Emotions in Science?

Thinking of moving your arm is a complicated business. It involves a whole load of circuits in the brain in addition to the final stimulus to the muscle to move. All of this additional processing provides feedback that tells us that we are voluntarily moving the arm. In the experiment you describe I assume that Wilder Penfield stimulated the primary motor cortex directly. This would feel precisely as though someone else had moved our arm, because we wouldn't have all the confirming feedback that we have when we move it ourself. Now if he found a way to stimulate the areas of the brain responsible for motivation as well, then I think he might find a different result.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Is 'mind' just a term we use to describe our subjective experience? Could it be that when we talk about psychological distress in terms of brain chemistry, we're talking about 'brain', but when we're talking about our subjective experience of that distress, we're talking about 'mind'?Your notion of damage to a mind has got me thinking. I get your point that you could theoretically look at a functioning brain without realising that the owner of that brain was suffering psychological distress, because there wouldn't necessarily be any organic damage. I was going to counter your argument by suggesting that there would be obvious differences in your brain functioning when you were psychologically at ease compared to when you were distressed.However, I don't think this really gets to the heart of the matter. Psychological pain can only be explained on a psychological level, because it is built on a whole scaffolding of subjective experiences (personal memories, desires, etc.), and, despite having neural correlates, can only make sense in the light of that subjective experience.So the physiological changes in my brain while I'm psychologically disressed after, for example, the death of my child, might be general physiological changes that accompany any similar emotional state. The psychological content is something that can only be discriminated by me.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

You're confusing living with doing science. The fact that science investigates something doesn't mean that your subjective experience of that thing is diminished. My emotions are still my emotions whether their chemical basis is fully understood or not.Science can never tell us everything about emotion (because the subjective experience is beyond its reach), but it can certainly provide important insights into its purpose and physical basis.Feeling emotion is a part of being human. No-one needs to do any practical work to do that. Understanding how it works is a different matter.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I disagree. Without chemical treatment schizophrenia and manic depression are completely debilitating diseases. With treatment people can live relatively normal lives. I'd say that's an improvement over locking such people away in an institution, or treating them as though they were possessed by demons. Wouldn't you? That first sentence doesn't make much sense to me. I feel my emotions, I don't necessarily understand them. I don't see any conflict between feeling and acting upon my own emotions, and science trying to understand emotions in a general way. I don't see what threat scientific understanding poses to me. I like the society I live in. It seems more generous and more liberating than any society I've read about. I'm glad I live now rather than any time in the past. And scientific advances excite rather than frighten me. So I can't share your concern.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I agree that we should be concerned about the applications of scientific knowledge - I don't have any problem with banning an application if it raises social or ethical concerns. Drugs like Ritalin and Prozac, for example, do seem to be overprescribed in your country, and I would support any campaign to change attitudes to their use.Equally I don't have any problem with applying our normal ethical rules to the methods scientists use to acquire knowledge. Concerns about using animals in scientific experiments, for example, are entirely legitimate, and it is right that scientists should be forced to justify themselves.Where I disagree with you is in your suggestion that there should be restrictions on the subject areas that scientists can investigate. Scientific enquiry must follow whatever direction is necessary to arrive at the truth.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I wasn't suggesting that all animal research should be banned, just that it's quite legitimate to have ethical concerns about animal research. And I'd agree that embryonic stem cell research and abortion are equally legitimate areas of concern.However, moral judgements, especially in these areas, tend to be a choice between two evils, rather than a choice between good and evil.If you ban animal research or embryonic stem cell research you have to accept that the consequence will be that cures for many diseases may be delayed by years or decades, if they are discovered at all. As a result, many more people may die than would otherwise be the case. When we make the judgement as a society, we try to balance the harm and benefits of one course of action against the harm and benefits of the other course.In your country, I believe, embryonic stem cell research is banned, for quite legitimate ethical reasons. In my country, on the other hand, we have decided that the possible advantages outweigh the ethical problems, and have allowed such research in certain circumstances.Abortion is a slightly different issue. If banning abortion had the effect of stopping all abortions, and there were no negative social impact from bringing into the world children who weren't actually wanted, I doubt there would be an argument. Nobody thinks that killing a foetus is a good thing in itself.But there are compelling social and moral arguments for providing some restricted legal access to abortion, including:1. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions, and doesn't necessarily reduce the abortion rate;2. Where abortion is illegal, women who have abortions are more likely to suffer complications, and mortality rates rise. So, while the number of abortions may not be reduced by making abortion illegal, the number of deaths of women having abortions will certainly increase.It is considerations such as these that have led most developed countries to allow some restricted access to abortion, despite the fact that killing a foetus is obviously a bad thing.This message has been edited by JavaMan, 05-08-2006 07:17 AM

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible