Thread: Emotional and physical pain are the same.

Another interesting article in New Scientist. Paper edition : 1 December page 37.

Researchers have discovered amazing similarities between physical and emotional pain in terms of brain chemistry and body response. When your heart is broken, or you feel lonely or rejected, the feeling of pain is all too real. MRI scans of the brain show that the same region is activated as when physical pain is inflicted with heat, electric shock, or leaving your hand in ice water. Not only that, but emotional pain is reduced by the same chemicals that reduce physical pain. eg. paracetamol or morphine etc.

People who are very sensitive to emotional pain, such as loneliness, or serious grieving when a love affair ends, are also the people who have a low threshold to physical pain, as is shown by empirical tests. this is probably a genetic difference.

Emotional pain also seems to stimulate a flare up of the immune system. Emotional stress stimulates the inflammatory response. Sadly, this shortens the human life. Those who suffer badly from limited social contacts, live shorter lives.

Looks like the phrase 'broken hearted' may not be too far from the truth. How does this tie in with your personal experience?

Looks like the phrase 'broken hearted' may not be too far from the truth. How does this tie in with your personal experience?

Like everyone else, I've heard the stories of women and men who simply drop dead the same day or week as their partner dies. The husband of a schoolfriend of mine lost all his hair, not just his scalp - eyelashes, beard, the lot, when their early 20s son died with no warning (can't remember whether it was a heart defect or an aneurysm, something like that anyway). It didn't grow back. I'd heard of something similar before. I presume it's some kind of extreme hormone reaction flooding the system and wrecking normal processes irreparably.

And a couple of friends of mine came down with life-threatening illnesses after their wife/husband died. It was even more life-threatening because they were grief-stricken and they attributed their feelings and their fatigue to the grief-depression, not eating properly, anything but 'I might die from an illness myself' so they didn't take enough notice. It was little more than chance that they were diagnosed in time, just in time, to avoid one diabetic, the other thyroid, coma. Had they not been caught in time, they might have added to the died-of-a-broken-heart-within-months statistics.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Another interesting article in New Scientist. Paper edition : 1 December page 37.
Researchers have discovered amazing similarities between physical and emotional pain in terms of brain chemistry and body response. When your heart is broken, or you feel lonely or rejected, the feeling of pain is all too real. MRI scans of the brain show that the same region is activated as when physical pain is inflicted with heat, electric shock, or leaving your hand in ice water. Not only that, but emotional pain is reduced by the same chemicals that reduce physical pain. eg. paracetamol or morphine etc.

I guess that means that negative feelings are all processed in the same way. Thanks.

This is nice...but it makes the whole mind and body stuff point to monism(materialsm)...i am a dualist

meru

This is a science forum. Science requires empirical evidence. You got any for your dualism?

There have always been prove mostly based on argument when it comes to this topic.. Such asersonal identity,argument of zombie,argument base on reason...A famous question: what does it feel like to be a bat?

Even if you know from a third person of science how a bat sonar system works,you still would not know what it feels like to be a bat.

A thought experiment was done like this about identity.: if my brain was copied into another brain,so that i have two brains with thesame information,i will not know which of the brains that will continue with my information(my real brain) if the programm was stoped...even if i know everything physically about the two brains. Its only when the programm is stoped that i can know the real brain. If my mind is from my brain,i would be able to identify my brain.

Base on reason: lewis once noted_if my mind is wholly dependent on my brain and my brain on biochemistry,and biochemistry on the long run of atoms.i have no reason to say that my belifes are true,or that my brain consist of atoms........he also noted differently that: if my mind is dependent on my brain and my brain on atoms,then i have no reason to suggest that my thoughts are more significant than the wind in a tree..

The laws of physics may appear universal. But they do not refer to matters of the mind such as love.

meru

None of that strain of your personal brand of logic actually constitutes empirical evidence.

On love. Yes, chemistry tells us a lot about love. The hormone 'oxytocin' increases in the body substantially when one person loves another, whether that love is erotic love, parental love, or any other kind. Pure chemistry.

Originally Posted by merumario

Base on reason: lewis once noted_if my mind is wholly dependent on my brain and my brain on biochemistry,and biochemistry on the long run of atoms.i have no reason to say that my belifes are true,or that my brain consist of atoms........he also noted differently that: if my mind is dependent on my brain and my brain on atoms,then i have no reason to suggest that my thoughts are more significant than the wind in a tree..

I haven't taken the 30 seconds to follow that lewis theory well, so correct me if I'm wrong. The brain learns using an algorithm that finds patterns, by seeing what follows after something generally (prediction). It can also know more about what its sensory inputs mean (e.g. rather than x, y, and z neurons are on, it knows when it's seeing a bat), but that's a bit complex to explain. What the brain knows depends on its structure/learning algorithm, and those alone produce intelligence.
Abstraction shouldn't be ignored. The abstract version of our brains (mind) is the result of extremely complex wiring of the brain. (100 trillion synapsis, or connections.)
Intelligence is stereotypes, because of our learning algorithm. However, those stereotypes are based on what we see of the universe, so they are somewhat reliable.

Your thoughts and feelings,pains are of the mind...the mind is the sit of wisdom.the mind causes the brain to act,the brain sends this through neurons,our muscles are ignited. THE BRAIN CANNOT ACT.IT ONLY REACT.

The big question for anyone defending materialsm is,how do you explain consciousness....there have been no observable proof that consciousness is material and not immaterial.

Oxytocin is forced to increase by the mind...as the tear gland works,either by emotions or pains...the brain causes no first event. The mind causes all first event.

the mind causes the brain to act,the brain sends this through neurons,our muscles are ignited. THE BRAIN CANNOT ACT.IT ONLY REACT.

So what is the role of an excess or a deficit of thyroid stimulating hormone, adrenaline, oxytocin, testosterone, estrogen in the brain? Can "the mind" counteract or overrule the brain effects of hormone imbalances?

You put your hand in fire,it gets burn.you feel the pain in your mind and not the hand...the mind again is the sit of wisdom.

Originally Posted by merumario

Oxytocin is forced to increase by the mind...as the tear gland works,either by emotions or pains...the brain causes no first event. The mind causes all first event.

The first event is normally considered to be an outside stimulus, or many stimuli. If you fall in love, and your oxytocin levels rise, it is in response to meeting a person who has those qualities that stimulates the oxytocin release mechanisms.

On consciousness,
This is something that is not well understood. But to say there is a gap in our knowledge is evidence for a non material object is very poor 'logic'. Nor is your 'logic' anything resembling empirical evidence.

The learning algorithm the brain uses means we do understand things/think without any input to it.
It's true that there is no evidence supporting or against an external mind, but wiring of the brain allows for a being which works exactly like a human (see my signature to find proof.) The only thing I don't understand is how I percieve things, but that could be the result of the brain only.
Here's a question: If there is a seperate mind, how does it work? Remember, there is no such thing as magic. (Universes with different laws of physics, perhaps?)

Originally Posted by adelady

the mind causes the brain to act,the brain sends this through neurons,our muscles are ignited. THE BRAIN CANNOT ACT.IT ONLY REACT.

So what is the role of an excess or a deficit of thyroid stimulating hormone, adrenaline, oxytocin, testosterone, estrogen in the brain? Can "the mind" counteract or overrule the brain effects of hormone imbalances?

since the mind(joy,pains) affects age as stated above,so also it can affect systems...but remember that the effect is physical and must obey the laws of physics...the effect of a linear cause cannot recause that same effect..another cause must be introduced.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by adelady

the mind causes the brain to act,the brain sends this through neurons,our muscles are ignited. THE BRAIN CANNOT ACT.IT ONLY REACT.

So what is the role of an excess or a deficit of thyroid stimulating hormone, adrenaline, oxytocin, testosterone, estrogen in the brain? Can "the mind" counteract or overrule the brain effects of hormone imbalances?

since the mind(joy,pains) affects age as stated above,so also it can affect systems...but remember that the effect is physical and must obey the laws of physics...the effect of a linear cause cannot recause that same effect..another cause must be introduced.

I'm not sure if you mean the mind is a circuit of the brain or something. I think that's an unlikely possibility, but one worth exploring for humans. (Rather, I think the mind is a result of most parts of the brain/especially the neocortex, which does most reasoning.)
The new cause which causes neurons to change states is other neurons. Think of the brain like a giant processing loop, where data is reused/reprocessed. It's more complex than that, but that's essentially how it works.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by merumario

Oxytocin is forced to increase by the mind...as the tear gland works,either by emotions or pains...the brain causes no first event. The mind causes all first event.

The first event is normally considered to be an outside stimulus, or many stimuli. If you fall in love, and your oxytocin levels rise, it is in response to meeting a person who has those qualities that stimulates the oxytocin release mechanisms.On consciousness, This is something that is not well understood. But to say there is a gap in our knowledge is evidence for a non material object is very poor 'logic'. Nor is your 'logic' anything resembling empirical evidence.

since this is a claim of philosophy of mind and science holding its laws,you do not expect too much evidence but arguments..it has been like this since the time of plato,aristotle and descartes was the one who stated the problem clear...do not hope for more evidence...more of thought experiment.

The external stimuli is not percieved without the mind...all the brain does is for it to pass the information of what its seeing and when it correlate with your ever wishes,desire,nature etc. The oxytocin is increased...PLZ GET IT

Originally Posted by merumario

The external stimuli is not percieved without the mind...all the brain does is for it to pass the information of what its seeing and when it correlate with your ever wishes,desire,nature etc. The oxytocin is increased...PLZ GET IT

I don't get it. Sorry.
I'm looking at the brain from a logics standpoint. You probably don't understand what I mean because you haven't read about numenta/Jeff Hawkins yet. If you do, you'll understand how external stimuli is changed into abstract thought.
For the 1st time ever, we understand how thought works on a cellular level. Although not completely, but we have the general jist.
What don't I seem to understand? I feel like I thought of something I didn't understand and then forgot...

do not hope for more evidence

What? Evidence is what we're here for. You want to argue Descartes? Try a philosophy tutorial.

Here we're looking at physical-emotional-mental linkage effects, check back to the OP if you miss my meaning. There's a lot of good work going on with the effects of various things on the brain. Just look at how deranged someone can become when dehydrated - a simple lack of water can make a person distressed, or even wildly incoherent.

It's also common practice in emergency admissions to mental hospitals after suicide attempts to test the patient's thyroid status. For far too many people, a simple case of undiagnosed hypothyroidism can lead to lethal depression - there's no controlling "mind" driving the brain to take suicidal action. It's an imbalance of an ordinary hormone.

merumario, is your point that the mind=intelligence? If it is, look up Jeff Hawkins. Yay! Jeff Hawkins!

The best evidences are: 1.science cannot show that consciousness is physical...2.demon possesion...3.personal identity.(if fedrick is 70% physically alike with fedricku,does that mean fedrick is 70% mentally alike with fedricku?) NO There are more but as we procced.

Originally Posted by NNet

merumario, is your point that the mind=intelligence? If it is, look up Jeff Hawkins. Yay! Jeff Hawkins!

the mind is the sit of wisdom..filled with thoughts,ideas,feelings,emotion etc. As for jeff hawkins that will be later

Gravitational force cannot be held responsible for people falling in love.how on earth in terms of chemistry and physics can you explain a so much important biological phenomenon such as first love?--Albert einstein.

Originally Posted by merumario

The best evidences are: 1.science cannot show that consciousness is physical...2.demon possesion...3.personal identity.(if fedrick is 70% physically alike with fedricku,does that mean fedrick is 70% mentally alike with fedricku?) NO There are more but as we procced.

Science used to not be able to show that the earth was round. The brain is extremely complex, and a theory of extra sauce will be just as hard to prove as a theory of no extra sauce.
Demon possesion doesn't exist, or was that a joke? I'm kind of bad at telling if something is a joke.
If fedrick is 30% different physically, that means the connections in his brain are 30% different. Because of the way the brain works, that will cause many differences in decision making. (I bet you're getting tired of that.) The brain is a sequential machine, so if one little thing is different, after enough time it will end up with a completely different result. Also, 30% different is a lot. Something like 1/4 of the brain is for judging corners, edges, etc.
What do you think the function of the mind is? Part of the reason for my confusion is that you haven't been clear on that.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by NNet

merumario, is your point that the mind=intelligence? If it is, look up Jeff Hawkins. Yay! Jeff Hawkins!

the mind is the sit of wisdom..filled with thoughts,ideas,feelings,emotion etc. As for jeff hawkins that will be later

So you think the mind does everything we are conscious of?

Originally Posted by merumario

Gravitational force cannot be held responsible for people falling in love.how on earth in terms of chemistry and physics can you explain a so much important biological phenomenon such as first love?--Albert einstein.

Complex instinct/reason, both based on the structure of the brain. Just because albert said it doesn't make it true. In the field of neuroscience, Jeff Hawkins >>>>>>>>>Albert Einstein, who knew diddly about neuroscience, just like jeff knows diddly about physics.

Adelady,this is a philosophical theory which holds that the laws of physics do not affect the matters of the mind.you will do no good critising it for being philosophical. Its philosophy of mind and body..so get the problem and know where you stand.

Originally Posted by merumario

Adelady,this is a philosophical theory which holds that the laws of physics do not affect the matters of the mind.you will do no good critising it for being philosophical. Its philosophy of mind and body..so get the problem and know where you stand.

Look up Jeff Hawkins like I've told you to, and you'll see why this isn't a philisophical problem, if you understand the ideas. They took me about 2 months to understand, so if there are details you don't understand, please ask.

Originally Posted by NNet

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by NNet

merumario, is your point that the mind=intelligence? If it is, look up Jeff Hawkins. Yay! Jeff Hawkins!

the mind is the sit of wisdom..filled with thoughts,ideas,feelings,emotion etc. As for jeff hawkins that will be later

So you think the mind does everything we are conscious of?

you do not even know what this all about...this holds that mind and body interact to produce consciousness. Thats why its called dualism..and not monism

Originally Posted by NNet

Originally Posted by merumario

Adelady,this is a philosophical theory which holds that the laws of physics do not affect the matters of the mind.you will do no good critising it for being philosophical. Its philosophy of mind and body..so get the problem and know where you stand.

Look up Jeff Hawkins like I've told you to, and you'll see why this isn't a philisophical problem, if you understand the ideas. They took me about 2 months to understand, so if there are details you don't understand, please ask.

did your precious jeff tell you what is consciousness as a result of? Or why you love, or why you enjoy music? Or why human minds are so complicated? This problem was first worked on by plato in his theory of forms and aristotle before it was clearly stated by descartes...ITS PHILOSOPHY since the resoultion becomes complex then neuroscientist mostly neurophilosophers took it on.

Originally Posted by NNet

Originally Posted by merumario

Adelady,this is a philosophical theory which holds that the laws of physics do not affect the matters of the mind.you will do no good critising it for being philosophical. Its philosophy of mind and body..so get the problem and know where you stand.

Look up Jeff Hawkins like I've told you to, and you'll see why this isn't a philisophical problem, if you understand the ideas. They took me about 2 months to understand, so if there are details you don't understand, please ask.

surely the eyes of your precious jeff is also dim. If he knows what it is, he would have gotten a nobel for this...THE RESOULTION OF THIS PROBLEM WILL SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF HUMANS IN THIS UNIVERSE AND MORE ABOUT THE CREATOR..dont just read jeff and think you know what the human existence that incoprates mind and body is. JEFF HIMSELF DO NOT KNOW.

meru

As I told you earlier, you are on a science forum. As a result, you will receive little sympathy for presenting a view that is unscientific, and indeed based on pure superstition.

There is no evidence of any immaterial mind. There is just the brain and brain functions. Our subjective perception of mind can be altered in dramatic ways using simple chemical and physical means. If our thoughts occur inside an immaterial mind, why are they so disrupted by drugs or electrical stimulation, or lack of oxygen?

It is clear from your responses so far that you have no evidence acceptable to science.

Adelady,this is a philosophical theory which holds that the laws of physics do not affect the matters of the mind.

I am all too tediously aware of what is and isn't philosophy and what the various historical schools of thought have proposed or speculated or waffled about in their near total ignorance of brain or nervous system function. Most of them never even understood germ theory! (though they were very fond of messing about with optics and astronomy) let alone more sophisticated ideas or knowledge about how human bodies actually work.

I don't much care if it's Descartes or Hegel or Rousseau or Aristotle or Feuerbach or Spinoza or Russell or Freud, none of them have anything of value to offer in a discussion involving modern knowledge of neurology, endocrinology, anatomy, cognitive science or modern psychology. They're excellent subjects for discussion about the history of thought or the philosophy of science, they're useless for direct discussion of science itself.

Originally Posted by skeptic

meruAs I told you earlier, you are on a science forum. As a result, you will receive little sympathy for presenting a view that is unscientific, and indeed based on pure superstition.There is no evidence of any immaterial mind. There is just the brain and brain functions. Our subjective perception of mind can be altered in dramatic ways using simple chemical and physical means. If our thoughts occur inside an immaterial mind, why are they so disrupted by drugs or electrical stimulation, or lack of oxygen?It is clear from your responses so far that you have no evidence acceptable to science.

what are you waiting for to tell me what consciousness is scientifcaly...am still waiting to hear...both the brain and the mind interacts to form consciousness if one is damaged what do you think happens to the system of two? THIS IS COMMON SENSE.

Originally Posted by adelady

Adelady,this is a philosophical theory which holds that the laws of physics do not affect the matters of the mind.

I am all too tediously aware of what is and isn't philosophy and what the various historical schools of thought have proposed or speculated or waffled about in their near total ignorance of brain or nervous system function. Most of them never even understood germ theory! (though they were very fond of messing about with optics and astronomy) let alone more sophisticated ideas or knowledge about how human bodies actually work.I don't much care if it's Descartes or Hegel or Rousseau or Aristotle or Feuerbach or Spinoza or Russell or Freud, none of them have anything of value to offer in a discussion involving modern knowledge of neurology, endocrinology, anatomy, cognitive science or modern psychology. They're excellent subjects for discussion about the history of thought or the philosophy of science, they're useless for direct discussion of science itself.

why make me repeat this question over and over again? WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS? WHY DO YOU ENJOY MUSIC? How do you tell if you are sleeping or dead? Answer questions do not just lay claims for me.

Originally Posted by skeptic

meruAs I told you earlier, you are on a science forum. As a result, you will receive little sympathy for presenting a view that is unscientific, and indeed based on pure superstition.There is no evidence of any immaterial mind. There is just the brain and brain functions. Our subjective perception of mind can be altered in dramatic ways using simple chemical and physical means. If our thoughts occur inside an immaterial mind, why are they so disrupted by drugs or electrical stimulation, or lack of oxygen?It is clear from your responses so far that you have no evidence acceptable to science.

i am not looking for sympathy or whatsoever. This is not my thread if i want to,l know where to go...i am stating a philosophical problem that has existed for millenniums and its still existing. And the new approach is the study of the brain...you know what the greatest problem is? The lack to define consciousness.

No, it's biology- and totally physical.

THIS IS COMMON SENSE.

Common sense is very dangerous territory in science.

Common sense often tells us things that are quite obviously untrue. It happens with observations - that the earth is flat for instance. It happens with things that are invisible to us - like our internal organs, the feeling that the heart is broken as in the OP. More often it happens with numbers and statistics. Most people have a great deal of trouble envisaging very large and very small numbers or measurements. And practically all people, even those trained in the discipline, have even more trouble with interpreting statistics.

You can use your common sense or 'spidey sense' when reading a technical paper or a magazine article to see if it clears the first, seems OK to me, hurdle. But to accept the conclusions, you need to have expertise yourself or to track down reputable experts for a definite opinion. Your initial impressions can just as easily be wrong as right - and you have no way of knowing this unless you check beyond your 'common sense' feelings.

Am not sure if you are getting the whole thing... The mind and body interact.. The mind has no place in spacetime but the body does. Without the mind to interact with the body there is no consciousness of any kind. There is no human existence...you only will get a zombie...

Originally Posted by adelady

THIS IS COMMON SENSE.

Common sense is very dangerous territory in science. Common sense often tells us things that are quite obviously untrue. It happens with observations - that the earth is flat for instance. It happens with things that are invisible to us - like our internal organs, the feeling that the heart is broken as in the OP. More often it happens with numbers and statistics. Most people have a great deal of trouble envisaging very large and very small numbers or measurements. And practically all people, even those trained in the discipline, have even more trouble with interpreting statistics.You can use your common sense or 'spidey sense' when reading a technical paper or a magazine article to see if it clears the first, seems OK to me, hurdle. But to accept the conclusions, you need to have expertise yourself or to track down reputable experts for a definite opinion. Your initial impressions can just as easily be wrong as right - and you have no way of knowing this unless you check beyond your 'common sense' feelings.

i VERY MUCH AGREE WITH YOU. What we are now applying is science but when science fails,it tells you that philosophy is right...so far so good science has failed in the strive for what consciousness is.

Originally Posted by merumario

i VERY MUCH AGREE WITH YOU. What we are now applying is science but when science fails,it tells you that philosophy is right...so far so good science has failed in the strive for what consciousness is.

Yes, and science fails to understand what an Operating System on your computer is, as well. Clearly- it is not physical, right? Because you see the computers thoughts on a Monitor.

It must be philosophy.

Computer Philosophy, the replacement for computer science. Brought to you by CompuPhil.*



*CompuPhil cannot be held legally liable for non-functioning, malfunctioning or unresponsive computers. The internet is a separate entity and governed by Skynet. Please do not try to disassemble the physical components of your computer to find your O.S. CompuPhil will not be held responsible for damaged computers or broken/lost components. CompuPhil is a registered trademark of Computer Philosophies Incorporated and makes no claims as to the validity of philosophy. We make no claim in wording or implied as to the functional nature of our products. Use at your own risk.

meru

Science has not fully identified what makes up consciousness. So what? Science has not identified a way of reconciling relativity and quantum physics either, but both have validity.

Consciousness is without any reasonable doubt a byproduct of the activity of neurons, neuronal connections, and the learning that humans undergo. It is almost certainly largely built into the brain structure, though it may be modified by learning and conditioning.

We need evidence NO REASONS BECAUSE ITS AS THESAME AS COMMON SENSE... Nevefly, there is no such thimg like that.or you dont know what a computer is? It gives you what you give it...it does not act it only react to you.

The human brain does not act.its more like the computer...what makes me significant than anyother thing made up of atom is be cause i feel,think,have emotions,fear,love.etc these mental events trigger alot of things,it forces the brain to reason by compiling stored data and many things.

Originally Posted by merumario

The human brain does not act.its more like the computer...what makes me significant than anyother thing made up of atom is be cause i feel,think,have emotions,fear,love.etc these mental events trigger alot of things,it forces the brain to reason by compiling stored data and many things.

You feel emotions- physically. It's a hormonal chemical reaction. The 'mind' is an effect of the brain like "wind" is an effect of moving air.
You're speaking entirely out of some kind of faith- You cannot define how you perceive consciousness, so you assume that no one else can, either.

How scientific of you.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by merumario

The human brain does not act.its more like the computer...what makes me significant than anyother thing made up of atom is be cause i feel,think,have emotions,fear,love.etc these mental events trigger alot of things,it forces the brain to reason by compiling stored data and many things.

You feel emotions- physically. It's a hormonal chemical reaction. The 'mind' is an effect of the brain like "wind" is an effect of moving air.You're speaking entirely out of some kind of faith- You cannot define how you perceive consciousness, so you assume that no one else can, either.How scientific of you.

there is no faith here,its just why?, how? The farthest science can go is to show the role the mind play in consciousness..SINCE THIS IS A RESULT OF TWO DIFFERENT SUBSTANCE.

Originally Posted by merumario

SINCE THIS IS A RESULT OF TWO DIFFERENT SUBSTANCE.

You state this as fact- when you have no idea, do you? That's not science. It's not even philosophy.

There is an argument against physicality called subjective argument... Mental and physical seem to have quite different and perhaps irreconcible properties

Originally Posted by merumario

There is an argument against physicality called subjective argument... Mental and physical seem to have quite different and perhaps irreconcible properties

What are those properties?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by merumario

SINCE THIS IS A RESULT OF TWO DIFFERENT SUBSTANCE.

You state this as fact- when you have no idea, do you? That's not science. It's not even philosophy.

do not post out of tiredness,it leads to stupidity.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by merumario

There is an argument against physicality called subjective argument... Mental and physical seem to have quite different and perhaps irreconcible properties

What are those properties?

mental events have a certain subjective quality to them,whereas physical seem not to, for example: one may ask what a burned finger feels like,or what the blueness of the sky looks like. Answers: there is something like to feel pain,to see a familiar shade of blue...these are called qualia by mind philosophers. There are qualia involved in these mental events

meru

To date, you have posted a heap of opinion with no evidence to back any of it up. That is not science. It is superstition.

to see a familiar shade of blue...these are called qualia by mind philosophers.

But 'seeing blue' is easily testable by neuroscientists and other investigators. Funnily enough, even when people have no word for blue in their language, they still pick the same blue test card to match a blue sample as people who have many words for shades and tints of blue in their language. Testing pain, of burns for instance, is a bit of a problem because it's pretty difficult to come up with a research proposal that would pass an ethics committee.

Thomas Nagel fist characterize the problem of qualia in is "what is it like to be a bat?" he argued that even if we knew everything there was to know from a third person,scientific perspective about a bat's sonar system,we still wouldn't know what it feel like to be a bat.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by merumario

There is an argument against physicality called subjective argument... Mental and physical seem to have quite different and perhaps irreconcible properties

What are those properties?

mental events have a certain subjective quality to them,whereas physical seem not to, for example: one may ask what a burned finger feels like,or what the blueness of the sky looks like. Answers: there is something like to feel pain,to see a familiar shade of blue...these are called qualia by mind philosophers. There are qualia involved in these mental events

These are not properties; they are failures of definitions. You are relying only on philosophers to get your information?
Let's see what the scientists have to say...:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3803.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.4695v1.pdf
Evidence for Impaired Activation of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis in Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Originally Posted by adelady

to see a familiar shade of blue...these are called qualia by mind philosophers.

But 'seeing blue' is easily testable by neuroscientists and other investigators. Funnily enough, even when people have no word for blue in their language, they still pick the same blue test card to match a blue sample as people who have many words for shades and tints of blue in their language. Testing pain, of burns for instance, is a bit of a problem because it's pretty difficult to come up with a research proposal that would pass an ethics committee.

the thing is that mental events come with some propertise unlike physical...

Neverfly when will you get it? Its philosophy against science. If philosophy ir right then the laws of physics cannot refer to the mind...scientist disagree. Am standing for philosophy so do not expect me to use science here.

Neverfly if they are not properties then 'what is it like to be a bat?'

What is it like to be the weather?
The weather is a complex system that we have difficulty describing because it's complexity is based on a lot of interacting information.
It could be argued that the weather makes decisions and takes action. That it changes its mind. It could be argued that the weather patterns themselves are motivated.
But in actuality, it's based on simple physics. Even simple physics gets very complex when a lot of factors are interacting. This complexity is simple in it's principles but very complex in its function.

What is it like to be the weather? The question itself is an absurdity. It's an absurdity because to answer it, you'd need a common frame of reference.
I do not have a common frame of reference with a bat, either. But I can probably very accurately model what it is like to be a bat.
Similarly, I cannot define the Universe. But scientists can build models to accurately describe and predict it.

Your claim is that science does not have all the answers. But that's not necessarily true. WE don't have all the answers because we need time to work them out, using the scientific method. You cannot expect scientists, in general or even specialized, to know all that there is to know.

What you're doing is arguing that if we do not have all the answers, right now, then it must be "whatever you make up."

That is not science. That is pseudoscience, faith or fantasy.

ETA: Fascinating...:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...tml#post376302

Originally Posted by Neverfly

What is it like to be the weather?The weather is a complex system that we have difficulty describing because it's complexity is based on a lot of interacting information.It could be argued that the weather makes decisions and takes action. That it changes its mind. It could be argued that the weather patterns themselves are motivated.But in actuality, it's based on simple physics. Even simple physics gets very complex when a lot of factors are interacting. This complexity is simple in it's principles but very complex in its function.What is it like to be the weather? The question itself is an absurdity. It's an absurdity because to answer it, you'd need a common frame of reference.I do not have a common frame of reference with a bat, either. But I can probably very accurately model what it is like to be a bat.Similarly, I cannot define the Universe. But scientists can build models to accurately describe and predict it.Your claim is that science does not have all the answers. But that's not necessarily true. WE don't have all the answers because we need time to work them out, using the scientific method. You cannot expect scientists, in general or even specialized, to know all that there is to know.What you're doing is arguing that if we do not have all the answers, right now, then it must be "whatever you make up."That is not science. That is pseudoscience, faith or fantasy.ETA: Fascinating...:http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...tml#post376302

why are you not answering my question? Did i ask you about weather or you dont understand the meaning of bat?

Originally Posted by merumario

why are you not answering my question? Did i ask you about weather or you dont understand the meaning of bat?

I did answer you. You just didn't like the answer- so you're pretending that I didn't.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by NNet

Originally Posted by merumario

Adelady,this is a philosophical theory which holds that the laws of physics do not affect the matters of the mind.you will do no good critising it for being philosophical. Its philosophy of mind and body..so get the problem and know where you stand.

Look up Jeff Hawkins like I've told you to, and you'll see why this isn't a philisophical problem, if you understand the ideas. They took me about 2 months to understand, so if there are details you don't understand, please ask.

surely the eyes of your precious jeff is also dim. If he knows what it is, he would have gotten a nobel for this...THE RESOULTION OF THIS PROBLEM WILL SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF HUMANS IN THIS UNIVERSE AND MORE ABOUT THE CREATOR..dont just read jeff and think you know what the human existence that incoprates mind and body is. JEFF HIMSELF DO NOT KNOW.

My precious jeff is taking things slow.
Right now he's applying this to predicting things like power consumption- definetly not worth a nobel for. Also, it seems few people know who he is. Who would want to? He thinks the brain uses the same learning algorithm for everything, that the crux of intelligence is predicitions, and has found a way to explain intelligence. Obviously you don't want to get to know my precious jeff.
My precious jeff doen't know what consciousness is. That's kind of a complex subject. You can always theorize using philosophy, but that won't get us anywhere in creating intelligent machines/understanding how to cure mental diseases. That method of theorizing is always open to multiple theories, because it doesn't include any evidence except behavior.
This idea does conflict with religion a bit, which tends to annoy people. I'm not against religion; I treat it as a completely seperate topic. Religion is open to interpretation, and I have some ideas about how god might exist in a different dimension, or might be an alien who has incredible technology, perhaps allowing it to transport the brain as it decomposes, so people don't notice, and return it to full health. I'm not religious myself, but I believe god could exist. You're arguing with idiots on religion, just so you know.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by merumario

There is an argument against physicality called subjective argument... Mental and physical seem to have quite different and perhaps irreconcible properties

What are those properties?

mental events have a certain subjective quality to them,whereas physical seem not to, for example: one may ask what a burned finger feels like,or what the blueness of the sky looks like. Answers: there is something like to feel pain,to see a familiar shade of blue...these are called qualia by mind philosophers. There are qualia involved in these mental events

So qualia=emotions associated with stuff? The brain does just that, through instinct parts of the brain, which are ROM like. They give a pre-programmed output depending on the input, which the intelligence part of the brain processes as well as other more instinct-type parts of the brain.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by merumario

There is an argument against physicality called subjective argument... Mental and physical seem to have quite different and perhaps irreconcible properties

What are those properties?

mental events have a certain subjective quality to them,whereas physical seem not to, for example: one may ask what a burned finger feels like,or what the blueness of the sky looks like. Answers: there is something like to feel pain,to see a familiar shade of blue...these are called qualia by mind philosophers. There are qualia involved in these mental events

So qualia=emotions associated with stuff? The brain does just that, through instinct parts of the brain, which are ROM like. They give a pre-programmed output depending on the input, which the intelligence part of the brain processes as well as other more instinct-type parts of the brain.
Being a bat means the neurons in your brain have learned to process the extra senses they have by finding patterns in what they sense, just like neurons do for all senses. It also means your neurons have learned (again by finding patterns) that your body is shaped like a bat's. You also have different intinct because the instinct parts of your brain would be different, and a smaller neocortex so you would have more trouble learning new data/processing data.

Originally Posted by merumario

The human brain does not act.its more like the computer...what makes me significant than anyother thing made up of atom is be cause i feel,think,have emotions,fear,love.etc these mental events trigger alot of things,it forces the brain to reason by compiling stored data and many things.

Oh, your problem is the lack of emotional centers in the brain? There are emotional centers, but also parts which control the entire system using neurotransmitters (chemicals distributed throughout the brain.) These chemicals give your brain a general approach. For example, angry means you'll be likely to want to attack something, because your intelligence brain parts will jump to that conclusion. (More complex than that, but that's the general idea.)

Originally Posted by NNet

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by merumario

There is an argument against physicality called subjective argument... Mental and physical seem to have quite different and perhaps irreconcible properties

What are those properties?

mental events have a certain subjective quality to them,whereas physical seem not to, for example: one may ask what a burned finger feels like,or what the blueness of the sky looks like. Answers: there is something like to feel pain,to see a familiar shade of blue...these are called qualia by mind philosophers. There are qualia involved in these mental events

So qualia=emotions associated with stuff? The brain does just that, through instinct parts of the brain, which are ROM like. They give a pre-programmed output depending on the input, which the intelligence part of the brain processes as well as other more instinct-type parts of the brain.Being a bat means the neurons in your brain have learned to process the extra senses they have by finding patterns in what they sense, just like neurons do for all senses. It also means your neurons have learned (again by finding patterns) that your body is shaped like a bat's. You also have different intinct because the instinct parts of your brain would be different, and a smaller neocortex so you would have more trouble learning new data/processing data.

i doubt that you know what you are talking about...have you ever being a bat? Am not sure...if you like know everything about the neurons,organs,etc of a bat you can only know how they see the world and you cannot know what it feels to be them..

I'm not entirely surprised by this report. I am, however, still disappointed at how little their is on how our decisions can have effects on these internal and external sensation. In other words, we know that emotions and pain undergo similar processes but how can we control these processes? There are of course plenty of methods, but there's little research into it. And there must be tons of struggling researchers looking for their next grants!

I wonder what it was like to be one of the test subjects in this research. "Hello Mr. Smith, we are glad to hear that your relationship didn't turn out well. Mind if I electrocute you? Ms. Baker, please please, you must keep your hands in the ice water for at least twenty minutes. I know you want to wipe the tears from your eyes, you're almost there."

And, as far as my contribution to the conversation. What about the famous question: What is it like to be an ass?

What does it feel like to be in space and have a full 3D view of earth?

Nnet am not sure you know the meaning of 'feel'... It is not 'how'

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by NNet

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by merumario

There is an argument against physicality called subjective argument... Mental and physical seem to have quite different and perhaps irreconcible properties

What are those properties?

mental events have a certain subjective quality to them,whereas physical seem not to, for example: one may ask what a burned finger feels like,or what the blueness of the sky looks like. Answers: there is something like to feel pain,to see a familiar shade of blue...these are called qualia by mind philosophers. There are qualia involved in these mental events

So qualia=emotions associated with stuff? The brain does just that, through instinct parts of the brain, which are ROM like. They give a pre-programmed output depending on the input, which the intelligence part of the brain processes as well as other more instinct-type parts of the brain.Being a bat means the neurons in your brain have learned to process the extra senses they have by finding patterns in what they sense, just like neurons do for all senses. It also means your neurons have learned (again by finding patterns) that your body is shaped like a bat's. You also have different intinct because the instinct parts of your brain would be different, and a smaller neocortex so you would have more trouble learning new data/processing data.

i doubt that you know what you are talking about...have you ever being a bat? Am not sure...if you like know everything about the neurons,organs,etc of a bat you can only know how they see the world and you cannot know what it feels to be them..

I have no idea what it feels like to be a bat, because my brain has never had the body of one, nor has my brain ever had the instinct or reasoning capabilities of a bat. I do know what I'm talking about, the problem here is that you don't. What is confusing? I'd like some specifics here.

Originally Posted by merumario

Nnet am not sure you know the meaning of 'feel'... It is not 'how'

Feeling=complex interactions in the brain. There are 100 trillion synapsis in the brain, give or take a few dozen trillion. Each synapsis does its own thing. Do not expect to understand this through specifics. It is understood by its general structure and method of learning. Each synapsis means absolutely nothing by itself.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

What is it like to be an ass?

Ok, now that one- I can answer.

Originally Posted by merumario

What does it feel like to be in space and have a full 3D view of earth?

It feels pretty similar to how it feels to you. Why does this make a difference in the mind/body argument? I feel things, but that's because of the neurons firing in my brain. (Which creates feelings because of incredibly complex interactions, which are far more fascinating and convincing to me than "emotions=the mind, because they do".)

Feelings are simply an interpretation of the various signals and chemical reactions.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Feelings are simply an interpretation of the various signals and chemical reactions.

Thanks, that kind of summarizes what I meant. I think the interpreter is the reasoning center of the brain, which interprets it by being affected by it, and knowing patterns about the signals/chemicals involved in feelings.

Everything in the body is traced back to the brain...yeah...buh how do you explain death?

Originally Posted by merumario

Everything in the body is traced back to the brain...yeah...buh how do you explain death?

Huh?
What's to explain?

The brain seem to be a very complex organ..onebillion neurons,millions of synapses,storage of about 2.5petabytes,or 100million gigabytes..etc. Now to the death issue,the brain survives 5mins after death,the heart 15mins and the kidney 30mins.

The above tells us that the brain can carry out its usual activities,including everything we have said here.for atleast 5mins after death...if the brain is everything bring about life, what then is your definiton of death...when the organ itself is still alive?

Originally Posted by merumario

The brain seem to be a very complex organ..onebillion neurons,millions of synapses,storage of about 2.5petabytes,or 100million gigabytes..etc. Now to the death issue,the brain survives 5mins after death,the heart 15mins and the kidney 30mins.

You haven't specified what you want explained.

2.5 petabytes would be 2.5million gigabytes, not 100 million gigabytes.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Emotional pain also seems to stimulate a flare up of the immune system.

What does "stimulate a flare up" mean? Does that mean it causes it to work harder, ie, more agressively attacking infections, or does it mean that the immune system becomes compromised?

Originally Posted by merumario

The laws of physics may appear universal. But they do not refer to matters of the mind such as love.

Merumario, here is a link explaining the brain on love. it may not be physics specifically but it is neurobiology,a respected science.

Originally Posted by merumario

The big question for anyone defending materialsm is,how do you explain consciousness....there have been no observable proof that consciousness is material and not immaterial.

It seems you are attempting to equate science with belief. Materialism is what can be tested and falsified. It is what can be determined as real. Maybe the mind is something different than the brain but until there is some evidence to support that belief there is no reason to entertain it as a reality. There is no reason not to consider it as a possibility but to assert it as if it is a proven fact is as unwise as asserting that there is a god as if it is a proven fact. You have a hypothesis, one shared by many I assume, but it is not an accepted supported claim in science and has no place in discussing the neurobiology of the brain as the OP presented. This thread topic has nothing to do with beliefs and was addressing chemical reactions and recordable activities in the brain as reactions to emotional stimuli compared to the chemical reactions in the brain to physical stimuli. I don't understand why dualism was even brought up. It is not a scientific concept, it is philosophical if not religious in nature.

Originally Posted by merumario

The above tells us that the brain can carry out its usual activities,including everything we have said here.for atleast 5mins after death...if the brain is everything bring about life, what then is your definiton of death...when the organ itself is still alive?

brain dead is usually considered death. In the USA, brain dead is legally dead. Doesn't matter if the body is still alive on machines.

I personally consider the death of the brain to be death of the person.



Now then, if merumario can stop rambling about stuff that has nothing to do with the OP, I am very interested in actually discussing the OP.

Can everyone just put merumario on ignore so that the OP can be discussed. This entire thread has been hijacked by merumario's attempted to proselytize his pet philosophy and it's a shame it has been allowed to continue.

Let's give merumario a cookie... dude, YOUR mind is not in your brain... I assure you, it is in your ass. Good enough? good now let the rest of us discuss SCIENCE of the brain and how it processes physical and emotional pain.

Originally Posted by merumario

Am standing for philosophy so do not expect me to use science here.

Well this is a science forum. Get with the program or leave and go post on a philosophy forum.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

What does "stimulate a flare up" mean? Does that mean it causes it to work harder, ie, more agressively attacking infections, or does it mean that the immune system becomes compromised?

As I said in the OP, I am not an expert in this field, but the article was of interest. The words "flare up" may have been a little misleading. It seems that emotional pain makes the body's inflammatory mechanisms operate. Low level, general inflammation. The hormones that stimulate the inflammatory mechanisms can be measured.

Here is a related reference.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-brain-regions

I never remember that a science forum cannot defend its claim against philosophy...skeptic and spesy brain death is not human death...a person dies before the brain die...go and do assignment on the brain and dont post garbage.

meru

It is not a case of defending science against philosophy. Science has a very major record of success. Philosophy not so. Science reveals that which is true and correct. Philosophy only reveals stuff that is pretty damn tenuous.

This is a science forum. Which means that, when a claim is made, it is realistic to expect good evidence. If you make a claim, we are entitled to ask for, and expect good evidence. If you cannot supply that good evidence, we are entitled to reject your claims. To date, you have made claims with no evidence. Thus, we are entitled to call your claims total garbage.

How can you say i have no evidence....if the body dies before the brain dies then thats an evidence to say that everything about life is not of the brain...what do you want again? Should i come and kill you first?

meru

Different parts of the body die at different rates. In most cases, the cells of the brain will die long before other cells that require less oxygen, like fat calls, or bone cells.

So your statement about the brain living after the body dies is simply incorrect. That does not happen.

The words "flare up" may have been a little misleading.

I'm not so sure about that. I'd need to find some good evidence rather than rely entirely on my own anecdotes, but the two widowed people I mentioned above both came down with autoimmune diseases so a 'flare up' of the immune system is not such a far-fetched idea for them at least.

And I saw a newspaper report yesterday about a family whose eldest child had died. The mother in that family is losing her hair in clumps. Not as extreme as my friend's husband, but the same kind of thing.

Skeptic dont tell me that you are a fool,if you dont know about the brain go and read...medical advances show that the brain survives 5mins after death...if you are afraid to read listen to sci-fi movies..it was stated clear in G.I JOE.RETURN OF THE COBRA.

Plz again go and read before you post...medical advances show that you can keep the respiration and cardiac funtions of the body after death...neuroscientist then concluded that when a person dies,he has lost consciousness totaly i mean vitally.

And if they claim that consciousness is of the brain,then when a person dies,they should be able to show the part that is no longer active within this 5mins,thereby concluding that the observe part must be what brings about consciousness..BUT THIS SO FAR IS NOT THE CASE.

This again is an evidence that consciousness is not of the brain totaly.,AGAIN READ BEFORE YOU POST,DO NOT POST GARBAGE.

Originally Posted by skeptic

meru

Different parts of the body die at different rates. In most cases, the cells of the brain will die long before other cells that require less oxygen, like fat calls, or bone cells.

So your statement about the brain living after the body dies is simply incorrect. That does not happen.

agreed

And since the definition of what death is seems to allude some I thought I'd offer some tidbits for clarity:

In the United States, a person is dead by law if a Statement of Death or Death certificate is approved by a licensed medical practitioner. Various legal consequences follow death, including the removal from the person of what in legal terminology is called personhood.

The possession of brain activities, or capability to resume brain activity, is a necessary condition to legal personhood in the United States. "It appears that once brain death has been determined ... no criminal or civil liability will result from disconnecting the life-support devices." (Dority v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County, 193 Cal.Rptr. 288, 291 (1983))

-source

Brain death is the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation. It should not be confused with a persistent vegetative state. Patients classified as brain dead can have their organs surgically removed for organ donation.

Brain death, either of the whole brain or the brain stem, is used as a legal indicator of death in many jurisdictions.

-source

---

Originally Posted by adelady

I'm not so sure about that. I'd need to find some good evidence rather than rely entirely on my own anecdotes, but the two widowed people I mentioned above both came down with autoimmune diseases so a 'flare up' of the immune system is not such a far-fetched idea for them at least.

And I saw a newspaper report yesterday about a family whose eldest child had died. The mother in that family is losing her hair in clumps. Not as extreme as my friend's husband, but the same kind of thing.

adelady, I have limited knowledge of autoimmune diseases but from what I gather googling things, that is when the immune system attacks itself, am I correct? Or when it goes into overdrive.


DaBob mentioned earlier in the thread something along the lines of our mental capacity to control pain. I have found that I can actually numb pain up to a certain point. I don't think I would be able to numb the pain of a severed limb or the loss of a child. But lessor pains, such as being cut by a knife, poked by a needle for physical pain, and being rejected, or insulted for emotional pain. It takes a very conscious effort to do it and I always feel the initial effects fo pain, but once I am aware of the pain and what caused it, mentally dissecting what pain is somehow causes me to react to it differently. I don't know if that means that the parts of the brain that light up will be different but I know that my perception of the pain changes. I started playing with the idea of pain manipulation when I was a kid. I saw the movie, "Terminator" and the terminator told the boy,when he asked if his wounds hurt, that his body sends data indicating damage to his cpu, the processing of that data could be considered pain.
I have since then always thought of my brain as being a very sophisticated living computer and so if I make the effort to look at stimuli as nothing more than data then I have an easier time choosing how to allow my brain to process that data. My emotional responses reduce to almost nothing as a result and I don't tend to have the discomfort that I normally experience when I feel pain. I creep my husband out quite often when I choose to do this because I apparently seem less human when I do. But for me lack of emotion and lack of physical discomfort is a preferred state of existence.

I have limited knowledge of autoimmune diseases but from what I gather googling things, that is when the immune system attacks itself, am I correct? Or when it goes into overdrive.

It certainly attacks itself - generally a particular organ or system. The suspicion is that it is an 'overdrive' process, because autoimmune diseases are like disabilities - if you've got one, you're much more likely than other people to have another, unrelated one. (I have two. Hashimoto's disease affecting the thyroid, and a rheumatoid arthritis type condition, which isn't rheumatoid arthritis itself, it just shows up on a blood test with a positive indicator for RA. My arthritis symptoms themselves are not like rheumatoid arthritis, they call it a non-specific connective tissue disorder.)

The overdrive idea is up in the air at the moment because it might all be connected at the general inflammation level. They're now finding all sorts of things like heart disease and dementia and some cancers and write-your-own-list have a link, at some level, to chronic inflammation.