Emotions in Science?

Technically isn't mind an entity which is separate from the brain? That is it is a product of the function of the brain. They are connected in that damage to the brain will damage the mind, just not always on a one to one relationship. And someone may have a damaged mind, with no physical damage to the brain?Side note, your profile says you are from cymru, what and where is that?

---

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

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.

Separate but not independent? Does that sound better? I am specifically agreeing that mind is product and so linked to it in an organic way.However it is true that the brain itself can be damaged with no apparent change to the mind. And I think it is true that there can be damage done to the mind, which does not involve physical damage to the brain. I realize that this is a repeat but bear with me... But dysfunctional and damaged in mind, does not mean errant brain function. Certainly some things are. But imagine a person overwhelmed by a flood of emotions from a loss of something, such that they lose control in some fashion. I don't think that that would actually be any problem area of the brain, some physical dysfunction, but rather it may be working just fine and the result is a mind out of control or in pain.Come to think of it I think there was a portion of Sacks' book, Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat, that detailed some organic dysfunction, which resulted in healthier minds and vice versa.

---

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

It depends on the specific area of the brain that is damaged. Some parts of the brain are for coordinatino, other parts are for higher thinking.

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

I was wrong I SHOULD HAVE SAID,"At this time, we can only define the characteristcs of the living organisms. but, we cannot define life.something = biological metabolism/activity? No, it is not these two."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".Wilder Penfield electrically stimulated the brains of epilepsy patients and he found that they could move their arms and legs. The patient would say,I did not do. You did it" Penfield believes that the patient thinks of himself as having an existence separate from the body. No matter how much of stimulation the patient received, there is no place where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or not to decide. Because, these functions originate in the conscious self, not brain.Some of the thought processes have the attributes of being true and others false. No neurophysiologist will say that a particular of brain state is true and the other state is false.This is not the function of the brain. but, this is afunction of the conscious state."Does bacteria have a soul? It has that 'something'"""... I do not think so.

In the end the patient would have been right, they did not consciously decide to move the leg, the doctor did by hitting a part of the brain which would cause the reflexive action. All that shows is that the brain is not "aware" or "sensitive" regarding stimulation of the brain. I'm not sure how you think it indicates that there is some substance actually separate from the brain. I'm also uncertain how you can say this after positing humans may have souls. They operate in the same fashion. Who's to say a vast soul does not lie beneath the merest microbe, constricted to minimal action, just as souls connected to humans are constricted?

---

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

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?

quote:

---

However it is true that the brain itself can be damaged with no apparent change to the mind.

---

This is often due to the redundancies present in the brain and the ability for it to compensate after an injury, and even develop new neural pathways.

quote:

---

And I think it is true that there can be damage done to the mind, which does not involve physical damage to the brain.

---

How can one define "damage" to a mind?

Agreed, I wasn't getting technical, but that is what I was referring to. Psychological pain/suffering, as well as inability to perform tasks in the same manner (to the same level) as one had before. Like physical damage it can be temporary or permanent. It might even be promotion of new behavior not seen before, and unhelpful or destructive to the individual or those around. This may be a real result of proper functioning of a brain, given correct inputs, especially in conjunction with mechanisms meant to protect the person.

---

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

There is something beyond stimulus response. Animals do have a soul. About bacteria, I have to work on. Very good question.

This is just a response to both you and holmes along these lines.All through history we as humans have used the argument of being suprior in some form or fashion to that which we intend to subject to actions which we would consider "inhuman" Differnt races....different genders....different species. One by one history has shown us our mistakes. One has to consider the posibilities.

Not sure what your post was supposed to mean to me. Other than mental capacity, I don't see humans as being superior to anything else, and often that isn't as important as having traits that other species have.There could very well be souls, but there is no evidence for this. And if there are, the smallest bacteria could have them as much as humans do. Reincarnation is an interesting concept that often plays on such possibilities.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-09-2006 05:20 PM

---

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

Having science define emotions makes about as much sense as having A musical without music preformed by acountants.

Who would you have define emotion?Have you a definition?lfen