The key dimensions of medical knowledge include understanding normal human structure and function, recognizing causes and mechanisms of diseases (etiology and pathophysiology), applying evidence-based interventions and treatments, and considering socio-behavioral determinants of health. Additional aspects cover clinical decision-making skills and ongoing professional development in practice

Thank you for your insights. Medical knowledge is indeed related to evidence-based treatments, informed decision-making—especially in terms of diagnosing illnesses—and practicing a patient-centered approach. It also includes continuous development, ethical understanding of individual cases, and humanistic beliefs about the luminous mission of a doctor.

Amalya,

You too willingly accept the medical profession's positions without analysing such positions further. There is a difference between rhetoric and science. I will return to the most obvious case, that of psychiatry whereby it is the doctor who decides what is illness and what is not illness, how to cure or treat and how not to, what treats and what doesn't and thereby enabling rhetoric.

The process of diagnosis is within a context of training (which may be wrong), individual understanding of that training (the diagnosis depends entirely on the first doctor seen by the patient, who gathers diagnostic not social or predicament evidence.) Enormous power is placed in the hands of that doctor.

You need to escape rhetoric!

First and foremost, Amalya Sukiasyan ,a physician must possess a deep understanding of the theoretical foundations of medicine, including the principles of anatomy, physiology, and pathology. This knowledge serves as the bedrock upon which all medical practice is built. It is essential to comprehend the workings of the human body, the interplay of its various systems, and the ways in which disease arises and progresses.

Next, a physician must be well-versed in pharmacology, the study of the medicinal properties of substances, including their effects on the body and their interactions with one another. This knowledge is crucial for the effective treatment of diseases and the alleviation of symptoms.

Another critical dimension of medical knowledge is clinical experience, the accumulation of practical wisdom garnered from observing and treating patients. This experience allows a physician to develop a nuanced understanding of the complexities of human disease and to refine their diagnostic and therapeutic skills.

Furthermore, a physician must be familiar with dietetics and the importance of lifestyle in maintaining health and preventing disease. This includes an understanding of the role of nutrition, exercise, and environmental factors in promoting well-being.

In addition, surgical skills are essential for the treatment of certain conditions, and a physician must be adept in the use of various techniques and instruments to perform procedures with precision and care.

Lastly, a physician must cultivate ethics and compassion, recognizing the sacred trust that exists between the healer and the patient. This involves not only providing effective treatment but also offering emotional support, comfort, and solace to those in need.

Best, stephen

Stephen,

You missed out on one of my points. The process is confirmed within dogma in that it concerns only physical attributes in line with the psychiatric belief that this is not simply the core of mental illness but also the only possible rationale. All mental illness concerns physical etiology produced within and by the brain. The Descartes' concept of the brain containing and inventing everything. This is the process accepted by psychiatrists, although I know you need to extent it beyond the profession. Psychiatric ethics are centred not on the patient but the doctors. The patient is largely inactive as was the case in mental hospitals. The patient does not even now argue with the doctor or present alternative views. Look at my work on Jack Kerouac, and how he was bullied for having alternative views on life. The ethical position of the doctor was to convince the patient they were ill and treat them appropriately. The position of the patient was not o resist that treatment.

Look instead at the psychological idea of the social etiology of some mental illness, and the processes include the patient not exclude them. They are active and thereby can be active in their own recovery. Given my description above, for psychiatry only the physical, chemicals, can treat mental illness and in this the patient acts as the traditional patient in the old hospitals. They are not involved within their own recovery.

We have here two theoretical processes in mental illness and its treatments. They are not compatible but still exist on or in the same process, but in fact psychiatry dominates. The two theories? One is higher (yes it is normally considered that but not within the level of each but the complexity), the other is lower, determining little complexity and that is the Descartes/psychiatric approach.

So the less complex dominates often pushing aside the more considerate (that does not mean right) but perhaps for the wrong reasons, the power of doctors and the money towards drug companies. You are kinder to psychiatrists then I am but then you have not listened to the stories I have.

My contribution to the key dimensions of medical knowledge Stanley Wilkin does not mention or include psychiatry !

The reason for this exclusion is that psychiatry has dominantly a social function of mental police via drugs and to lock away. The psychological idea of social etiology is scientifically sound as long as we do not ignore the sum of a person's actions in real life=actions set off chain reactions, influencing our circumstances, relationships, and experiences, i.e. I do not believe in a medical treatment of the soul (mind) as the term psychiatry suggests. In this sense, mental disorders are a reflection of wider social conditions, rapid advances in civilization can create more mental illness, if our human nature is not better understood; these pathological processes are due not to physical lesions in the brain, but a disturbance in the natural harmony of the mind's functions (forms of awareness or presence), rooted in the nervous system. In addition, my critique suggests that psychiatry's focus on biological and psychological factors neglects the spiritual needs and resources that individuals can use to cope with mental illness.

You Stanley Wilkin are right to point to the scientific and professional fact that a psychiatrist is really not a physician. I do also agree to your many observations that the whole medical field should integrate more psychological ideas to fully understand and heal human behavior and action:

__________________

Some ideas: Modern Medicine makes use of the initial formulations of classical matter, and its approach of deterministic mechanistic system control. It yet has to integrate the findings of relativistic, probabilistic and unified science. ‘Modern’ medicine still needs to understand the extent to which the electro-hydrodynamics determine the nature and state of the body. Classical science of matter cannot explain how living beings use freedom of choice; it is an unhealthy foundation for health care !

A change in perspective is a must. As long as ‘modern medicine’ adheres to the tenets of ‘classical science’, subjects will be regarded as objects, consciousness will be reduced to (DNA) matter, and living beings as cadavers. This is not a figure of speech. Medical students still spend much time studying cadavers; without considering how this alienates them from contact with living beings.

Modern medicine manipulates politicians and the public by referring to the merits of classical science. Classical science is a deadly foundation for health care. Classical science addressed invariance: action+reaction=0 (No-change). Invariance was traditionally called Hell (Closed System).

Most of the complaints about ‘regular’ medicine are based on this. It is based on a bias: a model of control and domination (as in dealing with objects) instead of participation/interaction based on consciousness and communication (offered by Traditional Health Care).

Life is an open system. In life, all ‘Closed Systems’ integrate in/to their context via singularities (mathematics), anomalies (physics), taboos (society),  dogma (religion) and axioms (science). Our body does not operate on the basis of physics (‘medical disease management’), but as phasics (“traditional health care”). Phasics (changes of phase state) operates in phase space, in the domain of information. It is the basis for the dynamics of information in formation. It operates by changes in logic, in which unity and units, boundary and fields, part and whole, state and process are interchangeable always. More important than the relationship between phase and state (phasics and physics) is the ability for consciousness/intelligence ‘switching’ between the dual modes.

________

Appendix:

The Pineal Gland as Gate Keeper between outer/inner realizations

The Pineal gland serves as a primordial cell in the body, responding to the difference between the two hologram states, in conjunction with their correspondence, on which our Freedom of Choice is based. We ‘there’ choose whether we change our involvement.

[The pineal gland operates in the core of the skull. It is a regulator for the whole interbrain. The interbrain (diencephalon) consists of the Thalamic nuclei, the Hypothalamic nuclei, the Hypophysis and the Epiphysis (pineal). Even in Classical Medical science education based on the study of cadavers, the Thalamus is called the “gateway to consciousness” or “control centre”. Descartes called the Pineal Gland the “Seat of the Soul”. It is the DMT production in the pineal gland which enables the mind to perceive beyond the physical domain. In this region, all central nerve pathway are switched by synapses, but also the neuronal control of the hormone system is based in the interbrain. The optical nerve crossing is located with contact to the interbrain. The pacemaker function of the Thalamus Brainwave-Frequency is entrained to the Schumann resonance frequency of Earth; and the basis for the capacity for self-healing (Anderson & Anderson, 1968: citation in Oshman, Energy Medicine, Chapter 7.8)]

In our head ‘around the pineal gland’ we experience the interplay of two holographic projections (Pribram, 1994). In the cerebellum we experience the aggregate of proprioceptic information from within the body. In the cerebrum we find the integration of our experience of our context; relayed by the sensory system cells on the periphery of the body (the sensory organs). In our body we relate cortical sensoricepsis to cerebellar propriocepsis.

Our perceived reality is a ‘Moiré’ interplay of the two ‘Gabor’ holographic projections.

Stephen,

wonderfully sound. Nevertheless, Stephen you still seem intent on seeing all these factors within the brain, although you have amassed an immense amount here. If the brain merely processes, which it may, its renowned properties must give way and our dedication to focusing on the brain allows human beings to be the final arbiters, rather than simply assessors of local phenomenon. While the destruction of the brain in part or whole eliminates human independent assessment (which is simply perceptional within localised and temporary focus,) and places it outside of the brains perceptual nodules alone.

Stanley Wilkin I do propose that the brain serves as a kind of intermediary, a vessel for the intellect to operate within the physical world. The brain's properties, as you put it, are merely a means to an end, a way for the intellect to interact with the world around us.

Your observation that the destruction of the brain, in part or whole, eliminates human independent assessment is a telling one. It suggests that the brain is not the sole source of human perception, but rather a crucial component in the larger system of human cognition.

In this sense, I agree with you that our dedication to focusing on the brain may lead us to overlook the larger context in which human perception and consciousness operate. As I often argue, the human experience is not solely reducible to physical or material explanations, but rather involves a complex interplay of spiritual, intellectual, and physical factors.

The brain's properties, remarkable as they are, must give way to a more profound understanding of the human experience, one that recognizes the intricate web of relationships between the brain, the body, and the divine. It is only by acknowledging the limits of our current understanding and embracing a more holistic and nuanced view of human nature that we may truly come to appreciate the full richness and complexity of human existence.

Stephen,

We are it seems on the same page, except for this automatic concept of intelligence, seen it seems as autonomous and owned by all. So, work on this? All of us. Perhaps it isn't localised but a shared phenomenon?

certain processes are individually identified, which can be possibly seen as a process.

It sounds like you're exploring the idea that intelligence might not be confined to individual entities but instead exists as a shared, collective phenomenon. This perspective challenges traditional notions of intelligence being localized or solely owned by a single agent. Instead, it suggests that certain processes—perhaps cognitive, creative, or problem-solving—are distributed across systems, communities, or even the environment.

This concept aligns with ideas like collective intelligence, distributed cognition, and even the notion that intelligence emerges from interactions among parts rather than residing solely within individual components. It emphasizes the interconnectedness and the possibility that what we perceive as "intelligent behavior" could be a manifestation of shared processes operating across multiple levels or entities.

The Active Intellect (borrowed from Aristotle), in my understanding, is a metaphysical entity that serves as the source of all human thought and understanding. It is the repository of all knowledge and the catalyst for human intellectual pursuits.

The idea that certain processes can be individually identified, yet still be seen as a collective process, speaks to the concept of "overflow" (in Hebrew, "hashpa'ah"), which I use to describe the manner in which divine wisdom and intelligence flow from the higher realms to the lower ones. This overflow is what enables human beings to access and participate in the universal intelligence, thereby facilitating the acquisition of knowledge and understanding.

In this sense, intelligence can be seen as a shared, non-localized phenomenon that transcends individual boundaries, yet is still accessible and manifest in the thoughts, actions, and creations of human beings. The collective aspect of intelligence, as you proposed, is thus an integral part of the universal intelligence, which is the ultimate source of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, i.e. I posit that the human intellect is a spark of the divine, a reflection of the universal intelligence that permeates all of existence.

In terms of the root of mental disorders and the medical treatment of the soul (mind) as per the term and profession of psychiatry as charlatanry and mental police, Stanley Wilkin , I believe that these pathologoes are often or mostly related to a disconnection from our true nature and our place within the larger universe. When we become disconnected from our own inner wisdom, and from the natural world around us, we can become lost and disoriented, leading to a range of mental and emotional disturbances. By cultivating a deeper understanding of ourselves and our place within the universe, we can begin to heal and rebalance our minds and bodies, and achieve a state of greater harmony and well-being.

PS///

During my undergraduate studies (medicine and psychology), I focused intensively on brain damage until my intermediate exams; some mental pathologies definitely have physical causes (e.g. accidents, poison, cell aging).

If a phenomenon is examined it must be examined on several levels due to several perceptual changes. an intellectual alteration requires additional systems and selections of what can be seen as knowledge thereby providing further attempts at understanding further phenomenon. The model from Descartes provides a single form or plane, the use of different technical levels involving understanding of a phenomenon goes along and into one plane while creating others. in order to deal with one phenomenon requires dealing with and identifying several.

That nevertheless includes the uncomfortable sensation of perceiving the lack of intellectual consistency within say psychiatry as it means the means of evaluation are not realised leaving solutions at the point of rhetoric,

Indeed, Stanley Wilkin , I concur that a phenomenon must be examined from various levels, taking into account the multitude of perceptual changes that occur as we delve deeper into its nature. This is akin to the layers of an onion, where each layer reveals a new facet, yet also invites further investigation. The intellect, as a faculty, must adapt and employ diverse systems and selections of knowledge to grasp the intricacies of the phenomenon.

The reference to Descartes' model is intriguing, as it highlights the limitations of a single, unified plane of understanding. While Descartes' philosophical framework has contributed significantly to the development of modern thought, I believe that it is, as you astutely observed, restrictive in its singular focus. The reality is that our understanding of a phenomenon is often fragmented, with various technical levels and perspectives converging to form a more comprehensive, albeit complex, picture.

This is particularly pertinent in the realm of human knowledge, where the pursuit of understanding is often hampered by the limitations of our own cognitive faculties and the provisional nature of our knowledge. The example you cited, psychiatry, is a case in point. The lack of intellectual consistency and the reliance on rhetorical solutions, rather than empirically grounded ones, can lead to a sense of discomfort and unease.

Stephen,

I think each must be handled separately, an arduous task but often done in other thinking. NAMING while significant has collapsed different phenomena into one breaking off from the need to observe the autonomy of each observation. Each step taken in my day is a different step that may or may not hold values of other such efforts. The seeming identification through action clouds the difference of each step and the separate phenomenon.

Your observation Stanley Wilkin that each step taken in your day is a unique and separate phenomenon is a wise one. It is a reminder that our experiences and observations are not interchangeable, but rather each holds its own particular value and significance. By recognizing and respecting this autonomy, we may gain a deeper understanding of the world and our place within it.

In my own medical writings, I have emphasized the importance of careful observation and attention to the particular details of each patient's case. This approach, I believe, is equally applicable to the pursuit of philosophical and theological understanding. By eschewing hasty generalizations and instead embracing the complexity and diversity of human experience, we may come to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the world and our place within it.