|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Emotions in Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2573 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2573 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
How can one define "damage" to a mind? 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 6105 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
When science defines emotion the resulting definition lacks any hint of
what we know to be emotion. This is because science does not recognise and cannot describe or detect what we are. In order to truly understand this, one must drop the tool of science and do some "hands on". It would seem that many here do not know how to do that. This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 04-28-2006 10:16 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2573 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
When science defines emotion the resulting definition lacks any hint of what we know to be emotion. This is because science does not recognise and cannot describe or detect what we are. In order to truly understand this, one must drop the tool of science and do some "hands on". It would seem that many here do not know how to do that. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 6105 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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. Science will only give us a clue to emotions purpose in a very clinical, physical and non human sense. Trying to understand something through this narrow view and making conclusions from it will cause more harm than good. Hence all the drugs we throw mindlessly at emotional problems in order to "fix" them. The problem is that science tend to poo poo the degree that the mental affects the physical.
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. I would dissagree. We have the proper tools to understand emotions as they are meant to be understood. Science is not the tool for the job.How to correct a chemical imbalance that causes severe disability or very deranged behavior...yeah....it is the lesser of 2 evils. The other being disgarding the individual in some form. We have a long way to go in that department. As we begin tampering with the ability to manipulate the human experience....who will get to play God and determine what is proper emotional behavior? When you consider the capitolist society we live in...in light of the drug comercials already spanking our ego's and preying on our fears...it does not take a genious to see it is a bad mix. In my opinion we are learning things at a rate that far exceeds our ability to deal with them on a human basis. We always leap before we look. A fast paced society that accelerates will eventually trip over itself. There is value to the addage...keep it simple stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2573 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
Trying to understand something through this narrow view and making conclusions from it will cause more harm than good. Hence all the drugs we throw mindlessly at emotional problems in order to "fix" them. 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?
We have the proper tools to understand emotions as they are meant to be understood. Science is not the tool for the job. 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.
As we begin tampering with the ability to manipulate the human experience....who will get to play God and determine what is proper emotional behavior? When you consider the capitolist society we live in...in light of the drug comercials already spanking our ego's and preying on our fears...it does not take a genious to see it is a bad mix. In my opinion we are learning things at a rate that far exceeds our ability to deal with them on a human basis. We always leap before we look. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5408 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
2BT writes: We have the proper tools to understand emotions as they are meant to be understood. Science is not the tool for the job. I have an urge to take issue with this, but let me first ask what you might consider the appropriate 'tools' to be? Also, what do you mean by 'as they are meant to be understood' ?What criteria might be used to determine that? I am going to be a little pre-emptive here and point out that, for purposes of effective discussion, we will need to separate our 'understanding' of emotion into proximate and ultimate causes. Proximal causes might comprise biochemical states, etc.Ultimate causes can only be explained by evolutionary theory. Emotions are manifestations of the phenotype that are not going to be immune to selective forces.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
melatonin Member (Idle past 6463 days) Posts: 126 From: Cymru Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 6105 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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? Schizo perhaps. I have no direct experience there. Manic depression...my experience is that in some cases it can be a good thing. In others it seems to only be a lesser of two "evils" if you will and often a doctor is just taking stabs in the dark with meds. That whole scenario is more of a crap shoot than anything.The demon comment was a bit childish. I have basically agreed with these scenarios in my previous post. It is the turning to meds on a wider basis where they are not needed and over prescribed that I object to. As I said...far too often they are turned to as THE solution.
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. Your first sentance says it all for 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 knowledge is knowledge. Weather or not it is an advance is a matter of perspective. You are of the catagory Why?....because I can. Should I?Does not matter. I can...it's all good. Of course you do not share my concern. My concern it would seem is people like yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 1091 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
This may be outside of where this thread is progressing but it may address the OP.
I am not a biologist and my education may be outdated. My understanding is that the medulla of the brain controls basic functions such as resperation or the heartbeat. That is why it, or its equivalent is present in all chordates. The cerebellum, which controls the basics of motor function, is present in chordates beyond the most primitive, such as tunicates. beyond this such as in fish, amphibians, reptiles, there is the beginning of a cerebrum. The cerebrum in this form is primarily dedicated to emotions rather than what one would call thought. Literature referred to this as the R-complex. As species evolved, layers were added to the basic cerebrum in birds and mammmals. In mammals such layering resulted in a more pronounced wrinkling or crenulation of the brain which is responsible for higher functions such as planning outcomes. Evolution, being what it is, an adding or substiuting the functioning of preexisting parts rather than a sudden pop-into-existance out-of-nowhere organ such as would be predicted by intelligent design, the brain of mammals includes the primitive medulla for the most primitive of functions such as the heartbeat, cerebellum for motor function, and a layered cerebrum. Such a cerebrum includes the more primitive R-complex deeply imbedded inside, which is dominant in fish, amphibians and reptiles, layered over by the gradually slightly wrinkled brain of birds and then the greatly wrinkled brain of more advanced mammals. The R-complex is the part of the brain associated with raw emotion. Of course, the previous does not imply that all parts of the brain in any given organism are mutually exclusive. The brain works with all parts simultaneously in, dare I say, a holistic manner. Thats what I read several years back, and it is an over-simplified explanation, so to anyone better educated in such manners please feel free to quote me when you show what I said is wrong in light of modern advances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5408 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
I think your breakdown is not far off the current consensus.
Emotion seems linked to imagination and both are activities believed to be mediated by the cerebellum, the most derived part of the brain. Imagination, intellect and, at the most basic level, emotion, are all thought to reside there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I agree, and if you feel this way, your argument is with the medical and pharmaceutical, and to some degree, the political spheres, not with the scientific. Science makes discoveries about nature; it's the pharm. companies and medical folks who decide to develop, apply, and prescribe the drugs to people, and also the individual's decision to swallow the pills.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6336 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Reincarnation is an interesting concept that often plays on such possibilities Where is the evidence for reincarnation? Have you met anyone who has reincarnated? Do you think that Reincarnation is science? Our scientists have not even defined what is life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2573 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
knowledge is knowledge. Weather or not it is an advance is a matter of perspective. You are of the catagory Why?....because I can. Should I? Does not matter. I can...it's all good. Of course you do not share my concern. My concern it would seem is people like yourself. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6336 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Concerns about using animals in scientific experiments, for example, are entirely legitimate, and it is right that scientists should be forced to justify themselves Is it alright to use embryonic stem cells and ban all animal research? Why is it that use of animal experiments is wrong and Abortion is right?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024