Where the Implications for SCZ Diagnosis is Flawed

[NoDifference]

The problem with the scz diagnosis is that it allows a normal type of synthesized consciousness to be categorized as an underlying factor in the diagnosis. 

People need to ask the question, is the synthesis of sight or sound any less or more of the nature of a hallucination than the synthesis of auditory/lingual thought as in perception?  Simply stated that is voices from no one but oneself.

The diagnosis needs to be refined in regards to the fact that a person has assumed that this auditory lingual type of synthesis is the mental communication from outside entities when in fact the person has simply begun to communicate with one’s own syntheses as a form of socialization. 

The prevention of scz can be achieved by informing people of what the types of syntheses of consciousness are, and that they shouldn’t take the auditory/lingual thoughts any more serious socially than the senses of smell, taste etc. 

I believe that to many people the voices play a role in their social abilities as a form of inspiration about what to say to people.  This is what I gather from people as well as doing the same myself, but this sort doesn’t socialize with those.

If people understand that this is in no way any communication with which they can make into companionship, they will have prevented scz which is diagnosis that is actually constituted by the presence of the conditioned behavior of socializing with one’s own articles of consciousness.

Conditioning in regards to socializing with people is one thing that the brain has no adverse effects from.  Conditioning in regards to socializing with one’s own conscious effects is something of a whole other category of language learning and conditioning.  I can expand on this, but I’m doubtful about the interest in the subject here.  The bottom line of the latter instance of lingual conditioning is that the effects are not compatible with the nature of the brain itself as well as not compatible with the nature of the true physical and social environments.  The brain cannot chemically withstand this kind of processing, thus the classic chemical imbalances are the result.  The brain also cannot assess reality correctly thus behave rationally to a degree that is dependent on the level of conditioning and of the chemical imbalance that results.  The concepts in regards to how well understood the person’s actual situation is in reality and how believed the person’s assumed situation is in the delusional frame of “reality” play a key role in the level of conditioning and chemical imbalance as its result.

Case in point, a long stead and fanatic social relationship amongst the brain itself is catastrophic unto itself.  This is the result of the misidentification of one’s own mental activities which obviously are never ceasing, therefore the perceived social accompaniment is never absent. 

This subject needs to be assessed by some very seasoned experts in the field because of the complexity of the matters of social psychology, language and apperception.  I have no doubt that to the unseasoned sort this subject is actually quite a maze unfamiliar with their unrefined perception of the phenomenon of perceiving simply by being new founded experts in the field of psychology.

You know if anyone knows another forum which discusses psychology with people in the field, I’d appreciate that you drop it by me.  I’d like to get as many people to look this over as possible.

Thank you

[SWM]

i am curious about your interests and your experience, if i could ask;

how much work have you done directly with individuals that have schizophrenia or psychotic disorders? in what capacity have you worked with individuals with psychosis?

have you ever experienced psychosis yourself?

[NoDifference]

Not exactly the questions I was looking for.  I don't mean anything deragatory, but maybe we could have gotten further into this by asking you what style of shoes you wear, and which political party do you align yourself with?  By the time we reach the end of this thread, we could be asking each other whether I mind if you send me third party advertisements, and whether you or not you will endorse my pasionate ventures.  

Like I said, I'm not hammering you, but I have a hard time avoiding the chance to point out the blatent disregard for the main subject and possibly the insult in your reply which is apperent to anyone with any slight degree of skepticism.

I'm just a working and writing slub that has worked as little as possible in order to write as much about philosophy and the causality of consciousness in the past few years as anyone else.  I take a lot of facts from those in the field for inspiration which propels me farther than I ever expect in each instance.  The subject I actually want to stick to in the top post is just a minor subject in a wide array of subjects that I've delved into over the years, and I thought it would be a good place to start off with as a new member here.


I see you are basically the only serious subscriber here.  Has that ever been a problem for you or any of the guests?  This forum is slower than what I hoped.

[Psychdigg]

Are you suggesting that a possible solution to the schizophrenic's problem is to simply become aware that the voices in his head are simply his thought processes becoming foreground.  Generally people chatter away and don't listen to themselves and only become aware of this chatter when they attempt to achieve meditative calm. 

[NoDifference]

Well, if a person could clearly understand how one's thought process work no matter how unique, the person could never incur scz and the person could resurect the original paradigm from the ruinous delusions about mental communcations which imply one's thoughts are from and to some entity.

The loss of control in scz is not some genetic problem.  It's a problem with associating mental activities with lingual cues for too many years, and doing so fanatically during times of stress kind of like folks to a confessional.  The more social with this assumed mental connection they become, the more the exacerbate the whole lingual acqusition process with associating mental activities with lingual cues from and to assumed entities.

Now when this becomes it's most, is when they are groping for social support and guidance most i.e. during times of stress.  As this can become more clear to the person as being a real part of their reality, the person becomes more and more emotionally involved with the give and take here.  The juices start to flow, so things upstairs start quaking about this thing.  Add on top of that the kind of consciousness synthesis of voices which would just be inspirational to most people trying to think of something to say, and you've got a love/hate relationship all within the mind.  The wheels start turning, and the heat turns up.  Soon.... melt down.  Bingo, SCZ!

[NoDifference]

Are you suggesting that a possible solution to the schizophrenic's problem is to simply become aware that the voices in his head are simply his thought processes becoming foreground.  Generally people chatter away and don't listen to themselves and only become aware of this chatter when they attempt to achieve meditative calm. 

Can you give a detailed explanation of what you mean by "chattering away?"  I assume something, but I don't want to assume anything.  I'd rather be sure and maybe learn something too.

[SWM]

Not exactly the questions I was looking for.  I don't mean anything deragatory, but maybe we could have gotten further into this by asking you what style of shoes you wear, and which political party do you align yourself with?  

thats not true at all, my style of shoes has nothing to with my understanding of psychosis.

your experience of psychosis as a diagnosed patient or as a professional has a lot to do with how our conversations about this disorder can move forward.

Like I said, I'm not hammering you, but I have a hard time avoiding the chance to point out the blatent disregard for the main subject and possibly the insult in your reply which is apperent to anyone with any slight degree of skepticism.

I'm just a working and writing slub that has worked as little as possible in order to write as much about philosophy and the causality of consciousness in the past few years as anyone else.  I take a lot of facts from those in the field for inspiration which propels me farther than I ever expect in each instance.  The subject I actually want to stick to in the top post is just a minor subject in a wide array of subjects that I've delved into over the years, and I thought it would be a good place to start off with as a new member here.

the reason i ask those questions is that your thinking about psychosis has so many errors that you are either a psychiatrist or a inquisitive student. in order to converse with you and explain your misconceptions it would be easier for me if i know what level of experience you currently have.

I see you are basically the only serious subscriber here.  Has that ever been a problem for you or any of the guests?  This forum is slower than what I hoped.

i'll not guess what the guests are thinking. it is not a problem for me, as i have a busy schedule and moderating a slow forums is easier for me than moderating a busy one.

[NoDifference]

SWM,
Why don't we just say that what ever you write, I will do any necessary search work in order to fully understand any kind of understanding about this that you care to share.

I'm  wondering how a vague rule about categorizing the introspections of people could be so far over my head that it can affect what you can tell me. 

I've only had a few classes in college, but I'm likely going to change my major to psych because I've been an avid psych/philo thinker/writer for a long, long time now.  So don't hold back.  If the terms are unfamiliar, I will do the research to put it all together. 

I have a feeling about you, SWM, and I think this thread might become one long debate.   

[Psychdigg]

"chattering away"

 The brain's main function is to match patterns and then do a bunch of "since...therefore...." type of logic.  The "since" part of the argument is the matched pattern and the "therefore" is a lot of rehearsing old patterns that seemed to have been successful in similar situations.  Humans  sense, think, feel and act like all organisms.  But we vary in emphasis.  Some are very extraverted and are tossed about by the environment and their problem is they dissipate their energies in too many directions.  Other are too active and take risks that endanger themselves and others.  Depressives deal with bizarre feelings that well up and prevent them from analyzing their situation.  Some get locked in their brains - which is probably the case with a lot of schizophrenics.  They overwork their abstracting and analysis. In other words they get into a viscious cycle of stress and then dealing with the stress with too much ideation.   Words are used in the thinking process and that's the endless chatter or what meditators call the "monkey brain". 

Most people are distracted by what's going on around them so they don't hear all the disjointed sentences and ideas that are constantly bubbling up.  It's just noise in the machinery that they don't pay attention too.  Most people ignore all that and only become conscious of fully formed ideas.  On the other hand a person who is inclined to ignore the outside world experience is getting most of this stuff at the stage where the brain is putting it all together and they receive it in their conscious state unfiltered and unsorted.

These are my own ideas about schizophrenia.   So don't put any stock in them.  How can anyone really know what goes on inside another person's brain.  But I feel it is based on a systems view of how organisms function.

It might be managed by trying to develop a wide range of creative outlets and change up often.  Have a music day.  A painting day.  A feeling day.   A dancing day.  etc.  The idea is to become engaged in external things and begin to disengage the "thinking". 

[NoDifference]

Psychdigg,

Interesting perspective.  A summation of things.

That last comment kind of hit me.  "...begin to disengage the "thinking". "

I'd assume that this sort of pattern would lead to our best and brightest.

I postulated once that scz people are just that, ultra high level thinkers that if not loaded heavily enough with objective expectations, understanding, and most importantly occupations.  I used the analogy of a high powered locomotive which if not heavy loaded enough would be allowed to drive too fast, and drive right off of the curve of the earth.  The locomotive is of course the thinking brain, and the types of locomotives were high power and average power which were representative of various degrees of creative functionality.  The heavy load is representative of objectivity and lots of it, and the lighter load is representative of minimal objectivity, minimal objective understanding etc.  In other words the light load consists of subjective na na that most people can only make sense of the reality of themselves and beyond themselves.  That would be the social and mystic "gruel" that people are fed by each other as a filler without means to access anything more substantial about everything.

If a brain has the high capacity to split a concept into a 100 concepts because it is actually soooo creative (you understand creative synthesis), it would absolutely go mad if it were only exposed to non-coherent information.  By non-coherent information I mean ideas about reality that are not consistent with reality.  The person knows no better, and for what ever reason is beholden to the na na ideas out there.  I easily assume this is the for conditioning oneself so aptly in beliefs that plant and grow a paradigm which is very inconstent with coherent information but instead with non-coherent information. 

The thinking unit is so fertile that the objective seed has to be injected into it by which a genius tree can begin, otherwise the idiot tree has full reign in such a fertile generator completely corrupting itself by its fruit like a tree that grows strongly in fertile soil, but bears fruit that when fallen toxifies the soil stunting the tree unless there is a species with the nature of scavenging these very fruit thus preventing this self poisoning process from proceeding.

[Psychdigg]

Myth:  the brain is creative.

The brain is the opposite of creative.  Modern society is schizophrenic because it is locked in the brain.
Just consider what "derrivatives"  are in our modern economy.  They are a schizophrenic break with reality. 

Brains enslave and imprison an organism.  Once a brain locks onto a solution it diggs a rut.  Problem solved!  Fixed forever - or so it wishes.  Reality is constantly changing.  Creativity is adapting to the change.  But that change can't be produced by the brain.  All the brain can do is imagine variations on a theme.  Creativity comes when you surrender your "ego" your "boundry"  your "jail cell" to environmental sensory in puts.  As the meditators say  "Lose your mind - and come to your senses".
Creativity is a search in your environment for solutions - not the infinite regressions of your mind.  Schizophrenia, and too much thinking is like holding up a mirror to a mirror - the same image to infinity.  Thinkers are a little too arrogant.  They believe that thinking is man's most valuable function. All of our functions are needed.  Thinking just makes sure that our "total" experience as an organism isn't lost.  It's like a thermostat setting.  A thermostat setting is worthless if it isn't tied to the real world - keeping the temperature comfortable AND economical.  But forget the notion that the mind is creative.  Creativity is the result of accident.  Creativity is the result of searching and groping in the real world AND stumbling on a solution.  At that point the mind can say "nice" I'll use that in the future.  The mind is imaginative.  It can imagine all possible worlds but there is only one real world here and now at this moment - and it's the world out there.

[NoDifference]

I enjoyed this post.

I have to mention that by creativity I meant the same as imagination.  These I understand as being the phenomenon of deduction.  There is the ability to synthesize information which is not iduced via the external senses but can be said to be induced by the inner sense of observing the since and therefore processing work you mention before.  By augmenting a few different capacities about the external induction such as sensitivity to detail, memory, and multitude of patternizing processes and induction in regards to those patternizing processes, you have an deduction machine! 

The thing is about this high rate hypothesizer is that it may be fed an overwhelming amount of na na which causes it to completely detach as you say.

I'm going to keep in mind what you say about the misconception about creativity about the brain.  I want to think about it in regards to epistemology.  I may wholly agree with you in some time.  I have my doubt though.

It's a good topic.

[Psychdigg]

Even if you are able to imagine a "possible" synthesis based on data which you have, by the way obtained from your search in the real environment, you still  have to search in the real world to see if your "idea" exists somewhere and if it is possible and worth while to produce it if it doesn't exist yet.  Next you have to deal with all the nuts and bolts problems that the "real" world presents in producing an ACTUAL object.  This is also true when it comes to writing a fictional novel.  Having the story in your head isn't creativity.  In fact the process of actually writing the novel presents real world constraints that often send the writer into novel plot areas that wouldn't have occurred if he weren't manipulating and interacting with the REAL media of his script.  The same goes for a visual artist.  The feed back of the canvas and color start dictating new possibilities of presentation.

[NoDifference]

SWM,

You were saying that my observed flaw is not one, but can you explain how.

Also I like to say that I always have my guard up when I join a new forum.  Getting ganged up on for being the new guy with big ideas and a bright optimism tends to look like a certain cut of meat to some collections of people. 

When you asked about how I'm afiliated with psych, I assumed that you were just another dog fishing me out, so my game is to turn that fishing pole into my lure, and continue to fish out what I'm looking to know. 

Maybe I offended you because I see you are not carrying out this conversation.  I'm deeply interested in several aspects of psych, and it seems inappropriate to haggle a professional at the colleges around here or the clinics too.  The forum is an ideal to go over things with a professional because there is plenty of time to respond to each other, and no one has to change any plans.  Also we don't have to live in the same city.

I'm anticipating people that are professionals or psych majors to look things over with me on a regular basis.  I've tried some other sites, and my thread hasn't even moved.  I can keep looking, but maybe people are as avid as I am about filing into a forum to go over psych. 

I don't know what it takes, but I'm bot psychotic.  If you want to pretend I'm a savant student of psych, I suppose that wouldn't be so bad.  I'm a die hard psych buff, but I'm mostly home grown through self education kind of like a Descartes or something.

Anytime you have time.

[NoDifference]

Psychdigg,

The only place I can put your statement is in the area of metaphysics where all possibilities exist.  It is not a place of where, or if it is, it is at every point of reality.  I wrote about this along time ago.

Everything that has been invented by people here may have been invented by some other group long ago on another planet, but we give the creative credit to the inventor here.  They deserve it, but my point is that the invention was potential before it was even conjured by people here or on the said other planet.

Because there was a potential, there is always the reality of somethings potential.  Potentiality is a reality, but it doesn't consume space. 

Any information or concept we can conjure existed all of this time in potentiality.  Technically we merely find what has always been no matter what we conceive of in our minds.  Some are better at finding these things, and that is one point I was trying to make clear. 

[SWM]

sorry, i am not ignoring you or your topic, i do find this interesting and will get back to it when i have the time.

[NoDifference]

sorry, i am not ignoring you or your topic, i do find this interesting and will get back to it when i have the time.

OK

[Psychdigg]

There is a big problem with the direction you are heading.   And it is the "thinkers" fallacy.  Thinking something is real doesn't make it real.  A symbol or abstraction can be real because it occurs in a physical medium.  But as Alfred Korzybski would say (General Semantics)  "The word is NOT the thing - the map is NOT the territory."   At best a thought can only be a map of something real.  But it is not the "something real". 

Thinkers are also quite territorial and defensive.  They try to derive social worth from being the first to come up with an idea and society in general is willing to play this game if it means some money can be made with the idea.

"The Map is Not the Territory" might be a therapeutic mantra for schizophrenics.

[NoDifference]

There is a big problem with the direction you are heading.   And it is the "thinkers" fallacy.  Thinking something is real doesn't make it real.  A symbol or abstraction can be real because it occurs in a physical medium.  But as Alfred Korzybski would say (General Semantics)  "The word is NOT the thing - the map is NOT the territory."   At best a thought can only be a map of something real.  But it is not the "something real".  



Anyway, to make a positive out of a mistake.  Can you tell me how misunderstanding what you just described would effect the circumstances described in the top post?
Thinkers are also quite territorial and defensive.  They try to derive social worth from being the first to come up with an idea and society in general is willing to play this game if it means some money can be made with the idea.

"The Map is Not the Territory" might be a therapeutic mantra for schizophrenics.

I know that, and that is one of the very things implied by what I stated in the top post rather than the contrary. 

[SWM]

as you have noted the hallucinations and delusions of the psychotic individual are experienced through the very apparatus that non-hallucinatory experiences are experienced.

here in is the problem.

if somebody was to tell you that the computer screen you are looking at does not exist in objective reality and is actually just a creation of your own consciousness existing only your subjective reality, how would you respond to that individual? you might, try to argue and dispute with that individual. you might dismiss that individual as a bit of loonie. what if that person came back with a doctor and some nurses and they all began to explain to you that the computer screen and the world that the screen transmits is not real. that the interactions that you have been experiencing through the screen where simply your projected mental functions and the computer screen and all contained within the screen and the meanings that this world conveys do not exist.

this example so far is still nothing like what it is truly like to be psychotic, but it is an attempt to begin to convey the complexity of the experiences of psychosis.

psychosis is a lot more than the commonly held conception of a voice in the head or visions of god. for some people it is not possible to distinguish between objective (or consenual) reality experienced by others and the subjective reality experienced only by the psychotic individual.

for the individual experiencing psychosis those realities may be indistinguishable and it can be difficult for them to understand how other people are not experiencing their reality too. this denial of experience by others can often feed a paranoid belief network.

[NoDifference]

Yes, this is all very routine and well known.  

I appreciate your time.  You don't know of any other websites where "psych nerds heavily corouse" about topics eagerly.  I think that it is a rare commodity - people avidly into psych that have time to joust about the science.  

I feel like an idiot now.  An idiot with a gold bar burning a hole in my pocket.  I need to find people that will go through these things step by step, and actually weigh what I have to say.

No offence, SWM.   

[SWM]

Well, if a person could clearly understand how one's thought process work no matter how unique, the person could never incur scz

you are making the assumption that schizophrenia is due to not understanding the processes and functions of the mind. some experiences are not due to thought processes.

and the person could resurect the original paradigm from the ruinous delusions about mental communcations which imply one's thoughts are from and to some entity.

you are making the assumption that there are no entities that communicate with people through some form of mental processes

The loss of control in scz is not some genetic problem. It's a problem with associating mental activities with lingual cues for too many years, and doing so fanatically during times of stress kind of like folks to a confessional. 

can you give an example or illustrate how mental activities are associated with lingual cues and how that would lead to psychosis?

The more social with this assumed mental connection they become, the more the exacerbate the whole lingual acqusition process with associating mental activities with lingual cues from and to assumed entities.

again you are making the assumption that there are no communicating entities.

can you explain this lingual acquisition process by example or illustration?

Now when this becomes it's most, is when they are groping for social support and guidance most i.e. during times of stress.  As this can become more clear to the person as being a real part of their reality, the person becomes more and more emotionally involved with the give and take here.  The juices start to flow, so things upstairs start quaking about this thing.  Add on top of that the kind of consciousness synthesis of voices which would just be inspirational to most people trying to think of something to say, and you've got a love/hate relationship all within the mind.  The wheels start turning, and the heat turns up.  Soon.... melt down.  Bingo, SCZ!

not a million miles away.

[SWM]

Yes, this is all very routine and well known. 

you dont seem to tak it into account in your posts.

I appreciate your time.  You don't know of any other websites where "psych nerds heavily corouse" about topics eagerly.  I think that it is a rare commodity - people avidly into psych that have time to joust about the science. 

that would be the long term goals of this forum.

I feel like an idiot now.  An idiot with a gold bar burning a hole in my pocket.  I need to find people that will go through these things step by step, and actually weigh what I have to say.

No offence, SWM.   

do you want to tell people what you think or do you want to think about what you know?

[NoDifference]

Well, let's just narrow it down.  I want to learn something that I don't already know.

Look, I'm not trying to grind anybody's shooters under the flour stone.  What I'm trying to do is get some people to understand what I mean, and to either attest or detest when they understand the concepts.  That is where the learning begins for either side of the fence. 

I know my ideas are great and radical sometimes, but that doesn't mean they aren't necessarily valid.  My intentions are to make some headway with them.  I don't see how that's going to be possible it they don't interest. 

You know it seems like there are a lot of people that visit the forums, but maybe the problem for them is that the subject is kind of difficult for them to socialize about.  It may be because they have a hard time meandering everyday in their lives intrinsically as the thing they would be discussing here.  To me that concept is the most valid thing to discuss of all points of reality.  I could go on for years here.

It's surprising what kind of chat forums are red hot.  I'm frustrated that this one is not. 

[Enigma]

I'd comment on your ideas but I find your posts wordy and hard to understand. 

[NoDifference]

SWM, I want to respond to your first post.  I only had time to get to the second one before I noticed one before the first one.

[NoDifference]

I'd comment on your ideas but I find your posts wordy and hard to understand. 

Dictionary.com 

I can explain the concepts if you have a working understanding of the language.    I appreciate any specific questions.

[Enigma]

The problem with the scz diagnosis is that it allows a normal type of synthesized consciousness to be categorized as an underlying factor in the diagnosis.  

People need to ask the question, is the synthesis of sight or sound any less or more of the nature of a hallucination than the synthesis of auditory/lingual thought as in perception?  Simply stated that is voices from no one but oneself.

A hallucination is sensory input without a stimulus, whether it be auditory or visual.  By auditory/lingual thought do you mean internal dialogue/intrapersonal communication?

The diagnosis needs to be refined in regards to the fact that a person has assumed that this auditory lingual type of synthesis is the mental communication from outside entities when in fact the person has simply begun to communicate with one’s own syntheses as a form of socialization.  

I'm confused by your use of the term synthesis.  I think what you're trying to say is that schizophrenia arises when a person mistakes their own internal dialogue as dialogue from an external entity.

The prevention of scz can be achieved by informing people of what the types of syntheses of consciousness are

what are they?

and that they shouldn’t take the auditory/lingual thoughts any more serious socially than the senses of smell, taste etc.  

To someone with schizophrenia, an auditory or visual hallucination is indistinguishable from actual stimulus-generated sensory input.  

I believe that to many people the voices play a role in their social abilities as a form of inspiration about what to say to people.  This is what I gather from people as well as doing the same myself, but this sort doesn’t socialize with those.

So you're saying that a person's internal dialogue helps them think of what to say?  Clarify what you mean by "this sort doesn’t socialize with those."

If people understand that this is in no way any communication with which they can make into companionship, they will have prevented scz which is diagnosis that is actually constituted by the presence of the conditioned behavior of socializing with one’s own articles of consciousness.

But as stated before, an auditory or visual hallucination is indistinguishable from actual stimulus-generated sensory input.

Conditioning in regards to socializing with people is one thing that the brain has no adverse effects from.

How many suicides can be attributed to bullying?

Conditioning in regards to socializing with one’s own conscious effects is something of a whole other category of language learning and conditioning.  I can expand on this, but I’m doubtful about the interest in the subject here.  The bottom line of the latter instance of lingual conditioning is that the effects are not compatible with the nature of the brain itself as well as not compatible with the nature of the true physical and social environments.  The brain cannot chemically withstand this kind of processing, thus the classic chemical imbalances are the result.  The brain also cannot assess reality correctly thus behave rationally to a degree that is dependent on the level of conditioning and of the chemical imbalance that results.  The concepts in regards to how well understood the person’s actual situation is in reality and how believed the person’s assumed situation is in the delusional frame of “reality” play a key role in the level of conditioning and chemical imbalance as its result.

Please do expand on this.  I think you're mistaking cause for effect.  Chemical imbalances can be a cause of schizophrenia, not an effect.  

[Psychdigg]

No Difference.

I am not a brain worshiper.  "Thinking" is the shortest distance between the same point.  Schizophrenics "think" too much.  Thinking is my shadow function so I tend to think as a last resort and only enough to get out of immediate danger.  I let the world around me do my thinking for me.  That's what probably 60% of humans do.  And from an evolutionary viewpoint it works.  That's why there are so many average people.

Good Luck.  You need to be "out of your head".  There's nothing special about thinking.  There's nothing special about any function we have.

[NoDifference]

Pdigg, that is a poor way to think about things.   

I have had a full day, but I'm eager to write replies in the morning in front of a mug of coffee. 

Thanks for the Q & A session here.  Specific questions are much appreciated.