[Dylan16807]

There is a distinction, though it's tricky to word. It's about what is a direct effect, and what is an indirect effect.

There is a feedback loop between abstract thoughts and effects on the body, so to make a proper distinction you want to ignore the feedback loop and look at where the inputs are.

A placebo's direct effect is not physical. The direct effect is that first thought that you are receiving treatment, before it even has a chance to affect your mood.

A kidney transplant's direct effect is mostly physical. It's filtering your blood at a rapid pace.

So technically mood has physical effects but by the time you reach that stage you've destroyed the meaning of the term "physical benefit" into meaning just "benefit". Feel free to suggest better terms, but please don't muddle the waters.

[kazinator]

Yes, of course. A placebo headache medicine of course does not have the direct effect comparable to aspirin, acetaminophen or ibuprofen. It's direct effect is not physical, because it doesn't have one.

"No physical effect" means the same thing as "no effect", unless we are willing to discuss metaphysical effects.

The indirect effects are somehow the result of the user's expectation that there is a direct effect.

That is to say, "placebo effect" is not "the effect of the placebo object", obviously.

It's the emergent effect of the whole situation of someone being duped with a placebo.

Being duped with a placebo has direct, physical effects, while the placebo object has no effect.

[Dylan16807]

>"No physical effect" means the same thing as "no effect"

See, that's the idea I'm not comfortable with. You are defining the term in a way which renders it basically meaningless, when there is an alternate definition that does have useful meaning.