Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 245 posts

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#201

Post by geye1234 »

xpe wrote: post #191
geye1234 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't claim the mind's processes were acausal; simply that they could not be reduced to cause, to the exclusion of anything else. If they can be so reduced, rational argument is impossible, because causal processes are not the same as rational argument. When I punch "2 + 2 =" into a calculator and the screen says "4", it's a causal process. When my kid grasps that 2 + 2 = 4, it's different. His mind has reasoned i…

> causal processes are not the same as rational argument Yes. ...I'm taking this step-by-step... But causal processes can _generate_ rational argument. Agree or disagree?

> But causal processes can _generate_ rational argument.

There is no reason for thinking this. A causal process can be associated and simultaneous with an argument, but it can't generate it, except by accident. The state of mind '2+2' may be followed by the state of mind '4', but it could just as easily be followed by the state of mind '5'. Causal processes may make us believe one or the other, but they will not make one correct and the other wrong; nor will they be sufficient to explain how one answer is correct and the other wrong.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#202

Post by AnnikaL »

genewitch wrote: post #91
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't worry, i'm sure it doesn't mean anything. It means we invented mRNA vaccines, which were never organisms of any kind. But they're clearly vaccines. Whatever dictionary you picked updated its definition accordingly. Strictly speaking, according to your "Nov, 2020" definition, smallpox is a cowpox vaccine. I think that's silly. I'd prefer a definition like: > vaccine (n): a substance that supplies antigenic inf…

I submit that my problem with this is that mRNA therapeutics aren't vaccines, they're mRNA therapeutics. The word "Vaccine" comes from "cow" because of cowpox. Changing the definition so pfizer et al can rake in $50 billion is what i take issue with. If they had said "This isn't a vaccine it's genetic modification" or whatever, no one would have signed up for it. It was a concentrated effort to change language. Contr…

I think a lot of people would still "sign up for" mRNA therapeutics that had the benefits that the COVID vaccines did.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#203

Post by pixl97 »

tcskeptic wrote: post #150
anon84873628 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simpler than that. Your thoughts -- the internal monologue deciding what actions to take -- are the result of physical processes in the brain. There is no way those non-physical thoughts are changing the physical processes; they happen after the fact. We have the illusion of being in the driver seat but really we are just along for the ride. This is assuming you adhere only to what science can prove, and not rel…

> There is no way those non-physical thoughts are changing the physical processes; they happen after the fact. We have the illusion of being in the driver seat but really we are just along for the ride. How can you conclude this with any certainty?

PBS: Your Brain: Perception Deception

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU6LfXNeQM4

PBS: Your Brain: Who's in Control?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ6VOOd73MA

Rationalization is mostly post ad hoc.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#204

Post by pixl97 »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #167
krisoft wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no way those non-physical thoughts are changing the physical processes I don’t believe this to be correct. There is nothing non-physical about thoughts. Thoughts are mater interacting with mater. Thoughts are to the brain what waves are to the ocean. They are not less physical than the brain itself.

You cannot point to a neurotransmitter or neuron or synapse and say "that's a thought." Thoughts are not material. You might say they are not real. Even if you can point to a group of neurons and processes in the brain and associate it with a particular thought, the thought itself is not real. The neurons and their behaviors are.

I mean, yea, maybe in your world you don't want to point at an electromagnetic wave that is a wifi signal... but it is.

Signals are just as real as the components that create them.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#205

Post by pixl97 »

anon84873628 wrote: post #164
ad987 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no way those non-physical thoughts are changing the physical processes; they happen after the fact. How can the truth of this statement be proven? Non-physical thoughts cannot be observed, so they are out of reach of being tested for being correct.

Eventually we may have sufficiently fine-grained ability to observe brain states, plus a strong enough understanding of neuropsychology, such that an outside observer can accurately predict, for a brain under observation: 1. The subjective internal mental state of the participant (e.g. "you were imagining a red balloon") 2. Actions that will be taken before they physically manifest (e.g. "you will throw rock instead…

Not even eventually, currently we have AI that can decode 'pictures' from our brain activity.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-ai-used-brain...

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#206

Post by xpe »

geye1234 wrote: post #201
xpe wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> causal processes are not the same as rational argument Yes. ...I'm taking this step-by-step... But causal processes can _generate_ rational argument. Agree or disagree?

> But causal processes can _generate_ rational argument. There is no reason for thinking this. A causal process can be associated and simultaneous with an argument, but it can't generate it, except by accident. The state of mind '2+2' may be followed by the state of mind '4', but it could just as easily be followed by the state of mind '5'. Causal processes may make us believe one or the other, but they will not make…

That's why I said 'can'. I didn't say 'always'.

A deterministic computer program _can_ generate rational argument; e.g. it can use logical deduction a.k.a. forward-chaining.

Your claim seems to be that causality (governing the behavior of human thought and action) does not _necessarily_ result in rationality (in that human)? Of course -- this is obvious.

This seems like a miscommunication. Perhaps an unavoidable one? :)

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#207

Post by whimsicalism »

AnthonBerg wrote: post #179
whimsicalism wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would recommend CBT. e: I'm downvoted but this is one of the only treatments with best-in-class evidence for its effectiveness in treating long covid as well as CFS and IBS. The body is a complex organism.

This is a very, very tall claim: this is one of the only treatments with best-in-class evidence Firstly, one would expect to see indications of the evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy working for a complex long-term illness with multiple documented physiological issues. Random paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089662732... Second, which class of evidence are you referring to? Third, to b…

> Firstly, one would expect to see indications of the evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy

There is plenty of evidence if you go looking. It also looks like there is significant overlap between CFS and long covid and the PACE trial demonstrated strong evidence for the effectiveness of CBT in ME/CFS.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37155736/

> multiple documented physiological issues.

"proposed mechanism" != "multiple documented physiological issues" and even the presence of documented physiological issues (such as in IBS) does not preclude the benefit of CBT because the body is complicated and the mind-body duality is not real.

> comparison in the claim you also need to present the lack of evidence for other treatments.

AFAIK - there has not been any other treatment showing this sort of evidence. It is difficult to prove a negative.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#208

Post by whimsicalism »

jinder wrote: post #178
whimsicalism wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would recommend CBT. e: I'm downvoted but this is one of the only treatments with best-in-class evidence for its effectiveness in treating long covid as well as CFS and IBS. The body is a complex organism.

Where is the best-in-class evidence that CBT is effective at treating long covid and chronic fatigue syndrome?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37155736/

There's even more evidence for CFS - the PACE trial is a notable example. These are politicized by certain patient advocacy groups and associated publishing circles but the evidence is considered pretty strong in the broader medical sphere.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#209

Post by xpe »

pixl97 wrote: post #203
tcskeptic wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no way those non-physical thoughts are changing the physical processes; they happen after the fact. We have the illusion of being in the driver seat but really we are just along for the ride. How can you conclude this with any certainty?

PBS: Your Brain: Perception Deception https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU6LfXNeQM4 PBS: Your Brain: Who's in Control? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ6VOOd73MA Rationalization is mostly post ad hoc.

There are other interpretations of some of these experiments (e.g. regarding the action potential). In his book on free will, Mark Balaguer elaborates a little bit. I don't remember the details well, but I'll try to sketch what I think he says.

First, in my recollection, Balaguer points out the form of the argument as follows.

Given that: (1) a particular study shows that one's (perception of when they decided to act) _lags_ the (experimental measurement of the person's action potential spiking), what can we validly conclude?

Some people then claim that (2) claims of making a decision are merely post-hoc rationalizations. I get the sense that such a view is widely held among those who have heard of the experiments -- or at least the popular characterizations of them.

Balaguer says e.g. "not so fast". He points out that we need to talk about the logically necessary steps to reason from (1) to (2). He has a section on this; he claims it isn't as watertight as some think.

As I recall, part of the discussion has to do with motor planning.

Another part is this: there could be a volitional choice that precedes and causes both the action potential spike _and_ the perception/recognition. That volitional choice is unavailable to conscious awareness until some time later, presumably. If true, a person could have made the choice, noticed it later, and still be consistent with the experimental findings.

Apologies for the hazy recollection. I recall not being strongly convinced, partly because I wasn't impressed by the book overall, but I also haven't dug into these topics as much as I would like.

Lucky for us, the issue of latency between action and perception is squarely in the wheelhouse of distributed systems engineers!

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#210

Post by AnthonBerg »

whimsicalism wrote: post #207
AnthonBerg wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very, very tall claim: this is one of the only treatments with best-in-class evidence Firstly, one would expect to see indications of the evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy working for a complex long-term illness with multiple documented physiological issues. Random paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089662732... Second, which class of evidence are you referring to? Third, to b…

> Firstly, one would expect to see indications of the evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy There is plenty of evidence if you go looking. It also looks like there is significant overlap between CFS and long covid and the PACE trial demonstrated strong evidence for the effectiveness of CBT in ME/CFS. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37155736/ > multiple documented physiological issues. "proposed mechanism" != "mul…

The PACE trial has been widely discredited.

From Wikipedia:

”A 2010 meta-analysis of trials that objectively measured physical activity before and after CBT showed that although CBT effectively reduced patients' fatigue questionnaire scores, activity levels were not improved by CBT and changes in physical activity were not related to changes in fatigue questionnaire scores.“

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_fatigue_syndrome_treat...

See especially the section on “PACE trial controversy”. It’s easy to see that it’s a poor study.

—

The paper I pointed towards describes multiple demonstrated means of neurological injury from SARS-CoV-2 infection. It’s just one single paper selected at random. It shall not be dismissed as “proposed mechanism”.

—

The unproven and unprovable negative claim was indeed yours to prove.

Post reply on HN