment. i would opt for the drug with fewer sides even if it was a little less effective. ssri's just made my ocd so bad i could watch a movie for more the 15 minutes at a time before being distracted. it was torture.
  2. Treatment options

    ya ive researched most of the treatment options both script and supplemental, i was looking for advice on options that people found effective. i beleive its method of action is through the 5-ht1a receptor which controls anxiety, thermoregulation and sleep. what sides did you get from the buspar, ive heard from a couple people that it is a brutal drug for dissociation and CNS symptoms. what if any sides did you get? any insomnia, hot flashes, dissociation? thanks, appreciate the input.
  3. hi, im looking for some advice on treatment options for what could be classified as anxious depressive(GAD). I also suffer from OCD like symptoms with emphasis on health related concerns, namely the physical symptoms of anxiety and depression. symptoms such as: twitching tension in the neck and muscles etc.. daily headaches some mild general aches and pains and some sleep issues, oversleeping is my main problem. im able to workout and attend class 40+ hours a week so i wouldnt classify myself as tired per se, moreso lacking motivation and energy. Also, i have trouble sitting still in class, concentrating etc.. and all these symptoms and the previous mentioned have increased as i have moved away from home to attend a rather demanding school, and dealing with other issues such as relationship and family etc.. anyway, ive always had the anxiety which spills into social settings, life, money etc... GAD. Ive come to the fact that anxiety is the primary problem and it is making me depressed as i cant relax, or stop obsessing about how i feel etc.. ive had two full blood panels done, multiple liver tests, B-12, serum calcium and magnesium, rbc count etc. the only thing that was off was my eosinophil count which was in the high-normal range, as i do have some mild-moderate allergies. I was prescribed citrolapram at 20mgs a day and could not hack the sides, that ranged from touble breathing(dryed me out considerably), libido, insomia etc.. therefore, id rather not go down the SSRI road again. i was thinking of options like Tianeptine, or Pregabalin(even neurontin) etc.. as i would like something with as little side effects as possible. possibly SAM-e and st johns wort. but they seem to have mild anxiolytic effects. i also take ativan on occassion, inderal for performance issues. ive tried inositol ashwagandha bacopa monerii lithium orotate any ideas guys? would be greatly appreciated.
  4. Pea Vs Whey

    hemp is a very good non-dairy source and is a complete protein. tastes similar to pine nuts, i buy mine organic. it also has a ton of fiber.
  5. why is there something insted of nothing

    I've heard this analogy before. imagine having a billion dollars in the bank, would it please you to know you have it but were unable to spend it.God is the perfect infinite, thus he cannot experience himself because polarity is the defining characteristic in experience. thus from the everything he created something, this finite exsistence. The world is imperfect because you can only experience imperfection not true perfection. thus, gods goal is to experience himself through the finite imperfection or our exsistence. this fits with multi-verse and evolutionary theory. the cold-hot, light-dark argument is another way to exemplify polarity. I beleive this is what DaRooster is getting at. From the probably infinite the finite actuality is created.
  6. why is there something insted of nothing

    DaRooster what makes you sure that this universe isnt infinite? ive been reading on this particular question for the last couple days.
  7. why is there something insted of nothing

    there is no such thing as first cause. if you say nothing did create something then your implying there was a first cause. however, something has to be eternal, you cant say that the first cause needed no cause that is not logical(people often say what caused god, the creator needs a creator). If you follow this line of reasoning you re setting yourself up for an infinite regression of first causes, which by its nature makes this something impossible. therefore, logically it is only satisfying to say that something is eternal and has no cause, that is the only way for anything or this something to exist. using the phrase first cause implies that you need a cause and effect relationship, wiht eternal this is not so.
  8. monism critique

    sorry for the long post(took a while to copy it out), a simple critique of monism nothing more. any counter arguments would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance "sankaracharya said that difference and diversity were simply appearances caused by avidya, or ignorance, and moshka, or liberation, came from seeing the identity of our souls with brahman. in the ultimate anlysis no difference between things exsist.Madhvacharya(mad), dif is the primary fact of experience as judged not only by the senses but also by the sakshi, the experiencing self. when we know something we know it is different from other things. to know something is to know it in its individuality and in its distinction from all else. interdependence does not eliminate difference becasue here we are talking of different things depending on each other. senses show that the world is real and there are difference between things. senses can be mistaken, but the act of perceiving implies that there is someone perceiving(the subject) and something perceived that is different from oneself(the object). in perceiving and remembering we are aware it is WE who're doing the perceiving as distinct from someone else. the advaitins, do not deny perception, but compare it to dreams. althought the exp in dreams seem real, they are unreal when we awaken. likewise, when we identify with brahman, differences will disappear(apperance of), this is because there are degrees of truth. the experience of distinction and multiplicity may be true at a lower level but not at the highest. however, either it is the case that there are difference or is isnt. both cannot be true at the same time. moreover there can be no justification for denying what is obvious to experience and reason. arguements against the view that experience is illusory are mulitfarious. suffereing and enjoyment are real and never thought to be mistaked and so theres no reason why we should see them as illusions. the monist argument is self-contradictory as well. an illusion can come from the body with respect to something external to itself. but the self in its own inner experiences is not subject to illusion;we dont think that we are someone else. if we say that the experiencing self is itself in the grip of an illusion then we are inevitably led to self-contradiction. if everything is an illusory then even this judgment of illusion will be illusory, the only illusion is that everything is an illusion. advaitin, rejects seperation of subject and object, liberation comes from realization of identity with brahman.oneness with brahman is incoherant. to be conscious is to be conscious of something. this is true of self-consciousness in which the self is subject and object. we cannot know anything if there is not something to know and someone who knows it. and if you dont have either ie, the object or the subject, then there can be no knowledge. the idea of pure consciousness is as incoherent as the idea of pure seeing were one does not see anything. there is an infinite gulf between the human person and god. Madhvacharya contrasted human limitation. with the perfection of god and said it is blasphemous to suggest that we are identical with god. we are aware of ourselves as limited and dependent, and our experience of our imperfection is not an illusion becasue our inmost self, sakshi, sees it to be real and true.but god is totally independent and without any limitation. how could there be any identity between two such entirely different realties. and if we are ultimately no different from brahman(god) why do we suffer the illusion of being seperate? the advaitim says this is caused by ignorance, but who is suffering from this ignorance and when, how and from where did it come? if there is no "we" then it is brahman who is deluded. monist say everything is one, the advaitin says that Brahman is the one and only reality, is beyond all characteristics and is, strictly speaking , indescribable. however, somethiing without characteristics is no different from a void.moreover, if something has no characteristics it makes no sense to speak of it existing at all. if we talk of it at all then we are characterizing it. if we say its existence is self-evident, then it has to be the object of an experience.monism is based on a particular interpretation of the vedas and upanishads.however, Madhvacharya authored several studies of these works to show they were clearly theistic and were interpreted so in the first commentaries. they teach the distinction of god and the world, omnipotent etc. while some suggest monism, on closer study they stress the majesty of Brahman and dependence of all things on it. other texts teach a radical different between brahman and jiva. advaitin says Brahman has no characteristics scriptures point that certain attributes or properties such as relaity, knowledge and infinity are Brahman. since some verses suggest identity eg " that is reality, that is atman. that art thou" and some emp. difference, and since both cant be true we must choose.. the only interpretation that is consistent with the "consolidated exp. of humanity and the inference based on it" and this, he says, is the one that accepts difference. the scriptures that speak of our being distinct from god are the ones taht are fundamental while those that suggest identity are figures of speech highlighting intimacy and dependence. usual texts cited by the monists acutally make the case for an absolute distinction between god and the world. and the svetasvatara upanishad, and the last of the upanishads that presumable is also the last word on the subject, is undeniably theistic. faced with the theistic texts, the advaitins have said the up that teach distincition are " non-truth declaring". but this is a case of wanting to have there cake and eat it too. if the monist says these verses are false then that undermines his/her own position since it is based on the veracity of the scriptures. brahman without attributes is no different from the sunya or void of the buddhists. other similarities include the ideas of maya as illusion and nirvana as liberation from ignorance". sorry again for the long post. the reason for this thread or thrust is to hear any counter arguments or faulty logic exemplified by the above passage. i have not found any or have read anything adressing these arguments, discuss.
  9. why is there something insted of nothing

    im not attacking you im just trying to make sense of your argument.
  10. why is there something insted of nothing

    Nothing(it is all that ever has existed) exists before god, something, better yet some non-thing outside of space-time(since matter cannot be eternal, nor is this universe infinite) had to exist for anything to exist. Nothing came before god because outside of time, there is no beginning-end or no linearity thus no need for cause, it is eternal and infinite. Cause-effect relationship only exists linearly because of time, but anything outside of time does not have to operate in this dimension. Your evidence is the same evidence i use to decipher that nothing never existed however, i dont think "alternate states of nothing" existed to make the something, rather, i deduce that something has always existed-god. Iassume your alternate state of nothing is in fact something. Not another state of nothing since this doesn't make logical sense to me. Nothing can not have a alternative state because in order to have an alternate state characteristics must be subscribed to the "nothing" and in reality this nothing is actually something once attributes are assigned. How can it be alternate if not different, are you saying there are different types of nothing, that is not possible.
  11. why is there something insted of nothing

    i dont understand your proposition, how can alternate forms of nothing occur, this to me is a play on semantics, nothing is just that nothing and has no alternate forms. it is similar to saying there are multiple truths, another play on the meaning of words, there is in fact only one type of nothing not many variant forms. given eternity i dont see how nothing could produce somthing, since no laws restrict it. Nothing has no characteristics by nature so to say alternate forms apart from each other requires identification of difference by characteristics. elaborate if you will to show how the assumption that there cannot be alternate states of nothing, because it seems these alternate states would have characteristics meaning they are something not nothing. i see nothing as just that nothing, with no potential for anything or for something and given eternity nothing would never produce a something hence the infinite and eternal reality.
  12. why is there something insted of nothing

    refutation of spiritual monism that is
  13. why is there something insted of nothing

    no not at all, sorry for the confusion, im saying that to accept the question some people accept monism for the reasons you outlined. i dont accept monism but theism. i will elaborate but im in a rush and would rather form a convincing argument. but yes the non-thing would have to be operating within the uni-verse. im was merely stating that theism has arguments against monism which refute it. the arguments come from madhvacharya and his critique of monism thus arguing for theism or a personal god.
  14. why is there something insted of nothing

    it seems like im making a quantum leap in logic to say there is a personal god, however, i have heard arguments which make it more probable then not that it is personal. that is, i can show why i think theism is correct, i just dont want to sidetrack this thread and keep it open to the main question and possible alternative answers.
  15. why is there something insted of nothing

    nightop, you sounds as if your concept of oneness is a argument for a type on monism wether spiritual or material. quantum physics also point to this oneness if im not mistaken in which we are all actually the same thing(quantum entanglement) and everything has "cause-effect" on everything else(quanta). i have had arguments with people who dont understand the word, nothing, in which the purport a vaccum(quantum fluctuations) explain the exsistence of everything. however, this question merely delays the inevitable in which we ask what created the vaccum etc. this seems to be the materialists, atheists, strongest argument i have seen but they mistake a type of something for nothing in which nothing is never and can never be a type of something. section 8 i agree that the grammer of the situation gives rise to the confusion or argument in the answering of the question. however, some who have reached this conclusion have argued for monism which has many strong arguments against it. basically, it seems evident that a personal god, or entity, non-thing would have to had created this universe.