Mind-body problem is metaphysics. I could ignore that part, but it would help if you strengthened that initial connection. Currently I'm experiencing a socratic style where I throw information and then it gets deconstructed but I don't have much to go off of. State your case why this seems rooted in the mind-body problem.

Otherwise I really like my scale argument and would like to see you deconstruct it, right above read it again if you feel like it, I don't think your argument that just because physiological mechanisms are "at play" in psychological ones defeats it.

Are you a nondualist? I've had that period so I can understand both sides, if you expand more on your viewpoints with some real detailed fleshing out rather than just deconstructing any incoming argument. Personally I have my criticisms of medicine, but can celebrate a lot of textbook content as true.

So now that you know I'm an ex-nondualist, maybe you can give my scale argument a reread and see if you accept it as a description of the phenomenon? So to be perfectly obvious, there's direct chemical reaction and implicit chemical reaction. I consider it a big difference to flood a bunch of molecules past the blood-brain barrier, versus experiencing something such as a video game and reacting to it.

And hey, I am in a period of my life where I definitely put precedence for the body and let the mind follow. Daily exercise in nature, oh boy that really improves my mind. Reason alone in a dark room did not get me far at all.

But if you feel like we're not getting anywhere or I'm not convincing then that's fine and you can ignore this

I read, interpreted and answered your comment much too hastily, and now I feel foolish. Please accept my sincerest apologies. In my defense, I can only point to the large number of posts that are frustratingly missing the point, and to the fact that I am regrettably not the most patient of persons.

Let me try again...

My response should have been something like "my question is less focused on the metaphysics, and more focused on what I think is an issue of logic, so I am happy to stick to the level of analysis of a university hospital textbook". It seems to be the case that people are attempting to partition the phenomenon of addiction into psychological vs physiological addiction. My issue is twofold:

1. I know of no substance that is well-established as being addictive that does not produce both (1) a physiological response at the time of consumption/engagement and (2) an unpleasant physiological withdrawal symptom of some kind. This notably includes drugs that are popularly described as being purely psychologically addictive, such as cannabis.

2. The psychological (i.e. cognitive and behavioral) patterns that we associate with addiction are driven, in a fairly direct manner, by the physiological responses to the presence and absence of the drug. Addicts return to drugs both to avoid physiological withdrawal symptoms and to pursue pleasurable physiological effects.

Together, these suggest a psychological effect of the drug that mediated by physiology. In all cases, the physiological phenomena are necessary. I am generally quite sensitive to arguments of emergence at a particular scale, but I don't see the necessity for it here. Can you be more precise? The closest you come to providing an example has to do with a "reminder of who you are and what you desire". I am also not-insensitive to higher-order explanations for behavior, including some from the psychoanalytical tradition, but I don't think these negate the causal chain outlined in point #2. Therefore, I don't see how psychological addiction can exist separately from physiology, except perhaps in the trivial case of categorizing psychology as a subset of or emergence from physiology. Certainly, I think, one does not encounter "psychological addiction" without also encountering its physiological counterpart, rendering the ontological distinction questionable. It is further made questionable by the prima facie dualist argument that subtends the psychological-vs-physiological distinction. Certainly, if this is not a dualist position, the argument is not immediately obvious to me, and I would be interested in hearing it.

Moreover, if you'll allow me to stray from the purely logical argument surrounding biology and psychology, my sense is that this dichotomy between physiological and psychological addiction is in large part a semantic game that serves to advance a certain political discourse. Invariably, it serves to argue that cannabis isn't "really" addictive by arguing that is withdrawal is qualitatively very different from that of, say, heroin. To this I can only say, "of course it is!" Nobody is really arguing that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin! But this is indeed the argument of scale; I might be convinced that the severity of cannabis' toxicity, intoxication and withdrawal is minor enough to warrant the drug's legality, but I still contend that for those who are addicted to cannabis, the same commingling of physiological state and behavior is at play.

And in case it needs to be said, of course the difference in degree that separates cannabis from heroin (and other "hard" drugs) is large enough to place the two in qualitatively different categories. Again, my point is that despite this, both produce their addictions in similar ways (roughly: the dopaminergic circuit), as is supported by the scientific literature.

(Edits made for clarity.)

Let's jump into a more structured analytical response using your neat presentation as help. I will exposit a psychoanalytical attempt to obfuscate the dependency on low-level chemical/mechanical action. I do this to kick the purely physiological chair that #2 stands on.

1) All substances produce a) physiological response and b)unpleasant withdrawal. Including substances described as purely psychological.

2) Psychological (cognitive and behavioral) addiction patterns are driven directly by physiological response to presence/absence of the drug. Addicts return to drugs to avoid physiological withdrawal, and pursue pleasurable physiological effects.

#1 and #2 gives #3 3) Emergent complexity not necessary, example needed, even from e g psychoanalytics, still wouldn't negate #2

#3 gives: Therefore, psychological cant exist apart from physiological, except if psychology subset of physiologically which we both agree is boring interpretation.

So why a distinction at all.

My first thought is practical. Does someone need acute help, a patient needing medicine to avoid serious harm? Categorise as physiological, give the medicine, time is of the essence! Does someone need a support group to process their emotions and discuss their situation with others going through the same thing? Psychological!

For these purposes, helping others in an almost economical way to have efficient hospitals, the dichotomy is useful. I, and the literature, you as well, consider physiological and psychological as interwoven. The question is how much and if the dichotomy should be there at all, where we disagree.

It can be dynamic and the one can reinforce the other, maybe even the inverse. Personally, my psychological aversion to being used by unethical companies made me quit nicotine pouches. So it's dynamic. Just a side exposition.

> Together, these suggest a psychological effect of the drug that mediated by physiology. In all cases, the physiological phenomena are necessary. I am generally quite sensitive to arguments of emergence at a particular scale, but I don't see the necessity for it here. Can you be more precise? The closest you come to providing an example has to do with a "reminder of who you are and what you desire". I am also not-insensitive to higher-order explanations for behavior, including some from the psychoanalytical tradition, but I don't think these negate the causal chain outlined in point #2.

Behavior is so complex. If someone read 2000 years worth of literature and behaves in the world inspired by everything from Alcibiades statesmanship to von Neumanns mathematical theorems, whatever one would do in the world hypothetically I would categorise that complex emergent behaviour as psychological, emergent, high level, thinking with words and symbols in highly patterned and reactive ways maybe even different states of consciousness and let's say some delusions like they're possessed by ancestral spirits. That's a VERY weird sentence but bear with me. That can not be understood at a physiological level except by god hypotethically, and psychologically primarily by their older wiser self retroactively, in a compressed descriptive way. So what does this have to do with #2. Well let's say that immense complexity drives them do a bunch of coke over and over, as a rational requirement to orate effectively in front of the populace or whatever. Like dictators have done, drugs for the right state of mind for diplomatic affairs or speeches. The meaning of this paragraph is to inundate you with an extreme example of a psychological driveforce to an addiction. Rather than the physiological craving, the dictator returns to the coke to fulfill their ambitions, perhaps. I don't know man I'm just trying to describe a complex motive, rather than "grug need crazy honey because body uncomfortable".

For a more normal example, let's say my dad dies and we would always drink vanilla tea. I keep returning to the vanilla tea PURELY out of psychological reasons, because I like crying to a new memory of dad each time. I digress this is not a drug with withdrawal.

Let's bring physiological into it. Me and dad would hypothetically always have a newcastle beer at Raulsons pub before he died. I am not interested in any other alcoholic beverage, at any other place, but I get so emotional over that Raulsons pub newcastle beer. It represents all the inside jokes, my towns history, my memories of dad, ponderings of existence, and frankly I wouldn't know what to do with myself if I don't have that psychological safe anchoring to such a stable haven at Raulsons pub with newcastle beer and dad maybe watching over me. It's so safe.

>It is further made questionable by the prima facie dualist argument that subtends the psychological-vs-physiological distinction. Certainly, if this is not a dualist position, the argument is not immediately obvious to me, and I would be interested in hearing it.

So I've only argued with psychological emergence from, partly physiological processes in the brain and body, but also psychological emergence from the rest of all the stuff that happens in the world, other humans, our history, our literature canon, their interactions, the ideas that influence our behaviour that could be even religious, even makes me think of superorganism minds and the mythologies we share in our subconscious, our social desires and so on. All this influences behaviour, if only a nudge when not primary motivation. This sometimes completely removes the physiological causal chain to become sure phenomenally present but causally meaningless. I believe in free will but not infinite willpower. Sometimes we get trapped, but sometimes it's just our mind or collective mind and interaction with the universe and its materials that completely stomps some pattern in the universe with lower causality-rank let's say and lets willpower win.

As for the dualism/nondualism I thought I could answer but I can't, I can't access the state I was in with just my mind to remember how to treat argumentative discussion. But you've already received your dose of philosophical mumbo jumbo, that I've had to resort to since I really actually suck at biology. Sorry. I don't know the inside of those textbooks in the library I just think they on an economical level can improve society and our health

I accept your difference in degree caveat.

All in all, my opinion rests on psychological and emotional complexity and it's emergent behavior. All my exposition I think defeats #2. Sometimes we require certain behaviors to remain sane or achieve our purpose. I agree that they interplay. I just think they are distinct phenomena, and that the categorisation serves a purpose.

Then for the political angle. I have to sleep so I'll sum it up.

Removing the dichotomy can be good, as some sort of revolutionary resistance to macro scale oppressive structures. If the social effect of the categorisation is bad, then we unanimously decide our collective reality that it's untrue. A delusion, or truth, like good money or bad money. Will the categorisation serve us or not, micro or macro, long term or short term. If the DNA double helix was politically oppressive somehow, we could decide it's a bad model and move on, think of it like a spectrum string, a quantum unison with some other more accurate physical framework that doesn't use atoms but other concepts. We choose. I am aware of alcoholics not being taken seriously, as lacking willpower, I think that's bad and they need support, sometimes social support works sometimes it doesnt, scientific prototypes of various methods or regimens or even drugs are being tested for eventual widespread adoption to help the problem. So there are very real problems that aren't mumbo jumbo that could benefit or be damaged by local beliefs about what is the cause and what could help.

On micro scale I consider it useful, as in the example where help is provided quickly, right support for right person. Some people need to untangle a mess of words, emotions, and stories to change their behavior for a healthier life. Some people just need the right molecules right now or their body breaks.

I took this response as seriously as I could with the limited knowledge I have about the subject, since you responded so nicely. There is no energy at all for continuation though, haha. Nice talking. If you respond I would read it but can't respond in turn