In Dr. Bruce H. Lipton's The Biology Of Belief Definition

The author continues to demonstrate how the placebo effect works by comparing it to the famous biological study by Ivan Pavlov. In Pavlov’s experiment, dogs are conditioned to respond to a specific stimulus and eventually begin to respond to the same stimulus in the same way all the time. Bjerklie explains that, “as far as the placebo effect is concerned, we may as well be those impressionable canines.” What Bjerklie means is that the human mind has the ability to be conditioned to expect certain outcomes. The placebo effect builds on the human minds ability to be conditioned and an individual’s faith in the healthcare providers it choses to visit. Overtime the human mind has come to believe that if given a medication that is suppose to have a positive effect on a specific pathology, it will in fact have an positive effect.

Proponents of placebo-prescribing argue that clinicians “can use non-deceptive means to promote a positive placebo response in their patients” (Brody, 1982, 112). However, some proponents also argue that

The placebo effect has been affecting people for hundreds of years. In the 1940s sugar pills were sold in doctors’ catalogs specifically for the purpose of prescribing them to psychiatric patients. Today, over 60% of doctors admit to prescribing placebos to their patients, although there is an unwritten rule among doctors in the United States that placebos should no longer be given to patients. Some even do it on a regular basis because they believe the effect a fake drug has on the brain is more effective for its price than the real medication or treatment. In the documentary, Placebo: Cracking the Code, viewers see a few different perspective of the placebo effect. They hear from doctors, patients, and researchers to more fully understand the ins and outs of the placebo effect. These different viewpoints serve as an effective way to bring light the producers’ purpose: to show just helpful and sometimes harmful placebo drugs can be.

A Placebo is something, like a tablet, that might be given to a patent by a drug testing group to see whether or not a new drug on the market actually works. Generally, half of the test group is given the “real” drug that might do anything from treat headaches to reduce acne. The other half of the group, without knowing, are given a fake pill that might only contain sugar but they believe they are getting the real thing. From the results of the two groups scientists can tell whether or not the drug has a real effect rather than people believing that it will. This is how science finds the drugs that work among the stuff that doesn't. This is great news from the public because that means we always great medicine that will work as described and not a fake box of sugar pills. The Nocebo effect is

In the early 18th century, the word placebo was associated with quackery (3). Although the reason for the high success rate of the placebo is yet to be explained, experimenters have hypothesized plausible explanations for its effect. Advanced models attempting to explain placebo effects emphasize the role of expectations, anxiety and learning (3).

The idea that our genetic code controls most aspects of our lives is arguable. Nowadays, scientists (cell biologists, neuroscientists, etc.) are uncovering concrete evidence that are genetic code is only one of the many complex system of the human body that sways our lives. According to one new study, (“Do

Another idea is that it is the placebo effect, a procedure or medication that has a psychological effect on the brain but not a physiological effect on the brain. It’s like giving someone a drink of water but saying it makes pain go away, and magically their pain goes away. (Science Based Medicine)

Thanks to organizations such as the Food and Drug Administration, we can be assured that the widespread implementation of nootropics would be both efficacious and beneficial. The widespread implementation of the utilization of these drugs by healthy and unhealthy individuals will result in a general increase of the cognition of the general public. This general increase in the cognition of the population will result in the ability of these individuals to achieve things which could not have been conceived prior to the implementation of these medical advances (Buchanan, 2011, p. 130). The following excerpt from Science and Engineering Ethics, a scientific journal which explores the ethics of multiple scientific fields of study, describes the effects of cognitive enhancement drugs on healthy individuals, “Stimulants enhance memory by increasing neuronal activation or by releasing neuromodulators, facilitating the synaptic changes that underlie learning” (Bostrom & Sandberg, 2002, p. 316). The net effects of these drugs help users concentrate and remain focused for longer periods of time. This increase in ability to concentrate directly results in its users being better able to comprehend, remember, and learn new information. These effects could result in a number of advancements being made by

It has been argued that if genes influence behaviour and character, and we cannot choose our genes, then our behaviour is outside our control and we are not responsible. However, we take the view that genes are not deterministic, and that there is scope for an

Additionally, the biological and cognitive approaches differ in their view on the nature verse nurture debate. More specifically, the biological approach focusses on nature rather than nurture where it makes the assumption that behaviour is determined by internal physiological processes which, could include functions and structures of neurons, hormones, DNA and the brain (Nevid, 2012, pp.328). For example, the mental illness schizophrenia is explained by the biological approach as being caused by a high level of dopamine or genetic makeup. In this essence, the biological approach demonstrates that nature is the true cause of psychological abnormalities like schizophrenia. Alternatively, the cognitive approach fails to identify either nature or nurture within its assumptions. For example, this approach assumes that maladaptive behaviour is caused by faulty and irrational cognitions and it is the way an individual thinks about a problem rather than the problem which causes mental disorders (Glassman and Hadad, 2013). In this sense,

One of the oldest debates in the history of Psychology is about Nature versus Nurture. Today, we know that both play a significant role in human’s life. Some people believe that it is genes which affects our way of life and some people believes that it is none other but our environment that greatly influences our lifestyle and some believe that both has tremendous impact on one’s way of life. Indeed in certain cases both our nature (our genes) and our environment roughly play an equal role in human life.

Cognitive neuroscience is defined as the interdisciplinary study of the brain activity linked with cognition (including perception, thinking, memory, and language) (Meyers & Dewall, 2016, p. 8). With advances in this field, we have managed to create methods of imaging the brain and discover ways in which we perceive things, think, and remember certain events, in turn allowing us a gateway to reduce pain as well as several other benefits. Cognitive neuroscientists are actually researching and experimenting with a well known procedure known as hypnosis, but in regards to minimizing pain by using suggestion. Researchers have utilized and gathered information and data in a laboratory setting as well as comparing results from an fMRI setting with

Armstrong begins his paper with a question for the reader of what it means to have a mind. It is well understood that man has the ability to perceive, to think, to feel, and so on, but what does it mean to perceive, to think, and to feel? The answer, he believes, lies in science. Seeing that science is constantly and rapidly gaining ground, he asserts that “...we can give a complete account of man in purely physico-chemical terms” (295?) Pointing out the fact that this view has been accepted by various scientists throughout time, he explains it is the most reliable way to approach the mind-body problem.

Is there a distinction between the mind and the body? And if so, where does a person’s sense of self and consciousness lay? If consciousness lies within the

The great philosophers, during the era of intellectual enlightenment and self awareness, posed a question: what is knowledge? This concept, defining knowledge- what it is and isn’t and where it comes from, came to be known as epistemology. Epistemology sorted out knowledge from belief; belief being lined with prejudice and thus being discredited for truth. Much of epistemology is concentrated on the mind and its absorption and formulation of this knowledge. Although there is a brief overlap between mind and body within the category of perception (one of the sources of knowledge) there is still a clear preference of the mind over the body to the extent that even if we perceive an object’s existence through our senses that object is not considered in existence until it is verified by our mind. (Stanford, 2005) Is this outlook true, and if so what is the purpose of our bodies? Some anthropologists within the field of ethnography seek to rebuttal stating that the body is an equal, if not greater, source of knowledge.