Is Love and Happiness an illusion? (Scientific Evidence?)

Originally posted by Bluesma


We've seen too many cases of people who had brain damaging injuries that cut them off from emotional centers (like Phineas Gage) to wonder anymore about the value of emotions in decision making, memory, socialization, and physical survival.

Gage was said to be emotive, his problems stemmed from the damage to his prefrontal not the limbic center.Phineas Gage damaged his L pre frontal cortex when a 1/4-inch iron when through his skull, he was just the first (poorly) over documented case of a man surviving a non survivable brain injury, resulting in personality and behavioural changes. The unique case study ( his impossible survival) captivated the Drs.
The prefrontal is thought of as the brain's brakes, its the executive decision maker so to speak, its the Limbic system that is the scientifically accepted emotional center in the brain (not the prefrontal).
I don't think emotions are of a great value in decision making or survival and memory is a distinct different operation and function to emotions.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by arpgme

 

So, what do you think? Doesn't this show that Love and Happiness is an illusion created by these influences?

Love is real in the sense of loyalty, kinship, friendship and roots. Beyond that its chemical.

I'm pretty sure even those are chemical too. Speaking in terms of evolution, the brain rewards you with 'fun' chemicals like oxytocin and dopamine, like a prize for doing something right.

This happens during/after sex, and during/after pregnancy for women. Basically your brain's way of saying "Congratulations, you've just passed on your genetic code, have some of these organic drugs I made for you. Go do it again and I'll give you even more."

In terms of friendship and family, I think the same thing would apply. When you have strong friendships and family bonds your brain rewards you with fun organic drugs because you've just done something right. Groups of people (whether they be friends or family) are more likely to survive if they have a strong bond. An old tribal instinct that goes back as far as we do as a species, I imagine. I think this would also explain why people feel emotions like loneliness when they are alone for extended periods of time. Thousands of years ago, if you decided to be a hermit and live off on your own somewhere your chances of surviving were basically nil. But when you live in a large tribal setting with strong friend & family bonds, you have strength in numbers.

I'll probably receive some flak for bringing reality into the Philosophy and Metaphysics sub-forum, but our brains are basically just meat computers. Human beings (like any other animal) are just organic machinery that evolved to multiply. When things happen that go against that purpose, we feel sad, such as being cheated on, having things stolen from us, a child dying etc. Yes, that's right. As cold as it sounds, when somebody's kid dies they aren't sad for any supernatural or spiritual reasons. Their brain is simply just telling them "Your offspring is gone. Reproducing is the only point of life and now an extension of your DNA has been wiped out. All those resources and time you put into ensuring its survival were a complete and total waste. You have failed your one and only purpose."

I imagine this is why people say that losing a child is the most difficult thing in life, especially if it died before it had a chance to reproduce itself. Because they are hit with the harrowing realization that a portion of their DNA won't be carried on.

reply to post by arpgme


I think you are WAYYYYYYYYYYYY oversimplifying a VERY complex set of interactions

between

1. genetic predispositions, tendencies
2. rearing conditioning
3. biochemistry related to both the above and biochemistry related to
4. environment including (A) food (B) air (C) water (D) electromagnetic/RF waves of all types
5. the same involved with those we interact with in various social contexts for various relationship purposes.

Certainly the feel good chemicals make a lot of behaviors preferred to repeat . . . and easily addictive.

Certainly ATTACHMENT DISORDER mangles the brain physically and how it handles information and processes information in the areas related to emotions and to relationships. It grossly distorts all that and enters a measure of dysfunction into all that depending on how great the ATTACHMENT DISORDER was/is.

IF you could somehow neutralize the feel good chemicals . . . YOU'D HAVE A HUGE NIGHTMARE

You would not have humanity anything remotely like humans as we know them.

Humans with horrific ATTACHMENT DISORDER AND some measure of functioning of the feel good chemicals are STILL VERY DYSFUNCTIONAL and can do horrific deeds.

WITHOUT the positive conditioning the chemicals facilitate, you'd likely have VERY SOCIOPATHIC/PSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS doing whatever they felt like doing at the moment without any idealistic goals and without any sense of guilt for having abused or wronged someone.

No thanks.

If you want that kind of world, go create it on a far distant planet in a far distant galactic cluster. Then expect your co-horts to obliterate you at some point for the sheer whim of it.

reply to post by BDBinc


Look into the work of Damasio, really.
The extent of importance emotions play in decision making is enormous. So many decisions we have to make each day do not have one logical "correct" answer. For example, "should I have the beef or chicken?" there are pros and cons to each side and without the subtle attachments and associations of emotions, no choice can be made.
Patients with damage to their emotional centers end up with their life seriously handicapped, unable to make the simplest choices and leaving them frozen all day.
-And considering the way personal preference and opinion makes up ones individual identity, it is worth considering the effect that would have upon self consciousness...

Social cognition is completely handicapped also, being unable to read, comprehend or imagine the emotions and motivations of others, they can't be effective negotiators. Instinctive social bonds and alliances are established through emotional markers.

Our automatic physical survival system is completely based upon emotion. Our flee or fight responses, our recogniition of danger and threat, all rely upon hormones.

The influence of emotion on memory is huge too. I can't believe this would need to be explained to anyone, and I don't have the patience today, so I'll copy and paste this from Wiki-

Emotion can have a powerful impact on memory. Numerous studies have shown that the most vivid autobiographical memories tend to be of emotional events, which are likely to be recalled more often and with more clarity and detail than neutral events.
The activity of emotionally enhanced memory retention can be linked to human evolution; during early development, responsive behavior to environmental events would have progressed as a process of trial and error. Survival depended on behavioral patterns that were repeated or reinforced through life and death situations. Through evolution, this process of learning became genetically embedded in humans and all animal species in what is known as flight or fight instinct.

Artificially inducing this instinct through traumatic physical or emotional stimuli essentially creates the same physiological condition that heightens memory retention by exciting neuro-chemical activity affecting areas of the brain responsible for encoding and recalling memory. This memory-enhancing effect of emotion has been demonstrated in a large number of laboratory studies, using stimuli ranging from words to pictures to narrated slide shows, as well as autobiographical memory studies.

en.wikipedia.org...

Romantic love is an illusion.

I love my wife - I am not, will never be "in love" with my wife - and never will feel that way about any woman. This is a trap people get into when they think they have to go on " feelings" to sense some type of love for another person. Anyone who thinks they are " in love" is delusional.

Of course I have strong feelings for her and I love her dearly but that love is not based on emotional feelings that come from romanticism. It's more based on really getting to know someone, who they are, how they will treat you in given situations.. it's a more logical more real type of love.

Hard to explain but you notice many young people seem to fall in and out of love easily - thats because they are relying on feelings that stem from a romantic notion of love - not because they really learned to love that person.

Happiness is a state of being for the moment. It can be defined being content and satisfied with what you have or what you are going through presently. I am happy with my wife generally speaking even though either of us may not be happy all the time.. such as when I'm pissed at our stupid government LOL

As for where the chemicals fit in - they play a role to help regulate our experiences but even the poor nourished of us can experience these feelings of love and happiness. If you block these chemicals I do not believe that in itself will keep us from these experiences.

Just my 2 cents.

I would not agree with the opinion that love and partnering should be considered as separate from these emotional reactions.
It may vary from person to person, but the hormonal reactions that drew me to a mate that was appropriate for me to reproduce with (according to our biological differences, picked up through subconscious sensual information like smell) is reliable and consistant- much more so than logic and reason.

I can reasonably say at times that my husband is not right for me, because we do not agree on much, do not have the same world views, or preferences, or even values.... at times it seems ridiculous that we are together! but our physical attraction to each other remains and keeps us close through ups and downs, as we work through synthesizing our differences together. (which in the end has a lot of benefit for us, for the life we build, and for our children- nature has it right).

This attraction may seem "mysterious" in a sense, because it contradicts reason and logic, and can be called romantic love (as those hormonal reactions mark the memories of our contact with the person so that even when they are not there, the thought of them stimulates the feelings) but it is just biological, physiological.
That doesn't mean it isn't real... to me it makes it even more "real"- we know exactly what it is and how it works!

editted to add: I thought after writing that perhaps this is very different for men and women though. Men might have physical reaction to many or all females, so they don't consider that valuable in choosing one partner.
More females feel such a physical response to few males.

reply to post by Bluesma

But why would I Look any further into the work of Damasio? Does he know what is real and what is an illusion.

If one is a slave to ones desires and fears emotions play more of a role,( the more emotive one is the more emotive they become) .
The extent of importance emotions play in decision making is only enormous for those who are a fearful slave to pleasure pain principal, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure by relying on past memories.

You say " So many decisions we have to make each day do not have one logical "correct" answer", OK then if when you are saying this what BIG importance in decision making does emotion play to allow you to make not logical or correct decisions?
None by your own point.
You gave an example saying that if I do not have an emotional memory (of like/dislike) I cannot chose, but I disagree as one can always chose and I can chose fresh without my likes and dislike making a decision for me.
Its bye bye to the ideas of being just a "meat computer" & "procreation of dna machine".

Yes some people both with and without damage to their brains end up with their life being viewed by other people as "seriously handicapped", unable to make the simplest choices. I know someone ( my sister inlaw)who is painfully indecisive and has not had a brain injury she has to ask other people to decide for her. Being prone to indecision is not limited to people who have had a brain injury. And some people just habitual just do the same thing over and over again and they don't decide, its automatic (like a meat machine) .
..

And in social cognition, if one cannot comprehend or imagine the emotions and motivations of others,you say they can't be effective negotiators ( but can be great sociopaths) .Negotiation doesn't need emotions, its the cognition of the others motivation they need .
Psycopaths can comprehend and imagine emotions and motivations of others , they use the mirror neurons in their brains to know what emotions they generate and they don't care ( are they handicapped -I think so but ask some of the world's political leaders).
What difference do you think emotions have made for them in their decision making, as using emotions is how they manipulate and control people by using their desires and fears(also think advertising)
Instinctive social bonds are already in place and so they need not be established through emotional markers.

If as science says our automatic physical survival system is a flee or fight response, our recognition/COGNITION of the danger and threat needs to happen first. And that cognition does not rely upon hormones as one can react just half a second before the hormone tells your body through the brain to move.

No emotion will not save you from a physical threat, fight or flight means just that, you can fight and you can die, you can flee and you can die, so emotional response to threats is secondary to cognition of threat. Stress hormones are a constant flight or fight response? An emotional reaction that helps us make decisions and recall?


Emotions linked to memory can change over time, memories can change upon recall, one may remember something traumatic without the emotional overtones and in time heal from it . You don't need emotions to remember.
Wiki should not be used as a bible.
If a memory is made important through thoughts of fear or desire one thinks about it a lot, of course it is remembered with greater clarity than something considered unimportant and not in need of being recalled.

Originally posted by BDBinc
reply to post by Bluesma

 

But why would I Look any further into the work of Damasio? Does he know what is real and what is an illusion.

His work is highly respected in neuroscience- he is one of the most knowledgeable person in the topic of this thread. His research is very pertinant.

It largely contradicts your hypotheses here, and his studies are well controlled, well documented and peer reviewed.

Yours are based on...what again?

Most of your points here do not even attend to the ones I brought up. You could use some study into the flee or fight responses, and how they stimulate the body to ready for such reactions long before the conscious mind is aware of any necessity for it. Subconscious stimuli (such as the scent of adrenaline coming off of a nearby entity readying for attack- even if they cannot be percieved yet visually). This is largely the base of "intuition" or "gut feelings" which interact directly with the exterior world.

reply to post by Bluesma




In the topic of this thread of neurotransmitters, hormones,the cause of love, happiness, and the reality of love vs illusion dr D is not the worlds most knowledgeable.
So what if his theories and ideas contradicts mine, are written and his colleagues reviewed him,as so was the world being flat at one time and everyone believed these scientists that told them how the world is.
Has he proved love to be an illusion,did he prove love to be just a hormone, did he even study love and happiness he did not.
Your ideas are based in part on his ideas, mine are not, you want emotions to be very important in decision making but I know they are not. I know it is important to quell the chaos of emotions when making decisions and not to be reliant on past memories of likes and dislikes for new moments. Not to be caged between fear and desire.

Maybe you" could use some study into the flee or fight responses, and how they stimulate the body to ready for such reactions long before the conscious mind is aware of any necessity for it.
Subconscious stimuli (such as the scent of adrenaline coming off of a nearby entity readying for attack- even if they cannot be percieved yet visually). This is largely the base of intuition or gut feelings which interact directly with the exterior world." As this made my point that the hormones and chemicals take too much time to get to the body through chemical pathways to be linked to the so called "flight and flight" response. You are in many cases moving/reacting before half second mark, precognition.

I have no idea what you or the Op are refering to when they say "love is an illusion". I cannot argue with that statement, it makes no sense to me. Love and happiness exists, both as a subjective experience and objective reality, we know what it is, how it works, and no one can claim with any seriousness that it doesn't exist. I am not even trying to respond to that part of the OP.

I only responded to the questions brought up in the OP concerning what we might be like, in thought and choice, if we had no emotions, and the hypothesis that we would somehow be "better".


The fact is, proven through studies, is that emotions influence your thinking. They are doing it right now- your post is influenced by emotions. They may be connections that are subtle, not obvious, but they are there. Your conscious mind can deny them, that doesn't change the facts.

I have watched a study that was videoed of a brain surgery patient, that while her brain was exposed, electrodes were inserted into various parts of the brain. While someone talked and interacted with the girl, someone sent charges at random through the electrodes.
At one point, the area of the brain that controls humor and laughter was stimulated, and she burst out with a laugh immediately.

Then they asked why she laughed. For one second she reflected, then claimed she had laughed at a fork that was in front of her. Why? She was asked. "Because forks are ....funny!"

Whenever someone held up a fork in front of her, she would laugh. This continued for MONTHS after the experiment.
She had never laughed at a fork before that day though.

Her conscious mind took stock of the moment that laugh happened, made connections (her eyes had passed over a fork at exactly that moment of the electrode charge) and came to it's own logical conclusion. Except it was wrong. Because there are things going on in our environment that our conscious mind cannot see, hear, feel, or be aware of. The subconscious mind and the emotions deal with those elements for us.

This makes them seem "mysterious" to the conscious mind, because it always has blinkers on... but often these reactions are more in tune with the real world than is the intellect, which is prone to creating it's own world according to it's limited available data, and ignoring the elements that do not fit into it.

At best, it seems to me you are refering to strong emotions (because of your usage of "chaos of emotion", and that I can agree with to an extent... but when were talking subtle emotions, as in miniscule production of neurotransmitters that can barely be felt, or not at all, I not only disagree that we'd be better off without them, but with the assertion that you (or anyone else who is not brain injured) is actually doing such a feat.
I can only agree that they might be in denial about it.

Even when we're talking about alexithemia, emotions exist (as in, those chemicals are being produced, and influencing the body) it is just the mind that doesn't distinguish them.

Originally posted by BDBinc
As this made my point that the hormones and chemicals take too much time to get to the body through chemical pathways to be linked to the so called "flight and flight" response. You are in many cases moving/reacting before half second mark, precognition.

I don't know how you com to that conclusion. My point is that the chemicals are already acting upon your nervous system and muscles before your conscious mind is aware that there is a need for it- so without this system, you could only get ready to run or fight when it was too late..... and even then, you would not have the energy necessary to do it effectively. Your heart, lungs and muscles would not be prepped and giving out the necessary effort!

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by nOraKat

 

Originally posted by nOraKat
If they are gone or low, then you probably feel depressed. I am not sure if anyone can escape "the chemicals", and view life independent from them;

If the chemicals/addictions are gone and they are no longer influencing and "depressions" is the only thing that's there. Doesn't it mean happiness is an illusion created by the influences of these chemicals?

Not sure what you mean by "Happiness is an illusion."

I don't think chemicals can ever be "gone", like you say.

Our existence is "chemical" - or that is, physiological. It is also "mental" and there is interdependence/interaction of "physiological"-"mental".

Every moment there is the presence and effects of chemicals (since we *are* chemicals) - some of which correlate with emotions. You may just feel a cool breeze and it will trigger chemicals, feelings, sensation and emotions. A thought may come to mind, or some desire like hunger or thirst, and it will trigger chemicals, feelings and emotions.

reply to post by Bluesma




The OP's said "If these chemicals are gone or low, and the individual is just experiencing reality without the influence of these chemicals, it will make people to be more careful, more realistic, care less for romance or bonding, and not crave and just live life moment to moment, with appreciation and desire also being gone." It can't be done, so my interpretation on what I think she was just trying to say with this thread is if one eliminates set thought pathway ( and is without desires and fears) will you be in the moment.(She can light up what she means.)
These are the same pathways you gave an example of with the girl finding the fork funny for a while. The girl was not wrong to find the fork funny that is only what you think if you have neurosurgeons poking away at your brain and then one of them shows you a fork -that would be funny to me maybe she thought to herself are they eating her brain or operating/poking on it. The situation makes it funny. Why do you get to judge what is funny and what is not.

My post is influenced by love of truth not emotions, you are projecting . I am happy as I have my focus within.


What is the real world?
Tell me how you can tell its not an illusion created by your mind?
Its your mind that tells you what is real.
The intellect does not create its own separate world.


You talk about "miniscule production of neurotransmitters that can barely be felt, or not all", what does this tell you if emotions are felt with miniscule transmitters, could some brains are more sensitive than others and react differently to small amounts of chemicals or weaker signals. Do you know about kindling?
When you start talking about alexithemia,(people that are unempathic and have "ineffective emotional responding"), how is it that you alone know that in alexithemia that the emotions exist (which ones are they)? Testing for chemicals being produced, and influencing the body in alexithemia has not been done to date. It is just one of the many new psych labels that create funding for the psychopaths at big pharma . Without proof or testing isn't it just a fancy word for more selfish non caring, non loving people? Highly emotional people/empaths can and do hurt other people, strange they of all people would want to, excess emotions do not equal good/better decision making.







Originally posted by BDBinc
As this made my point that the hormones and chemicals take too much time to get to the body through chemical pathways to be linked to the so called "flight and flight" response. You are in many cases moving/reacting before half second mark, precognition.


Precognition has been observed and accepted by science. Testing was done to prove movement half a second before chemicals. The chemical pathways taught are too slow, only a quantum system could work at the speed in which the brain works.
Thats how I came to my conclusion on that point.In this scenario of "flight or fight" hyperpolarization of neurons also happens and has nothing to do with emotions and everything to do with cognition (good old fashioned understanding.) A lot of people walk around in an emotive anxiety and stress neurotransmitter bath, constantly in a so called "flight or fight" mode.

Originally posted by BDBinc
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Why do you get to judge what is funny and what is not.

Wow, you really didn't get what I was saying at all. What that experiment made clear is that we have a part of our mind that likes to claim control at all times. It claims "I meant to do that because..." after the fact, drawing together a conclusion based upon an extremely limited amount of data.

This indicates that even when we think we are acting or thinking on purely logical choices, we cannot be sure of that.

My post is influenced by love of truth not emotions, you are projecting . I am happy as I have my focus within.

I don't particularly like to get "personal" in debates.... I feel no draw to making points about you, I would feel more comfortable staying impersonal and general. But if you are sure you want to turn it this way, then I will follow.

The contradiction in your statements there, and even in your whole position, are obvious, except apparently, to you.
For one, a "love" of truth- love being an emotion, as is "happy"- you are claiming to be experiencing emotions, while also rejecting them.

Two- your position on subjectivity is contrary to that of reason and intellect.
Taking out subjective emotions, bias, preferences, etc indicates that there is an objective world, that can be perceived by the mind, and by all. There is no room for "personal truth" , "personal opinion", or "focusing within", like you have supported. (this is the suggestion in the OP- we'd see and choose "correctly" without the interference of emotions and personal draws/repulsions/intents.)

Science attempts to know this world, and it is in peer review, and confirmation by others, that one can determine whether what they perceive is "correct" or "incorrect".

What is the real world?
Tell me how you can tell its not an illusion created by your mind?
Its your mind that tells you what is real.
The intellect does not create its own separate world.

You point out why the confirmation by others, with experiments that can be recreated by anyone with the same effect, is the best way we have found to filter out subjectivity.... and why scientific professionals (like Damasio) have validity to those who search objectivity.

You talk about "miniscule production of neurotransmitters that can barely be felt, or not all", what does this tell you if emotions are felt with miniscule transmitters, could some brains are more sensitive than others and react differently to small amounts of chemicals or weaker signals. Do you know about kindling?

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Surely, people are more or less aware of emotions on subtle levels, that is irrelevant to whether they are influencing pathways in the brain.

how is it that you alone know that in alexithemia that the emotions exist (which ones are they)? Testing for chemicals being produced, and influencing the body in alexithemia has not been done to date.

The amount of study and research that has gone into alexithemia is HUGE. I started copying off links for you, and it went on and on and I realized you can Google it yourself. It is a description of symptom that is associated with many types of disorders (autism, PTSD, etc.). Yes, testing of the chemicals in the body has been done, and with varying results depending upon the associated disorders and causes. But the results showed that some chemical pathways could be obstructed, others are active- there is not a lack of them.
The alexithermic can describe all the physiological signs of emotion (sweating hands, fast heartrate, etc.) they just can't tell which sentiment it indicates.

Originally posted by BDBinc
It is just one of the many new psych labels that create funding for the psychopaths at big pharma . Without proof or testing isn't it just a fancy word for more selfish non caring, non loving people? Highly emotional people/empaths can and do hurt other people, strange they of all people would want to, excess emotions do not equal good/better decision making.

It is a description of a state of being- it is not "new" and describes much more than psychopaths! It can be used to measure ones emotional awareness- like in general, men are found to be more alexithymic than women, percentage wise.

I have not claimed that highly emotional people don't hurt others or make bad decisions. You must have me confused with some other poster or something. I do not see any relevance.

Precognition has been observed and accepted by science. Testing was done to prove movement half a second before chemicals. The chemical pathways taught are too slow, only a quantum system could work at the speed in which the brain works.

Your statement is unclear- a brain works upon chemical pathways, so saying a brain works quicker than chemical pathways makes no sense.

A lot of people walk around in an emotive anxiety and stress neurotransmitter bath, constantly in a so called "flight or fight" mode.

You seem to be going back to the "extreme emoting" again ...? I have not, and will not, support a position that extreme emoting is somehow "good" or "best" in any way. I have already specified that.
Because there are people who abuse food doesn't mean food is bad, or because there are people that rape, sex is bad, or people who use fire to kill, that fire is bad. We should not eliminate water because it can be a cause of drowning. That is a unreasonable and illogical type of argument to use.


As for precognition, it is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.At least not as it is termed in parapsychology.
Though evidence of subconscious conclusions and associations in the brain has been observed. That is, the activity happens BEFORE the person is consciously aware of it. (hence the "PRE- cognition".. before cognition ,before "good old understanding")

The scientific community so far agrees that these associations are biases, affecting human memory and judgment of probability. So that activity is influenced by previous emotional experiences and memories.
This is exactly what I was refering to as evidence of emotional influence in our thought paths, and why we cannot claim with any certainty, at any time, that we are eliminating emotional influence from our thinking.

reply to post by Bluesma




Yip you have the whole of your mind that likes to claim control at all times.

There is no contradiction in my posts I am sure you would point it out if that were the case.
The "love" of truth-(of the real) , love is not emotion, it’s a state of being- Knowing- loving.
I said I was "happy"- (my mind is happy), never said I was experiencing emotions while also rejecting them, which is what you allege I said.

I did not tell you my position on subjectivity and you have not asked. You cannot be telling me that your mind( which is untrustworthy by your own words, that it tricks you into thinking you have control when you do not) tells you only your world is objective.
Why are you now telling me there is no room for my "personal truth" , my "personal opinion", or my "focusing within”. ?

I asked you questions:
What is the real world?
Tell me how you can tell its not an illusion created by your mind?
Its your mind that tells you what is real.
The intellect does not create its own separate world.

Scientific professionals (like Damasio) had no answer either, those who say search objectivity with a subjective bias mind.




Your topic argument:Big pharmas ALEXITHEMIA” (people who are said to be unempathetic).
If it is irrelevant, you were the one who started talking about alexithemia not me. I said it’s another bogus big pharma diagnosis to sell drugs to another 10% of the disconnected population.
Testing of the neurotransmitters in the brain has not been done to prove any such disorder exists. If these unempathetic people can describe all the physiological signs of anxiety (sweating hands, fast heartrate, etc.) what does this even mean to you (remembering they have not have their brain neurotransmitters tested in a study) that they feel the physical effects of chemicals but not the mental effects( or cannot say the word under anxiety which is the brain area of the language center)?
Alexithemia ( a label) cannot be used to measure any ones awareness.


The chemical pathways taught are too slow, only a quantum system could work at the speed in which the brain works. Cells in the brain have intelligence and can and do communicate with other brain cells.



You supported a position that is heavy on the importance of the role of emotions in decision making. I point out decisions( that do no harm to others) can be made without using emotions and when one is being in the moment. Without likes and dislikes, habits & emotions making decisions for you.


Pre cognition (which you agreed exists) is good old fashioned understanding( understanding before gets polluted by emotions and memories).


You seem repelled by the idea of eliminating emotional influence from your thinking and believe that if you can’t do it other people can’t, but they can and they do . Which goes back to the idea of being in the moment and how you cannot do it when emotively driven by fear and desires, bound up by your memories, living in the past or imagining the future.

Love and happiness is just a concept until seeking ceases.
Seeking is hate and unhappiness.
Finding is love and happiness.
Only when found will the seeking stop.

Originally posted by BDBinc
reply to post by Bluesma

 

love is not emotion, it’s a state of being- Knowing- loving.
I said I was "happy"- (my mind is happy), never said I was experiencing emotions while also rejecting them, which is what you allege I said.

Love and happiness are not emotions? They are a state of being instead??
In most common speech, both those words refer to emotions, and emotions are considered as states of being, as in the OP, and most of the responses.
Surely, if you have a more original and individualized meaning for those words, you know you would have to explain that before using them and expectign me to understand. If I say "dogs taste good" without first explaining that it is what I personally call popsicles, misunderstanding is to be expected....

I did not tell you my position on subjectivity
You cannot be telling me that your mind( which is untrustworthy by your own words, that it tricks you into thinking you have control when you do not) tells you only your world is objective.

In refering to "my world" and "yours", you are acknowledging subjective realities.

To one that rejects the validity of subjective reality, there is ONLY one world, one truth, and it is only in comparing and refering to each other that we can know it.
That means people sharing and testing each others research, and confirming it. What other people have studied, tested and re-confirmed many times is not "my world" then... it is "the world" that we all share.

The ideas and views I have which cannot be confirmed by anyone else, and are based upon my internal states and experiences, are "subjective" and therefore biased according to my personal preferences, associations, attractions and repulsions... in other words, my emotional conditioning and past.



Here are your assertions of subjective value-

But why would I Look any further into the work of Damasio? Does he know what is real and what is an illusion.
So what if his theories and ideas contradicts mine, are written and his colleagues reviewed him,

Your ideas are based in part on his ideas, mine are not,

I am happy as I have my focus within.

Why are you now telling me there is no room for my "personal truth" , my "personal opinion", or my "focusing within”. ?

Note that objective reality means a reality that is "exterior to the mind" - outside, not within, yourself.
^ !

I said it’s another bogus big pharma diagnosis to sell drugs to another 10% of the disconnected population.
Testing of the neurotransmitters in the brain has not been done to prove any such disorder exists.

Alexithymia is NOT a disorder! Geez, if you want to get involved in debate, learn to research before you respond!!!! It is a personality trait! There is no "treatment" for it- no more than there is for traits such as "stubbornness".

And Yes, there ahs been much study on the neurotransmitters in the brain in association with this trait, as I said:

Differential Relationships among Facets of Alexithymia and BDNF- and Dopamine-Related Polymorphisms

The association of interoceptive awareness and alexithymia with neurotransmitter concentrations in insula and anterior cingulate.


dependent_effects_of_oxytocin_Greater_social_benefits_for_high_alexithymia_scorers

There are more.

Cells in the brain have intelligence and can and do communicate with other brain cells.

Neurons communicate using electrical signals and chemical messengers called neurotransmitters that either stimulate or inhibit the activity of a responding neuron.
How Brain Cells Communicate
So, saying cells communicate faster than chemical pathways, is illogical and nonsensical, as I pointed out.

Pre cognition (which you agreed exists) is good old fashioned understanding( understanding before gets polluted by emotions and memories).

Precognition is

n.
Knowledge of something in advance of its occurrence, especially by extrasensory perception; clairvoyance

www.thefreedictionary.com...
" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
www.thefreedictionary.com...


Note the "extrasensory" and "clairovyance" part- that is NOT accepted by the scientific community, as you claimed.

"The existence of precognition, as with other forms of extrasensory perception, is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community."

en.wikipedia.org...


If you are making these claims without any influence at all, of emotions, than you make my case very well- that the intellect without them is not any more reliable at perceiving the objective world, truth, reason or logic!

... and as a personal note, more along my personal subjective opinions, I add that in many things in life searching to eliminate them increases their influence and power... it is in owning them that you gain the power over them.

reply to post by Bluesma


Love is not emotion, it’s a state of being- Knowing- loving.
I said I was "happy"- I never said I was experiencing emotions while also rejecting them, which is what you allege I said.

I did not tell you my" position on subjectivity"..
You cannot be still telling me that your mind( which is untrustworthy by your own words, that it tricks you into thinking you have control and power when you do not) tells you only your world is objective?

'To one that rejects the validity of subjective reality, there is only one world, one truth. 'And it is not in comparing and refering to each others ideas that we can know it (for that would just be one accepting other peoples thoughts beliefs and ideas) only by being it can we know it. You like examples:If you are hungry you need food not another person telling you what food is like.
I do not experience your world as it is unique to you, qualia is not shared.
I experience being and so do you that is our common ground, our reality.


Don't tell me what my assertions of "subjective value" is either I have not placed a value on illusions to be told what my assertions on it are. You did not answer my questions and the bias subjective scientist has not either.

you tell me 'Note that objective reality means a reality that is "exterior to the mind" - outside, not within, yourself.'
Within yourself can be exterior and beyond the mind, if you have not been there yet and do not understand what I meant, why give directions. I mean within.


* Thats what I said about Alexithymia, is not a disorder or a neurotransmitter imbalance, it is made up . There is not test for it and chemicals in the brain of people diagnosed with it are not checked.. They did and do not take samples of neurotransmitters from the brain. A small genetics and a hormone study were done. There is no gene for it and the hormone study was sixty male students to receive either oxytocin (OT) or a placebo (PL), and had them perform the Reading the Mind and there was no conclusive findings.It was irrelavent and I still don't know why you brought it up.

Cells in the brain have intelligence, can and do communicate with other brain cells. Quantum laws and the law of one touch on how everything is connected.
Pre cognition (which you at one point agreed exists) is good old fashioned understanding( understanding before gets polluted by emotions, thoughts and memories).
Precognition has been accepted by some scientists, but is not yet accepted by the scientism mainstream community @ Wikiland.

What do you own ?
Are you still telling me that your subjective mind tells you that are the only one with a mind free from errors of subjective emotions, beliefs and thoughts?

I cannot make heads or tails out of most of anything you say. You are repeating sentences that are illogical, and even when that is pointed out TWICE, you simply repeat them again, without expanding to explain what is missing to make it sensical.

Like "love and happiness are not emotions, they are a state of being"', How emotions differ from "state of being" you haven't explained, yet for most english speaking people, emotions are states of being. I would be happy to follow along your particular and original interpretation, but you'd have to explain it first.


Claiming that without emotions, we would be more realistic
then putting emphasis on the value of focus on our own personal reality,

Claiming that without emotions, we would be more in the present
and that we'd be using precognition more often (seeing future events before they happen)

These are self contradictory claims.


Your example:

If you are hungry you need food not another person telling you what food is like.

Does not apply in what I said. It would work this way-

You hold an object in your hand, you describe the experience, `"It is round, it is red, it is smooth, it smells sweet."
Then you hand it to another person, and they describe what shape, color, texture and smell they pick up.
Then it is passed around to many, and the results are compared.
If 99% of the people have the exact same findings, and only one said it is blue, then the reality of the object is most probably red, round, smooth and sweet- and one person is color blind.

Perhaps that person doesn't care what others experiences are, and that is their right. But it cannot be said that the object being blue is a realistic statement- that is not the reality of the object.

* Thats what I said about Alexithymia, is not a disorder or a neurotransmitter imbalance, it is made up .

No one claimed it is a disorder, it is a personality trait. It is what some people describe experiencing. Are you trying to say those people lie?

I brought it up as an example that showed that even when people do not "feel" any emotions, (they do not think they are emoting) the internal physiological processes of emotion are still occurring.
The hormones and neurotransmitters (the chemicals) are being produced. They are effecting the body, and various organs and internal processes. I showed some examples of the tests.

Your repeated statement that "brain cells do communicate" is really strange. That is a known fact for a very long time. We all learned this in elementary biology class. They communicate with each other through these chemicals called "neurotransmitters".

The definition of Precognition, I put up for you. It does not mean "good old understanding".
It means being able to see the future.

What do you own ?
Are you still telling me that your subjective mind tells you that are the only one with a mind free from errors of subjective emotions, beliefs and thoughts?

This is an new added dimension of nonsense, as far as I can tell. "To own", in the sense I used it, means to acknowledge, to recognize, to accept responsibility."


I did NOT I tell you that I am the only one with a mind free from errors of subjective emotions, beliefs and thoughts.

My whole stance from the beginning has been that NONE of us (me included) are free of the influence of emotion upon our thoughts. I own up to that.

You took the opposite stance, claiming we can, and you are. That you have ellminated those bothersome emotions from your mind and thought processes.

I am happy to admit I have misunderstood you, and have asked for some aid in that, and you simply repeated the same assinine phrases, with no explanation of your special individualized meanings, which might shed some light on what you're trying to say and how it makes sense.

But now, on my third try, I am starting to think that either english is not your first language, or you just accidently got into a topic that is over your head a bit and are trying to "fake it" instead of just dropping out . That happens sometimes, and it is not a big deal. So lets not continue?