3 ms·
SSRIs are not evidence that we understand how neural activity becomes behavior. They are evidence that you can perturb a system usefully without understanding i
by danielmarkbruce 4mo ago
SSRIs are not evidence that we understand how neural activity becomes behavior. They are evidence that you can perturb a system usefully without understanding it very well. That is exactly my point.
Respectfully, you are miles out of your depth here.
- runarberg 4mo agoI don‘t see why you felt the need to insult me here. We are having a very common disagreement here, one which philosophers of science have been actively debating for several decades. My point with the SSRI is that we know that serotonin is a chemical which incites certain neurons, and we know that a lack of activity of neurons in that general area in the brain is correlated with depression, so scientists were able to accurately predict that keeping the serotonin in that brain area for longer would increase brain activity there and decrease the level of depression. This counts as pretty good understanding in my books at least. It teaches us very little about consciousness but my point is that it doesn’t have to. Just like Newton’s theory of gravity did not have to teach us about some deeper cosmological truth.
- danielmarkbruce 4mo agoIt's not an insult to suggest one is out of the depth on a topic, especially when it isn't one's field of expertise. You are giving the pop science explanation of various things.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- fragmede 4mo agoWhy did you feel the need to add it though? > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- danielmarkbruce 4mo agoNobody called anyone any name. If you are going to quote rules, be bothered to read what was actually written. Your behavior ruins things, it doesn't make it better.
- fragmede 4mo agoYou don't think "Respectfully, you are miles out of your depth here." couldn't have just been left off?
- danielmarkbruce 4mo agoTo repeat: your behavior ruins things. Hall monitors aren't needed everywhere.
- noduerme 4mo agoJust as a reader with no particular dog in the philosophical (or semantic) fight over how well we do or don't understand the brain: That rude remark lowered rather than increased my estimation of your knowledge or authority on any subject you would be discussing. Generally, people who are highly knowledgeable and confident on a subject don't resort to telling others they are out of their depth, because they don't need to. At the very least, it's suspicious to throw an ad hominem into your rebuttal. Winning a debate is about convincing the audience, and I found that an unconvincing statement, apart from it being an obnoxious rhetorical tactic. But it did make me think of The Big Lebowski. "You're out of your depth, Donnie!"
- cortesoft 4mo ago> Just like Newton’s theory of gravity did not have to teach us about some deeper cosmological truth. I would also argue that Newton's theory of gravity was not a pretty good understanding of gravity.
- runarberg 4mo agoIt was still a good theory, and importantly the fact that it failed explain the nature of Aether had no effect on the quality of the theory.