Sanitarium

The theories of the mind come from the Metaphysics subdivision of Philosophy. They begin to question and argue for how the mind works, why it may work that way, and even, if it is a totally separate entity than the rest of an individual’s body. When it comes to the mind, scientists [biologists and chemists] as well as psychologists can tell us how the brain works; how the separate regions communicate with each other, how signals are sent from the brain to the body, what chemicals are released in specific situations, why people feel the way they do, etc. but all of these questions/answers only have the possibility of being true assuming the brain and the mind are one and the same. This is where metaphysics comes into play; philosophers engage themselves in an endless pursuit to find the ‘correct’ answer. This has been going on forever; and will continue to go on forever. Separating the ‘mind’ and the ‘brain’ serves the purpose of differentiating between the brain telling the body to lift its arm and the mind telling the individual what to think, how to think, etc. Over the course of the last several hundred years, many philosophers have come and left us with their oh so important thoughts on The Mind; since there are so many different areas of the mind that philosophers found relevant to discuss, so many theories were branded, yet many of them can be mutually exclusive from the others. Therefore it is ok for a person to accept or agree with several of the theories rather than be forced to pick just one. A theory such as Dualism simply suggests that the organ that we call the brain is considered as part of the body itself; whereas the real ‘mind’ is a non-physical object that is entirely a separate entity. Another theory, Functionalism, suggests that an object should be defined by the purpose it serves rather than by its physical attributes. The theory of Anomalous Monism explains that mental and physical events are in some way linked but no law can be put in place to show an exact way that the two separate events may be associated. As far as concept is considered, none of the three examples above have anything in common; one makes a literal differentiation between a physical body and a non-physical mind, another suggests how a dictionary should define its content, and the third says that the events that take place in the mind [such as thoughts] and events that take place in the physical reality have separate properties yet share a common link. All three are considered to be theories relating to mind because whether it is about the literal state of the mind, the properties of the different states, or how the mind should comprehend an object; each theory has an opinion on how the mind works/should work.
As previously stated, the basic premise of the examples above does not require that an individual chose one over the rest. One theory, Anomalous Monism for example, can be seen as a possible extension of Descartes’ Dualism theory. Dualism differentiates between a physical body and the non-physical mind. Dualism wants to show that the brain is a physical organ that is just a control room/data center for the physical body; but the mind is much more. According to Dualism, the mind is made of up thoughts, feelings, personality, things that cannot be categorized solely as physical. Anomalous Monism takes the concept of the mind and body being separate units and further determines that the same event can take place, yet be considered two separate events, one in the non-physical mind and the other in a physical reality. The same event, twice, has a link between its occurrence in the non-physical world and the physical world but its overall properties differ greatly. The similarities between the premise’s of Dualism and Anomalous Monism merely show that one has to exist for the other to exist. If Dualism did not create a clear distinction between a physical body (including the brain) and a non-physical mind, Anomalous Monism would have nothing to base its idea of separate events and different properties on.
While Dualismt and Monists (?) worry about the difference between the mind and the body, all functionalists seem to care about is how we chose to define things. Instead of using physical attributes of an object to define it, functionalists want to use its function to define the object. For example, biologists define the liver as the body’s anti-toxic center. To them it would not make a difference whether the liver was made from organic compounds, plastic tubes, etc., their focus is on the role that the liver plays in the body and its interactions with other organs. Functionalism’s connection to the previously discussed theories is that instead of simply stating that there is a difference between the body and mind, functionalists want to create the distinction based on a functional definition of both, the mind and the body. Assuming a metaphysicist can come up with an agreeable definition, the basic difference between Functionalism and Dualism would be that Functionalism just explains why Dualism says what it says.
From the examples provided, it seems fair to say that an individual can accept/agree with all three of them; instead of contradicting each other, the theories, in a way, complement each other. Dualism creates the distinction, Anomalous Monism extends the distinction [by differentiating between how events are experienced in the non-physical mind and in the physical reality], and Functionalism attempts to create a more specific and comprehensive definition of the overall distinction stated by Dualism.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Philip Dick was an American Sci-Fi novelist who focused on Metaphysics in many of his works. I believe that his words capture the essence of the Realism Theory; that no matter what we believe, reality will always continue to be ‘real’. Realists believe that reality is mind-independent; there is a real world that we can learn about. According to Austin, Realism is the idea that there are non-mental entities in existence.
Conversely, idealists believe that the world is a creation of the mind; that ‘reality’ is mind-dependant. There is no such thing as a real world. Under idealism, there is a sub-theory in which idealists believe that they are the only one that exists, and that everything they experience is a creation in their own mind. To them all people, things, interactions, anything that takes place in the ‘world’ is actually taking place in their own mind. I personally do not agree with this theory. My disagreement with this belief is that if everything takes place in the mind, how can the settings of a particular place be the same every time an interaction is experienced there? The consistency of the world as we experience it is far too great for a human mind to comprehend. For example, when we enter IT239 every Tuesday and Thursday, for the most part the room looks the same as it did a couple days before. According to idealism, the way the room looks is only in the mind; yet since our minds are not complex enough to keep the room exactly the same, it would look different every time. There are far too many details for us to have to keep consistent. Another problem with idealism is assuming that everything exists in the person’s mind, they should be able create into existence only things that they want. But if that were true, would this not be Heaven and the person be God? But I’m sure that even idealists have terrible days; so does that mean that they do not control what they create (?), in which case it would not be their mind that’s creating the object/scene. I feel like I’m not understanding the entire concept of Idealism, but from what we’ve gone over in class I’m fairly certain there isn’t much to actually understand. A question that comes to my mind is that if reality only exists in the mind of the thinker, where does the person himself exist? Does a person have to exist for his mind to exist? If not, whose mind is it? Idealism just has way too many questions to seem like a legitimate theory for what is real.
I consider myself to be a realist; I believe that there is a reality outside of my mind and that my surroundings are not entirely creations of my mind. Because I can guarantee that if reality was mind-dependant, on my mind, I would either be watching or playing football twenty-four hours a day. There would be no need for to sleep, to eat, be clean, or anything else that is required for us to live. But in reality, I am right now sitting on the floor of my bedroom writing this paper. According to idealism I should essentially be able to create in my mind that the paper is done without me going through the brutal process of actually writing it; but if in fact my reality was up to me, I would not have to write this paper in the first place. School would not exist, having to work would not exist, stress and boredom, I would be living how I want to live. Seeing as how that is not the case, I cannot wrap my head around being an idealist, plain and simple.
In my previous discussion on why I disagree with idealism, I mentioned that our brains are not complex enough to comprehend the consistency required to create a stable reality. As I also mentioned, I’m currently sitting on the floor in my bedroom; behind me there is a wall with two fairly tall windows, or at least that’s what it looked like last time I checked. The color of the wall and the blinds on the windows are both white, but two slightly different shades. I honestly have no idea what the two shades are called or what the difference is; but no matter how many times I look away and look back the colors are exactly the same difference every time. Every time I measure the wall, it is exactly the same length; the room and the house are the same every time I enter. There has to be something outside of my own mind that has put the world into existence.
Austin says that the apparent goal of human existence is to make realist statements about the world and that our statements about the world have the goal of being true in the realist sense. He is not claiming that only realist tend to do this, but all people. I do not understand how this relates to idealists; does it imply that no matter how much they believe in idealism, any statement they make about the world makes them a realist? The Correspondence Theory of Truth states that something is true if it corresponds to the real world. And from what we’ve discussed in class, idealists do not have an actual defined sense of truth. That would imply that any statements they make about ‘the world’ have no validity to them. Therefore idealism can only be a legitimate theory in the mind of a person who thinks of themselves as an idealist. To realists, the theory of idealism makes no sense at all. A person cannot live in a world that they do not believe exists.
Other than the few reasons that I attempted to relay in my previous arguments, I believe in a mind-independent reality because it is a part of my religious faith. (I realize that bringing God into a discussion like this does throw off the objectivity of it, but since philosophy is largely based on how an individual perceives their own world, I’m going to assume that it is okay for this paper). According to Islam, God is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth and He created man. Berkeley argues that everything exists as a creation in the mind of God; which explains the lack of control over our experiences as well as the ability to keep consistency throughout our experiences. Although this seems to be more plausible than just everything only existing in our own minds; saying that reality exists in the mind of God would be to say that God has a mind. This implication would be to attribute a human characteristic to the one who created mankind. I do not agree with the possibility that the Creator of everything has characteristics similar to those of His creation. In Islam God praises man as the greatest of all His creation, but if we study the history of the world we see that mankind’s journey in this world has been for only but a fraction of the life of the Earth. How can a species that was created only so few years ago be compared to the All-Powerful Lord of the Heavens and the Earth? The difference between The Creator and the creation is inconceivable, just simply unimaginable. Based on my own beliefs, I cannot support Berkley’s take on the theory of idealism; or the theory of idealism as a whole. Just to be clear, I would like to state that I do not blindly choose to be a realist only because my faith tells me to; the beauty of Islam is that it gives reasons for why we believe in what we believe. This allows us to come to a rational conclusion of why we believe what we do. I have been given reasons why I should believe in a mind-independent reality, I have looked into these reasons and decided that they make enough sense to me that I should consider myself to be a realist.
In this paper I talked about the theories of idealism and realism, but did not mention anti-realism. That is because, from my understanding, anti-realism is not actually taking a stand on whether the reality is mind-dependant (idealism) or mind-independent (realism); rather it is sort of the neutral theory which states that there could be a real world, but we can never truly know about it. Though I’m sure my arguments in support of realism and against idealism were not solid, mostly because I’m certain that I’m not fully understanding the entire basis of each, I know that I do believe in a mind-independent reality.

The Healthcare Financing Administration (HCFA) was created as a principal operating component of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in March of 1977. Its purpose was to combine under a single administration the oversight of the Medicare program, the Federal portion of the Medicaid program, and the related quality assurance activities.

Medicare: The Medicare Program provides health insurance coverage for people over the age of 65 and younger people who are receiving social security disability benefits. Beneficiaries of Medicare can receive care either through the traditional fee-for-service delivery system or through coordinated care plans; plans such as health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans, contracted through Medicare.

Medicaid: The Medicaid Program is a medical assistance program jointly financed by State and Federal governments for eligible low-income individuals. Medicaid covers healthcare expenses for all recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and most States also cover the needy elderly, blind, and disabled who receive cash assistance under the Supplemental Security Income Program. Some coverage is may also be extended to certain infants and low-income pregnant women. Some States also allow for the coverage of other low-income individuals with medical bills that qualify them as categorically or medically needy.

Quality Assurance: The Medicare/Medicaid programs include a quality assurance focal point to help carry out quality assurance provisions of the programs, the development and implementation of health and safety standards of care providers in Federal health programs, and the implementation of the End Stage Renal Disease Program and the Peer Review provisions.

The American Health Information Management Association is a professional non-profit organization for medical record management. Traditionally working out of hospitals and to referring paper files, the field presently refers to all healthcare systems and types of media. AHIMA’s mission is as stated: “to be the pre-eminent foundation recognized for excellence in health information leadership, policy and research for the healthcare industry and the public.” The foundation formulates and issues opinions, supports education, conducts research, and compiles its contributions into a single Body of Knowledge (BoK).
AHIMA can be traced back to its origin in 1928 when the American College of Surgeons established the Association of Record Librarians of North America (ARLNA). ARLNA’s purpose was to “elevate the standards of clinical records in hospitals and other medical institutions.” In its 82 year history, AHIMA has undergone three name changes; from its original name of ARLNA, it became the American Association of Medical Record Librarians (AAMRL) in 1938; then in 1970 the name was changed to the American Medical Record Associations (AMRA); then finally in 1991, it was given its current name of the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). The name changes were justified with an explanation that reflected the progression of contemporary medical record use, practices, and perceptions.
As of 2010, the association has more than 59,000 members in four membership classifications. Each member subsequently belongs to relevant state chapter. The association offers seven credentials pertaining to four areas of practice; HIM, Coding, Data Analysis and Privacy. Two credentials require formal education; the others are acquired by a combination of testing and work experience. AHIMA requires members obtain regular continuing education to maintain their credentials. The Journal of AHIMA has a circulation of 59,000 and publishes both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed articles. The Association’s membership is overwhelmingly female.

The Vision, Mission, and Values of the American Health Information Management Association

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration is an agency of the US State Department of Labor. The agency is headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor. OSHA was created by congress under the Occupational Safety and Health Act signed by President Nixon in 1970.
The mission of OSHA is to help prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and occupational fatalities by issuing and enforcing health and safety standards in the workplace. OSHA’s federal regulations cover most private sector workplaces. Therefore the OSH Act allows for states to develop their own plans to cover the public employment sector, as long as it provides equivalent protection to that provided by the federal government to the private sector. In return, the federal government pays 20% of the cost for states that have had their plans approved by OSHA.
OSHA’s most notable regulation changes in the last 40 years include:
•Guards on all moving parts (1970)
•Permissible exposure limits (based on standards from 1968): maximum concentrations of chemicals stipulated by regulation for chemicals and dusts
•Personal protective equipment: broader use of respirators, gloves, coveralls, and other protective equipment when handling hazardous chemicals; including goggles, face shields, ear protection in typical industrial environments
•Lockout/tagout (1980s): requirement for locking out energy sources when performing repairs or maintenance
•Confined space (1990s): specific requirements for air sampling and use of “buddy system” when working in small, confined spaces
•Hazard Communication (1983): aka “Right to Know” standard which requires developing and communicating information on the hazards of chemical products used in the workplace
•Process Safety Management (1992): issued as an attempt to reduce large scale industrial accidents. In this situation, process refers to any activity that is in reference to dealing with highly hazardous chemicals in the workplace
•Bloodborne pathogens (1990): a standard designed to prevent healthcare/ other workers from being exposed to bloodborne pathogens, i.e. hepatitis B and HIV
•Excavations and trenches: OSHA requires that any trench or excavations wherein workers are more than five feet deep must be provided with safeguards in addition to proper sloping and storage of excavated material to prevent collapses/cave-ins
•Exposure to asbestos