Where do feelings come from?

[Vrecknidj]

What do you think about where feelings come from?

Dave

 

[Da Blob]

Bah Humbug! What do you mean when you use the word, "Feelings"?

I find it the bitterest of irony, that we each live in entire subjective universes, for which there are just a handful of very vague words to describe. For example the word, "feelings" may refer to the products of the endocrine system, emotional stuff, The word could also be used to describe intuitions. The word's also is used to describe any consciousness of a nonverbal nature...etc. and etc... Any input of an nonverbal nature music, touch, taste, Kinesthethics, is 'felt'...

 

[Darby]

Bah Humbug! What do you mean when you use the word, "Feelings"?

I find it the bitterest of irony, that we each live in entire subjective universes, for which there are just a handful of very vague words to describe. For example the word, "feelings" may refer to the products of the endocrine system, emotional stuff, The word could also be used to describe intuitions. The word's also is used to describe any consciousness of a nonverbal nature...etc. and etc... Any input of an nonverbal nature music, touch, taste, Kinesthethics, is 'felt'...

I believe it is "emotional stuff" that is being referred to, although I'm not positive, although intuitions could also be a valid arguement as to what they are getting at

I feel this thread has the potential for interesting discussion, but I'm worried about how vague the topic was. We just need clarification

 

[shoeless]

i think when people use the term "feelings" in a vague context they generally mean "emotions".

i'm sure a lot of people will say (probably more elaborately) it's just another product of chemical triggers and stuff in the brain. personally i have a hard time believe that's all it is (hence my investigation into spiritual stuff -- consciousness and the general human "experience" all seem so non-material to me; it's beyond anything else we've observed and deducted purely scientifically, so i can't throw out the possibility of there being a non-material explanation of some sort). don't get me wrong, chemicals obviously have a role -- hence depression as an illness and whatnot -- but when we talk about our baseline personality, and how everyone reacts differently to emotional triggers, and blah blah blah... i dunno.

it COULD just be the brain. i'm just inclined to look in other directions i guess.

but i should stop procrastinating and get my shit together and head to school. also, i am sad. wah.

 

[bananaphallus]

It's a wonder we're even able to function, considering how volatile and potent emotions can be - given our capacity for such feelings, do you wonder how they ended up being so well-regulated? Was this an inevitability - the result purely of expanded cognitive/physical 'real-estate', so to speak? Or something fine-tuned by evolution?

 

[Beat Mango]

Fundamentally, the body. But in opposition to Da Blob, I don't believe it''s an entirely subjective issue. Tension between the outside world and the inner one, between the desire and its object - that's where feelings come from.

 

[nickgray]

Complex neurochemical interactions in the brain, and body in general.

 

[shoeless]

Complex neurochemical interactions in the brain, and body in general.

totally called it.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I'm genuinely interested in what sorts of explanations spirituality has to offer about where feelings come from. Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but spirituality seems only to offer a lot of non-explanations, merely serving to make them sound mysterious enough as to be unexplainable. Neuroscience has done countless experiments (1) (2) (3) and made observations to show what parts of the brain are involved with emotion (1) (2) (3)

 

[shoeless]

i guess it's not as much "feelings" as it is consciousness. but it's all tied together.

i'd elaborate, but i'm tired.

 

[Beat Mango]

Complex neurochemical interactions in the brain, and body in general.

Right, and where do they come from?

 

[nickgray]

Right, and where do they come from?

What do you mean from where? We're living beings with lots of stuff going on within us, when we die most of this stuff stops. There is no "from where". Or do you mean something concerning molecules and elementary particles?

 

[Beat Mango]

No, I mean, something must cause those chemical interactions to take place. The brain doesn't exist in a vacuum, something must have triggered those particular interactions. Hence why I think that what happens outside the brain is at least as important as what happens inside it.

 

[Da Blob]

I'm genuinely interested in what sorts of explanations spirituality has to offer about where feelings come from. Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but spirituality seems only to offer a lot of non-explanations, merely serving to make them sound mysterious enough as to be unexplainable. Neuroscience has done countless experiments (1) (2) (3) and made observations to show what parts of the brain are involved with emotion (1) (2) (3)

Again, I do not know that spirituality offers a prime cause for emotional experience...? However, If I may, I suggest that neuroscience does not offer much more than observations of emotions in action. There is a valid quest for the knowledge of 'how' emotions occur. However, to attribute causality as to "why", any any one portion of the brain works as it does has long been a boundary that serious researchers do not confront. Every cause is an effect of another cause which is the effect of a previous cause etc, and etc.. It is possible to trace a short string of cause and effect relationships from one part of the brain to another. However the physical complexity calls any explanation of a of a long sequence of cause and effect explanations into doubt. A great number of effects have co-occurring causes and a surprising number of effects have multivariate components as causes or source of change of equilibrium...

 

[Agent Intellect]

Again, I do not know that spirituality offers a prime cause for emotional experience...?

I may be ignorant, but no spiritual claim that I've ever heard has ever really 'explained' anything. They usually evoke the mysteriousness or unexplainability (is that a real word?) of a process and act as if that explains it.

Even if there are spirits or ancestors or whatever floating around in the ether and interacting with the material world, shouldn't their affects on the material world be observable. Not arguing against spirits here (for once) but saying that there should still be a physical explanation even for non-physical causes - even if we couldn't observe these metaphysical causes, we could see how they do what they do.

However, If I may, I suggest that neuroscience does not offer much more than observations of emotions in action. There is a valid quest for the knowledge of 'how' emotions occur. However, to attribute causality as to "why", any any one portion of the brain works as it does has long been a boundary that serious researchers do not confront.

Evolution.

(I would say more, but I know it wouldn't really sink in).

Every cause is an effect of another cause which is the effect of a previous cause etc, and etc.. It is possible to trace a short string of cause and effect relationships from one part of the brain to another.

There is also input coming in from the senses, the brain is not 100% recursive, and we are not 100% the product of our genetics - there is a lot that gets input that act as causes within the brain.

However the physical complexity calls any explanation of a of a long sequence of cause and effect explanations into doubt. A great number of effects have co-occurring causes and a surprising number of effects have multivariate components as causes or source of change of equilibrium...

Complexity doesn't necessarily cause order (cause and effect) to break down - it's just more difficult to calculate. Even 'chaos theory' isn't really chaos theory, but more the study of the sensitivity of initial conditions (even complex strange attractors are not a stochastic process).

Non-linear systems (the brain and most of nature) are a measure of the multiple effects due to a single (or seemingly lesser) cause. These are non-linear because it's impossible to use known solutions for new solutions (it doesn't coincide with the superposition principle the way linear systems do). But that doesn't necessarily break down cause and effect, but simply makes it more difficult (if not impossible) to calculate and predict.

 

[Cassandra]

What do you think about where feelings come from?

Dave

evolution.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fessler/pubs/FesslerEmotionEncycl.pdf

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/emotion.html

http://www.open2.net/humanmind/article_faces.htm

 

[Da Blob]

Affect versus Effect?

UBIQUITY: Talk about your work with robots.

NORMAN: I became interested in the design of robots, which will be a theme of the book, as well. The question is, how do you make a home robot that is autonomous, that lives by itself, that won't get stuck in corners, and doesn't have to be reminded so that it doesn't run out of power? I decided that what it needed was emotions, or affect.

UBIQUITY: What kinds of emotions?

from this article:

Emotions and Affect

http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/interviews/d_norman_2.html

 

[Vrecknidj]

I step on a nail and I feel a sharp pain. I get that there are all kinds of things going on in the body. Some kind of signal is sent from the site of the poke to the brain, and from the brain, information is sent to various parts of the body. One of the things that happens is that other parts of my brain send "feelings" to various parts of my body. I might sweat, my heart rate may increase, I might say certain words, I might imagine the nail, I might look at my foot. And, all throughout, I might feel pain (of a variety of sorts, perhaps), and it might feel like the pain that I feel is in my foot (even if I know it's not).

No scan of my brain, no analysis of the chemicals in my body, no understanding of the complexity of the connections between neurofibers is going to present to me information about the subjective, first-person experience I'm having (whether of the pain or of anything else).

.

I am told a bit of intensely shocking news. I feel a surge of raw energy in my gut, I feel nauseous, for an instant the world seems to spin away from me. I might sense a dulling haze in my thoughts. Disbelief attempts to crowd out my thinking skills, but my mind races and searches for solution to an impossible problem. Panic settles in, I immediately want to deny, to bargain, to grieve, to force through sheer will to make the news false. I'm overwhelmed, my thoughts turn to paranoia or confusion or despair. I may wish to die.

Again, no scan of my brain, no analysis of the cortisol in my blood, no endocrinological analysis of my body, no electrical sensitivity tests on my skin tells anyone anything about what it feels like to go through what I'm going through.

The internal sensation, I admit, might be as much an inner representation of my experiences as sight or hearing or any other sense. I don't know where my visual images come from either. Saying "my eyes" or "my visual cortex" doesn't answer the question.

There may be data that comes from the external world, it may enter my body through one place or another and affect nerves in one way or another. And, eventually, parts of my brain represent, to "me" those sensations.

I'm not really sure even what that "me" is, or where that "representation" takes place (if it even takes place within a "where" at all).

Dave

 

[Beat Mango]

^ yeah well now you're talking about consciousness. Which is, indeed, a mystery.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I suppose what doesn't make sense to me is why a spiritual or metaphysical realm is required to explain things like feelings and consciousness. What properties does a spiritual or metaphysical realm have that makes it more suitable to create consciousness or feelings? Why only one spiritual or metaphysical realm - is there a meta-meta-physical realm that allows the one above us to have consciousness? What is it about our own physical realm that makes it so inadequate or so difficult to believe that consciousness or feelings could exist here?

However, If I may, I suggest that neuroscience does not offer much more than observations of emotions in action.

No scan of my brain, no analysis of the chemicals in my body, no understanding of the complexity of the connections between neurofibers is going to present to me information about the subjective, first-person experience I'm having (whether of the pain or of anything else).
.

Again, no scan of my brain, no analysis of the cortisol in my blood, no endocrinological analysis of my body, no electrical sensitivity tests on my skin tells anyone anything about what it feels like to go through what I'm going through.

The pathway between the physical and the spiritual/metaphysical realm must work both ways then, because what people feel can be manipulated using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Deep Brain Stimulation (1) (2), Surgical brain stimulation (1), brain lesions (1) (2) (3), and chemical/neurotransmitter tests (1) (2).

They have even done experiments that gave people spiritual and religious experiences (1) (2)

YouTube- Dr. Persinger's God Helmet

 

[Da Blob]

Bah Humbug! It was not mentioned that these 'religious' experiences were only experienced by the folks who were already religious until the end of the video. What about the atheists put into the helmet? Actually the amygdala is considered to be a more potent source of 'spiritual' experiences than the temporal lobes... ?

However, the problem is this, one can never hope to prove that there even is such a thing as consciousness- objectively or scientifically. It is simply beyond the capabilities of objective analysis - simply because conscious entities, souls, spirits etc are not Objects. To me it search is like trying to find the software in a computer, that is unplugged. Matter of fact... Is there a way to objectively locate software apps on an external hard drive that has not been 'defragged'...? That is without using any software at all in the search?

Concerning metaphysics. I think the most simple analogy concerning the human condition is a one-way mirror. We can see out, but no can can see in. all they can see is their own objective reflections from the mirror of the objective human nervous system...

 

[ckm]

My first inclination was to look up as many definitions of "feelings" I could find and work from there (preferably with a system, which is obviously too much effort, therefore making giving a proper answer too much effort).

Sorry.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I suppose what doesn't make sense to me is why a spiritual or metaphysical realm is required to explain things like feelings and consciousness.

Indeed. I don't know that it's required. I may in fact be happy with an explanation that is monistic rather than dualistic, but, I'm still attached to the idea that the first-person experience and the third-person description of the experience are fundamentally different.

What properties does a spiritual or metaphysical realm have that makes it more suitable to create consciousness or feelings?

Metaphor?

Why only one spiritual or metaphysical realm - is there a meta-meta-physical realm that allows the one above us to have consciousness?

I don't see why there only has to be one.

What is it about our own physical realm that makes it so inadequate or so difficult to believe that consciousness or feelings could exist here?

Dunno. Like I said above, I'm okay with it. I accept a second realm anyway, so, it doesn't have to be sold to me. But, from a logical perspective, I'm happy with one.

The pathway between the physical and the spiritual/metaphysical realm must work both ways then, because what people feel can be manipulated using ...

Sure. I admit, for example, that drugs alter the brain, and that this alters the personality. I admit that enough beer changes the way I feel. That just tells me there are connections between the body and the personality. It doesn't tell me that the personality is an epiphenomenon of the body.

Dave

 

[Agent Intellect]

Bah Humbug! It was not mentioned that these 'religious' experiences were only experienced by the folks who were already religious until the end of the video. What about the atheists put into the helmet? Actually the amygdala is considered to be a more potent source of 'spiritual' experiences than the temporal lobes... ?

I believe it's the (2) link I posted that talks about what happened when Richard Dawkins used the God Helmet. You can watch a video of it here.

The amygdala is primarily for memory storage/learning, control of emotions, and reading the emotions of other people. This and the cingulate gyrus and ventral tegmental area are for processing the sense of pleasure one gets from social contact, which might be considered a 'spiritual' experience, but the Broca's area and ventral temporal cortices (and inferior temporal gyrus) are generally more involved in our perception of the world along with the parahippocampal gyrus which is involved in retreiving memories (which is an important part of any spiritual experience).

However, the problem is this, one can never hope to prove that there even is such a thing as consciousness- objectively or scientifically. It is simply beyond the capabilities of objective analysis - simply because conscious entities, souls, spirits etc are not Objects. To me it search is like trying to find the software in a computer, that is unplugged. Matter of fact... Is there a way to objectively locate software apps on an external hard drive that has not been 'defragged'...? That is without using any software at all in the search?

Consciousness can be tested in indirect ways (which are mentioned in some of the links I've posted in my other replies in this thread).

Concerning metaphysics. I think the most simple analogy concerning the human condition is a one-way mirror. We can see out, but no can can see in. all they can see is their own objective reflections from the mirror of the objective human nervous system...

Couldn't empathy be said to be similar to experiencing things similar to other people?

Sure. I admit, for example, that drugs alter the brain, and that this alters the personality. I admit that enough beer changes the way I feel. That just tells me there are connections between the body and the personality. It doesn't tell me that the personality is an epiphenomenon of the body.

Alterations to different brain regions can cause major changes in peoples personality, the way they process emotions, and the way they think (examples abound in my previous links). Entire parts of someones personality can be removed with parts of the brain. Of course, it's possible there is more to us then the brain, but the evidence doesn't seem to support such a hypothesis.

 

[Da Blob]

Thanks Ai. I was referring to a Doctor in California (Stanford?) that has done a lot of research with severe cases of epilepsy. One client of his had fits involving the amygdala and refused to take medication because he enjoyed the "God" experiences too much... i believe hearing that the "God" experiences were quite common with certain types of epilepsy... BTW- the amygdala pretty much controls the release of dopamine... It has been called the "Pleasure center" of the brain...

There are ways of testing "consciousness' per se - but what kind of consciousness is being tested? There are a number of types of brain waves that have been identified with various states of arousal, alertness, and perceptiveness - but this is really a primitive type of consciousness. There are also ways of inducing altered states of consciousness that rather prove by default that there is a consciousness to alter...?

 

[Agent Intellect]

Thanks Ai. I was referring to a Doctor in California (Stanford?) that has done a lot of research with severe cases of epilepsy. One client of his had fits involving the amygdala and refused to take medication because he enjoyed the "God" experiences too much... i believe hearing that the "God" experiences were quite common with certain types of epilepsy... BTW- the amygdala pretty much controls the release of dopamine... It has been called the "Pleasure center" of the brain...

Well, either way, the amygdala is part of the medial temporal lobes of the brain, so activating the temporal lobe would affect the amygdala. Although I don't know how much the amygdala controls all the regulation of dopamine - with Parkinsons disease (which is caused by dopamine deficiency) they usually target the subthalamic nucleus with deep brain stimulation, and depression is sometimes treated with stimulation of the nucleus accumbens. The dopaminergic system starts at the substantia nigra (although this is an even deeper level of the brain inside the striatum and has little to do with any cognitive ability).

There are ways of testing "consciousness' per se - but what kind of consciousness is being tested? There are a number of types of brain waves that have been identified with various states of arousal, alertness, and perceptiveness - but this is really a primitive type of consciousness. There are also ways of inducing altered states of consciousness that rather prove by default that there is a consciousness to alter...?

I suppose one would have to define what consciousness even is. If consciousness arises from complexity, then one could probably say that the earth itself is conscious, even if it's on a level that we don't perceive (the way a single neuron would be unaware of the consciousness it's a part of). Consciousness might not even need to be restricted by time - not only could our entire galaxy be conscious, and due to the speed of light a single thought takes millions of years, but on a quantum level consciousness could hypothetically be altered by events in time (and in long distances of space). Consciousness is determined by environment, as well; the way other people behave and express emotions changes the way we think, and so does our environment.

If consciousness comes from something spiritual or metaphysical, then not only do they seem just as affected by our actions as we are of theirs (or are we?), but the spiritual/metaphysical realm seems to evolve along with the evolution of the earth.

 

[Da Blob]

Ummm the amygdala is primarily associated with the Reptilian brain/mind- not the temporal lobe per se. That is why Addictions are so difficult to deal with. It involves primitive urges/consciousness, that when responded to, releases dopamine into the system. It is not a rational process, addiction. I think that the Reptilian brain/mind inability to perceive Time is the thing that makes it so vulnerable and a slave to pleasure and pain...

LOL... defining consciousness and its origins is indeed as challenging as defining feelings and their origins - perhaps they are the same thing - which just reduces the vocabulary that can used to describe the Subjective by yet another word...

 

[Vrecknidj]

There may be a part of my brain that corresponds so closely to when I see that we can call it the visual portion of the brain. And, it may be that every time I see, or every time I imagine seeing, that part of my brain gets all active. And, it may be possible to induce visions in my by playing around with that part of my brain. From this, it does not follow, that vision isn't real, or that the object of my vision isn't real.

There may be a part of my brain that corresponds so closely to when I have a religious experience that we can call it the religious experience portion of the brain. And, it may be that every time I have a religious experience, or every time I imagine having a religious experience, that part of my brain gets all active. And, it may be possible to induce religious experiences in my by playing around with that part of my brain. From this, it does not follow, that religious experience isn't real, or that the object of my religious experience (e.g. God) isn't real.

Just because there is a neurological explanation for something doesn't mean that there aren't other truths about the case.

Dave

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Nice point, Vrecknidj.

 

[Da Blob]

Thanks Dave,
I think you have expressed the dilemma of the situation in cogent terms. That is to say that, the human tendency seems to be to dismiss individual POVs in favor of group POVs and discount the individual's POV and experience as being invalid.

It seems odd, that even though we know life is complicated and no single POV can adequately encompass all the dimensions of any single phenomena, we still try to reduce life to a linear thing where there is just a single 'correct' POV. This results in a lot of either/or debates that discount the possibility of Both and Neither POVs as being options.It is politically correct to discount a individuals POV as soon as "Science" provides an additional explanation of the personal observations of the individual...

Why is it so difficult for some to realize that the human brain is so complicated that it will take at least two different orientations to perceive it? The view from the Inside provides Subjective experience and the view from the Outside provides experience of the brain as an Object. Who knows there may even be other POVs of the human brain that because we are humans, we do not have access to - those 'transcendental' POVs.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I'm not discounting a subjective, first person experience - I'm making the argument that this subjective experience is dependent on input from the objective realm. I am saying that it's our subjective existence that requires the objective existence for consciousness to arise.

Most 'spiritual' people seem to think of it this way:

Subjective (spiritual or metaphysical realm that affects us in a top-down manner)
Objective (the material world - physics, chemistry, biology etc)

Where I'm putting it more like this:

Objective (the material world - physics, chemistry, biology etc)
Subjective (ideas, philosophy, imagination, consciousness and other emergent properties or epiphenomenon)

Essentially, I'm putting objective existence as what one might call the "spiritual" realm instead of subjectivity. The objective realm can change the very fabric of one's subjective experience (ie the God helmet) but the subjective realm can only change the objective realm within the perimeters or laws of the objective realm (ie an idea can lead someone to go to war, but it can't change the way a bomb explodes on the chemical level).

 

[Da Blob]

This is a valid observation in a universe limited to only four dimensions. If we were on Venus, we would experience Venusian input and perhaps our minds would be merely the products of the consciousness of the Venusian environment...

However, this observation may lose a portion of it validity if, indeed, there are more than four dimensions to human reality. Of course, objective observations would remain valid, but so would subjective observations that encompassed those observations as a valid subset within the five dimensional subjective universe. One could be on Venus and yet have dreams of Earth...

EDIT: afterthought It seems to me that there is an odd thing occurring within the ranks of Academia. Philosophy has abandoned its obligation to serve the common man, and now serves only the intellectually elite. Everyman has a philosophy, but philosophy now only caters to the needs of the Ubermensch. So both Psychology and Physics have stepped into the void created by the Philosophers' Dereliction of Duty.
It seems to me that it is the Physicists that somehow are addressing some of the basic philosophical issues of the era. This is done those who are finding new ways of describing reality, such as Quantum Mechanics. I think the quandary that physicists seem to be focusing on is the fact that there can not be an Object without an Observation - that any account of reality has to accommodate the dimension of thought/emotions/consciousness as being something 'real'...

 

[aracaris]

There may be a part of my brain that corresponds so closely to when I see that we can call it the visual portion of the brain. And, it may be that every time I see, or every time I imagine seeing, that part of my brain gets all active. And, it may be possible to induce visions in my by playing around with that part of my brain. From this, it does not follow, that vision isn't real, or that the object of my vision isn't real.

There may be a part of my brain that corresponds so closely to when I have a religious experience that we can call it the religious experience portion of the brain. And, it may be that every time I have a religious experience, or every time I imagine having a religious experience, that part of my brain gets all active. And, it may be possible to induce religious experiences in my by playing around with that part of my brain. From this, it does not follow, that religious experience isn't real, or that the object of my religious experience (e.g. God) isn't real.

Just because there is a neurological explanation for something doesn't mean that there aren't other truths about the case.

Dave

Good point. Most people wouldn't for example conclude "hey it ends up whenever I see another human being that there's all this brain activity, so I guess they must only exist in my mind".

 

[Agent Intellect]

This is a valid observation in a universe limited to only four dimensions. If we were on Venus, we would experience Venusian input and perhaps our minds would be merely the products of the consciousness of the Venusian environment...

Now you are starting to sound like a string theorist - why would more than four dimensions be necessary for consciousness to exist?

However, this observation may lose a portion of it validity if, indeed, there are more than four dimensions to human reality. Of course, objective observations would remain valid, but so would subjective observations that encompassed those observations as a valid subset within the five dimensional subjective universe. One could be on Venus and yet have dreams of Earth...

This is based on the assumption that any more then the four dimensions of spacetime that we perceive would necessarily be part of the subjective realm?

I think this rather proves my point, anyway - we cannot imagine more then four dimensions of spacetime (or at least not picture them non-mathematically) since we have never had fifth dimension objective input into our subjective mind. We can dream of Venus, but only stretched and distorted versions of Venus that we have received from our objective input.

One may be able to dream or imagine a planet that exists that they have never had input about from the objective universe, but it would simply be a piecing together of other objective inputs to create the idea of this planet - and then if they found this planet in the objective realm, anything that was incongruous between their imagined version and the reality of the planet would be disregarded, confirmation bias distorting the memory of the imagined or 'subjective' planet so that they remember having always imagined the planet they are now observing in reality.

EDIT: afterthought It seems to me that there is an odd thing occurring within the ranks of Academia. Philosophy has abandoned its obligation to serve the common man, and now serves only the intellectually elite. Everyman has a philosophy, but philosophy now only caters to the needs of the Ubermensch. So both Psychology and Physics have stepped into the void created by the Philosophers' Dereliction of Duty.

It seems to me that it is the Physicists that somehow are addressing some of the basic philosophical issues of the era. This is done those who are finding new ways of describing reality, such as Quantum Mechanics. I think the quandary that physicists seem to be focusing on is the fact that there can not be an Object without an Observation - that any account of reality has to accommodate the dimension of thought/emotions/consciousness as being something 'real'...

Physics and neuroscience are similar to philosophy, except that they are bound to experimental verification and mathematical accuracy. This is why they often trump philosophy, which is able to make postulations about existence that do not require any anchor within reality. I don't think there is that much of a distinction between philosophy and science - they both go hand in hand with one another. Science makes sure that philosophy stays true to itself, and philosophy serves the purpose of applying scientific discoveries to the nature and 'essence' of humanity and asking the all important question "why" to the scientific answers to "how".

One way I like to look at it is that science looks for solutions to problems, and philosophy looks for problems to solutions.

Good point. Most people wouldn't for example conclude "hey it ends up whenever I see another human being that there's all this brain activity, so I guess they must only exist in my mind".

Indeed, schizophrenics are just seeing something we're not.

I'm not sure if this comment was directed to me in particular, but I've never contended that these experiences are all "in our head". What I'm saying is that subjective experience relies on the objective realm and not the other way around. A spiritual experience happens by means of brain activity - one does not have a spiritual existence outside of objective existence, there is no outside of objective existence - it is the framework that subjective existence is molded with.

 

[Da Blob]

Now you are starting to sound like a string theorist - why would more than four dimensions be necessary for consciousness to exist?
I have bought into Kant's Transcendentalism as a mechanism for cognitive development, a development that does 'mirror' the development of the Objective universe. To perceive 4 dimensions one must do so from a POV in the 5th...


This is based on the assumption that any more then the four dimensions of spacetime that we perceive would necessarily be part of the subjective realm?
See Above. However, it may well be that there are 'dimensions' that we will always be 'blind' to, We can never know what it is that we can never know...

I think this rather proves my point, anyway - we cannot imagine more then four dimensions of spacetime (or at least not picture them non-mathematically) since we have never had fifth dimension objective input into our subjective mind. We can dream of Venus, but only stretched and distorted versions of Venus that we have received from our objective input.
I have to disagree with that statement- one can 'fold' dimensions within one another and create images with one's imagination. Also, my generic definition of the 5th dimension is the 'spiritual' dimension of existence- and it may well be that reflects the 'truth' of the matter somewhat...

One may be able to dream or imagine a planet that exists that they have never had input about from the objective universe, but it would simply be a piecing together of other objective inputs to create the idea of this planet - and then if they found this planet in the objective realm, anything that was incongruous between their imagined version and the reality of the planet would be disregarded, confirmation bias distorting the memory of the imagined or 'subjective' planet so that they remember having always imagined the planet they are now observing in reality.
I do not know - I have had "dreams' come true and I have for the most part have been disappointed when a goal is reached. It is usually nothing like I had imagined it would be - fortunately, there have been occasions when the experience surpassed my expectations by degrees of magnitude... I do not think that the subjective bias has ever been a force in this regard...?


Physics and neuroscience are similar to philosophy, except that they are bound to experimental verification and mathematical accuracy. This is why they often trump philosophy, which is able to make postulations about existence that do not require any anchor within reality. I don't think there is that much of a distinction between philosophy and science - they both go hand in hand with one another. Science makes sure that philosophy stays true to itself, and philosophy serves the purpose of applying scientific discoveries to the nature and 'essence' of humanity and asking the all important question "why" to the scientific answers to "how".

One way I like to look at it is that science looks for solutions to problems, and philosophy looks for problems to solutions.
Yeah, but, Philosophy only serves academically oriented philosophers nowadays. I mean what percentage of the populous knows about the intricacies of post postmodernism and can apply lessons learned from it to problems in their real lives...?

 

[aracaris]

I'm not sure if this comment was directed to me in particular, but I've never contended that these experiences are all "in our head". What I'm saying is that subjective experience relies on the objective realm and not the other way around. A spiritual experience happens by means of brain activity - one does not have a spiritual existence outside of objective existence, there is no outside of objective existence - it is the framework that subjective existence is molded with.

The comment wasn't directed at you, it was directed to another poster (the one I quoted). I was only talking about the whole "all in your head issue" because it had all ready been brought it up.

 

[Andrew18651]

Emotions are described as energy in motion. The "feelings" you get come from chemical reactions in your body. Happiness, for instance, comes from shots of dopamine... I think. You get the point. It's all chemicals basically.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

What about joy? Do you distinguish any sort of higher order of happiness?

 

[Andrew18651]

What about joy? Do you distinguish any sort of higher order of happiness?

The speed, amount, and many other factors affect your happiness, sadness levels. Joy from what I understand is like a huge shot of happiness in a short time frame, wheras normal everyday happiness is more flowy. Also, your brain waves and your overal spiritual state ( if you beleive in that) are supposedly interlinked as well. But when it comes down to what you're feeling at the present moment, it's all a chemical reaction, what causes that on the other hand, is somewhat of a mystery. This is true especially to us Intp's since our feeling function is so underdeveloped until later in life.

 

[Andrew18651]

Ugh, my grammer sucks = (

 

[Da Blob]

The basic problem in all this is attribution of causality. Do the chemicals actually cause emotion or is it vice versa? I mean something has to make me angry before I get angry and the chemicals associated with anger appear in my bloodstream. Even if I was injected with the mix of chemicals that "constitute" anger and I got angry, it would not prove anything, the reaction could just be an unconscious association with prior episodes of those chemicals. I guess one could feel anger without being angry... I think the key word, then, is "Being". Just feeling happy as the result of dopamine, is not the same as actually 'being' happy - just ask any addict...

 

[Vrecknidj]

The basic problem in all this is attribution of causality.

A good friend of mine (also an INTP) with degrees in Art, Philosophy, and Occupational Therapy wrote a paper on causality. The thing took her forever. It's amazing how complicated the notion of "cause" actually is.

And, yeah, I'm with you on the more on-topic point you made. I'm not convinced that the chemicals are the emotion or that the chemicals cause the emotion or even that the chemicals are a result of the emotion. I know that I don't know. But, I am willing to accept that there are connections. That somehow, the chemicals in the body and the subjective experience of the emotion are somehow related.

For all I know, though, both of them are caused by some other third thing. And, for all I know, that third thing is enfolded, somehow, and therefore inaccessible through normal observations (whether inner or outer).

Dave

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

What did she think about the idea that causality was unprovable? Causality in the real world, not counting abstract constructs.

(Of course, I'm just leaving myself wide open there for the suggestion that 'reality' is a construct. But no one really wants to discuss that anyway)

 

[Da Blob]

What did she think about the idea that causality was unprovable? Causality in the real world, not counting abstract constructs.

(Of course, I'm just leaving myself wide open there for the suggestion that 'reality' is a construct. But no one really wants to discuss that anyway)

No, they do not... I posted a thread titled "The Construction of Reality in the Child, Re: Piaget" and I received "Zero" comments... Why isn't everyone fascinated by Cognitive Development....???

 

[Vrecknidj]

What did she think about the idea that causality was unprovable? Causality in the real world, not counting abstract constructs.

It's not the unprovability. The issue is making sense of the whole thing.

For example, does pepper make you sneeze? For some people, the answer is "yes, all the time," for others it's "sometimes," for others it's "never," etc. But, the fact remains, quite a few people will sneeze when they've gotten a bit of pepper in the nose. So, does the pepper cause the sneeze? Is it merely a catalyst? If it's a catalyst, what does it mean for pepper to be the catalyst?

We can walk through any cause-and-effect relationship and ask all kinds of questions about how the cause causes the effect.

David Hume seems to say that when we try to understand a cause and an effect, we find that we notice that the cause and the effect are frequently (perhaps always) conjoined, but, what we don't see is the causation. In other words, if we say that "A causes B" we experience A, and we experience B, but we don't experience "that A causes B," we just make the assumption based on the continuity of their always being present together.

In other words, just like some people say "There are no good and bad things in the world, 'good' and 'bad' are judgments that people assign to things, based on their understanding of how the world seems to them to work," Hume might be implying that we ought to say "There is no cause-and-effect in the world, 'cause' and 'effect' are judgments that people assign to combinations of events, based on their understanding of how the world and the events in it seem to them to work."

Dave

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Well, that is sort of what I'm saying. What Hume said, anyway. That an actual causal relationship can't be observed. Difference is, I happen to believe in causality regardless, but w/e.

 

[Andrew18651]

Well, that is sort of what I'm saying. What Hume said, anyway. That an actual causal relationship can't be observed. Difference is, I happen to believe in causality regardless, but w/e.

Hmm, I agree. I'm just saying that the actual "feeling" is produced by chemicals. I'm not saying the chemicals are in affect, the be all end all. It's the feeling itself that is produced by it. As stated before, I'm not sure and very open to whatever the relationship between things can influence it. Scientifically though, all that is sure is the chemical part.

 

[Andrew18651]

The basic problem in all this is attribution of causality. Do the chemicals actually cause emotion or is it vice versa? I mean something has to make me angry before I get angry and the chemicals associated with anger appear in my bloodstream. Even if I was injected with the mix of chemicals that "constitute" anger and I got angry, it would not prove anything, the reaction could just be an unconscious association with prior episodes of those chemicals. I guess one could feel anger without being angry... I think the key word, then, is "Being". Just feeling happy as the result of dopamine, is not the same as actually 'being' happy - just ask any addict...

That's a very good point you made. I'm not completely sure about that. I think that the chemicals cause the emotion but what triggers the chemicals in your body to make you feel a sort of way is probably much deeper and unknown. I'm big into art and philosophy as well. I consider abstraction to be a sort of "deeper" science then say, biochemistry. Abstraction meaning anything having to do with the mental, emotional, spiritual, etc. Some people consider them to be psuedo- sciences, however it's hard for someone to dismiss them since alot of it actually makes sence and can be proved using various methods. It's just a hell of a lot harder then using something completely concrete. It's also something fairly new in the scientific community.

As a former drug user/abuser, I can understand what you mean by as feeling happy by something and actually "being" happy. I think what's underneath acts kind of like a drug. For instance, if you take a drug that increases dopamine, like a synthetic opiate, then that goes to your brain and triggers a reaction that lasts for a set amount of time and makes you feel good for that amount of time. "being" happy I think has to do with the things that are underlying in a person's psyche. A simple example would be a child who was psychologically abused for many years but did not understand what was happening to him. As a teenager he had many unexplained problems and got depression for "no reason". At this time in his life, the abuse stopped and he didnt understand. Nothing bad had happened in his life as far as a direct result of it. The depression and anger problems came from somethign that had been underlying in his psyche without him even knowing it. Also, it may come from burying something in, or not having enough of a need, etc. Things like that tend to not be brought out unless you think really hard or go to a therapist. The term underlying in itself is a pretty general statement. It's a testement to how much we really don't know yet. Hence, we make all of these guesses. So your opinion is as good as mine really.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Well, I didn't say I believed chemicals caused emotions. I just meant I believed in causality in general.

Since we were talking about causality, I switched into epistemology mode. Thus I object - science is sure of nothing.

This is a pedantic objection, not a semantic one.

 

[Andrew18651]

This is a pedantic objection, not a semantic one.

Pedantic... I see what you mean. It's kind of like art and philosophy in that you can only get the general concept . Anything more, like minute details, are totally subjective. I know they apperently "proved" it somehow. It's generally accepted by most scientists for a while now BUT that in itself doesn't mean it's nessesarily right. I read somewhere about the overall decline in people that trust science, and when you add emotions or feelings to science, pff.... I can see why you disagree and understand to an extent. It's just something that makes sence to me.