Religion And The Placebo Effect

[Lion IRC]

(should we tell Lion that a placebo isn't real and that therefore he's comparing something not real to something he thinks is real?)

The placebo effect is real...

I know...

That's all folks.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's all folks.

Not quite Lion. Try it again. The placebo effect is real, but the thing you're led to believe causing it (aka, the placebo) is not (ie., it is not an active drug).

In short, in your analogy where the afterlife is a product of the placebo effect, that necessarily would mean that you had been fooled into thinking there is an afterlife by your brain making it up, not that there is actually an afterlife.

Which, once again, I have no doubt happens all in an instant--just like dreams--before brain death, which is what accounts for everything you've ever been told by ancient sheep herders and fishermen in books of yore.

 

[Lion IRC]

I had given you negative rep two or three times, one of which was for excessive whining about getting a negative rep. Hardly a "machine gun" usage scenario.

I'll answer your questions if you agree that the demonstrable, or even tentative existence of a soul (discarnate consciousness) would be a relevant consideration here.

Its relevant because you brought it up. You made a claim; all I am asking for is a definition of the term, and how others can go about verifying that such a thing exists. If you had made the claim "changing engine oil frequently extends the longevity of a car engine", there would be no need for further clarification since most people in the modern world know what a car is, and have some understanding of how engines work. The same is not true for this thing called a soul that you claim exists, and which allegedly is positively influenced by belief in imaginary supercreatures.

But there's no point me elaborating in reply to your question if you're just gonna say...I dont accept your definition of the word "soul".

If you support your definition with instructions on how the existence of souls can be independently verified, and I succeed in verifying your claim, I will accept your definition.

My guess is youre gonna special plead that free will soul = quantum electrodynamic mirage.

I have no idea what this means. Can you clarify?

My definition of "soul" is discarnate consciousness.

My evidence for the soul is observable and all around you.
Animate/Inanimate. Voluntary/Involuntary. Mind/Body. Agent/Mechanism.

You can test this yourself. Over and over and over - repeatability.

Take a rock and drop it. Physics can predict quite accurately what will happen to the rock. The rock will land on the floor and remain there until……………Until what?
Until I walk over and pick it up. I can lift the rock using my own free will/volition. Physics cannot predict when or EVEN IF I will pick up the rock. Physics has no name for the unpredictable and VERY REAL force acting upon the matter of my shoulder, my arm, my hand, the rock in the EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION of gravity. It is not hormones – hormones are matter. It is not brain – brain cells are matter. Matter has no free will. It is not electricity. A light switch needs someone to turn it on or off. A computer “program” will always be the work of a programmer. Again - The physical evidence of a soul is a physical rock being moved by a force which is unpredictable in physics.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's all folks.

Not quite Lion. Try it again. The placebo effect is real, but the thing you're led to believe causing it (aka, the placebo) is not (ie., it is not an active drug).

In short, in your analogy where the afterlife is a product of the placebo effect, that necessarily would mean that you had been fooled into thinking there is an afterlife by your brain making it up, not that there is actually an afterlife.

Which, once again, I have no doubt happens all in an instant--just like dreams--before brain death, which is what accounts for everything you've ever been told by ancient sheep herders and fishermen in books of yore.

At least dreams are something physical, real. I think Lion is saying souls are not possible without something physical so maybe souls are just dreams. So our dreams go to live with Jesus forever. So happy. But that would mean souls are not ghosts, just dreams. Our brains again. Brains die, so do dreams, sorry, no Jesus forever.

 

[Lion IRC]

That's all folks.

Not quite Lion. Try it again. The placebo effect is real, but the thing you're led to believe causing it (aka, the placebo) is not (ie., it is not an active drug).

In short, in your analogy where the afterlife is a product of the placebo effect, that necessarily would mean that you had been fooled into thinking there is an afterlife by your brain making it up, not that there is actually an afterlife.

Which, once again, I have no doubt happens all in an instant--just like dreams--before brain death, which is what accounts for everything you've ever been told by ancient sheep herders and fishermen in books of yore.

No - as a physical 'thing', the sugar pill is quite real. And its also irrelevant.
Its not the rosary beads themselves which make prayer effective.
(Nor the prayer wheel, nor the mandala, nor the....)
Prayer - aka meditation - is the focus of the souls energy which delivers 'mind-over-matter' results.

Sylogism time.
P1. Stress causes illness.
P2. Meditation/Prayer alleviates stress.
C. Therefore prayer is medically efficacious.

 

[Lion IRC]

The huge irony here is that the existence of the soul is not a defeater of atheism.
Atheists CAN think souls exist without violating the central tenet of atheism.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's all folks.

Not quite Lion. Try it again. The placebo effect is real, but the thing you're led to believe causing it (aka, the placebo) is not (ie., it is not an active drug).

In short, in your analogy where the afterlife is a product of the placebo effect, that necessarily would mean that you had been fooled into thinking there is an afterlife by your brain making it up, not that there is actually an afterlife.

Which, once again, I have no doubt happens all in an instant--just like dreams--before brain death, which is what accounts for everything you've ever been told by ancient sheep herders and fishermen in books of yore.

No - as a physical 'thing', the sugar pill is quite real.

It is not active, which is the point, so no, it is not real. The placebo effect is when your brain thinks it is taking the active drug--but actually is not--and that is what tricks it into stimulating your immune system.

Its not the rosary beads themselves which make prayer effective.

You're right, because nothing makes prayer "effective."

Prayer - aka meditation

I'm sorry, what? Since when is asking for god's help in regard to a particular problem (aka, "prayer") also known as "meditation"? That's some mighty fine appropriation you're attempting there, little clubber.

is the focus of the souls energy which delivers 'mind-over-matter' results.

You think the placebo effect is a "mind-over-matter" situation? What do you call a histamine reaction? Or the release of dopamine during trauma?

Sylogism time.
P1. Stress causes illness.
P2. Meditation/Prayer alleviates stress.

So you're saying that people pray in order to alleviate stress--not to ask their god for help--and that it is the act of prayer that alleviates stress, not that a god heard their prayer and alleviated their stress accordingly.

So, once again, you are affirming that fooling yourself into thinking that something that isn't real is real is medically efficacious.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The huge irony here is that the existence of the soul is not a defeater of atheism.
Atheists CAN think souls exist without violating the central tenet of atheism.

I don't see irony. I see rational and irrational discourse, ghosts being the subject.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The huge irony here is that the existence of the soul is not a defeater of atheism.
Atheists CAN think souls exist without violating the central tenet of atheism.

I don't see irony. I see rational and irrational discourse, ghosts being the subject. I'm not a ghost but some folks claim that we're all ghosts. It's peculiar, comforting for some, like a placebo for fear of death.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The huge irony here is that the existence of the soul is not a defeater of atheism.
Atheists CAN think souls exist without violating the central tenet of atheism.

I don't see irony. I see rational and irrational discourse, ghosts being the subject. I'm not a ghost but some folks claim that we're all ghosts. It's peculiar, comforting for some, like a placebo for fear of death.

Central tenet?
Does atheism have tenets? It's a descriptive word of a trait people do or do not have.

Like, what are the central tenets of 'alive' or 'dead'?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What are the "central tenets" of not believing in Bigfoot?

 

[steve_bank]

The huge irony here is that the existence of the soul is not a defeater of atheism.
Atheists CAN think souls exist without violating the central tenet of atheism.

A now tiresome reply. Atheist means not theist. Atheist can be and are many things. UFO believer, ghosts. Some are Humanists which has a doctrine and set of principles.

Like Christianity there are atheists who profit from the debate. Atheists who write books with a certain perspective who have followings. People quote atheist authors and figures just like Christians quote the New Testament. Which leads to my long held belief religions is just one manifestation of human behavior that appears in many forms.

Despite his public rejection Bob Dolan was treated like a modern prophet by the old Counter Culture who made him into an image they wanted. When he showed up at the Newport Folk Festival and played an electric guitar instead of acoustic his followers/devotees reacted strongly. In the day it was a big deal, he betrayed the faithful. He was just in it for the money.

Their prophet was not really who they thought he was.

 

[bigfield]

I had given you negative rep two or three times, one of which was for excessive whining about getting a negative rep. Hardly a "machine gun" usage scenario.



Its relevant because you brought it up. You made a claim; all I am asking for is a definition of the term, and how others can go about verifying that such a thing exists. If you had made the claim "changing engine oil frequently extends the longevity of a car engine", there would be no need for further clarification since most people in the modern world know what a car is, and have some understanding of how engines work. The same is not true for this thing called a soul that you claim exists, and which allegedly is positively influenced by belief in imaginary supercreatures.



If you support your definition with instructions on how the existence of souls can be independently verified, and I succeed in verifying your claim, I will accept your definition.

My guess is youre gonna special plead that free will soul = quantum electrodynamic mirage.

I have no idea what this means. Can you clarify?

My definition of "soul" is discarnate consciousness.

My evidence for the soul is observable and all around you.
Animate/Inanimate. Voluntary/Involuntary. Mind/Body. Agent/Mechanism.

You can test this yourself. Over and over and over - repeatability.

Take a rock and drop it. Physics can predict quite accurately what will happen to the rock. The rock will land on the floor and remain there until……………Until what?
Until I walk over and pick it up. I can lift the rock using my own free will/volition. Physics cannot predict when or EVEN IF I will pick up the rock. Physics has no name for the unpredictable and VERY REAL force acting upon the matter of my shoulder, my arm, my hand, the rock in the EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION of gravity. It is not hormones – hormones are matter. It is not brain – brain cells are matter. Matter has no free will. It is not electricity. A light switch needs someone to turn it on or off. A computer “program” will always be the work of a programmer. Again - The physical evidence of a soul is a physical rock being moved by a force which is unpredictable in physics.

Boiled down:
1. Physics can't model the human brain, therefore
2. The human soul/mind/consciousness is made of some substance other than electrical signals in the brain.

Is that a fair representation of your argument? If so, my criticism is that it is a non-sequitur. Yes, physics can't model the human brain, but that's because that maths required to model the human brain is insanely complicated, and even if scientists figure that part out, their ability to collect data on human brains is currently limited to sticking electrodes on people's heads.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in some kind of substance dualism or property dualism. Science isn't going to prove you wrong in our lifetimes. It's not a very parsimonious explanation, but it fits with the tradition of believing in magical things that hide in the gaps in scientific knowledge.

 

[atrib]

I had given you negative rep two or three times, one of which was for excessive whining about getting a negative rep. Hardly a "machine gun" usage scenario.



Its relevant because you brought it up. You made a claim; all I am asking for is a definition of the term, and how others can go about verifying that such a thing exists. If you had made the claim "changing engine oil frequently extends the longevity of a car engine", there would be no need for further clarification since most people in the modern world know what a car is, and have some understanding of how engines work. The same is not true for this thing called a soul that you claim exists, and which allegedly is positively influenced by belief in imaginary supercreatures.



If you support your definition with instructions on how the existence of souls can be independently verified, and I succeed in verifying your claim, I will accept your definition.

My guess is youre gonna special plead that free will soul = quantum electrodynamic mirage.

I have no idea what this means. Can you clarify?

My definition of "soul" is discarnate consciousness.

Consciousness is an emergent property of complex neural networks, which are patterns or arrangements of matter/energy. In the reality we inhabit, consciousness is always associated with these patterns of matter/energy, and we have no evidence that consciousness can exist outside these arrangements. If you think I am wrong, point to a few examples where we have successfully tested for the presence of consciousness not associated with an underlying material pattern.

My evidence for the soul is observable and all around you.
Animate/Inanimate. Voluntary/Involuntary. Mind/Body. Agent/Mechanism.

You can test this yourself. Over and over and over - repeatability.

Take a rock and drop it. Physics can predict quite accurately what will happen to the rock. The rock will land on the floor and remain there until……………Until what?
Until I walk over and pick it up. I can lift the rock using my own free will/volition. Physics cannot predict when or EVEN IF I will pick up the rock. Physics has no name for the unpredictable and VERY REAL force acting upon the matter of my shoulder, my arm, my hand, the rock in the EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION of gravity. It is not hormones – hormones are matter. It is not brain – brain cells are matter. Matter has no free will. It is not electricity. A light switch needs someone to turn it on or off. A computer “program” will always be the work of a programmer. Again - The physical evidence of a soul is a physical rock being moved by a force which is unpredictable in physics.

I read through this section three or four times trying to understand your argument. You seem to be arguing for mind-body dualism, that consciousness in humans is distinct from the matter from which this consciousness arises. But your argument is circular, since you begin with the premise that minds are separate from the brains they are associated with, and then conclude that minds are separate from the brains they are associated with. Why don't you write out your argument in formal notation, including your premises, and how the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, so I don't have to guess?

Also, I don't understand what free will has to do with it. Our minds are the cumulative sum of all the information we receive through our sense organs, along with the processing and interpretation of this information in our brains. In a very literal sense, our brains construct a model of the reality we inhabit by translating electrochemical signals from our organs, which allows us to interact with and navigate this reality. Our brains are born with the ability to do certain things without conscious effort, like regulation of vital bodily functions, while other behavior has to be learned, or programmed through education and experience. In other words, some functions of our brains have been programmed to act autonomously through the process of biological evolution, while others have to be programmed in as we live our lives. Our brains are not that different from computer processors, and we have no evidence that some sort of immaterial mind is needed for our brains to work.

 

[atrib]

That's all folks.

Not quite Lion. Try it again. The placebo effect is real, but the thing you're led to believe causing it (aka, the placebo) is not (ie., it is not an active drug).

In short, in your analogy where the afterlife is a product of the placebo effect, that necessarily would mean that you had been fooled into thinking there is an afterlife by your brain making it up, not that there is actually an afterlife.

Which, once again, I have no doubt happens all in an instant--just like dreams--before brain death, which is what accounts for everything you've ever been told by ancient sheep herders and fishermen in books of yore.

No - as a physical 'thing', the sugar pill is quite real. And its also irrelevant.
Its not the rosary beads themselves which make prayer effective.
(Nor the prayer wheel, nor the mandala, nor the....)
Prayer - aka meditation - is the focus of the souls energy which delivers 'mind-over-matter' results.

Sylogism time.
P1. Stress causes illness.
P2. Meditation/Prayer alleviates stress.
C. Therefore prayer is medically efficacious.

Sure. This reasoning could support the argument that believing in god (which leads to prayer) can be good for the health of some people who believe. But it sheds no light on the underlying question of whether gods exist.