3 ms·
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 neurologi
by 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 agoNit: 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 agoWe’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.