|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mission for Truth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mission for Truth Inactive Member |
Hi Bencip19, and thanks for your response.
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mission for Truth Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I think it can be safely assumed that consciousness, and emotions, can only exist, at a point of decision.
Why? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
That doesn't answer the question, it just reiterates your contention. Why should you be insulted by posts doubting free will?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4697 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024