Do placebos affect reality, or do they only affect our perception of reality?

[Interesting Ian]

Monkboon said in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48820&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) thread that:



Besides that, the placebo effect is not belief affecting reality. It's belief affecting the perception of reality, which is undisputed as far as I know.


His sentiment is echoed by others in that thread. My position is that this is clearly false, and that placebos give rise to a certain mental state, which is actually able to initiate genuine change in the world (ie belief affects reality rather than just our perception of reality). Who is right?

[Yaotl]

Wait wait, are you really stating that placebos can give people the ability to change the world? A little while ago you said that I was extending your argument too far, which is what you just did.

[Pragmatist]

Is there really no Planet X option or is it only my perception? :D

[Soapy Sam]

Perception is as real as anything else. If placebos affect perception, they affect reality. The distinction is redundant..

I therefore vote "yes".

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Perception is as real as anything else. If placebos affect perception, they affect reality. The distinction is redundant..

I therefore vote "yes".

But things you pervcieve aren't always real, and things that alter your perception of reality don't necessarily alter reality itself. For example you can press on your eyes until you perceive blobs and stars without actually manifesting them in front of you.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Perception is as real as anything else. If placebos affect perception, they affect reality. The distinction is redundant..

I therefore vote "yes".

I agree. If I see something that is so repulsive that it makes me faint or vomit, such a physical reaction is the product of the way I perceived what I saw. There is no denying that the outcome (fainting or vomiting) is very real in the physical sense, but it only occurred because of the way I perceived what I saw. Someone else may see the same thing and not react at all. Their perception is very different, but both situations have very "real" results.

So, yes, perception affects reality. The two are interlinked.

[Ashles]

I'm voting a no as almost anything could be said to indirectly affect reality.

Directly they affect nothing. It is our own moods and relaxation that affects the illness/symptom.
EXACTLY the same effect could be achieved in different ways (group support, hypnosis, an exciting event in your life etc.) - emotion change followed by lessening of perceived symptoms. Thus it is the emotion change that directly affects the reality, not the placebo.

Lord Voldermort is not real.
But his actions at the end of Book 5 could have caused children to cry. Does this mean Lord Voldermort affects reality?

Men have died looking for El Dorado. It doesn't exist. But has it affected reality despite not existing?

[KelvinG]

I'm voting a no as almost anything could be said to indirectly affect reality.

Directly they affect nothing. It is our own moods and relaxation that affects the illness/symptom.
EXACTLY the same effect could be achieved in different ways (group support, hypnosis, an exciting event in your life etc.) - emotion change followed by lessening of perceived symptoms. Thus it is the emotion change that directly affects the reality, not the placebo.

Lord Voldermort is not real.
But his actions at the end of Book 5 could have caused children to cry. Does this mean Lord Voldermort affects reality?

Men have died looking for El Dorado. It doesn't exist. But has it affected reality despite not existing?


Interesting, I agree with you 100%, yet I voted yes. I think it goes to show that this is more a semantic argument than anything else. Are the two choices really that different? I don't think they are.

[Interesting Ian]

I can't believe that people are kidding themselves that it's just a semantic quibble!

Dear me!

Clearly our beliefs, whether explicit or implicit, will shape our perceptions. I merely need to point to perceptual illusions. For example, primitive tribes see the necker cube as basically a series of lines looking like a hexagon; but we see a cube (normally a cube as viewed from above, but sometimes from below).

But

It would normally be supposed that whatever we perceive, the underlying reality remains the same. Either there really is a cube there, or there really isn't a cube there. It doesn't matter if we perceive a cube, or only an array of lines constituting an hexagon.

Now, as for placebos, our beliefs can sometimes actually cure us of ailments. The evidence can scarcely be denied! Placebos don't merely make us think we are well, they really do make us well!

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I can't believe that people are kidding themselves that it's just a semantic quibble!

Dear me!

Clearly our beliefs, whether explicit or implicit, will shape our perceptions. I merely need to point to perceptual illusions. For example, primitive tribes see the necker cube as basically a series of lines looking like a hexagon; but we see a cube (normally a cube as viewed from above, but sometimes from below).

But

It would normally be supposed that whatever we perceive, the underlying reality remains the same. Either there really is a cube there, or there really isn't a cube there. It doesn't matter if we perceive a cube, or only an array of lines constituting an hexagon.

Now, as for placebos, our beliefs can sometimes actually cure us of ailments. The evidence can scarcely be denied! Placebos don't merely make us think we are well, they really do make us well!

You just agreed with Monkboon about beliefs changing our perception of reality. And as far as placebos curing anything, where do you find evidence of this? What did they cure?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yaotl
[B]You just agreed with Monkboon about beliefs changing our perception of reality.


Yes of course, and if placebos merely did that it would be entirely uninteresting. Indeed the word placebo would not have been coined.



And as far as placebos curing anything, where do you find evidence of this? What did they cure?

Oh please, go and talk to your doctor. He'll put you straight.

[Soapy Sam]

"But things you pervcieve aren't always real," -c4ts

Ah, but they are. (As Terry Pratchett would say, for a certain value of "real"). Perceptions are real. Dreams are real. Black holes are (probably) real. There is only one kind of reality.

_________________________________________________

"I can't believe that people are kidding themselves that it's just a semantic quibble!"- II

You're right not to believe Ian. We are not kidding ourselves.
I don't know what you intended to ask, but I can read what you did ask.
Perception of reality is part of reality. Unless you are postulating Imaginary perception- which I don't understand, beyond the obvious fact that it would be real imaginary perception.

(Unless you mean Imaginary Imaginary perception...)

Of Course its a semantic quibble. As a master of the genre like yourself knows perfectly well.

[c4ts]

But they're not real in the sense they appear to you. A dream while percieved, however strange, does not appear to be a dream during the experience (unless you are lucid dreaming), its content appears no more or less real than what you see in a waking state. Does reality change while you sleep?

As for black holes, they are not percieved, their effects are.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes of course, and if placebos merely did that it would be entirely uninteresting. Indeed the word placebo would not have been coined.



Oh please, go and talk to your doctor. He'll put you straight.

I don't even know how to argue with you if you go against your initial argument.

[Soapy Sam]

C4ts-

Does reality change while I sleep? Of course it does. It changes all the time.

I suspect we are talking past each other here. Let me clarify my meaning.

There is only one reality. My dream is real, part of reality. It is a real dream. It has duration, measurable electrical character etc.

When I go to sleep, the dream has not happened. When I awake, screaming and sweat drenched, the nightmare has happened. It is desperately, terrifyingly, REAL. Measure my heartrate. Dreams very probably kill people with weak hearts. "Peacefully in his sleep..." ? Maybe. Maybe not.

You mean (I think) that the dream is unreal in the sense that the events I think occurred did not occur. True.
The events in "Independence Day" did not occur as portrayed.
Yet the movie was real. (It grossed millions of real money).

This is what I mean about a semantic quibble at the heart of Ian's question. Reality is real. Movies are real movies. The events therein may be imaginary. Illness is real. If a placebo affects the imagination, it affects brain state, which, like my nightmare, is real.

The distinction between reality and perception of reality in the terms of this question is therefore unimportant .
Which, you will note, is not the same as equating reality and perception. They are not equal. The latter is a subset of the former.

ps- Re your point on black holes. It seems to me that all our (visual) perception is of photons, generally scattered by the electrons in matter, so it's a neat semantic argument that we never actually see a thing at all, merely its effects. I'll grant you we may not have perceived one yet.

[Loki]

Ian,

Is it even possible to answer this question without immediately running into the central issue of "define reality"?

[phildonnia]

Do Ian's posts really appear in this forum, or only on my perception of this forum?

[Ashles]

I do actually think this is one of Ian's more Interesting questions even if it is ultimately doomed to head down the Moebius road of philosophical semantics.

For example, primitive tribes see the necker cube as basically a series of lines looking like a hexagon; but we see a cube (normally a cube as viewed from above, but sometimes from below).

But

It would normally be supposed that whatever we perceive, the underlying reality remains the same. Either there really is a cube there, or there really isn't a cube there. It doesn't matter if we perceive a cube, or only an array of lines constituting an hexagon.

But this doesn't really advance his cause.

There isn't really a cube there. This is undeniable. It is a series of lines. Under no circumstances could the perceived cube be said to actually exist.
It's like showing someone a photo of a house and asking them what it is. They may say "That's a house", but it is never really an actual house, merely a representation of one.

Now, as for placebos, our beliefs can sometimes actually cure us of ailments.
Again a linguistic sleight of hand by Ian.
Symptoms are one thing. Physical 'ailments' (i.e. physical injuries, infection etc.) are another. When do placebos actually cure or heal these 'ailments'?

Oh please, go and talk to your doctor. He'll put you straight.
So if I ask a doctor "Do placebos actually cure people?" what do you think the doctor will say?

Yes of course, and if placebos merely did that it would be entirely uninteresting.
I think this sums it up. Ian wants to live in a more 'interesting' world where his beliefs are actually true.
Maybe his name should be 'Wants to be Interested Ian'.

Indeed the word placebo would not have been coined.
And you appear to attach some significance to the coining of a word (you have the true spirit of a philosopher Ian, I'll give you that).
That reminds me of Jurassic Park when Ian Grant explains the similarity of dinosaurs to birds using scientific explanation, then makes the bizarre statement "Indeed the word 'raptor' means bird of prey" as though what we have chosen to name something in any way affects the reality of the thing.


As a final point though I'd just like to add that all of this massively differentiates Ian from a troll (which he is sometimes unfairly accused of being) in that, no matter how much we might disagree with him, he really does think about these things enough to form an argument and get people thinking and debating the subject.

Much as I don't like philosophy and find it an ultimately pointless series of word games, there needs to be some recognition of it on a site such as this.
As sceptics are so reliant on the need for evidence and proof it is worth having at least one regular poster who can talk about the far extremes of what we consider evidence as it relates to our perceptions of what we define as reality.

I may disagree with Ian and his views, but I enjoy his opinions and, no matter how I regard philosophy, have learnt a lot from his posts about different viewpoints on the subject.

Now if he could just stop insulting people and calling them stupid...:)

[Soapy Sam]

"As a final point though I'd just like to add that all of this massively differentiates Ian from a troll (which he is sometimes unfairly accused of being) in that, no matter how much we might disagree with him, he really does think about these things enough to form an argument and get people thinking and debating the subject.

Much as I don't like philosophy and find it an ultimately pointless series of word games, there needs to be some recognition of it on a site such as this.
As sceptics are so reliant on the need for evidence and proof it is worth having at least one regular poster who can talk about the far extremes of what we consider evidence as it relates to our perceptions of what we define as reality.

I may disagree with Ian and his views, but I enjoy his opinions and, no matter how I regard philosophy, have learnt a lot from his posts about different viewpoints on the subject.

Now if he could just stop insulting people and calling them stupid..."- Ashles

Seconded.

[nbenami]

The answer is not clear cut. A placebo as such has no effect (you could tell a patient "We gave you a shot of something that will make you feel much better!" and not have given the patient anything, that would probably work just as well as a sugar pill) but the belief of the patient most certainly does.

The mechanisms are not understood, but they certainly are not paranormal in any way - just the usual endorphin-release/brain chemistry deal.

[Yahweh]

Ian askes,
Do placebos affect reality, or do they only affect our perception of reality?
Both.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by nbenami
The answer is not clear cut. A placebo as such has no effect (you could tell a patient "We gave you a shot of something that will make you feel much better!" and not have given the patient anything, that would probably work just as well as a sugar pill) but the belief of the patient most certainly does.

The mechanisms are not understood, but they certainly are not paranormal in any way - just the usual endorphin-release/brain chemistry deal.

The most replicable effect of placebos is the reduction of reported pain, a highly subjective variable, as you have probably observed.
But, it has been suggested that classically conditioned release of endorphins may mediate that effect.
If that were so, it would be a clearly physical (neurochemical) effect.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Yahweh
...

Both.

I agree.

I think what we need to look at here isn't whether placebos "cure" people of anything, but at what symptoms they relieve, because that's really what it's about.

I do not doubt the efficacy of placebos for ailments that are subjective, such as pain, nausea, or depression. The ailments themselves are a perception, therefore it does stand to reason (I think) that once one perceives to have taken a "cure," the original perception of pain, nausea, depression, etc. will go away.

However, it's strikingly different for say, diabetes. Who here would think an insulin placebo would help a diabetic? An erythromycin placebo for tetanus? A surgery placebo for appendicitis?

If it's to treat an ailment which is by nature subjective and hinged on perception, I think placebos would work just fine a good portion of the time. But to treat something like gastrointestinal worms? I don't think a placebo would even come close to fixing that.

It would be interesting to get a comparison of placebo stats for a depression drug study vs. one on a more physical ailment like tetanus. How would one go about doing that? I don't know where to start...



*edited for typos*

[IXP]

Actually the placebo effect is highly overrated. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May of 2001, Danish researchers Asbjorn Hrobjartsson and Peter Gotzsche analyzed a large number of medical studies in which there was a group given a placebo as well as a group given no treatment. The results for the two groups were not significantly different. In other words the placebo effect can be almost entirely explained by the random improvement expected in any medical condition.

The full text is only accessible via subscription, but here are a couple of articles discussing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/23CND-PLAC.html?ex=1100926800&en=070c8bad562d5022&ei=5070&ex=1094529600&en=741c3a4f2ffc497c&ei=5070

http://info.med.yale.edu/intmed/hummed/yjhm/archives/ecohen1.htm

[LotusMegami]

One of the things that placebos work best on is pain. Pain is only a perception, but it has a great effect upon the life of the sufferer.

If you're more relaxed, because the pain has been relieved, your body might deal with the cause of the pain better.


:hit:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by nbenami
The answer is not clear cut. A placebo as such has no effect (you could tell a patient "We gave you a shot of something that will make you feel much better!" and not have given the patient anything, that would probably work just as well as a sugar pill) but the belief of the patient most certainly does.


ok ok ok . .let's be pedantic about this then. It is not the placebo per se, but rather the belief of the patient that he has taken something that will help his ailment.

There, that better?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
His sentiment is echoed by others in that thread. My position is that this is clearly false, and that placebos give rise to a certain mental state, which is actually able to initiate genuine change in the world (ie belief affects reality rather than just our perception of reality). Who is right?
You believe that external reality is played upon our senses by the Metamind, do you not? If that is the case, then the Metamind plays the placebo on my senses, which establishes a particular mental state, which in turn can interact with the Metamind, which can then change the tune it plays on my senses. So in your metaphysic, I would say that placebo can certainly change the external world, in a very circular sense.

In a metaphysic where the external world is separate from me, a placebo can still have an external effect. I take it, I feel better, I get out of bed, and I make a pot of tea. The placebo results in a pot of tea.

However, I still think I should vote no.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by IXP
Actually the placebo effect is highly overrated. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May of 2001, Danish researchers Asbjorn Hrobjartsson and Peter Gotzsche analyzed a large number of medical studies in which there was a group given a placebo as well as a group given no treatment. The results for the two groups were not significantly different. In other words the placebo effect can be almost entirely explained by the random improvement expected in any medical condition.

The full text is only accessible via subscription, but here are a couple of articles discussing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/23CND-PLAC.html?ex=1100926800&en=070c8bad562d5022&ei=5070&ex=1094529600&en=741c3a4f2ffc497c&ei=5070

http://info.med.yale.edu/intmed/hummed/yjhm/archives/ecohen1.htm

Contradicted by a trial a few months later ..... researchers in Canada (2001) found Parkinson’s Disease patients, on an inactive placebo increased dopamine release significantly (which is the goal of the real drugs too)

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991137


Edited to add .... there was also a trial where 30% of people on blood pressure placebo significantly reduced blood pressure ..... but I can't find good link to it :(

Don't be too negative sceptics, it's not good for you! ;) :)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Don't be too negative sceptics, it's not good for you! ;) :)

Yes, negativity is bad for skeptics and non-skeptics alike.

But, I wonder if skeptics are more negative than non-skeptics? Could be.
As the old saying goes, ignorance is bliss!

[Jeff Corey]

I'm having a problem with "Only a perception".
Experimental psychologists distinguish between sensations and perceptions. Sensations are the raw input and perception is what we make of it.
Like the Necker Cube.

[Atlas]

Aren't we all susceptible to suggestion. Sometimes it's auto-suggestion, sometimes not.

When a hypnotist wakes someone up their patter is something like "you will awaken and feel refreshed - better than you've felt in a long time."

So a word can affect reality - so can a placebo - if we mean that it can communicate an idea or a suggestion.

However I would still answer no to Ian's question. I never think that changing my mind affects reality unless it changes my behavior. That is you may suggest to me that the curtain is not Pink but Salmon, and I may agree but I don't think of that as affecting reality. But color perception is like pain perception in that it is a private experiance.

On the other hand, if you can suggest away pain so that I get up and dance you have changed my behavior. A pretty girl might do that with a word, a doctor might do it with a sugar pill, a cowboy with a couple of six shooters might do it by shooting at my toes.

The cowboy's guns cause an adrenaline rush in me and I think the pretty girl and the doctor or placebo also involve a brain released chemical that affects me physiologically. The truth is that we pass through emotional states and undergo physiological changes if we sit and think about stuff or read a book.

Eating a sugar pill has the same affect as folding your hands in prayer can or petting your cat. You feel different. But the truth is you can't feel the same with the passage of time... you always are going to feel different than you do now if you just wait awhile. And sugar is associated with pleasant memories of candy. A placebo of cow manure would not have the same affect as sugar.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The most replicable effect of placebos is the reduction of reported pain, a highly subjective variable, as you have probably observed.
But, it has been suggested that classically conditioned release of endorphins may mediate that effect.
If that were so, it would be a clearly physical (neurochemical) effect.

To be fair, I did say, well, some of that. For those who didn't follow the link, the entire quote was:

Besides that, the placebo effect is not belief affecting reality. It's belief affecting the perception of reality, which is undisputed as far as I know. I am unaware of any reliable evidence that a placebo has ever cured any physical ailment. I'll take the mountains of evidence that placebos have led to relief of subjective symptoms as given.

[Ratman_tf]

I wonder how many patients, treated with placebos only, have been cured of conditions more than would be expected by stuff like spontaneous remission.

(I didn't vote, I too think that both answers are valid.)

[BPScooter]

Well, since all we have are these shared tokens called "words" then it seems that a reference to the dead users and creators of our language at least deserve some credit. For my money: "reality" is the thing that seems not to change, for so many people, for such a long period of time, that it is Reality. I'm stoked up to find the OED for this one.

Other terms, tokens, "words" mean other things. "Gravity" for example is a common word that describes a wonderful and mysterious thing that all have noticed, since the beginning of "reality" but the physics of today can barely explain (that is, if you construe the word "explanation" to account for alll the predictions and observations from the physics labs). The problem of gravity, as I gather, is still a major problem. One that occupies many fine minds.

If we can't agree on much, perhaps we can at least agree that Reality does indeed Exist.

If that isn't possible, then we can all be Philosophers. If that isn't possible, then at least I can be a lexicographer and etymologist. If that isn't possible, I'll be a brewer. Or a beer drinker. Or a musician.

[Soapy Sam]

BPS- My view of reality is simple- perhaps simplistic.

Reality is. Everything which exists is real, including imagination.

The imaginary - the products of the imagination- are real products of the imagination. Some of them are realisable as physical process or object, given the necessary effort, some are not. Those would be both imaginary and unreal, though imaginable. (Pink invisible unicorns).

I am not aware of anything which is not part of reality.It would have to be literally unimaginable. I don't see how such a thing is possible. It's an interesting concept certainly.

I don't suppose that's where Ian was originally headed, but he does spin stuff like this off, either by accident or design.

[IXP]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Contradicted by a trial a few months later ..... researchers in Canada (2001) found Parkinson’s Disease patients, on an inactive placebo increased dopamine release significantly (which is the goal of the real drugs too)

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991137


Edited to add .... there was also a trial where 30% of people on blood pressure placebo significantly reduced blood pressure ..... but I can't find good link to it :(

Don't be too negative sceptics, it's not good for you! ;) :)

Actually this study does not contradict the previous study. The previsous study included only trials in whch there was a group that was not treated at all. I see no mention of such a control group in this study.

I suspect that a placebo (through a psychological factor) can induce measurable physical changes in rare circumstances, but I don't think it is generally the case. Other studies have confirmed that the placebo effect is much stronger when the measure is reported by the patient (i.e. pain) as opposed to objectively measurable effects.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by IXP
Actually this study does not contradict the previous study. The previsous study included only trials in whch there was a group that was not treated at all. I see no mention of such a control group in this study.

I suspect that a placebo (through a psychological factor) can induce measurable physical changes in rare circumstances, but I don't think it is generally the case. Other studies have confirmed that the placebo effect is much stronger when the measure is reported by the patient (i.e. pain) as opposed to objectively measurable effects.

Remember you cannot maintain that placebos make you feel better, and yet deny they initiate any physical changes. Thius is because mental states are correlated with physical states of the brain. So feeling better (eg experiencing less pain) must therefore be accompanied by physical changes in the brain ie placebos change reality as well as ones perception of reality.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Remember you cannot maintain that placebos make you feel better, and yet deny they initiate any physical changes. Thius is because mental states are correlated with physical states of the brain. So feeling better (eg experiencing less pain) must therefore be accompanied by physical changes in the brain ie placebos change reality as well as ones perception of reality. I don't think it is the placebo that makes you feel better. I think that is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. While a tiny sugar pill will cause the normal physiological changes a piece of candy would, it is the power of suggestion that permits one to feel better in the theraputic sense, in my opinion.

That is, if a doctor or homeopath gives you a dose of water and says you can feel better with this - you can! It is the state of mind acting on the body in the same way volition moves the body to take a walk knowing that it will make me feel better. If I intend to feel better from my walk my chances of feeling better from my walk are greatly increased.

I am suggesting that the equation is not: placebo->feel better
but rather: placebo->suggestion/idea->maybe feel better

So indeed the placebo can modify subjective reality but not objective reality (something beyond feelings) - placebos don't heal broken legs or cancers anymore than candy does.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Remember you cannot maintain that placebos make you feel better, and yet deny they initiate any physical changes. Thius is because mental states are correlated with physical states of the brain. So feeling better (eg experiencing less pain) must therefore be accompanied by physical changes in the brain ie placebos change reality as well as ones perception of reality.

To what degree are you arguing this? Are you now only saying that placebos or the power of suggestion can affect brain chemistry to a minor extent? Are you saying they can cause someone to heal bones faster than normal? Cure cancer?

[Ashles]

I am suggesting that the equation is not: placebo->feel better
but rather: placebo->suggestion/idea->maybe feel better

So indeed the placebo can modify subjective reality but not objective reality (something beyond feelings) - placebos don't heal broken legs or cancers anymore than candy does.

Exactly. As you could replace the pill, with 'magic water' or a 'special cup' or of a number of things with an identical effect then, obviously, it was not the pill itself that altered the reality but our own moods.

And I don't really want to take the debate down to the level of "Do your moods affect your perception of sensations" because we know they do.

So if the question is about placebo then, no, if it is about our moods or beliefs then no again, except in relation to our perceptions. Nothing external.

[Soapy Sam]

My (very rusty) Latin suggests that placebo is a verb , meaning "I will gratify", or " I will placate". It seems reasonable to take the word as referring to a process, rather than a specific pill. The process involves both patient and doctor. One might equally say it is the doctor's will which is affecting the symptoms of the patient, through the medium of the patient's response.

But what if the Rep from the Evil Pharma convinced the doctor that the pill really had reliable, proven physiological effects, though in fact it had none?

Whose will is working the magic then?

Edit:- Ian. The score stands (at the moment) at YES 9, No 15.
Had you been asked to predict the result after 24 replies, what would your guess have been? I'm quite surprised by the real result.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yaotl
To what degree are you arguing this? Are you now only saying that placebos or the power of suggestion can affect brain chemistry to a minor extent? Are you saying they can cause someone to heal bones faster than normal? Cure cancer?

Feeling positive can postpone when one dies. Anyway, I don't know whether placebos (or rather the feelings precipitated by taking a placebo) can cure cancer, but in anycase, there is no substantive difference between cancer being eliminated and the elimination of a pain. In both cases the placebo (indirectly) initiates physical events in the body.

[Soapy Sam]

"...but in anycase, there is no substantive difference between cancer being eliminated and the elimination of a pain..."

I think that's a huge and unproven assumption, Ian.

Uncontrolled cell growth and nerve impulse propagation / perception are profoundly different processes. One can easily imagine a body / brain feed back loop which stops the pain of cancer, yet does not stop the cell growth. After all, that's exactly what a chemical painkiller does.

[Ashles]

there is no substantive difference between cancer being eliminated and the elimination of a pain
Absolutely incorrect Ian.

Are you seriously suggesting that powerful painkillers applied to a person would be just as effective as surgery removng a malignant tumour as a method of beating cancer?
Is that how you would work as a doctor? Treat the symptom not the cause?

This is an excellent illustration of how your word games and redefinitions of perception and reality fail when applied to the real world.
You seem to think you can redefine things and reality will bend to suit you. This is not the case.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Absolutely incorrect Ian.

Are you seriously suggesting that powerful painkillers applied to a person would be just as effective as surgery removng a malignant tumour as a method of beating cancer?
Is that how you would work as a doctor? Treat the symptom not the cause?

This is an excellent illustration of how your word games and redefinitions of perception and reality fail when applied to the real world.
You seem to think you can redefine things and reality will bend to suit you. This is not the case.

I'm talking about the curing of a pain here. How is that of substantive difference from curing cancer?

[Ashles]

I'm talking about the curing of a pain here. How is that of substantive difference from curing cancer?
I can't quite believe you're even asking that.

Well Ian, it's because if the pain is alleviated, but the cancer isn't treated you will die anyway.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
I can't quite believe you're even asking that.

Well Ian, it's because if the cancer is cured, but the pain is treated you will die anyway.

We need to make a distinction between the underlying cause of some ailment, and the perception of that ailment.

I'm saying that placebos cure the cause of the pain as well as the pain itself. You see? If placebos only cured perceptions of an ailment rather than the ailment itself, then nobody would get excited about placebos!

So if I develop a headache, and I take a placebo (but thinking it is the real thing) and my headache disappears, then it's not simply the case that the sensation of the headache has gone, but also the underlying cause of the headache.

[kieran]

I'd have to disagree with Interesting Ian's early thread line ... "I can't believe that people are kidding themselves that it's just a semantic quibble!". To me, this entire thread seems to be a quibble over differing definitions of "reality", "affect" and "perception".

Overall, I'm in agreement with indirect link given by Atlas ... placebo->suggestion/idea->maybe feel better

I voted yes (as an indirect link and using my own definitions).

[Ashles]

I'm saying that placebos cure the cause of the pain as well as the pain itself. You see? If placebos only cured perceptions of an ailment rather than the ailment itself, then nobody would get excited about placebos!

So if I develop a headache, and I take a placebo (but thinking it is the real thing) and my headache disappears, then it's not simply the case that the sensation of the headache has gone, but also the underlying cause of the headache.
I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that you are wrong Ian.

And nobody does get excited about placebos as any form of cure. They are only used for very minor symptoms or as an interesting experiment.

They do not cure anything.

Please answer this question:
If I have a brain tumour and in its early stages I feel a slight headache, then I take a placebo and the pain goes away, do you believe the tumour will disappear as a result?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that you are wrong Ian.

And nobody does get excited about placebos as any form of cure. They are only used for very minor symptoms or as an interesting experiment.

They do not cure anything.



WOW! You're going to have to back that assertion up.



Please answer this question:
If I have a brain tumour and in its early stages I feel a slight headache, then I take a placebo and the pain goes away, do you believe the tumour will disappear as a result? [/B]

No obviously not.

Now let me ask you a question. Suppose I have a pain in my arm. But then my arm goes all numb so I no longer feel any pain. Is your position that placebos never do more than this i.e they do not cure causes of ailments??

[Interesting Ian]

From here. (http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/2/health/placebos.shtml)

There are an endless variety of cases that have proven placebos inconclusively effective. Among the most famous of these cases is the story of "Mr. Wright," who was found to have cancer and in 1957 was given only days to live. Hospitalized in Long Beach, California, with tumors the size of oranges, he heard that scientists had discovered a horse serum, Krebiozen, that appeared to be effective against cancer. After Wright begged to receive the serum, his physician, Dr. Philip West, finally agreed and gave wright the injection on a Friday afternoon, not telling Wright that injection consisted only of water. The following Monday the doctor was astonished to find that the patient's tumors were gone. Dr. West later wrote the tumors, " had melted like snowballs on a hot stove." At Tulane University, Dr. Eileen Palace has been using a placebo to restore sexual arousal in women who say they are nonorgasmic. The women are hooked up to a biofeedback machine that they are told measures their vaginal blood flow, an index of arousal. Then they are shown sexual stimuli that would arouse most women. The experiment then tricks the women by sending a false feedback signal, within 30 seconds, that their vaginal blood flow has increased. Almost immediately after they become genuinely aroused. In another case a study was carried out in Japan on 13 people that were extremely allergic to poison ivy. Each individual was rubbed on one arm with a harmless leaf and told that it was poison ivy and then rubbed on the opposite arm with poison ivy and told that it was harmless. All thirteen broke out in a rash where the harmless leaf had contacted their arm. Only two reacted to the poison ivy leaves. (Blakeslee, 2) In yet another example, patients with angina pectoris, chest pain, associated with heart disease, have been shown to improve substantially following an operation that involved nothing more than a simple skin incision. Angina also improved following a type of artery surgery once thought to be effective but later found to be ineffective. (Turner, 1)

[Ratman_tf]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11372012&dopt=Abstract

Interesting.

[Ashles]

From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo)
"A placebo is a medical treatment (operation, therapy, chemical solution, pill, etc.), which is administered as if it were a therapy, but which has no therapeutic value other than the placebo effect."

From a medical dictionary (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=placebo)
"Any dummy medical treatment, originally, a medicinal preparation having no specific pharmacological activity against the patients illness or complaint given solely for the psychophysiological effects of the treatment"

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11372012&dopt=Abstract

Interesting. But that's from 2001. Hasn't subjectivity come a long way since then? ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo)
"A placebo is a medical treatment (operation, therapy, chemical solution, pill, etc.), which is administered as if it were a therapy, but which has no therapeutic value other than the placebo effect."

From a medical dictionary (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=placebo)
"Any dummy medical treatment, originally, a medicinal preparation having no specific pharmacological activity against the patients illness or complaint given solely for the psychophysiological effects of the treatment"

Remember, you are denying that placebos have a psychophysiological effect.

And Ratman_tf, I acknowledge that some research will be negative. The patients need to be genuinely convinced that the medication will have a beneficial effect on them. Crucially any research simply must be double blinded.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11372012&dopt=Abstract

Interesting.

WOW! I've just noticed that it compares a placebo with no treatment. :eek: Are you being serious??

We need it to be double blinded, and we need placebos to be compared with a genuine treatment. Anything less is wholly unsatisfactory.

Show me some research where those criteria are met and which are negative.

[Ashles]

Ian I can't access that link as I am at work and our Websense monitor prevents me from seing it (by the way that page is actually restricted under the categoriy of "Illegal or Questionable"!)

These are at the moment just anecdotes (although the one about the women seems perfectly reasonable by all descriptions of placebos - their problem may well have been psychological - the fact it is on the same list as the others implies whoever wrote that doesn't fully understand placebos).

I can find this article repeated elsewhere several times word for word, but it never appears to be backed up.
Over and over they refer to the Japanese study about 13 people with Poison Ivy allergy. But none of them mention who did the study or where it can be found (perhaps it was conducted by the scientist with the blister-inducing ice cube). That's all the details these articles ever give - Japanese study, 13 people. (Blakeslee is just the person who wrote the article for the New York Times.)

These famous examples about studies which show quite clear examples of placebos overriding immune sytem responses would be fascinating to read, but they don't appear to exist anywhere.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Ian I can't access that link as I am at work and our Websense monitor prevents me from seing it (by the way that page is actually restricted under the categoriy of "Illegal or Questionable"!)

These are at the moment just anecdotes (although the one about the women seems perfectly reasonable by all descriptions of placebos - their problem may well have been psychological - the fact it is on the same list as the others implies whoever wrote that doesn't fully understand placebos).

I can find this article repeated elsewhere several times word for word, but it never appears to be backed up.
Over and over they refer to the Japanese study about 13 people with Poison Ivy allergy. But none of them mention who did the study or where it can be found (perhaps it was conducted by the scientist with the blister-inducing ice cube). That's all the details these articles ever give - Japanese study, 13 people. (Blakeslee is just the person who wrote the article for the New York Times.)

These famous examples about studies which show quite clear examples of placebos overriding immune sytem responses would be fascinating to read, but they don't appear to exist anywhere.

Again I stress I don't care about the magnitude of what placebos can accomplish. Curing a pain and causes of a pain, in this context, makes my point as much as if they cured cancer.

[Ashles]

Remember, you are denying that placebos have a psychophysiological effect.
There is a difference betwen a psychophysiological effect and a cure.
A psychophysiological effect is that of lowering heart rate or blood pressure etc. which we have never been disputing.

A cure for a tumour or healing a broken bone, or the disappearance of an infection etc. That is what we are talking about in regards to a cure.

[gnome]

Ian... it is true that a placebo can have a mental effect that improves one's health. But don't mistake it for one's beliefs exerting some magical will over reality... it is simply that a positive mental state has beneficial physical effects.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
From here. (http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/2/health/placebos.shtml)

There are an endless variety of cases that have proven placebos inconclusively effective. Among the most famous of these cases is the story of "Mr. Wright," who was found to have cancer and in 1957 was given only days to live.
<snip>


I thought it might be interesting to look a bit further to establish the degree of scientific credibility of the source that Ian cites above for the placebo effect. It is a site which offers essay writing for a fee, but has many free essays available for download. Sounds rather suspicious. However, I was reassured by their claim that all their essays are written by highly qualified experts with PhD's etc., and comprehensively checked for accuracy by their expert reviewers. Excellent! So just to make absolutely sure of the quality of the information on this site, I decided to go have a look at the physics essays to see what their expert reviewers would accept. Here is the link to the physics essays:

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/index.shtml

And I found some nice essays on atomic physics and electromagnetism. I thought everyone would like to see the quality of this highly authoritative work on physics:

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/atomic-theory.shtml

"It was soon realized that the mass of an atom is from the positively charged electron.

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/electromagnetism.shtml

"Electromagnetism exists everywhere. When people drive, walk, or even go to the beach. However, due to the extreme complexity of the topic, electromagnetism has proven to be a subject studied by those who are crafty and willing enough to explore the domain. The ideas of electricity start from simple objects such as springs, coils and magnets that simply created a current for some sort of affect to either start or light some object. Now these theories have expanded to a point where our everyday lives are affected by it. When people start their cars for example, a magnet turned by a flywheel generates current through coils to help ignite the cars electrical system. In short, electromagnetism exists everywhere in our everyday lives. There are many examples of electromagnetism effecting technical objects of today’s society."

Oh. I think I can feel a psychic prediction coming on. I have this sneaking suspicion that neither of the above were written by anyone with a PhD in physics. Or English. Or anything remotely related to science. And I am wondering if they were more than 8 years old...

:dl:

[Ashles]

Curing a pain and causes of a pain, in this context, makes my point as much as if they cured cancer.
No it doesn't unless you have changed your point.

In fact what IS your point?
That placebos have a psychological effect? This is what we have been saying and have never disputed.
That they have a real effect?
They don't, other than those which would be controlled by the aforementioned psychological effect.

So the difference between an actual cure and psychological pain relief is quite distinct and important to your point if you are claiming a real direct effect.

So what point are you making again?

[The Mighty Thor]

Ian,

Would you defend the practices of this Turoff guy?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48912

[Pragmatist]

That essay site is HILARIOUS! Ian, is this where you learned "quantum mechanics" from?

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/electrical-circuits.shtml

"CONCLUSION This lab was a difficult one due to the fact that I forgot what a Bode plot was. Also, we only had one day to work on it. As a result, we had to take data really quick in order to finish in time. I do not know if our data is right."

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/electrolytes.shtml

"Electrolytes are liquids that conduct electricity. Most need to be dissolved into water or another solvent."

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/hydrogen.shtml

"Hydrogen is the universe’s most abundant element. Most of that hydrogen though, is tied up in chemical bonds."

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/quantim-theory.shtml

"Quantim Mechanics is abranch of mathematical physics that deals with the emission and absorption of energy by matter and with the motion of material particles. Because it holds that energy and matter exist in tiny, discrete amounts, quantum mechanics is particularly applicable to Elamentry Pprticlesand the interactions between them."

Maybe if they write enough essays, one day they will even be able to afford a spell checker!

:dl:

[monkboon]

Originally posted by Ashles
Ian I can't access that link as I am at work and our Websense monitor prevents me from seing it (by the way that page is actually restricted under the categoriy of "Illegal or Questionable"!)

Don't worry, you haven't missed much. It's a poorly written essay (1 very long paragraph, for instance). There are no citations of anything resembling a refereed journal or formal study. Those citations that do resemble a reliable source are for quotes that don't support Ian's position. For instance, at first glance, the most impressive of the essay's citations comes from Harvard:
Nobody wants to own it. Even shamans and witch doctors would be offended by the idea that their healing powers depended on the placebo effect.
President and fellows of Harvard College

Unfortunately, a number of the citations lead to web sites with dead links for the articles cited.

The bulk of the essay came from a pair of New York Times articles and the student newsletter of the University of Waterloo, all of them "collections of stories/statistics" It's not a reliable source upon which to base the claim that the placebo effect cures anything.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I thought it might be interesting to look a bit further to establish the degree of scientific credibility of the source that Ian cites above for the placebo effect. It is a site which offers essay writing for a fee, but has many free essays available for download. Sounds rather suspicious. However, I was reassured by their claim that all their essays are written by highly qualified experts with PhD's etc., and comprehensively checked for accuracy by their expert reviewers. Excellent! So just to make absolutely sure of the quality of the information on this site, I decided to go have a look at the physics essays to see what their expert reviewers would accept. Here is the link to the physics essays:

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/index.shtml

And I found some nice essays on atomic physics and electromagnetism. I thought everyone would like to see the quality of this highly authoritative work on physics:

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/atomic-theory.shtml

"It was soon realized that the mass of an atom is from the positively charged electron.

http://www.goldenessays.com/free_essays/3/physics/electromagnetism.shtml

"Electromagnetism exists everywhere. When people drive, walk, or even go to the beach. However, due to the extreme complexity of the topic, electromagnetism has proven to be a subject studied by those who are crafty and willing enough to explore the domain. The ideas of electricity start from simple objects such as springs, coils and magnets that simply created a current for some sort of affect to either start or light some object. Now these theories have expanded to a point where our everyday lives are affected by it. When people start their cars for example, a magnet turned by a flywheel generates current through coils to help ignite the cars electrical system. In short, electromagnetism exists everywhere in our everyday lives. There are many examples of electromagnetism effecting technical objects of today’s society."

Oh. I think I can feel a psychic prediction coming on. I have this sneaking suspicion that neither of the above were written by anyone with a PhD in physics. Or English. Or anything remotely related to science. And I am wondering if they were more than 8 years old...

:dl:

Isn't Interesting supposed to be doing a PhD?:confused:

[alfaniner]

So, the placebo effect can affect reality? How about this:

A patient has a condition that is unknown to him. The doctor knows about it, and prescribes a medication. The patient wants to know what it is for, and the doctor say "Never mind, just take it."

Now, unknown to the doctor, he was provided with a placebo. The doctor fervently believes it is the true medication and will work for the patient. The question is, will it have any effect on the patient's condition if only the doctor believes in the medication which is truly a placebo, and the patient knows nothing about it at all?

[Blondin]

Obviously there's only one way to settle this - with a controlled double-blind experiment. I suggest we get a group of volunteers and split them up into two sub-groups. One group will be given placebos and the other group will be given... erm, something else.

But seriously, I would be interested to know if there really is any such think as a "placebo effect". The whole point of using a placebo is so that the control group don't know who they are because as soon as a test subject knows if they are receiving the real medicine or the placebo it's going to affect their objectivity.

Are there stats that show that the control groups in some tests have experienced significant results compared to doing nothing? If so then I think it only helps establish a physical link between mind and body.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
[B]There is a difference betwen a psychophysiological effect and a cure.



Yes but not a relevant one.



A psychophysiological effect is that of lowering heart rate or blood pressure etc. which we have never been disputing.



We have been disputing precisely that. You are claiming placebos do not affect reality. If ones heart beat slows down, then this is an affect upon reality.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We have been disputing precisely that. You are claiming placebos do not affect reality. If ones heart beat slows down, then this is an affect upon reality.

Which is why I asked you to what extent. You then said it could cure cancer (I think), but then stated that it wouldn't make a tumor go away. So which is it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
[B]No it doesn't unless you have changed your point.

In fact what IS your point?
That placebos have a psychological effect? This is what we have been saying and have never disputed.
That they have a real effect?
They don't, other than those which would be controlled by the aforementioned psychological effect.


psychological effect = physiological effect (due to mind/brain correlations) = effecting reality

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by gnome
Ian... it is true that a placebo can have a mental effect that improves one's health.



Good, then you agree with me and disagree with most others on here.



But don't mistake it for one's beliefs exerting some magical will over reality... it is simply that a positive mental state has beneficial physical effects.

That is all this thread is about. I am claiming no more.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I'm saying that placebos cure the cause of the pain as well as the pain itself. You see? If placebos only cured perceptions of an ailment rather than the ailment itself, then nobody would get excited about placebos!
Where did you get the idea that anyone is excited about placebos curing all sorts of diseases? It might cure psychosomatic diseases, and it might help cure diseases that the body can fight anyway, and it might alleviate the pain of other uncured diseases, but I very much doubt it's going to cure AIDS or Tay-Sachs or diabetes.

Placebos have a physical effect on the body and mind. That does not make them any sort of cure-all.

~~ Paul

[Blondin]

But there are lots of things that can affect heart/breathing rate and things like that without involving drugs (real or fake).

A good fright can make you break out in a sweat or doing something embarrassing in front of a crowd can cause you to flush bright red.

It seems obvious that the belief that a placebo (drug, prayer, rite, whatever) is going to have an effect can cause some physical changes but that doesn't prove there is any direct connection with belief and the curing/healing of symptoms unless the symptoms were "self-induced" to start with.

I'm not saying there is no connection just that it isn't necessarily proven.

Anxiety attacks, for example, can look and feel an awful lot like some kind of cardiac event (and in a way they are). If you can make yourself feel that awful with your mind it seems logical that you should be able to cure yourself of those symptoms with your mind/thoughts as well.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Blondin
[B]But there are lots of things that can affect heart/breathing rate and things like that without involving drugs (real or fake).

A good fright can make you break out in a sweat or doing something embarrassing in front of a crowd can cause you to flush bright red.

It seems obvious that the belief that a placebo (drug, prayer, rite, whatever) is going to have an effect can cause some physical changes but that doesn't prove there is any direct connection with belief and the curing/healing of symptoms unless the symptoms were "self-induced" to start with.



So you concede a belief can cause physical changes in the body, but you do not concede that such a physical change can amount to a cure of an ailment?

Still, even if you maintain this position, I think you are forced to concede that if beliefs can indeed initiate physical changes in the body, then there is no reason in principle why such physical changes would not cure the person of an ailment.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Ian,

Would you defend the practices of this Turoff guy?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48912

Is Turoff justified in offering "psychic surgery" for a fee as a placebo?

[Soapy Sam]

Why restrict the argument to conscious belief?

Subliminal awareness (say of the smell of fish & chips) can make you salivate, and feel hungry. How often have you suddenly "needed" a cup of coffee? Was that a purely internal decision , or a subconscious response to environmental stimuli?

It is obvious that sensory feedback loops can generate body changes, stimulate or suppress glandular secretions and the like.
This is a long way from switching off the reproductive mechanism of tumor cells while leaving the rest of the body untouched, then causing the tumour to dissolve. One is a simple trigger of normal mechanisms, the other a wholly unknown, multi-stage process.

If the body can do this, why would it be triggered by a placebo rather than by any "real" drug- or indeed by the smell of Java?

I agree that if such cases as Mr.Wright are genuine, they merit the most thorough research, but why suppose it was the placebo which caused the effect? post ergo propter? It might as easily have been the fact of being in hospital which caused the effect. Or sneezing.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So you concede a belief can cause physical changes in the body, but you do not concede that such a physical change can amount to a cure of an ailment?

Still, even if you maintain this position, I think you are forced to concede that if beliefs can indeed initiate physical changes in the body, then there is no reason in principle why such physical changes would not cure the person of an ailment.

I think I would qualify that. I would differentiate beetween an ailment and symptoms (though I'll concede this might sound like semantics). Feeling anxious about a job interview or a blind date might contribute to a temporary increase in blood pressure, dizziness and sweaty palms. Chronic hypertension because of clogged arteries would be an ailment.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Monkboon said in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48820&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) thread that:



His sentiment is echoed by others in that thread. My position is that this is clearly false, and that placebos give rise to a certain mental state, which is actually able to initiate genuine change in the world (ie belief affects reality rather than just our perception of reality). Who is right?

Help me!

I am agreeing with Ian, TOO BAD HE HAS ME ON IGNORE!

If palcebos create an effect in humans or in human perception they have created a change in reality!

Human perception and humans are a subset subsumed by reality.

No duh!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm saying that placebos cure the cause of the pain as well as the pain itself. You see? If placebos only cured perceptions of an ailment rather than the ailment itself, then nobody would get excited about placebos!

So if I develop a headache, and I take a placebo (but thinking it is the real thing) and my headache disappears, then it's not simply the case that the sensation of the headache has gone, but also the underlying cause of the headache.

Unproved assertion!

You haven't proved anything except that the placebo potentialy caused a change and you haven't even proved that.

What if it was the glass of water that you drank with the placebo?
What if the headache went away without the placebo?


And you still don't understand the distinction between a clinical syndrome like a migrane or cluster headache and the symptom of the the pain. One can treat the pain without treating the underlying cause!

[Interesting Ian]

Soapy Sam,

Your whole post presupposes the correctness of physicalism/naturalism. Placebos do not disprove naturalism/physicalism; nevertheless they fit awkwardly with the acknowledgement that belief genuinely initiates change in the physical world.

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Why restrict the argument to conscious belief?



Because this is what we are talking about.



Subliminal awareness (say of the smell of fish & chips) can make you salivate, and feel hungry. How often have you suddenly "needed" a cup of coffee? Was that a purely internal decision , or a subconscious response to environmental stimuli?

It is obvious that sensory feedback loops can generate body changes, stimulate or suppress glandular secretions and the like.
This is a long way from switching off the reproductive mechanism of tumor cells while leaving the rest of the body untouched, then causing the tumour to dissolve. One is a simple trigger of normal mechanisms, the other a wholly unknown, multi-stage process.


Having the need for a cup of coffee, and the like, is a red herring. Having the need for a cup of coffee is a purely physical process. It disposes you to make yourself a cup. Sorry? . .you say compels? Well, so you claim.

But this is not important. No intelligent knowledgeable person denies that ones brain state heavily influences (or compels according to the naturalist) one to behave in a given manner.

But you are denying the reciprocal process; namely that ones intentions and beliefs can likewise have an effect upon the physical state of the brain. It's not just a one way process - brain to mind - there is also mind to brain. This is demonstrated with placebos, and more obviously the immediate experience of ourselves as causal agents able to initiate change in the world.



If the body can do this, why would it be triggered by a placebo rather than by any "real" drug- or indeed by the smell of Java?



Because the belief that some tablet you take will do you good, can be as effective as a normal physical mechanism i.e. taking a normal genuine table which is able to initiate change in your body.

Of course you will deny this; yet it is on good record that placebos do precisely this.



I agree that if such cases as Mr.Wright are genuine, they merit the most thorough research, but why suppose it was the placebo which caused the effect? post ergo propter? It might as easily have been the fact of being in hospital which caused the effect. Or sneezing. [/B]

No, we know that ones belief that one will get well is correlated to a statistically significant extent that one will actually get well. This strongly suggests (but not proves I grant you!) that it is the belief per se which is the causal agent responsible for one getting better.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Unproved assertion!

You haven't proved anything except that the placebo potentialy caused a change and you haven't even proved that.



I can't prove that placebos cause any change, I agree. But surely the evidence suggests they do?

Now!

If placebos cause a change, what do they cause a change in? Obviously ones mental state e.g you might no longer experience some pain. But we all agree that mental states are correlated with physical states of the brain. Yes? Therefore placebos cause a physical change in the state of the brain.

And that's all I'm saying.

Why on earth are peoiple disagreeing with me?? :confused:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Blondin
quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So you concede a belief can cause physical changes in the body, but you do not concede that such a physical change can amount to a cure of an ailment?

Still, even if you maintain this position, I think you are forced to concede that if beliefs can indeed initiate physical changes in the body, then there is no reason in principle why such physical changes would not cure the person of an ailment.



I think I would qualify that. I would differentiate beetween an ailment and symptoms (though I'll concede this might sound like semantics). Feeling anxious about a job interview or a blind date might contribute to a temporary increase in blood pressure, dizziness and sweaty palms. Chronic hypertension because of clogged arteries would be an ailment.

Again I stress this is just a question of how effective placebos actually are. Let's for the sake of argument agree they cannot help with serious underlying problems.

Let's imagine you have a headache. You take a pill which you falsely believe is some active ingredient which will cure you; but in fact it's a placebo. Nevertheless, after taking it you no longer experience headache.

Now, a pain such as a headache will have its neural correlates in the brain. Therefore if you no longer experience headache, necessarily they will also be a physical change in the brain i.e the neural correlates of the headache will no longer be there. Thus the placebo will have initiated a physical change in your brain i.e it has changed reality (the physical world).

Now of course you might argue that the causes of the headache (which necessarily also cause the neural correlates of the headache, should mind states correlate with brain states), are still present. Supposing this is true, this does not alter the fact that the neural correlates of the headache cannot be present (otherwise you would experience headache). Thus even the antecedent causes of the headache also cannot be present (because if they were then they would cause the neural correlates of your headache to be there, and necessarily your headache itself (from mind/brain correlations)).

You just cannot get away from the fact that if placebos have any effect on us psychologically, and mind/brain correlations is correct (which materialism has as a premise, and which even I agree with), then necessarily, placebos initiate physical change in the world i.e they change reality.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Who's disagreeing?

Actually, to be accurate, we should say that the person's beliefs about the placebo cause physical changes in the brain.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Who's disagreeing?

Actually, to be accurate, we should say that the person's beliefs about the placebo cause physical changes in the brain.

~~ Paul

Good :) But there seems to be plenty of people disagreeing with me. Look at the poll!

[Atlas]

I'm not quite with you Ian. You seem to slip and substitute the word Placebo and Belief as if they are interchangable. I admit that there is something called a placebo effect. But I'm of the opinion that it's a suggestion effect.

Lets say there are 2 pills in front of 2 people with headaches. The pills are both inert therapeutically. But they have different fragrances. One smells likesweet meadow flowers and one smells like cow dung.

Lets say a loving care giver explains to the first person that the sweet meadow flower smelling pill can take away the headache and let you feel better after a short nap. The first person takes the pill, smiles at the scent, swallows it, lies down and awakens pain free.

Now the care giver turns to the 2nd person and says the exact same thing. The 2nd person takes the pill, frowns at the scent, shakes his head no, no, no but is persuaded by the loving caregivers nudge to swallow it anyway and lie down. The second person is haunted by the scent and gets up to vomit causing his headache to worsen.

In both cases the idea associations with the placebo did have a physiological impact. The 2 pills were therapeutically identical and the caregiver suggested them to the recipients identically. But one carried with it the false idea that cow dung was being swallowed and that idea resulted in a different physiological expression.

Belief can have profound physiological effects but placebos do nothing. It is the associated idea that is important. You don't even have to take a placebo; it too can be suggested, like saying "when I crack these two rocks together breathe in deep for earth resonance purifiers. You'll feel great."

That's my only complaint. I think you use the terms placebo and belief interchangably and we're all agreeing that belief is the key. If a person believes they feel better... they feel better.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Atlas
[B]I'm not quite with you Ian. You seem to slip and substitute the word Placebo and Belief as if they are interchangable.



OK, the placebo precipitates/gives rise to a belief. It is not the placebo per se which directly changes reality, but rather the belief it engenders.

Is that ok?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK, the placebo precipitates/gives rise to a belief. It is not the placebo per se which directly changes reality, but rather the belief it engenders.

Is that ok? I've got a few thoughts chasing around in my head on this. I'm convinced that the idea precedes the ingestion of the placebo. The placebo swallowing is almost a ritual that must happen for the idea to achieve it's potency.

That is I'm drawing a parallel between placebo and ritual. Let's use church for the ritual side and the clinic for the placebo side. Both offer a psychological therapeutic value, and both have shaman suggesters encouraging you to feel good, to feel better.

Again, I take issue with your phrasing: the placebo precipitates/gives rise to a belief. No - the shaman suggests a belif that you accept or reject. If you reject it, your chances of feeling better are lower than if you accept the suggestion.

Then you swallow the pill. There's a chicken and egg question here that you and I are not in agrement on. Belief or pill which comes first. The belief is whats important - the pill or the ritual of taking the pill is like a catalyst. It kinda accelerates the reaction without really being affected. That's not a perfect analogy but I hope you take my meaning.

You know, I just finished reading your dizziness thread. I hope your symptoms disappear. I do think that monitoring yourself too closely can have a negative placebo effect.

The two threads have an oddness juxtaposed as they are. It's too bad there is no way to give yourself a placebo to check your own ideas as to their power. Have you thought about how suggestion may be working against you in the same way that the power of the placebo effect can work for you? If I'm out of line asking, forgive me. I'm interested, that's all. Being a subjective idealist and somewhat of a self proclaimed hypochondriac can be a dangerous combination can't it. You create you own reality?

Again, if I'm out of line I apologize. But I would like your thoughts if you have some.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Atlas
I've got a few thoughts chasing around in my head on this. I'm convinced that the idea precedes the ingestion of the placebo. The placebo swallowing is almost a ritual that must happen for the idea to achieve it's potency.

That is I'm drawing a parallel between placebo and ritual. Let's use church for the ritual side and the clinic for the placebo side. Both offer a psychological therapeutic value, and both have shaman suggesters encouraging you to feel good, to feel better.

Again, I take issue with your phrasing: the placebo precipitates/gives rise to a belief. No - the shaman suggests a belif that you accept or reject. If you reject it, your chances of feeling better are lower than if you accept the suggestion.

Then you swallow the pill. There's a chicken and egg question here that you and I are not in agrement on. Belief or pill which comes first. The belief is whats important - the pill or the ritual of taking the pill is like a catalyst. It kinda accelerates the reaction without really being affected. That's not a perfect analogy but I hope you take my meaning.

You know, I just finished reading your dizziness thread. I hope your symptoms disappear. I do think that monitoring yourself too closely can have a negative placebo effect.

The two threads have an oddness juxtaposed as they are. It's too bad there is no way to give yourself a placebo to check your own ideas as to their power. Have you thought about how suggestion may be working against you in the same way that the power of the placebo effect can work for you? If I'm out of line asking, forgive me. I'm interested, that's all. Being a subjective idealist and somewhat of a self proclaimed hypochondriac can be a dangerous combination can't it. You create you own reality?

Again, if I'm out of line I apologize. But I would like your thoughts if you have some.

I'm not in disagreement with you at all. It's the belief which precipitates the easing or curing of an ailment, not the pill per se. I was just talking loosely.

My dizziness has almost disappeared. And BTW, it most definitely has an anxiety component. Just yesterday I was worrying about my health, and shortly afterwards my head started aching and I started feeling slightly dizzy again. When I worry about my health I definitely got symptoms on occasions. This of course is the same principle as a placebo.

So, if ones belief can cure a headache (or cause one), and every mental state (in this case headache) has a correlated physical brain state, this means that a plac . .er sorry . .the belief brought to fruition(?) by taking a placebo can actually change physical reality (ie the physical patterns in the brain).

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK, the placebo precipitates/gives rise to a belief. It is not the placebo per se which directly changes reality, but rather the belief it engenders.

Is that ok?
No. One mechanism has to do with classical conditioning of the release of neurotransmitters. Belief is irrelevant.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
No. One mechanism has to do with classical conditioning of the release of neurotransmitters. Belief is irrelevant.

Is this related to dogs being conditioned to salivate (sp?) by being presented with food whenever a certain noise occurs?

But the dogs believe they will shortly be presented with food when the sound is heard - right?

Remember that for a materialist that belief can be causally efficaceous just as much as the neural correlates of belief. Of course we then encounter the problem of causal overdetermination.

[Jeff Corey]

Pavlov's original work was with dogs, but his work has been replicated with all sorts of animals, including people, for over a century.
And saying that the dogs "believe" that they are going to get food is an unnecessary assumption that adds nothing to the scientific explanation of the process.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Pavlov's original work was with dogs, but his work has been replicated with all sorts of animals, including people, for over a century.
And saying that the dogs "believe" that they are going to get food is an unnecessary assumption that adds nothing to the scientific explanation of the process. To expand on this just a bit, some may be familiar with the Rescorla-Wagner model of classical conditioning, which uses terms like "expected" and "unexpected", and think that this is a cognitive model of classical conditioning which is dependent on awareness. It is not; whether or not a given stimulus is "unexpected" is defined purely in terms of the history of the organism with that stimulus. The mathematical model is built purely on observable environmental events.

It is very easy for us to infer from the dog's behavior that it "expected" the food, or the shock. But recall that this is purely an inference from the behavior, and to suggest that the "expectation" is causal (rather than the simpler "the pairing of the stimuli is the cause") is circular reasoning.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But the dogs believe they will shortly be presented with food when the sound is heard - right?
I think it would be difficult to ask the dogs what they believe. But in humans, we can demonstrate classical conditioning in the absence of conscious awareness of the pairing (that is, people who receive shock, say, paired with a specific word imbedded in a list of words will show a measureable reaction to that word, independently of whether they can say which word it is that the shock was paired with). This is not quite the same thing as "belief" as you have it here, but it does argue against the need for any awareness of the pairing in order for conditioning to occur.

(btw, the rescorla-wagner model, using "unexpected", etc., works perfectly well with or without the "awareness" examined here--as I said, it defines expectation environmentally, not internally.)

[Jeff Corey]

Also, classical conditioning can be accomplished with planaria, animals about as big as this comma ->, who show no capacity for "belief".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Pavlov's original work was with dogs, but his work has been replicated with all sorts of animals, including people, for over a century.
And saying that the dogs "believe" that they are going to get food is an unnecessary assumption that adds nothing to the scientific explanation of the process.

Beliefs do add something to the scientific process if you assume that beliefs and their neural correlates are identical to each other (or that the former supervenes on the latter); because then beliefs simply refers to a characteristic physical process in the brain.

Right, it's been done with people. OK, people are conditioned to salivate on receiving some sensory stimulus and then being presented with a nice juicy steak.

Now, on being told that the next time they receive the sensory stimlus they will not be presented with a steak, do they still salivate?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio


It is very easy for us to infer from the dog's behavior that it "expected" the food, or the shock. But recall that this is purely an inference from the behavior, and to suggest that the "expectation" is causal (rather than the simpler "the pairing of the stimuli is the cause") is circular reasoning. [/B]

As I said, we need to address what happens with human beings. Will I still drool even after being told I will not get a steak?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
WOW! I've just noticed that it compares a placebo with no treatment. :eek: Are you being serious??


Just a link I googled up, doing a bit of reading on the topic. The ethics of not treating patients kinda struck out at me as well.
I admit there's not a lot of specifics in that write up. (How they did it, what ailments were being "treated", etc...)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Beliefs do add something to the scientific process if you assume that beliefs and their neural correlates are identical to each other (or that the former supervenes on the latter); because then beliefs simply refers to a characteristic physical process in the brain.
This presupposes that there is some causal "belief" process. It may instead be the case that "belief" is only inferred after the fact, that what is causal is in the environment, not in the person, and that "beliefs" are at most a side effect of the process (i.e., that these environmental stimuli cause both the behavioral response and the private behavior of belief)

Right, it's been done with people. OK, people are conditioned to salivate on receiving some sensory stimulus and then being presented with a nice juicy steak.

Now, on being told that the next time they receive the sensory stimlus they will not be presented with a steak, do they still salivate? Are you kidding? I salivate when merely talking about steaks, with no expectation of eating one! When I talk about classical conditioning in my class, we talk about steaks, or pizza, or sour candies, and the majority of the class find themselves salivating! And this, in a classroom, with no promise of delivery of any of this food!

So, to answer your question...although it is a good empirical question, and I would prefer to actually perform the experiment and give you the results, I think the evidence supports expecting these experimental subjects to salivate even when told they will not get the steak. So, yes.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Beliefs do add something to the scientific process if you assume that beliefs and their neural correlates are identical to each other (or that the former supervenes on the latter); because then beliefs simply refers to a characteristic physical process in the brain.

Right, it's been done with people. OK, people are conditioned to salivate on receiving some sensory stimulus and then being presented with a nice juicy steak.

Now, on being told that the next time they receive the sensory stimlus they will not be presented with a steak, do they still salivate?
Probably they will.
I once did a demonstration of classical conditioning for a colleague's class. A volunteer was had their GSR (a measure of stress) measured and displayed on a screen to a class. He initially showed no response to the word "blue", but after a few pairings with a mild electric shock, he responded to "blue" without the shock. The other instructor tried to explain it by saying "He expects the shock, now."
So I unplugged the shock generator, removed the electrodes and took the apparatus out of the room.
I asked him, "Do you expect the shock now?"
"No way!"
The word "blue" still elicited the GSR.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Beliefs do add something to the scientific process if you assume that beliefs and their neural correlates are identical to each other (or that the former supervenes on the latter); because then beliefs simply refers to a characteristic physical process in the brain.

Mercutio
This presupposes that there is some causal "belief" process. It may instead be the case that "belief" is only inferred after the fact, that what is causal is in the environment, not in the person, and that "beliefs" are at most a side effect of the process (i.e., that these environmental stimuli cause both the behavioral response and the private behavior of belief)



Yes, but this appears to be indistinguishable from either epiphenomenalism and eliminitivist materialism. If beliefs have no causal efficacy, then neither do intentions, and indeed we simply do not possess any free will. Such a position is incoherent. For example, If I did not have any free will then I could have no reason to suppose that my reasoning should be any more likely to be correct than incorrect.





II
Right, it's been done with people. OK, people are conditioned to salivate on receiving some sensory stimulus and then being presented with a nice juicy steak.

Now, on being told that the next time they receive the sensory stimlus they will not be presented with a steak, do they still salivate?

Mercutio

Are you kidding? I salivate when merely talking about steaks, with no expectation of eating one! When I talk about classical conditioning in my class, we talk about steaks, or pizza, or sour candies, and the majority of the class find themselves salivating! And this, in a classroom, with no promise of delivery of any of this food!

So, to answer your question...although it is a good empirical question, and I would prefer to actually perform the experiment and give you the results, I think the evidence supports expecting these experimental subjects to salivate even when told they will not get the steak. So, yes.

Umm . .maybe . . . , I'm unsure.

Anyway, if this experiment hasn't been carried out, then there is no purpose in arguing about it. But let's say I agree that I will salivate even when I have the full knowledge I will not get any lovely juicy rare steak.

I don't think this has any relevance to the original question. If I salivate even when I do not get the steak this simply proves that belief is not the causal factor in that particular instance. If I were not so conditioned, and I went into a restaurant, and steak was on the menu and I ordered it; I maintain that I would salivate because of my belief (or the neural correlates of this belief) that I will soon be eating steak. It is extraordinarily counter-intuitive to believe otherwise.

(And by the way you materialists out there, you should be agreeing with me here since you can maintain that belief is one and the same thing as a physical process in the brain).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Probably they will.
I once did a demonstration of classical conditioning for a colleague's class. A volunteer was had their GSR (a measure of stress) measured and displayed on a screen to a class. He initially showed no response to the word "blue", but after a few pairings with a mild electric shock, he responded to "blue" without the shock. The other instructor tried to explain it by saying "He expects the shock, now."
So I unplugged the shock generator, removed the electrodes and took the apparatus out of the room.
I asked him, "Do you expect the shock now?"
"No way!"
The word "blue" still elicited the GSR.

Yeah . .I suppose it would do. This doesn't change my mind about the causal efficacy of belief in everyday circumstances though.

[Atlas]

I am intrigued by the idea of classical conditioning techniques and the placebo effect. I have never thought of them paired. I would imagine that a skillful technician could greatly enhance the placebo effect if he used some addition conditioning techniques beforehand.

Here is an abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9272794&dopt=Abstract) from 1997 that does not explain the experiment but ends with:
These data disconfirm a stimulus substitution explanation and provide strong support for an expectancy interpretation of the conditioned placebo enhancement produced by these methods.

(edit: I thought I understood what that meant but on rereading I think I may have jumped to a conclusion. They are talking about conditioned placebo enhancement and I don't really know what that implies and how it relates to the discussion we are having.)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yeah . .I suppose it would do. This doesn't change my mind about the causal efficacy of belief in everyday circumstances though.
Why not? We are exposed to such conditioning in everyday life, from birth on.
Think of your emotional responses to the sight of the bully that beat you up after school everyday.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Atlas
I am intrigued by the idea of classical conditioning techniques and the placebo effect. I have never thought of them paired. I would imagine that a skillful technician could greatly enhance the placebo effect if he used some addition conditioning techniques beforehand.

Here is an abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9272794&dopt=Abstract) from 1997 that does not explain the experiment but ends with:


(edit: I thought I understood what that meant but on rereading I think I may have jumped to a conclusion. They are talking about conditioned placebo enhancement and I don't really know what that implies and how it relates to the discussion we are having.)
The point is that placebo effects may be originally established through the process of classical conditioning.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The point is that placebo effects may be originally established through the process of classical conditioning. Really? The point - the conclusion - was comparative and talked of some creedence in the expectency model.

I had originally gone googling for some experiment that showed that the placebo effect and classical conditioning were inextricably linked. When I first read the abstract I thought it was saying that that idea was being shot down. I then realized that it wasn't saying that but was confirming that "expectation", which might correspond to Ian's "belief", had merit. But I wasn't even sure that that was a correct interpretation. I'd like to hear more though. It seems obvious to me that classical conditioning would greatly enhance a placebo effect and I wondered why I hadn't seen it discussed before - I also wondered if doctors are given any training in it's use.

For instance: (and I haven't considered the ethics) If a doctor gave a patient two bottles of pills, one with a therapeutic dose of a sleep inducement (but only 3 pills in the bottle) and a second bottle with an identically shaped and colored pill (placebo) perhaps only slightly smaller in size and explained to take the big pill for 3 nights and then switch to the second bottle for a more "appropriate" dose - I wonder if the placebo effect would be enhanced or diminished.

It would seem that if it were diminished the doctor might look for a deeper cause of sleeplessness in the patient and if the placebo effect were enhanced it might confirm a more psychological and non threatening problem. Perhaps doctors do that all the time - I don't know.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yeah . .I suppose it would do. This doesn't change my mind about the causal efficacy of belief in everyday circumstances though.


Why not? We are exposed to such conditioning in everyday life, from birth on.
Think of your emotional responses to the sight of the bully that beat you up after school everyday.

Yes, I certainly agree that "conditioning" shapes our behaviour to a large extent. But there is a distinction from acknowleging this, and saying it entirely determines our behaviour.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The point is that placebo effects may be originally established through the process of classical conditioning.

That's an interesting hypothesis which I admit I didn't think of. Nevertheless I don't think it applies. How often do we go to the doctor's, get given pills, take them, then get better? Not enough for this conditioning I would guess.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's an interesting hypothesis which I admit I didn't think of. Nevertheless I don't think it applies. How often do we go to the doctor's, get given pills, take them, then get better? Not enough for this conditioning I would guess.
You underestimate the rapidity of human classical conditioning. As few as one or two pairings of a neutral stimulus with an unconditional stimulus (like pain) can produce a durable conditional response to that formerly neutral event.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's an interesting hypothesis which I admit I didn't think of. Nevertheless I don't think it applies. How often do we go to the doctor's, get given pills, take them, then get better? Not enough for this conditioning I would guess.

You don't necessarily have to go to the doctor. How often do people get something like a headache, take a tylenol (paracetamol) and it goes away? The conditioned response is simply pill=effect. The doctor is just stage dressing.

What is most interesting here is whether there is any difference between placebo responses in children and adults. Do adults respond better to placebo due to more conditioning?

[JPK]

If I'm following this correctly, we are already conditioned before we even go to the doctor. If someone that you didn't think was a doctor/healer gave you the placebos, would they have as much of an effect as if they were given to you by the guy/girl in the white lab coat, with the fancy diploma's on the walls and the stethascope around there neck? Oh yeah, and charged you for the visit.

JPK

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
You don't necessarily have to go to the doctor. How often do people get something like a headache, take a tylenol (paracetamol) and it goes away? The conditioned response is simply pill=effect. The doctor is just stage dressing.
Reminds me of the time my office-mate (a humanistic psychologist who does not care for behaviorism) was complaining of a splitting headache, and I gave him some ibuprofen pills. A minute or two later, he was thanking me, because he could already feel so much better...of course, being the person I am, I told him that this was all placebo at that point, that he was only just beginning to digest the pills and that it was unlikely that any medication was in his bloodstream yet...:p I am so mean.

[Jeff Corey]

Merc, it's not nice to tease the Humanists. You should have told him that you had given him a placebo.

[JPK]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Reminds me of the time my office-mate (a humanistic psychologist who does not care for behaviorism) was complaining of a splitting headache, and I gave him some ibuprofen pills. A minute or two later, he was thanking me, because he could already feel so much better...of course, being the person I am, I told him that this was all placebo at that point, that he was only just beginning to digest the pills and that it was unlikely that any medication was in his bloodstream yet...:p I am so mean.

Another "what if " if I may. Suppose moments after someone took a pill, they saw a news report stating that there was product tampering and people where being accidently poisoned. What percentage of people actually show signs of poisoning when no poison was present?

JPK

[Open Mind]

I think there is very strong case for a placebo having a significant effect upon mental disorders. The drug Prozac (and similar ) are known to contain a very large placebo effect (some claim stronger than the drug!) that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work it just means placebo works well too (but not quite as well but at least it has fewer side effects ….. unless a nocebo action is at work on placebo ;) )

What is the skeptical opinion on biofeedback, using a machine that monitors some part of the body for the mind to attempt to make changes? Yes some skeptics don’t rate biofeedback Here is one biofeedback site defense …….


Many different persons and institutions have questioned the effectiveness of EEG Biofeedback(neurofeedback) training for "brain problems" such as ADD/ADH, Epilepsy,Depression, Anxiety, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Autism, Brain Injury, etc. One of the statements made by various clinicians has been "There's not enough scientific data on the efficacy of EEG Biofeedback". That statement is garbage and is usually said by someone who hasn't taken the trouble to look up the enormous amount of scientific data and knowledge on this subject. Many MD's and PhD's use this "phrase" to cover their own ignorance.

http://www.adhd-biofeedback.com/proof.html

This site lists 166 trials to support the claim.

I don’t think we can argue against the fact belief (or placebo) affect brain chemicals …… surely this leads to affecting other body functions …. We all know nervousness can affect digestion ….. I would suspect blood pressure is also variable with anxiety ….. and asthma is also related with tension …and so on……

The bigger question still, can a placebo be effective to any degree for life threatening diseases like cancer? Frankly I doubt the research has been done conclusively, it would be unethical to not treat cancer patients. Didn’t some trials show an extension of life for positive belief cancer patients?

People do get better (or improve) conditions that have been deemed incurable by the medical profession and baffled doctors do see such cases. Of course the medical profession is not interested in isolated cases but overall effective treatments with measurable statistical results.

Another point I would question is what is a placebo generally made of? Sugar? Fast releasing sugars (such as glucose, sucrose) are considered by some to be major factor in aggravating disease symptoms. However natural sugars like fructose are slower releasing (which is why these are less problematic to diabetics) Sugar is an oxidant, yes it is the essential fuel of the body but the process creates free radicals? So it is also a factor in why we get ill, age and die. Interestingly fruit is high in anti-oxidants, so nature generally put high sugar with high antioxidants …. Cakes, buns, refined carbohydrates don’t contain many antioxidants

Can anyone tell me what placebo are exactly made of today? I’d like to know, if it a fast releasing sugar, the placebo effect might be stronger than it is showing up.

[Dancing David]

Ah, Prozac vs. placebo, the problem with that study is that it is usualy based upon the Beck Depression Inventory which is slanted towards very acute symptoms, if you talk to people on anti-depressants they will tell you that their quality of life is much higher. The studies mentioned in Talking to Prozac rely solely upon the relief of acute symptoms. I assure you that I have been without antidepressants for a year and a half and I was miserable, I don't think that it is a placebo effect with the ADs.


There is also a blatant assumption in this thread that the cause of the placebo effect is the placebo. Regression to the mean is just as likely a candidate for the 'placebo' effect.

[Jeff Corey]

[i]Originally posted by Dancing David

...There is also a blatant assumption in this thread that the cause of the placebo effect is the placebo. Regression to the mean is just as likely a candidate for the 'placebo' effect. [/B]

Not so. Regression to the mean can be controlled by taking people whose scores are so extreme that they are likely to show regression and to randomly assign them to two or more treatment groups, one of which should be a placebo group. In theory, statistical regression to the mean should affect all groups in the same way.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Open Mind
What is the skeptical opinion on biofeedback, using a machine that monitors some part of the body for the mind to attempt to make changes? Yes some skeptics don’t rate biofeedback Here is one biofeedback site defense …….This site lists 166 trials to support the claim.
It would be easier to answer if you would just ask one question at a time.
Maybe you might want to start another thread?
But, it has been well established that operant biofeedback works for lowering bloodpressure, but 50 mg Cozaar daily is easier.
And your HMOs don't pay for operant biofeedback.

[Interesting Ian]

Interestingly there's a thread been started about placebos and whether it is compatible with epiphenomenalism on the Ebla board.

http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=907