4 ms·
See [1] and the parent comment. People who talk about neurotransmitters in phenomenological terms are philosophically confused. [1] https://news.ycombinator.co
by avgcorrection 4y ago
See [1] and the parent comment. People who talk about neurotransmitters in phenomenological terms are philosophically confused.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28855296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28855296
- pfannkuchen 4y agoOh I agree with this. I always read the casual use of the term “dopamine” as simply “happy chemicals”. If we ignore the technical terminology confusion, is the bro science about the human behavioral control system (which uses happy chemicals to steer behavior) still refuted in some way? Genuinely interested.
- avgcorrection 4y agoI was using the casual sense of the term “bro science” to mean “sloppy thinking”.
- pfannkuchen 4y agoI don't think it necessarily is sloppy thinking though. To me it's more like - layman reasoning based on everyday experience without formal studies or detailed knowledge of past work. The lack of formal studies means it lacks rigor and shouldn't be treated as factual, but if the area of study is otherwise a vacuum it can be better than nothing. I think the real big issue with it is that its lack of rigor makes it easy to use it to manipulate people, and it's hard to tell whether a given instance is based on good faith or not.