What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 01:17 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 01:08 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  If you don't mind an honest observation, several of the folk here are speaking as if they know for certain. I submit that this is just a bit overblown. Smile

The subject of my PhD was the functional role of emotions and how they could be emulated for creating biologically plausible Artificial Intelligence. I then worked one year as a research fellow on this subject and have published peer-reviewed papers on this subject.

This meant that I had to be aware of the scientific literature regarding the neurophysical bases of emotions.

I don't doubt you a bit. But I will say, Iv shown 2 sources, one an abstract for a controlled study, both saying that the jury is still out. Iv got several more all saying the same thing. Do you disagree with them? If so could you explain why they are wrong?
Thank you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 01:22 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  But I will say, Iv shown 2 sources, one an abstract for a controlled study, both saying that the jury is still out. Iv got several more all saying the same thing. Do you disagree with them? If so could you explain why they are wrong?
Thank you

You haven't explained why you think the paper you posted supports your idea. There is nothing in the abstract that suggests that love is anything other than an emergent phenomenon arising from the functioning of the brain.


(31-10-2014 01:08 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  http://www.biopsychiatry.com/lovesero.htm

^^^ There you will find an abstract written by several doctors conducting a study dealing with love and obsession in relation to ocd patients. What Id like to point out is the very opening paragraph of this abstract:

The abstract:


Quote:BACKGROUND: The evolutionary consequences of love are so important that there must be some long-established biological process regulating it. Recent findings suggest that the serotonin (5-HT) transporter might be linked to both neuroticism and sexual behaviour as well as to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The similarities between an overvalued idea, such as that typical of subjects in the early phase of a love relationship, and obsession, prompted us to explore the possibility that the two conditions might share alterations at the level of the 5-HT transporter. METHODS: Twenty subjects who had recently (within the previous 6 months) fallen in love, 20 unmedicated OCD patients and 20 normal controls, were included in the study. The 5-HT transporter was evaluated with the specific binding of 3H-paroxetine (3H-Par) to platelet membranes. RESULTS: The results showed that the density of 3H-Par binding sites was significantly lower in subjects who had recently fallen in love and in OCD patients than in controls. DISCUSSION: The main finding of the present study is that subjects who were in the early romantic phase of a love relationship were not different from OCD patients in terms of the density of the platelet 5-HT transporter, which proved to be significantly lower than in the normal controls. This would suggest common neurochemical changes involving the 5-HT system, linked to psychological dimensions shared by the two conditions, perhaps at an ideational level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
31-10-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 01:29 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 01:22 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  But I will say, Iv shown 2 sources, one an abstract for a controlled study, both saying that the jury is still out. Iv got several more all saying the same thing. Do you disagree with them? If so could you explain why they are wrong?
Thank you

You haven't explained why you think the paper you posted supports your idea. There is nothing in the abstract that suggests that love is anything other than an emergent phenomenon arising from the functioning of the brain.


(31-10-2014 01:08 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  http://www.biopsychiatry.com/lovesero.htm

^^^ There you will find an abstract written by several doctors conducting a study dealing with love and obsession in relation to ocd patients. What Id like to point out is the very opening paragraph of this abstract:

The abstract:


Quote:BACKGROUND: The evolutionary consequences of love are so important that there must be some long-established biological process regulating it.

Note it says "there must be some long establishes biological process regulating it", not they "know what it is", or even "there is a long established blah blah", but "There must be".

Also I have this, which seems to back MY view and not yours...

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

Quote: Sure enough, when a female prairie vole mates, there is a 50% increase in the level of dopamine in the reward centre of her brain.

^^^According to this the desire to mate was NOT a result of the dopamine increase, but rather it was the act of mating that CAUSED a 50 percent increase in her dopamine levels.

Also the wiki I referred to approaches the subject from the standpoint of a verdict not yet reached.

Do you disagree with them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 02:05 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2014 02:26 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
Wolfbtn, I have only quickly looked over them but those papers seem entirely consistent with what I am saying. You seem to have misunderstood them.

Maybe I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying. But from what I can tell you are saying that the emotion is the cause of the neurochemicals. The problem is that you are understanding it as single events, A -> B.

Instead it's a cycle:

A -> B -> more A -> more B

e.g.

"when a female prairie vole mates, there is a 50% increase in the level of dopamine in the reward centre of her brain."

So when the voles start to mate, there is some tactile touch. This produces dopamine which leads to excitation of the pleasure centres of the brain which leads to continuation of the behaviour which leads to mounting and consequently more dopamine which means the voles continue which leads to penetration etc.

The brain is a self organising system. By that I mean nothing is directly controlling which parts of the brains are more active than others. There is no one sticking electrodes into your individual neurons and firing them. Your brain is responding to sensory input and causing you to perform actions.

If you wish I could explain all this in terms of self organisation and how such systems settle into stable states. Neurochemicals will drive the brain out of a stable state or make it continue performing the same actions or behaviour to minimise other signals such as hunger etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
31-10-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 01:38 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 01:29 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  You haven't explained why you think the paper you posted supports your idea. There is nothing in the abstract that suggests that love is anything other than an emergent phenomenon arising from the functioning of the brain.



The abstract:

Note it says "there must be some long establishes biological process regulating it", not they "know what it is", or even "there is a long established blah blah", but "There must be".

Also I have this, which seems to back MY view and not yours...

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

Quote: Sure enough, when a female prairie vole mates, there is a 50% increase in the level of dopamine in the reward centre of her brain.

^^^According to this the desire to mate was NOT a result of the dopamine increase, but rather it was the act of mating that CAUSED a 50 percent increase in her dopamine levels.

Also the wiki I referred to approaches the subject from the standpoint of a verdict not yet reached.

Do you disagree with them?

Not sure how you think that supports your idea. You must be trolling right?

Do you not understand how your own body works in relation to these studies right? Dopamine may be boosted after/during but is it not obvious to you that this is going to happen and you strive for it... what makes people strive for it.. oh you know the most obvious other sexual hormones such as testosterone and various others that boost the desire for sexual release.. which in turn boosts reward and pleasure feelings when acted upon. I'm not sure what you think isn't occurring here.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
31-10-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 01:38 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  ^^^According to this the desire to mate was NOT a result of the dopamine increase, but rather it was the act of mating that CAUSED a 50 percent increase in her dopamine levels.


Reading it now.

Quote:That animals continue to do these things is because they make them feel good. And they feel good because of the release of a chemical called dopamine into the brain. Sure enough, when a female prairie vole mates, there is a 50% increase in the level of dopamine in the reward centre of her brain.

Dopamine is used for reward. I can dig out the paper if you want but generally the stronger the hunger the stronger the reward.

You should bear in mind that the brain is a complex system made up of many different neuromodulators interacting on the same parts of the brain. So you could have one neurochemical signalling an emotional drive and another counter-acting it to produce a continuation of a behaviour that satisfies that drive.

It wouldn't make sense to have one neuromodulator signalling both the need and the satisfaction of that need (unless it produced and used in entirely different parts of the brain that is).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:05 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Wolfbtn, I have only quickly looked over them but those papers seem entirely consistent with what I am saying. You seem to have misunderstood them.

Maybe I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying. But from what I can tell you are saying that the emotion is the cause of the neurochemicals. The problem is that you are understanding it as single events, A -> B.

Instead it's a cycle:

A -> B -> more A -> more B

e.g.

"when a female prairie vole mates, there is a 50% increase in the level of dopamine in the reward centre of her brain."

So when the voles start to mate, there is some tactile touch. This produces dopamine which leads to excitation of the pleasure centres of the brain which leads to continuation of the behaviour which leads to mounting and consequently more dopamine which means the voles continue which leads to penetration etc.

The brain is a self organising system. By that I mean nothing is directly controlling which parts of the brains are more active than others. There is no one sticking electrodes into your individual neurons and firing them. Your brain is responding to sensory input and causing you to perform actions.

If you wish I could explain all this in terms of self organisation and how the such systems settle into stable states. Neurochemicals will drive the brain out of a stable state or make it continue performing the same actions or behaviour to minimise other signals such as hunger etc.

Actually you seem to be saying very close to the same thing I do:
Quote:Instead it's a cycle:

A -> B -> more A -> more B

My point is that it IS "A" first, if "A" is the stimulation and the "feeling". I can refer to several articles on love for instance, saying that there are several theories regarding love. No one in the 3 articles mentioned, speaks as though they KNOW where love comes from... they simply theorize and theories vary.

Note the language used here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

Quote:Evolutionary psychology has proposed several explanations for love.

...Studies in neuroscience have involved chemicals that are present in the brain and might be involved when people experience love. These chemicals include: nerve growth factor,[8] testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin.[9] Adequate brain levels of testosterone seem important for both human male and female sexual behavior.[10] Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship.[11] Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

First note all the "seem" and "Seemed" and etc being used here. Also note something even more importantly, this all also implies then, that the presence of these chemicals might in fact be DUE to love and not the CAUSE of love. They are present "because of" these situations.

My point in all this is NOT that I'm right... but rather that no one has reason to say they "know" speaking strictly scientifically. Otherwise one could produce the study that specifically maps the entire process of love, and THIS we just don't have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:30 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 02:05 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Wolfbtn, I have only quickly looked over them but those papers seem entirely consistent with what I am saying. You seem to have misunderstood them.

Maybe I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying. But from what I can tell you are saying that the emotion is the cause of the neurochemicals. The problem is that you are understanding it as single events, A -> B.

Instead it's a cycle:

A -> B -> more A -> more B

e.g.

"when a female prairie vole mates, there is a 50% increase in the level of dopamine in the reward centre of her brain."

So when the voles start to mate, there is some tactile touch. This produces dopamine which leads to excitation of the pleasure centres of the brain which leads to continuation of the behaviour which leads to mounting and consequently more dopamine which means the voles continue which leads to penetration etc.

The brain is a self organising system. By that I mean nothing is directly controlling which parts of the brains are more active than others. There is no one sticking electrodes into your individual neurons and firing them. Your brain is responding to sensory input and causing you to perform actions.

If you wish I could explain all this in terms of self organisation and how the such systems settle into stable states. Neurochemicals will drive the brain out of a stable state or make it continue performing the same actions or behaviour to minimise other signals such as hunger etc.

Actually you seem to be saying very close to the same thing I do:
Quote:Instead it's a cycle:

A -> B -> more A -> more B

My point is that it IS "A" first, if "A" is the stimulation and the "feeling". I can refer to several articles on love for instance, saying that there are several theories regarding love. No one in the 3 articles mentioned, speaks as though they KNOW where love comes from... they simply theorize and theories vary.

Note the language used here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

Quote:Evolutionary psychology has proposed several explanations for love.

...Studies in neuroscience have involved chemicals that are present in the brain and might be involved when people experience love. These chemicals include: nerve growth factor,[8] testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin.[9] Adequate brain levels of testosterone seem important for both human male and female sexual behavior.[10] Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship.[11] Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

First note all the "seem" and "Seemed" and etc being used here. Also note something even more importantly, this all also implies then, that the presence of these chemicals might in fact be DUE to love and not the CAUSE of love. They are present "because of" these situations.

My point in all this is NOT that I'm right... but rather that no one has reason to say they "know" speaking strictly scientifically. Otherwise one could produce the study that specifically maps the entire process of love, and THIS we just don't have.

Are you trying to say you're simply making an idiotic you don't have absolute proof so don't say you "Know?"

That argument isn't really worthwhile in the field of science which works on the basis of always searching for deeper/better understandings. It's why the language of science at times will avoid any definitive statements, it's simply regulatory to understand this is the same as a commonplace usage of knowing though.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ClydeLee's post
31-10-2014, 02:36 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:20 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 01:38 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Note it says "there must be some long establishes biological process regulating it", not they "know what it is", or even "there is a long established blah blah", but "There must be".

Also I have this, which seems to back MY view and not yours...

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html


^^^According to this the desire to mate was NOT a result of the dopamine increase, but rather it was the act of mating that CAUSED a 50 percent increase in her dopamine levels.

Also the wiki I referred to approaches the subject from the standpoint of a verdict not yet reached.

Do you disagree with them?

Not sure how you think that supports your idea. You must be trolling right?

So someone brings up actual scientific studies in a scientific discussion, and you say they're trolling because they might be disagreeing with you? You are kidding right? No need for paranoia. Tongue

Quote:Do you not understand how your own body works in relation to these studies right? Dopamine may be boosted after/during but is it not obvious to you that this is going to happen and you strive for it... what makes people strive for it.. oh you know the most obvious other sexual hormones such as testosterone and various others that boost the desire for sexual release.. which in turn boosts reward and pleasure feelings when acted upon. I'm not sure what you think isn't occurring here.

I DO understand that Iv produced several articles now showing you have to reason to say you "know" this chemical process. I also know you've provided none to counter them. Since this is a discussion regarding the actual science, maybe you can find an actual controlled study to back you to counter my 3 or 4 sources thus far? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2014 02:43 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:36 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 02:20 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not sure how you think that supports your idea. You must be trolling right?

So someone brings up actual scientific studies in a scientific discussion, and you say they're trolling because they might be disagreeing with you? You are kidding right? No need for paranoia. Tongue

Quote:Do you not understand how your own body works in relation to these studies right? Dopamine may be boosted after/during but is it not obvious to you that this is going to happen and you strive for it... what makes people strive for it.. oh you know the most obvious other sexual hormones such as testosterone and various others that boost the desire for sexual release.. which in turn boosts reward and pleasure feelings when acted upon. I'm not sure what you think isn't occurring here.

I DO understand that Iv produced several articles now showing you have to reason to say you "know" this chemical process. I also know you've provided none to counter them. Since this is a discussion regarding the actual science, maybe you can find an actual controlled study to back you to counter my 3 or 4 sources thus far? Smile

It's because looking at your sources.. it doesn't lead to what you're proclaiming. So I'm not sure you could honestly be coming to those conclusions in a honest manner. I don't see how any of what you're quoting or what I've read out of those sources indicate what you seem to be saying.

Btw... to the post you made after this, not responding to someone's comments but merely accusing them of distractions as an entire post is Trolling behavior. Drinking Beverage

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: