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

211–220 of 245 posts

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#211

Post by anon84873628 »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #173
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.

> Non-physical thoughts cannot be observed We wouldn't even be able to talk about them , because if we did, there would be a causal chain starting with a non-psysical thought and ending with moving a (physical) tongue. So somewhere along that chain, a non-physical thing would need to make a physical thing move. How exactly?

Neural activity physically exists. Qualia -- the experience of having thoughts -- do not.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#212

Post by t0bia_s »

EGreg wrote: post #71

Government and Corporations have been leading to a lot of these health issues for decades, including diabetes and obesity in children, ADHD from being locked in a prison-like school environment, and more. Incidentally, diabetes and obesity are major factors for morbidity in coronavirus infections. But also the for-profit industry finds it a lot more attractive to medicate kids downstream (eg prescribing Amphetamines…

While I mostly agree, I'm not for UBI. It makes people dependent on centralised state even more. We need decentralisation to avoid dictate for masses that you described above.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#213

Post by anon84873628 »

xpe wrote: post #198
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First, saying "x is not real" is a proven way to make a mess of a conversation. I suggest we all would be better off avoiding that phrasing, unless we're willing to really dig in and carefully clarify our definitions. > You cannot point to a neurotransmitter or neuron or synapse and say "that's a thought." Are you claiming it is (a) categorically impossible or (b) practically impossible? Why not? > Thoughts are not m…

FWIW, when I said "thoughts" in the original comment, I really meant qualia / inner monologue / phenomenological experience, i.e. what you call #1 the perceptual level. Qualia are not part of materialism... which IMO makes them the most interesting thing in the universe, since they are categorically unlike everything else and yet so fundamental to our being.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#214

Post by Guthur »

amenhotep wrote: post #176
pixl97 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It makes you honestly question the idea of freewill. Not eating and getting low blood sugar can much more simply answer the question of "Do I have free will, or am I a subject of my internal chemical reactions". Or, much more simply stated "You're not you when you are hungry".

The sophistry here is the unsupported framing of the two as mutually exclusive. What do you think "you", the entity that does or does not have free will, are, other than a system of internal chemical reactions? Are you a soulist?

There is little evidence that consciousness comes from any particular processes at all.

It's as much conjecture to say it is just an artifact of matter as opposed to something metaphysical.

To say consciousness just appears from material complexity is actually quite absurd with little evidence.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#215

Post by anon84873628 »

pixl97 wrote: post #204
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Qualia are not a signal. You can't transmit and receive them, you can't physically detect them, there is no way to objectively describe them. When you and I both look at 450nm light there is no hope of ever knowing what the other perceives. You can say "the color of the sky on a clear day" but that is just a reference to yet more subjective experience.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#216

Post by dr_dshiv »

dragonwriter wrote: post #155
dr_dshiv wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are physical causes but they are abstracted from matter. The underlying cause originates from the math/logic, not the material instantiation. Physicalism is often conflated with materialism, but the world is physically constituted by more than matter! A lot of this world is obviously caused by the inherent formal influence of math and logic. There are ongoing mysteries in this, to be sure, but these forms are be…

> They are physical causes but they are abstracted from matter. That sequence of words doesn't even denote a coherent concept. To be physical is exactly to be a state of matter/energy. > The underlying cause originates from the math/logic, not the material instantiation. No, logic, including math, describes the relationship between abstract concepts. It doesn't cause anything. Implication is not causation. > I’m tryi…

Most physicists don’t see the world as “made” of stuff, either matter or energy. But algorithmic laws. The ontology of modern physics is weird.

Physical refers to natural causes. How could math not be causal? Not like, math in a textbook (though I’d argue that is causal too. Ideas are immaterial but they cause effects in the material world. They are thus natural, physical causes!).

Maybe you’d prefer the word “necessitate” over cause? Mathematical and logic necessitate certain effects in material reality? Personally I don’t see a difference, but maybe you do.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#217

Post by coldtea »

ksenzee wrote: post #131
anonymoushn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in most countries people don't have to ask their PCP for permission to see the proper specialist. I don't have much other basis for comparison because I don't think I've ever met any PCP more than once anyway.

The Canadian system absolutely requires a referral from your GP to see a specialist. And even in the US, when you do have insurance that allows you to see a specialist without a referral, there are some specialists who won’t see you without a referral anyway, I assume because they don’t want to deal with random people off the street.

>The Canadian system absolutely requires a referral from your GP to see a specialist

I presume that's only when you want your expenses covered. If you pay with your own money/private insurance you can see whoever you want, no?

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#218

Post by badcppdev »

coldtea wrote: post #65
Aurornis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US one I presume? Says who? Based on what metric? We can, and other countries have, do much better. The article is about UK doctors not recognizing PANDAS as a real illness. They even quote one doctor who refused to treat "an American illness". The US NIH has a page on PANDAS and our (US) diagnostic and treatment recommendations here: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/pandas If you wanted an example…

> The article is about UK doctors not recognizing PANDAS as a real illness. I know, I read it before commenting. I'm not saying the article is about the US system. I'm saying the comment I responded to appeared to say that the US system is better, and how those countries with other systems like the UK have it bad. "Doctors not recognizing X as a real illness" can happen, and has, anywhere. It's not a result of how th…

I have no experience with the US system. I made no mention of public/private, universal health care or not and so on.

Your last sentence (minus the specific country) is exactly what I was talking about. There is no shortage of stories where doctors don't get it right for a million reasons. There is room for improvement.

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#219

Post by badcppdev »

coldtea wrote: post #10
badcppdev wrote: post #8

This is sad: "years spent campaigning to get doctors to take the illnesses seriously." It's like that saying, "Capitalism: The worst economic system, except for all the others". Our medical system where we rely on individual doctors for primary care is really flawed but it's better than any alternatives that we have (or that we can afford anyway)

> Our medical system where we rely on individual doctors for primary care is really flawed but it's better than any alternatives that we have (or that we can afford anyway) The US one I presume? Says who? Based on what metric? We can, and other countries have, do much better. That this parent "is “exhausted” by years spent campaigning to get doctors to take the illnesses seriously" doesn't say much. It's not like she…

What are you talking about? What country doesn't use individual doctors for primary care?

Re: Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

#220

Post by badcppdev »

bowsamic wrote: post #89
badcppdev wrote: post #8

This is sad: "years spent campaigning to get doctors to take the illnesses seriously." It's like that saying, "Capitalism: The worst economic system, except for all the others". Our medical system where we rely on individual doctors for primary care is really flawed but it's better than any alternatives that we have (or that we can afford anyway)

I don’t understand why doctors are so dismissive and mean people

Sorry that is terrible phrasing. You don't understand why doctors act in a dismissive manner that seems mean.

Rephrase it and it becomes the start of a solution. What should happen in a patient doctor interaction where the doctor is not able to reassure a patient that the prescribed treatment plan is the best plan.

Post reply on HN