This short article is related to our first lesson on how we experience Emotion. Recall the essay by William James, then please read this article and post a response. Link is below.
These novel findings of neuroscience have consequences not only for our understanding of how emotions are experienced, but also for that of consciousness, its possible location, and functioning.
The article explains that fear, which often features in the list of the five or six basic emotions, is invoked by external stimuli without the cortex's having processed the emotion. Since the cortex is essential for our being conscious of an emotion, the findings serve to corroborate the James-Lange Theory of emotion. The James-Lange theory is a physiological theory postulating that external stimuli can cause physiological reactions that trigger emotions without our being conscious of them. The explanation of the 'gut' feeling clearly illustrates this physiological reaction, which is the activation of the amygdala through the subcortical pathway. This is said to trigger a 'fear response' that causes the gut feeling. The James-Lange theory, which already sought to explain phobias in terms of a subconscious triggering of fear, is now able to provide a clear mechanism to illustrate this phenomenon.
Furthermore, the importance of the cortex to conscious awareness has implications for our understanding of consciousness. It seems that the cortex rather than the amygdala or thalamus is involved in conscious awareness. If one were to think of consciousness as being a function of the mind, this mind would appear to be contained largely within the cortex. However, since the mind is not a physical thing, it is problematic to talk about it as being 'inside' something, or confined within the boundaries of a physical object such as the cortex. This is a classic problem of Cartesian Dualism, which claimed that the mind existed and was not a physical substance. The new research clearly shows that a particular part of the brain, namely the cortex, is important to conscious awareness of emotion. The amygdala and thalamus, on the other hand, seem to be far less involved, if at all. We cannot both say that the mind is a non-physical entity, and then talk about it as being 'inside' anything. In asserting that something is not physical, we have defined that thing as not being constrained by the laws of physics. It, therefore, cannot be described by physical terms such as 'inside' or 'outside.'
While the new findings corroborate the James-Lange theory of unconscious triggering of emotion, they appear to weaken theories of a non-physical mind, such as Cartesian Dualism.
Yep, you're right Akshay. The essays seems to imply that every emotional experience--whether we are conscious of them via the cortex or not--is still tied to our physiology.
The idea of emotions being felt before thought through is a widely accepted and relatable one. Most people would agree that you feel and emotion before thinking it through and are often even felt without explanation. From time to time everyone feels inexplicably happy or sad, etc. This article seems to give scientific legitimacy to this theory that emotions care not so much conscious processes, but rather that they are unconscious “gut” feelings. In this article the areas of psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, and biology all come together to prove this. However, I find myself wishing to expel science when it comes to emotions, which are often so powerful and inexplicable. I know that science in an integral part of proving theories and learning, but for the study of emotions, I find drawing on experiences to give much more satisfying answers. This also plays into my subscription to a belief in mind and soul, which can also fail to meet scientific proof. I choose to believe that I am more than a machine that can be explained in the most basic of scientific terms. So while this theory finds scientific backing and good proof for the body, I believe the idea of emotions can and should be more integrated with the mind.
I agree with Aaron’s point about how you often feel an emotion before you are able to explain or even understand yourself what you are feeling. Rather than a progression from rational thinking- “This is scary” to gut feeling- “I am scared”, the article draws on William James’ theory, which is that our first reaction is probably one of pure emotion, and does not have to be rational, which could explain irrational phobias. An interesting quote I picked up on is, “if you have a fear response that is being triggered very rapidly like that, consciously you’re going to be interpreting what’s going on, but it’s not going to necessarily match what’s really going on”. I like the quote because not only does it remind me of the identity theory (the brain process and the emotion are occurring together), it also brings our attention to the problem of perception and how different people would find a situation more or less scary. How else do you explain why people are irrationally scared by different things? What’s “really going on” could be terrifying to one person but perceived as mildly scary to someone else.
I, too, agree with Aaron's point that the idea of emotions being felt as 'gut reactions' rather than a result of rational processes is a widely accepted one. 'Gut' reaction implies that emotion is not just a result of scientific processes, but rather an expression of the intangible essence that makes us ‘human’, or more than just our physical nature. We like the idea that we are able to impulsively feel emotions without having rationally considered a situation, because it seems to indicate that we are more than just a 'machine', as Aaron said. Personally, however, I feel that this argument is inconsistent with its justification. The justification for being able to impulsively feel an emotion is that instead of information transmitted through the cortex first and then to the amygdala, the information is transmitted to the amygdala directly. This, as stated in the article, is the source of 'unconscious' emotions, but the source is essentially a scientific or physical process. This seems to disprove the idea that feeling unconscious emotions gives us an identity of being ‘more’ than our physical nature, as feeling unconscious emotions is directly related to a scientific process.
I thought the explanation of irrational phobias was very interesting. It was interesting that we sometimes recognize patterns that trigger a reaction in the amygdala and cause us to perceive a certain emotion. Even though I think the article does not prove that unconscious emotions are a sign of us being more than our physical nature, I think the aspect of the irrational phobias comes closer to proving this. I have copy pasted the entire paragraph here, because I think it should be read as a whole:
‘This [the fact that fear is triggered by an external stimuli that is not consciously processed] is important because a lot of people have fears and phobias and anxieties about things they don’t understand. They don’t know why they’re afraid or anxious in a particular moment. It may be through various kinds of experiences, the low road gets potentiated in a way that it’s activating fears and phobias outside of conscious awareness and that doesn’t make sense in terms of what the conscious brain is looking at in the world, or hearing in the world because they’ve been separately parsed out.’
I think this paragraph indicates that we are more than purely our physical nature. It is not the fact that phobias exist, but it is the fact that we are unable to recognize that it is a scientific process of pattern recognition. Physiological processes occur in our brain and cause us to feel fear in unexpected scenarios, but when we rationalize the situation and the reaction we felt during the situation, we are unable to come up with logical reasons for our behavior or emotion. The fact that the scientific processes carried out by our brain perplex us and are not consciously understood as they are, but merely perceived in a certain way (as an emotion) indicates that we are more than our physical nature. We are not consciously aware of the physiological processes themselves but are only consciously able to perceive them (as fear, in this case) and reflect about them later (think about why we felt fear) without immediately knowing that it was the result of the thalamus and amygdala. If we truly were just ‘machines’, we wouldn’t be trying to rationalize and figure out why we work the way we do.
22:00 Madhulika Murali I'd just like to pick up on Maddie's final point about us not being 'machines'. Her argument against this is that we are actively trying to figure out how we work. I'd like to refute this because although the argument can be made that robots or machines do not self-reflect, I feel this is only in a metaphysical sense. A computer may not be able to ask the question 'Who am I?", but it is perfectly capable in asking and answering the question "How/why did I do that?". This is because computer parts are infinitely less complex than the human brain. However, having just said that, just because we do not comprehend our brain at this moment in time does not mean we never will; as science advances so will our understanding of the brain. At this point in time, it is unclear whether this increase in understanding of our own brain will confirm or deny the existence of a mind that transcends beyond our brain. A way of looking at this situation would be comparing as I previously did, a computer and ourselves. I'd like to take the above comments as an example of what differentiates us from a machine. Other than in science fiction movies, there is yet to exist a machine that would construct - I'm using the word construct loosely here - ideas of mind/body dualities, souls, afterlife, idealism and all those other theories that deny or refute the existence of a purely physical mind. As of now we can safely say that it is not in the nature of a machine to deny that is in fact nothing but a machine; this is solely a human trait. On the other hand, however, we have what I spoke of earlier in that computers can know everything there is to know about how they work whereas we are left debating over how and why we behave the way we do on a day to day basis. At this point one could say "Hold on, while a computer may be able to store information on how it works, but it's hardly self aware". That's where I'd like to give the example of virus scans, a computer can scan itself completely and if a virus is identified, if programmed correctly, it can respond appropriately to the virus and 'fix itself'. Someone arguing the physicalist view of the mind would simply say we are exactly like the computer just far more complex. He would also then argue that the computer cannot deny it's own 'machine status' because we have yet to create a computer with that standard of internal processing. The counter argument to this is that the differences I have outlined above are simply two intrinsic differences that separate us from being mere machines.
In summary I feel the mind vs body question is one that we do not have sufficient information to answer at this moment, but one that we are slowly making progress towards.
Gianluca, are you, then, saying that everything we do is a result of scientific programming? You are indirectly arguing that humans do not have free will, and that our existence is essentially defined by a more complex version of programming instructions. I do agree with your last statements, however - I, too, feel that more scientific research is required before we can debate this issue with more reliable justifications.
Thank you Madhukali for pointing that out. I'd firstly like to say that while I have postulated the above arguments, I do not personally believe in them. But in reference to your comment I agree that the idea of humans not having free will would be consistent with the physicalist mind. However I feel if this 'programming' of the human mind was complex enough, the illusion of free will could be maintained.
I see, and like you, I personally do not fully agree with your argument, but arguing that we do not have free will is consistent with your physicalist mind argument, so I understand now. I think it is interesting that the argument you put forth is not your personal belief. I think that this is the argument that is hardest to reliably disprove, because there is no scientific evidence to counter your scientific assertions. Thanks, Jean-Luc
It's fascinating to think that all those moments we've had instinctive or 'gut' feelings where we can feel or sense something important, is all just simply caused by an external stimuli that is processed unconsciously. It makes sense that we can make judgments without being aware of any evident or logical basis for them, because we are unconsciously basing it on previous associated experiences that allow us to make these judgments. It clarifies the many irrational or illogical impulses we occasionally have, offering a ready explanation. However, I believe that this very irrationality, and the ability to be whimsical is a very human quality. These random, erratic impulses are what differ us from cold, analytical computers, that give us a life of substance and creativeness. However, if the information from this article is correct, than nothing we say or do that can be previously judged as whimsical, actually is. We are merely not aware of the fact that we are unconsciously using past experiences to influence our feelings. I for one, am personally sad to discover that our randomness, potentially, never was.
A fascinating take on the subject Shawn. I don't think you have to be sad knowing about the physical side of things, as long as you still "feel" those emotions. Your points made me wonder whether the same theory presented in the article is applicable to non-human animals. Do animals have the same sort of "gut" reactions and phobias as we do?
I also agree with the point that Shawn makes about the whimsical quality of our human nature being that special distinction from every other living (or even non living in the case of machinery!) thing on the planet. The daily experiences and interactions we have with one another are like no other interactions between other species or organisms, or at least this is what I like to think. When you think of the way we may suddenly decide to act on an impulse and tell the person we love how we feel or perhaps indulge in a trivial piece of retail that at that moment we find so absolutely necessary…it just makes us so uniquely HUMAN. Perhaps animals have this irrational way of thinking as well and we just haven't been able to pinpoint it but I like to think that human beings have a quirkiness to them that is not able to be replicated in any form. Even computers have their slight mishap here and there but that is because of an error in their programming…I understand that the article has enough justification to back up its point on how external stimuli are the roots of our irrational behavior but the last thing I want to be similar to is a lifeless machine CREATED by us humans!
The content of the article is convincing, the implications less savoury. Physicalist views on emotion and consciousness, the science behind our cognition or lack thereof, always seem like a dash of cold water to sentiment. If we are only complex programming, if free will and minds are illusion, then it seems like everything that is our essence is lost.
Perhaps, then, we ought to change our concept of essence. To follow this physicalist road to the end, we are chemicals bonded and interacting in millions of processes. We are bound by cause and effect, by the rules of our parts. We are very complicated clockwork. Deluded clockwork. It seems like a crushing realisation. And yet, all our lives we have been living as though we are something more than programming, like we have free will and like we are conscious, thinking beings. So--so what if we're chemicals, processes, illusions? So what if there's really only one path that we could have 'decided' on? Even now, people boast and honour what they're born with--talent or natural intelligence that they never earned, could not control, is as essential as that they choose or practise. People love taking quizzes that tell them who they are, love identifying with stereotypes or groups (I am a dreamer/scientist/etc. at heart) that are in fact reductionist, clearly things that involve not choice but definitive essence. Thus, embracing choice might not be as integral to embracing individuality as we normally think. We are chemicals, and each of us are these chemicals joined together in a certain way, and each of us has a unique history and unique interaction between chemicals that form our personality, cognition, emotion--essence. Of *course* we're made up of parts, of *course* we are those parts. We may run like clockwork, but each tick is our own.
Love it Megan! You have nicely blended the facts raised in the article with our "very human" predilection for romance, mystery, depth… You could even turn your post into a poem! :)
The article mentions that it takes 10 milliseconds for information to reach the amygdala, but about 250 milliseconds for information to reach the cortex, and we are only consciously aware of something when it gets to the cortex. The article further states that we aren’t aware of what is really going on when we have a fear response that is triggered rapidly – I wonder what this implies about our actions when this occurs, and thinking about this raises issues about the essential self. I like to think that I approach every decision at least somewhat rationally because I want to be able to take ownership for what I do. But if I act based on a stimulus that I haven’t processed and consciously decided to do, then should I take ownership for the action? For instance, if I see a man who is wearing is wearing the red and white necktie mentioned in the article, and he makes me feel uneasy, causing me to shoot him within 250 milliseconds of my seeing him, than is that action mine? Surely it is. Now I could make the case that actually, my actions were governed solely by my instincts, and anybody could have had my reaction. However, this is not true, because the reason for my subconscious aversion to the man is a result of my unique memories. Therefore, if we are to claim ‘instinctive’ actions as our own, then is Locke’s memory theory of the self necessarily true, at least in part?Initially, I didn’t subscribe to this theory, but the evidence presented in this article might force me to reconsider.
Interesting questions raised Harsh. I don't actually think it is physically possible to take a weapon and shoot someone within 250 milliseconds, so you can stop worrying! However the theory could (in theory) be used in a court of law to help decent the actions of a criminal. Or may this is exactly the same as the term "temporary insanity." Regarding Locke's theory, I think he was referring to memories we are fully conscious of. If you want to include the "subconscious" moments, wait for John Hosper's theory which we will be studying in about 2 weeks.
Reading this article reminded me of a psychology article I had read, which aimed to prove that there were cognitive and biological factors that interact with emotions, much like how we are currently studying. They had four sets of participants- one placebo group who were told that they received adrenaline and were not told of the effects, and the other three groups were given adrenaline, but they differentiated by those who were told the effects of the drug, those who weren't, and those who were told the wrong effects. Each of the participants were put into a situation where they would feel euphoria and anger, and they documented how they felt afterwards. In the Euphoria condition the participants who were misinformed and who weren't told the effects felt happier, and in the anger condition, the ones who weren't told the effects and the placebo group felt the angriest. This shows that our physiological response to different emotions is the same, and that we label our actions and responses according to cognition. I thought this related because it shows how we're only aware of our response to action if we know the stimulus, and this would explain how gut instincts and phobias may be a reaction so something that effected us unconsciously. This made me raise questions about whether an emotion I experienced or a feeling I had towards an object was caused by an unconscious reception of stimuli that happened in the past, and whether my own phobia of toads is actually a reaction to an unknown stimulus.
These novel findings of neuroscience have consequences not only for our understanding of how emotions are experienced, but also for that of consciousness, its possible location, and functioning.
ReplyDeleteThe article explains that fear, which often features in the list of the five or six basic emotions, is invoked by external stimuli without the cortex's having processed the emotion. Since the cortex is essential for our being conscious of an emotion, the findings serve to corroborate the James-Lange Theory of emotion.
The James-Lange theory is a physiological theory postulating that external stimuli can cause physiological reactions that trigger emotions without our being conscious of them. The explanation of the 'gut' feeling clearly illustrates this physiological reaction, which is the activation of the amygdala through the subcortical pathway. This is said to trigger a 'fear response' that causes the gut feeling. The James-Lange theory, which already sought to explain phobias in terms of a subconscious triggering of fear, is now able to provide a clear mechanism to illustrate this phenomenon.
Furthermore, the importance of the cortex to conscious awareness has implications for our understanding of consciousness. It seems that the cortex rather than the amygdala or thalamus is involved in conscious awareness. If one were to think of consciousness as being a function of the mind, this mind would appear to be contained largely within the cortex.
However, since the mind is not a physical thing, it is problematic to talk about it as being 'inside' something, or confined within the boundaries of a physical object such as the cortex. This is a classic problem of Cartesian Dualism, which claimed that the mind existed and was not a physical substance.
The new research clearly shows that a particular part of the brain, namely the cortex, is important to conscious awareness of emotion. The amygdala and thalamus, on the other hand, seem to be far less involved, if at all. We cannot both say that the mind is a non-physical entity, and then talk about it as being 'inside' anything.
In asserting that something is not physical, we have defined that thing as not being constrained by the laws of physics. It, therefore, cannot be described by physical terms such as 'inside' or 'outside.'
While the new findings corroborate the James-Lange theory of unconscious triggering of emotion, they appear to weaken theories of a non-physical mind, such as Cartesian Dualism.
Yep, you're right Akshay. The essays seems to imply that every emotional experience--whether we are conscious of them via the cortex or not--is still tied to our physiology.
DeleteThe idea of emotions being felt before thought through is a widely accepted and relatable one. Most people would agree that you feel and emotion before thinking it through and are often even felt without explanation. From time to time everyone feels inexplicably happy or sad, etc. This article seems to give scientific legitimacy to this theory that emotions care not so much conscious processes, but rather that they are unconscious “gut” feelings. In this article the areas of psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, and biology all come together to prove this. However, I find myself wishing to expel science when it comes to emotions, which are often so powerful and inexplicable. I know that science in an integral part of proving theories and learning, but for the study of emotions, I find drawing on experiences to give much more satisfying answers. This also plays into my subscription to a belief in mind and soul, which can also fail to meet scientific proof. I choose to believe that I am more than a machine that can be explained in the most basic of scientific terms. So while this theory finds scientific backing and good proof for the body, I believe the idea of emotions can and should be more integrated with the mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aaron’s point about how you often feel an emotion before you are able to explain or even understand yourself what you are feeling. Rather than a progression from rational thinking- “This is scary” to gut feeling- “I am scared”, the article draws on William James’ theory, which is that our first reaction is probably one of pure emotion, and does not have to be rational, which could explain irrational phobias. An interesting quote I picked up on is, “if you have a fear response that is being triggered very rapidly like that, consciously you’re going to be interpreting what’s going on, but it’s not going to necessarily match what’s really going on”. I like the quote because not only does it remind me of the identity theory (the brain process and the emotion are occurring together), it also brings our attention to the problem of perception and how different people would find a situation more or less scary. How else do you explain why people are irrationally scared by different things? What’s “really going on” could be terrifying to one person but perceived as mildly scary to someone else.
DeleteI, too, agree with Aaron's point that the idea of emotions being felt as 'gut reactions' rather than a result of rational processes is a widely accepted one. 'Gut' reaction implies that emotion is not just a result of scientific processes, but rather an expression of the intangible essence that makes us ‘human’, or more than just our physical nature. We like the idea that we are able to impulsively feel emotions without having rationally considered a situation, because it seems to indicate that we are more than just a 'machine', as Aaron said. Personally, however, I feel that this argument is inconsistent with its justification. The justification for being able to impulsively feel an emotion is that instead of information transmitted through the cortex first and then to the amygdala, the information is transmitted to the amygdala directly. This, as stated in the article, is the source of 'unconscious' emotions, but the source is essentially a scientific or physical process. This seems to disprove the idea that feeling unconscious emotions gives us an identity of being ‘more’ than our physical nature, as feeling unconscious emotions is directly related to a scientific process.
DeleteI thought the explanation of irrational phobias was very interesting. It was interesting that we sometimes recognize patterns that trigger a reaction in the amygdala and cause us to perceive a certain emotion. Even though I think the article does not prove that unconscious emotions are a sign of us being more than our physical nature, I think the aspect of the irrational phobias comes closer to proving this. I have copy pasted the entire paragraph here, because I think it should be read as a whole:
‘This [the fact that fear is triggered by an external stimuli that is not consciously processed] is important because a lot of people have fears and phobias and anxieties about things they don’t understand. They don’t know why they’re afraid or anxious in a particular moment. It may be through various kinds of experiences, the low road gets potentiated in a way that it’s activating fears and phobias outside of conscious awareness and that doesn’t make sense in terms of what the conscious brain is looking at in the world, or hearing in the world because they’ve been separately parsed out.’
I think this paragraph indicates that we are more than purely our physical nature. It is not the fact that phobias exist, but it is the fact that we are unable to recognize that it is a scientific process of pattern recognition. Physiological processes occur in our brain and cause us to feel fear in unexpected scenarios, but when we rationalize the situation and the reaction we felt during the situation, we are unable to come up with logical reasons for our behavior or emotion. The fact that the scientific processes carried out by our brain perplex us and are not consciously understood as they are, but merely perceived in a certain way (as an emotion) indicates that we are more than our physical nature. We are not consciously aware of the physiological processes themselves but are only consciously able to perceive them (as fear, in this case) and reflect about them later (think about why we felt fear) without immediately knowing that it was the result of the thalamus and amygdala. If we truly were just ‘machines’, we wouldn’t be trying to rationalize and figure out why we work the way we do.
22:00
DeleteMadhulika Murali
I'd just like to pick up on Maddie's final point about us not being 'machines'. Her argument against this is that we are actively trying to figure out how we work. I'd like to refute this because although the argument can be made that robots or machines do not self-reflect, I feel this is only in a metaphysical sense. A computer may not be able to ask the question 'Who am I?", but it is perfectly capable in asking and answering the question "How/why did I do that?". This is because computer parts are infinitely less complex than the human brain. However, having just said that, just because we do not comprehend our brain at this moment in time does not mean we never will; as science advances so will our understanding of the brain. At this point in time, it is unclear whether this increase in understanding of our own brain will confirm or deny the existence of a mind that transcends beyond our brain.
A way of looking at this situation would be comparing as I previously did, a computer and ourselves. I'd like to take the above comments as an example of what differentiates us from a machine. Other than in science fiction movies, there is yet to exist a machine that would construct - I'm using the word construct loosely here - ideas of mind/body dualities, souls, afterlife, idealism and all those other theories that deny or refute the existence of a purely physical mind. As of now we can safely say that it is not in the nature of a machine to deny that is in fact nothing but a machine; this is solely a human trait. On the other hand, however, we have what I spoke of earlier in that computers can know everything there is to know about how they work whereas we are left debating over how and why we behave the way we do on a day to day basis. At this point one could say "Hold on, while a computer may be able to store information on how it works, but it's hardly self aware". That's where I'd like to give the example of virus scans, a computer can scan itself completely and if a virus is identified, if programmed correctly, it can respond appropriately to the virus and 'fix itself'. Someone arguing the physicalist view of the mind would simply say we are exactly like the computer just far more complex. He would also then argue that the computer cannot deny it's own 'machine status' because we have yet to create a computer with that standard of internal processing. The counter argument to this is that the differences I have outlined above are simply two intrinsic differences that separate us from being mere machines.
In summary I feel the mind vs body question is one that we do not have sufficient information to answer at this moment, but one that we are slowly making progress towards.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGianluca, are you, then, saying that everything we do is a result of scientific programming? You are indirectly arguing that humans do not have free will, and that our existence is essentially defined by a more complex version of programming instructions. I do agree with your last statements, however - I, too, feel that more scientific research is required before we can debate this issue with more reliable justifications.
DeleteThank you Madhukali for pointing that out. I'd firstly like to say that while I have postulated the above arguments, I do not personally believe in them. But in reference to your comment I agree that the idea of humans not having free will would be consistent with the physicalist mind. However I feel if this 'programming' of the human mind was complex enough, the illusion of free will could be maintained.
ReplyDeleteI see, and like you, I personally do not fully agree with your argument, but arguing that we do not have free will is consistent with your physicalist mind argument, so I understand now. I think it is interesting that the argument you put forth is not your personal belief. I think that this is the argument that is hardest to reliably disprove, because there is no scientific evidence to counter your scientific assertions. Thanks, Jean-Luc
DeleteJust want to say: I love your conversation etiquette Gianluca! :)
DeleteIt's fascinating to think that all those moments we've had instinctive or 'gut' feelings where we can feel or sense something important, is all just simply caused by an external stimuli that is processed unconsciously. It makes sense that we can make judgments without being aware of any evident or logical basis for them, because we are unconsciously basing it on previous associated experiences that allow us to make these judgments. It clarifies the many irrational or illogical impulses we occasionally have, offering a ready explanation. However, I believe that this very irrationality, and the ability to be whimsical is a very human quality. These random, erratic impulses are what differ us from cold, analytical computers, that give us a life of substance and creativeness. However, if the information from this article is correct, than nothing we say or do that can be previously judged as whimsical, actually is. We are merely not aware of the fact that we are unconsciously using past experiences to influence our feelings. I for one, am personally sad to discover that our randomness, potentially, never was.
ReplyDeleteA fascinating take on the subject Shawn. I don't think you have to be sad knowing about the physical side of things, as long as you still "feel" those emotions. Your points made me wonder whether the same theory presented in the article is applicable to non-human animals. Do animals have the same sort of "gut" reactions and phobias as we do?
DeleteI also agree with the point that Shawn makes about the whimsical quality of our human nature being that special distinction from every other living (or even non living in the case of machinery!) thing on the planet. The daily experiences and interactions we have with one another are like no other interactions between other species or organisms, or at least this is what I like to think. When you think of the way we may suddenly decide to act on an impulse and tell the person we love how we feel or perhaps indulge in a trivial piece of retail that at that moment we find so absolutely necessary…it just makes us so uniquely HUMAN. Perhaps animals have this irrational way of thinking as well and we just haven't been able to pinpoint it but I like to think that human beings have a quirkiness to them that is not able to be replicated in any form. Even computers have their slight mishap here and there but that is because of an error in their programming…I understand that the article has enough justification to back up its point on how external stimuli are the roots of our irrational behavior but the last thing I want to be similar to is a lifeless machine CREATED by us humans!
DeleteTo put a positive spin on things--
ReplyDeleteThe content of the article is convincing, the implications less savoury. Physicalist views on emotion and consciousness, the science behind our cognition or lack thereof, always seem like a dash of cold water to sentiment. If we are only complex programming, if free will and minds are illusion, then it seems like everything that is our essence is lost.
Perhaps, then, we ought to change our concept of essence. To follow this physicalist road to the end, we are chemicals bonded and interacting in millions of processes. We are bound by cause and effect, by the rules of our parts. We are very complicated clockwork. Deluded clockwork. It seems like a crushing realisation. And yet, all our lives we have been living as though we are something more than programming, like we have free will and like we are conscious, thinking beings. So--so what if we're chemicals, processes, illusions? So what if there's really only one path that we could have 'decided' on? Even now, people boast and honour what they're born with--talent or natural intelligence that they never earned, could not control, is as essential as that they choose or practise. People love taking quizzes that tell them who they are, love identifying with stereotypes or groups (I am a dreamer/scientist/etc. at heart) that are in fact reductionist, clearly things that involve not choice but definitive essence. Thus, embracing choice might not be as integral to embracing individuality as we normally think. We are chemicals, and each of us are these chemicals joined together in a certain way, and each of us has a unique history and unique interaction between chemicals that form our personality, cognition, emotion--essence. Of *course* we're made up of parts, of *course* we are those parts. We may run like clockwork, but each tick is our own.
Love it Megan! You have nicely blended the facts raised in the article with our "very human" predilection for romance, mystery, depth… You could even turn your post into a poem! :)
DeleteThe article mentions that it takes 10 milliseconds for information to reach the amygdala, but about 250 milliseconds for information to reach the cortex, and we are only consciously aware of something when it gets to the cortex. The article further states that we aren’t aware of what is really going on when we have a fear response that is triggered rapidly – I wonder what this implies about our actions when this occurs, and thinking about this raises issues about the essential self. I like to think that I approach every decision at least somewhat rationally because I want to be able to take ownership for what I do. But if I act based on a stimulus that I haven’t processed and consciously decided to do, then should I take ownership for the action? For instance, if I see a man who is wearing is wearing the red and white necktie mentioned in the article, and he makes me feel uneasy, causing me to shoot him within 250 milliseconds of my seeing him, than is that action mine? Surely it is. Now I could make the case that actually, my actions were governed solely by my instincts, and anybody could have had my reaction. However, this is not true, because the reason for my subconscious aversion to the man is a result of my unique memories. Therefore, if we are to claim ‘instinctive’ actions as our own, then is Locke’s memory theory of the self necessarily true, at least in part?Initially, I didn’t subscribe to this theory, but the evidence presented in this article might force me to reconsider.
ReplyDeleteInteresting questions raised Harsh. I don't actually think it is physically possible to take a weapon and shoot someone within 250 milliseconds, so you can stop worrying! However the theory could (in theory) be used in a court of law to help decent the actions of a criminal. Or may this is exactly the same as the term "temporary insanity." Regarding Locke's theory, I think he was referring to memories we are fully conscious of. If you want to include the "subconscious" moments, wait for John Hosper's theory which we will be studying in about 2 weeks.
ReplyDeleteReading this article reminded me of a psychology article I had read, which aimed to prove that there were cognitive and biological factors that interact with emotions, much like how we are currently studying. They had four sets of participants- one placebo group who were told that they received adrenaline and were not told of the effects, and the other three groups were given adrenaline, but they differentiated by those who were told the effects of the drug, those who weren't, and those who were told the wrong effects.
ReplyDeleteEach of the participants were put into a situation where they would feel euphoria and anger, and they documented how they felt afterwards.
In the Euphoria condition the participants who were misinformed and who weren't told the effects felt happier, and in the anger condition, the ones who weren't told the effects and the placebo group felt the angriest.
This shows that our physiological response to different emotions is the same, and that we label our actions and responses according to cognition. I thought this related because it shows how we're only aware of our response to action if we know the stimulus, and this would explain how gut instincts and phobias may be a reaction so something that effected us unconsciously. This made me raise questions about whether an emotion I experienced or a feeling I had towards an object was caused by an unconscious reception of stimuli that happened in the past, and whether my own phobia of toads is actually a reaction to an unknown stimulus.