Emotions in Science?

I was thinking this same thing. I think emotions may more or less be our "experience" of a physical experience our body is having/undergoing. We then place names on such experiences as well as moral labels to set them into a context of the social world we live in. This I disagree with, or at least the idea that we have more complex emotional experiences. We may have the ability to handle more emotions at once and so face conflicts, but I'm not certain how any single emotion is more complex than anything else.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

To a first approximation, emotions are the motivators that drive behavior.

I agree, Holmes. Perhaps "compound" would have been a better term than "complex."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I am a strong believer that we are far superior to animals. IF so, why did i compare animals to human behaviour? The basic molecular mechanisms in brain are common to man and animals. Therefore, study of animals regarding the brain function should be identical to humans.

We are animals, so that's a non-starter.There is no doubt that we are superior to other animals. But that's because "superior" is our word, and we give it a meaning that favors us. In other words, this superiority is subjective, due to our assessing it from our own perspective.

The superiority claim is, indeed, a nonstarter. I'll skip that one. Yes, we would expect some commonality amongst all animals in terms of brain function. Even the tiniest insect brain has some commonality with ours, reptiles a bit more, mammals much more, and the other apes a great deal.Does that work for you for starters?

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

"Superior"?? In what manner? You can sniff things better out? YOu can survive better in the cold?? You are stronger, faster running?

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.

I believe we can in a very physical way describe emotions with science.
However it is like painting a house with water. When we attempt to describe things that are spiritual, seeing things from a purely scientific perspective denies that we exist.
The very nature of science does not allow for the essence of emotion.
Science with emotion is no longer science. It becomes religion.
Science does not allow for or will it ever recognize emotion or intent. It cannot...that is both it's weakness and it's strength.
When using science to explore and define what makes us human we need to recognize that by nature it dehumanizes us.If you find this view interesting I have a similar perspective in the "should creationism be taught in schools thread. I believe it is worth consideration.This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-19-2006 03:30 PMThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-19-2006 06:21 PM

Omnivorous,

quote:

---

I'm leery of "lower" and "higher" comparisons of animals.

---

I assure you that I did not use those words as a reference to superiority.

quote:

---

Perhaps it is more useful to think in terms of different strategies.

---

I can go with that.

Drew, this is a very interesting question. The functions of the brain are regulated by 10-15 chemicals. These are not found in the food. Brain has to synthesize them. Brain takes the raw materials from food and by the action of few enzymes, converts them into active chemicals. What triggers them? Whenever an electrical impulse reaches the end of anerve, then at the nerve endings, these chemicals are actively synthesized and released. Amount synthesized and the amount released depend on the the length and intensity of the signal. After these chemoicals are released, then they simulate the electrical implse and this process id repeated till the signal reaches the destination. This may involve millions of such cells. Dr. Candace Pert first identified the structures known as opiate receptors that respond to pleasure and pain. You may read her book,"Molecules and emotions"There are some clinical conditions in which the formation, release and reuptake of these chemicals are impaired. Transmission of signal by the brain cells is mediated by these chemicals. I hope I have given you the answer.

It is so sad that God has been reduced to a stimulus- response system.This happens in animals all the time. Some one reported that there is a center in the brain which when stimulated produces religious experience. This means, those who experience God had some sort of stimulations at this center in brain. In any case, personal encounter with God cannot equal the electrical stimulation or for that matter experience with drugs. Chemcials or electrical stimulation cannot substitute for the real thing i.e: God. Do not go for the 2nd best. Go for the real.

This is otherwise knwn as Self awareness. This is an important function that allows the animals to react and respond to the environment. In other words it is like stimulus >>>>> response. The way the animal percieves the stimulus (external temperature, toxic chemical, electrical stimulation, drug stimulation etc) The animal becomes aware of the surroundings. In animals, it stops here. Wehreas in humans, it goes much beyond.

Thank you for the suggestion. I am sure this new topic on the role of religion in addiction will haelp many in the forum. I will plan on starting a new thread.