And one person's hippocampus may do 'something' different from
another's, or the same person's hippocampus does something different
one day compared to another. These kinds of tests and 'animal
experiments' _can_ provide useful data about physical, chemical causes
and effects, but without higher-level models (such as the memory model
you mentioned) the won't tell us much of anything *interesting at a
higher level*.
Yes, 'gullible' people who rely on their own experiences can be
'fooled' by 'placebo effects'. Just what this placebo effect really
is is an even more interesting question. The objectivist skeptic is
just as easily fooled by convictions. BTW, how do we measure
conviction?
Mark Crosby
P.S. In a field closer to my own occupation - I produce 'objective'
economic statistics - I noticed a story in yesterday's Wall Street
Journal about how business analysts 'in the trenches' find it
absolutely essential to supplement such statistics with annecdotal
evidence in order to make useful decisions on a real-time basis.