@AsafKlaf This seems consistent with your earlier fart analogy (https://t.co/fhQlts9IVF): again, you are not really critiquing predictive processing, but caricaturing it.
@Retlouping The brain perpetuates pain to fulfill the danger prediction? Or:The system can selectively sample and precision-weight sensory evidence in ways that keep a danger/threat-to-bodily-integrity model stable. Pain may emerge & persist as the best-fitting experience and action urgency?
@AsafKlaf 1/2 Every subjective experience is fully biologically explainable—no mystery there. If you want to broaden the term “nociception” to include any form whatsoever, no objection either—but let’s accurately define the nociceptive apparatus (which of course includes the 🧠)...
@AsafKlaf@Robert_Coghill Oh, and it’s not so much frustration you picked up on—it’s more like irritation. Especially since you throw around “fallacies” on social media as if it’s your favourite hobby—then your tweets smell like fallacies to me. (No need for me to point them out, right?)
@AsafKlaf@Robert_Coghill 3/3 You say the NA is well defined and reference Coghill + the HPA axis… and if I ask about other parts you call it “nitpicking.” Wow. Then you say we mostly know how it works—interesting… you know how the brain works then?
@AsafKlaf Defined as: parts listed in @Robert_Coghill (2020) + HPA-axis (Cohen, 2023). Is that the "nociceptive apparatus"? What about other "parts" such as the claustrum or the cerebellum?
@AsafKlaf The onus is on you and your group to define it (you can use ChatGPT, Asaf—it’s ok). You claim a broader definition of “nociception” is necessary and propose a nociceptive apparatus. So define it.
@AsafKlaf You just conjured a new fallacy “ad ChatGPT.” Nice one! Fits your brand. You call the NA “well defined,” mostly by citing The Distributed Nociceptive System + a few neuro-immune crosstalk papers. That’s “well defined”? Some researcher you are!
@AsafKlaf 2/2 and find out how it actually works. I suspect this research agenda will show that so-called psychological influences—an emergent coarse-grained effective description of multi-scale biology—can “activate” (a filler term that needs specification!) the NA again, no mystery there
@AsafKlaf 1/2 Every subjective experience is fully biologically explainable—no mystery there. If you want to broaden the term “nociception” to include any form whatsoever, no objection either—but let’s accurately define the nociceptive apparatus (which of course includes the 🧠)...
@E3Rehab@ChrisHughen@AsafKlaf Good to hear @AsafKlaf outline his (and collaborators’) views. I just wish the host had asked more follow-ups. I had many—oh so many—questions (and objections). Some views felt misrepresented; best settled in real dialogue, not more papers/podcasts repeating it.
@AsafKlaf 6/6 And since the biopsychosocial model keeps being criticised: it isn’t biology with psychosocial garnish—it’s about multilevel interactions that manifest as biologically meaningful change.
@AsafKlaf 5/6 Risk emerges from interactions, and many lifestyle factors and behaviors can buffer adverse conditions. You’ll probably emphasize population-level rigour (“show me the evidence”); I’m interested in what helps at N=1 as well.