3 ms·

If qualia are not different that our “neurological machinery” (and all available evidence shows this so far, not least the incoherence of definitions of qualia

If qualia are not different that our “neurological machinery” (and all available evidence shows this so far, not least the incoherence of definitions of qualia that try to exclude such) then medicine is already considering such as a major parameter. If they are different (and exist at all) then such needs to be demonstrated before they can be reliably considered. Given even proponents of qualia can’t reliably agree with each on what they even are defined as (other than using vague circular reasoning)… frankly, I’m not holding my breath.

lukasb 3y ago
The way I would rephrase OP is "what is the most useful abstraction for the mechanism of action of these drugs". It might be that limiting yourself to neurological phenomena gives you a much longer, more unwieldy model of what's happening here than an equally predictive model that centers on subjective experience.
- omginternets 3y ago
  Nit: my feelings are closer to "we are ignoring one of possibly many useful abstractions", but otherwise yes. If I'm being pedantic here, it's that I really don't want to downplay the importance of the pharmacological level of analysis. It's a very useful analysis. It's just not a complete theory of life well-lived.
  - photonerd 3y ago
    We’re not ignoring them. We’re patiently waiting for them to be proven to exist & have a demonstrable mechanism of action. Believe me, I’d be the first to suggest they be considered if we had that. We don’t. It would be great if we did. Until then it’s not medicine, it’s shamanism.
- photonerd 3y ago
  > limiting yourself to neurological phenomena I’m fine with including other phenomena. As I said in my original comment though: those phenomena need to be demonstrated to exist, first. Until then it’s absolutely unscientific, and medically unsound, to assume they exist & then hope that they magically work. Because that is not science: that’s quackery.
omginternets 3y ago
>If qualia are not different that our “neurological machinery” (and all available evidence shows this so far, not least the incoherence of definitions of qualia that try to exclude such) then medicine is already considering such as a major parameter. No, they are definitely not. I don't see anything in these studies to the effect of "hey, it's the feeling that they feel that's making them better". They're looking for some mysterious mechanism, usually on the cellular or molecular level, whereas "numen" and "transcendence" are not even on the biological level of analysis.
- photonerd 3y ago
  > "hey, it's the feeling that they feel that's making them better" That’s called “the placebo effect” and it’s one of the most studied & controlled for factors in ANY medical testing.
missingrib 3y ago
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/
- photonerd 3y ago
  Congratulations, you’ve discovered a very very old thought experiment & demonstrated that proponents of qualia are no further on than they were decades ago in providing anything even approaching proof of their conjecture. The “substantial revisions” after 17 years to that paper are—rather weak—responses to objections raised in the 90s and should have been in their 2002 paper. Worse, they’re responses that have their own major objections by 2002 anyhow. Not sure what your aim was but I guess thank you for underscoring my point rather perfectly?

lukasb 3y ago

The way I would rephrase OP is "what is the most useful abstraction for the mechanism of action of these drugs". It might be that limiting yourself to neurological phenomena gives you a much longer, more unwieldy model of what's happening here than an equally predictive model that centers on subjective experience.

omginternets 3y ago
Nit: my feelings are closer to "we are ignoring one of possibly many useful abstractions", but otherwise yes. If I'm being pedantic here, it's that I really don't want to downplay the importance of the pharmacological level of analysis. It's a very useful analysis. It's just not a complete theory of life well-lived.
- photonerd 3y ago
  We’re not ignoring them. We’re patiently waiting for them to be proven to exist & have a demonstrable mechanism of action. Believe me, I’d be the first to suggest they be considered if we had that. We don’t. It would be great if we did. Until then it’s not medicine, it’s shamanism.
photonerd 3y ago
> limiting yourself to neurological phenomena I’m fine with including other phenomena. As I said in my original comment though: those phenomena need to be demonstrated to exist, first. Until then it’s absolutely unscientific, and medically unsound, to assume they exist & then hope that they magically work. Because that is not science: that’s quackery.

omginternets 3y ago

>If qualia are not different that our “neurological machinery” (and all available evidence shows this so far, not least the incoherence of definitions of qualia that try to exclude such) then medicine is already considering such as a major parameter. No, they are definitely not. I don't see anything in these studies to the effect of "hey, it's the feeling that they feel that's making them better". They're looking for some mysterious mechanism, usually on the cellular or molecular level, whereas "numen" and "transcendence" are not even on the biological level of analysis.

photonerd 3y ago
> "hey, it's the feeling that they feel that's making them better" That’s called “the placebo effect” and it’s one of the most studied & controlled for factors in ANY medical testing.

missingrib 3y ago

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

photonerd 3y ago
Congratulations, you’ve discovered a very very old thought experiment & demonstrated that proponents of qualia are no further on than they were decades ago in providing anything even approaching proof of their conjecture. The “substantial revisions” after 17 years to that paper are—rather weak—responses to objections raised in the 90s and should have been in their 2002 paper. Worse, they’re responses that have their own major objections by 2002 anyhow. Not sure what your aim was but I guess thank you for underscoring my point rather perfectly?