4 ms·

You can’t imagine placebo.

by riwsky 2y ago

_yb2s 2y ago
“Placebo” isn’t a mechanistic explanation, it is jargon to label what you are observing- confusing labels with understanding is a trap that prevents investigation. Also, the “resolution” at the end that one might (meaninglessly) apply the word placebo to isn’t the interesting part IMO. What is interesting is seeing where our understanding of the human brain fits/predicts or fails to fit experiences like this.
- riwsky 2y ago
  I mean, yes: if we insist on putting all the sciencey words in “scare quotes”, instead of the Wikipedia search box, then we do not end up with much understanding or interest. But if we stopped doing that, we might learn, say, that the place where our brains fit/fail-to fit experiences like this is probably the anterior cingulate cortex—which, sure, is yet another label, and language is a recursive veil, etc
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    A brain region is also not anything close to a mechanism- you don't seem to understand what I mean by "mechanistic explanation." I am an academic PI, and my research on brain energy metabolism is close enough to what we are talking about here that I don't need to look on wikipedia to tell you our current level of understanding doesn't offer anything close to a mechanistic explanation for experiences like this. Some of my research has been inspired by thinking about peoples surprising anecdotal experiences and stories- and then investigating what that might imply about the underlying biology. You seem to subscribe to a kind of scientism where genuine scientific curiosity and frank discussion about the gaps in our understanding is unacceptable. Your combination of being completely ignorant and condescending at the same time is awful.
    - riwsky 2y ago
      Errr, help me understand where I'm diverging, here. The way you put "mechanistic" in quotes in your original comment strongly suggests that you doubt the experience can be mechanistically explained. Maybe that wasn't your intent, and this is a boring case of internet miscommunication. But if you do indeed doubt that this could be explained mechanistically, then I don't know how to square that with the fact you're researching this academically—do you intend to just keep drilling further down and zooming further in until you discover The Soul, or something? If so, then you're right that I'm not interested in that kind of "science"—as whereof I cannot speak, thereof I must be silent.
      - _yb2s 2y ago
        Yes, you misunderstood- I absolutely think it can be explained mechanistically, but that the full explanation is unlikely to jive with current popular ideas about how the brain works. I am generally very open minded and curious about peoples claims of supernatural and spiritual experiences. I believe it all has understandable mechanistic biological explanations, but I am very curious what they may be.

You can’t imagine placebo.

by riwsky 2y ago

You can’t imagine placebo.

“Placebo” isn’t a mechanistic explanation, it is jargon to label what you are observing- confusing labels with understanding is a trap that prevents investigation. Also, the “resolution” at the end that one might (meaninglessly) apply the word placebo to isn’t the interesting part IMO. What is interesting is seeing where our understanding of the human brain fits/predicts or fails to fit experiences like this.

riwsky 2y ago
I mean, yes: if we insist on putting all the sciencey words in “scare quotes”, instead of the Wikipedia search box, then we do not end up with much understanding or interest. But if we stopped doing that, we might learn, say, that the place where our brains fit/fail-to fit experiences like this is probably the anterior cingulate cortex—which, sure, is yet another label, and language is a recursive veil, etc
- _yb2s 2y ago
  A brain region is also not anything close to a mechanism- you don't seem to understand what I mean by "mechanistic explanation." I am an academic PI, and my research on brain energy metabolism is close enough to what we are talking about here that I don't need to look on wikipedia to tell you our current level of understanding doesn't offer anything close to a mechanistic explanation for experiences like this. Some of my research has been inspired by thinking about peoples surprising anecdotal experiences and stories- and then investigating what that might imply about the underlying biology. You seem to subscribe to a kind of scientism where genuine scientific curiosity and frank discussion about the gaps in our understanding is unacceptable. Your combination of being completely ignorant and condescending at the same time is awful.
  - riwsky 2y ago
    Errr, help me understand where I'm diverging, here. The way you put "mechanistic" in quotes in your original comment strongly suggests that you doubt the experience can be mechanistically explained. Maybe that wasn't your intent, and this is a boring case of internet miscommunication. But if you do indeed doubt that this could be explained mechanistically, then I don't know how to square that with the fact you're researching this academically—do you intend to just keep drilling further down and zooming further in until you discover The Soul, or something? If so, then you're right that I'm not interested in that kind of "science"—as whereof I cannot speak, thereof I must be silent.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      Yes, you misunderstood- I absolutely think it can be explained mechanistically, but that the full explanation is unlikely to jive with current popular ideas about how the brain works. I am generally very open minded and curious about peoples claims of supernatural and spiritual experiences. I believe it all has understandable mechanistic biological explanations, but I am very curious what they may be.