Emotions in Science?

OK I'll have a bash at this in a fairly reductionist fashion, following Ed Rolls theory of emotion.Emotions are simply biological states brought about by reward and punishment. A reward is something an animal will work towards (approach), a punisher something to avoid/escape from (withdrawal). Emotions are the phasic biological state brought about by reward/punishment; feelings are the conscious phenomena of emotions sometimes called affect (i.e. the subjective effect of emotion). Moods are the tonic continuing effects of an emotion. Motivation is the state of working towards a desired goal, when the goal is achieved, an emotion is produced.Why do we have them?...emotions are an adaptive response enabling flexible goal-directed behaviour. So, the values of reinforcers can change depending on circumstance - a fixed response is limiting and less adaptive. This can be seen in satiation studies, we may favour chocolate, but after eating 3 bars, their reward value diminishes and we may move on to a more rewarding food, thus we get a varied diet.This message has been edited by melatonin, 02-19-2006 12:33 PM

Sounds like an interesting study. Maybe we should examine the differences in affect between believers and non-believers.Problem is whenever we test people who have some sort of peripheral nervous system deficit, they show little deficit in emotion. The James-Lange theory of emotion (bodily feedback theory) is long refuted, and the new weaker form, Damasio's theory (somatic-marker hypothesis), will likely follow it into obscurity. The biggest deficits in emotional function come from neural damage/dysfuntion.

Well psychologists form hypotheses, test and observe, infer from data - seems empirical to me.what is life? I guess it would be something that is an organised biological system that exhibits metabolism, reproduction, growth, and responds to stimuli.Why are christian psychologists the only one's who would believe in a soul? Would a muslim psychologist?

something = biological metabolism/activity?There is no real separation of mind and body. If you want to speculate on an eternal spirit/soul, fair enough but it won't be science.Does bacteria have a soul? It has that 'something'...This message has been edited by melatonin, 03-04-2006 06:30 PM

Cymru is welsh for Wales (part of the UK).Because it is a product/epiphenomenon of the brain, then it requires a brain, hence no real separation. They are not independent.Descartes believed that the mind could exist without the body/brain, that is, they are independent entities. Damasio makes a fine argument against descartes' dualism from a neurological POV and this is where the separation argument focuses.I would say if there was someone with a dysfuntion of the mind which we can not yet attribute to some aspect of brain function, we will with time.

Well, separate but not independent sounds better. But that's why I said no 'real' separation - the mind is integrated and dependent on the brain.We do have problems knowing "what is a perfect mind". We have the same problem in psychopathology, i.e. when does behaviour become pathological. So, we draw a pretty subjective line using what we know is the normal range of behaviour.There is no doubt that the mind can affect the brain. We see this in depressive states, some depression is primarily genetic, some is enviromental, just changing the way a person thinks can ameliorate depression. So, we know the distress in grief is a result of loss/separation, it's normal not dysfunctional. But the distress itself will be shown in brain activity.Some brain damage can improve functioning in certain circumstances, Damasio focuses on individuals with orbitofrontal PFC injury. Generally they show 'acquired sociopathy' but in some circumstances, this can be adaptive - driving a car, skidding on ice - not feeling fear in this situation could be very useful and may save your life.The brain is quite adaptive and shows a good degree of healing through plasticity (especially when young). Not all damage will cause massive effects on function. In parkinson's disease it takes something like 80% loss of dopamine producing neurons in the substantia nigra before showing any obvious behavioural deficits. So damage does not always become obvious in behaviour.We can, with surgery, readily give epileptics a healthier mind. Sometimes the deficits of temporal lobectomy will be relatively minor.This message has been edited by melatonin, 03-05-2006 03:29 PM

Well if it's not those two, what is it? A soul? So, bacteria is not life? Is a dog life? What about a chimp?We have both involuntary and voluntary action, unconscious and conscious processes. Involuntary actions are controlled using the same processes as voluntary - i.e. electrical/chemicalDoes a soul feel fear?

and to further help your discussion, I suggest making the distinction between 'emotions' - the physiological states; and 'affects' - the subjective feeling states, that we generally use in psychological research.There is a whole field of research - 'affective neuroscience' - that studies emotions and affect - 2ice, I'll be sure to tell those hard-working academics they are wasting their time.This message has been edited by melatonin, 04-28-2006 04:21 PM