It's an inconvenient truth for materialists. If you go to any 'sceptical' website you will find elaborate articles claiming to show that the placebo effect has been exaggerated or has been explained away. But anyway, it's an example of 'downward causation', i.e. a belief materially affecting the body, which, according to any strictly materialist view, ought never to occur, as materialism is strictly 'bottom-up',

I am not a materialist, but I can't see why the placebo effect should be seen as an argument against materialism. Is there any good reason to believe a placebo effect would not apply to a p-zombie, with the 'belief' just being a particular pattern in the brain that causes the organism to relax and think positive thoughts?

Is there any good reason to believe a placebo effect would not apply to a p-zombie, with the 'belief' just being a particular pattern in the brain that causes the organism to relax and think positive thoughts? — andrewk

The point about zombies is, they don't think. In other words, if they have thoughts, they're not zombies.

P-zombies have unconscious mental (brain) processing, so they may have something performing the same function as belief going on in the brain(like a sticky thread).

Well, one thing a p-zombie can do, is totally suck the meaning out of any philosophical dialogue.

Yes placebo is problematic for materialists and physicalists. However I don't see how it can be conclusive in any way. The problems facing materialists and likewise idealists are more fundamental, ontological and can't be swayed by the empirical evidence. This is because the ontological difference would be the ground upon which the particular ontology is built, so in the absence of a knowledge of our actual ontology, or the alternative, we are entirely in the dark.

Well, one thing a p-zombie can do, is totally suck the meaning out of any philosophical dialogue.

Yes it might be a bit dry.
I don't think any of the arguments against the p-zombie argument hold any water. Because an independent zombie universe might be identical to this one in every way. Except it would be absent spirit, I don't think it would necessarily be absent mind. Although I realise this leaves us with a discussion of what mind is. I do consider synthetic minds.

Well, the placebo effect is just plain open evidence that certain beliefs can alter behavior. Whether there some immaterial force or entity inducing these brain states to arise is beyond me.

it's more than altering behaviour, it's a matter of impacting medical conditions.

Well, the placebo effect is just plain open evidence that certain beliefs can alter behavior. Whether there some immaterial force or entity inducing these brain states to arise is beyond me.

Yes, I wouldn't limit it to behaviour though, its more physiological, I think. A person follows a behaviour pattern determined by their personality, which includes their mind states. A placebo does something which effects physiological, or metabolic processes in the body, irrespective of the action of the personality and it seems belief has something to do with this.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent?

the opportunity to say nothing has already passed.

Well, one thing a p-zombie can do, is totally suck the meaning out of any philosophical dialogue. — Wayfarer

Well I personally feel that a dialogue that tries to make scientific arguments for or against a proposition that cannot be approached by science - such as the nature of consciousness, or the existence or non-existence of god - is a dialogue that we all benefit from being 'sucked dry', because such arguments cannot lead anywhere or give rise to anything interesting. Realising how dry and pointless they are allows us to move on to more fruitful lines of thinking (or practice) about consciousness, meaning or gods, untramelled by faux scienciness.

Q, my last term's student paper was on this :) The thing is, I surveyed what I thought of as five possible positions on placebos, from the ultra-physicalist to the pluralist ultra-sceptics, and managed to find good arguments for all of them. To me, these metaphysical questions then come down to, well, one's metaphysical prejudices.

Quite a lot of effort has been expended on the middle ground of non-reductionist supervenience model, i.e. the idea that the world is as described by physicalists but there are mentalist ways of talking that cannot be reduced to the physical. Jaegwon Kim is the arch-exponent of this view.

I ended up taking the view of the practising scientist of placebos, and that is that you just have to use a mixture of languages, ranging from the chemistry of drugs to the social psychology of 'belief' and 'expectation'. Chomsky hates this and calls it 'methodological dualism'. I think it's inevitable, because there is something about 'belief' and 'expectation' that defy you to use other terms for them, and placebos are irredeemably about belief and expectation, not just of the pill-swallowers but also of the pill-prescribers. What a medical practitioner believes about your treatment seems to affect how well it goes, certainly in relation to pain relief, and that means that practitioners have to take a holistic view: the way 'treatment' occurs is a vital element in what works.

...a dialogue that tries to make scientific arguments for or against a proposition that cannot be approached by science... — andrewk

I agree with you here andrew, but I'd just add that one odd thing about 'consciousness studies' is how blind some natural-science-minded philosophers are to social science. Social science has excellent methods of approaching first-person testimony, for instance, which acknowledge the influence of the observer upon the process they're also observing. Much of the Chalmers-inspired stuff about 'science' and consciousness can't see beyond biology into the realms of the social. Few people seem to acknowledge for instance that it's applied sociology that makes Facebook and Google rich beyond reason: this is the secret of their algorithms, good scientific work by social psychologists. So much philosophy is trapped in a physicalist frame of mind.

it's true, I do wonder why I waste so much time here.

QM

Quite, this issue is one which flies in the face of medical science day in day out. I am not familiar with the theories given to explain it. Personally I see the presence of belief in the situation in which it's working is observed to be decisive. Also the rituals associated with seeking and receiving medical and health care.

So it's about belief and ritual, which requires the presence of beings to do the believing and acting out the rituals.

I do consider that a p-zombie could benefit from a placebo, although somehow I doubt that there would be any placebo's found in a zombie world, not least perhaps a sense of humour either.

it's true, I do wonder why I waste so much time here.

Could you recommend a better place to spend time, I'd really like to know. It took me a long time to find my way here, so I'm not leaving now I've arrived.

(This comment has just a hint of the light hearted, or the tongue in cheek, it hasn't had the humour sucked out of it(see my profile picture as an illustration of my arrival))

Can I take a moment to elucidate the nature of the placebo effect? There are boundaries.

One cannot proverbially by taking thought add an inch to one's stature. One cannot by taking thought persuade the horse to win or the roulette wheel to come up red. One can affect subjective symptoms such as pain, but this is unsurprising even to the most material of materialists.

So what is left that might be controversial or significant for metaphysics? As far as I know, and the biomedics will correct me, we are left with the immune system and the hormonal system. Is there a great mystery? Lots of little mysteries for sure, but we know that anxiety produces stress hormones and such like, which affects blood pressure adrenalin levels and so on.

Because I am a hugely respected philosopher, and you can absolutely trust my benevolence and intellectual rigour, You will feel relieved and relaxed on reading this post. You will feel more healthy, more calm and more energised, and your physician will be able to see the benefits to you physically.

Not entirely true Sir,

How do you explain purely mental states of mind caused by some neurotransmitter imbalance or even more profoundly alterations in brain structure and plasticity?

I mean it's a common 'shame' in the psychiatric community that antidepressants on average are as effective as placeboes. Going further, where you have more profound alterations in states of mind such as that seen in schizophrenia, you can also see a profound placebo effect when most medications are administered alongside them.

I'm not sure what your point is here. That states of mind affect the brain is surely even less of an issue that that they affect the immune system? As you know, I rate the psychiatric community somewhat lower on the evolutionary scale than witchcraft, and it surprises me that they have the decency to be ashamed.

I'm not sure what your point is here. — unenlightened

There really isn't one. It's just that I'm wondering what's causing the placebo effect?

There really isn't one. It's just that I'm wondering what's causing the placebo effect?

The expectation of benefit causes the placebo effect, our mental states causally affect our physical state, and our physical state causally affect our mental state.

The stronger the expectation, the stronger the effect that can be experienced. Each person is different and there are gender differences, all react differently to the psychological expectations that the medical profession proposes for its treatments. Many drugs target the body's own chemicals to correct imbalances, and these same chemical balances can be causality targeted by the expectation that this procedure, or medication will have such & such an effect.

Recent tests suggest that some people are genetically more predisposed to the placebo effect. Other studies suggest that increased psychological support, solidifying patient's expectations of a good outcome can significantly improve their prospects for recovery from a major procedure.
.

There are two placebo effects: experiencing symptoms suggested by an outside source (like a medical textbook) and experiencing the demise of real symptoms after taking a 14 day course of capsules containing starch.

I do not find a mind over matter problem here.

Some of the people with serious, diagnosed diseases who sign up for experimentation are going to end up in the placebo-receiving arm of the study. In double blind studies, it has been found that there is a placebo effect. As far as I know, nobody who had a serious disease has been cured by placebos, but taking the inactive drug has resulted in measurable improvements. Conversely, nobody has died as the result of symptoms arising from reading a textbook.

Ideas have an influence on brain cells behave and thus they affect the body. When somebody says something to you that makes you very angry, your physical stasis is severely upset. The insulting phrases are heard and processed. Electrical signals stimulate a cascade of neurotransmitters and hormones which results in you developing a full, fast head of steam. Let the battle begin!

The wish/belief/hope that you are receiving a beneficial therapy, through the physical channels of the nervous system, may have an effect on the chemicals which the body makes to suppress or remove an infection.

There is very little in the body which is free of interaction with the neuro-system together with the immune system. (Well, there are a few small places in the body which are sanctuaries).

Could you recommend a better place to spend time, I'd really like to know. — Punshhh

Sorry, dashed off in a fit of pique. What I really ought to have said was 'I really need to ensure my motivation is correct when I post'.

Only is you believe or fear it is true. For anyone who's aware of the existence of minds, no such issue is present. We know truth is on our side. P-zombies are nothing more than a trivial category error to us.

Yes, it's possible an acting body without consciousness might be, but that doesn't tell us anything. An effectively infinite number of possible outcomes aren't ever day. In talking about whether minds exist, we aren't dealing with possibilities. To this question, what matters is that which is actual.

So are minds actual? Well, yes they are-- I know I am conscious. My mind is part of the world. It's unavoidable. To say a conscious person might be a p-zombie is incoherent.

The apparent strength of the p-zombie argument is an illusion founded on the substance dualist's claim of ignorance of consciousness. By saying: "We don't really know minds," the substance dualist feeds the reductionist and the p-zombie argument-- it puts the existence of minds beyond understanding, implying we can't really be sure if they are there or not on account of not really knowing anything about them. So much so that even you, a self-proclimed champion of the mind, is caught considering the p-zombie argument like it's relevant to discussing who we are.

Wayfarer brought up the issue of the placebo effect being a case of downwards causation. I would think this is true. How can the brain organize itself from a state of disorder to one of order?

There's something Platonic about all this.

How can the brain organize itself from a state of disorder to one of order — Question

What is this state of disorder that brains have to organize themselves out of? Doesn't the brain put itself in order from the get-go? Brains that are sick get disordered; otherwise, they stay organized.

It's odd how often the placebo effect is trotted out as evidence against "materialism" of some description. Perhaps there is some argument to be made here, but prima facie, placebo effect provides intuitive support to the materialistic view of the mind. If mind is in and of the body then it should be entirely unsurprising and even expected that the state of the mind would produce effects elsewhere in the body - and that is more than can be said about most alternatives.