A Question For The Lone Ranger

[Angakuk]

That's one in favor of scratching, though in my experience scabs will usually fall off when they are ready even if you don't scratch them.

Against scratching is the risk of infection when the skin is broken by excessive scratching. Infected insect bites caused by scratching comes to mind. Scratching various kinds of rashes is normally contra-indicated. I know that you are not supposed scratch the rashes caused by measles, chicken pox, fungal infections, contact dermatitus, etc. In fact, I cannot think, right off-hand, of any rashes or insect bites where scratching is recommeded.

[erimir]

I think the idea is to remove the insect or whatever, which is a good thing to do, given that they frequently transmit disease.

As for why insect bites itch, I don't know if it's related to that (the itching means you will be more motivated to remove insects landing on you, and you will be even more vigilant after receiving some itchy bites) or if it's just incidental (the itch reflex is meant to remove the insect before the bite occurs/when it starts, but the insect bite itches afterwards even tho it's no longer helpful).

I assume that diseases and parasites that are aided by itching and scratching have simply hijacked the itching mechanism.

[Angakuk]

In my experience when the itching starts the insect has already left the premises. Scratching the itch then is like locking the barn door after the cows are gone. Still, it does feel good. Lice and bots might be exceptions. But I don't know that from personal experience. Also, how come my back starts to itch after someone starts to scratch it for me? What's with that?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In my experience when the itching starts the insect has already left the premises. Scratching the itch then is like locking the barn door after the cows are gone. Still, it does feel good. Lice and bots might be exceptions. But I don't know that from personal experience. Also, how come my back starts to itch after someone starts to scratch it for me? What's with that?

In the case of the mosquito, I believe they inject an anti-coagulant to keep the blood from sealing the wound shut during the blood draw. The anti-coagulant itself causes a histamine reaction.

*entirely off the top of my head and utterly unverified.

[The Lone Ranger]

Scratching an itch at the moment it initially occurs may indeed be effective in getting rid of an animal that's biting you and currently sucking your blood. Quite a lot of hematophagous animals -- from mosquitoes to leeches to vampire bats -- inject anticoagulants as they drink their host's blood. (Some, such as leeches and vampire bats also inject anesthetics, so you generally don't feel the bite or the feeding.) The anticoagulants injected by some [notably mosquitoes and other biting flies (mosquitoes are members of the Insect Order Diptera, which includes the flies)] will indeed trigger an antihistamine reaction -- though by the time you feel the itch, the mosquito is probably gone.


But the inflammatory response that occurs at the site of a wound is a good thing, and helps isolate the damaged and potentially-infected tissue from the rest of the body. Scratching a wound can indeed be a very bad idea, since it increases the likelihood that you'll force bacteria, viruses, or other infectious agents from the wound site and into the general circulation.

Vigorous scratching may also damage the skin, greatly increasing the risk of infection. (Victims of some skin diseases that cause severe itching sometimes have to be physically restrained, lest they do themselves serious injury by constantly scratching at the irritated areas.)



Why does scratching an itch feel so good? And why does scratching an itch generally make it worse in the long run? Well, according to a recent (2014) report in the journal Neuron, it may be a sort of "hijacking" of the body's response to pain.

As it turns out, according to their experiments, pain signals and itching signals are carried by closely-related neural fibers. Scratching an itch triggers pain receptors -- indeed, the reason why an inflamed wound is painful and very sensitive to touch is probably an evolved response to discourage you from messing with the wound.


Anyway, the itching of a wound is partly due to release of histamine at the injury site. The histamine has lots of effects, including making nearby blood vessels more permeable, so more blood flows to the injury site. It stimulates pain receptors; this, as mentioned, may be adaptive in that it discourages you from messing with the wound. And, unfortunately, histamine may trigger itching. Though an initial itching sensation may help you detect and get rid of a biting insect, the long-term itching caused by histamine may not be a "feature" so much as a "bug." Itch receptors are modified pain receptors, after all, so it's not surprising that continued histamine production will cause a wound to itch.



Anyway, why does scratching an itch feel so good? Well, scratching stimulates pain receptors. When the pain signals reach the brain, it responds by releasing the endorphin serotonin.

The initial pain response overrides and temporarily distracts you from the itching sensation.

Then the serotonin kicks in.

Serotonin does two things here. First, it deadens pain, and second, it creates a euphoric sensation.



Okay, so that explains why scratching an itch feels so good. But, scratching an itch can actually make the itch worse. Why? Because as the researchers discovered, serotonin doesn't just bond to and affect pain-sensing neurons. It can also bond to and affect the closely-related itch-sensing neurons.

So, if you scratch an itch too vigorously or for too long, you'll trigger release of enough serotonin that it will not just bond to your pain receptors, but also to your itch receptors. The problem is that serotonin suppresses the activity of pain receptors but increases the activity of itch receptors.



When mice were prevented from producing serotonin and given a skin irritant, they didn't scratch at it. But as soon as these mice were injected with serotonin, they started scratching at the irritant.



So ironically, because scratching an itch triggers release of an endorphin, scratching an itch can literally be addictive -- even as it makes the itching worse.




An important thing to remember is that not every physiological response is actually adaptive. Some of them are due to "hijacking" of one response by another. Perhaps the initial urge to scratch an itch may be adaptive since it reduces the likelihood that a biting insect will have an opportunity to inject a dose of pathogens -- even as that same response causes itching to worsen in the long run.

[BrotherMan]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ironically, because scratching an itch triggers release of an endorphin, scratching an itch can literally be addictive -- even as it makes the itching worse.

It is maddening as all get out, let me assure you. During my recent malady, I'd lightly rub at a spot; then it progressed to light scratching and then adapt to harder scratching. I'd literally yell at myself YOU HAVE TO STOP, but it was almost like my hands were on autonomous from the rest of me. The itching never lessened, the scratching only intensified - it was just | | this short of orgasmic, even.

And my dermatitis was just short term. I really can't imagine suffering with a lifelong form of eczema.

[thedoc]

On my property there is a lot of Poison Ivy that is growing, In fact it's one of the few plants that the Gypsy Moths didn't eat and kill. Occasionally I get a mild case and I have found that an application of Olive Oil helps to relieve the itch. I believe the agent from Poison Ivy that causes the itch is an Oil and the Olive Oil absorbs and dilutes the oil from the Ivy.

[erimir]

A pair of mourning doves want to build their nest outside my bedroom window. I don't really want the cooing and baby bird cheep-cheeping in the mornings, so I removed their work in progress yesterday. But the bird came back and brought the nest back up from the ground today.

But the internets tell me:

Nest abandonment is very common with these birds. If they feel any threat from predators whether human or animal, they may go elsewhere to nest, abandoning both eggs and nestlings. Bird watchers need to exercise caution.

Why is she sitting outside the window just staring at me instead of abandoning this spot?

[Crumb]

She knows you are no threat.

[The Lone Ranger]

In a word, yeah -- they probably don't see you as a serious threat. Mourning doves can and do get very used to humans, and sometimes become so used to humans that on college campuses I've sometimes literally been able to walk right up to one and touch it.

If you keep removing the nest before she lays any eggs -- and especially if you can set up some kind of noise-maker that will scare the birds off -- they should hopefully get the message. Some people swear by cutting strips of flash tape and hanging them near where birds want to build a nest -- that seems to be a good way to scare away most birds. Another option is to put up a plastic hawk; that usually keeps most smaller birds away from an area.

If you have a bird feeder up and they occasionally see you re-filling it, not only may they not see you as a serious threat, they may actually regard you as a food source. I've had mourning doves learn that I am a source of seeds, and when the feeder runs out of food, they'll literally sit on my window sill staring at me until I finally come out to refill the feeder.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I had a woodpecker last spring pick a pipe on my roof as a favourite spot to beat a drum solo. All day. Every day. I called an animal control guy and he glued these blunt spike things to the pipe and after a day or so of distress he moved on. You'll sometimes see the same blunt spike in parking garages. They'd be unsightly on a window ledge, but you could always take them down again after nesting season.

[erimir]

What if I get some cat hair or something?

[The Lone Ranger]

It probably wouldn't be much help. Cat hair (or better, cat urine) will often keep away mice, but won't deter birds. If anything, it might attract them, as many songbirds will happily collect any hair they find lying around and use it to line their nests. Few birds have much of a sense of smell, so cat hair won't smell dangerous to them.

[erimir]

I guess I'll just have to keep harassing them until they get the picture. Which is not much work, as the window is right in front of my desk, so they won't go undetected for long.

[MonCapitan2002]

If someone was able to claim the James Randi prize and prove they had psychic powers or magic, wouldn't that merely mean that the so called "supernatural" is actually natural and that our understanding of physics is incomplete? Seriously, if so called "magic" exists, all that really means is that our understanding of how the universe functions is either flawed in some manner or incomplete; not that the laws of physics are being defied.

In some ways I think this interest in the paranormal and supernatural is flawed. If it can exist in this universe, then it's a natural phenomenon we don't understand, not magic. Am I wrong? Seriously, if someone succeeded in claiming the Randi prize, all they'd be doing is turning our understanding of the laws of physics on its head, not proving the existence of the supernatural?

What do you think, Lone Ranger? Am I wrong?

[The Lone Ranger]

The central assumption of science, of course, is that there are certain "rules" to how the Universe works, rules that -- in principle, at least -- we can discover and understand. And what's more, those rules don't change -- or if they do, they do so in ways that are (in principle) predictable and understandable. After all, if this isn't the case, then we can never truly hope to explain or understand how things work.

I think that's a very good assumption, actually. After all, if physical laws could change on their own or be altered by conscious agents, then it's all but certain that the Universe as we understand it would not exist.


Suppose, for example, that the Universal Gravitational Constant could change. If, at any time in the past 13.8 billion years, it had changed for even a short time, then there would almost-certainly be no stars, no galaxies, no planets -- and therefore, no life. Change the mass of an electron, the charge of a proton, the strength of the strong nuclear force, the speed of light, etc., etc., etc. -- and it's all but certain that the Universe as we understand it would not exist.

It's not just physical constants, either, but physical relationships. For instance, if E didn't = mc2, then the Universe as we understand it would not exist.



So, in the absence of very extraordinarily-convincing evidence, I'm not inclined to believe that "magic" or "the supernatural" exists -- or can exist. If the physical laws that govern how the Universe works could be violated, it's all but certain that life would not and could not exist.


It's perhaps worth distinguishing between physical laws and "laws" that are statistical in nature. For example, consider F=ma. If you apply a given amount of Force to an object with a given mass, then we know exactly how much it will accelerate in response.

Now consider the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as it applies to most situations. It does not say that it's impossible for all the air molecules in the room where I'm currently sitting to spontaneously move in the same direction -- it merely says that such a thing is extremely unlikely. So, it's conceivable that, one second from now, all the air molecules in the room where I'm sitting will find themselves moving to my left, and the air pressure in the left half of the room will double while I find myself sitting in a perfect vacuum.

If such a thing were to happen, no physical laws would be violated. It could happen. It's just that, even if I were to sit here for a trillion years, the odds of such a thing happening are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very low.



So then, back to the original topic. If somebody demonstrates tomorrow that some "paranormal" phenomenon exists -- telekinesis, for example -- I don't expect that this will in any way invalidate science. All it would mean is that some of the things about how we thought the Universe works are wrong and in need of revision.

But I fully expect that further investigation would reveal that there are rules to how the telekinesis works -- rules that we could (in principle, at least) learn and understand. And thus, this newly-discovered phenomenon would demonstrate that our understanding of the Universe around us is incomplete, and study of the phenomenon would provide a means for us to improve our understanding.


So yeah, long story short: If some "paranormal" phenomenon is proved to exist, I expect it will simply mean that we'll have to revise what we thought we understood about the world around us -- and thus, we'll gain a better and more accurate understanding of the world in the process. What I don't expect is that the scientific endeavor will thus be invalidated or that this newly-discovered phenomenon could be interpreted as evidence for any such thing as the "supernatural."

After all, it's not like this sort of thing has never happened. Einstein's theories of Relativity, for example, showed that the then-current understanding of how the Universe works was seriously flawed. Science incorporated these new findings and in the process gained a better understanding of the Universe around us. Similarly, quantum mechanics was tremendously surprising and deeply disturbing to many people when first proposed (and still is, to some extent) -- but it works. So, it was incorporated into modern science, and used to improve our understanding of how things work.


In the unlikely event that some sort of "paranormal" phenomenon is demonstrated to be real, I expect the same sort of thing to occur.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Tangent based on the above: re: supernatural

I read this book called Supernatural by Graham Hancock. He expressed up and down that he was speculating, not sciencing. He started from the point that the modern human brain has been more or less as you see it now for 250 000(?) years, yet cave paintings started appearing 40 000(?) years ago. He hypothesised that the human capacity to apply an abstract meaning to a symbol may have had something to do with the capacity to hallucinate, and observed that all humans can, either spontaneously or through the use of psychoactive agents, and we all follow the same rough stages. He talked about trance dancing, use of various plants, etc to achieve a hallucinatory state throughout known human history and across cultures.

Based on that he hypothesised that hallucinatory states might have been that which triggered literacy and religion.

And then he admitted he was headed out into la la land when he suggested that while in these states mankind either:

• Saw wild hallucinations and randomly started to express them with things more permanent than a stick drawing in the sand.
• Contacted spirits/aliens/extradimensional beings who taught the early humans how to interpret meaning from a symbol.

I now return you to the land of not so wild speculation.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The central assumption of science, of course, is that there are certain "rules" to how the Universe works, rules that -- in principle, at least -- we can discover and understand. And what's more, those rules don't change -- or if they do, they do so in ways that are (in principle) predictable and understandable. After all, if this isn't the case, then we can never truly hope to explain or understand how things work.

I think that's a very good assumption, actually. After all, if physical laws could change on their own or be altered by conscious agents, then it's all but certain that the Universe as we understand it would not exist.


Suppose, for example, that the Universal Gravitational Constant could change. If, at any time in the past 13.8 billion years, it had changed for even a short time, then there would almost-certainly be no stars, no galaxies, no planets -- and therefore, no life. Change the mass of an electron, the charge of a proton, the strength of the strong nuclear force, the speed of light, etc., etc., etc. -- and it's all but certain that the Universe as we understand it would not exist.

It's not just physical constants, either, but physical relationships. For instance, if E didn't = mc2, then the Universe as we understand it would not exist.



So, in the absence of very extraordinarily-convincing evidence, I'm not inclined to believe that "magic" or "the supernatural" exists -- or can exist. If the physical laws that govern how the Universe works could be violated, it's all but certain that life would not and could not exist.


It's perhaps worth distinguishing between physical laws and "laws" that are statistical in nature. For example, consider F=ma. If you apply a given amount of Force to an object with a given mass, then we know exactly how much it will accelerate in response.

Now consider the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as it applies to most situations. It does not say that it's impossible for all the air molecules in the room where I'm currently sitting to spontaneously move in the same direction -- it merely says that such a thing is extremely unlikely. So, it's conceivable that, one second from now, all the air molecules in the room where I'm sitting will find themselves moving to my left, and the air pressure in the left half of the room will double while I find myself sitting in a perfect vacuum.

If such a thing were to happen, no physical laws would be violated. It could happen. It's just that, even if I were to sit here for a trillion years, the odds of such a thing happening are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very low.



So then, back to the original topic. If somebody demonstrates tomorrow that some "paranormal" phenomenon exists -- telekinesis, for example -- I don't expect that this will in any way invalidate science. All it would mean is that some of the things about how we thought the Universe works are wrong and in need of revision.

But I fully expect that further investigation would reveal that there are rules to how the telekinesis works -- rules that we could (in principle, at least) learn and understand. And thus, this newly-discovered phenomenon would demonstrate that our understanding of the Universe around us is incomplete, and study of the phenomenon would provide a means for us to improve our understanding.


So yeah, long story short: If some "paranormal" phenomenon is proved to exist, I expect it will simply mean that we'll have to revise what we thought we understood about the world around us -- and thus, we'll gain a better and more accurate understanding of the world in the process. What I don't expect is that the scientific endeavor will thus be invalidated or that this newly-discovered phenomenon could be interpreted as evidence for any such thing as the "supernatural."

After all, it's not like this sort of thing has never happened. Einstein's theories of Relativity, for example, showed that the then-current understanding of how the Universe works was seriously flawed. Science incorporated these new findings and in the process gained a better understanding of the Universe around us. Similarly, quantum mechanics was tremendously surprising and deeply disturbing to many people when first proposed (and still is, to some extent) -- but it works. So, it was incorporated into modern science, and used to improve our understanding of how things work.


In the unlikely event that some sort of "paranormal" phenomenon is demonstrated to be real, I expect the same sort of thing to occur.

I knew you were going to post that because I read your mind. Telepathy for the win!

[Basset Hound]

Lone Ranger, Are you aware that south of the border, Tonto means Fool?

[The Lone Ranger]

In his native Potawatomi, it translates as "Wild One."

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Based on that he hypothesised that hallucinatory states might have been that which triggered literacy and religion.

While I think he's in lala land, it's an interesting speculation. Along the same lines, I've had a general lala land hypothesis about hallucinogens and our general mental health epidemic and high rates of prescribed antidepressants. Anti-depressants that work on similar receptors and in some cases have amazingly similar chemical structures to classic hallucinogens and other commonly used drugs. It makes me wonder if the long war on drugs and substances has taken away the medication humans were unknowingly consuming as part of a ritual or just fun excursion.

We do know ancient people loved their drugs.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Ari

It makes me wonder if the long war on drugs and substances has taken away the medication humans were unknowingly consuming as part of a ritual or just fun excursion.

We do know ancient people loved their drugs.

He touched on that too, commenting that psychoactive plant ceremonies are basically like religious services in South America. Africans still trance dance. Over here in Uptight and White land (Not that we're the only culture like that.) it's all OMG THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO WITH YOUR OWN BODY!

[But]

Originally Posted by MonCapitan2002

If someone was able to claim the James Randi prize and prove they had psychic powers or magic, wouldn't that merely mean that the so called "supernatural" is actually natural and that our understanding of physics is incomplete? Seriously, if so called "magic" exists, all that really means is that our understanding of how the universe functions is either flawed in some manner or incomplete; not that the laws of physics are being defied.

In some ways I think this interest in the paranormal and supernatural is flawed. If it can exist in this universe, then it's a natural phenomenon we don't understand, not magic. Am I wrong? Seriously, if someone succeeded in claiming the Randi prize, all they'd be doing is turning our understanding of the laws of physics on its head, not proving the existence of the supernatural?

What do you think, Lone Ranger? Am I wrong?

I would phrase it differently: that any apparently supernatural thing (whatever that means) can be interpreted as a part of the natural world that isn't understood yet is exactly the reason Randi is never going to have to pay money to anyone.

[Angakuk]

This discussion reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Indistinguishable, that is, for the uninitiated. Once you know that it is technology (even if you don't understand how the technology works) then you know that it depends on certain natural laws. If you don't know that it depends on natural laws then you won't recognize that it is technology and it will look like magic to you.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Can Psychedelic Drugs Treat Mental Illness? Scientists Need Your Help To Find Out. | HuffPost

Scientists resort to crowdfunding, yo.