4 ms·

Receptor modulation happens when you play video games, too, but I doubt anyone would claim they are “physiologically addictive”. Again, this whole distinction

Receptor modulation happens when you play video games, too, but I doubt anyone would claim they are “physiologically addictive”. Again, this whole distinction is predicated on the idea that something can affect behavior without affecting the brain. I struggle to see how that is even possible.

Frummy 3y ago
All roads lead to rome right. But the brain doesn't have to be the first busstop. One avenue is via the gut, bacteria screaming for unhealthy food. Or just the old ghrelin, hunger hormone. But on a more analytical approach, I just don't agree with your premise. There's a stark difference between the brains lowlevel mechanics such as serotonin receptor downregulation all the way to buying the brand in the supermarket that reminds you of your childhood. What I mean is it's not a mind-body dualism problem, rather, it's a scale problem. Does the mechanism that drives you to behave consist of individual molecules or cells, or unfathomably complex dynamic patterns of neurons firing across every region of your brain that constitute almost a religious reminder of who you are and what you desire. What I'm saying is is it the hardware or the software. That's physiological vs psychological. But if you wish you can turn any topic in the world into metaphysical philosophy, I just think we have a lot of textbooks in any hospital university library already on these topics that don't bring philosophy into it.
- omginternets 3y ago
  This isn’t metaphysics. I’d like to know what distinguishes physiological from psychological addiction. So far, the proposed mechanisms don’t hold up to scrutiny, since the proposed physiological mechanisms (e.g. serotonin modulation) are at play in psychological phenomena as well. On a related note, I’m not sure what to tell you if you don’t see how espousing mind-body dualism can lead people to propose nonsensical distinctions, especially in medicine. I’d have expected a vehement defender of scientific medicine to agree with this.
  - Frummy 3y ago
    Mind-body problem is metaphysics. I could ignore that part, but it would help if you strengthened that initial connection. Currently I'm experiencing a socratic style where I throw information and then it gets deconstructed but I don't have much to go off of. State your case why this seems rooted in the mind-body problem. Otherwise I really like my scale argument and would like to see you deconstruct it, right above read it again if you feel like it, I don't think your argument that just because physiological mechanisms are "at play" in psychological ones defeats it. Are you a nondualist? I've had that period so I can understand both sides, if you expand more on your viewpoints with some real detailed fleshing out rather than just deconstructing any incoming argument. Personally I have my criticisms of medicine, but can celebrate a lot of textbook content as true. So now that you know I'm an ex-nondualist, maybe you can give my scale argument a reread and see if you accept it as a description of the phenomenon? So to be perfectly obvious, there's direct chemical reaction and implicit chemical reaction. I consider it a big difference to flood a bunch of molecules past the blood-brain barrier, versus experiencing something such as a video game and reacting to it. And hey, I am in a period of my life where I definitely put precedence for the body and let the mind follow. Daily exercise in nature, oh boy that really improves my mind. Reason alone in a dark room did not get me far at all. But if you feel like we're not getting anywhere or I'm not convincing then that's fine and you can ignore this
    - omginternets 3y ago
      I read, interpreted and answered your comment much too hastily, and now I feel foolish. Please accept my sincerest apologies. In my defense, I can only point to the large number of posts that are frustratingly missing the point, and to the fact that I am regrettably not the most patient of persons. Let me try again... My response should have been something like "my question is less focused on the metaphysics, and more focused on what I think is an issue of logic, so I am happy to stick to the level of analysis of a university hospital textbook". It seems to be the case that people are attempting to partition the phenomenon of addiction into psychological vs physiological addiction. My issue is twofold: 1. I know of no substance that is well-established as being addictive that does not produce both (1) a physiological response at the time of consumption/engagement and (2) an unpleasant physiological withdrawal symptom of some kind. This notably includes drugs that are popularly described as being purely psychologically addictive, such as cannabis. 2. The psychological (i.e. cognitive and behavioral) patterns that we associate with addiction are driven, in a fairly direct manner, by the physiological responses to the presence and absence of the drug. Addicts return to drugs both to avoid physiological withdrawal symptoms and to pursue pleasurable physiological effects. Together, these suggest a psychological effect of the drug that mediated by physiology. In all cases, the physiological phenomena are necessary. I am generally quite sensitive to arguments of emergence at a particular scale, but I don't see the necessity for it here. Can you be more precise? The closest you come to providing an example has to do with a "reminder of who you are and what you desire". I am also not-insensitive to higher-order explanations for behavior, including some from the psychoanalytical tradition, but I don't think these negate the causal chain outlined in point #2. Therefore, I don't see how psychological addiction can exist separately from physiology, except perhaps in the trivial case of categorizing psychology as a subset of or emergence from physiology. Certainly, I think, one does not encounter "psychological addiction" without also encountering its physiological counterpart, rendering the ontological distinction questionable. It is further made questionable by the prima facie dualist argument that subtends the psychological-vs-physiological distinction. Certainly, if this is not a dualist position, the argument is not immediately obvious to me, and I would be interested in hearing it. Moreover, if you'll allow me to stray from the purely logical argument surrounding biology and psychology, my sense is that this dichotomy between physiological and psychological addiction is in large part a semantic game that serves to advance a certain political discourse. Invariably, it serves to argue that cannabis isn't "really" addictive by arguing that is withdrawal is qualitatively very different from that of, say, heroin. To this I can only say, "of course it is!" Nobody is really arguing that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin! But this is indeed the argument of scale; I might be convinced that the severity of cannabis' toxicity, intoxication and withdrawal is minor enough to warrant the drug's legality, but I still contend that for those who are addicted to cannabis, the same commingling of physiological state and behavior is at play. And in case it needs to be said, of course the difference in degree that separates cannabis from heroin (and other "hard" drugs) is large enough to place the two in qualitatively different categories. Again, my point is that despite this, both produce their addictions in similar ways (roughly: the dopaminergic circuit), as is supported by the scientific literature. (Edits made for clarity.)

Frummy 3y ago

All roads lead to rome right. But the brain doesn't have to be the first busstop. One avenue is via the gut, bacteria screaming for unhealthy food. Or just the old ghrelin, hunger hormone. But on a more analytical approach, I just don't agree with your premise. There's a stark difference between the brains lowlevel mechanics such as serotonin receptor downregulation all the way to buying the brand in the supermarket that reminds you of your childhood. What I mean is it's not a mind-body dualism problem, rather, it's a scale problem. Does the mechanism that drives you to behave consist of individual molecules or cells, or unfathomably complex dynamic patterns of neurons firing across every region of your brain that constitute almost a religious reminder of who you are and what you desire. What I'm saying is is it the hardware or the software. That's physiological vs psychological. But if you wish you can turn any topic in the world into metaphysical philosophy, I just think we have a lot of textbooks in any hospital university library already on these topics that don't bring philosophy into it.

omginternets 3y ago
This isn’t metaphysics. I’d like to know what distinguishes physiological from psychological addiction. So far, the proposed mechanisms don’t hold up to scrutiny, since the proposed physiological mechanisms (e.g. serotonin modulation) are at play in psychological phenomena as well. On a related note, I’m not sure what to tell you if you don’t see how espousing mind-body dualism can lead people to propose nonsensical distinctions, especially in medicine. I’d have expected a vehement defender of scientific medicine to agree with this.
- Frummy 3y ago
  Mind-body problem is metaphysics. I could ignore that part, but it would help if you strengthened that initial connection. Currently I'm experiencing a socratic style where I throw information and then it gets deconstructed but I don't have much to go off of. State your case why this seems rooted in the mind-body problem. Otherwise I really like my scale argument and would like to see you deconstruct it, right above read it again if you feel like it, I don't think your argument that just because physiological mechanisms are "at play" in psychological ones defeats it. Are you a nondualist? I've had that period so I can understand both sides, if you expand more on your viewpoints with some real detailed fleshing out rather than just deconstructing any incoming argument. Personally I have my criticisms of medicine, but can celebrate a lot of textbook content as true. So now that you know I'm an ex-nondualist, maybe you can give my scale argument a reread and see if you accept it as a description of the phenomenon? So to be perfectly obvious, there's direct chemical reaction and implicit chemical reaction. I consider it a big difference to flood a bunch of molecules past the blood-brain barrier, versus experiencing something such as a video game and reacting to it. And hey, I am in a period of my life where I definitely put precedence for the body and let the mind follow. Daily exercise in nature, oh boy that really improves my mind. Reason alone in a dark room did not get me far at all. But if you feel like we're not getting anywhere or I'm not convincing then that's fine and you can ignore this
  - omginternets 3y ago
    I read, interpreted and answered your comment much too hastily, and now I feel foolish. Please accept my sincerest apologies. In my defense, I can only point to the large number of posts that are frustratingly missing the point, and to the fact that I am regrettably not the most patient of persons. Let me try again... My response should have been something like "my question is less focused on the metaphysics, and more focused on what I think is an issue of logic, so I am happy to stick to the level of analysis of a university hospital textbook". It seems to be the case that people are attempting to partition the phenomenon of addiction into psychological vs physiological addiction. My issue is twofold: 1. I know of no substance that is well-established as being addictive that does not produce both (1) a physiological response at the time of consumption/engagement and (2) an unpleasant physiological withdrawal symptom of some kind. This notably includes drugs that are popularly described as being purely psychologically addictive, such as cannabis. 2. The psychological (i.e. cognitive and behavioral) patterns that we associate with addiction are driven, in a fairly direct manner, by the physiological responses to the presence and absence of the drug. Addicts return to drugs both to avoid physiological withdrawal symptoms and to pursue pleasurable physiological effects. Together, these suggest a psychological effect of the drug that mediated by physiology. In all cases, the physiological phenomena are necessary. I am generally quite sensitive to arguments of emergence at a particular scale, but I don't see the necessity for it here. Can you be more precise? The closest you come to providing an example has to do with a "reminder of who you are and what you desire". I am also not-insensitive to higher-order explanations for behavior, including some from the psychoanalytical tradition, but I don't think these negate the causal chain outlined in point #2. Therefore, I don't see how psychological addiction can exist separately from physiology, except perhaps in the trivial case of categorizing psychology as a subset of or emergence from physiology. Certainly, I think, one does not encounter "psychological addiction" without also encountering its physiological counterpart, rendering the ontological distinction questionable. It is further made questionable by the prima facie dualist argument that subtends the psychological-vs-physiological distinction. Certainly, if this is not a dualist position, the argument is not immediately obvious to me, and I would be interested in hearing it. Moreover, if you'll allow me to stray from the purely logical argument surrounding biology and psychology, my sense is that this dichotomy between physiological and psychological addiction is in large part a semantic game that serves to advance a certain political discourse. Invariably, it serves to argue that cannabis isn't "really" addictive by arguing that is withdrawal is qualitatively very different from that of, say, heroin. To this I can only say, "of course it is!" Nobody is really arguing that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin! But this is indeed the argument of scale; I might be convinced that the severity of cannabis' toxicity, intoxication and withdrawal is minor enough to warrant the drug's legality, but I still contend that for those who are addicted to cannabis, the same commingling of physiological state and behavior is at play. And in case it needs to be said, of course the difference in degree that separates cannabis from heroin (and other "hard" drugs) is large enough to place the two in qualitatively different categories. Again, my point is that despite this, both produce their addictions in similar ways (roughly: the dopaminergic circuit), as is supported by the scientific literature. (Edits made for clarity.)