[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 214 KB, 500x350, 64isthenew65.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5139887 No.5139887 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/

Are happiness, love, anger and other emotions byproducts of chemical reactions or the other way around?

I'm not entirely sure if I should have posted this here.

>> No.5139890
File: 2.00 MB, 327x212, snail.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5139890

bump.

>> No.5139894

>>5139887
this nigger serious?
emotions==chemistry

>> No.5139893

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

>> No.5139897

>>5139893

thanks, i think.

>> No.5139898

>>5139887
What do you mean by "byproducts"? There's nothing more than chemistry.

>> No.5139904

>>5139898

I meant to say are emotions caused by chemical reactions or vice versa. I guess byproducts wasn't the adequate word here, sorry.

>> No.5139914

>>5139904
Literally everything is caused by chemicals of some sort. From that perspective, there isn't any free will, but hey, fuck you.

>> No.5139916

>>5139904
What is caused? There is nothing being caused, there's only chemistry.

>> No.5139955

>>5139916
Fuck off.

>> No.5140696

>>5139916
Yeah, just fuck off. It's pretty obvious you're ignorant as hell, and you don't want to have scientific discussion.

>> No.5140714

This discussion is as old as it is pointless.
Yes, emotions are just byproducts, but you must not draw the wrong consequences.
The fact that the question is asked implies that the answer has any importance, which it has not.

>> No.5140727

Before the discovery of neuroplasticity it was all chemicals->emotions/thoughts. Now with the discover of neuroplasticity, chemicals<---->thoughts/emotions, it goes both ways.

>> No.5140725

They're not biproducts, they are products.

>> No.5140749

>>5140727
To add to the note, western psychology(and drugs) has been mostly about using chemicals to change the brain state and not the other way around. It hasnt gotten itself involved with neuroplasticity on a widescale. Which is one of the reasons psychology is see as pseudoscience. Most of its been doing is trying to link chemicals to psychological states and ignoring the psychological states on the brain itself.

>> No.5140765

>>5140749
that's correct. but it is still a useful tool.
the depth of the mind will be not be understandable for natural science for a very long time, so it would be wrong to reorganize psychology to match the scientific standards.

>> No.5140842

Emotions are not a result of specific chemical reactions, but simply the "feeling" that accompanies them. In the Wikipedia link to Metaphysics, you'll probably find a link to Ideal/Monist Dualism. Feeling is technically separate from physical process.

I disagree with whoever said that decision is a result of chemical processes and not "consciousness." I'd like an explanation of what physical properties give us self-awareness, and before being butthurt because of the mention of consciousness, perhaps explain the source of "creative thought."

>> No.5140864

>>5140842
I think you're wrong there.
The feeling that's accompaning the reaction, as you call it, is just an "invention" of the brain that came along with the civilisation of homo sapiens.
>inb4 life is just worthwhile if there's something mystical about it

>> No.5140896

>>5140864
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Reward neurotransmitters obviously affect feeling, as well as almost all neurochemicals, but they do not account for the actual sensation of "feeling." A good feeling is obviously good because that is the purpose of the brain's reward system, but the feeling of "goodness" is not a physical property. Unlike combustion, reactivity, or color, the qualia of an experience is abstract.

You'd be interested in the Mind-Body Problem.

>> No.5140900

>>5140896
Care to show any evidence for the existence of your magical "qualia"?

>> No.5140908

>>5140900
Would you rather have excruciating pain described to you or feel it? There is something in the experience of thing not reducible to simple information of physical states. That is what qualia is.

>> No.5140938

According to Damasio's "The feeling of what happens", he says that:

Emotions are complicated collections of chemical and neural responses, forming a pattern; all emotions have some kind of regulatory role to play, leading in one way or another to the creation of circumstances advantageous to the organism exhibiting the phenomenon; emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life.

>> No.5142592

>>5140908
How can you know that? It is only your brain to observe that "qualia" or your feelings, and you just can't tell if it is physical or not.
There's actually no argument supporting that theory, it's just that desparate clinging to the illusion of something mystical about the human mind.

>> No.5142650

Other way around. Consciousness > body

>> No.5142652

>>5142592
So, the complexity of the chemical reactions gives us the distinct feeling of 'consciousness'?

Consciousness is an abstraction that the chemicals produce?

>> No.5142793

>>5142652
Since consciousness is the only thing you have to validate your consciousness, it's likely to be an illusion, because nothing in the brain gives a hint that there could be some kind of magic power.
It just became necessary with the complexity of human civilisations. how could we act in our modern world without this illusion?
consciousness is linked to the brain. that's the reason why there are different grades of consciousness. if you're dreaming or sleep waling and you remember it with your normal consciousness it seems hazy and incomplete, the same when you're drunk or high and even when you're younger and older.