Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 127 (169037)
12-16-2004 4:31 PM


Read this site first.
Now. All of the that sounds pretty good eh? But, I have a question. This guy claims that emotions are not linked to the actual stucture of the human brain. Basically the conscious(mind) and the brain are seperate. Well, I think ANY neuroscientist, or even a biology teacher would agree with my when I say that is just plain wrong. For instance, if I just happened to peform some surgury on you while you were sleeping and I scooped a little here, and a little there out of your skull. You would wake up a totally different person, if you woke up at all, I'm sure I would be a good surgeon I just haven't been taught were to dig.
For those of you that are Canadian... Have you ever seen those "A Part of our Heritage" commercials where the doctor pokes the girl's brain while she's awake and she says "doctor I smell burnt toast!" There's a prime example there that what we experience is limited to the structural confines of the brain. If you take hormones for example, your feelings will definitely start changing, look at teenagers!!
So, the notion that emotions and consciousness are separate from the brain is just retarded.
I know my assertions are very general, but I think this subject doesn't need a lot of detail on my side of the arguement because it should be common knowledge. Nevertheless, I want to know what you all think.
-Mission

I don't care what the truth is as long as it's the truth.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Ben!, posted 12-17-2004 11:35 AM Mission for Truth has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 2 of 127 (169364)
12-17-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
12-16-2004 4:31 PM


Can you give a more specific quote or page you want to discuss?
Also, what do you mean "emotion" ? Are you talking about the conscious experience of emotion, or the behavioral responses? They have somewhat different responses.
As for brain structures involved in emotion, the amygdala, a subcortical structure, is generally noted for its role in emotional response. Kandel et. al (2000) notes:
Principles of Neuroscience, p. 986 writes:
Damage ot the amygdala, a system concerned with the experience and memory of fear, disrupts the ability of an emotionaly charged stimulus to elicit an unconscious response.
To really understand the flavor of the quote, and what is meant by unconscious response, you really need to read about how emotion is studied and understood (p. 982-6).
OK, I'll go for now and see how that strikes you.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 12-16-2004 4:31 PM Mission for Truth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mission for Truth, posted 12-17-2004 1:06 PM Ben! has replied

  
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 127 (169396)
12-17-2004 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Ben!
12-17-2004 11:35 AM


Hello
Hi Bencip19, and thanks for your response.
quote:
Also, what do you mean "emotion" ? Are you talking about the conscious experience of emotion, or the behavioral responses?
Basically I think I'm concerning myself with the conscious experience of emotion. The act of being consciously aware of anger against someone or something, love, or trust, etc. Which would happen before the behavioral response(s).
quote:
Every materialistic attempt to explain the existence of consciousness implies that what suffers, loves, desires, feels etc. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields. The point is that objects can feel nothing at all; objects cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger,self-awareness, etc.
Here, I think, is one flaw in this man's arguement. He is assuming that the structure of the brain itself cannot be attributed to "higher" conscious emotions. Principly because objects do not feel. Is it just me or does everyone see the leap he made?
quote:
To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with one of the fundamental principle of physics, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.
Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means. I think he has confused the basic fundamentals of human thought. The synapses, the little gullys inbetween two neurons (axon connecting to dendrite) from which many different kinds of neurotransmitters flow, is the very beginnings, or links in the chain if you will, of human thought and/or action. It's not the tiny electric current that flows to stimulate the synapse, nor is it even the synapse that creates action or thought, but it is the product of many specific synapses (created by electrical currents) that ultimatly make glands salivate, emotional feelings, and works of art and science.
I just woke up and those are the two quotes (also the first ones) that stood out to me the most. Let me know if I'm on track with you now or if you need some more examples....
Remember, my arugement, and the fundamental purpose for this thread is my belief that emotions and consciousness are NOT separate from the workings of the brain. In direct opposition to what this man with a Ph.D in solid state physics says.
-Mission
P.S: Where can I find "Principles of Neuroscience"? Is it online? Or do I need to get off my butt and go to the library?

I don't care what the truth is as long as it's the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Ben!, posted 12-17-2004 11:35 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Ben!, posted 12-18-2004 5:16 AM Mission for Truth has replied
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 12-21-2004 11:57 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 4 of 127 (169665)
12-18-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mission for Truth
12-17-2004 1:06 PM


Re: Hello
MissionForTruth,
Hi, thanks for your response. I do agree with your thoughts and your direction of course. Here's some more comments:
I was kind of looking for you to pick a quote, paragraph, or section (even single webpage?) to pick out for discussion from the website. I've been through parts of the website before, and I'm not really interested in fishing through the whole thing. Anyway, I think around here, it's generally on the question poser to break down a website and post concrete sections of it. So, I'd politely ask you to do that. Then I'd be very interested in commenting on what you find.
But I would like to add that, whatever you bring up, unless it is new and unexpected, I'll be taking the view that behavior and mental states are caused by the brain.
Basically I think I'm concerning myself with the conscious experience of emotion. The act of being consciously aware of anger against someone or something, love, or trust, etc. Which would happen before the behavioral response(s).
Thanks for clarifying. By the way, lfen was telling me before that actually, conscious emotional responses can happen AFTER action has begun. I don't have any data on that though. But it seems like something you'd be interested in.
It's not the tiny electric current that flows to stimulate the synapse, nor is it even the synapse that creates action or thought, but it is the product of many specific synapses (created by electrical currents) that ultimatly make glands salivate, emotional feelings, and works of art and science.
Well... the whole system is necessary. But of course, it is the dynamic properties of the system which give rise to dynamic behaviors. There's no doubt about that !
Where can I find "Principles of Neuroscience"? Is it online? Or do I need to get off my butt and go to the library?
This book is THE book for neural science. It's a nice reference book, about 2000 pages. I doubt you can get it online. Maybe your library has it, but I'm not so sure. It's a technical book on a fairly narrow subject.
But, like any good reference book, it's easy to get some answers straightaway from it
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mission for Truth, posted 12-17-2004 1:06 PM Mission for Truth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mission for Truth, posted 12-21-2004 8:45 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 127 (170609)
12-21-2004 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ben!
12-18-2004 5:16 AM


Re: Hello
Hey Ben,
I dont have access to a computer anymore, but don't forget about this thread. I'll try to post whenever I can.
Thanks.
-Mission

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ben!, posted 12-18-2004 5:16 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 6 of 127 (170628)
12-21-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mission for Truth
12-17-2004 1:06 PM


Re: Hello
I think it can be safely assumed that consciousness, and emotions, can only exist, at a point of decision. It then becomes a question of who or what owns those decisions. It doesn't seem very likely to me that hormones own decisions, because they don't much go one way or another, as far as I know. I think hormones, and the other material, more cause an interference pattern in the decision-controlcenter. A decision-control center may be conceived as stacking uncertainty upon uncertainty, concentrating uncertainties. So no consciousness is not separate from the brain, but it is not an effect of the brain either, because decisions aren't effects. Decisions are what set the causes, which have the effects.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mission for Truth, posted 12-17-2004 1:06 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 4:09 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 7 of 127 (170643)
12-22-2004 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
12-21-2004 11:57 PM


Its that man again
I think it can be safely assumed that consciousness, and emotions, can only exist, at a point of decision.
Why?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 12-21-2004 11:57 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 12-22-2004 5:47 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 8 of 127 (170666)
12-22-2004 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wounded King
12-22-2004 4:09 AM


Re: Its that man again
That is manifest in all our knowledge about it. Emotions, it's love or hate, in all cases it's free, an act of will, or it is our will.
I'm very insulted by the many posts doubting free will. There is no need to destroy our common knowledge about decision because science doesn't have a handle on the subject. I suggest watching some movies, reading some novels, for knowledge about the subject.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 4:09 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 5:48 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 9 of 127 (170667)
12-22-2004 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Syamsu
12-22-2004 5:47 AM


Re: Its that man again
That doesn't answer the question, it just reiterates your contention. Why should you be insulted by posts doubting free will?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 12-22-2004 5:47 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 12-22-2004 6:47 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 10 of 127 (170673)
12-22-2004 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wounded King
12-22-2004 5:48 AM


Re: Its that man again
Sure it does answer the question.
Q Why is it safe to assume consciousness only exists in points of decision
A Because that is manifest in all our common knowledge about it.
Question answered.
I am insulted at seeing so much languishing collegestudent irresponsible meandering on the subject. Knowledge about emotions is of value, which can't be said of a certain shaky comparitive theory.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 5:48 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 6:51 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 13 by lfen, posted 12-22-2004 11:37 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 127 (170674)
12-22-2004 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Syamsu
12-22-2004 6:47 AM


Re: Its that man again
A Because that is manifest in all our common knowledge about it.
Sadly Syamsu, this seems to be about the extent of your ability to argue, and since it effectively means 'its obvious', you are singularly failing to add anything in the way of argumentation to the debate.
I certainly would disagree that it is obvious that consciousness only exists in the pont of decision. I feel my consciousness to be continuous but I do not feel that I am consciously making decisions all the time
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 12-22-2004 6:47 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 12-22-2004 10:27 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 12 of 127 (170699)
12-22-2004 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Wounded King
12-22-2004 6:51 AM


Re: Its that man again
It seems to be better to accept the status quo of common knowledge about decisions, in stead of throwing out our heritage in favour of some destructive philosphical meandering.
Your feeling is still a liking, and liking is a matter of choice.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 6:51 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Parasomnium, posted 12-22-2004 1:52 PM Syamsu has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 13 of 127 (170717)
12-22-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Syamsu
12-22-2004 6:47 AM


Re: Its that man again
I am insulted at seeing so much languishing collegestudent irresponsible meandering on the subject. Knowledge about emotions is of value, which can't be said of a certain shaky comparitive theory.
You don't have to read threads you find insulting or disturbing. These are serious philosophical and scientific questions being examined. The nature of free will comes very close to the question of what is the self, the ego, the ordinary sense of being. Not all religions take the ego as something real or permanent, the Buddha specifically denied there was a real permanent self.
How organisms function is ongoing science and includes the casuality of behaviour. Free will is something that is being studied and debated . Believing in free choice as you do you could choose then to either not read this thread, or you could choose to be delighted and happy instead of insulted that folks are examining this notions!
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 12-22-2004 6:47 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 14 of 127 (170804)
12-22-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Syamsu
12-22-2004 10:27 AM


Constructive vs. Destructive Thinking
Syamsu writes:
It seems to be better to accept the status quo of common knowledge about decisions, in stead of throwing out our heritage in favour of some destructive philosphical meandering.
Yet, that is exactly what has happened several times in the past, and what will probably happen again in the future. It's how progress is made.
Whenever we arrive at new insights about something, the old 'truths', or 'heritage' as you call them, will inevitably be discarded. We no longer think the earth is the center of the universe, though that has been our 'heritage' for a very long time. Some courageous people did some very 'destructive' thinking and the result is that we are now a lot closer to the truth about our place in the universe.
I'm not saying we already know all there is to know about free will, but to rigidly insist on keeping a static body of 'common knowledge' in place, and not allowing room for speculation, is not very constructive if we want to arrive at the truth about it.
In an earlier message you said:
Syamsu writes:
So no consciousness is not separate from the brain, but it is not an effect of the brain either, because decisions aren't effects. Decisions are what set the causes, which have the effects.
Can you elaborate a bit about why you think acts of free will - you call them 'decisions' - are not effects? If, according to you, there is no effectual relationship between the brain and consciousness, and yet, as you say, they are not separate, then what would you say is the nature of the relation between the brain and consciousness?

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 12-22-2004 10:27 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Syamsu, posted 12-23-2004 12:34 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 23 by dshortt, posted 12-23-2004 7:45 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 15 of 127 (171039)
12-23-2004 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Parasomnium
12-22-2004 1:52 PM


Re: Constructive vs. Destructive Thinking
As far as I know, there isn't even a name for the point where a probability changes in science. So I don't see this constructive discussion of free will, I see much destructive discussion about it on the forum. And these thoughts I see here are hardly original, materialists have been promoting them for centuries already.
I can only say that in our common language it is defined this way that decisions can't be the same as an effect. Much of what we say would become gibberish if we defined a decision to be an effect.
Consciousness controls the brain, is the relationship between consciousness and the brain I believe.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Parasomnium, posted 12-22-2004 1:52 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by lfen, posted 12-23-2004 2:08 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 17 by Wounded King, posted 12-23-2004 2:14 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 18 by Parasomnium, posted 12-23-2004 3:38 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024