What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2014, 02:39 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:33 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 02:30 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Actually you seem to be saying very close to the same thing I do:

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


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.

Are you trying to not say you cant find a legitimate credible source that contradicts me? Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:39 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 02:36 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  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


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.

Hmmm... heres one of those quotes, you tell me what it means Smile

Quote:Evolutionary psychology has proposed several explanations for love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 02:52 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:30 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  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.

'Love' is a particular state that continues for a period of time. In the same way that neuromodulators persist for a period of time.

You would have a valid argument if an animal felt love, this produced the neurochemicals and then stopped feeling in love but the neurochemicals remained. But the neurochemicals and the feelings of love happen at the same time.

Nor do you instantly fall into love. The feeling of being in love increases in strength over time, as do the concentration of relevant neurochemicals in your brain.

You seem to be suggesting that love is a trigger without any neurochemical basis. I assume that you are planning on eventually suggesting that love originates outside of the brain. If so then please provide references for either of these two hypotheses if that's what you believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:36 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  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

Problem is that your sources don't say what you are claiming they say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:44 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 02:39 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.

Hmmm... heres one of those quotes, you tell me what it means Smile

Quote:Evolutionary psychology has proposed several explanations for love.

There has been many ideas proposed about the causes for love?

I've not seen how this relates to anything? Have you or anyone claimed there's one defined answer for love?

As far as what you've proposed... That comment of that source doesn't define the idea that love comes from some property outside the brain or that feelings affect the body prior to chemical reactions effect the body, Or that the idea of chemical reactions influencing is a 10% world view that's an atheistic world view. This is the basics you learn in Junior High Biology and health(the sexual elements of it) courses. Those are the three main ideas I've seen your seem to indicate in this thread. Nothing of those three links of yours I've seen propose those ideas.

"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, 02:56 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:39 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Are you trying to not say you cant find a legitimate credible source that contradicts me? Wink


Your own sources contradict you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 03:02 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2014 03:06 PM by Wolfbitn.)
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 02:56 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 02:39 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Are you trying to not say you cant find a legitimate credible source that contradicts me? Wink


Your own sources contradict you.

http://www.mcmanweb.com/love_lust.html

Quote:This is the part of the brain where dopamine cells project into other areas of the brain, including the posterior dorsal caudate and its tail, both which are central to the brain’s system for reward and motivation. The sweetheart photos, but not the acquaintance photos, were the cause. In addition, several parts of the prefrontal cortex that are highly wired in the dopamine pathways were mobilized, while the amygdala, associated with fear, was temporarily mothballed

My sources didn't contradict me at all... they said and/or strongly implied that the process isn't "known" but this..^^^
Bam... The photos were the CAUSE of the chemical reaction... THIS is what most Theists believe, and THIS is what science shows us simply by observing test results. This in fact seems to falsify the theory that it's the chemical reaction causing the "feeling". In the case above, the photos cause the feeling and then we see the chemical reaction.

^^^ That's 4 now that are NOT in your favor, with 2 supporting me directly, and 2 saying the process isn't completely known.. So does anyone have an actual study to refer to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 03:02 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  My sources didn't contradict me at all... they said and/or strongly implied that the process isn't "known" but this..^^^
Bam... The photos were the CAUSE of the chemical reaction... THIS is what most Theists believe, and THIS is what science shows us simply by observing test results. This in fact seems to falsify the theory that it's the chemical reaction causing the "feeling". In the case above, the photos cause the feeling and then we see the chemical reaction.

You do not understand the study.

The "feeling" is the chemical reaction. And of course it occurs in response to stimuli and conditions.

There is no ghost in the machine.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
31-10-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
Oy Wolf-bitey-random-kid. I thought you were here for intelligent discussion? What's with all this bullshit of "Isn't this what you meant to say" and "Nyah nyah here's another study which I don't understand so I'm right"?

Facepalm God finally sent us another theist Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: What are "feelings" and "emotion"?
(31-10-2014 03:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 03:02 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  My sources didn't contradict me at all... they said and/or strongly implied that the process isn't "known" but this..^^^
Bam... The photos were the CAUSE of the chemical reaction... THIS is what most Theists believe, and THIS is what science shows us simply by observing test results. This in fact seems to falsify the theory that it's the chemical reaction causing the "feeling". In the case above, the photos cause the feeling and then we see the chemical reaction.

You do not understand the study.

The "feeling" is the chemical reaction. And of course it occurs in response to stimuli and conditions.

There is no ghost in the machine.

I "don't understand the study"? That's rather condescending don't you think? Especially in light of the fact you come with zero studies to back you Wink

I DO understand the study perfectly well Smile

Refer to the last one... They were monitored, they were given pictures of their lovers, the feeling resulted, and then they began to produce a chemical reaction. I even bolded the very words that the pictures were the CAUSE. Do you suppose they sat there looking at the picture for minutes waiting for the chemical reaction to cause their feeling? Of course not. They looked at the picture, it produced a feeling, which in turn produced the reaction. Smile

People live in stress and this sometimes produces ulcers, it isn't the ulcer causing the stress.

The only thing you need to make your point is to produce said article making the clear claim that the feeling doesn't cause the chemical reaction... Although I would agree the chemical reactions can enhance feelings... adrenalin and serotonin for instance. Youre going to be hard pressed though to find anything to debunk all 4 articles. Our opinions certainly don't do it Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: