| CARVIEW |
On Brains:
It’s electric!
Well, we are anyways.
Strange how everything we do (yes, everything), is routed from cells to neurons to neurotransmitters: to the brain. The brain is a mass of mildly electrically charged matter, comprised of layer upon layer of interconnected components (a reductionist’s dream); and yet it still contains the capacity for what we label “emotion”–feeling, expression, all those grand synonyms for the intangible stuff of humans.
Neuroscientists, or at least a portion of them, seek to quantify emotion; equate a relationship of particular neurons or interactions over synapses to the makings of love, fury, etc. A noble goal as this is, I do wonder if the answer is directly in front of us, namely in examining what we have created. Take that concept of electricity of bodies, brains; and examine how we have applied that knowledge to creating batteries, and then machines. We will start with the greatest of our electrical inventions: computers (and I mean from your everyday Macintosh to the most advanced aeronautical analysis tools, satellites, etc.). They are electronic bodies which receive sensory input and translate it to data, charts, images, or various other forms of interpretation. In short, information is provided, stimulates a surface response, is turned into a chemical or electrical signal, and is routed through an electrical system to produce something.
Though my wording may have accentuated the similarities in function between machines and humans (yes, I know that machines lack limbs and organs and other features we like to consider necessary to life), the fact remains that there is the possibility that if creation of emotion and capacity for it–which is what differentiates us from all living things that we know– lies somewhere within the brain and its electrical relationships, we may have created it. Unfortunately, as of now, there is no way of testing or figuring out the validity of that statement; as usual, our abilities have outweighed our practicality, and production has overshadowed understanding.
]]>(I just downloaded your podcasts to my mp3 thingy so that I can listen to it on the road; wow. how lovely this modern age works out for science.) ]]>
Keep up the good work.
]]>My question is, why don’t I feel like myself anymore? and is their anything I can do to help?
I was a fine artist who loved to paint and life, now I have no energy am depressed can’t paint due to pain and am suicidal at times. The doctors who did this to me sent me a certified letter dismissing me as a life-long patient after they tortured me.
Thank You. ]]>
You may be interested in a new issue of Social Neuroscience on Interpersonal Sensitivity.
Interpersonal sensitivity refers to our ability to perceive and respond with care to the internal states of other people, understand the antecedents of those states, and predict the subsequent events that will result.
Guest editors, neuroscientist Jean Decety and social psychologist Dan Batson, bring together new research findings from empirical studies, including work with adults and children, genetics, functional neuroimaging, individual differences, and behavioral measures, which examine how we process and respond to information about our fellow individuals.
By combining biological and psychological approaches, this special issue sheds new light on the complex and multi-faceted phenomenon of interpersonal sensitivity, including empathy and sympathy.
https://www.psypress.com/socialneuroscience/
Gongratulations for your blog. It’s one of the best, not only in content but in design as well. I’m definetely going to use some of your features into my newly formed blog. By the way I wanted to ask you, how do you add downloadable hyperlinks in your posts’ texts. For instance on you latest post you have hyperlinks of Guardian, Nature, etc. How do you do this?
Thank you in advance for your reply
Best regards
The ant workers who never get to mate, are doing this for the survival of the species (their genetics, in a more broad sense). So they sacrifice their specific genes, because they are programmed to regard the ultimate survival of the species as more important. Homosexuality, on the other hand, can be looked at as completely non-selfish in terms of gene selection, and is further evidence that people are not as determined by the biological drive to further the species.
Basically, we do have a choice in matters, of course we are swayed by biological urges, but ultimately we can make a conscious decision to go against them if we choose. And this seems to be the unexplainable evolutionary gap. ]]>
This is what I love — and hate — about thought experiments. You can go with the premises as you put them, and be caught by the difficulty it poses. Or you can discard the premises, which I will do.
Basically, your way of portraying the evolutionary trend as a machiavellian everybody’s-war-against-everybody is just plain wrong. Put very simply, humans are pushed and pulled between egoism and altruism at many levels. And, best of all, they are all biological “urges”. It’s in our minds, all of it.
So my reply is that I wouldn’t accept your scenario or choices. So how do we explain homosexuality, ant workers (who never get to mate), or other examples of what seems non-selfish gene selection? Enter the concept of kin-selection (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection). Or read Richard Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene”. It tries to answer some of these questions.
Best wishes for the New Year to all,
Thomas